I am going to make free energy machine soon.

I found out how to make a free energy machine and I am going to make it out of legos.

If the oil industry kills me, carry on my work. The illuminati might not kill me for this because it promotes a lazy lifestyle, which is part of their agenda.

I will give you a hint, the key to free energy is chaos, entropy, and latching on for a ride. Decaying to harmony, oneness and order will not give you energy.

my next post will relay the results of the experiment.

Momentous Harmony is a far more efficient energy source than Hellacious Chaos - electric motor vs wood burning stove.

2015 Earth Electric motors arent free energy though. Momentus Harmony is the bare minimum. Momentus Harmony works for some things but it doesnt grow. Growth only occurs through chaos. The act of burning is not chaos it is linked to the causality chain. Agents of chaos are gravity and universal expansion which are outside of the universal causality change.

Complete Bullshit.

Cheap energy is not really that hard to do. It’s the bloody politics that keeps the technology from getting put into practice, so oil companies can bilk us out of our wages.

Wind is a cheap source, but the most popular designs for windmills are poor designs for large scale harvesting of wind energy. They are meant to take advantage of light breezes coming in any direction. If you just ignore these breezes that can come from any direction, and concentrate on the prevailing winds, then you can build a turbine as big as you like to capture these prevailing winds.

The best design for large scale harvesting of wind energy: The horizontal svonius:

youtube.com/watch?v=h2kkmQan26Q

Your claims are, as momentus harmony and hellacious chaos aren’t even real words and I can only guess as to what your meaning is.

Here is a bit of ‘real’ reality, whatever that means.

There was an inventive guy ca. 1957, who invented a very good, gas saving engine, using gas at the rate of around 300 miles per gallon. The technology still exists out there somewhere, but the story ended sadly, his decomposing body was found someplace on Route 66 , in the desert.

I have magic powers though and they cannot kill me for unknown reasons.

I’ve been hearing about new energy saving /energy producing inventions for years, but none of them ever seem to make their way into the marketplace. Things like solar cells that work in the dark, or on the full light spectrum, hydrogen vehicles and things that turn waste into fuel. When they do finally become available to the public, they are so much more expensive than the old technology that it is hardly worth the bother of converting. It took a government ban on incandescent bulbs to finally get stores to offer consumers some alternatives to this outdated technology.

They banned those things? How idiotic. Fluorescent lights are a health hazard, they cause headaches and nausea. No more incandescent lights? The world has gone truly mad.

The fluorescent lights are more efficient, but there are issues with them as well. The halogen lights were an improvement on the standard incandescent, but then the manufacturers got greedy, and there is still little advantage to the halogens. When the halogen bulbs first came on the market, you could twenty years out of them easy, but then they started making them cheaper, and now you’re lucky if they last as long as your standard incandescent bulb -but you’ll still pay more for them.

The best choice: LEDs. No environmental issues, long-lasting, and way more efficient than incandescent bulbs. But like everything else that is just a little too good for uninformed consumers, they want a lot more money for these things.

And the lowly incandescent bulb can still be disposed of as regular waste, but a florescent tube bulb contains mercury and can not be disposed of so easily. A florescent tube has a thing called a half life, which is to say it does not fail at once but rather gradually. An incandescent bulb maintains it illumination potential through out it’s life time. It’s relative light output decays very little over it’s operating life span while a florescent tube illumination output begins to decay the moment it is put into service. While the tube may illuminate for 5 years its light output over time decays so the hundred watt equivalent bulb you replace your incandescent light with is not producing the same amount of light as when you put it into service. It may fail in five years but in two and a half years it has already degraded in it’s light output by fifty percent. But “some” don’t tell you that.

The choice to ban incandescent bulbs could be tied to an industrial lobby that makes more money one way then the other and it really doesn’t matter which is more environmentally friendly or energy conservative, but it is a trendy and convenient facade to operate within.

Everything is.

Quite true. It is actually ALL about money and power today.

There are in fact a few actual real ways to supply endless “free” physical energy. One of which is my own invention from 1972. The problem has always been that society is not about such things, but rather about the control of the population and nothing else. If something isn’t making powerful men more powerful by one means or another, it is the enemy of powerful men, the only men who have any real say (that is what makes them powerful). That is all there is to it. The “energy crisis” was just another of a great many on going false flags used to manipulate the population into doing what someone wants for sake of more power over more people. There is nothing else to life today, the lust for superpowers.

“Everything is.”

Not fine, but well;…except…presumable you? and hey I wouldn’t mind being included as accomplice.

Define “free”.

Cause anytime you’d like to give away “free” energy I’m a taker. But then again define “free”.

Seems if you could have done it and it was free to do it then it would have been done already and it would be free. If it hasn’t been done already then there is likely some capital expenditure that must take place to create an infrastructure as a conduit to provide this free energy through. So the energy is free but the conduit isn’t and you can’t provide one without the other so the energy in it’s delivered state isn’t free.

In some sense the energy you pay for is already free, it’s just there is a cost associated with delivering it to you. Hey, trees don’t grow with copper strands that magically attach them all and mysteriously connect to the fuse panel in your home.

You bullshit.

I put “free” in quotes to present it as “what is being called free, not that there is actually anything that serves anyone truly free of cost”. “Free energy” merely means that one isn’t paying per kilowatt, much like any “free service” or government handout.

Devices have been designed that will basically deliver energy endlessly, but of course you must purchase and maintain the devices. Also you must come up with a means to employ those who would no longer be employed due to the existence of such devices. Some would fit into the new scheme. Some would not, just as with all technological advances. Those who produce LED lights are not the same people who produced incandescent lights.

Concerning what?

I’m not so sure what you mean by “much like any “free service” or government handout.”

If you recognize they are not “free” why perpetuate the delusion?

Clearly not “free”.

So what is your estimated cost for this “free” capacity? And it’s annual maintenance fees?

Why wouldn’t someone who uses more pay more? That doesn’t appear like a model that would be interested in promoting conservation?

Are you implying there is no associative environmental cost to the consumption of energy? Regardless of how it is consumed it appears to come with a cost. And currently it appears it is our environment that is paying for it.

So again I ask you to define “free” and it is within your use of the “free” term that I called bullshit.

Being required to purchase a device and maintain it does not at all fall within the notion of “free” to me. And it certainly won’t fall into the domain of a newborn in an overpopulated country either.

“Free”… if you can afford it. Laughing Out Loud.

Double bullshit

I’d almost swear I’ve seen you thinking more critically then this.

Excuse me, but I DID “define” what I meant by “free”. If there is some part of that explanation you wish to question, please get to it.

My device was/is similar to a transistor in the market. It is fundamentally microscopic and produced in the billions in sheets which are then assembled into any size required. The cost of production would be similar to that of the transistor. And it could be sold in a similar manner, within devices that serve other functions, not as merely a battery, such as a simple LED flash light that never needs recharging, nor manual regenerating, or watches that don’t need batteries, but even cars that don’t need fuel.

Why don’t people who drive bigger cars for longer distances pay more for their car? They usually do. The bigger the device or more durable, the more it costs to produce and the more is charged to buy it. But the question was really of the fuel costs. Why should someone have to pay someone else money merely to travel a little further in their own vehicle? If I walk 10 blocks from my house, I should pay a service fee/tax higher than if I walk two blocks from my house? How about a bicycle tax based on distance traveled? Or how about having people who breath more pay more for clean air (never mind who got it dirty)? That is where socialism is taking you. Fuel allows for an excuse to “tax” without appearing guilty of extortion. Billions of dollars and wars are fought over that fuel thing … merely to make a few people more powerful than before. There is no altruistic need to sell fuel any more than to sell air.

There is where my particular device beats them all. My device has ZERO environmental “footprint”/impact; no residue, no chemicals, nothing effecting the environment at all. You can’t get cleaner than my device.

“Why don’t people who drive bigger cars for longer distances pay more for their car? They usually do. The bigger the device or more durable, the more it costs to produce and the more is charged to buy it. But the question was really of the fuel costs. Why should someone have to pay someone else money merely to travel a little further in their own vehicle? If I walk 10 block from my house, I should pay a service fee/tax higher than if I walk two blocks from my house? How about a bicycle tax based on distance traveled? Or how about having people who breath more pay more for clean air (never mind who got it dirty)? That is where socialism is taking you. Fuel allows for an excuse to “tax” without appearing guilty of extortion. Billions of dollars and wars are fought over that fuel thing … merely to make a few people more powerful than before. There is no altruistic need to sell fuel any more than to sell air.”

Fail<

The bigger the more durable?

If you walk ten blocks you do pay a higher cost then if you walk two blocks. Your body does require energy to function.

You mention socialism, seems out of context but,… seems the person who expects to spend more energy and not have to pay for it is the more socialistic. That seems more consistent with that party appeal.

Mowk, what the hell is wrong with you!??

I said “bigger OR more durable”. And everyone, but you it seems, knows what “free” means when talking about “free energy”. And paying someone so that you may walk a little further was the point, not whether it costs you person energy.

Wake up a little.

I have been awake for some time.

You usually have impressed me as more sensitive. What the hell is “WRONG” with me? If you ain’t asking that of yourself, well then have you lived a life examined.

Whether you like it or not I AM apart of “everyone” and as you have not included my thinking in your notion of everyone you clearly are myopic. My fault?

Man, it is hard to give your thoughts any credence at all if you are going to come off like that. Have I blamed you for your thinking? Wake up! That’s good advice, and if you don’t follow it why should anyone else?