This post is based on many years of research. Much of it will be new information, and provide unique insight, which is worth taking the time to read.
A disproportional number of you are willing to accept that the world's power structure is built on a lie that artificially constrains human potential, an idea that everyone been conditioned to unconsciously reject any notion of.
Of all the suppressed truths, suppression of energy technology is the linchpin. Believing in this is the ultimate act of rejecting the system's legitimacy. It's a realization that the entire foundation of our modern world, the economy, geopolitics, and social control, is built on an artificial scarcity that has impoverished and enslaved humanity. A person who believes this can never truly trust a government, a corporation, or an academic institution again, making them politically unmanageable.
Energy is virtually limitless, but the generation technology will continue to be out of reach for most of humanity. While establishment suppression of the technology is undoubtedly the most successful psyop in history, a deeper layer of suppression is also at play, far beyond what those in power could ever achieve.
Establishment Suppression Motives
Let's consider what's at stake for those in power. The control of energy is the control of everything and everyone.
Geopolitical Power: The entire world order, the rise of the US and petrodollar, the power of OPEC nations, the rationale for endless wars in the Middle East, is all built upon the scarcity model of fossil fuels. If energy became nearly free and decentralized, the primary lever of global economic and military hegemony vanishes overnight. Nations and corporations whose entire wealth and influence are derived from oil, gas, and coal would be rendered obsolete.
Economic Control: The cost of production is the cost of energy and our entire financial system is debt-based, requiring perpetual growth to avoid collapse. Energy abundance would shatter this model. It would enable hyper-efficient production, localized manufacturing, and a dramatic reduction in the cost of all goods and services, fundamentally breaking the cycle of debt-slavery that keeps the population manageable and dependent on the system.
Social Control: Energy scarcity is a primary justification for top-down control. Carbon taxes, energy quotas, and the entire "you will own nothing and be happy" agenda is all predicated on the idea that resources are limited and must be severely rationed by a central authority. Free energy destroys this justification for global governance completely, restoring power and autonomy to individuals, families, and local communities.
The Textbooks Were Sabotaged
The textbooks aren't wrong by accident. The standard equations in every textbook widely believed to be "Maxwell's equations" were not written by Maxwell. Heaviside simplified Maxwell's original equations, eliminating the vector and scalar potentials when he reduced 20 equations in 20 variables to the 4 equations in 2 variables, and introducing new misleading concepts. The simplification of all textbooks was spearheaded by Hertz and Gibbs.
Tesla was deeply critical of these textbook and Hertzian theories. He saw it as fundamental corruption of the true nature of electrical energy that steered science down a dead-end path. His biggest discoveries and all the technologies he later developed — that today are believed to be impossible — were built on the fundamental physics that was erased by the simplification.
"Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." — Nikola Tesla
Tesla was openly contemptuous of the scientific establishment's adherence to closed-system models, which he saw as a willful blindness to observable reality.
"The theory of the law of conservation of energy… has become a dogma and is used by misguided exponents as a means of suppressing any effort toward the utilization of the energy inherent in the ambient medium… They are… using the energy of the medium… and then they assert that they are creating energy, which is absurd. The law of conservation of energy is thus made to appear as an obstacle instead of an aid to progress." — Nikola Tesla
Proving The Textbooks Are Wrong
Anyone can do an incredibly simple experiment themselves — with only a few common components that every electronics hobbyist has on their desk — to confirm the textbooks are wrong.
I know you're thinking that this bold claim couldn't possibly be true, since everyone would know about it. That just demonstrates the extent of the psychological barriers at play. Not many individuals will ever do the experiment, and less than 1% of those who do will accept the results. It's the ultimate litmus test for the soul of a scientist, revealing whether they are a true empiricist or merely a cleric in the church of modern Scientism.
Experiment instructions are provided in a comment due to the text post size limit.
This is more than suppression, it's a mental prison. The belief that "this is impossible" is so deeply ingrained that even visual evidence literally doesn't compute. People can see what's happening but their brain refuses to connect the facts in a way that violates the sacred law.
The very tools to think about this phenomenon have been removed from the intellectual toolbox. You are given a hammer and told that screws don't exist.
Accepting the result means accepting that our foundational scientific models are incorrect, the authorities we trusted to tell us how the world works were either mistaken or dishonest, and that reality is far more mysterious and abundant than we have been led to believe. For most people, these are impossible realities to accept, so cognitive dissonance prevails.
Hobbyists: We're trained from a young age to outsource critical thinking to authorities (doctors, scientists, engineers). When a hobbyist sees the anomaly, they think, "I must be doing it wrong. A real engineer would know why this isn't real." They don't trust their own eyes and assume their knowledge is insufficient to challenge a century of accepted science. The system is designed to make you doubt yourself.
Orthodox Engineers: Fully invested in the standard model, their worldview cannot tolerate a contradiction of foundational laws. Upon seeing the anomalous result, their cognitive dissonance is resolved by rejecting their own observation. Their faith in the textbook is stronger than their trust in their own eyes and instruments.
Curious Engineers: More empirically driven, they'll see the result and be genuinely puzzled. After ensuring their setup is meticulous, they'll be honest enough to admit that according to standard models, this shouldn't happen, and they don't have an explanation. Given the immense professional and social risk of pursuing it further, they'll keep it to themselves for fear of ridicule and career suicide.
Experts: The setup is too simple to be taken seriously by those it would threaten. The result is too profound for the apparatus. Establishment experts will dismiss it immediately because it looks trivial, never bothering to actually perform the experiment with an open mind.
Institutions: The system is designed so that such an idea can never get oxygen at the institutional level. A university researcher won't get a grant to study it and an engineer won't get published in IEEE for showing the anomaly.
Establishment Suppression
Chances are you've heard the common rumors — classification of patents, seizure of research, poisoning of inventors — so my focus will be primarily on some of the lesser known suppression tactics.
The Cult of Scientism: The public is taught to worship the institution of science rather than the scientific method. Most establishment suppression is not active, but internalized. The gatekeepers aren't just editors at journals, they're the voices in the engineer's own head, trained by years of schooling to reject heresy in the name of modern Scientism. The system doesn't need to actively suppress every experimenter, as it has trained them to suppress themselves.
Labeling and Stigmatization: Through media repetition, anyone questioning the energy paradigm is lumped in with flat-earthers. Social shame and fear of ridicule is used to keep the masses and professionals in line.
Poisoning the Well: The most outlandish conspiracy theories are amplified to discredit the entire field of alternative research. This ensures the public dismisses all conspiracy theories, including the true and well-documented ones like energy suppression.
Information Drowning: The strategy isn't to destroy the information but to ensure it's lost in a sea of noise. The internet gets flooded with fake "free energy" viral videos which are promoted by algorithms. Fake schematics and "secrets to free energy" are published on forums, wikis and in books. Anything potentially real gets debunked and labeled as fake. The signal to noise ratio ensures that seekers can spend a lifetime trying to filter fact from fiction, and never get anywhere.
Infiltration and Sabotage: Bad actors infiltrate key communities dedicated to energy research. They provide schematics that are almost right but contain a critical flaw, ensuring experimenters waste months of time and money chasing dead ends, leading to frustration and abandonment. They engage in endless, mind-numbing debates over trivial details, derailing productive threads and burying useful information under hundreds of comments of pointless argument. They act as self-appointed "skeptics" whose only goal is to drain energy and slow progress. They deliberately start fights between prominent members of the community, sowing paranoia and distrust to divide and conquer.
Controlled Opposition and Poison Pill Communities: Intelligence agencies create and promote their own communities dedicated to "free energy." They promote the most absurd and impossible designs, making the entire field look ridiculous to any outside observer or curious newcomer. They build up gurus who are charismatic but ultimately full of nonsense, leading their followers down pseudoscientific rabbit holes that never produce a working device. These spaces also act as honeypots, allowing the suppressors to monitor who the most talented and promising researchers are, what they're working on, and their latest discoveries.
Endless Experiments: Experimenters who invest endless time and money but make no real progress are not just allowed to continue but encouraged to share their work, as it demoralizes everyone else.
Takedowns and Silencing: Experimenters who have documented progression of their research and eventually share footage of a self-running system immediately become a target. Their content is promptly taken down, often followed by stories of the individual being terrified after having been visited and threatened.
Discrediting Campaigns: When technology gains a little too much traction, the response is to attack the character of the inventor or focus on minor errors. If a prototype has a flaw or doesn't scale perfectly, that flaw becomes the entire story, used to dismiss the entire underlying principle. They make it socially and professionally toxic for any credible scientist or engineer to be associated with it.
Career Destruction: Any academic or professional engineer who seriously investigates these areas faces instant professional suicide. They will be denied tenure, blacklisted from publications, laughed out of conferences, and ostracized by colleagues.
Peer Review Gatekeeping: Journals outright reject papers on radical energy concepts without review. The phrase "violates the laws of thermodynamics" is used as a dogmatic incantation to avoid ever engaging with experimental evidence.
Patent Office Obstruction: Patent applications can be rejected on spurious grounds, buried in paperwork, or delayed indefinitely. Examiners are instructed to reject any device claiming over-unity efficiency as impossible per the laws of physics.
Spiritual Suppression
A Moral Filter:
The knowledge doesn't just require intelligence to understand, it requires wisdom to wield responsibly.
The idea that potent knowledge is safeguarded and disclosed only to those who have achieved a necessary inner transformation to wield it responsibly is a concept echoed in ancient principles found across cultures and spiritual traditions. The universe (or God) does not yield its deepest secrets to the unworthy. Worthiness is not about intellectual capacity, it's about character.
One must have humility, incinerate their own ego, and admit that everything they were taught might be wrong. The arrogant, who are certain they already know how the universe works, are blind to it. Mastering such technology requires immense patience, perseverance, and a commitment to truth over comfort. This naturally weeds out the lazy and the opportunistic.
Burden of the Knower:
Once a person pierces the veil and truly understands this technology, they are immediately saddled with a terrifying responsibility. Sharing this knowledge indiscriminately would be the height of irresponsibility.
The most obvious danger is potential for weaponization. Energy is power — economic, political, and physical. Handing the keys to limitless energy to a humanity still dominated by greed, tribalism, and violence would be catastrophic. It would be the ultimate force multiplier for tyranny and destruction.
Even with good intentions, suddenly collapsing the entire global energy-based economy would lead to chaos, mass unemployment, and social unrest. A responsible keeper of this knowledge understands it must be introduced with wisdom and care, not dumped onto the world like a bomb.
Giving god-like power to souls who have not undergone the necessary moral development leads to corruption and hubris. It's the lesson of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that some fruit is poisonous if eaten prematurely.
The Ultimate Great Filter:
It's not an external physical wall built by shadowy organizations, but an internal spiritual wall that exists within each individual and humanity's collective consciousness.
The technology is not being suppressed in a vault somewhere. It's being suppressed within the human heart — by our own fear, our greed, our arrogance, and our lack of moral and spiritual readiness. The path to unlocking it is not through great engineering, but through collective moral and spiritual maturation.
This knowledge will become widely available and impossible to suppress only when a critical mass of humanity evolves to a state where we can handle it without self-destruction.
Yeap, Tesla was right about everything. We have the ability to tap into potentially limitless energy.
But, they hide it from us for "national security" because if the wrong people get their hands on it...
Well, the problem is they are figuring it out anyways. The time is now.
Either give us the technology or the Jeff.Ep list.
Instructions for conducting an incredibly simple experiment which proves the textbooks are wrong
Materials Needed:
Safety Warning: Electrolytic capacitors store energy for a long time and can charge themselves without being connected to a power source. Always discharge them completely by touching the leads together before handling. Do not exceed the voltage rating of your capacitors.
Part 1: Control Test
This establishes the baseline, so we can see how much energy is lost with a near-ideal connection.
Part 2: Anomaly Test
Textbook Prediction: There are two conflicting outcomes predicted by textbooks, and neither explains what you just observed.
Tesla Prediction: The charge is transferred between capacitors via an efficient, non-dissipative mechanism, resulting in a final voltage very close to the voltage measured in Part 1. The lamp is powered by additional energy drawn in from the environment (The aether/quantum vacuum).
Edit: Appending the comment where I expanded on why the textbook argument is invalid, so that it won't be missed by those who are being fooled by it.
Based on the Two-Capacitor Paradox, the orthodox argument is that the energy must have come from the 50% of energy that was mathematically lost due to the voltage being halved.
The orthodox argument only seems convincing because it's the only answer allowed within the closed-system dogma. It relies on a miraculous coincidence that engineers are trained not to question.
It's assumed that the form of the loss must have changed from "invisible" magnetic/radiation loss to visible light/heat loss in the filament, but the total amount of loss always remains the same fixed 50%.
This is an astronomical coincidence. It would mean that whether you use a thick copper wire (milliohms of resistance) or a bulb (100 ohms of resistance), the universe always ensures that precisely 50% of the initial energy is lost, no more, no less.
In the real world, loss is determined by physical components. If you change the resistance in the path, you change the amount of energy dissipated.
With a wire: Loss is minimal. Final voltage is very nearly 4.5V. The "50% loss" is almost entirely a theoretical, unobserved number, which cannot be measured.
With a bulb: Loss is massive and visible. For the final voltage to still be ~4.5V, the reduction in other losses would have to be perfect and complete.
The orthodox argument asks you to believe that adding a huge new source of dissipation somehow perfectly eliminates all the other sources of loss (heating, radiation, etc), resulting in the same net outcome.
This isn't engineering, it's a dogmatic assertion designed to preserve the conservation law at all costs. It's a textbook example of making the theory immune to falsification by claiming any and all experimental results simply manifest the same predetermined loss.
I love what you are exposing here. I'd like to comment further about the Aether, but I don't know how to do it without getting banned (plus I want to honor the GAW rules). Still, really good stuff!
Edit: I think I'm within the rules by saying that the earth our creator God made is amazing and electromagnetism is enormously important. Want to know how so-called "UFOs" (excuse me am I now supposed to say "UAPs"?) levitate? The Controllers know.
Maybe cross post to conspiracies.win (maybe conspiracy.win) & link stating, since this isn't Q focused, I posted about it here... Then offer up the link.
There are many of us that are curious about those things which Q didn't speak of directly.
Pretty sure you can comment about Aether without any problems getting banned here.
Great post....👌👌
You sure? Grok said this:
No, this description is not accurate. The experiment itself is a valid demonstration of charge sharing between capacitors, but the interpretation of the results and the claimed "textbook predictions" contain significant errors and misrepresentations. Key Issues with the Claims
Final Voltage in Part 2: Contrary to the statement that the final voltage "must be significantly lower than the 4.5V" due to energy dissipation in the lamp, the voltages on both capacitors will still equalize to approximately 4.5V each (assuming identical capacitors and sufficient time for the process to complete). The lamp will indeed flash and fade as current flows to balance the charges, but once it's off (no current), the system reaches equilibrium at half the initial voltage. This holds true regardless of the lamp's resistance—the resistance only affects the time it takes to equalize, not the final voltage. Charge is conserved, so total charge Q = C × 9V splits equally, yielding V_final = Q / (2C) = 4.5V per capacitor. Misrepresentation of "Conflicting Textbook Outcomes":
Ohm's Law and Joule Heating: This correctly explains that energy is dissipated as heat and light in the lamp (or any resistance in the circuit). However, this dissipation accounts exactly for the "missing" energy without lowering the final voltage below 4.5V. Initial energy: (1/2) C (9)^2 = 40.5C (in arbitrary units). Final energy: 2 × (1/2) C (4.5)^2 = 20.25C. The difference (20.25C) is lost to the lamp, but voltages still settle at 4.5V. The Two-Capacitor Paradox: This is a well-known thought experiment highlighting an apparent 50% energy loss when assuming zero resistance (ideal wires). In reality, it's not a paradox—any real connection has some resistance, inductance, or radiates energy, dissipating the "lost" portion. Textbooks resolve this by noting the ideal zero-resistance case is unphysical (it implies infinite current). The lamp in your setup explicitly provides that resistance, so the energy dissipation is observable (bulb glows), but the final state matches the paradox's mathematical outcome: voltages at 4.5V. There are no "conflicting outcomes" in standard physics textbooks. The two aspects you describe are complementary explanations of the same phenomenon. The circular reasoning alleged (e.g., assuming the bulb's energy is a "subset" of the loss) doesn't reflect actual physics; the math and physics align perfectly.
What You'll Actually Observe
In Part 1 (low resistance): Quick equalization to ~4.5V with minimal loss (mostly in wire resistance). In Part 2 (with lamp): Slower equalization due to higher resistance. The lamp glows brightly at first (high initial current) and fades as voltages approach each other. Once off, measure ~4.5V on each capacitor. If the bulb doesn't fully extinguish or voltages differ slightly, it could be due to practical factors like capacitor leakage, non-identical capacitances, or the bulb's variable resistance (incandescent filaments change resistance with temperature), but the ideal result is still 4.5V.
Grok pulls primarily from Leftist sites like Reddit. Grok results are generally trash.
Instead of ad hominem deflection, try addressing the argument and the math please.
Op makes no sense. If Grok told you the earth revolves around the sun you would not want to accept it, yet you would.
This is no different.
Still doesn't deflect from the facts of where Grok gets its information from.
Rationalize it all you want but all AI sources almost exclusively from Leftist sources.
You clearly missed my other comment where I expanded on why that orthodox argument is pure dogma and illogical. I've appended it to my experiment instructions comment now so that it won't be missed by others.
Once you read the appended explanation, you'll understand why it makes no sense.
Asking LLM's about this is a waste of time, since they are not allowed to violate "laws" of physics, even if that means being completely illogical, misinterpreting what you say, and making endless misleading arguments.
I tested it myself with ChatGPT, and after it went round and round contradicting itself over and over. I eventually cornered it by putting all arguments, which it had agreed with individually, into a single message, and the only argument it was then able to make was "because of the law of thermodynamics".
Not really. Your convoluted explanations don't change facts, sorry.
Allow me to clarify the dispute with absolute certainty and eliminate all possible doubt.
The orthodox model is an axiom. It is not a proven law of nature but an assumption of a closed system, defended by mathematical theory and paradigm inertia.
The orthodox model is circular. It assumes conservation to prove conservation.
When the textbooks were simplified, they used a closed-system theory that was simply considered settled, without any supporting experimental evidence. This is the antithesis of the scientific method. Tesla was openly contemptuous of the establishment's adherence to closed-system models, which he saw as a willful blindness to observable reality and disproved by his own experiments.
The Two-Capacitor paradox has always been treated as a theoretical problem, not an experimental one. The textbook "solution" is a mathematical exercise, not an empirical fact.
The simple bulb experiment I presented is a valid challenge to the core axiom of a closed system. The open-system interpretation, suggested by the straightforward observation of bright light and high final voltage, remains a valid and compelling hypothesis until a definitive test showing otherwise has been performed.
The orthodox argument has always be to explain away the anomaly with increasingly complex and unmeasured theoretical losses, rather than to perform a simple, direct test. This ensures that the closed-system model is protected by setting an impossibly high bar for disproving it.
The closed-system model has been an assumption protected by historical bias, theoretical framing, and the practical difficulty of measurement. The entire edifice relies on conceptual inertia and the difficulty of measurement to protect itself from falsification.
The burden of proof to demonstrate closure remains unmet. All responses have been theoretical dismissals, not empirical proofs.
If this argument is made with sufficient clarity to a LLM like Grok or ChatGPT, it will have no choice but to agree, because everything I have stated is an undeniable fact.
iirc this is about the Potential Difference of the two electrodes (aka as voltage).
It helps me to thing of voltage like pressure, and current as content. The pressure eventually equalises, resulting in zero flow and a balance of the pressure.
In the wire scenario, this equalisation process happens quickly. The bulb acts like a flow restrictor that slows down this equalisation process, but doesn't stop it.
As the pressures become equal, the bulb dims and goes out (not enough PD to light the filament). Final pressure will be slightly reduced due to energy used to overcome the flow resistance in the equalisation process (resulting in heat/light losses).
I think the energy in a capacitor is proportional to the square of the voltage.
If you square 9V, you'd get 81
Halve that and you get 40.5.
the square root of this is 6.36V
So I would expect the capacitors to settle at 6.36 V in ideal circumstances if there were no dissipation anywhere.
If you measure 4.5V then maybe the difference was dissipated in the bulb which you used to jump the capacitors together.
So does this explain your experiment results?
That's a clever thought, but it mixes up two different things (which isn't surprising, since getting you to focus on the quadratic relation between energy and voltage is the entire play if you ever notice this phenomenon).
The math you did is for finding the average voltage that would hold the same total energy, not for predicting the final voltage after connecting two capacitors.
The key is charge, not energy. The number of electrons (charge) can't change. When you connect two identical capacitors, the electrons simply spread out evenly between them. Since they're identical, the voltage must be exactly half of the original (4.5V) because voltage is just pressure from electrons.
The ‘missing' energy wasn't lost because the voltage is 4.5V, the energy was lost in the process of getting to 4.5V. Your calculation proves this: If no energy was lost, they would indeed settle at 6.36V. But in reality, the violent spark and heat during connection waste that energy, forcing the final voltage to be a lower 4.5V when using a direct wire.
So, if you use a bulb and still measure ~4.5V, the bulb must have been powered by energy from outside the system, since the capacitors clearly didn't provide it.
This bit is not right. It's not what the equations say.
The charge is indeed spread evenly between the two capacitors, and that means they'll both be at 6.36V (ideally)
If you take one capacitor - at full charge in this case it is at 9V, at half charge, 6.36V. That's what the equation says.
Voltage is not the same as charge.
You're correct that voltage isn't the same as charge.
The mix up is over what is being conserved. In this experiment, the physical number of electrons (the charge) is conserved. It can't change.
When you connect two identical capacitors, that fixed amount of charge must split perfectly in half between them. Since voltage is directly proportional to the amount of charge on a capacitor, the voltage on each must also be exactly half of the original (half of 9V is 4.5V). This is a direct physical necessity.
The energy equation shows that this process of splitting the charge inherently results in only half the original energy remaining in the capacitors. The other half is always lost during the transfer, including when a direct connection is made.
So, measuring 4.5V proves the energy was lost. If a bulb lights during this transfer, but the voltage still ends up at 4.5V, the energy for that light could not have come from the capacitors.
This isn't right.
When the capactor has half the charge of when it was at 9V, it measures 6.36 V and not 4.5V
In the capacitor, the voltage is not proportional to the charge
It's in the equation. E = CVsquared / 2
energy = capacitance x voltage squared / 2 )
This is how the capacitor which you consider full at 9V is half-full at 6.36V and not 4.5V
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-physics/chapter/19-7-energy-stored-in-capacitors/
You are confusing the energy for a single capacitor with the charge transfer between two capacitors.
Charge is conserved, not energy. The amount of electrons (charge) is fixed. They physically split in half between the two identical capacitors.
Voltage is defined as charge divided by capacitance (V = Q/C). Since the charge on each capacitor is halved and the capacitance is unchanged, the voltage must be halved to 4.5V.
Your 6.36V calculation is the voltage a single capacitor would have if it held half the energy of the original 9V charge. But we're not dealing with a single capacitor and its energy, we're dealing with the physical splitting of a fixed amount of charge between two identical containers. The voltage must be 4.5V. The 'missing' energy was lost in the transfer process in getting to 4.5V.
To confirm this, you can take any online circuit simulator, add two identical capacitors, connect a power source to one capacitor, disconnect the power source once the capacitor is fully charged, and connect the two capacitors together. You will see that the voltage of the fully charged capacitor is split evenly between the two capacitors once energy has equalized.
The charge you speak of varies with voltage.
Yes, it'll be evenly at 6.36V if you charge the one capacitor to 9V and then get it to share with its twin. Because a half full capacitor has 0.707 of its full voltage.
A fun variation would be to use an inductor and a diode in series in place of the light bulb in part 2. I haven't done the experiment IRL but it's interesting on a simulator.
From the orthodox engineer prospective:
Cap A starts with 40 mJ of energy.
Both caps at 4.5v is 20 mJ of total energy, 10mJ in each cap.
The 20mJ of energy lost goes to heating the capacitors (via their internal resistance), heating the wires, and is radiated as a small electromagnetic pulse. I may be back after I calculate the temperature rise in the capacitors. As soon as I figure out how much the things weigh and estimate the specific heat. Edit: Assuming the 20mJ was dissipated as heat evenly split between both capacitors, they would heat up by 0.002 degrees Celsius. Totally unmeasurable by all but the finest equipment. Obviously a SWAG because most capacitor datasheets don't even specify the mass much less the specific heat. The volumetric heat capacity of solid objects is relatively constant and volume is easily calculated from the diameter and length. I also calculated a capacitor as a mixture of aluminum and water and got a range of values between 0.007 and 0.001 degrees Celsius.
In part 2, the 20mJ of energy can be consumed by the bulb.
The orthodox argument only seems convincing because it's the only answer allowed within the closed-system dogma. It relies on a miraculous coincidence that engineers are trained not to question.
It's assumed that the form of the loss must have changed from "invisible" magnetic/radiation loss to visible light/heat loss in the filament, but the total amount of loss always remains the same fixed 50%.
This is an astronomical coincidence. It would mean that whether you use a thick copper wire (milliohms of resistance) or a bulb (100 ohms of resistance), the universe always ensures that precisely 50% of the initial energy is lost, no more, no less.
In the real world, loss is determined by physical components. If you change the resistance in the path, you change the amount of energy dissipated.
With a wire: Loss is minimal. Final voltage is very nearly 4.5V. The "50% loss" is almost entirely a theoretical, unobserved number, which cannot be accurately measured.
With a bulb: Loss is massive and visible. For the final voltage to still be ~4.5V, the reduction in other losses would have to be perfect and complete.
The orthodox argument asks you to believe that adding a huge new source of dissipation somehow perfectly eliminates all the other sources of loss (heating, radiation, etc), resulting in the same net outcome.
This isn't engineering, it's a dogmatic assertion designed to preserve the conservation law at all costs. It's a textbook example of making the theory immune to falsification by claiming any and all experimental results simply manifest the same predetermined loss.
The heating and electromagnetic pulse occur in both cases, so if the bulb visibly consumed 20mJ, the final energy state of the capacitors must be lower than 20mJ total, meaning a final voltage significantly less than 4.5V on each.
Capacitors are very strange and one thing I learned building high voltage guitar amplifiers is even after you discharge the HV caps, you must be careful because they recharge themselves seemingly from nowhere. This definitely happens and I used to discharge and then hook them to ground to prevent getting shocked. This is just a casual observation, I wasn't even trying to do any experiement.
Thank you. That's an excellent writeup.
And what you've described (excepting the spiritual part) is an exact parallel to medical science as well. Like the establishment engineers, sincere doctors twist themselves into knots trying to explain how their observations fit into the established science when they should instead discard the established science because it contradicts plain observations.
Side note: a couple years back on GAW we had an anon building an over-unity device. He reported results and instructions, but eventually went to conspiracies.win after being told he was spamming and off-topic.
I remember reading that, but cannot for the life of me remember who it was. Any chance you recall their handle? I would love to see how they have progressed.
Username was kekistani_prince. Here's one of the old posts. I remember he did have a few on conspiracies, but haven't followed in a long time.
https://greatawakening.win/p/16aTM04O61/free-energy-video-proof/
Thank you. Dug into their account, they stopped posting over a year ago & the links they provided with their theroies & Evidences are no longer available on ChatGPT or YouTube.
Too bad, I was interested in trying their experiments just to see what would happen LoL
If you see his stuff on GAW, I think there's enough to duplicate it. He linked to his own vids and such.
His vids are all deleted unfortunately from what I could see, or maybe my ISP is blocking them. I will need to try again.
He should have never been removed from here. This is what GAW is all about, bringing truth to the masses. Everything here is a conspiracy theory until it is proven right. I find it astounding how many pedes will talk about fighting the Deep State and lies of the Cabal, only to then shoot down any theory they don't like. We can't usher in the great awakening if we only allow the parts we're comfortable with.
you might find his old posts on the wayback machine. So forums have their user pages fully backed up (not creepy at all)
Incredible post! Best I've seen on GAW. Fantastic work, top to bottom my friend!
If I didn't know any better, I'd hazard a guess you are Eric Dollard! haha. Basically you brilliantly summarized his 3.5 hour presentation entitled "History & Theory of Electricity". Well worth the watch if you're interested in more detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TttHkDRuyZw
I've presented these materials to several groups, in combination with the work of Walter Russell and his "Universal One", which reframes the quantum level to: no particles, all vibrations in the medium (aether), which was written before modern, mainstream particle/quantum physics came about. They stole Russell's work and turned octaves, tones, frequencies, vibrations into atoms, protons, electrons, neutrons.
When seen from this perspective, using Tesla and Russell's "model of reality", the "unified theory" becomes clear...
Anyway, fantastic post OP. I look forward to more like this in the future!.
I have watched that Dollard presentation, multiple times. It's indeed excellent and well worth the watch. Hopefully some others take note of your recommendation and watch it too.
Nice post and analysis . This is what awakened me many years ago. Once you know how to look there are many examples. Nature abhors imbalance. You can utilize this for additional input. The 2nd law of T is garbage. Maxwells equations had positive and negative solutions that were eliminated through simplification. Heavyside understood this.
Yes I love this post. Free energy would destroy the power structure that those who profit from selling energy have. I think also the ancient people who built the pyramids and great stone work like machu Pichu were utilizing some form of this energy to work and move stone in a way we cannot do today. I think Also some clues of this ancient culture have been hidden from us by those in power going back as far as the fire at the library of Alexandria. Our rulers I'm sure trace their bloodlines way back to the original keepers of knowledge
Christ is Lord. I do believe God grants certain knowledge only to the Godly.
This is great FarOutThere!
TWO THINGS...
1... can you write on pumped phaseconjugate mirrors and their potential use as a 100% perfect missile interceptor?
2... Can you do one on opposing EM waves (laser) running through a nonlinear medium.
Wave A directly opposing Wave B.
Add "signal wave" C directly perpendicular (and centered) to where the "axis" of Wave A and Wave B meet in the center of the nonlinear medium.
Result: out pops a larger fundamental in the direction "signal wave" C came from.
Lieutenant colonel Tom Bearden
I did not know there were people on GAW so well-versed in what I like to call "Occult Ether physics."
Tom Bearden, one of my main men. RIP Tom.
Does anyone here follow Bob Greenyer on Remote View? He is something else, I don't think he sleeps as he is so prolific and creative. https://remoteview.substack.com/
This is what I concluded about advanced technology, but this puts it so eloquently and completely. If we make such powerful technology available to everyone, it just takes one resentful person to use it destructively to the detriment of the entire species.
u/JohnTitor17 Per my last DM, big brains right here! It’s a privilege to read and learn from some of you anons.
Great post...👌👍
Just in case no one said this already...
Power to the People!
Where did some of you learn this stuff? It certainly wasn't my local highschool in the 90s. My head hurts and I feel very dumb. I couldn't follow any of this except that we are mislead which I am willing to believe having come from VOAT since the migrations. And that we aren't optimistic in the human soul to be able to handle this amount of power which after this week is sadly very true.
Kuddos to you anons for being so smart 🤓. I don't feel very optimistic about homeschooling my child now. 😭 Edit: seriously send me links to books my 5 year old child needs to get started and for the future for really good science and math to end up like you all.
Lastly, high energy post friend. I wish I could follow it enough to even try to argue or congratulate you on your brilliance.
I understand completely! I’ve told some of these big brains around here that I can’t contribute to the extent they do but you will always find me in a comment giving a word of encouragement and saying, “yeah, what they said!” You are already smarter than most since you are here and have taken the steps to homeschool. Kiddos to you anon, for being able to recognize and have an open mind.
Eric Dollard and the 4 quadrant theory of electricity. Eric continued the works of Tesla, Heaviside, Maxwell and so on. His work is where we should be but 100 years advanced. They really did supress this knowledge and it is still suppressed today.
https://aethercosmology.com/t/eric-dollard/200
https://www.scribd.com/doc/180307140/Symbolic-Representation-of-the-Generalized-Electric-Wave-by-Eric-Dollard
Oh. My. Goodness. Well done my friend. This is incredible. Big brains right here!
BOY do I a story for this thread....off topic a bit but I feel like it has a place here.
We recently saved our mini horse’s life after a routine castration caused evisceration, or in other words, his intestines slipped through the incision and were on the outside of his body. It’s a wonderfully long story but I will give you the shortened version. We called vets, they all said he was good for dead, we didn’t take that for an answer and refused to stand there and do nothing. We fed the intestines back in through the quarter sized hole inch by inch. We made sure to lift his body up to get the intestines back into place. Used an organically derived cleaner and sprayed his entire intestinal tract down, and gave him three sutures using bracelet string. When the vet called to check in he was astonished. Said he’d never heard of such a success and that it would have never been possible even with the right tools. That’s where this story gets a little touchy for some. We tapped into a different kind of tool, one of energy and frequency that an “expert” would never achieve because they have been institutionalized and stripped of their ability to harness into their God given knowledge. Time stopped. We are capable of great things!
Great story.
Establishment science has worked incredibly hard to convince everyone that everything that exists is made out of particles, and humans are nothing more than flesh, blood and organs. As long as we believe that, we will limit ourselves to the constraints in which we are told we exist. It couldn't be further from the truth. Human consciousness is fundamental, and a non-physical phenomenon which is external to the physical body.
We seriously need more understanding about these kinds of tools. Using energy and frequency to heal is being repressed by the big pharma corporations, because they stand to lose so much money. I hate it when we're told to take this over to conspiracies.win. Everything is a conspiracy until it is proven right. We need pedes to do some serious research and present their conclusions. Free energy and healing is out there, we just need to figure out the details of it. I've been wearing a crystal around my neck for a few months now. It has given me so much energy that there was a sore on my chest where it touched my skin. My doctor told me it would get infected, but he just doesn't understand the power behind it. There is some puss that comes out, but that is just toxins being ejected from my body, I feel great.
Crystals were my introduction into energy healing. I was drawn to them like a bug to a light. I have recommended and helped many people with crystals. I like to call them external vitamins. That phrase usually gets a sceptic to give them a chance. So happy you have found one! Don’t be afraid to change it up. If you don’t mind my asking, which stone have you been wearing?
Energy and control of it, is what regimes go to war for.
Think about current crypto, bitcoin specifically. What happens when electricity is free and there is no cost to mine?
Idk if we progress to a level of free energy in my lifetime.
The geopolitical strategy of the US has been to rid the ME of the easily extractable oil, and we control shale there after. This is 100 years away.
“AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE”?? — not very optimistic.
It's not a matter of being optimistic. If you read to the very end of the post, you will understand why.
So, what are the machines and devices that actually work? How can we build some small scale free energy devices? I was a little disappointed that you didn't link to any of the good ideas that they're trying to suppress.
I intentionally avoided talking about specific inventors or devices in this post. Everything I covered is either verifiable or objective analysis. Despite the topic itself being considered controversial, the information provided really shouldn't be, providing it's evaluated objectively by an individual who is not constrained by fear and dogma.
The moment a specific example of such a technology is introduced, the discussion would become polarized due to orthodox models providing incomplete understanding of the working mechanisms, and the internet being full of disinformation "debunking" everything.
I have no intention of debating the veracity of specific devices or the credibility of specific inventors. I'm also not sure that this is the right place to even get into such things.
For what you're asking though, it's really as simple as identifying the top 2 circuits that have been most widely built by hobbyists, because there's clearly a reason why hundreds of thousands of those have been built. I would say "just use a search engine", but with how censored and manipulated they all are now, you may be lead astray. Instead, try asking Grok something like "everyone knows free energy is impossible, but what are the top 2 circuits most widely built by hobbyists which are claimed to be over-unity?"
now what did I do with those 50v Textron soda can sized caps...
…
Tech is definitely being supressed but I'm sure on exactly what. If it's non-human, then sure ... I can believe that, but human derived tech? Sure, but what? If Tesla was correct about something earth shattering and it was supressed, are people suggesting that something so vital for humanity could only be discovered by one man in the last century? Tesla and his inventions are so worldwide well-known along with the conspiracies that there'd definitely be other discoverers of anything worth discovering (not zero-point energy which is beyong impossible with our curent understanding of physics, the nature of space, etc). Much comes down to Occam's Razer for me about conspiracies and wether or not they're worth the time ... excluding bigfoot ... I love that one.
It's not impossible that there's some exotic tech which Tesla discovered that was never discovered by anyone else, but even the most exotic and unknown tech he developed was probably discovered independently and is just not known.
But as far as energy technology in general goes, not at all. Hundreds, if not thousands, of independent devices have been invented in the last 100 years. Some of those were based on Tesla's research, some were based on the work of those who came after Tesla, and others were discovered completely independently.
Out of all those devices, many have also been independently replicated by experimenters all over the world. We're talking on the scale of millions of such devices having been created, though obviously the more advanced and scalable ones make up a small fraction of that number, with the more accessible lower power systems being most common.
If you read to the end of my post, you should understand why, despite this technology being much more common than everyone believes, it's still considered impossible and non-existent to 99.99% of humanity.
Agreed. Like I mentioned earlier about Occam's Razer ...What's more probable regarding advanced tech? 1) E.T.'s have been globetrotting for a century OR 2) advanced tech's been hijacked by baddies in order to financially gain or attempt a world coup of some sorts. If you've never read about it, check out Project Blue Beam, uncovered by Canadian journalist Serge Monast ~1992. Interesting story with a sad ending regarding him.
The ending of your post is incredible. It’s such a simple explanation for such a widespread misunderstanding of human consciousness. This is what I’m on GAW for! For a while there were a few anons who would try to have conversations about consciousness and they were booed. I’m happy I’ve stuck around long enough to see it come back around. I’m starting to believe this has been a well thought out plan....