Free Energy claims

secret suppressed technology or hoaxes?
a permaculture view for free energy claims

related page: UFO disinfo

Some claims for "free energy" may be true, some may not be -- this website does NOT vouch for their accuracy, these links are provided to stimulate discussion and perhaps point in directions that may turn out to be useful.

The laws of thermodynamics are useful for evaluating these claims. Entropy is not a good idea, it is the law!

Whether these sorts of claims have validity or not is beyond our technical expertise to verify ... especially since there seems to be even more disinformation surrounding these topics than the 9/11 foreknowledge scandal.

Perhaps all of these claims are merely wishful thinking. Perhaps there are real technologies that their guardians mask with lots of lies. does not make any claims pro or con for "free energy" systems.

Even if zero point, antigravity and/or cold fusion (or similar technologies) turn out to be commercially viable and are implemented in a large enough scale to compensate for declining fossil fuel supplies, it seems obvious that we will also need to learn to temper our overconsumption of minerals, water, forests, fisheries and other natural resources in order to maintain a balanced biosphere that supports human (and non-human) life into the indefinite future. One scientist at the September 2004 "New Energy Movement" conference in Portland, Oregon who claims to have worked with viable free energy technologies admits that even if every home in North America (and the other continents) had a viable zero point energy device to safely generate electricity, we would still need to tear up parking lots to grow food for the future.

Perhaps if these technologies are real they are in a similar condition to the status of nuclear technology after Albert Einstein postulated the theory of relativity in 1905. Nuclear power and weapons were obvious from the equations that he offered. In 1914, H. G. Wells wrote a book titled "The World Set Free" which predicted a nuclear war followed by a period of world peace (from a shocked humanity vowing never to wage war again). Wells knew that nuclear weapons were obviously possible following Einstein's equations, but it wasn't until the early 1940s that anyone figured out exactly how this would be done (with the explosion over Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, the largest simultaneous slaughter in human history).

The Hunt for Zero Point by Nick Cook, a writer for Jane's (one of the planet's premier publications about military topics) suggests that the idea that zero point energy / antigravity systems were taken from extraterrestrial sources may be a form of disinformation to cover up the reality of this technological development. If zero point / anti-gravity is real, and it was developed without "alien" technologies, then claiming that it was taken from crashed alien vehicles would be a great way of discouraging further interest by most people into the topic.


stealth robot plane photos taken in 2010 at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.

We've already had a disastrous experience with "free energy" (abundant oil)

The claim for "free energy" systems is that they generate more usable energy as an output than is put into the device. Some of the claims argue that this is not a violation of the laws of thermodynamics (which apparently prohibit perpetual motion machines and other "over unity" devices), since the energy is merely being tapped from natural sources not currently accepted as valid or accessible by modern science. (This is a description that does not do justice to the various arguments.)

But humanity has already had an analogous experience with "free energy" -- the century and a half of using petroleum and other fossil fuels. In the early days of oil, for every one barrel of oil used to extract and process petroleum, up to 100 barrels of oil was made available for use. This is a form of an "over unity" energy system (if you ignore the finite nature of the easily accessible oil deposits).

Unfortunately, this experience with cheap and available energy supplies (oil, coal, natural gas) suggests that the social impact of commercial deployment of a "free energy" system (assuming that can be done) would be to continue our current destructive over-consumptive behaviors that are destablizing Earth's biosphere. Widely available free energy would be much more likely to extract more oil, mine more minerals, clearcut more remote forests, catch the last fish, and other forms of accelerating the depletion of the natural world. In the longer term, free energy systems would also remove the power currently invested in the petroleum paradigm, which is perhaps the most powerful industry on the planet.

In addition, some free energy advocates state that these technologies would have dangerous weapons applications (one of the reasons they are allegedly suppressed) and therefore are unlikely to be declassified and implemented widely until humanity has a change of consciousness toward cooperation instead of competition. Furthermore, these technologies would decentralize energy production, which would then decentralize political and economic power, making North America, Western Europe, and Japan merely a part of the human race, instead of the dominant powers running the planet.


Ian Woofenden, "Free Energy: Not Pie on the Plate" Home Power magazine, October - November 2004, p. 118

renewable energy can be considered "free," but only once you pay for it. The equipment to harvest the renewable energy found in sunshine, wind, and falling water costs money, and so does maintaining the systems. You can pay for it up front, and it's a great deal, but it's not "free."

"Free energy" advocates generally aren't referring to photovoltaic (PV) panels or wind generators. They talk about energy from magnets, energy from space, and energy from black boxes that are too secret for us to get a look into ...

I'm a skeptic and a realist. My job asks me to look critically at text, and my conscience asks me to carefully examine claims about any new energy-producing device.

At the same time, I try to remain open to new ideas. PVs once were new, and folks were skeptical about them -- some still remain skeptical today. We have to find a balance between skepticism and openness. Just don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out.

The promoters of free-energy devices must prove themselves ...

I'll be first in line to purchase new, clean-energy technologies that actually work. But I'll remain skeptical of all schemes and scams that aren't functioning products for sale, or at least ready to be tested in independent circumstances. Until then, these free-energy dreams are just more pie in the sky. And as HP publisher Richard Perez says, "We report only about pie on the plate..."

Matt Savinar, "The Oil Age is Over"

While free energy technologies such as Cold Fusion, Vacuum Energy and Zero Point Energy are extremely fascinating, the unfortunate reality is that they are unlikely to help us cope with the oil depletion ...

We’ve already had our experiment with "free energy." With an EROEI [Energy Return of Energy Invested] of 30 to 1, oil was so efficient and cheap an energy source that it was practically free. In some locations, such as Louisiana, oil had an EROEI of 100 to 1!

The development of a "free energy" device would just put off the inevitable. The Earth has a carrying capacity. If we are able to substitute a significant portion of our fossil fuel usage with "free energy," the crash would just come at a later time, when we have depleted a different resource. At that point, our population will be even higher. The higher a population is, the further it has to fall when it depletes a key resource. The further it has to fall, the more momentum it picks up on the way down through war and disease. By encouraging continued population growth, so-called free energy could actually maker our situation drastically worse.

One can only wonder what damage we would do to ourselves if given access to free energy. We discovered oil, an amazingly powerful source of energy, and 150 years later we are closer to destroying ourselves than ever before. What do you think we will do to ourselves if we gain access to an even more powerful source of energy?

Another analogy may be useful here: say you give a young man access to a one-million-dollar bank account on his 18 th birthday. Do you think he is going to handle it responsibly? My guess is no. If he’s anything like I was at 18 (or even today), he’s going to blow it all on expensive liquor, wild strippers, and fast cars.

In other words, he’s going to consume and screw himself into oblivion, which is exactly what the human race has been doing to itself since discovering oil. What do you think will happen if, upon depleting his one-milliondollar bank account, the young man gains access a bank account with one-billion-dollars in it? Most likely, he will continue consuming and screwing until he completely destroys himself and all those around him.

We will likely do the same thing if we ever gain access to an energy source even more abundant and powerful than oil.

Free energy - or even very cheap energy - is a nighmare.
Imagine that tomorrow, we would have a mysterious ‘free’ energy source that would not emit CO2 or anything else noxious. Fine.
Then what? What would it be used for? To drive more cars, build more roads, drive more tractors, send ships chugging, space rockets? Build more and more houses? Light up concrete block cities, a blaze in the night? Create more lethal arms, make millions of tanks?
Where would the primary materials - fertile soil, water, the greenery, earth that supports food production; oceans with their fish proteins; minerals such as copper, uranium, and so on - oil itself, present in thousands of prducts - come from?
All these are not inexhaustible either. In fact many are scarce today. Presumably, they would not be provided along with the ‘free energy’ package.
One can’t drive about in a powerful sports car if the people who make it starve and if the earth can’t manage to provide the materials necessary for the building of it, such as minerals and oil, to make plastic etc.
Free energy would turn the world into a wasteland, immediately. Some might argue that is already a done deal.

Infinite Energy magazine, founded by MIT physicist and cold-fusion researcher Eugene Mallove, who was murdered in 2004

New Energy Movement sponsored a conference on these technologies in Portland, Oregon in September 2004

This site

has links to the presentations.

Mainstream news source talks about apparent anti-gravity aircraft.

"UFOs and Classified Aircraft: Shedding New Light on Dark Secrets"


Like cold fusion, antigravity is considered by some to be a "fringe" science that no serious physicist would investigate. But there have been several recent experiments that show that electromagnetic fields due have an effect with respect to gravity, and that such a force can be used to create anti-gravity devices. Also like cold fusion, this science is still very much in its infancy. Or so we've been told. In Nick Cook's book (The Hunt for Zero Point) the case is made strongly that the American government has long been in the business of antigravity research and has likely had successes in that regard. That would explain why it is put down in the media, which is so completely government reliant. If the technology is real, keeping it secret gives the American military a distinct advantage over other military forces. Read and decide for yourself what the real history of this scientific subject reveals!

The term "electrogravitics" is often used instead of antigravity to describe the same areas of research. Bear that in mind when searching for information on this subject.

Tesla and other scientists of his time postulated an "ether" that was filled with energy. Modern science has found evidence of this, and calls it "zero point energy." Because electromagnetic generation sufficient to shield an object from gravity takes an extraordinary amount of energy, the hunt for antigravity is tied into the hunt for a limitless supply of energy. If we could pull energy directly from air and space, we would have that unlimited source of energy necessary to make possible the commercial development of antigravity devices.


The Antigravity Underground
American Antigravity
Electrogravitics Systems
"ELECTROGRAVITICS SYSTEMS" - The Declassified Report (from 1956)
Antigravity? Well, it's all up in the air. It sounds like something from the X-Files, but levitation is raising eyebrows--and interest at NASA. (Business Week article, July 1997)


The Hunt for Zero Point: Inside the Classified World of Antigravity Technology, by Nick Cook, Broadway Books; (August 13, 2002)

• Electrogravitics Systems: Reports on a New Propulsion Methodology, by Thomas Valone, Integrity Research Inst; 2nd edition (November 1995)

Cold Fusion

"The basic idea here is that we're at the stage of the transistor like in the period 1947 through 1950 or so when, yes, the phenomenon was there, it was weak, disputed. It was problematic but eventually it overcame those things and is pervasive."  
-- Dr. Eugene Mallove, with science degrees from MIT and Harvard; author of Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor.

It bears mentioning that there is a history of new science being put down and discredited, only to have it proven true. Nikola Tesla was told that alternating current would break the laws of nature and was therefore impossible. But today, the world is powered by alternating current.  And we all know what happened to Copernicus and Galileo. This appears to be the latest round of something new that threatens our understanding of the world (not to mention the oil-based power structure) and is therefore looked upon with a high level of skepticism. But to those who take the time to investigate, cold fusion continues to show promise as an alternative energy source.

Links relating to this controversy:

Books on Cold Fusion:

• Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed, Charles Beaudette, Oak Grove Press (2nd ed.) May 2002

• Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion, by by Tadahiko Mizuno, Jed Rothwell (Translator), Eugene Mallove (Foreword), Infinite Energy Press; December 1, 1998

June 06, 2005
Coming in out of the cold: Cold fusion, for real
By Michelle Thaller |

... A very reputable, very careful group of scientists at the University of Los Angeles (Brian Naranjo, Jim Gimzewski, Seth Putterman) has initiated a fusion reaction using a laboratory device that's not much bigger than a breadbox, and works at roughly room temperature. This time, it looks like the real thing.

... For the time being, don't expect fusion to become a readily available energy option. The current cold fusion apparatus still takes much more energy to start up than you get back out, and it may never end up breaking even. In the mean time, the crystal-fusion device might be used as a compact source of neutrons and X-rays, something that could turn out to be useful making small scanning machines. But it really may not be long until we have the first nuclear fusion-powered devices in common use.

Anti-gravity and us
January 28, 2003

Webdiarist Malcolm Street has a unique theory on why Britain and Australia are backing Bush on Iraq. Welcome to the anti-gravity arms race.

Australia, the UK, anti-gravity and the Iraq crisis
by Malcolm Street, Canberra

Are you sitting down? Good, because this is going to blow your mind.

This item is going to sound like a bad reject from conspiracy publications like Nexus or New Dawn, or an X-Files fanzine. It isn't. The indisputable fact is that both the US and the UK are putting serious money into anti-gravity research with military aerospace applications. The only question is how far it is from operational status. There is informed speculation that it is already used in the American B2 bomber.

I believe that access to this potentially revolutionary and obviously highly secret technology, perhaps via the JSF/F35 fighter program, could be behind the otherwise (in my view) inexplicable level of support given Bush over Iraq by Howard and Blair.

For the record I am a mechanical engineer who spent over two years at a British Aerospace guided missile R&D site in the early 1980s and have continued to take a strong interest in aerospace technology. I am a member of ASRI (Australian Space Research Institute). I am not a crank.

The most puzzling aspect to me of the American obsession with invading Iraq even without UN sanction is the continuing support provided by Tony Blair and John Howard. The USA's reason is obvious; to gain control of a major oil supply as insurance against increasing instability in Saudi Arabia. (If it's about human rights and weapons of mass destruction, why the kid gloves treatment of North Korea?)

One could stretch to say that Blair has the interests of BP and the half-British Shell oil companies, but if it comes to a vote in the Commons he could well be rolled. However nothing apart from blind loyalty seems to explain the support given by Australia, and even with a conservative government there are rumblings from Howard's back benches and a population largely opposed.

So why are Blair and Howard, both consumate political operators, taking such a huge political risk for a war that no-one but the Americans want, which could destroy the structure of international law and result in both the UK and Australia becoming international pariahs?

My hypothesis is the supply of information from the United States that is so secret it is only known to the very highest levels of government and is of such strategic importance that it is worth taking such risks.

My initial thoughts were that the US was blackmailing both leaders over continued supply of intelligence information gained from the Echelon system via the UKASA agreement. But that could have been done at any time over the last couple of decades. However, the current timescale however coincides interestingly with the crucial development phase of the F35/JSF fighter aircraft program...

The JSF (Joint Strike Fighter), which is front-runner to replace the RAAF's F-18s and F-111s in what would be our largest ever defence order, is quite unlike any previous supersonic US fighter project available for foreign allies. Unlike the earlier F104 Starfighter and F16 Falcon programs, there will be no generalised offset agreements, by which foreign manufacturers will be able to supply components to the whole program. Technology transfer in the JSF will be very tightly controlled, with only the UK (developing a version to replace the Harrier jump-jet) so far as an inner partner.

Australia is trying hard to get on board, with (according to a local TV news item some months ago) three firms in Canberra alone tendering for parts of the project.

There is a precedent for Australia sucking up to a larger power in the hopes of gaining access to its advanced weapons technology; the agreement given to conduct British nuclear tests on Australian territory in the 1950s in the hope of getting transfers of British atomic bomb technology. (See Dr Wayne Reynolds' book "Australia's bid for the Atomic Bomb"). In turn a major theme of this book is the use the UK made of its own program as a bargaining chip to get access to US atomic technology.

The July 2002 issue of the British magazine Air International had an article entitled "JSF UK - more than just an aircraft" by one Robert Hewson which deals with the JSF program, particularly the extensive participation of British companies (notably BAe Systems and Rolls-Royce) in its development:

"One reason the US is keeping such a tight hold over the industrial elements of the JSF is the thorny issue of "stealth" and how to control access to the classified stealth technologies which are built into every aspect of the JSF design. The US and UK have a special (and classified) agreement that allows the two countries to share data on common stealth research, but all other discussion of the subject is closed. The question of how the US will supply this sensitive set of technologies to other JSF customers goes unanswered - but the underlying message is that the US is reluctant to do so and that somehow there will be different standards in JSF "stealthiness" between friends, good friends and others."

So we know there is a sweetheart classified deal between the US and UK over stealth technology in the JSF, and that apparently the full stealth technology will not be supplied to outside customers. Why couldn't it cover other highly classified technology as well? What if this other US-UK technology was so revolutionary that the inner partners' versions of the JSF would have a massive advantage over anything else in the air for years to come, something that could give them a colossal and unassailable strategic advantage, as great as, perhaps, the atomic bomb?

There is such a technology on the horizon: anti-gravity. Yes you read that right! Both the US and UK are publicly running research programs investigating anti-gravity under such headings as "propellantless propulsion". The UK effort, run by BAe Systems, is called Project Greenglow (see bbc for an overview), while in the US Boeing is running an anti-gravity program in its Phantom Works (Boeing's equivalent of Lockheed's legendary Skunk Works) in Seattle (see janes). In addition, NASA is looking into overlapping areas under the "Breakthrough Propulsion Physics" project (home page nasa). (An interesting selection of links on anti-gravity links, albeit with the odd crank, can be found at eskimo).

How far away is anti-gravity technology? It may already be operating...

Towards the end of an otherwise routine article on aircraft propulsion in Air International in January 2000, reprinted at aeronautics, well-known and highly respected aviation writer Bill Gunston speculated that the American Northrop B-2 Spirit heavy bomber already uses some form of anti-gravity technology:

"I have numerous documents, all published openly in the United States, which purport to explain how the B-2 is even stranger - far, far stranger - than it appears. Most are articles published in commercial magazines, some are openly published US Patents, while a few are open USAF publications by Wright Aeronautical Laboratory and Air Force Systems Command's Astronautics Laboratory. They deal with such topics as electric-field propulsion, and electrogravitics (or anti-gravity), the transient alteration of not only thrust but also a body's weight. Sci-Fi has nothing on this stuff."

What really put the cat among the proverbial pigeons was a feature published in a March 1992 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology, entitled "Black world engineers, scientists, encourage using highly classified technology for civil applications". For the first time in open literature, this article explained how the B-2's sharp leading edge is charged to "many millions of volts", while the corresponding negative charge is blown out in the jets from the four engines.

"Take-off thrust of the [B2 engine] F118- 100 at sea level is given as '19,000lb (84.5kN) class' by Northrop Grumman and as '17,300lb (77.0kN)' by the USAF. These are startlingly low figures for an aircraft whose take-off weight is said to be 336,5001b (152,635kg) and which was until recently said to weigh 376,0001b (170,550kg). Aircraft usually get heavier over the years, not 20 tones [sic] lighter. Even at the supposed reduced weight, the ratio of thrust to weight is a mere 0.2, an extraordinarily low value for a combat aircraft."

In other words, Gunston is implying that the B2 is seriously underpowered unless there is some means of reducing its mass or of increasing its lift beyond that provided by conventional aerodynamic means.

"Other writers have commented on the size of the B-2 wing and noted that its stealth depends on the huge black skin being made of RAM (radar-absorbent material). This, say the physicists, is 'a high-k, high-density dielectric ceramic, capable of generating an enormous electrogravitic lift force when charged'."

So is this why the B2s cost US$1 billion each?

Gunston's article is controversial, (an interesting discussion on it in the rec.aviation.military Internet newsgroup is archived at google under the title "B-2A and electrogravity") but there is a precedent for a radical, cost-is-no-object, highly classified US military aircraft using two major sets of new technologies, one secret and the other VERY secret.

The legendary Lockheed A12/SR71 "Blackbird" reconnaissance aircraft was increasingly declassified in the late 70s/early 80s, with major details released on the structural and propulsion technologies that enabled that incredible aircraft, one of the great masterpieces of aeronautical engineering, to cruise at Mach 3. What wasn't declassified until several years later, long after the F117 stealth fighter had been unveiled, was the fact that it was also a stealth design! While stealth took second place to speed, the fact was that stealth elements were a major factor in the airframe configuration, design of which dated back to the late 1950s, twenty years before stealth technology was even mentioned by the US government.

Another example is the even more legendary North American P-51 Mustang fighter of World War 2. For years its outstanding performance was explained by its "laminar flow" wing technology (also used in the B24 Liberator bomber).

Shortly before former senior manager and engineer at North American Aviation, Lee Atwood, died a few years ago he wrote articles for a couple of aircraft magazines (see, for example, airspacemag) giving the real explanation. Using a phenomenon known as the "Meredith Effect", the Mustang's characteristic under-fuselage duct for the engine's radiator was so shaped internally that the heat from the radiator converted it into, effectively, a low-temperature ramjet, thrust from which at high speeds offset most of the drag produced by the radiator in the first place! Not even the servicing crews knew that this was the true function of the duct design!

We know that the JSF/F35 will incorporate a high degree of stealth, like the B-2, with the degree of stealth apparently varying between inner and outer customers. However, stealth is relatively old-hat; the F117, the first stealth aircraft, turns up regularly at air shows, much of the US 70s and 80s stealth program has been declassified and the general principles, if not specific applications, of stealth technology are now well-known in the unclassified world. I can't see it being worth risking the fall of the UK or Australian governments.

So are Howard and Blair playing a very high-stakes game to gain access to a revolutionary military technology more secret, more important, than stealth, one that's perhaps being pioneered on the US-only B-2? Like anti-gravity technology only available to the select inner partners of the JSF/F35 program? And has the US threatened to boot them out if they don't toe the Bush line on Iraq?

Anti-gravity propulsion comes ‘out of the closet’
By Nick Cook, JDW Aerospace Consultant, London

Boeing, the world’s largest aircraft manufacturer, has admitted it is working on experimental anti-gravity projects that could overturn a century of conventional aerospace propulsion technology if the science underpinning them can be engineered into hardware.

As part of the effort, which is being run out of Boeing’s Phantom Works advanced research and development facility in Seattle, the company is trying to solicit the services of a Russian scientist who claims he has developed anti-gravity devices. So far, however, Boeing has fallen foul of Russian technology transfer controls (Moscow wants to stem the exodus of Russian high technology to the West).

Boeing denies this claim ...



The "Disclosure Project" claims that these technologies have an extraterrestrial origin, that the secrets have been kept for more than a half century, and they offer many former military and intelligence officers who testify to the truths of these claims. Are these claims are authentic or merely a very sophisticated psyop (psychological warfare operation) effort to cover up terrestrial originated research into secret technologies? Decoy, Distract, Trash (DDT) is an article about how disinformation campaigns by secret quasi-government organizations are used to discredit government critics, truth seekers and other citizens who want greater openness in the way the world is run.

DDT (Decoy, Distract and Trash)
Steven M. Greer M.D.
Director, The Disclosure Project
Copyright 2002

 A former high official at the NSA (National Security Agency) told me about a protocol informally dubbed DDT - that old poisonous chemical long-banned in much of the world. In this application, it stands for Decoy, Distract and Trash - which is what sophisticated intelligence operatives use to set up some person or group, take them off the trail of something real and important, and trash the person or the subject. ...

The Disclosure Project also sponsors Space Energy Access Systems -- which despite several promises has not offered any working prototypes for public scrutiny. a paper talking about anti-gravity research

we're estimating that between 1950 and 1960 they basically had figured out the energy and propulsion generation systems behind these sorts of objects. They realized that it extracts energy from the fabric of space around us. Not outer space, but space. In fact, we have an experimental program going on now called Space Energy Access Systems. You can see the web site to look into this. The question is, what impact would that have? Well, essentially you're talking about things with propulsion and energy generation capabilities that are not your Grand Dad's Oldsmobile. These things are not moving through interstellar space using Jet A fuel or rocket fuel, or anything like that. It's a whole new type of physics, and the problem with it is that it means 'good bye' oil, gas, coal, centralized utilities...oops, I just wrote off about a 6 or 7 trillion dollar part of the global economy. It is an enormously big issue in terms of money, power, geopolitical power, etc. So, this issue -- far from being the 'ha ha' piece of people having sex with creatures from another star system -- is really about the death grip the current power players have on the geopolitical order and the economic order of this planet. And they damn well intend to keep us addicted to black oil for as long as they can. The problem is, is that many people even within this management group that I have met with, and I *have* met with people who are on the policy board of this group, are concerned that we *may* be running out of time to transition out of fossil fuels, and so the good news is that many of them support bringing this information out as well as the technologies out -- they just don't know how to do it -- and they've painted themselves into such a corner of secrecy, it's hard for them to even acknowledge that these projects exist to the world because there would be so much outrage at the fact that we have destroyed so much of the world's environment and impoverished so much of the world artificially over the last 40 or 50 years.