The tectonic plates of energy policy just moved!
mobbsey at gn.apc.org
Fri Nov 12 23:52:57 GMT 2010
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Sorry, didn't intend to reply but, to coin the punchline in that horrible ad
for gender-bending beauty chemicals, I really "think you're worth it"...
On Thursday 11 November 2010 23:05:00 Mr Zouk wrote:
> Ok, so you've given me verbal diahreah now, where is the evidence of what
Sorry, it was my bread-making day. Every fortnight I make eight loaves of
wonderful "own-made" bread and spend the intervening period catching up on
email and paperwork.
> Obviously you can't get your facts straight, you either believe free energy
> exists and is in abundance or you don't.
It doesn't exist, and that's a fact not a belief (see below).
> where is the evidence of what
> you talk about?
> the actual evidence?
You're sitting in front of it! Reach out and touch its plastics, feel the heat
from its inner workings; you're surrounded by it. It's called modern
The proof you want is in your hands -- the equations that allow us to model,
design and build the systems that comprise computers and the Internet operate
are wholly in compliance the Laws of Thermodynamics. As such their operation
excludes the possibility of free energy given that, if the interactions free
energy advocates describe are so simple, these interactions would occur on a
regular and unpredictable basis.
If the Laws of Thermodynamics did not operate as modern science outlines then
the equations used to create the systems you are using to send these messages
- -- from the electrical circuits in the computer, to the radio communications
links within telecommunications systems, to the orbiting satellites bouncing
communications around the globe -- would fail to work consistently.
Conservation (First Law), and the arrow of time implicit in the movement of
energy under the Second Law, are both predictable and universal, otherwise
there would be unforeseen losses or gains in the system that would destabilise
the system. From Ohms Law, to the dielectric effect, to the movement of
electrons and holes in semiconductors, to Plank's Constant, conservation and
entropy are what makes our "modern world" predictable, understandable, and
which in turn allows us to engineer it to perform certain tasks.
Most importantly, I don't need to "believe" in the Laws of Thermodynamics. I
know, through direct experience (because I've studied them as part of
developing my "lifestyle plan" as well as my professional work), that the
devices around me -- from my wood stove to my laptop -- operate clearly in
accordance with the Laws of Thermodynamics. In my engineering design work I
routinely use these equations to select components for electrical circuits,
size bolts and bars for making metal enclosures, and of course sizing and
installing energy storage and supply systems (both thermal and electric).
In contrast I would state that I have to "believe" that free energy is a
deception, for whatever motivation to may attribute to this social phenomena,
because it does not accord to the natural processes that we can demonstrate
happening all around us. Then again, no leading string theorists (string
theory is the only potential saviour of the free energy meme) will call their
work "fact" either because there is no empirical evidence to support it.
Whilst it's not impossible that new ways could be found to extract energy from
the four fundamental forces, there is no evidence to suppose that assemblages
of magnets and coils are able to tap into some unknown source of energy. What
you cite, especially the videos and web site you list, is a selective,
partisan and often twisted reading of existing scientific research in order to
make certain claims -- and in turn these claims legitimate your wider
political and social anomie.
The future must, because of the restrictions these same Laws allow us to
project, involve a process where the human species renegotiates its
relationship to the biosphere -- the material flows that support human society
today cannot be maintained, even at their present rate, for more than another
decade or two. That's primarily all about food, and in particular the role of
agriculture and its relationship to the capacity of the Earth to provide our
needs sustainably. Without a constantly increasing energy and mineral resource
supply, the present growth economy paradigm will implode; it, and the wealth
it creates, will over the next few decades cease to exist and we'll have to
find a new way to meet our needs. This process implicitly involves examining
land rights and the individuals access to land in order to secure the
necessities of life (and when I say "necessities" I don't mean cars or plasma
TVs! -- I mean serving our basic biological and social needs as living beings,
not the grandiose dreams of technology fetishists).
Finally, let's say hypothetically that you are completely correct. Let's say
that free energy did exist; what would that mean for society?
It would mean that the industrial processes of human society would create EVEN
MORE damage to the Earth's biosphere; in the process ensuring that the crash
of the human species is even more dramatic when it finally arrives as other
critical (non-energy) resources peak and decline in availability/production.
As a parallel example, think of the Green Revolution; all that Norman
Borlaug's new dwarf/fertiliser heavy crops really achieved was to add an extra
2 billion people to the planet's human population -- just at the time that the
phosphate rock, and the oil and gas used to produce nitrogen, are beginning to
experience production problems. Due to all that extra food that the Green
Revolution produced population growth is now once again outstripping the
growth in food supply.
Quite simply, if free energy were a reality then we'd get more of what we have
today -- more corporate power, and more and a greater disparity in wealth
accumulation. It wouldn't be the energy utopia you indicate.
Many of the free energy people I've come across also seem to believe that the
Twin Towers were not destroyed by aircraft, but by the US government. Six
months BEFORE 11/9, a US TV show called 'The Lone Gunmen' (an offshoot of 'The
X-files') premièred with a pilot episode in which the plot involved a secret
arm of the US government flying an aircraft into the World Trade Centre in
order to justify action to restrict the freedom of its citizens (which, of
course, the intrepid group of hackers managed to avert at the last moment).
Co-incidentally, in episode 4 in that series ( "Water for Octane"), the group
go in search of a car that runs on water, and when they find it they destroy
it! Why? Because, as stated in the conclusion to the plot of that episode, if
cars ran on water than the world would be even more messed up than it is
today. I've always argued with the free energy+11/9 believers that if the
writers of that series could, in terms of the 11/9 conspiracy, be so correct
in the first programme, why can't their take on 'free energy' devices be true
You clearly have a lot of hostility towards anyone who doesn't share your
belief in the supernatural -- which, more than anything, is what much of what
free energy represents (e.g. George Green of "Project Camelot" often invokes
"God" as the source of the energy... so what are you plugging into?, God's
extension lead?). More importantly you wrap your belief within conspiracy
theories about money and political suppression without any evidence that these
are taking place. The state can't even keep its own secrets or prevent the
public's personal data being lost -- how do you expect them to mount a complex
Whilst we're on the subject of authoritarian states coercing their public, if
you really believe that you can get more energy out of a device than you put
in, can we take it that you accord with Orwell's thesis, and "Big Brother's"
demand, that "2+2=5"?
Seriously, you ask us to take you as an honest broker of information, *who in
reality are you?* You imply that I'm some stooge of the Illuminati even though
my origins, and track record, are wholly traceable: I use my real name in
correspondence; I provide my traceable virtual and real-world contact details;
what's more you can Google me an get a lengthy account of my past activities,
and if you want to get really geeky you can resolve my digitally signed emails
against my digital signature on my web site to prove they originate from me,
and check with the domain registry that the web site containing my work is
operated by me too.
In contrast you throw your polemics from an anonymous email address, using a
name that, when Googled, only turns up a "white african" person posting on the
BNP message boards and a Yahoo Group that promotes a "London Party and
Cultural Guide to African, Brazilian, Latin American and Caribbean Events
So, who are you Mr Zouk?; and who funds your work? Give us your track record,
and evidence of your research.
What I think I can appreciate is that you are very fearful that modern society
isn't all it's cracked up to be. That's very positive; you, like many others,
feel in your gut that the present economic system is deeply flawed. But in your
rejection of ecological restrictions on human development you're grasping at
straws that will not solve the problems you perceive to exist. If anything,
they would, if they were true, make our situation a whole lot worse.
"We are not for names, nor men, nor titles of Government,
nor are we for this party nor against the other but we are
for justice and mercy and truth and peace and true freedom,
that these may be exalted in our nation, and that goodness,
righteousness, meekness, temperance, peace and unity with
God, and with one another, that these things may abound."
(Edward Burrough, 1659 - from 'Quaker Faith and Practice')
Paul's book, "Energy Beyond Oil", is out now!
For details see http://www.fraw.org.uk/ebo/
Read my message board, "Ecolonomics", at:
Paul Mobbs, Mobbs' Environmental Investigations
3 Grosvenor Road, Banbury OX16 5HN, England
tel./fax (+44/0)1295 261864
email - mobbsey at gn.apc.org
website - http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/index.shtml
public key - http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/mobbsey-2010.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Diggers350