is free energy a threat to america's future.?

Question

let me first say that free energy is real and possible and i would explain it but you can just as easily find the info on your own. my question is one of deeper thought and i hope only serious responders answer. with america's economy being dependent on oil and fossil fuels would the advent of free energy signal the fall of the latest super-power. free energy, which would nearly instantly make every one richer by reducing the costs of absolutely everything hinder the progress of a capitalistic economy. would it make the nations of the world more equal, would it end wars over oil and natural resources. would it end the farce of hydrogen cars of the future-it takes a barrel of oil to make a barrel of hydrogen. wouldn't we all be better off for it.

p.s. can we learn to have compassion for the lives around us and learn to accept each other for who and what we are. we are all allowed a finite amount of time on this earth in these bodies and it seems we spend an awful lot of time wasted.

Cold Fusion. In March 1989, two Chemists from the University of Utah announced that they had produced atomic fusion reactions in a simple tabletop device. Not only has excess heat production been repeatedly documented, but also low energy atomic element transmutation has been catalogued, involving dozens of different reactions! This technology definitely can produce low cost energy.
Super-Efficient Electrolysis. Water can be broken into Hydrogen and Oxygen using electricity. Standard chemistry books claim that this process requires more energy than can be recovered when the gases are recombined. This is true only under the worst case scenario. When water is hit with its own molecular resonant frequency, using a system developed by Stan Meyers and again recently by Xogen Power, Inc., it collapses into Hydrogen and Oxygen gas with very little electrical input. more amazing is the fact that a special metal alloy was patented by Freedman in 1957 that spontaneously breaks water into hydro

Answer 1

Excuse me for having a rudimentary understanding of the laws of physics, but I have serious issues with the concept of "perpetual energy". Even if we get the cost of energy production to be so low as to be trivial, it would still cost something.

Remember, Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted.

But lets assume for a moment that you have figured something out which knocks every physicist since Isaac Newton flat on his butt. What then?

Well, I'd hate to be a boring economist about it, but the simple matter is that life would go on, much more productively, albiet without any sort of energy production industry. Energy would become like air, something whose ubiquity we barely even notice. Overall production would be increased as the general population now saves a dramatic percentage of their costs. Electric, A/C, plumbing, gas, all of these things would vanish. Transportation companies now enjoy huge margins as a major chunk of their operating costs simply vanish.

Eventually, as we further master this technology, the production of anything would simply become a matter of space. Vast outer space arcologies would be feasible, built around a huge perpetual energy generator. Humans would become immortal, even surviving the death of the universe, as they can simply create the energy they need without having to resort to anything fancy like stars or planets for their needs.

In other words
The Winners: the little guy
The Losers: the fat-cat energy tycoons

Fanciful to be sure, but then again, so is the concept of energy creation

Answer 2

Me, I'm all for free energy. I do believe that it would be a major benefit to humanity because it would eliminate the need for fossil fuels, thus rendering the hydraulic despotism of the oil industry obsolete.

Unfortunately, although our own capitalistic economic system has flaws, it is the least flawed out of the world economical system, and J.P. Morgan told Nikola Tesla that free energy would inevitably cause permanent damage. You see, Tesla had conceived the idea that energy could be transmitted from various power stations or the ground (being generated by geothermal energy and other sources such as atmospheric electromagnetism); Morgan brought down the roof, so to say, when he told Tesla that there would be no way to charge for it. A valid argument, although it's a little cruel in its own way. Now, granted, a flat fee may have been feasible under the circumstances, but Morgan and his contemporaries felt threatened by the concept; it was, naturally, imperative that the concept be invalidated as soon as possible.

However, I do agree that something needs to be done in regards to what we euphemistically refer to as contemporary energy production; heck, I even wrote a book about it, as have many others. But until there's a nation-wide revolt against the current establishment (notice how I avoided writing administration), it won't happen right away. Still, I do have some hope that someone will figure it out someday and implement such a system without being sacrificed for it, like Prometheus was...

Answer 3

Free energy isn't a threat to America or any other nation. What it threatens is greed, corruption and the power structure, not just in the US but globally.... How the money flows, to whom, where and how often!

For over 100 years there has been numerous ways to create free energy, available on a global scale. Its been made certain that those forms of energy and how they're produced is kept secret and/or destroyed.

Nice concept there buddy but human nature will always override and prevent truly great things from happening and being put into place for the benefit of all. Like the splitting of the atom, the powers that be will always use such gifts for stupid things like bombs and as a means of getting or keeping power.

Answer 4

Men would abuse it, if it's free. It should actually cost much more, like in Europe. They are way ahead of the US conserving energies, because they have to. Men is morally weak, corrupt, abusive, greedy and power hungry by nature, its a survival instinct, left over from the cave men.
A new generation would have to grow up first, educated by example, to be selfish in a more long term thinking way, supporting ideals for a stronger community. Marx had that idea, but even that was abused by Stalin, giving communism a bad name.

Answer 5

I hear a lot about free energy but I see none of it.

If you think the goal of a capitalist economy is to keep most of the population poor and beholding to those who control energy then I guess you could see it as a threat.

To me the economy that is based on inequities is more threatening that anything else.

love and blessings Don

Answer 6

I think not.
Free energy would be slow to take hold and would harm those whose business in the production of energy and energy giving products.
There is a cost involved to obtain "free" energy so those who get it will have to be able make the initial investment to pay for it. Competition would drive the cost of energy down - that would be another good thing.

Answer 7

nothing is free once we got a drink of water for free now their is no fountains and only bottled water someone would find a way to make a buck and the price for our stuff would just keep going up .their is no hope for mankind we are all domed to repeat our past mistakes because we thank we no better then our parents it is the pride in a man that causes his problums

Answer 8

No it isn't. Just have to figure a way that the power (not the energy type) brokers could gain control of it so they could make it not free.

Answer 9

>it seems we spend an awful lot of time wasted.<
Yes, and this rant is one of them. You don't give a clue as to where this "free energy" is going to come from, so put up or shut up.