• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When will we using 'free-energy' devices?

Indeed, when? Because there are plenty 'free energy' or 'over-unity' devices and other things, like motors running on water, etc.

Before some physics weirdo comes over to point out to some stupid 'laws', In these things mostly enery is taken from the surrouindings. So it is 'free' in that way,

The Genius Tesla was working on free electricity for all. He was killed as other inventors are.

O my, there is so much surpressed it is unbelievable.

Anyway, I hope we will soon see the uses of these free-energy or over-uinity devices!

You spent like a day and a half ranting that gravity was fake because it's free energy, and said free energy is impossible.
 
ani-mm_popcorn_panda.gif
 
I didn't mean to insult you here. If I did I am sorry. But if you really mean what you wrote I really find that very naive,

That is not an insult, it is just not the world works that way.

Again, sorry if you feel insulted. I mean not do any harm, But I do describe what I think.

He asked for sources and you called him naive. Asking for sources is the opposite of naive. Naive would be just believing whatever some dude named Pin dAr says on an internet forum without question. Why would anyone do that? You, of course, are a level-headed person swayed only by evidence and proof. So why do you ask other people to just shut up and accept your word?
 
You spent like a day and a half ranting that gravity was fake because it's free energy, and said free energy is impossible.

No, I didn't wrote that OR yopu didn't understand.

I wrote it was in conflict with the 'science' of 'physics' accordin to which 'free energy' isn impossible.

But you also haven't read OR understood my first posting in which I explained the term 'free' and that wasn't in the sense

you mean here.


But's it's a nice try.
 
No, I didn't wrote that OR yopu didn't understand.

I wrote it was in conflict with the 'science' of 'physics' accordin to which 'free energy' isn impossible.

But you also haven't read OR understood my first posting in which I explained the term 'free' and that wasn't in the sense

you mean here.


But's it's a nice try.

Over-unity is "free" energy. That's what it means.
You don't even understand your own pseudoscience.
 
If you go with the 'green energy' term rather than the 'free energy' term, the response is quite different.

Once the 'green energy' technologies can compete in the marketplace with the traditional energy sources on equal footing, i.e. no government life support, including price, then the green energy technologies will have a significant up take.

But realistically, not until then.

If you consider the cost to the environment as well as monetary cost to the producer, then green technology absolutely does compete with traditional energy sources.
 
If you consider the cost to the environment as well as monetary cost to the producer, then green technology absolutely does compete with traditional energy sources.

I can't speak to whether that's true or not. How do you place a dollar amount on a cost to the environment? Probably emotionally based arguments could run that estimated number up way beyond any and all reasonable or acceptable expectations.

The market itself has to perceive that the green technologies are competitive to the existing energy technologies, as it's the market that's supposed to spend their money to buy those green technology products and services. If the market doesn't believe that the green technologies are cost effective, or worth it, the market isn't going to spend that money on those technologies.

The size and dollar spending of the market far outweighs any possible justifiable green technology life support to green technologies that any government can provide, at least without breaking the bank either in the short run or the long run, so the government shouldn't do it; it shouldn't distort the market.
 
indeed, when? Because there are plenty 'free energy' or 'over-unity' devices and other things, like motors running on water, etc.

Before some physics weirdo comes over to point out to some stupid 'laws', in these things mostly enery is taken from the surrouindings. So it is 'free' in that way,

the genius tesla was working on free electricity for all. He was killed as other inventors are.

O my, there is so much surpressed it is unbelievable.

Anyway, i hope we will soon see the uses of these free-energy or over-uinity devices!

tanstaafl
 
I can't speak to whether that's true or not. How do you place a dollar amount on a cost to the environment? Probably emotionally based arguments could run that estimated number up way beyond any and all reasonable or acceptable expectations.

The market itself has to perceive that the green technologies are competitive to the existing energy technologies, as it's the market that's supposed to spend their money to buy those green technology products and services. If the market doesn't believe that the green technologies are cost effective, or worth it, the market isn't going to spend that money on those technologies.

The size and dollar spending of the market far outweighs any possible justifiable green technology life support to green technologies that any government can provide, at least without breaking the bank either in the short run or the long run, so the government shouldn't do it; it shouldn't distort the market.

Can you place a dollar amount on cancer?
 
Back
Top Bottom