The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesKevin Barrett Podcasts
Josh Mitteldorf on Suppression of "Free Energy"
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In his new article “Energy from the Vacuum” scientist Josh Mitteldorf observes: “There are persistent stories of people who invent perpetual motion machines only to disappear or to die mysteriously or become insane.” After looking at the physics of various proposed free energy technologies, he notes: “Many people have speculated that such technologies are not only possible, but that they have been developed and deployed by an elite group of powerful individuals or for advanced military applications, but kept secret from the public…Free energy could threaten the world’s reserve currency. In addition, the same ZPE technologies that could run our cars and heat our houses without pollution might also be converted too easily to make mega-bombs that no one wants to think about. The fact that these technologies are bubbling up in the mainstream scientific literature suggests that something is afoot.”

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Science • Tags: Conspiracy Theories, Energy 
Hide 27 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. TG says:

    Color me skeptical, but even ‘free’ unlimited energy will not answer our problems.

    The development of chemical fertilizer, and the green revolution that exploited it to the full, created a vast explosion of food production. And yet, as the rich keep demanding that people breed like cattle, as populations double and quadruple etc.etc., increasingly even that bounty has been consumed. Many places today, like India and Pakistan, are now crushed to the limits of subsistence and the fertility rate is low because people are just so miserably poor that they are physically unable to have more than two children. The physical standard of living in much of the third world is lower than late medieval Europe (even though fake GDP numbers can look high).

    So suppose we have ‘free’ unlimited energy? Fine. And the rich – through both direct means and indirectly, through propaganda – double the population to 16 billion. Then 32 billion. Then 64 billion. etc. Ok we have energy. But how do we get rid of the heat of all those industrial processes needed to keep all those people alive? And if we solve that problem – in just a few thousand years, all matter in the universe will be made of human flesh. Then what?

    Exponential growth is just too powerful and given time it can and will overwhelm ANY technology. The solution is to stop the rich from breeding us like cattle, we’d have all the energy we need. But that would cost the rich profits and power, and that will never do.

  2. Great show and interesting topic.
    Fwiw -In my personal experience the -seemingly so pressing these days-real problem and question about Energy/Environmental Impact/ Technology is really opposit than usually presented and infact lies already in the presentation itself.

    Namely it being done by 99.999% people who have a purely theoretical/journalistical approach and have no practical mechanical skills or experience or even enough interest/will to develop the latter.

    The topic of Free/ Alternativ Energy is usually just -in the end mostly useless-written and oral talk on screens instead of simply shutting up and welding/drilling in the workshop and learning hands-on what works, what does not and afterwards sharing the practical results.

    After studying the topic for some years and now being in the process of converting my own house in the same way (solar hydrogen/ammonia) as these fellows (though mine being far smaller scale ) have done already long ago:

    1. Mike Stritzkis -New Jersey- hydrogen house/fueling station:

    2. Hans Nilssons -Sweden- hydrogen house/fueling station:

    my fascination is that the most interesting phenomenon of it all is really (beside the fact that governments/industries of course proof time and again that they have zero interest in really implementing any change/new systems) how easy it is actually to develop and build fully independant and sustainable Energy- Systems and how little people are willing to really learn about themselves, let alone develop skills to put it into practice.

    While of course the endless babbling in politics and media (and unfortunately populus for the most part as well..) of the “need to find solution”, ” need to change” goes oon daily, maybe a sad telltale sign of how both corrupt and impractical our Service/IT -dominated societies have become..?

    If just every fourth (and not as it is today only about 1 in several thousands…) of those instead of talking would weld and fit in his/her garage/workshop or practically support others and firms that offer to do it for them, the sought/ screamed for change had been achieved long ago.
    All that being just me and my personal experience of course…

    If interesting to anyone-examples I found helpful where people are sharing their own hands on practical results:

    3. James Robeys Kentucky Waterfuel Museum (and podcast)

    4.Patrick Kelleys Encyclopedia of worldwide claimed/presented ZPE/Free Energy Devices:

    If anyone here has practical experience with building/ constructing above mentioned devices/house system would definitely interest me to hear what they have learned, would recommend.


    • Replies: @Charles Hoyenski
  3. @TG

    “The development of chemical fertilizer, and the green revolution that exploited it to the full, created a vast explosion of food production. And yet, as the rich keep demanding that people breed like cattle, as populations double and quadruple etc.etc., increasingly even that bounty has been consumed.”

    Fair point. Though I am wondering at the same time

    A) If there maybe is another side to the picture as well-
    Not sure where you live, but if -like me- in Europe or North America or pretty any of the socalled “ countries ” then , purely factually:

    1. It is our very countries that have mostly implemented all those “new” green revolution inventions you mention, while the main part of the world
    (35%-70% according to
    actually has not and is still fed by same small scale peasant farming as hundreds/thousands of years ago.

    2. All the main population growth of the world paradoxically
    (according to
    comes from exactly those latter parts of the world, which despite having a limited benefit from those indirectly via f.ex. food aid from countries, having overall least implemented those new inventions, while all “our” countries actually here are either stagnant or decreasing in population.

    Or in other words while to a certain point/degree population growth is a sign of improving conditions (see Europes population history f.ex.) in its uncontrolled/stoppable form it is usually always a telltale sign of the exact opposit, namely impoverishment.

    So I wonder a bit, dont you think that maybe the black-white equation Improvement= Overpopulation is a bit simplistic at least?

    B) I wonder if youd agree that at this point the whole question what improved/ Free Energy systems on large scale would lead to or not regarding population growth on the opposit side of the planet is purely a hypothetical theoretical one, engaged in while this day- 21st of nov.2022- as every other day before and probably after at average practically consuming
    (according to the elctricity/water meter on the wall and weight of fridge-content/ wardrobe and house at home or research published f.ex. by :
    around ca. 100- 200 Kwh of Energy, ca.200 l water, 3 kg of (raw) food plus clothig and building material stuff in our actual local reality outside/inside our very doors ?

    Personally I think that first I should take practically responsibility for each of those, being my unavoidable and non-negotiable daily impact/symbiosis with my actual (local ) environment before dealing with relatively far away hypothesis.
    But all that is just me of course..

    How do you see your responsibility for your immediate consumption if one may ask ?
    -Not a trick nor rhetorical question, am simply interested in how other people think..-


    • Replies: @Kim
  4. A123 says: • Website

    Hydrocarbon extraction would pivot to feedstock for petrochemicals. Oil is worth $20-30/bbl as a raw material. Methane »» Ethane »» Ethylene »» Polyethylene would keep natural gas in production.

    Nuclear would pivot to fast neutron breeder piles to create elements that cannot be obtained naturally at a commercial price.

    There is no good reason to quash inexpensive energy technology. Would nation states shamelessly expropriate it from individual inventors? Almost certainly. However, the technology would still wind up in production.

    PEACE 😇

  5. Nikola Tesla – Limitless Energy and the Pyramids of Egypt.

    • Replies: @Carlton Meyer
  6. Kim says:
    @Lorian Effervis

    Your implication (not justified in the actual linked article) that the world’s small scale peasant farmers do not make heavy use of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides and that they are not utterly dependent on the petro-chemical industry is entirely, entirely, entirely wrong.

    I have lived among third world peasant farmers on and off for a very long time (decades), and I can assure you that the lowest peasant farmer sprays pesticides and applies fertilizers with gay abandon. Bcs he knows he would starve if he did not.

    Modern peasant farmers are also heavily dependent on the motorcycle as the workhorse of their daly life. Without the motorcycle, which they use in order to travel miles to gather grass for their beasts, they would not be able to keep goats or cows.

    Try to run a productive fishpond without modern chemicals!

    Peasant farmer technologies today are not just radically unlike what they were “hundreds of years ago”, they are very different from what they were even in 1980!

  7. anarchyst says:

    Far from being “fossil fuel”, hydrocarbons are not only plentiful but are being created by yet-unknown processes deep within the earth.
    The term “fossil fuel” was coined in the 1950s when little was known about the processes by which oil is produced. Oil is “abiotic” in nature, as even depleted oil wells are “filling back up” from deep below the earth’s surface.
    Oil interests are drilling wells at 5,000 feet, 10,000 feet, and 15,000 feet and deeper, and coming up with oil deposits way below the layers and levels where “fossils” were known to exist.
    As Russia gained much expertise in deep-well drilling and coming up with oil deposits far deeper than that of the level of “fossils”, abiotic oil at extreme depths was actually a Russian “state secret” for a long time.
    Not only that, but there are planetary bodies in which hydrocarbons are naturally occurring (without fossils).
    “Peak oil” and “fossil fuels” are discredited concepts that environmentalists and others are latching on to, in order to display their hatred of oil being a renewable resource as well as to push prices up.
    Follow the money.

    • Agree: roonaldo, Brad Anbro, werpor
    • Replies: @Old Brown Fool
  8. @TG

    How are the rich breeding us like cattle? In most Western countries the native population is declining and up only from immigrant invaders. If anything the rich are erasing and replacing Western populations. As far as being too poor to breed tell that to sub-Saharan Africa. The birth rate sub-Saharan Africa is quite high. Also there are some extremely poor countries that manage to deliberately reduce their populations like Bangladesh.

    • Agree: AlexanderEngUK
  9. dimples says:

    “Energy from the Vacuum”

    I remember reading identical articles thirty years ago. The 90s were big for this sort of thing. Not a lot has changed since then. If Dr Mitteldorf keeps plodding along he may eventually get to the secret, although it may kill him via instant karma.

  10. Just a few common-sense (and sadly, also wet blanket) general observations:

    1. Beyond all doubt, it is possible that at times great discoveries are quashed as they are a threat to the status quo. Even discounting foul play, which must happen at times, is the simple fact that science charges only slowly, grudgingly. It’s not without reason that it’s been said that science advances one funeral at a time. Not because They need to silence some upstart inventor, but more because fossilized faculty is protective of their own ideas that raised them to their positions, and naturally averse to new challenges to the Ivory Tower.

    2. Most but not necessarily all of the claims of suppressed knowledge etc. are very poorly founded. They are, most likely, little better than the inventions of fevered imaginations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

    3. Finally, it’s basic human nature to want to believe in a good story. That’s why we have myths, religions and just plain good story-tellers. The underdog or victim of faceless malevolence is a staple in our mythos. There’s also the element of the innate religious desire for a Savior, for the promise of some utopia. In this context, some magical energy source that produces no pollution and is limitless, fits the bill. The only problem is — as with most fantasies — what’s hoped for probably doesn’t exist.

    • Replies: @AlexanderEngUK
    , @dimples
    , @durd
  11. @loner feral cat

    That video explores the most valid one and I’ve seen lots written elsewhere. For those unaware, there is tremendous electricity in the upper atmosphere, perhaps you’ve noticed lightning. Tesla and others figured out how to capture this free energy. If adopted, the entire coal, natural gas, and oil industries would shut down. Would billionaires try to prevent this?

  12. @Carlton Meyer

    Freedom from the clutches of the money powers may never be possible unless those who own it are disposed of. JP Morgan cut off Tesla’s funding when the Wardencliffe project began showing results and he discovered there was no way to meter (and charge for) the energy the ‘consumer’ would get after installing a receiver for the broadcast electrical energy. It is fairly obvious that those who control the distribution of electrical energy have everything to lose if Tesla’s ideas were to become reality.

    • Replies: @dimples
  13. I think I’ll pass, thank you.

  14. Tl;dr: Free energy tech most probably doesn’t exist, but Dr Mike McCulloch’s recent theory, Quantised Inertia (QI), implies very-low-cost energy and interstellar travel are possible. DARPA has funded him to the tune of $1.3 million, results are promising.

    I looked into free energy / ZPE maybe a decade ago, and strongly concluded that it didn’t exist, although I noted that there have been anomalous results in this kind of field for a century or so, e.g., the Podkletnov gravity shielding effects of the 1990s.

    A few years ago, I came across Dr Mike McCulloch, of Plymouth University, England. His theory of Quantised Inertia (QI) implies the possibility of very low cost energy from the vacuum / quantum flux, and crucially, this is the only theory I’ve ever seen in this kind of field that is backed up by solid, published/checkable maths, (and Mike has published 26 papers in reputable journals on various, related subjects, though most of his QI papers over the last decade or so have been rejected).

    Mike was awarded $1.3 million in DARPA funding, which he’s almost finished using to demonstrate QI in the laboratory, with promising results and a forthcoming paper according to his Twitter feed.

    I’m not a mathematician or physicist, but I’d say the central insight of QI is that gravity is not a pull between physical objects as the name implies, instead, gravity is a push on physical objects from the vacuum / quantum field / ZPF. This push is manipulable.

    QI correctly predicts the bending of light around the sun, all the motions of our solar system, and, importantly, the orbits of wide binary star systems and galaxies without resorting to dark matter/energy, which no other theory does without inserting arbitrary parameters. All these predictions are in published papers.

    QI explains things like sonoluminescence and inertia. QI also predicts that very low cost energy is possible on Earth as I mentioned above, and that using QI theory we can build propellant-free spacecraft that can reach a significant fraction of the speed of light thus making interstellar travel practicable.

    If you found any of this interesting, you can follow Mike on Twitter here, and read his blog here Here’s a short TEDx talk by Mike at Plymouth University on what QI is and how it works:

  15. @Ben the Layabout

    Regarding your no. 2., I mostly agree but I’d say pretty much all the claims of suppressed knowledge are mostly unfounded.

    One thing I’ve never agreed with is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why not just apply the same standards of evidence to all claims or theories? In general, the more wrong a claim is, the less evidence it has, so that dynamic tends to naturally weed out the false claims/theories on its own.

    The most likely theory I know of that may lead to very-low-cost energy (and interstellar travel) is Quantised Inertia (QI), Dr Mike McCulloch’s theory. There’s lots of evidence for QI. Mike’s Twitter is, his blog is

  16. Or try this- If we could access the molten iron core of the Earth, we could have ‘free’ energy for about 1 billion years or until it cools off, whichever comes first. No matter how much NAC and Glycine Josh takes, he’s not going to be here for that.

    But one has to get through 30 miles of crust in most places before that can happen.

  17. Sorry, no free energy cavalry coming to the rescue. If you haven’t been preparing for life in the stone age you haven’t been paying attention.

    As a first exercise for those with limited STEM education, please do apply the concept of energy return on energy invested (EROEI) to those processes you might not fully understand or have heard in passing, it is simple accounting really.

    Lot of crude exists miles below miles deep ocean beds. Under the Arctic etc. Undiscovered (suppressed ) energy theories abound but resemble religious belief with a similar payback. Fusion energy might exist in you vacuum cleaner.

    None of it will solve the burden of 7-8 billions rapacious primates who all drink oil just to live another day.
    It’s going off a (Seneca) cliff very soon, and much if not all global and economic policy centres on this dilemma , just don’t tell the proles – they won’t understand it anyway. fusion will sort it all out. And hydrogen. And all the other cool stuff the boffins are hiding.

    Here’s a good one to remember . Barrel of oil equivalent. Energy provision of all despatched sources when matched apples to apples. Last year approx 450, 000 million used total . Of which 16 million were from wind power (which mainly runs on spare parts) , and 8 million from solar PV. ..get the scale? no free lunch there.

  18. dimples says:
    @old coyote

    I don’t agree, Tesla’s Wardenclyffe project would have been just the start of a massive experimental effort to get his electrical distribution process to work, and he knew it. Tesla himself could have been the billionaire Bill Gates of his era with cash to splash if he had not made over his 3-phase motor patents to his friend Westinghouse.

  19. dimples says:
    @Ben the Layabout

    Flying saucers don’t exist either. Yet they do, or at least the congressional committee thinks they do after viewing the classified extended footage.

  20. Anon[490] • Disclaimer says:

    Technology is a powerful means of inducing social change. The world we live in now is very different from the world of a century or two centuries ago and the biggest reason for change is technology.

    In particular the world needs new weapons technologies that are cheap, simple and extremely destructive to centralized political orders. Ever since gunpowder made its appearance large states have replaced small ones leading to the centralization of power over millions. It would be desirable to reverse this.

    Ever since Tesla there has been an undercurrent of expectation that the physical energy which can be released is orders of magnitude greater than anything actually observed. Even greater than nuclear technology. Put that kind of power in a small package, make it cheap and the world changes whether in war or in peace.

    Tesla may well have had the means to do this. He was already at odds with J. P. Morgan over alternating current power transmission when he apparently discovered a new phenomenon. The transient discharges upon startup of many electrical devices which were a major and dangerous nuisance and which industry of the time desperately wanted to suppress actually were key to new power developments.

    Tesla built devices to enhance these startup developments, made the transient effects dominant and discovered a new phenomenon on which all his later seemingly fantastic claims were based. This means that later Tesla developments had to be suppressed to save the world for the oligarchs.

    Poor people may be easily dominated, and poor technology means poor people, but that, I argue, is not the primary reason for the suppression of technology which already exists. The purpose of anti-technology movements is not just to impoverish populations but to assure that the necessary development of technologies that would quickly break the current age do not appear.

  21. To extract energy you need to exploit an energy gradient. Generally speaking, if an energy source is widely diffused, say, the different temperatures of strata in the atmosphere, then it is difficult to take advantage of any potential energy gradient. If, in other words, the thing next to this thing possesses the same energy, then there is no difference to exploit.

    Energy runs downhill. In physics and engineering, the energy of a thing is the sum of its kinetic energy and its potential energy (force produced upon it by gravity or electro/magnetic fields). Of course, the potential energy depends upon the environmental conditions. Oil has potential energy locked in its molecular structure (chemical potential energy), but it is only exploitable when combined with oxygen. Down there beneath the Earth, surrounded by oil, it has–not technically, but realistically–zero potential energy.

    We or Nature had to first pry things apart in order to utilize an energy gradient. If there is little difference between the members of a Field, then there is little likelihood of extracting usable energy from some process that manipulates those members relative to one another.

  22. durd says:
    @Ben the Layabout

    Yes, I think there are many fake devices that inventors try to put on the market to line their own pockets, but here, I believe, is a story of a working product and a storyteller who went through adverse event after adverse event to get his product out there to the public.

    It appears to have succeeded, but how many people are willing to go through this much trouble?

  23. @anarchyst

    Malthusians have been around for two hundred years and more. World’s population was less than 1 billion when they started crying wolf; now it is eight times that, but they have not even revised their viewpoints. Mankind will expand to exploit the available resources; if there are no new resources, population will stop growing, then oscillate around the capacity of the resources to sustain the population. In the past, many groups got stuck on islands; they did not improve their technology, but they did not disappear either. They reached an optimum balance that can be sustained with the available resources. This process is natural, even if humans try to breed, resources limitation would curb that population growth. But Malthusians want us to believe humans will go extinct if we exhaust all the oil and gas. No, at worst we will go back to pre-18th Century lifestyle, and population will certainly dwindle, but survive it will, certainly.

    In spite of 8 billion population, living standards for most people are like never before in history. Even if we accept that only one billion people have good standards of living, it is more than the entire population of the world in 1800. The reasons for poverty are more to do with economics, society and culture rather than with nature.

    As for the Zero Point Every, if it is proved to exist, then we are certainly living in a simulation. Because then it makes sense that ZPE is the energy needed to run the simulation. Suppose we simulate a game like the old Sim City; “people” in that game will also consume electric energy, while the monitor also will consume energy. Then ZPE is the energy used to run the “screen” for our simulation, and compared with our energy consumption, ZPE is boundless, just like our energy supply will look boundless to a sim character in Sim City. Already I read that no one exactly knows how AI works; this can be easily explained if this world is a simulation, and an update was just installed with a new feature “AI”. The sudden disappearance of magic in this world can be explained as a software patch applied to “our” simulation.

  24. There are all kinds of energy systems that could be developed, but the best one now for us is Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors. It fits our understanding of the world and is easily within our grasp and has been for the last 50 years or so.

    Reliance on hydrocarbons (oil. coal, natural gas) brings political instability and maybe even pollution problems of various sorts.

    MSRs and geothermal for now and then fusion in maybe 20-35 years.

    Easy peasy.

  25. @Lorian Effervis

    I’m not shure about “free energy per say” but as an electrical tinkerer and patented inventor, I did notice that one of the hacks (on, actually works, not shure if it’s due to entrainment of emf and a corresponding induction / amplification of standard household current sinsusoidal waveformms, but it works like this;

    Take multiple (I used three at a time), NON dimmable led lightbulbs and put them in a dimmable ceilling fan for multibulb lamp, turn them down low and “tune to a resonant frequency” by getting them just above the point where they start to blink.
    On household smart powermeters (that use hall effect sensing, not the rogowski coils on the old
    spinning dial types), you WILL see a noticeable reduction in your power bill, is this due to emf
    interference, or simply the bulbs entrain themselves and start sucking free power “from the ethers”
    as Tesla once said, not shure, but it works !

  26. Save your collective breath.

    Read the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951.

    Learn how to make fire with two sticks.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply -

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS