A Revolutionary Competition: Over Unity Free Energy
by Dag Andersen
Dag Andersen (Norwegian, born 1947) is a political scientist, freelance advisor, lecturer, and author of The 5th Step: The Way to a New Society (2007).
It is likely that this revolution will happen technologically – the new paradigm will probably get a breakthrough after physical evidence compels it forward. But it is very difficult for inventors, whose ideas blow apart the framework for established science and dogmas, to be taken seriously. Scientific dogmas create taboos, with the result that entire areas of research and enquiry are excluded from mainstream science and from regular sources of funding. There are also strong economic interests related to established technology, such as those supporting the oil industry.
Rupert Sheldrake has a suggestion, in his recent book The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry (2012), which I would support.
Many people claim to have made devices that produce ‘free’ energy using unconventional means. They claim their devices tap into the zero-point energy or quantum-vacuum field, drawing on unlimited reserves of free power. Others claim to have found new ways of using electrical and magnetic forces. A search on Internet for ‘free energy devices’ or ‘over unity devices’ gives thousands of hits. (The term ‘over unity’ refers to the ability of a machine to produce more energy than is put into it).
Sceptics claim that all these devices are impossible or fraudulent, and some of them may indeed be fraudulent. But, as Sheldrake asks, can we be sure that they all are? Perhaps some of these devices really work, and really can tap into new sources of energy.
Sheldrake’s idea is that this is an area in which offering a prize might provide the best way forward. A prize for the most effective ‘over unity’ energy device might change the situation in energy research dramatically. He says, ‘In fair tests, conducted in an open-minded spirit of enquiry, some devices may indeed produce more energy than is put into them from conventional sources. Or perhaps the contest will reveal that no such device exists, and no one will win the prize, giving scientific conservatives the pleasure of saying, “I told you so”.’
The upside is sky high, the downside is very small and the process could be fun anyway, so, why not?