Talk:Free energy

reverted edit to article by IP editor.

[1]

As a courtesy, above was the edit. The editor had attempted, apparently, to add a link to the currently blacklisted lenr-canr.org, at Cold fusion and then posted a whole series of complaints to related articles about alleged censorship. This was the only article edit, I reverted it because it's clearly inappropriate. --Abd (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(lenr-canr.org doesn't have general "free energy" information, it's about low-energy nuclear reactions, which aren't "free energy," the energy, if LENR is real, would be the normal and known energy of nuclear reactions, which release energy from mass conversion, not from any of the hypothetical forms described. So this was completely inappropriate, and if there is a specific page to be cited there, then it could be considered whitelisting that link.) --Abd (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

in the realm of...

somebody's interpretation, there exists free energy suppression pseudoscience, while in the realm of reality, there exists free energy suppression conspiracy 93.86.201.173 (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy theory about a pseudoscientific belief. Both terms are accurate. The above section refers to science, so for parallel structure we refer to pseudoscience below. A conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory is just redundant and pointless. DreamGuy (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

what is "parallel structure" on this disambiguation page? 93.86.201.173 (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Read wp:CONSENSUS, then wp:BRD, then wp:WAX. Very important principles here that you still need to learn. Did you use to have a named account? NJGW (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:V and stop quoting WP:essays. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That's good, you just keep avoiding the real issues. Like telling us which banned former user you really are. NJGW (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

HAhahahaha, you are really funny. Can't accept the facts, like those presented in the first sentence above, and now you are moving to ad hominem. good job! 93.86.201.173 (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

So I guess we'll be archiving this soon, since you don't seem to be saying anything beyond "I don't like those essays". NJGW (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the top of this section again. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I see two google searches. What's your point? You can't just say "Google, so I'm right." NJGW (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have references for my claim. You only have few wiki articles. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) You have blogs and youtube videos. Refs look like this. NJGW (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

you mean this and this? 93.86.201.173 (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've learned what an RS looks like. You are a quick study. Now, what's your point? NJGW (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

putting aside your petty comment, my point is that free energy suppression is a conspiracy theory much more than it is a pseudoscience 93.86.201.173 (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Free energy is a term sometimes used to refer to a pseudoscientific concept. This page is called "Free energy". I think you might be looking for Free energy suppression. Oh sweet, we already have a disambiguation page right here that tells you that if you're interested in the pseudoscience concept of "free energy", you should look at the conspiracy theory article for more info. Pretty neat how these disambig pages work. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of it. NJGW (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

and here is a book search [2] and [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.201.173 (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

two new lines

These items should be placed in the disambig.

In science:

• Renewable energy and machines that produce energy from natural resources

In pseudoscience:

• Perpetual motion and machines that produce more energy then they consume

J. D. Redding 11:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This disambig page is being guarded by people that will not allow improvements. If there is a tag to note this on the disambiguation page it should be placed on the page.

As stated by Dougweller, 5 other editors edit warring against information that should be place in the disambiguation.

J. D. Redding 16:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In what way is renewable energy "free"? Verbal chat 16:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Energy with no or negligible feedstock cost, including solar power, telluric power, water power, and wind power. J. D. Redding 18:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If Renewable energy lists "free energy" as a synonym, then we should include it this disambig page. If it doesn't, then we shouldn't. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Because of people that have a POV and remove such references. Such as seen here in a simple disambig page. So don't try to justify it's removal here because it's been removed there. Circular reasoning and fallacious. J. D. Redding 20:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Reddi, you have violated WP:3RR, back off or you'll be blocked. I have not seen renewable energy described as "free energy" -- as Yilloslime says, we would need sources to justify this. Looie496 (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A simple look at books should give you the answer.

Example: Craddock, David. Renewable Energy Made Easy: Free Energy from Solar, Wind, Hydropower, and Other Alternative Energy Sources. Ocala, Fla: Atlantic Pub. Group, 2008.

This is where WP fails because of POV of editors. J. D. Redding 20:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) (PS., I have not violated anything.)

1. One non-notable how-to book which uses the phrase to describe ways to avoid paying power companies (and then doesn't even use the phase in the book) does not make your point. Invisible Man (novel) begins with another way of attaining "free energy".
2. The phrase was removed from 'Renewable energy' because you couldn't come up with RS sources. Pretending that exchange never happened is fallacious.
3. 7 reverts in 2 days sounds like edit warring to me. NJGW (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A specific phrase. This is a reliable source. There are other reliable and notable books that use this phrase. "When an article title could refer to several things, it is necessary to provide links or a disambiguation page so that readers typing in that title can quickly navigate to the article that interests them." Does a bias prevent editors from looking them up? Probably ...

It was removed. Did it have time to be referenced? No ...

POV rules as to the removal of a disambiguation not to mention other articles. J. D. Redding 21:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• "A specific phrase" should there also be a link to "stolen energy"?
• "This is a reliable source." Not quite... wp:RS: "This page in a nutshell: Information in Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and articles should be based primarily on third-party sources."
• "There are other reliable and notable books that use this phrase." Please do share.
• "Did it have time to be referenced?" YES! You've been after this entry since 2004... how many years do you need to find the ref? Get over it, please. NJGW (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

interesting how reliable sources didnt satisfy you in above section. [4] 79.101.174.192 (talk) 07:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The first 10 of those all are "free energy conspiracy" or "free energy suppression" proving our ponit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

?? i am missing something. what point is that? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Renewable energy does not belong in this disambiguation, nor does "stolen energy" (whatever that may mean.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

o.k. i was pointing out to what seems to be a double standard when looking at reliable sources. see above section. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Variational free energy

It may be appropriate to include a link to variational free energy as used in Variational Bayesian methods. This quantity is not a thermodynamic free energy but is ubiquitous in information theory and statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.66.144 (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

gibb'sfreeenergy

how gibb's free energy differ fromhelmholtz free energy ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.62.155 (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Restore link to Nikola Tesla experiments

Jeh undid revision 554911186 by Timpo (talk) Such details don't belong on a DA page, and link is broken in any case!

I agree. The reason for this edit was that I was asked why Wikipedia 'suppressed' info about free energy sources (to make utilities rich etc...) The 'free' Tesla mentioned relates to the scientific rather than the economic meaning of that word (promoted by conspiracy theorists). Of course the perpetual motion entry goes some way in this direction, but I wanted to make that distinction (and show that Wikipedia is moderated, but not 'manipulated').Timpo (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand work on Tesla theory continues, but could find no reliable reference. Your comments on how best to address (as a NPOV entry) what seems to be a growing urban myth about a 'secret' free energy supply would be welcome. Timpo (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"Free energy" may also refer to any of a number of other "unproven" (to put it politely) ideas. We don't list them all on a DA page. Tesla's idea, which is not only unproven but wildly unlikely to work, does not deserve a special place here. Reverted. Jeh (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. If it belongs anywhere, the Tesla stuff belongs on the Tesla page, or (if one believes there is a conspiracy) on the suppression page. A few years ago, all of these pages became clearing houses for wacky claims. We have to remain vigilant to prevent that from happening again. KaturianKKaturian 15:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Restored "in pseudoscience"

It's not "in engineering"; "pseudoscience" may not be completely correct, but it's referred as "pseudoscience" by all scientists, not just "skeptics". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of Free energy

Whilst not making claims whether free energy is plausible I notice Wikipedia doesn't actually contain a definition for free energy, I think that The meaning of free energy is "generally defined as energy that comes from resources that are not fuels and which are not naturally replenished on a timescale. has anybody got anything to add? I think these are the parameters and would be standard of free energy should it actually exist? Benjo666 (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you or any other editor thinks the meaning is. WP is supposed to contain only information that is verifiable via reliable sources, not editors' opinions. If you want to write about your own ideas about "Free energy", or anything else, please do that on your own blog.

Specifically re "Free energy", that is a term with several different meanings. As such the Free energy page (the one above this talk page) is a "disambiguation" page; with links to the pages that discuss each of the various meanings, and just enough info on each to let you select among them. In this case, none of these is "primary" enough to note as such on this page, so we would not put one specific definition in the page lede. What you're talking about is covered under existing articles linked from this page in the "Pseudoscience" section, including Perpetual motion and Free energy suppression.

Also note your phrase "should it actually exist"... the verifiability policy pretty much precludes writing much on Wikipedia about things that don't actually exist.

You might also gain some insight from reading the earlier discussions here on this talk page.

While you're here, let me also point out that simply re-adding your content after you've been reverted is the beginning of edit warring. Please don't do that. It was correct for you to bring it to the talk page, just next time, do that after the first revert. Please see WP:BRD. Thank you. Jeh (talk) 07:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

U have no idea Jeh. I never said free energy existed i simply defined it's perimeters and give it a meaning. You Obviously don't have much of an opinion on the subject do U kid. Isn't this a discussion or talk page or do u just say what ever sounds good? don't tell me to come on here and express my ideas then tell me the go get my own blog when u don't like my opinion it's a bit hypocritical and unprofessional. Benjo666 (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

And i wasn't making wild claims i was looking for discussion and input that's the purpose the the site and the editing process. Benjo666 (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

(sorry for the mis-click moments ago). This talkage is indeed for discussing improvements to the article. Articles need to follow WP policies and guidelines. You can suggest your ideas for improvements, but other(s) appear to dispute them for purposes of including in the article based on citing policies/guidelines. That's the extent of "our ideas" we can bring here. I agree with others that you seem to be defining the term in your own way, which is fine for your own purposes, but your def/idea as you are saying it fails to be suitable for the article--it's already there in a way, and not viable to be beyond that based on policies/guidelines. The ideas you are proposing are not even new to this talkpage, so you should definitely read the previous discussions on these same issues so we don't have to re-hash (and because unless you have something new to add, they'll just come to the same conclusion, which is what's in the article now). DMacks (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the whole article is a bit of a throw off and you's have hijacked the meaning for your own purposes . All this propaganda and negative talk about Pseudoscience and conspiracy theories and your constant talk about rules instead of the subject is childish! and you claim to be an expert? no body has had any input or thought about my statement thankyou! I don't want it to be my meaning i was just trying to make a start. Benjo666 (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I can verify that if free energy existed that it would have to come from resources that are not fuels and which are not naturally replenished on a timescale everyone can Benjo666 (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That's just it. WP is not "by experts writing what they know", but just average people writing what they find in reliable sources. There are lots of meanings of the term, and they all appear to be listed...each with a link to an article (or several) specifically about that aspect or meaning. And each in keeping with what reliable sources (regardless of what we think about that sense) say about them. And even if we (and reliable sources) think an idea is nonsense, we report it because reliable sources cared enough to report it themselves (and we call it nonsense if reliable sources do). DMacks (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Benjo, this article is not about "Free energy" as you define it. In fact this is not even an article, it is a disambiguation page. It is merely a directory to other articles, each of which is about some aspect of something that is called "Free energy" or a variation of that term. So a definition of "Free energy" such as you want to insert (which is relevant to only one interpretation of the term) simply doesn't belong here, except as necessary for someone to choose among the articles listed - which we already have. (Nor would a more complete description of e.g. "Gibbs free energy" belong here.) Nobody on WP has "hijacked" anything, all of the meanings listed here are well-accepted in the literature and described thoroughly in their respective articles. Jeh (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I know nobody from the scientific community or anybody that's know what there talking about has see this discussion stop lying. There is not any point in putting up sources for use to mindlessly rubbish that's all u too have done use are conmen and fakes. I'm over talking with Wikipedia for such a complex subject why would they have u 2 dumb individuals in charge of the editing process i though wikipedia had higher standards. I don't accept this page at face value your Hijacking the Meaning for yourselves. and still no input on the subject u 2 still keep referring to "others" work instead of your own. and there not my idea's there ideas that stem from wikipedia actually i just opposed them and expanded but again why name sources for your bias views, i can see what your trying to do with me. I wont throw pearls to pigs! It's a pitty u 2 have managed to lower me to your level of intelligence on this subject atm Benjo666 (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC) ya don't like my opinion so i'm sent a Trogen horse nice work

I don't think you understand what's going on here at all. Please read a few of the articles linked from this page, for example Gibbs free energy. Jeh (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Jeh is correct. Outside of the actual scientific definitions listed on the page, the phrase "Free energy" is indeed used extensively in the context of alleged new energy sources, and we all "kinda sorta know" what it means; however, there is in fact no universally accepted scientific or even colloquial definition of the term, so Wikipedia's editors cannot simply invent one. I know it's frustrating, because I've actually given public lectures on "Free Energy Scams", and I always have to start by giving my personal definition, which of course can't appear in Wikipedia (unless maybe I finally finish that darn book I keep trying to write).KaturianKaturian 18:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)