Talk:Free energy

message: 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)
thread_title:  reverted edit to article by IP editor. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: what is "parallel structure" on this disambiguation page? 93.86.201.173 (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Read WP:V and stop quoting WP:essays. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Read the top of this section again. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have references for my claim. You only have few wiki articles. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

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

text: and here is a book search  and   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.201.173 (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  in the realm of... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Variational free energy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  gibb'sfreeenergy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Restore link to Nikola Tesla experiments 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Restored "in pseudoscience"