Talk:Free energy suppression conspiracy theory/Archive 2

message: I will delete the following statement from the article:
: It is a fundamental tenet of quantum theory that particles (specifically, particles and their complements or anti-particles) are constantly being created, literally out of vacuum. Meanwhile, other particles and anti-particles interfere with one another and are annihilated. The net result over time is zero, however at any precise instant the value may be non-zero. One idea is that if it were possible to interfere with the annihilation part of the process, a net gain of mass or energy over time could be obtained. Thus "zero-point energy" is not fringe science but rather an established part of quantum theory.
The fact that the statement is unsourced and highly controversial is enough to warrant deletion. However, I will try to explain why I think it is wrong.
The uncertainty principle states that energy can created if it is annihilated after a very short time. Mathematically,
::\Delta t \Delta E \geq \frac{\hbar}{2} .
If it were possible to "interfere with the annihilation part of the process" for even a millisecond, then \Delta E would be much smaller than the energy required to create even the tiniest particle.
--PeR 21:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting unsourced quantum physics statement 

message: It seems poorly written and has a lot of POV randomly interspersed into it. I'm going to probably make some pretty major edits to it once I'm more awake. Titanium Dragon 19:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has serious issues 

message: These should probably be integrated into the rest of the article, possibly into the introduction. I'd prefer that the introduction be split up into a real introduction, then a body section combining the rest of the intro and integrating the companies which claim to produce free energy devices and people who claim to have exposed the conspiracy. Titanium Dragon 14:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Figures 

message: http://www.phact.org/e/dennis2.html
Examining claims by Dennis Lee of UCSA BWT & ITEC that the government suppresses inventors.
This  site would be great in trying to discern the "hype" from the "right". J. D. Redding 20:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this an RS? Looks like a random web page to me. Titanium Dragon 20:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eric Krieg is known a RS in perpetual motion circles. His history was the basis of the history of perpetual motion machines article here at wikipeda (see References section). He is a founder the Philadelphia Association of Critical Thinking (PhACT). He is also a skeptic. J. D. Redding 21:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I've seen this movie before. Crackpot challenges Skeptic to reproduce his invention. Skeptic reproduces Crackpots invention, and SURPRISE!!! IT DOESN'T WORK! Crackpot then ridicules Skeptic. It's a fallacy; a lose-lose proposition. — NRen2k5 18:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory analysis

message: OK, i know this is minutae, but regarding the see also section, I think its a little cluttered and unfocused. I originally put Rudolph Diesel in there, because the circumstances surrounding his death are very similar to the common format of the guy invents free energy source and gets dissappeared rumours that circulate, and I think its totally relevant. I think Great American Streetcar Scandal is relevant because its a totally factual account of suppression of a more efficient use of energy by the energy industry. history of perpetual motion machines makes sense to me too, but this is not an article about perpetual motion per se, and the rest of the perpetual motion links belong in that article. Also, I'm not sure what Preston Tucker has to do with anything. His engine may have been a little more efficient than the standard of the time, but it didnt present anywhere near the threat to the oil industry that diesel's vegetable oil engine did. This article is about suppression, so im removing the tucker link, and replacing diesel. —popefauvexxiii 19:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The film [...] story concerns Preston Tucker's (Jeff Bridges) dream of making a safe and reliable family automobile - with technological innovations that were rather radical at the time [... the] ideas were considered revolutionary at the time, and as Tucker began to make his car a reality, the powerful Detroit automobile makers and the authorities in Washington, D.C. worked together to ruin him.
J. D. Redding 20:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, I see the suppression angle, but what does that have to do with energy? The other two links I mentioned are directly related to both. —popefauvexxiii 03:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You do realize that film is heavily fictionalized, right? The article on the actual car does not indicate it was "suppressed"; it looks a lot like a typical company that makes a bad business decision and pays for it. Titanium Dragon 15:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''See also''