Important links:
Eric's Free Energy Test FAQ Page
 ERIC'S OPEN OFFER TO VALIDATE CLAIMS OF FREE ENERGY
Free Energy Email list  -this allows you to get fresh information.  SeeArchives
 Eric's Page examining Dennis Lee's amazing claims of Better World Technology
 PhACT-FAQ on Heat Based Free Energy Prepared by Tom Napier
 Review of  CETI's upscale free energy by Milton Rothman
 History of Perpetual Motion and Free Energy Machines
A skeptical look at JOE NEWMAN's 2 decades of Free Energy Claims
 free energy with wires and magnets  - can you come out ahead?
http://

Do you think it is possible for their to be a machine that produces clean
virtually unlimited energy?
I believe that maybe someday, there can be a machine that fuses deuterium and tritium to make near unlimited energy for near zero fuel cost- but it would take a lot of technology and the engine would be costly.  Maybe there could be a way to have cold fusion in which case it could be much easier and sooner. (some advanced physicists say cold fusion is impossible - I'm not qualified to follow that whole debate)
    I personally like fission reactors because I think they are less dangerous than fossil plants - I'm pro-nuclear BECAUSE I'm an environmentalist.  My state of PA was clear cut over 100 years ago for wood for energy for iron plants and stuff - now power generation is much more efficient and cleaner but not quite where we would like.  I tend to think that continued slow progress will go at about the same rate.    Of course, I would love to be the first skeptic to be openly convinced via proper proof other wise.

Why do people get so into free energy?
People used to try magical spells to fly (there were many reports of people succeeding) - now that we have airplanes, people have given up on that "holy grail" because they accept that the main stream scientific implementation of the magical dream is good enough.  There also were people working on the holy grail of turning lead into gold - many rumors of success there too.  There is an almost magical boldness with people trying to solve a "holy grail problem" that has eluded thousands of others for decades.  I confess having spent around 100 hours trying to solve some holy grail mathematical problems.  In the long run, our gene pool is well served by the thousands of people slamming their heads into intractable problems - only because some such people occasionally take on important problems which do have solutions.
   Free Energy has been a holy grail effort all over the world for hundreds of years.  - people from research scientists on government grants down to garage tinkers have been trying lots of stuff.  They all want a quick step that would be a huge leap beyond everything available today.  It would be neat for a single individual to find such a solution - but the last 30 years of technological progress seems to be mostly from well funded large corporate teams of researchers and engineers.

Don't you think there are some valid forms of free energy?
Sure, none of them are as exciting as zero point energy or machines that would harness latent heat in the air - but I list a number of conventional (albeit expensive ) ways to get energy with no fuel at:   real forms of free energy

Don't you realize how bad we need FE?
I agree it could make an incredible world change - but that doesn't mean it has to happen. The path to reduce the damage wrought by energy production may be a long slow one.  Many FE people spend a lot of time just begging the question.

Don't you understand that powerful forces could gain from keeping FE from people?
Some powerful forces would be hurt by an advent of FE - but far more powerful and more numerous segments of society would be helped by cheaper energy.  I'd guess if it happened about 15% of the world would be somewhat hurt at first by free energy, but the rest would have incredible gains.  The only big losers would be Arab nations - for anyone else it would be a net gain.  Sure, the oil industry would then only get oil to make plastic and stuff - but most industries are consumers not producers and would have huge proffits.

Is there a conspiracy in the world of FE?
Absolutely, I see powerful people like Dennis Lee, Joe Newman and Gene Mallove attempt to subvert or bury the voice of skeptics like me.  There are people making big money directly or indirectly off people being suckered.  When someone like me comes in and starts asking questions, people get upset.  I get a lot of hate mail for asking what should be reasonable questions.  My urls get knocked off the search engines, my posts are subtly dropped from bulletin boards, my offers of writing articles are rejected, I've been banned from some radio call in shows. People have threatened to sue me.  Some FE publications make money from advertisements promoting false claims - I can understand them being threatened by my voice.  Yes, I have first hand experienced the conspiracy and it's not what you have been taught but it is scary.

What about Cold Fusion Claims?
A fellow by the name of Storms is one of the better proponents and he has never said that cold fusion is a "free energy," "zero point" or "over-unity" phenomenon. Neither has anyone else. To the contrary, numerous
experiments have shown evidence of nuclear effects and nuclear products commensurate with the energy, particularly helium.  I was told by Jed Rothwell, "I see no honest effort on your part to present a balanced discussion of cold
fusion. You make no distinction between cold fusion, fraudulent claims, and
crackpot claims."

I did have CETI reject my sincere offer to directly measure one of their cells.  But still,
I don't wish to lump them in with the likes of Dennis Lee or Joe Newman. I agree that
"most scientists consider cold fusion a form of crackpot science, but on the
other hand well over 1,000 papers on cold fusion have been published by major
laboratories like Los Alamos in the peer reviewed literature. Unlike the
other inventors and scientists listed on this page, cold fusion scientists
have never claimed that the effect is 'over-unity' or that it violates any
known laws of physics. They say it is a nuclear effect, a claim based on
conventional nuclear evidence such as tritium, helium, radioactive species
from transmutations, and so on. Opponents say this evidence comes from poorly
done experiments, and they point to the deficit of neutrons, which would be
observed if cold fusion works the same way as plasma fusion." There are
legitimate laboratories  working in this field. For example:
the Los Alamos tritium experiments now underway.  I admit to not
being an expert in this area.  I'm not strong on chemistry or nuclear
effects, but I do know how to measure claims of excess heat and openly
offer to help do so.