Fact Check: Free energy is possible

Fact Check: Free energy is possible

Published April 9, 2025
VERDICT
False

# Free Energy is Possible: A Detailed Examination ## Introduction The claim that "free energy is possible" suggests that energy can be harnessed or g...

Free Energy is Possible: A Detailed Examination

Introduction

The claim that "free energy is possible" suggests that energy can be harnessed or generated without cost or input, often referring to concepts in physics and engineering that propose mechanisms for energy generation that defy conventional understanding. This claim has attracted interest in various scientific and engineering circles, but it also raises skepticism due to the implications it carries about energy conservation and thermodynamics.

What We Know

  1. Free Energy Principle (FEP): The Free Energy Principle, developed by Karl Friston and colleagues, posits that biological systems minimize free energy to maintain homeostasis. This principle has applications in various life sciences but does not directly imply the generation of energy without input 1.

  2. Feasibility Studies: Research has explored the feasibility of using free energy concepts in various applications, such as predicting protein stability through free energy perturbation methods. However, these studies focus on theoretical frameworks rather than practical energy generation 26.

  3. Flywheel Energy Storage: Some studies discuss the potential of flywheel systems to generate energy efficiently. While these systems can store and release energy, they do not create energy from nothing, which is a fundamental requirement for the claim of "free energy" 34.

  4. Conceptual Analyses: Various papers have analyzed the concept of free energy generators, discussing the scientific feasibility and challenges involved. However, many of these analyses remain theoretical and lack empirical validation 57.

  5. Thermodynamics: The laws of thermodynamics, particularly the first and second laws, dictate that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. Any claim of free energy must contend with these established scientific principles 89.

Analysis

The sources available present a mixed picture regarding the claim of free energy.

  • Scientific Credibility: The Free Energy Principle is a well-respected concept in theoretical biology but does not support the idea of generating energy without cost. The studies cited from PubMed and Nature are peer-reviewed and provide a solid foundation for understanding the limitations of free energy concepts in practical applications 124.

  • Potential Bias: Some sources, particularly those discussing free energy generators, may come from journals or platforms with less rigorous peer-review processes, which could affect their reliability. For instance, the International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts and similar publications may not have the same level of scrutiny as more established journals, raising questions about the validity of their claims 57.

  • Methodological Concerns: Many of the studies focus on theoretical models or simulations rather than empirical data. For example, while flywheel systems can enhance energy efficiency, they do not produce energy without input, which is a critical aspect of the free energy claim 34. Additionally, the methodologies used in these studies should be scrutinized for their ability to replicate real-world conditions.

  • Conflicts of Interest: Some authors may have vested interests in promoting free energy technologies, which could bias their findings. Transparency regarding funding sources and affiliations is crucial for assessing the reliability of their conclusions.

What Additional Information Would Be Helpful

To further evaluate the claim of free energy, additional empirical studies demonstrating practical applications of free energy generation would be beneficial. This includes:

  • Peer-reviewed experimental data showing successful implementation of free energy devices.
  • Long-term studies assessing the efficiency and sustainability of proposed free energy systems.
  • Independent verification of claims made by proponents of free energy technologies.

Conclusion

Verdict: False

The claim that "free energy is possible" is deemed false based on a thorough examination of the available evidence. Key points leading to this conclusion include the established laws of thermodynamics, which assert that energy cannot be created from nothing, and the lack of empirical data supporting the feasibility of free energy generation. While concepts like the Free Energy Principle have scientific merit in specific contexts, they do not substantiate the notion of generating energy without cost or input.

It is important to note that while theoretical discussions and models exist, they do not translate into practical applications that demonstrate free energy generation. Furthermore, many studies are limited by methodological concerns and potential biases, which necessitate a cautious interpretation of their findings.

Readers should remain critical of such claims and evaluate information rigorously, considering the scientific principles that govern energy conservation and the current limitations in the field of energy research.

Sources

  1. The Free Energy Principle: Good Science and Questionable Philosophy in ... Link
  2. Examining the Feasibility of Using Free Energy ... Link
  3. Free Energy Generation Using Flywheel - Academia.edu Link
  4. Harnessing Free Energy From Nature For Efficient Operation of ... Link
  5. PDF Free Energy Generator: An Analysis Of Concepts And Feasibility Link
  6. Examining the Feasibility of Using Free Energy Perturbation ... Link
  7. PDF The Free Energy Generator - IJSRP Link
  8. Calculations involving Free Energy (A-Level Chemistry) Link
  9. 3.4 ΔG, Gibbs free energy changes and reaction feasibility Link
  10. Relationship between Gibbs Free Energy and Feasibility Link

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
100% Free
No Registration
Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Autistic Non-Verbal Episodes in Marriage: Why Words Vanish Sometimes and What to Do About It Neurodiverse Couples Tuesday, august 12, 2025. Here’s the scene: You’re in the middle of a conversation with your spouse. Maybe the topic is small (“Did you pay the water bill?”) or monumental (“Are we happy?”). And then—without warning—your autistic partner’s voice disappears. No yelling, no slammed doors. Just… gone. You’re left holding the conversational steering wheel while they’ve quietly climbed into the trunk. If you’ve never lived with high-functioning autism, this can be tragically misconstrued as stonewalling or contempt. It isn’t. It’s just neurology pulling the emergency brake. Why This Happens: The Science Without the Lab Coat Smell For autistic adults, losing speech under stress is often a shutdown—a form of nervous system overload that knocks language production offline. Think of it like your phone freezing: all the apps are still there, but none of them open when you tap. Research calls this autistic burnout when it happens in a longer, chronic cycle—linked to masking (Hull et al., 2017; Raymaker et al., 2020). Masking is the art of “performing normal” so well that non-autistic people think you’re fine. The issue is that it eats through your energy reserves like a car idling in traffic with the A/C on full blast (Mantzalas et al., 2022). Eventually, one hard conversation can tip you from functional to frozen. And here’s where couples therapy meets neuroscience: physiological flooding—the body’s fight/flight/freeze switch—is a known relationship killer (Malik et al., 2019; Gottman Institute, 2024). In other words, for some autistic partners, flooding may tend to show up sooner, last longer, and is more likely to pull the plug on speech entirely. The Danger Loop in Marriage Autistic partner goes non-verbal — brain says “nope.” Non-autistic partner reads it as avoidance — brain says “attack.” Pressure increases — “Just say something.” Shutdown deepens — and now you’ve both lost. Do that a few hundred times and you’ll start conflating a physiological response into a moral failing. That’s the real marriage-killer. The Protocol: Three Phases, Zero Guesswork This is where we get practical. You can’t “love away” a temporary shutdown, but you can stop it from turning into World War III. Before: Build the Net Name the state. Agree on a phrase or signal ( I call this a couple code)—such as “words offline,” “shutdown,” a hand over the heart. The point is to make the invisible visible. The Shutdown Card. A literal card that says: I can’t speak right now. Please lower lights, reduce sound, give me X minutes. I promise I will circle back. The Pause Rule. Require a minimum of 20 minutes before resuming any tough talk. Autistic partner may need 90+. Agree ahead of time. Downgrade Kit. the usual gear; earplugs, soft light, weighted blanket, fidget, a quiet room. You know, human decency in object form. Reduce Daily Load. Avoid heavy talks right after work or big social events. Chronic overload makes a nervous shutdown more probable. During: Do Less, Better Autistic Partner: Give the signal. Exit stimulation. Switch channels if possible (text, notes app, yes/no cards). Send a short pre-written message: “Safe, can’t talk, back at 8:15.” Non-Autistic Partner: Acknowledge once—“Got it, I’m with you.” Hold the pause boundary. Lower stimuli. Go regulate your own nervous system—walk, journal, pet the dog. Don’t rehearse comebacks. Both: Avoid sarcasm, interrogation, ultimatums. Nothing lengthens a shutdown like moral outrage. After: Close the Loop Check in: “Are you ready to talk, or should we start in text?” Debrief: Identify triggers and what helped. Solve the actual problem. No conflict gets left to rot in the corner. Spot burnout early. If shutdowns start clustering, it’s time to reduce demands, not double them. How This Isn’t Stonewalling Stonewalling is a choice. Shutdown is a lockout. Stonewalling says, “I won’t talk to you.” Shutdown says, “I can’t talk to you yet, but I will.” The key difference? Repair intention. A shutdown protocol builds that right into the process. The Ten-Minute At-Home Drill Co-create your signal and card. Agree on a pause window. Pack the downgrade kit. Rehearse the exchange (“Got it, I’m with you.”). Check in weekly to tweak the system. Remember, you’re not aiming for zero shutdowns. You’re aiming for shorter, kinder, safer ones. Why This Works Because it matches lived autistic experience (Raymaker et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2023). Because it honors nervous system limits instead of punishing them (Malik et al., 2019). Because it lets both partners keep their dignity and still solve the problem. In other words: you’re building a marriage that can survive the occasional moments when the words are gone for the time being. Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed. REFERENCES: Hull, L., Mandy, W., Lai, M.-C., Baron-Cohen, S., Allison, C., Smith, P., & Petrides, K. V. (2017). “Putting on my best normal”: Social camouflaging in adults with autism spectrum conditions. Autism, 21(5), 611–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361316671012 Raymaker, D. M., Teo, A. R., Steckler, N. A., Lentz, B., Scharer, M., Delos Santos, A., … & Nicolaidis, C. (2020). “Having all of your internal resources exhausted beyond measure and being left with no clean-up crew”: Defining autistic burnout. Autism in Adulthood, 2(2), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2019.0079 Mantzalas, J., Richdale, A. L., Adikari, A., Lowe, J., & Dissanayake, C. (2022). What Is Autistic Burnout? A thematic analysis of posts on two online platforms. Autism in Adulthood, 4(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2021.0079 Lewis, L. F., et al. (2023). The lived experience of meltdowns for autistic adults. Autism, 27(7), 1787–1799. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221145783 Malik, J., et al. (2019). Emotional flooding in response to negative affect in romantic relationships. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 18(4), 327–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2019.1641188 Gottman Institute. (2024, March 4). Making sure emotional flooding doesn’t capsize your relationship. Retrieved from https://www.gottman.com/blog/making-sure-emotional-flooding-doesnt-capsize-your-relationship/

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Autistic Non-Verbal Episodes in Marriage: Why Words Vanish Sometimes and What to Do About It Neurodiverse Couples Tuesday, august 12, 2025. Here’s the scene: You’re in the middle of a conversation with your spouse. Maybe the topic is small (“Did you pay the water bill?”) or monumental (“Are we happy?”). And then—without warning—your autistic partner’s voice disappears. No yelling, no slammed doors. Just… gone. You’re left holding the conversational steering wheel while they’ve quietly climbed into the trunk. If you’ve never lived with high-functioning autism, this can be tragically misconstrued as stonewalling or contempt. It isn’t. It’s just neurology pulling the emergency brake. Why This Happens: The Science Without the Lab Coat Smell For autistic adults, losing speech under stress is often a shutdown—a form of nervous system overload that knocks language production offline. Think of it like your phone freezing: all the apps are still there, but none of them open when you tap. Research calls this autistic burnout when it happens in a longer, chronic cycle—linked to masking (Hull et al., 2017; Raymaker et al., 2020). Masking is the art of “performing normal” so well that non-autistic people think you’re fine. The issue is that it eats through your energy reserves like a car idling in traffic with the A/C on full blast (Mantzalas et al., 2022). Eventually, one hard conversation can tip you from functional to frozen. And here’s where couples therapy meets neuroscience: physiological flooding—the body’s fight/flight/freeze switch—is a known relationship killer (Malik et al., 2019; Gottman Institute, 2024). In other words, for some autistic partners, flooding may tend to show up sooner, last longer, and is more likely to pull the plug on speech entirely. The Danger Loop in Marriage Autistic partner goes non-verbal — brain says “nope.” Non-autistic partner reads it as avoidance — brain says “attack.” Pressure increases — “Just say something.” Shutdown deepens — and now you’ve both lost. Do that a few hundred times and you’ll start conflating a physiological response into a moral failing. That’s the real marriage-killer. The Protocol: Three Phases, Zero Guesswork This is where we get practical. You can’t “love away” a temporary shutdown, but you can stop it from turning into World War III. Before: Build the Net Name the state. Agree on a phrase or signal ( I call this a couple code)—such as “words offline,” “shutdown,” a hand over the heart. The point is to make the invisible visible. The Shutdown Card. A literal card that says: I can’t speak right now. Please lower lights, reduce sound, give me X minutes. I promise I will circle back. The Pause Rule. Require a minimum of 20 minutes before resuming any tough talk. Autistic partner may need 90+. Agree ahead of time. Downgrade Kit. the usual gear; earplugs, soft light, weighted blanket, fidget, a quiet room. You know, human decency in object form. Reduce Daily Load. Avoid heavy talks right after work or big social events. Chronic overload makes a nervous shutdown more probable. During: Do Less, Better Autistic Partner: Give the signal. Exit stimulation. Switch channels if possible (text, notes app, yes/no cards). Send a short pre-written message: “Safe, can’t talk, back at 8:15.” Non-Autistic Partner: Acknowledge once—“Got it, I’m with you.” Hold the pause boundary. Lower stimuli. Go regulate your own nervous system—walk, journal, pet the dog. Don’t rehearse comebacks. Both: Avoid sarcasm, interrogation, ultimatums. Nothing lengthens a shutdown like moral outrage. After: Close the Loop Check in: “Are you ready to talk, or should we start in text?” Debrief: Identify triggers and what helped. Solve the actual problem. No conflict gets left to rot in the corner. Spot burnout early. If shutdowns start clustering, it’s time to reduce demands, not double them. How This Isn’t Stonewalling Stonewalling is a choice. Shutdown is a lockout. Stonewalling says, “I won’t talk to you.” Shutdown says, “I can’t talk to you yet, but I will.” The key difference? Repair intention. A shutdown protocol builds that right into the process. The Ten-Minute At-Home Drill Co-create your signal and card. Agree on a pause window. Pack the downgrade kit. Rehearse the exchange (“Got it, I’m with you.”). Check in weekly to tweak the system. Remember, you’re not aiming for zero shutdowns. You’re aiming for shorter, kinder, safer ones. Why This Works Because it matches lived autistic experience (Raymaker et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2023). Because it honors nervous system limits instead of punishing them (Malik et al., 2019). Because it lets both partners keep their dignity and still solve the problem. In other words: you’re building a marriage that can survive the occasional moments when the words are gone for the time being. Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed. REFERENCES: Hull, L., Mandy, W., Lai, M.-C., Baron-Cohen, S., Allison, C., Smith, P., & Petrides, K. V. (2017). “Putting on my best normal”: Social camouflaging in adults with autism spectrum conditions. Autism, 21(5), 611–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361316671012 Raymaker, D. M., Teo, A. R., Steckler, N. A., Lentz, B., Scharer, M., Delos Santos, A., … & Nicolaidis, C. (2020). “Having all of your internal resources exhausted beyond measure and being left with no clean-up crew”: Defining autistic burnout. Autism in Adulthood, 2(2), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2019.0079 Mantzalas, J., Richdale, A. L., Adikari, A., Lowe, J., & Dissanayake, C. (2022). What Is Autistic Burnout? A thematic analysis of posts on two online platforms. Autism in Adulthood, 4(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2021.0079 Lewis, L. F., et al. (2023). The lived experience of meltdowns for autistic adults. Autism, 27(7), 1787–1799. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221145783 Malik, J., et al. (2019). Emotional flooding in response to negative affect in romantic relationships. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 18(4), 327–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2019.1641188 Gottman Institute. (2024, March 4). Making sure emotional flooding doesn’t capsize your relationship. Retrieved from https://www.gottman.com/blog/making-sure-emotional-flooding-doesnt-capsize-your-relationship/

Aug 12, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Radio free Asia is state media
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Radio free Asia is state media

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Radio free Asia is state media

Aug 6, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: radio free Asia is state media
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: radio free Asia is state media

Detailed fact-check analysis of: radio free Asia is state media

Aug 6, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Can no longer file taxes for free in the USA
False

Fact Check: Can no longer file taxes for free in the USA

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Can no longer file taxes for free in the USA

Aug 2, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Weld County homeowners with windows older than some threshold (e.g., 5 years) are eligible for a free or subsidized window replacement program.
False

Fact Check: Weld County homeowners with windows older than some threshold (e.g., 5 years) are eligible for a free or subsidized window replacement program.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Weld County homeowners with windows older than some threshold (e.g., 5 years) are eligible for a free or subsidized window replacement program.

Jul 29, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Transcript
00:00
911 was a false flag. For the
first 10 years, I did not think
anything other than the
official narrative then after
being shown a video, a close up
video of building number seven
coming down and that got me
going because it's obvious to
me that building seven was was
a controlled demolition because
the building collapses from the
bottom down. The trade centers
were unique in that they were
designed to withstand the
00:33
impact of a a a jet. From what
I understand the the outer
skeleton of the building. The
outer columns was like a a fish
net and you had these inner
core columns which was
substantial thick steel beams
to withstand four or five times
what the loads were. Got it.
The engineers always over
design a building. No steel
frame building has ever
collapsed before or since 9/
eleven. So that should say
something right there. And it
said that building seven it was
01:05
aggressive collapse that it was
caused by fire but progressive
collapse unlike the twin
towers, the twin towers
collapse from the top down.
That's a progressive collapse.
Sure. Floor by floor by floor.
But if you look at the videos
of building seven collapsing,
it collapses uniformly, it's
collapsing from the bottom, the
building stays intact all the
way to the bottom of the ground
and you could see the sides
caving in on it. For a building
to collapse uniformly which the
video show all the load bearing
it would have to have failed
01:36
simultaneously. Now, fire
doesn't act like that. I came
across an analogy of the twin
towers and if you could
visualize cast iron stoves
stacked. One on top of each
other. The stoves up at the
top. Yes, there's fire and
they've been damaged but the
stoves on the bottom, they
haven't been damaged. Okay. So,
the structure underneath all of
that is intact. So, it's
impossible for a building to
collapse near free fall speed
and increase. Without a
02:07
controlled demolition. You're
running into the path of most
resistance. I something else is
going on. I don't believe that
it was just the planes or the
fires I think that and they
examine the dust and they found
what they call thermitic
material which is like a
explosive incendiary which was
in the dust samples and that's
documented. There were reports
of the buildings were
undergoing a extensive elevator
renovation in the two or three
years prior to all kinds of
02:40
workers they had access to the
the core the cores of the
building and on the day of the
attack the the elevator company
would not assist in the
operations of the elevators and
the elevator company was the
elevator company it
subsequently went out of
business and a couple of years
after that
False

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Jul 28, 2025
Read more →