Source – physics.stackexchange.com

– “…The energy created from Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) and the Keshe reactor, is not “free”…but it would be about one million times cheaper than the chemical burning process used in the current fuels that cars, truck, and generators us…Don’t believe the naysayers that say Keshe technology can’t be done…there are plenty who have already done it! Look up Joseph Papp, Stanley Meyer, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, as examples of some of those who have worked with plasm”

 SM: The high priest’s of science arrogantly proclaim, we have breached the limits of all matter & knowing. Physics will now & forever be subjected to a locked down orthodoxy & all who would dare question, labeled heretics. Dr. Joseph P Farrell has a few items of interest on this particular matter (…no pun intended). If there is a ‘Breakaway Civilization’ utilizing advanced ‘zero-point’ energy systems, – & I say there is – they will have successfully harnessed the unbridled power of the multi-universe & kept that little oversight to themselves. Maybe they just forgot to tell the rest of us – I think not. They have told us plenty & for a very long time, that we have long ago breached the frontiers of knowledge & constructed a very small, contrived little sand box for us to play. We fumble around & come to the same tedious conclusion expected of this revolving pantomime – that we are joined at the hip to fossil fuels & can only dream of a day, long, long into the future, where this curse will not be the case.

Is Keshe’s technology for real?

1- Yes, the claims in the video are totally absurd from the viewpoint of science. It’s enough to listen for roughly 70 seconds to be sure that the narrator doesn’t have the slightest clue about physics and the remaining 302 seconds make this fact even more self-evident. I won’t try to answer the question whether the authors of the video realize that what they present is nonsense and they’re deliberately cheating the viewers or they don’t realize because they believe their own stuff, due to their totally inadequate education or intelligence.
First of all, one can’t create “free energy” out of nothing as it violates the energy conservation law, something we’ve known to hold for several centuries and something that has only been strengthened by all the subsequent research and evidence that was accumulated. The energy conservation law holds because the laws of physics don’t change if we move everything in the direction of time – if we “repeat the same experiments later”. This relationship between symmetries and conservation laws was found by Emmy Noether, one of the greatest female mathematicians of all time.
So one has to change something about the matter – like ignite fusion – to get energy out of it. People work on fusion and indeed, plasma is there, but these people don’t have any new technology of fusion and they don’t even claim to have it. Without fusion, one can’t be continuously extracting energy out of plasma.
(Incidentally, the term “free energy” has a very particular meaning in physics and it has nothing to do with the colloquiual understanding of “energy for free”.)
Second, the video clip confuses electromagnetism with gravity. It wants to emulate some gravitational influences in the Cosmos but it apparently fails to realize that gravity is only important for celestial bodies because they’re large. Gravity will never play any important role in a man-made engine or lab because gravity between systems that may be “constructed” by the men is negligibly weak. By their character, magnitude, ability to change sign, and other features, gravity and electromagnetism dramatically differ and they only get unified in conditions that can’t be achieved experimentally. The narrator’s suggestion that gravity and electromagnetism are almost the same thing and should be considered together is preposterous and only proves that they don’t have a clue about basic concepts of physics such as electromagnetism, gravity, and the differences between them.
Third, the video presents a preposterous picture of “types of matter” which are divided into a triangle of “normal matter, antimatter, dark matter”. This is nonsense. Antimatter is always a dual relationship (although antimatter to some particles may be identical with these particles – in some cases, e.g. photons, there is no difference between matter and antimatter). Dark matter isn’t any “third type” that could be added to matter or antimatter. Dark matter is just a particular type of matter (or antimatter: probably the kind of matter that is identical to its antimatter) but it’s nonsensical to create a special category for dark matter because we should do the same thing for electrons or other things. Dark matter is composed of a particle species analogous to electron, top quark, photon, or other elementary particles. It’s not “qualitatively different” from them and it is not a “third type of negation” that could extend antimatter.
Fourth, they make lots of trivial, small, but important technical errors in their discussion of pretty much everything. For example, they omit antineutrinos in the decay of the neutron. Their claims that human cells depend on magnetism etc. are fiction, too.
Fifth, it’s nonsensical that one can create plasma by a similar electric circuit in a Coke bottle with home-available voltage. One needs lots of energy to create plasma, even more energy to create a plasma that has a chance to constantly generate energy (via fusion), and it is a hugely difficult technological task to sustain a body of plasma at least for a second. It’s certain they can’t solve this difficult task – that is almost mastered but not quite mastered by the tokamak rings. After all, a Coke bottle is a completely wrong shape for the task of maintaining a plasma. A toroidal ring or a small vessel with the radiation coming from all directions seem to be among the rare clever techniques to stabilize plasma, a very difficult task you can’t expect to solve in your kitchen.
There are lots of other nonsenses in the video – combined with lots of kitschy clichés about renewable energies and similar physically vacuous or problematic stuff – but I suspect that a sensible viewer has stopped the video several minutes ago. The video is addressed to viewers who lack the basic high school education in physics and it has clearly found thousands of them.

2 – Mr Keshe of the Keshe Foundation makes it quite clear in his videos and writings, that he does not believe in “free energy”. However, he makes it equally clear that it is not a difficult process to get energy out of a nuclear reactor. (After all, his degree from Queens College in London is in control systems of nuclear reactors.) Keshe has spent 30 years of his life in independent research, developing a plasma reactor that is apparently self-sustaining and creates power.
It’s relatively easy to make a generator with radioactive products, as the space and military have had such generators for many years. The trick that Mr Keshe seems to have done is to make a plasma generator that is small, safe and inexpensive. It works by the production and manipulation of magnetic fields, using dynamic plasma fields and scintillation of inert gases.
The energy created from Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) and the Keshe reactor, is not “free”…but it would be about one million times cheaper than the chemical burning process used in the current fuels that cars, truck, and generators use!
People in dozens of nations of the world are currently attempting to replicate the Keshe reactor. An Italian team has just built a reactor and are beginning tests this week. (info as of Jan 9, 2013)
As for the scientist that “could power three towns pounds” is not correct. I believe he said that he could power a town with a Keshe device he built for three pounds (as in UK money).
Don’t believe the naysayers that say Keshe technology can’t be done…there are plenty who have already done it! Look up Joseph Papp, Stanley Meyer, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, as examples of some of those who have worked with plasma or LENR

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/48335/is-keshes-technology-for-real