# The TESLA Flashlight



## LetThereBeLight! (Apr 27, 2014)

Many outstanding Inventors have made incredible contributions to the human race.

However, arguably, Nicola Tesla remains the greatest. There is just not enough storage space on a server to record all his work but let me just mention here some of what I remain fascinated with:

- Nicola Tesla drove a previously inspected car in which he put a device that, having attracted electricity from the atmosphere, powered the vehicle;

- On another occasion, Tesla put a device (about the dimensions of an old Walkman-- remember those?) on a tree, turned it on, and soon thereafter powerful vibrations could be felt as far as five miles away which prompted many residents, who thought they were experiencing an earthquake, to call the Police in droves. When the Police arrived, Tesla walked up to the tree, turned off the device and the vibrations ceased. He removed it from the tree, walked away, and everyone went home;

- Nicola Tesla also was the Inventor of a device that could wirelessly transmit electricity around the globe, at no cost. 

In sum, Nicola Tesla was a person who both delighted in and was passionate about his work, so much so that he died in poverty, having become the victim of what attorneys would describe today as MASSIVE theft of intellectual property.

When Tesla became victimized, _so did the entire human race!_

Moreover, quite tragically and I argue unjustifiably, most if not all of Nicola Tesla's most important work and genius remains "classified" by both the former Yugoslavan government and that of the United States, as well as suppressed by a collusion of powerful interests whose Tesla's work and inventions continue to threaten.

(Imagine, if you will, receiving not one utility bill ever, thanks to the great Nicola Tesla. How much more disposable income or accumulated savings would you have?)

Now we come to what I term "the Tesla flashlight".

From what I have read on and about Tesla, he did not "work" on any flashlights _per se_. 

But his invention that harnessed electricity that (he both proclaimed and proved) surrounded the Earth and would likewise be an infinite energy source for all of humanity could also serve as the source that would power a flashlight!

The only problem would be that if someone fooled with the part of the device that inputted the flow of electricity into something-- say the TM26 or the TK-75-- it conceivably could blow it out or up!

Could you imagine everyone having a standard 10,000 lumens flashlight? (which the great Vin would no doubt "tweak" to 17,000!)

As I also understand it, applying Tesla's suppressed invention would eliminate the need for batteries, at least as we presently understand or utilize them.

Thus, it will be up to all the people of our 50 States and of the entire planet to demand the release of all of Tesla's suppressed technology, and while we're at it, the inventions of many others-- too many documented to list here-- whose lives became threatened if they brought their work "to market".

in the final analysis, Nicola Tesla is perhaps the best shining example and proof of that the Creator did not give the human race an Earth whose "natural" resources would become "finite" but rather resources and human brilliance that could become vulnerable to the darkness and conniving of a few destructive individuals who not only have caused the suppression of genius but also, untold, incalculable suffering. 

Tesla is but one example. A second (of many) is the late Stanley Meyer who used electrolysis to extract energy from hydrogen and powered his modified dune buggy 100-miles on one gallon of water! A third example: enough sunlight falls on the planet in one hour to power everything for a day but a New York Times Editorial dated 4/27/14 will tell you about the suppression of affordable solar technology through undue, unjust taxes on such engineered by two people not in government. 

Clearly, as the Book of Proverbs states, 'for the sake of profit, many sin'.

Yet, the GOOD news is that such suppression does not have to be, if overcoming it became our political will, and that of the planet!

Moreover, as this website and its readers and posters can attest, there is not enough darkness to put out the light of one small flashlight.

So to paraphrase the song:

This little [flash]light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine
I'm gonna let it shine, I'm gonna let it shine
This little [flash]light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine
Let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.


LetThereBeLight!


----------



## Kilroytheknifesnob (Apr 28, 2014)

Are you familiar with the first law of thermodynamics? Where is all this free energy coming from? What's the conversion efficiency?


----------



## dc38 (Apr 28, 2014)

Anything, any energy we harness from planetary nature will eventually run it down. Think of earth as a gigantic self contained / self reconditioning battery. Anything that humans do to "make life better" is ALWAYS in favor of humans. This means that any form of energy that we harness will have SOME negative side effect. For example, technology is good, but there is ALWAYS an equal amount of evil to the good that comes from it (even if it may not be immediately apparent). We harness wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric power and claim that it is a sustainable form of energy. However, is is usually forgotten that in order to convert something into something else, that first something must be _harnessed_. This means removing some of the potential of whatever we're harnessing and changing into something that we can use.

Now imagine THOUSANDS of these tiny 'cells' constantly harnessing energy from what was once the free flowing equilibrium of nature; what happens in a few centuries? A few millenia, even? We are draining the world faster than the equilibrium can be restored. The slightest change in air currents in one region may affect global weather. The slightest bottleneck of ocean currents can disrupt hundreds of natural habitats. Geothermal sites are 'harnessing' energy that might be necessary for the shifting of tectonic plates to release energy. In the same respect, harnessing the earth's 'electromagnetic energy' will most likely throw SOMETHING out of balance and may spell disaster for the world. Like you've mentioned, the world spins on a dime. Even with the promotion of this "global electric distribution", there would be SOME way that SOMEBODY will find a way to profit from it. (device subscriptions, distribution costs, etc.)

As you might have implied, because of sin, EVERYTHING and ANYTHING we do will ALWAYS have a negative as long as we live as untranscended beings.


----------



## marinemaster (Apr 28, 2014)

hmmmm.....


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (Apr 28, 2014)

Kilroytheknifesnob said:


> Are you familiar with the first law of thermodynamics? Where is all this free energy coming from? What's the conversion efficiency?



Dude, I'm stunned you have not read a thing on or about Tesla.

But no matter, if don't care to study Tesla's work or at least read about it, you can have your mind blown just as much by checking out cheniere.org and learn about Tom Bearden's work. 

Or, look up "suppressed free energy inventions" and the science that they evidence. 

Yes, most of your assumptions will be blown away.

LetThereBeLight!


----------



## Beamhead (Apr 28, 2014)

I hope Morgan and Edison got their comeuppance.


----------



## yellow (Apr 29, 2014)

how about reading one of the books? (--> to lettherebelight, not the others)
((_the fantastic inventions of Nicola Tesla_))

there is no "magic", it was "just" him to "invent" the AC pulse,
everything else is basic electronics today,
at his and Edisons time is was more than revolutionary, of course.


(therefore, again, _read the book_. Then wonder, that what the things acutally DO is the smalles part of any of the things shown. The most part, 3/4, cover how to make an isolated high voltage coil/inductor. At his time the most important thing in the setups, for us, now, a joke to get. And cheap too)


PS: most of the "things" You mention are simply experiments of thought, he did not DO them ...
PPS: if we could see all that junk - radio waves, cellphone, ... - that surrounds us, we would skip all that crap that, if nothing else, does not improve our health ...


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (Apr 29, 2014)

Simply 'experiments of thoughts'?

On what basis do you state that? Clearly, you state no basis on which to support your points.

I find your reply to be SO disjointed.

You are one of the millions, maybe Billions, sadly, who have been DUPED by The Powers That Be!

Of _course_ TPTB want you to believe Tesla's greatest contributions were "experiments of thoughts" (your euphemism for fantasies!) 

Because THAT way they make ZILLIONS from US!

And you BOUGHT into TPTB: hook, line, and sinker. So sad.

Which is why you will CONTINUE to pay utility bills.

Or, are you just another DISinformation/Dismissive specialist so this thread does not go "viral"?

Nor have you addressed Stanley Meyer's work nor Tom Bearden's.



LetThereBeLight!


----------



## Kilroytheknifesnob (Apr 30, 2014)

Stanley Meyer is a scammer. A perpetual motion machine is impossible. The energy required to split water into it's elements will ALWAYS be more than what you get back by recombining them in a fuel cell. Come on man, surely you don't believe his scientifically impossible claims?


----------



## mvyrmnd (May 1, 2014)

LetThereBeLight! said:


> Simply 'experiments of thoughts'?
> 
> On what basis do you state that? Clearly, you state no basis on which to support your points.
> 
> ...



You lost all credibility in my eyes once you got into the "powers that be" nonsense.

Lets just say I invent a Zero Point energy machine. Do you think I'd be bought out by the oil companies or some government? Not a chance in hell. My name would be up there with Newton and Einstein for all of history. I'd have all the power in the universe - literally!

I don't buy into that sort of stuff.

dc38 makes a very good point. Take Geothermal energy for example. It's a massive power source indeed, but what happens after a few throusand years of sapping power from the core of the planet? it'll start to cool down! Once it cools, the molten core stops spinning, the electromagnetic field collapses and the atmosphere is torn away by solar winds. We end up looking an awful lot like Mars.

There cannot be energy taken from a system without a cost. The laws of thermodynamics boil down to this: You cannot win. You cannot break even. You will always lose.



> The energy required to split water into it's elements will ALWAYS be more than what you get back by recombining them in a fuel cell.



This is a perfect example.


----------



## yearnslow (May 1, 2014)

What a strange thread.....


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (May 1, 2014)

Kilroytheknifesnob said:


> Stanley Meyer is a scammer. A perpetual motion machine is impossible. The energy required to split water into it's elements will ALWAYS be more than what you get back by recombining them in a fuel cell. Come on man, surely you don't believe his scientifically impossible claims?



So Mr. Meyer was a scammer because you do not understand how he utilized electrolysis? 

By the way, nowhere in his work is there ANY mention of "a perpetual motion machine", so why do you confuse issues as you have in previous posts?


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (May 1, 2014)

mvyrmnd said:


> You lost all credibility in my eyes once you got into the "powers that be" nonsense.
> 
> Lets just say I invent a Zero Point energy machine. Do you think I'd be bought out by the oil companies or some government? Not a chance in hell. My name would be up there with Newton and Einstein for all of history. I'd have all the power in the universe - literally!
> 
> ...



Apparently, you have not studied Tom Bearden's website. So if your mind is closed, why should I expend valuable energy seeking to have an enlightening dialogue?


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (May 1, 2014)

yearnslow said:


> What a strange thread.....



You're right. It IS a strange thread.

That's because a genius like Tesla himself was perceived as strange. 

Why?

Because he did not confine his mind nor his intellect to what was already "known" but to the unknown.

As a result of both his drive and his imagination, the papers detailing his greatest work-- perhaps the greatest of any inventor dead or alive-- remain classified as previously described.

That indeed is strange, isn't it?

LetThereBeLight!


----------



## marinemaster (May 1, 2014)

Why is it classified ?


----------



## yearnslow (May 1, 2014)

Well, from what I can gather, it seems Tesla had invented a means of producing energy from the earth at little cost, which would relieve mankind of the problem of energy and it's cultivation.
The Authorities have suppressed this innovation with the express intention of making the people of the earth reliant on them for power, so they can in fact make money, and exert total control.
(Money; which is of course an irrelevant concept.)

.....Or something along those lines....


----------



## mvyrmnd (May 2, 2014)

LetThereBeLight! said:


> Apparently, you have not studied Tom Bearden's website. So if your mind is closed, why should I expend valuable energy seeking to have an enlightening dialogue?



Just to humour you, and to rule out your argument of me being "closed minded" by adhering to the laws of thermodynamics, I've been and looked at his website.

Aside from being ancient (in internet terms), and half of the links being broken (probably taken down by the government!), and being littered with logical fallacies, I find little there that compels me.

He never manages to complete a story about some crackpot device without either the American or Soviet government being involved...

Never mind this:

"Let me now give you a rigorous proof, and very simple, that every system is already vastly overunity by producing far more energy out than we input. Consider a perfect DC generator, loss free, so that its efficiency is 100%. Now consider a perfect external circuit attached, which consists of two short lengths of perfect conducting wire, and a pure resistance load. Let the load be 12 ohms, and the voltage of the generator be 12 Volts D.C. Now we have a neat little situation: We put in the mechanical power equivalent of 12 watts to the shaft. Since the generator is loss free, all the 12 watts are perfectly transduced into magnetic field, and the energy in this field is dissipated with 100% efficiency to form the source dipole. Let us leave the source dipole for a moment. 
Now we look at the external circuit. There is one ampere of current (12V divided by 12 Ohms) flowing in the external circuit. So we are inputting 12 watts of power to the generator shaft, and we are getting 12 watts of power output in the resistor. All this is clearly measurable and normal so far."

So he goes off into a little thought experiment... that is completely impossible! There is no such thing as a perfect DC generator, or a Perfect, loss free conductor.

This guys proof is based on impossible things!


----------



## TheFraz (May 2, 2014)

dc38 said:


> Anything, any energy we harness from planetary nature will eventually run it down. Think of earth as a gigantic self contained / self reconditioning battery. Anything that humans do to "make life better" is ALWAYS in favor of humans. This means that any form of energy that we harness will have SOME negative side effect. For example, technology is good, but there is ALWAYS an equal amount of evil to the good that comes from it (even if it may not be immediately apparent). We harness wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric power and claim that it is a sustainable form of energy. However, is is usually forgotten that in order to convert something into something else, that first something must be _harnessed_. This means removing some of the potential of whatever we're harnessing and changing into something that we can use.
> 
> Now imagine THOUSANDS of these tiny 'cells' constantly harnessing energy from what was once the free flowing equilibrium of nature; what happens in a few centuries? A few millenia, even? We are draining the world faster than the equilibrium can be restored. The slightest change in air currents in one region may affect global weather. The slightest bottleneck of ocean currents can disrupt hundreds of natural habitats. Geothermal sites are 'harnessing' energy that might be necessary for the shifting of tectonic plates to release energy. In the same respect, harnessing the earth's 'electromagnetic energy' will most likely throw SOMETHING out of balance and may spell disaster for the world. Like you've mentioned, the world spins on a dime. Even with the promotion of this "global electric distribution", there would be SOME way that SOMEBODY will find a way to profit from it. (device subscriptions, distribution costs, etc.)
> 
> As you might have implied, because of sin, EVERYTHING and ANYTHING we do will ALWAYS have a negative as long as we live as untranscended beings.



That pesky solar energy. Always throwing things out of whack.


----------



## mvyrmnd (May 2, 2014)

TheFraz said:


> That pesky solar energy. Always throwing things out of whack.



Ahh but it is.

How about a thousand years of us using photovoltaic solar? All that light that we've trapped on the planet rather than it being reflected back into space, and eventually converted to heat after using it for various tasks. Yes it's free now, but what do we do with all the heat?


----------



## TheFraz (May 2, 2014)

mvyrmnd said:


> Ahh but it is.
> 
> How about a thousand years of us using photovoltaic solar? All that light that we've trapped on the planet rather than it being reflected back into space, and eventually converted to heat after using it for various tasks. Yes it's free now, but what do we do with all the heat?



Yes, I was being a bit sarcastic - I was addressing the problem of the finite nature of energy on this planet (which is the only thing dc seemed to address) as it pertains to burning or converting various forms of energy (which will result in a net of zero). However, as far as I can tell, all that heat from the sun will be absorbed regardless of reflections back into space. You are able to see a solar panel because of its reflection of light back on to your face - it is not capable of non-reflection, thus not capable of perfect absorption of solar energy. However, solar is a very large contributor to weather patterns and a large percentage of all energy that gets dumped onto our heads, like the tornadoes we just got here in Arkansas, it is from our good buddy the Sun. The seas absorb an incomprehensible amount of energy per year (exactly like a solar panel), and have been absorbing that energy for an incomprehensible number of years (excuse the number of times I just used the word incomprehensible).

(and excuse the number of time I just used "()"). Blue Moon tends to do that to a guy.


----------



## mvyrmnd (May 2, 2014)

TheFraz said:


> Yes, I was being a bit sarcastic - I was addressing the problem of the finite nature of energy on this planet (which is the only thing dc seemed to address) as it pertains to burning or converting various forms of energy (which will result in a net of zero). However, as far as I can tell, all that heat from the sun will be absorbed regardless of reflections back into space. You are able to see a solar panel because of its reflection of light back on to your face - it is not capable of non-reflection, thus not capable of perfect absorption of solar energy. However, solar is a very large contributor to weather patterns and a large percentage of all energy that gets dumped onto our heads, like the tornadoes we just got here in Arkansas, it is from our good buddy the Sun. The seas absorb an incomprehensible amount of energy per year (exactly like a solar panel), and have been absorbing that energy for an incomprehensible number of years (excuse the number of times I just used the word incomprehensible).
> 
> (and excuse the number of time I just used "()"). Blue Moon tends to do that to a guy.



I'm sure the earth's atmosphere has to reflect some light and heat into space, for the very same argument you made regarding the solar panels.

The solar panel has to absorb some energy though, otherwise what's the point?

That energy has to go somewhere, and will inevitably end up as heat.

Where does that heat go? What happens after a thousand years?


----------



## TheFraz (May 2, 2014)

mvyrmnd said:


> I'm sure the earth's atmosphere has to reflect some light and heat into space, for the very same argument you made regarding the solar panels.
> 
> The solar panel has to absorb some energy though, otherwise what's the point?
> 
> ...



The simple answer is E=MC square. Yes, energy has mass - that means the baked potato you heated up has slightly more mass than the cool potato that was in the cellar a few minutes ago (on a tiny tiny level). And the Sun has been throwing 275 million gigawatt years of energy (per year) to the Earth for billions of years that the Earth has been happily absorbing. That is why the Sun is Earth's primary source of energy. All energy conversions result in a net of zero. And the great thing about all that energy being thrown at the Earth is that it takes a crazy crazy amount of energy to equal an equally tiny amount of mass. So that coupled with all the light and energy being reflected back into space (not counting every reaction from a snail crawl to a volcano eruption, which cancels) is where I figure most of the energy is going.

But I figure you already know that and are trolling a bit of a buzzed poster


----------



## fyrstormer (May 2, 2014)

Any mechanism that releases more energy than it absorbs will eventually run down. First Law of Thermodynamics. Nothing in known physics violates this law, so anything that might possibly be able to violate this law would have to operate at energy levels higher than the Large Hadron Collider can achieve. So even if some kind of perpetual energy source is possible, Tesla could not have built one, and neither could you.

Of course, you probably just think this is further proof of The Conspiracy by The Man hiding The Truth from The Sheeple, so I tell you what: You go prove us wrong. Make it work, draw up blueprints and publish them, make prototypes and give them to universities to confirm there's no trickery, and after all that, we will put your name next to the great scientists of history.

Until you do that, you will simply have to accept that saying "everything science has figured out in the past 500 years is wrong!" is going to earn you derision instead of respect, and rightly so. Lots of other people have claimed the same thing, and the only ones who didn't turn out to be crazy were the ones who could prove they were right.


----------



## mvyrmnd (May 2, 2014)

TheFraz said:


> The simple answer is E=MC square. Yes, energy has mass - that means the baked potato you heated up has slightly more mass than the cool potato that was in the cellar a few minutes ago (on a tiny tiny level). And the Sun has been throwing 275 million gigawatt years of energy (per year) to the Earth for billions of years that the Earth has been happily absorbing. That is why the Sun is Earth's primary source of energy. All energy conversions result in a net of zero. And the great thing about all that energy being thrown at the Earth is that it takes a crazy crazy amount of energy to equal an equally tiny amount of mass. So that coupled with all the light and energy being reflected back into space (not counting every reaction from a snail crawl to a volcano eruption, which cancels) is where I figure most of the energy is going.
> 
> But I figure you already know that and are trolling a bit of a buzzed poster



I'm not trolling, and neither have you addressed my question


----------



## mvyrmnd (May 2, 2014)

fyrstormer said:


> Any mechanism that releases more energy than it absorbs will eventually run down. First Law of Thermodynamics. Nothing in known physics violates this law, so anything that might possibly be able to violate this law would have to operate at energy levels higher than the Large Hadron Collider can achieve. So even if some kind of perpetual energy source is possible, Tesla could not have built one, and neither could you.
> 
> Of course, you probably just think this is further proof of The Conspiracy by The Man hiding The Truth from The Sheeple, so I tell you what: You go prove us wrong. Make it work, draw up blueprints and publish them, make prototypes and give them to universities to confirm there's no trickery, and after all that, we will put your name next to the great scientists of history.
> 
> Until you do that, you will simply have to accept that saying "everything science has figured out in the past 500 years is wrong!" is going to earn you derision instead of respect, and rightly so. Lots of other people have claimed the same thing, and the only ones who didn't turn out to be crazy were the ones who could prove they were right.



+1


----------



## marinemaster (May 2, 2014)

+1 Frystormer


----------



## Kilroytheknifesnob (May 2, 2014)

LetThereBeLight! said:


> So Mr. Meyer was a scammer because you do not understand how he utilized electrolysis?
> By the way, nowhere in his work is there ANY mention of "a perpetual motion machine", so why do you confuse issues as you have in previous posts?


This is basic high school chemistry. 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O is an exothermic reaction used to produce energy in a fuel cell. In other words, there's a loss of energy from the original inputs. 2 H2O(l) → 2 H2(g) + O2(g) is the formula for electrolysis of water. This requires the input of energy. So, if you notice, we have two energy losing equations in the fuel cell/electrolysis cycle. Even without conversion losses it is impossible to extract energy from this process, wouldn't you agree?
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2007/07/08/hydroman.ART_ART_07-08-07_A1_4V77MOK.html

I'm sure you'll come back with some psudo-science something, would it be too hard for you to cite some reliable sources or research when you make these extraordinary claims?


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (May 2, 2014)

mvyrmnd said:


> Just to humour you, and to rule out your argument of me being "closed minded" by adhering to the laws of thermodynamics, I've been and looked at his website.
> 
> Aside from being ancient (in internet terms), and half of the links being broken (probably taken down by the government!), and being littered with logical fallacies, I find little there that compels me.
> 
> ...



Why don't you email your thoughts and conclusions to Mr. Bearden? I think he would be motivated to answer and enlighten you.

Or purchase one of his books or get one through inter-library loan. 

While you're at it, ask him about one of the several documented attempts made on his life.


LetThereBeLight!


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (May 2, 2014)

fyrstormer said:


> Any mechanism that releases more energy than it absorbs will eventually run down. First Law of Thermodynamics. Nothing in known physics violates this law, so anything that might possibly be able to violate this law would have to operate at energy levels higher than the Large Hadron Collider can achieve. So even if some kind of perpetual energy source is possible, Tesla could not have built one, and neither could you.
> 
> Of course, you probably just think this is further proof of The Conspiracy by The Man hiding The Truth from The Sheeple, so I tell you what: You go prove us wrong. Make it work, draw up blueprints and publish them, make prototypes and give them to universities to confirm there's no trickery, and after all that, we will put your name next to the great scientists of history.
> 
> Until you do that, you will simply have to accept that saying "everything science has figured out in the past 500 years is wrong!" is going to earn you derision instead of respect, and rightly so. Lots of other people have claimed the same thing, and the only ones who didn't turn out to be crazy were the ones who could prove they were right.




Let me be clear, as I have said this before: nowhere in my original post (or subsequent ones in same thread) have I used the words "perpetual energy" or "perpetual energy source".

Thus, nor can you point to where I used any such words.

Now that we are clear about that, let me ask you something-- didn't anyone tell you (at least in your adolescent years, haha) that laws were meant to be broken?

Better yet, aren't "laws" simply the codification of observations that became documented and repeatable?

If so, then why can't you accept that the greatest inventor that has ever lived, Nicola Tesla, utilized his unique God-given genius in such ways to produce a body of work (much more than I could summarize and witnessed by scientists and laypersons alike) most of which remains classified?

Sir, I cannot be responsible for what you choose not to learn.

I can only be responsible for sharing what I have read, studied, learned.

LetThereBeLight!


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (May 2, 2014)

TheFraz said:


> The simple answer is E=MC square. Yes, energy has mass - that means the baked potato you heated up has slightly more mass than the cool potato that was in the cellar a few minutes ago (on a tiny tiny level). And the Sun has been throwing 275 million gigawatt years of energy (per year) to the Earth for billions of years that the Earth has been happily absorbing. That is why the Sun is Earth's primary source of energy. All energy conversions result in a net of zero. And the great thing about all that energy being thrown at the Earth is that it takes a crazy crazy amount of energy to equal an equally tiny amount of mass. So that coupled with all the light and energy being reflected back into space (not counting every reaction from a snail crawl to a volcano eruption, which cancels) is where I figure most of the energy is going.
> 
> But I figure you already know that and are trolling a bit of a buzzed poster




Enough energy from the sun falls on Earth in one hour to power everything for a day.

No wonder our government (and others) are putting one barrier after another making it difficult for the average Joe or Jane to harness that energy.

Want proof?

Read the NY Times Editorial dated 4/27/14.


LetThereBeLight!


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (May 2, 2014)

Kilroytheknifesnob said:


> This is basic high school chemistry. 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O is an exothermic reaction used to produce energy in a fuel cell. In other words, there's a loss of energy from the original inputs. 2 H2O(l) → 2 H2(g) + O2(g) is the formula for electrolysis of water. This requires the input of energy. So, if you notice, we have two energy losing equations in the fuel cell/electrolysis cycle. Even without conversion losses it is impossible to extract energy from this process, wouldn't you agree?
> http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2007/07/08/hydroman.ART_ART_07-08-07_A1_4V77MOK.html
> 
> I'm sure you'll come back with some psudo-science something, would it be too hard for you to cite some reliable sources or research when you make these extraordinary claims?




What is pseudo science for you is simply this: your decision to keep a closed mind and refuse to read. Your choice, your responsibility. It never ceases to amaze me how many people make your choice each day.

Steve Jobs didn't make that choice. As a result, no more netbooks are sold, PC sales have Dramatically slowed (bought a new one lately?) and touch screens are everywhere, literally.

Unfortunately, Nicola Tesla did not enjoy the auspices of organized subunits to execute and market his much greater inventions. 

Instead, he was robbed, stolen from, and died in poverty whereas Jobs left $8.3 billion to his wife and children.

And when studied, earnest people put up intelligible posts that become misquoted and derided (simply because of others' decisions not to explore, study, read, let alone temporarily suspend what is known in order to bring into one's consciousness that which one did not previously know or conceive), then we have a thread that has become derailed into petty dismissiveness and snide comments.

The result?

The great work of Nicola Tesla remains ignored, derided, dismissed and the descendants of the men who committed among the GREATEST thefts in history become incredibly wealthier thanks to, among other things, the utility (energy) bill of just about everyone in America, and nearly everywhere else.

Think about it.

"Truth needs to be repeated as long as there are men who disbelieve it." - Gandhi


LetThereBeLight!


----------



## fyrstormer (May 2, 2014)

It's time to stop feeding this troll. I motion for this thread to be closed, and it can be reopened when LetThereBeLight has a working concept to show us.


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (May 2, 2014)

fyrstormer said:


> It's time to stop feeding this troll. I motion for this thread to be closed, and it can be reopened when LetThereBeLight has a working concept to show us.



Why are you permitted to get away with "name calling" me a troll? 

Because I'm a "new", now "enlightened" poster?

Because I'm cogent?

Because I challenge "conventional" ways of thinking let alone dismissiveness?

Because I call people out on their blame assigning and misattributions?

Because I dare to summarize (partially) the greatest inventor humanity has ever known and then suffer the blame for what other posters did not dare to read about, or research for themselves?

Because I challenged them to read up and about other recent inventors, one of whom is deceased and the other still living?

Because I had the creativity to apply one of Tesla's proven concepts to that which all of us here are INCREDIBLY passionate about at this forum-- Flashlights??

Sir, I will defend to my death your right to free speech.

But the moment any of us collaborate with you into censoring the expression of free, respectful, cogent thought we then descend into abandoning the Constitution and bring about the onset of tyranny.

I cannot control what the owners of this site choose to do, but I do have the right to respond to others who attack what I write without justification. They certainly have that right as do I to respond.


----------



## LowLumen (May 2, 2014)

Hold on to your tin foil hats kids as cosmology turns physics on it's head again with 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' now serving as 'explanation' for over 95% of the universe ... as apparently we know about less than 5% of what the universe is made of. Just when it appears we can start to see the horizon, ....Stay tuned for the next revolution in physics.


----------



## yearnslow (May 3, 2014)

LetThereBeLight! said:


> Why are you permitted to get away with "name calling" me a troll?
> 
> Because I'm a "new", now "enlightened" poster?
> 
> ...



Have you ever thought of applying for sainthood?


----------



## mvyrmnd (May 3, 2014)

LetThereBeLight! said:


> Why don't you email your thoughts and conclusions to Mr. Bearden? I think he would be motivated to answer and enlighten you.
> 
> Or purchase one of his books or get one through inter-library loan.
> 
> ...



Attempts on this mans life are not proof that he holds the secret to overunity, they are only proof the there have been attempts on his life. Your logic is flawed.



> Let me be clear, as I have said this before: nowhere in my original post (or subsequent ones in same thread) have I used the words "perpetual energy" or "perpetual energy source".



For all intents and purposes Overunity = Perpetual motion. You're arguing semantics.




LowLumen said:


> Hold on to your tin foil hats kids as cosmology turns physics on it's head again with 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' now serving as 'explanation' for over 95% of the universe ... as apparently we know about less than 5% of what the universe is made of. Just when it appears we can start to see the horizon, ....Stay tuned for the next revolution in physics.



Dark matter is a perfectly suitable explaination for events that have been observed, but so far unexplained. It is not unreasonable that matter that does not interact with electromagnetism exists.


----------



## LowLumen (May 3, 2014)

mvyrmnd said:


> .........
> 
> Dark matter is a perfectly suitable explaination for events that have been observed, but so far unexplained. It is not unreasonable that matter that does not interact with electromagnetism exists.



Dark matter can be 'explained' within our existing conceptual framework, at only roughly 27% of the universe. It's dark energy, at somewhere around 68%, that really rips our known fabric.


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (May 3, 2014)

mvyrmnd said:


> Attempts on this mans life are not proof that he holds the secret to overunity, they are only proof the there have been attempts on his life. Your logic is flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (May 3, 2014)

yearnslow said:


> Have you ever thought of applying for sainthood?



First off, one cannot apply for that which one is nominated for, and even then there are two miracles needed for canonization, as I understand it.

Second off, I am the biggest sinner I know so even if there were an app[lication], i wouldn't waste my time or the Lord's!

Lastly, having studied this site for some time before I registered, I had no clue there was such bullying behavior in the forms I mentioned in an earlier reply. But that's ok, it's never too late to learn how to dialogue with respect. And I can take the heat, which is why I'm still in the kitchen. 

I really believed my original post would cause untold excitement. I'm not disappointed, though, because I'm gratified to know I am not the only person among 7.5 billion who remain passionate about the work of Nicola Tesla.

"Sometimes a gentleman is someone who intentionally hurts someone's feelings." - M. Scott Peck, M.D.


----------



## yearnslow (May 3, 2014)

LetThereBeLight! said:


> First off, one cannot apply for that which one is nominated for, and even then there are two miracles needed for canonization, as I understand it.
> 
> Second off, I am the biggest sinner I know so even if there were an app[lication], i wouldn't waste my time or the Lord's!
> 
> ...



sounds to me like you have a rather inflated opinion of yourself, and of Nikola Tesla. (who, incidentally, I consider a genius)
What really intrigues me is, knowing the current situation regarding the planet, as you obviously do ,and recognising the obvious shortcomings of the leadership we now enjoy, as you do, what do you intend to do about it?
Well, I'll tell you; absolutely nothing..... other than complain to people who don't give a poop.
I wish you well, sincerely, but your views would be better employed on a website that didn't have so many orthodox 'unbelievers'.....


----------



## mvyrmnd (May 3, 2014)

LetThereBeLight! said:


> So you have no interest in writing to Mr. Bearden? I'm disappointed.



Actually, I don't. There is nothing he could say to me that would prove that the crank ideas he's pushing to sell books are anything more substantial that just that.

His website has given me enough insight.

As for "believing". This has nothing to do with belief. Belief is the tripe that the church sells. 

If this man had produced anything vaguely functional or world changing, belief would not be required because we'd have PROOF.

Proof is what I wait to see.

Say, since he's so knowledgable, his home, running off the grid from a 5KVA generator (not *quite* big enough for an average household) running in an over unity mode as he describes. 

Show. Me. The. PROOF.


----------



## dc38 (May 3, 2014)

TheFraz said:


> That pesky solar energy. Always throwing things out of whack.



The production of solar cells creates hazardous byproducts...


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (May 3, 2014)

yearnslow said:


> sounds to me like you have a rather inflated opinion of yourself, and of Nikola Tesla. (who, incidentally, I consider a genius)
> What really intrigues me is, knowing the current situation regarding the planet, as you obviously do ,and recognising the obvious shortcomings of the leadership we now enjoy, as you do, what do you intend to do about it?
> Well, I'll tell you; absolutely nothing..... other than complain to people who don't give a poop.
> I wish you well, sincerely, but your views would be better employed on a website that didn't have so many orthodox 'unbelievers'.....



'Inflated'? Far from it. I just don't take bullying lightly and respond accordingly, which for some unknown reason pisses them off. 


'people who don't give a poop'?

You obviously gave a poop enough to reply.


'what do you intend to do about it'?

I already did something about it, and do many other things "about it" that I don't care to disclose here.


----------



## tobrien (May 3, 2014)

I agree, LetThereBeLight! I'm a PhD candidate at Yale and you're 110% correct in your assumptions, which are actually more fact in my research


----------



## mvyrmnd (May 3, 2014)

tobrien said:


> I agree, LetThereBeLight! I'm a PhD candidate at Yale and you're 110% correct in your assumptions, which are actually more fact in my research



You're going to need to do better than that. I want proof, not just your word for it.


----------



## electromage (May 3, 2014)

*LetThereBeLight!*

I don't know if you're trolling or just mis-informed, but there was nothing _magic_ about Tesla's research. I am incredibly thankful for his work, as well as terribly sorry for what happened to him (I've got a framed tribute to him on my wall). He was a scientist though, and If he were alive today I don't believe he would approve of your pontification any more than these "powers that be".

His invention for wireless power transmission was demonstrated on a small scale, but nobody at the time had both the funds and the faith to scale it up to what he wanted. The other problem is generating the electrical power in the first place, that "free" wireless energy has to come from somewhere, and simply eliminating the transmission lines does not mean that nobody has to pay for it.

The other fundamental issue I have with what you're saying is that Big Brother is hiding his invention from the world so that they can keep providing us with _their_ electricity. If they have his documents, why don't they just use his technology to deliver our power?


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (May 4, 2014)

tobrien said:


> I agree, LetThereBeLight! I'm a PhD candidate at Yale and you're 110% correct in your assumptions, which are actually more fact in my research



Thank you, tobrien, I appreciate your support greatly. And best of luck to you with your PhD!


----------



## LetThereBeLight! (May 4, 2014)

electromage said:


> *LetThereBeLight!*
> 
> I don't know if you're trolling or just mis-informed, but there was nothing _magic_ about Tesla's research. I am incredibly thankful for his work, as well as terribly sorry for what happened to him (I've got a framed tribute to him on my wall). He was a scientist though, and If he were alive today I don't believe he would approve of your pontification any more than these "powers that be".
> 
> ...




So glad to hear of your gratitude for and your recognition of his work!

But I think my well positioned research demonstrates I am not misinformed and funny, isn't it-- that others would claim I was when _they_ choose not to read anything about this great scientist, nor read eyewitness and investigator accounts? (As already stated, I can't be responsible for their choices or lack thereof.) 

And there you go again: putting words in my post that were never there-- I never used the word "magic", my friend, so why are you?

Yes, in point of fact, Andrew Carnegie and Westinghouse did have the funds (wealth). 

But Tesla's work threatened their profitability and that of others just like when in the 1940's Mr. Tucker's cars stood to put all of Detroit out of business (yet other car companies "stole" his disc brakes, seat belt, center headlight, and much more, once he was set up on phony income tax charges and could never get any more funders for his own work).

Now lets look at your last sentence, "If they have his documents, why don't they just use his technology to deliver our power?"

One, that's the whole point: they keep selling us "our power" whereas Tesla's invention demonstrated everyone would be able to tap into it without cost. Just read last Sunday's New York Times editorial about the suppression of solar energy through untenable tax increases. My point is that anything that would break the dependency chain is a threat.

Two, do you realize the whole energy infrastructure has been founded upon greed, control, obfuscation, and lies? 

Third, your unstated assumption-- that the government always has our BEST interest in mind-- defies reality so much I can't believe you would assume that never in our entire history has government oppressed its own citizens! 

Lastly, do you _really_ think Almighty God created a planet with finite resources so much so that his homosapiens would have to rely almost exclusively on oil because He short-changed the entire human race?

The bottom line is that those who do change the human race and move it forward are not the dismissive bullies who have disdain for reading, research and having their own assumptions challenged, but are those who dare to believe that they can use their own gifts, prowess and imagination and who have, as history documents, unleashed such innovativeness that the human race is so much better off.

Unfortunately, as you know, greed and suppression both deprived and denied Mr. Tesla-- and by extension every single human being since-- of a quality of life that so few, sadly even here, can imagine. 

And that, my friend, is not pontification, but simply truth.

*LetThereBeLight!*


----------



## dc38 (May 4, 2014)

In order to distribute THAT much power to the billions of people in the world, we'd require not only a SUBSTANTIAL network but also enough power to transmit that signal. Even if we do figure out a way to accomplish this while minimizing transmission losses, the receivers would all be tapped to monitor the amount of 'signal' that each household receives. 

Based on the above conjecture, there is nothing 'free' about this energy; it will cause the world to fall into ruin by affecting avian and aquatic migration trajectories at the very least...

In my personal opinion, we short changed ourselves when we humans thought that we knew better than the One who knows everything. Going by that train of thought, I can safely say that it is logical to believe that everything we do (good or bad) will be laced with sin. "the love of money is the root of all evil". Honestly, we can replace "money" with anything...life, knowledge, understanding, etc. etc. 

Also, human ARROGANCE (yes, arrogance, often confused with Pride) has led people to believe that they can operate off of their OWN ingenuity. These people often forget that they get help from those around them, from their predecessors, from others' research, their professors, educators, mentors, etc. That is an entirely different subject, and can be discussed in a different thread.

I am not blessed with the eloquence that I need to express and organize my thoughts and opinions on this matter, please debate whichever points you feel are appropriate and we'll go from there.

**I mean this in the most friendly way possible, but it seems that through all this research you have done, you haven't completed the most important step, self analysis and cross reference. At the risk of sounding condescending, I believe that it is of utmost importance to do our own thinking and reasoning to learn the things that we may not immediately understand, and we must be willing to keep an open mind.


----------



## SPNKr (May 4, 2014)

LetThereBeLight! said:


> So glad to hear of your gratitude for and your recognition of his work!
> 
> One, that's the whole point: they keep selling us "our power" whereas Tesla's invention demonstrated everyone would be able to tap into it without cost. Just read last Sunday's New York Times editorial about the suppression of solar energy through untenable tax increases. My point is that anything that would break the dependency chain is a threat.
> 
> ...



I hope I don't come across as being offensive.

One: You keep talking about this. What exactly did Tesla demonstrate? Do you have any written proof from a reliable source? I don't mean some guy who wrote a book. A scientific paper he published maybe? An account of a repeatable experiment? I'm genuinely curious. 

Two: And by what do you base this assumption? 

Three: The government may not always have your best interest in mind but it definitely has its own best interest in mind. If Tesla really came up with these magical inventions, why would they not use it? Let's use the military as an example. Are you aware of the immense amount of fuel a single modern tank consumes? Historically, the tasks of keeping up logistical supply lines in a war were on far larger scales than actual battles. You don't think after more than a hundred years, your military may have caught on not lost things like the Korean/Vietnam wars?

This next point refers to both point two and three of yours. You seem to assume the USA is the only country in the world, please correct me if I'm wrong. Nikola Tesla was not American, and though he did a lot of his work in the US his findings were certainly not restricted to it. There are many countries who have much to gain from this supposedly infinite energy source and "free" transmission technology. Your energy infrastructure may have been "founded on greed and lies", and your government may "not care about you", but there are certainly governments around the world who do. Are you familiar with CERN? The internet and most of our subatomic physical understanding came from them. They use 1.3 terawatt hours of energy annually, you think some of the brightest minds the world has ever known, concentrated in one place, wouldn't employ the technology you describe? Before you bring it in again, they are far out of reach of your government and its power companies.

I used the world "magical" earlier because the three inventions you described violate physical laws. You state laws are meant to be broken, but I'm sorry that's just not true. In science, for a theory to become a Law it takes an absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence that it is true, and absolutely none about the contrary. It's not something you violate just by writing a few sentences about it. You'd better have a very good, undisputable and repeatable experimental demonstration, which you don't seem to have right now. Regarding these inventions of his, here's my input:

1. His electric car. It was, most likely, a hoax. There is no evidence he did it except the account of a certain Peter Savo, supposedly Nikola Tesla's nephew. There isn't even evidence Savo was his nephew. There is no physical evidence that Tesla ever had such a car.

2. This is a new one to me. I couldn't find any information about it; could you point me to a reliable source? Once again, a reliable source isn't some guy's website, it's a published scientific paper, or in this case at the very least a well regarded newspaper of the time. Tesla did have an oscillator which functioned as an AC electrical generator. Theoretically it seems possible that the oscillating piston could drive the tree and the ground underneath it at its natural frequency and cause resonance, eventually culminating in an earthquake. Realistically, the resonance of the piece of ground and everything on it would be totally different and the damping forces present would mean even a much larger oscillator would do nothing. Additionally, as the device was attached to the tree, the only way it could have transmitted mechanical energy into the ground was through the tree. To cause resonance in the ground, the tree would also have to be resonating with the device and would have simply been shaken to pieces.

3. Wireless transmission; this is a common one, and it is actually possible. In fact we are using it today, though in a smaller form, phone chargers and such. This transmission can be achieved in a variety of ways, which can possibly be useful in different situations. I will not elaborate on this for now as it is a well researched topic. The problem is its efficiency. The greatest problem facing power companies during transmission isn't the laying of wires, those are dirt cheap - it is the power loss when transmitting through these wires. This is the reason we use AC instead of DC to transmit high power electricity and how the world got to know Nikola Tesla in the first place. Wireless transmission of electricity has always been highly inefficient compared to wired transmission, especially so over long ranges. Tesla merely proved the concept is possible, not that it was viable. You seem to have the impression that electrical transmission takes up a large part of your energy bill - it doesn't. Wires are a fixed, sunk cost and again, they are relatively dirt cheap. What you pay for are the fuels and go into generating the power and the upkeep costs of any alternative energy source. Switching to wireless transmission would do absolutely nothing to reduce your power bill, rather it would drive it up because power companies have to produce more to get the same bit to you. Superconductors, on the other hand, are very promising. In this field the US actually has contributed a lot, with three superconducting transmission systems in Long Island, Georgia and New York, more than half of all there is in the world.

Nikola Tesla was a great man and in my mind as well, one of the most under-appreciated scientists there ever was. However, you need to be careful not to exaggerate his claims and his achievements. Tesla did a lot of conceptual experiments and demonstrations but in the real world, numbers matter and very often, you find they don't work in your favour. The Tesla turbine is another example of one of his inventions that has extremely high efficiency in his little model, but in large, practical engines it falls apart. Also, as a member of the scientific community, may I ask politely for you to not label us as slaves of the government, yours or others. While some scientists may be greedy, many of us are in this field simply because of our passion. It doesn't pay well at all. I assure you that if something as world-changing as this were to exist practically, it would be known to some member of the scientific community before the general public such as you. The excitement it would cause would be far greater in the scientific community than in the general public. In a hundred years, someone would have assured it'd come into fruition, especially if blueprints were already in place.


----------



## electromage (May 5, 2014)

LetThereBeLight! said:


> So glad to hear of your gratitude for and your recognition of his work!
> 
> But I think my well positioned research demonstrates I am not misinformed and funny, isn't it-- that others would claim I was when _they_ choose not to read anything about this great scientist, nor read eyewitness and investigator accounts? (As already stated, I can't be responsible for their choices or lack thereof.)
> 
> ...



Your first sentence underlines the root of the problem with your entire post. You are basing everything on your "well positioned research", but you haven't cited any peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support what you're saying. You are claiming that the documents to back up your position are being hidden by some government entity, and somehow the author of your reference materials has special knowledge, but they in turn can not disclose the proof. This is a house of cards conspiracy theory, you can build it up all you want, but until there's scientific proof to support your claims, there's nothing there, it's two-dimensional. In scientific you can't just go on faith, the whole concept of science is to question things. We're questioning you, and all you've managed to do is re-state the same ideas in slightly different ways.

No, you didn't use the word magic, I did. That should have been clear. I meant it exactly as I said it.

I didn't say that Carnegie and Westinghouse didn't have the funds, I said that nobody had both funds AND faith. They didn't believe in it. Those that did believe didn't have the funds.

I DO NOT assume that "the government" (I still don't know which government you're referring to) has our best interests in mind. I am suggesting that if they are hiding these documents which are the key to free power, they should be using it, whether it benefits us or not.

Lastly, and perhaps this has something to do with it, I am atheist, so don't bring religion into this, that's just trying to back up an un-proven theory with another un-proven theory. The planet is what it is, because some stuff floating in space stuck together. Oil was a very convenient source of energy, which allowed us to make huge strides in a short amount of time, but it is far from a long-term option for powering the human race in the future.

Don't take what I'm saying personally, I'm not trying to "win" here, I'm trying to get you to think critically. I want you to look at what you're saying and scrutinize it, because if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, it's nothing more than an un-proven theory. For instance, can you prove that these documents exist?

EDIT: I'd also like to add - If I were to offer my voice in support of your goal of releasing Tesla's hidden invention upon the world, who would it speak to, and what would it say?


----------



## fyrstormer (May 6, 2014)

LetThereBeLight! said:


> Lastly, do you _really_ think Almighty God created a planet with finite resources so much so that his homosapiens would have to rely almost exclusively on oil because He short-changed the entire human race?


You just attempted to reinforce a rational argument with an appeal to faith. This is proof-positive that you have been defeated on all rational grounds. Walk away from this argument, you have lost completely.

Here's a tip for getting ahead in life: NOTHING you say matters unless you can MAKE IT HAPPEN.


----------



## fyrstormer (May 6, 2014)

LetThereBeLight! said:


> Why are you permitted to get away with "name calling" me a troll? Because I'm a "new", now "enlightened" poster? Because I'm cogent? Because I challenge "conventional" ways of thinking let alone dismissiveness? Because I call people out on their blame assigning and misattributions? Because I dare to summarize (partially) the greatest inventor humanity has ever known and then suffer the blame for what other posters did not dare to read about, or research for themselves? Because I challenged them to read up and about other recent inventors, one of whom is deceased and the other still living? Because I had the creativity to apply one of Tesla's proven concepts to that which all of us here are INCREDIBLY passionate about at this forum-- Flashlights??


No. I call you a troll because you talk a lot (specifically arguing) but you don't do anything. CPF is the most popular portable-lighting forum on the internet because its members MAKE THINGS HAPPEN. If all we did was talk about ideas, CPF would've died a long time ago. Go to your workshop and build a functioning prototype, then post your achievements here. If you do, I will publicly apologize and congratulate you.

Nothing you say matters unless you can make it happen.


----------



## fyrstormer (May 6, 2014)

dc38 said:


> In order to distribute THAT much power to the billions of people in the world, we'd require not only a SUBSTANTIAL network but also enough power to transmit that signal. Even if we do figure out a way to accomplish this while minimizing transmission losses, the receivers would all be tapped to monitor the amount of 'signal' that each household receives.
> 
> Based on the above conjecture, there is nothing 'free' about this energy; it will cause the world to fall into ruin by affecting avian and aquatic migration trajectories at the very least...


It would be even worse than you suppose. First of all, wireless power transmission would require directional antennas to minimize wasted power by broadcasting radio waves into the 99% of the world that doesn't actually need it at any given moment, which would make the infrastructure far more complex than the simple wires we use to transmit power now. Second, the world consumes power at a rate of TENS OF TRILLIONS of watts (~16 terawatt-hours per hour), and that much RF radiation would turn the entire planet into a giant microwave oven. Birds that roost in front of radio towers already die from overheating caused by high-wattage RF exposure from only *thousands* of watts, and the same thing happens to human free-climbers who don't realize what they're doing when they climb radio towers for fun. We already have the Sun radiating half the planet at a time, and it takes all night for the excess heat to dissipate; even if we had the energy reserves to broadcast high-power RF across the entire planet for the purpose of powering devices, the climatic effect of that much RF would make our current climate change look trivial by comparison. Anyone who wants "free energy" is much better-off buying a solar panel and a battery pack.

- - -

On a final note:



LetThereBeLight! said:


> "Sometimes a gentleman is someone who intentionally hurts someone's feelings." - M. Scott Peck, M.D.



...I completely agree with Mr. Peck. Keep his wisdom in mind the next time someone hurts *your *feelings.


----------



## mvyrmnd (May 6, 2014)

fyrstormer said:


> You just attempted to reinforce a rational argument with an appeal to faith. This is proof-positive that you have been defeated on all rational grounds. Walk away from this argument, you have lost completely.
> 
> Here's a tip for getting ahead in life: NOTHING you say matters unless you can MAKE IT HAPPEN.



The other proof being that he's bailed out of the arguement, and ignores those who he realises aren't buying his tripe.


----------



## dc38 (May 6, 2014)

fyrstormer said:


> It would be even worse than you suppose. First of all, wireless power transmission would require directional antennas to minimize wasted power by broadcasting radio waves into the 99% of the world that doesn't actually need it at any given moment, which would make the infrastructure far more complex than the simple wires we use to transmit power now. Second, the world consumes power at a rate of TENS OF TRILLIONS of watts (~16 terawatt-hours per hour), and that much RF radiation would turn the entire planet into a giant microwave oven. Birds that roost in front of radio towers already die from overheating caused by high-wattage RF exposure from only *thousands* of watts, and the same thing happens to human free-climbers who don't realize what they're doing when they climb radio towers for fun. We already have the Sun radiating half the planet at a time, and it takes all night for the excess heat to dissipate; even if we had the energy reserves to broadcast high-power RF across the entire planet for the purpose of powering devices, the climatic effect of that much RF would make our current climate change look trivial by comparison. Anyone who wants "free energy" is much better-off buying a solar panel and a battery pack.
> 
> - - -
> 
> ...


that was what I was getting at...scratching the tip of the iceberg so lettherebelight will realize the underlying issues...your direct approach may be a more effective wake up call though, lol


----------



## orbital (May 6, 2014)

this thread is fluff!







and I dig science


----------



## StarHalo (May 6, 2014)




----------



## electromage (May 6, 2014)

StarHalo said:


>



LetThereBeLight! probably doesn't watch Cosmos.


----------



## ganymede (May 6, 2014)




----------



## dc38 (Jul 7, 2015)

Well, mr. OP...here it comes. YOU get a dose of cancer waces, YOU get a dose of cancer waves, EVERYBODY GETS A DOSE OF CANCER WAAAAAAAVVVEEESS!!!http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/23/tec...ex.html?sr=fb070615chargingphone10aVODtopLink


----------



## electromage (Jul 12, 2015)

I can't believe you revived this thread.


----------

