I read this article. Don't you find it more than a little annoying that Mr.
Tesla is nowhere mentioned?
This is important. No doubt everyone other than auto mechanics and people who
like the hear the vroom-vroom would like to switch to electric cars. The
problem is there doesn't seem to be eno
I read it but it seemed flakey.
This could be closer to scam than to reality. No one really knows the loss-rate
of wireless for high power uses or the dangers involved.
There is not much reason to suspect that there is a breakthrough here nor that
this makes either scientific or economic sen
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 2:13 PM Michael Foster wrote:
> I read this article. Don't you find it more than a little annoying that
> Mr. Tesla is nowhere mentioned?
>
Hell yes! I bet they can't even spell Wardencliff! 😉
Don't need copper if everyone roofed their house with solar shingles!
Cheers!
In reply to Michael Foster's message of Wed, 5 Aug 2020 18:13:13 + (UTC):
Hi,
[snip]
>I read this article. Don't you find it more than a little annoying that Mr.
>Tesla is nowhere mentioned?
There's a good reason for that. The two technologies have nothing in common.
Tesla used the Earth a
I see what you mean. I was unaware of their focused beam method. OTOH, Tesla
did invent radio as we know it , but no one seems to know that.. I'm not a
slavish Tesla fan, but the history is reasonably clear.
This system wouldn't solve the power distribution problem either, since the
lack of en
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 4:28 PM Michael Foster wrote:
...
> Similar methods have been proposed to send power to earth from orbiting
solar cell arrays, and probably just as impractical.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9/x-37b-space-planes-microwave-power-beam-experiment-is-a-way-bigger-de
They are careful to say it's not CF. Sure seems like it originated in CF
methods.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/nuclear-fusiontokamak-not-included
Ha! The new and improved new wording is interesting in a semantic sense... but
get real...
Of course it is the demon cold fusion, but now we can pivot around that stigma
and instead present it all in on a different geometry... very little changes
but the word salad.
IOW it is the same old col
In reply to Jack Cole's message of Wed, 5 Aug 2020 21:28:45 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>They are careful to say it's not CF. Sure seems like it originated in CF
...sounds a bit like Let Us Confuse You. ;)
>methods.
>
>https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/nuclear-fusiontokamak-not-included
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 6 Aug 2020 02:58:16 + (UTC):
Hi,
[snip]
> Ha! The new and improved new wording is interesting in a semantic sense...
> but get real...
>
>Of course it is the demon cold fusion, but now we can pivot around that stigma
>and instead present it all in on
Hi,
Consider this, to split a deuteron costs 2.2 MeV. Hot fusion of two deuterons
yields about 4 MeV. At best this would
never yield more than about a factor of 2and that's not taking into account
any of the losses. And those losses will
be very significant.
1) Maybe 1% of the electrons wi
11 matches
Mail list logo
