Blech.
>what do you think of Randell Mills' experimental ball lightning reactor that he's been working on at his NJ company Brilliant Light Power? … this seems to me one of the more credible, workable designs but it is painfully slow getting these technologies to market.
Just looking at the diagram and relating it to what I know from practical experience, it looks like it can be made to work.
However, I have two comments: 1) I believe with the addition of one other invention, this kind of device can be hyperefficient. 2) I believe once you have that other invention, you no longer need ball lightning to harvest the power from fusion. The complexity of the device collapses down to almost nothing.
Don't take my word on it. Do your own research. Don't trust what the 'experts' tell you about how electricity works at an atomic scale. They're teaching it wrong.
>i agree with you that academic science will only take you so far. the real science needed to do breakthrough energy tech has been hidden or purposely falsified by the cabal and their lackeys in the university system
It is actually pretty fun to research the history (where you can find the political anomalies after the discoveries) and figure out how the forbidden technologies work. Not all that difficult if you just do it.
>then again I have met many academics who are aware of all this, and self-fund their own research in 'forbidden technologies'. the problem is that even when a tech is shown to be viable, we haven't got the political or regulatory environment to bring those techs out to the public.
There are ways to do this. We'll see how far Q goes with releasing technology. If that doesn't work, there are ways to get the knowledge out there.
Honestly, I'm not that interested in the device because I believe there's a much simpler/easier way to do it. But thanks. This is not to discourage anyone else from researching any of this stuff. It is all good.
>Tesla himself said Wardenclyffe's purpose was the wireless transmission of electrical power don't take my word for it.
a) did you see him say it in person? b) this announcement could have easily been in the terms of his funding.
>the waveguide involved is what we now call the Schumann cavity formed between the Ionosphere and the surface of the Earth.
Yeah, I don't buy this explanation.
>If you knew half of what you claim you'd understand at least that much
Oh how you cast stones. Questioning is not a bad thing. Also, you have no idea what I know.
The Wanta story reeks of clown bullshit.
>Wow. It's been a while since we had a good free-energy slide. +1 for creativity.
Not sliding - last bread I called out people telling everyone to repeat unjustified 'facts' about Tesla. I was trying to put a damper on it.
Ignore at will.
RICO war crimes
>what are the justified facts, then?
I'm not asserting any. I was calling others out for asserting that Tesla invented 'free energy' without adding any facts to support their assertions.
>https://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/01/27/trump-transition-team-contacted-personally-by-lee-wanta/
So? Do you have a transcript with any evidence to back up any of Wanta's assertions?
I'm not sliding any more of this bullshit. If you claim Tesla invented free energy, you need to provide a description of how it actually works. Not just speculation.
>then how do you know he didn't?
The onus is on the asserter to prove their claims. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. - Hitchens.
>Sounds like you have a stake in this topic.
>Sounds like you have a stake in this topic.
I have a stake in truth. If you can't demostrate truth, then figure it out and THEN assert it.
I'm one of those people who have had all sorts of business trouble because of assholes keeping my stuff in the dark. I know it happens.
The problem is when shills come in here and try to get useful idiots to run around parroting unjustified claims just to discredit us. Fuck that. Don't go running around claiming person X (Tesla in this case) discovered free energy unless you can PROVE IT.
Sauce matters.