Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Free Energy - Tesla

Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 5:31:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Let's hear what some people have to say about this subject. Some people say that there was a conpiracy against Tesla, some people say that Tesla never had anything worth hiding.

What do you think?
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 4:13:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Teslas plans for free energy would have never worked, especially when you consider how much energy was wasted within his transmission system [his plan called for wireless power] and one must also consider the inefficiency of power systems of the day.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 6:26:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 9:30:12 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Free Energy = False

Free, as in not having to continuously pay for it in human currency. Off the grid solar energy and wind energy are both free in this way. Grid energy being, not free.

Tesla was said to have the technology to give people basically free energy. It is also said that there was a conspiracy to make sure this never happened.

Do you think the government would ever let there be free abundant energy without trying to fight it or hide it?
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 6:29:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 4:13:33 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Teslas plans for free energy would have never worked, especially when you consider how much energy was wasted within his transmission system [his plan called for wireless power] and one must also consider the inefficiency of power systems of the day.

You would have to be Tesla to fully understand what his concepts were and how they could have been used. I believe there is alot that was covered up or unknown about Tesla's mind on electric energy and the totality of his work in general.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 6:38:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 6:29:40 PM, Lionheart wrote:
At 8/22/2011 4:13:33 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Teslas plans for free energy would have never worked, especially when you consider how much energy was wasted within his transmission system [his plan called for wireless power] and one must also consider the inefficiency of power systems of the day.

You would have to be Tesla to fully understand what his concepts were and how they could have been used. I believe there is alot that was covered up or unknown about Tesla's mind on electric energy and the totality of his work in general.

We have scientists who have been replicating Teslas designs to the dot, they all agree that his free energy designs were too inefficient and especially when using the limited knowledge of his day. If he had put his cosmic ray absorbing device into orbit and figured out how to produce high level energy beams [his weapon designs would have been worthless for this task considering they were all particle beams but his earthquake producing device might have some applications in the counteracting of earthquakes] to beam the energy down from orbit to numerous relay stations to produce free [well an minimum of cheap] clean energy for all. Plus Tesla wrote down specifically what he wanted his devices to be used for.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 6:53:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 6:26:27 PM, Lionheart wrote:
At 8/22/2011 9:30:12 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Free Energy = False

Free, as in not having to continuously pay for it in human currency. Off the grid solar energy and wind energy are both free in this way. Grid energy being, not free.

That's not free energy. And, as I've said in other threads, his system didn't create energy, it was a battery. Unless we're talking about the Tesla turbine, which was thought to be able to work off of Geothermal energy (which is the future Tesla envisioned). But that wasn't what was destroyed by a fire.


Tesla was said to have the technology to give people basically free energy. It is also said that there was a conspiracy to make sure this never happened.

Do you think the government would ever let there be free abundant energy without trying to fight it or hide it?

Yes, they would package it and sell it for huge profits.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 6:54:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 6:38:00 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:29:40 PM, Lionheart wrote:
At 8/22/2011 4:13:33 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Teslas plans for free energy would have never worked, especially when you consider how much energy was wasted within his transmission system [his plan called for wireless power] and one must also consider the inefficiency of power systems of the day.

You would have to be Tesla to fully understand what his concepts were and how they could have been used. I believe there is alot that was covered up or unknown about Tesla's mind on electric energy and the totality of his work in general.

We have scientists who have been replicating Teslas designs to the dot, they all agree that his free energy designs were too inefficient and especially when using the limited knowledge of his day. If he had put his cosmic ray absorbing device into orbit and figured out how to produce high level energy beams [his weapon designs would have been worthless for this task considering they were all particle beams but his earthquake producing device might have some applications in the counteracting of earthquakes] to beam the energy down from orbit to numerous relay stations to produce free [well an minimum of cheap] clean energy for all. Plus Tesla wrote down specifically what he wanted his devices to be used for.

All true, except for there i no way of verifying that we hae all of Tesla's work. If I write something at one point in my life, then advance upon it, my old plans become inefficient and obsolete in comparison to the new revised plans.

Do you feel it possible that Tesla's publicly known plans could ever be made more efficient?

Do you feel there is a chance that we do not have public knowledge of all of Tesla's concepts and plans?
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 6:56:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There's no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody always pays. Whether you pay directly or indirectly, you're going to pay.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 7:02:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 6:26:27 PM, Lionheart wrote:
At 8/22/2011 9:30:12 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Free Energy = False

Free, as in not having to continuously pay for it in human currency. Off the grid solar energy and wind energy are both free in this way. Grid energy being, not free.

Tesla was said to have the technology to give people basically free energy. It is also said that there was a conspiracy to make sure this never happened.

Do you think the government would ever let there be free abundant energy without trying to fight it or hide it?

Tesla was also said to shoot fire balls from his eyes and lightning bolts from his arse. Without demonstrating such technology it is just useless talk.

If nothing else, Tesla had no idea how much electrical energy people would need. It is one thing to provide "free energy" to power an electrical light for someone. It is another thing to provide "free energy" to power an air conditioner, multiple tvs, a computer, washer and dryer, stove all at the same time. This is why wind and solar power also fail. To be self sufficient you also have to drastically limit your usage.
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 7:04:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 6:53:19 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:26:27 PM, Lionheart wrote:
At 8/22/2011 9:30:12 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Free Energy = False

Free, as in not having to continuously pay for it in human currency. Off the grid solar energy and wind energy are both free in this way. Grid energy being, not free.

That's not free energy. And, as I've said in other threads, his system didn't create energy, it was a battery. Unless we're talking about the Tesla turbine, which was thought to be able to work off of Geothermal energy (which is the future Tesla envisioned). But that wasn't what was destroyed by a fire.


Tesla was said to have the technology to give people basically free energy. It is also said that there was a conspiracy to make sure this never happened.

Do you think the government would ever let there be free abundant energy without trying to fight it or hide it?

Yes, they would package it and sell it for huge profits.

Are you joking or just trying to start an unneeded argument?

Come on Ore_Ele... If they were packaging it an selling it for profit then it wouldn't be free abundant energy now would it. Are you having trouble understanding the meaning of my question? I will try to reword it, as maybe the error was in my wording of the question.

Would the government ever let electric energy usage exist without citizens having to continuously pay for it?

This is already happening with off the the grid solar and wind electrical energy systems. The more efficient and cheap this technology becomes, the more the government loses control over the people's energy needs.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 7:06:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 6:54:24 PM, Lionheart wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:38:00 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:29:40 PM, Lionheart wrote:
At 8/22/2011 4:13:33 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Teslas plans for free energy would have never worked, especially when you consider how much energy was wasted within his transmission system [his plan called for wireless power] and one must also consider the inefficiency of power systems of the day.

You would have to be Tesla to fully understand what his concepts were and how they could have been used. I believe there is alot that was covered up or unknown about Tesla's mind on electric energy and the totality of his work in general.

We have scientists who have been replicating Teslas designs to the dot, they all agree that his free energy designs were too inefficient and especially when using the limited knowledge of his day. If he had put his cosmic ray absorbing device into orbit and figured out how to produce high level energy beams [his weapon designs would have been worthless for this task considering they were all particle beams but his earthquake producing device might have some applications in the counteracting of earthquakes] to beam the energy down from orbit to numerous relay stations to produce free [well an minimum of cheap] clean energy for all. Plus Tesla wrote down specifically what he wanted his devices to be used for.

All true, except for there i no way of verifying that we hae all of Tesla's work. If I write something at one point in my life, then advance upon it, my old plans become inefficient and obsolete in comparison to the new revised plans.

Do you feel it possible that Tesla's publicly known plans could ever be made more efficient?


Well some of his designs have been made more efficient [such as RC Control, and a few other things] and there is always room for improvement but I think we should steer away from certain designs [such as Teslas VTOL which is an horribly designed machine] due to the fact we have alternatives that are far more efficient at this point.

Do you feel there is a chance that we do not have public knowledge of all of Tesla's concepts and plans?

He could have thrown out some of his designs that he thought were completely worthless but to us now actually have tons of usage, but I do believe most of his designs are liquidated to the public [but I do believe some of his weapons specs are under wraps] and you can try to check the patent registry.

But if we really need to know might I suggest you try to learn some wormhole physics so as to build an time machine and figure out what Tesla actually did design?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 7:12:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 6:56:24 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
There's no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody always pays. Whether you pay directly or indirectly, you're going to pay.

Except for when the source of the food is continuous and so abundent that any cost is virtually meaningless to humans. In this sense, the lunch is't necessarily free, but the cost is virtually nonexistent and nobody is forcing the payment of the bill. All srts of things create energy through natural processes... Earth, sun, etc.

We are not talking about free energy as in a zero point energy system. We are talking about free in the sense to where nobody can charge for the distribution or consumption of the energy, and the energy being so abundant that humans could never exhaust the supply.

Though there is a city that has a building as it's headquarters who produces more energy than it consumes... Would you like a link? If so, send me a PM. I do not want to derail the topic of this thread.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 7:12:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 7:04:13 PM, Lionheart wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:53:19 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:26:27 PM, Lionheart wrote:
At 8/22/2011 9:30:12 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Free Energy = False

Free, as in not having to continuously pay for it in human currency. Off the grid solar energy and wind energy are both free in this way. Grid energy being, not free.

That's not free energy. And, as I've said in other threads, his system didn't create energy, it was a battery. Unless we're talking about the Tesla turbine, which was thought to be able to work off of Geothermal energy (which is the future Tesla envisioned). But that wasn't what was destroyed by a fire.


Tesla was said to have the technology to give people basically free energy. It is also said that there was a conspiracy to make sure this never happened.

Do you think the government would ever let there be free abundant energy without trying to fight it or hide it?

Yes, they would package it and sell it for huge profits.

Are you joking or just trying to start an unneeded argument?

Come on Ore_Ele... If they were packaging it an selling it for profit then it wouldn't be free abundant energy now would it. Are you having trouble understanding the meaning of my question? I will try to reword it, as maybe the error was in my wording of the question.

Yes, you do need to be more clear in your words. Traditionally "free energy" means free of ANY input cost, not just dollar costs. Then the free you described only refers to money input, you never said anything about it being free to the end user.


Would the government ever let electric energy usage exist without citizens having to continuously pay for it?

Yes, they already do. Ergo, no conspiracy by the definitions you used.


This is already happening with off the the grid solar and wind electrical energy systems. The more efficient and cheap this technology becomes, the more the government loses control over the people's energy needs.

The government doesn't control your energy needs to begin with.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 7:15:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 7:12:30 PM, Lionheart wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:56:24 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
There's no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody always pays. Whether you pay directly or indirectly, you're going to pay.

Except for when the source of the food is continuous and so abundent that any cost is virtually meaningless to humans. In this sense, the lunch is't necessarily free, but the cost is virtually nonexistent and nobody is forcing the payment of the bill. All srts of things create energy through natural processes... Earth, sun, etc.

PAUSE, nothing "creates" energy. They simply release it from one form into another (like from the form of a chemical bond into kenetic energy, or from the Strong nuclear bonds into kenetic energy or photoelectric energy). But it is never created nor destoryed.


We are not talking about free energy as in a zero point energy system. We are talking about free in the sense to where nobody can charge for the distribution or consumption of the energy, and the energy being so abundant that humans could never exhaust the supply.

That would technically be solar, but you still have costs of the panels and such, and the supplies to make panels could be exhausted.


Though there is a city that has a building as it's headquarters who produces more energy than it consumes... Would you like a link? If so, send me a PM. I do not want to derail the topic of this thread.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 7:17:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 7:12:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:04:13 PM, Lionheart wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:53:19 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:26:27 PM, Lionheart wrote:
At 8/22/2011 9:30:12 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Free Energy = False

Free, as in not having to continuously pay for it in human currency. Off the grid solar energy and wind energy are both free in this way. Grid energy being, not free.

That's not free energy. And, as I've said in other threads, his system didn't create energy, it was a battery. Unless we're talking about the Tesla turbine, which was thought to be able to work off of Geothermal energy (which is the future Tesla envisioned). But that wasn't what was destroyed by a fire.


Tesla was said to have the technology to give people basically free energy. It is also said that there was a conspiracy to make sure this never happened.

Do you think the government would ever let there be free abundant energy without trying to fight it or hide it?

Yes, they would package it and sell it for huge profits.

Are you joking or just trying to start an unneeded argument?

Come on Ore_Ele... If they were packaging it an selling it for profit then it wouldn't be free abundant energy now would it. Are you having trouble understanding the meaning of my question? I will try to reword it, as maybe the error was in my wording of the question.

Yes, you do need to be more clear in your words. Traditionally "free energy" means free of ANY input cost, not just dollar costs. Then the free you described only refers to money input, you never said anything about it being free to the end user.


Would the government ever let electric energy usage exist without citizens having to continuously pay for it?

Yes, they already do. Ergo, no conspiracy by the definitions you used.


This is already happening with off the the grid solar and wind electrical energy systems. The more efficient and cheap this technology becomes, the more the government loses control over the people's energy needs.

The government doesn't control your energy needs to begin with.

If you live on the grid, you have no control over your energy needs unless you pay money and the company's system isin good working order. They do control your energy needs. No matter what those needs are, they control whether you get the energy or not.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 7:20:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Just something quick and kinda irrelevant that I want to point out. Thomas Edison is a crook. He took advantage of Tesla. Tesla was a scientist far above Edison's level, and far beyond his time. He perfected Edison's inventions for a certain amount of money that Edison promised him. Edison took credit for Tesla's contributions and denied him the money. In the end and to this day, even still taught in schools, Edison, the thief, is revered with global notoriety, he died peacefully in a pent house, rich with many friends. Tesla died unhappy and alone in a run down apartment.

*Just 1 more fun fact: Edison did not invent the lightbulb. He bought the patent from 2 guys in England, and claimed 100% of the credit. Imagine the irony, me living in a town named after him.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 7:24:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 7:17:13 PM, Lionheart wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:12:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:04:13 PM, Lionheart wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:53:19 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:26:27 PM, Lionheart wrote:
At 8/22/2011 9:30:12 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Free Energy = False

Free, as in not having to continuously pay for it in human currency. Off the grid solar energy and wind energy are both free in this way. Grid energy being, not free.

That's not free energy. And, as I've said in other threads, his system didn't create energy, it was a battery. Unless we're talking about the Tesla turbine, which was thought to be able to work off of Geothermal energy (which is the future Tesla envisioned). But that wasn't what was destroyed by a fire.


Tesla was said to have the technology to give people basically free energy. It is also said that there was a conspiracy to make sure this never happened.

Do you think the government would ever let there be free abundant energy without trying to fight it or hide it?

Yes, they would package it and sell it for huge profits.

Are you joking or just trying to start an unneeded argument?

Come on Ore_Ele... If they were packaging it an selling it for profit then it wouldn't be free abundant energy now would it. Are you having trouble understanding the meaning of my question? I will try to reword it, as maybe the error was in my wording of the question.

Yes, you do need to be more clear in your words. Traditionally "free energy" means free of ANY input cost, not just dollar costs. Then the free you described only refers to money input, you never said anything about it being free to the end user.


Would the government ever let electric energy usage exist without citizens having to continuously pay for it?

Yes, they already do. Ergo, no conspiracy by the definitions you used.


This is already happening with off the the grid solar and wind electrical energy systems. The more efficient and cheap this technology becomes, the more the government loses control over the people's energy needs.

The government doesn't control your energy needs to begin with.

If you live on the grid, you have no control over your energy needs unless you pay money and the company's system isin good working order. They do control your energy needs. No matter what those needs are, they control whether you get the energy or not.

I control if I pay them (there is a degree of control in my hands).
I control what appliances I use and so how much energy is demanded (there is a degree of control in my hands).
I control what type of light bulbs I put in my house (there is a degree of control in my hands).
I control whether or not to turn on those lights, or AC, or whatever (there is a degree of control in my hands).

The only "control" that the power company has is all on or all off. They can't tell you what lightbulbs to have, or when you can run your AC or anything. And since their goal is to make money, as long as you pay the agreed rate (a degree of control in your hands), you'll get all the power you want. And if having to pay is your only argument, then we can apply it to your power argument to begin with. That having to pay a penney for any power system is taking control out of your hands, in which case, it is not physically possible (not without slave labor) to obtain free energy (thus making the entire argument pointless).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 7:29:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 7:15:14 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:12:30 PM, Lionheart wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:56:24 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
There's no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody always pays. Whether you pay directly or indirectly, you're going to pay.

Except for when the source of the food is continuous and so abundent that any cost is virtually meaningless to humans. In this sense, the lunch is't necessarily free, but the cost is virtually nonexistent and nobody is forcing the payment of the bill. All srts of things create energy through natural processes... Earth, sun, etc.

PAUSE, nothing "creates" energy. They simply release it from one form into another (like from the form of a chemical bond into kenetic energy, or from the Strong nuclear bonds into kenetic energy or photoelectric energy). But it is never created nor destoryed.


We are not talking about free energy as in a zero point energy system. We are talking about free in the sense to where nobody can charge for the distribution or consumption of the energy, and the energy being so abundant that humans could never exhaust the supply.

That would technically be solar, but you still have costs of the panels and such, and the supplies to make panels could be exhausted.


Though there is a city that has a building as it's headquarters who produces more energy than it consumes... Would you like a link? If so, send me a PM. I do not want to derail the topic of this thread.

This is going to quickly turn into a different sort of argument if you don't stop resorting to semantics Ore_Ele. Understand the menaing behind what I am saying.

The word "create" is nothing more than a word that describes transfering one form of energy into another. So yes, it is creating. Energy eternal, let's not get into that.

A Solar energy panel may have to be built, but the panel itself can generate an endless amount of energy from the sun until either the panel or the sun are ineffective. Therefor the energy generated by the panel and the sun both cannot be charged for continuously by anyone and the solar supply will utlive any human who is using it.

Let's try to stay on point. The semantics is unneeded. It always surprises me that ertain people can't undertand the meaning of things from a person, only semantics. The ability of understanding the true meaning of intent is far more efficient than the ability to nitpick with semantics. This is because the meaning never changes, no matter what words are used. To not understand the meaning when the meaning is easily there in the words, is to downplay your own intelligence and entertain ignorance of intent.

I know you just had a debate on solar energy, but let's try to not turn this into a semantics thread... Sound good?
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 7:34:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 7:24:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:17:13 PM, Lionheart wrote:

If you live on the grid, you have no control over your energy needs unless you pay money and the company's system isin good working order. They do control your energy needs. No matter what those needs are, they control whether you get the energy or not.

I control if I pay them (there is a degree of control in my hands).

No you don't. They control it, for if they want they can turn it off or on at wil ,you can do nothing but requst it in exchange for money.

I control what appliances I use and so how much energy is demanded (there is a degree of control in my hands).

Yesm, but that energy is only availableif they give it to you.

I control what type of light bulbs I put in my house (there is a degree of control in my hands).

They control if you get energy to the lightbulb.

I control whether or not to turn on those lights, or AC, or whatever (there is a degree of control in my hands).

No, actually they do.


The only "control" that the power company has is all on or all off. They can't tell you what lightbulbs to have, or when you can run your AC or anything. And since their goal is to make money, as long as you pay the agreed rate (a degree of control in your hands), you'll get all the power you want. And if having to pay is your only argument, then we can apply it to your power argument to begin with. That having to pay a penney for any power system is taking control out of your hands, in which case, it is not physically possible (not without slave labor) to obtain free energy (thus making the entire argument pointless).

They still have complete control. All you can do is request and manipulate what they give you.

Want to debate it?
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 7:45:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 7:20:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
Just something quick and kinda irrelevant that I want to point out. Thomas Edison is a crook. He took advantage of Tesla. Tesla was a scientist far above Edison's level, and far beyond his time. He perfected Edison's inventions for a certain amount of money that Edison promised him. Edison took credit for Tesla's contributions and denied him the money. In the end and to this day, even still taught in schools, Edison, the thief, is revered with global notoriety, he died peacefully in a pent house, rich with many friends. Tesla died unhappy and alone in a run down apartment.

*Just 1 more fun fact: Edison did not invent the lightbulb. He bought the patent from 2 guys in England, and claimed 100% of the credit. Imagine the irony, me living in a town named after him.

Edison invented the practical light bulb. Historians have found a grand total of 23 people that physically invented it before him. Edison filed his own patent for the lightbulb, it wasn't something that he bought from others.

Also regarding Tesla and Edison not paying him, I don't know what this is refering to. One of the main reasons that Tesla was broke when he died was because, unlike Edison, he was first and foremost a scientist (while Edison was a businessman). To help win the war on currents, Tesla released westinghouse from their royalties that they owed him for using his patents. Westinghouse is now CBS and is doing pretty well.

Another factor was that as Tesla grew older, his science scemes became more...interesting, and he spent vast sums of his money on funding those (which wouldn't yield any profit for him).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 9:24:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 7:45:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Edison invented the practical light bulb. Historians have found a grand total of 23 people that physically invented it before him. Edison filed his own patent for the lightbulb, it wasn't something that he bought from others.

Searching up on that again, you're right.

Also regarding Tesla and Edison not paying him, I don't know what this is refering to. One of the main reasons that Tesla was broke when he died was because, unlike Edison, he was first and foremost a scientist (while Edison was a businessman). To help win the war on currents, Tesla released westinghouse from their royalties that they owed him for using his patents. Westinghouse is now CBS and is doing pretty well.

"Edison had just invented the electric light bulb, but he needed a system to distribute electricity to houses. He designed a DC (direct current) system, but it had many bugs in it. Edison promised Tesla lots of money in bonuses if he could get the bugs out. Tesla took the challenge and ended up saving Edison over $100,000, which was millions of dollars by today's standards. Edison later refused to keep his promise. Tesla quit not long after that, and Edison spent the rest of his life trying to discredit Tesla (which is the main reason why he is so unknown today)." (http://www.electroherbalism.com...)

What I'm getting at is that Edison was a dishonest crook, and the result of his handiwork is still perpetuated to this day. The glorification of his inventions and work has come from stepping on people. He would not be as famous, and Tesla as unknown (to the layman) had Edison not took the time to discredit the man maliciously. Don't get me wrong, Edison deserves SOME credit for his contributions to modern life, but he is a corrupt and undeserving individual none the less, and more people should be aware of it.

Another factor was that as Tesla grew older, his science scemes became more...interesting, and he spent vast sums of his money on funding those (which wouldn't yield any profit for him).

The mention of their deaths was to further provoke the injustice of the situation....and injustice that not nearly enough people know about.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 11:47:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 9:24:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:45:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Edison invented the practical light bulb. Historians have found a grand total of 23 people that physically invented it before him. Edison filed his own patent for the lightbulb, it wasn't something that he bought from others.

Searching up on that again, you're right.

Also regarding Tesla and Edison not paying him, I don't know what this is refering to. One of the main reasons that Tesla was broke when he died was because, unlike Edison, he was first and foremost a scientist (while Edison was a businessman). To help win the war on currents, Tesla released westinghouse from their royalties that they owed him for using his patents. Westinghouse is now CBS and is doing pretty well.

"Edison had just invented the electric light bulb, but he needed a system to distribute electricity to houses. He designed a DC (direct current) system, but it had many bugs in it. Edison promised Tesla lots of money in bonuses if he could get the bugs out. Tesla took the challenge and ended up saving Edison over $100,000, which was millions of dollars by today's standards. Edison later refused to keep his promise. Tesla quit not long after that, and Edison spent the rest of his life trying to discredit Tesla (which is the main reason why he is so unknown today)." (http://www.electroherbalism.com...)

What I'm getting at is that Edison was a dishonest crook, and the result of his handiwork is still perpetuated to this day. The glorification of his inventions and work has come from stepping on people. He would not be as famous, and Tesla as unknown (to the layman) had Edison not took the time to discredit the man maliciously. Don't get me wrong, Edison deserves SOME credit for his contributions to modern life, but he is a corrupt and undeserving individual none the less, and more people should be aware of it.

In his Biography, Tesla: Man Out of Time. Edison claimed that the offering of $50,000 was a joke and said the misunderstanding came from Tesla (being from Europe) did not understand american humor. Tesla actually first demanded (or asked, it's hard to say the degree of force which he presented his case) that he be given about a 50% raise, and quit when he was refused.

Which is probably a good thing, because he freed himself to start his own company just a few years later.

I would also disagree that Tesla is unknown today. Outside of science class, maybe. But then, outside of science class, not many people know who Edison is either. They merely know him as the lightbulb guy (a few may know him for the phonograph too, but not likely).

Whether it was really a joke or not, I think Edison's future actions in the war of the currents speak for themselves. Rather than trying to show scientifically that his product is a better product, he merely tries to convince everyone else that AC was dangerous. He did this by using AC to publically kill animals and even invented an AC electric chair to be used to killing prisoners.

A real scientist (rather than a businessman, like Edison) would realize that AC did have some superior qualities, and work on making better systems in general (maybe trying to find the short falls of DC and improving them, or finding short falls in AC and improving them).

But the reason that Tesla is poor is not because Edison didn't pay that money, but ultimately because he gave away his patents. He should have (from a monetary point of view) offered to waive his royalties until the company was doing better, and maybe renegotiate his prices.

He was actually making $2.50 per kWh sold (the current cost of electricity is $0.11 per kWh sold).


Another factor was that as Tesla grew older, his science scemes became more...interesting, and he spent vast sums of his money on funding those (which wouldn't yield any profit for him).

The mention of their deaths was to further provoke the injustice of the situation....and injustice that not nearly enough people know about.

So it is an appeal to emotion.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"