4 ms·
Yes. This is the large part of it. And it's why his primary investor, J.P.Morgan was not happy about it - the energy CAN NOT be metered and thus charged for.
by FunnyBadger 4y ago
Yes. This is the large part of it. And it's why his primary investor, J.P.Morgan was not happy about it - the energy CAN NOT be metered and thus charged for. So he pulled the plug on Tesla.
The other aspect: when you resonant between Earth and ionosphere, you do NOT get 1/r^2 losses because you are effectively inside a parallel plate capacitor that nearly is uniform and no r dependence other than the surface area average of the Earth's surface - the power put in is uniformly distributed across the area of the Earth.
The other part: Tesla's system is exactly the same as hydrogen - it's NOT an energy source but a distribution medium of CONVENTIONALLY GENERATED electrical power. So you still need fossil, nuclear, etc. power to source the power and then you pump it into it. It's NOT FREE ENERGY as many claim. Not remotely.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- rightbyte 4y ago> the energy CAN NOT be metered and thus charged for. > It's NOT FREE ENERGY as many claim. Not remotely. Make up your mind :) (/s I understand that some would have to pay to fuel the transmitters.)
- basicplus2 4y agoMorgan would have to pay for the fuel to transmit but could not be sure of charging everyone who might hook into the system and draw power. Ie it would be free power for anyone who draw power