amethyst08
Registered Senior Member
Jozen-Bo, you are funny Where do you come from??
This is fascinating and I just wanted to let you know that you really inspired me with this post. I have actually spent the last few hours in an attempt to better understand AC & DC electricity. It's pretty damn interesting and has actually left me with more questions than I started with.
No I'm not. It was Tesla himself who said it. Not in so many words, although that's one possible description, another would be a string of "pellets" i.e. linear not a spread.Now, Oli, are you saying that Tesla's "Death Ray" was basically akin to a "shotgun blast"????
No I'm not. It was Tesla himself who said it. Not in so many words, although that's one possible description, another would be a string of "pellets" i.e. linear not a spread.
Tesla's particles were "droplets" of metal, NOT sub-atomic particles.
Sloppy terminology most likely.How can a "ray" or "beam" consist of metallic particles accept on a molecular level?
So I was correct...The metallic particles to which you refer were actually microscopic droplets of mercury or as some of his later research shows, microscopic particles of tungsten.
Utter rubbish.were reported to be effectively destructive at a distance of 300 miles.
Just noticed this:
Utter rubbish.
Anything launched with enough velocity to reach 300 miles would vapourise through kinetic heating.
Didn't understand the premise?Since you just barely understood the premise of his device
But I do: it isn't a particle weapon.and still don't REALLY understand it whatsoever
Regardless of what he did or didn't do anything launched with sufficient initial velocity to cover 300 miles (and especially retain lethal impact at that range) would require such a high speed that air friction alone would vapourise it.I am apt to believe Tesla's calculations and understanding of his device's effectiveness far and away over yours.
Credited by whom for the "development of advanced particle beam weaponry"? Bearing in mind he denied the existence of the electron...Especially since he is credited via the development of advanced particle beam weaponry as well as the real ground work for what is H.A.A.R.P. technologies
Didn't understand the premise?
You mean as in "it isn't a particle weapon"?
Which but don't you understand?
But I do: it isn't a particle weapon.
Regardless of what he did or didn't do anything launched with sufficient initial velocity to cover 300 miles (and especially retain lethal impact at that range) would require such a high speed that air friction alone would vapourise it.
No calculation (calculation? Hmm what happened to the "test"?) will over-ride that fact.
Credited by whom for the "development of advanced particle beam weaponry"? Bearing in mind he denied the existence of the electron...
And HAARP?:shrug:
Nope, I'm doing my best to discredit the "Tesla did everything first and he was a veritable god" attitude of so many here and on other forums.Come on Oli, you have been doing your best to discredit Tesla right along here.
The point is that Tesla's "particle beam" was not what is understood to be a particle beam today - which is how his device is usually touted.You said that the metal he was referring to was not "sub atomic" or the same as what is considered the standard for particle beam weaponry today. So what.
It doesn't matter AT ALL how they were discharged - any velocity sufficient to make a projectile carry 300 miles would vapourise that projectile within metres of leaving the "muzzle".This was not intended to be "shot" or "blown" through a typical air stream like a BB gun, but rather energetically repelled via ionic charge.
Your disbelief doens't alter the facts or the reality. I've been an analyst of weaponry of various forms for over 40 years so don't put your lack of knowledge down as a lack of research on my part.I don't believe you have done any REAL research here Oli
You're free to believe whatever you like, but the facts don't have to conincide with your beliefs.It's my belief that you are spouting the typical disbelief and ridicule that aligns itself with a passé form of empirical scientific knowledge concerning physics.
Um, no actually.The truth is that the status of typified empirical science has been left in the dark because 90% of the real cutting edge physics research is presently classified and unavailable to the general scientific public like yourself with respect to this specific technology.
Here's the evidence. Tesla created a machine like the tesla coil that would project high energy at a target. It could theoretically shoot down balloons or aircraft (world war 1 is when it was created). Unfortunately he died before it was constructed. The US government confiscated the blueprints. What has become of it is unknown.
any velocity sufficient to make a projectile carry 300 miles would vapourise that projectile within metres of leaving the "muzzle".
Why? Due to friction in the air? What happens when a hyper-sonic ceramic nozzle is used? Just a thought....
Except that the US Government subsequently released Tesla's papers and every UFO book (among others) that purports to show how UFOs work also tends to include diagram of how to make a Tesla coil...
Ever tried something called "Google"?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q="Tesla coil"&gbv=2&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw
So the "confiscation" hardly is hardly relevant these days, is it, since the "blueprints" have since been handed back and published many times?
Doesn't follow at all: why does the fact that the intended targets were biplanes and ballons indicate an energy weapon?Theoretically it was made to burn through the wooden biplanes and balloons, which lends itself to the idea that it is more of an energy weapon than a particle weapon.
Although I suspect there's possibly some newspaper hyperbole in there: 10,000 planes!!!will send concentrated beams of particles through the free air, of such tremendous energy that they will bring down a fleet of 10,000 enemy airplanes at a distance of 250 miles..
http://davidszondy.com/future/tesla/teslaray.htmAnd no the blueprints for the theoretical weapon was not released.
Despite your insistence that you do understand the ACTUAL workings of Tesla's death ray, and the subsequent potential energy manipulation that he was developing, you have shown me zero evidence that you do. Just a peripheral understanding at best.