Posted by: switch
It takes a lot of energy to supercool conductors, and that energy would have to be generated. It would also have to be done at 100% efficiency to not leave a heat signature, which isn't likely.
Generated my ass - Tesla was pulling electricity from the "sky" over a century ago.
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: switch
It takes a lot of energy to supercool conductors, and that energy would have to be generated. It would also have to be done at 100% efficiency to not leave a heat signature, which isn't likely.
it's like you're playing a game of golf using the rules of football.
when it comes to the potential of ufo's, all known rules pretty much go out the window.
Sooo that makes me the expert in this thread then right ;)
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: switch
It takes a lot of energy to supercool conductors, and that energy would have to be generated. It would also have to be done at 100% efficiency to not leave a heat signature, which isn't likely.
it's like you're playing a game of golf using the rules of football.
when it comes to the potential of ufo's, all known rules pretty much go out the window.
Sooo that makes me the expert in this thread then right ;)
Just like every other thread.
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: switch
It takes a lot of energy to supercool conductors, and that energy would have to be generated. It would also have to be done at 100% efficiency to not leave a heat signature, which isn't likely.
Generated my ass - Tesla was pulling electricity from the "sky" over a century ago.
And Franklin did it almost the centuries ago. So what's your point?
Posted by: switch
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: switch
It takes a lot of energy to supercool conductors, and that energy would have to be generated. It would also have to be done at 100% efficiency to not leave a heat signature, which isn't likely.
Generated my ass - Tesla was pulling electricity from the "sky" over a century ago.
And Franklin did it almost the centuries ago. So what's your point?
You mean tying a kite in a storm is the same as pulling electricity from one of the sphere's in our atmosphere?
Just what was your thesis for your PhD Mr. Expert?
And my point was pretty damn simple, flying sphere's inducting their power source from the very atmosphere they fly under.
Posted by: FLATCH
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: switch
It takes a lot of energy to supercool conductors, and that energy would have to be generated. It would also have to be done at 100% efficiency to not leave a heat signature, which isn't likely.
it's like you're playing a game of golf using the rules of football.
when it comes to the potential of ufo's, all known rules pretty much go out the window.
Sooo that makes me the expert in this thread then right ;)
Just like every other thread.
Oh come on! That was tee'd up perfectly and thats the best you can do ?
Gotham deserve's a better class of poster.
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
And my point was pretty damn simple, flying sphere's inducting their power source from the very atmosphere they fly under.
Yeah, they pull the energy out of their butts - similar in the way that you get your theories.
Posted by: switch
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
And my point was pretty damn simple, flying sphere's inducting their power source from the very atmosphere they fly under.
Yeah, they pull the energy out of their butts - similar in the way that you get your theories.
I guess that makes you a feco-feliac since you just have to reply.
Forum jump:
