Tesla Talk

[argosy]

Does anybody have that Tesla picture where he is photographed while sitting with other famous scientists of the time, including, among others, Einstein himself?

 

[vidar]

http://www.divus.cz/images/umelec/tes04.jpg<br />Albert Einstein, Charles Steimetz and Nikola Tesla<br />

 

[qso1]

Excerpt from wiki:<br />Later in life, Tesla made some remarkable claims concerning a "teleforce" weapon...<br /><br />Me:<br />Note the very first sentence in the wiki entry. This tells me there was no independant scientific verification of the claim and until there is some supporting claims, evidence...evidence that should be obtainable through duplication of as much of his work as possible. Directed energy weapons claims are just that.<br /><br />This is an example of the point I made about someone who has made contributions becoming legends and doing so on the strength of what they have already accomplished. Sometimes unsubstantiated claims are made. The Russians may well have tried to duplicate his work and failed. And may have failed simply because the ideas were unworkable.<br /><br />A weapon that can shoot down 10,000 planes out to 200 miles is more to me like something from well into this century or the next one given even our present level of technology. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vidar]

Qso1<br />This is an example of the point I made about someone who has made contributions becoming legends and doing so on the strength of what they have already accomplished. Sometimes unsubstantiated claims are made. <br />-------------------------------<br /><br />I suppose that is the same with Tesla’s critic of Einstein:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Tesla#Field_theories <br />"Tesla, concerning Albert Einstein's relativity theory, stated that '...the relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman Ruðer Boškoviæ, the great philosopher, who, not withstanding other and multifold obligations, wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects. Boškoviæ dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum...'.<br />Tesla was critical of Einstein's relativity work,<br />...[a] magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king...., its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.... "<br />

 

[qso1]

I don't think it would be exactly the same but there could be similarities. But the big difference so far is that the scientific community has validated much of Einsteins theories. And Einstein postulated phenomenon of nature rather than claim to invent something fantastic and not have it independantly verified.<br /><br />Having said that, the day may yet come when Einsteins theories may turn out to be flawed in some way. Todays science may not be adequately equipped to prove his theories which is why some of his theories are still debated rather than settled and accepted. Speed of light as a barrier is largely accepted based on the best science that can be devised to validate through experimentation. But if better methods of validation come along, the barrier may be proven, or refuted.<br /><br />BTW, this also applies to Tesla's research. If the Russians did build a device based on his theories that failed at the turn of the century, maybe they will figure it out in this century. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[MBA_UIU]

<font color="yellow">The Tunguska asteroid exploded at approximately 20 miles above the earth's surface, which is why there was no crater. The trees were knocked down by the blast effects (moving air) which do not excavate the surface </font><br /><br />A blast that high (20x5220=104,000 feet) would have been at a much greater magnitude and would have been visible from hundreds if not thousands of miles away. Also, the destruction would have covered an area nearly half the size of the US. The current thinking is that the “asteroid” exploded somewhere between 3 and 6 miles (between 16,000 and 32,000 feet) above the earth’s surface. The Big Boom <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#0000ff"><br /><br /> <br /><img id="268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/8/268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /><br /></font></strong></p> </div>

 

[vidar]

Aren’t those meteorites, and other UFO hypotheses, based on assumptions?<br />The public statement seems to be indifferent to; no one saw anything flying, no one found any fragments on the ground, therefore it must be an unidentified flying object.<br /><br />I think the question still remains; was there an object or merely energy?

 

[vidar]

It’s not hard to imagine that there was a Chernobyl-like accident, caused by very incompetent statesmen, at that time and place. <br /><br />Just look at Eurasia’s following development in the 20th century. <br />

 

[christine16]

hmm why you think so?

 

[vidar]

Christine16<br />hmm why you think so? <br />--------------------------------------<br /><br />I'm not sure I got the question right.<br /><br />It’s based on the previous postings about the potentials and interests for Tesla’s theories of electro magnetic generators, distributers and weapons. US stopped the experiments and Europe rejected it. The question is whether Russia did experimented, - and failed. If so, the Tunguska event is interesting. <br /><br />Calling it a possibly Chernobyl-like accident is not to compare nuclear and EM generators, but to hint to the magnitude of the potentials. It could have been an experiment to test the powers, and a failure to stop it.<br />

 

[vidar]

It seems that it’s quite possible to mass produce el-cars that will be well compatible to petrol cars in price and qualities. The cars’ potential design and functionalities are interesting enough. But, mass production of el-cars also opens up for other remarkable changes due to other energy requirements<br /><br />El-cars need electricity to be recharged, like petrol-cars need their tanks refilled with petrol. However, unlike petrol, electricity can be produced out of most energy sources, as long as it can activate a turbine. Furthermore, electricity is available at most buildings, very unlike petrol that’s only available at petrol stations. The cars energy could even be literally refilled out of thin air in emergencies. The el-cars’ flexible energy requirements in itself is reason enough to make change the whole car industry.<br /><br />It might seem that the only reason that this improvement of the global transportation-systems was halted during the cold-war, based on games of oil-domination. Who wants that?<br /><br />Stupid, isn’t it?<br />

 

[MBA_UIU]

The problem you have with el cars is that you are substituting one source of pollution for another. It takes T-amount of energy to move Y-amount of weight at X-MPH and cover Z-distance. There is no way of getting around that. Let’s say that we convert all of our basic autos (not those used for fleet or industrial transportation) to el cars. How many more power plants would we need just to keep those cars moving? And, because coal is our fuel of choice for those power plants, just how much more concentrated sources of pollution would there be? If we say that we would build nuclear plants than how much would the infrastructure cost be? What about the nuclear waste, where do you store it? The only particle solution to the el car is hydrogen (Some may argue that solar is another but once again there are major cost restrictions. At our current level of solar technology it takes 8 years of 100%-12 hours a day production to recoup the amount of energy required to build one 1kw panel.).The best method of converting would be through tidal hydro generators. These are less costly to build and do not restrict the natural water flow that a typical river based hydro plant does. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#0000ff"><br /><br /> <br /><img id="268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/8/268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /><br /></font></strong></p> </div>

 

[MBA_UIU]

BTW- Until there is a demand for hydorgen there won't be any hydorgen plants. Look at it this way you don't build a McDonalds in the middle of a corn field and wait for the city to build out to you. <br /><br />When Ford started producing cars there were only a small hand full of gas stations. People would drive for 50 miles and fill 35 gallon drums with fuel to get there monthly supply of gas. Once the demand rose gas stations started to pop up in every little town. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#0000ff"><br /><br /> <br /><img id="268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/8/268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /><br /></font></strong></p> </div>

 

[vidar]

I really don’t know how energy efficient el vs petrol cars are. The real waste is probably that you need a 1000 kg car to move a 100 person, i.e. you move 10 times more mass than necessary. <br /><br />I don’t think petrol energy conversion will be substituted with coal. I’d rather think there will be central power plants based on the surplus petrol. However, that’s part of the rational flexibility. It might boost alternative energy production and even make more demand for smaller and de-central energy production facilities. Any home should have one.<br /><br />Concerning nuclear power plants, I rather think thorium is the fuel of the future.<br />

 

[nexium]

I'm not sure why vider introduced el-cars into the Tesla thread. At present they have some disadvantages over gasoline powered vehicles. There are some improvements which may happen to make them competitive. Present power companies reduce their output from about 8 pm to about 6 am. A million electric cars charging during this period daily (in the USA) would allow nearly constant power production (at higher efficiency) without requiring any new power plants except for occasional owner who would charge their electric car late afternoon or early evening. Neil

 

[vidar]

Nexium, 11/26/06 03:59 AM<br />I'm not sure why vider introduced el-cars into the Tesla thread.<br />----------------<br /><br />Vidar, 11/15/06 06:02 PM<br />Here is an other one: Fast Electric Car <br />http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3624337653720181416&q=tesla+car <br />http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7745185113933785378&q=tesla+car <br />Impressive.<br />----------------<br /><br />The second video is a presentation of the Tesla car.<br />

 

[vidar]

qso1, 11/20/06 11:04 AM<br />I don't think it would be exactly the same but there could be similarities. But the big difference so far is that the scientific community has validated much of Einsteins theories. And Einstein postulated phenomenon of nature rather than claim to invent something fantastic and not have it independantly verified.<br />-----------------------------------------<br /><br />I don’t quite share that enthusiasm. <br />Take a closer look at the formulas:<br />http://www.physics.northwestern.edu/Phyx103/web/extra/einstein-eqns.pdf<br />It seems that all he did was to cut the Lorentz factor into classical Newton physics<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#Lorentz_transformation_for_frames_in_standard_configuration<br />Furthermore, the formula of total energy (E=mc^2) is simply doubling Newton formula for kinetic energy E=1/2 mv^2) at max velocity v=c.<br /><br />Quite understandably, he didn’t get any Nobel prise for this brilliant work of Cut’n’Paste.<br />

 

[why06]

Nikola Tesla was a great man...<br />Many think he was a crazed madman only bent on creating freakish weapons like deathbeams and such....<br />These myths come from media hype about his weapons. In reality the real thing that carried Tesla down through history were his theories on electricity. You could say he was a little crazed-,but what great mind isn't- he forgot about his financial affairs and ended his life bankrupt. <br /><br />Though he did come up with many ideas and inventions such as the Telsa coil, deathbeam, and resonance devices.... these were only etra-curricular thinkings of his studies. <br /><br />Interesting TIDBIT:<font color="yellow"><br />The "Telsa" in Telsa Coil is spelled differently than Tesla's name... SEE.. "Telsa" NIkola Tesla" The "l" is switched. WHY? "I don't know!"</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

If I understood you right, your comment actually reinforces mine. If your saying Tesla cut and paste Newtonian physics and altered them to be his own, this would be one reason the scientific community has not been able to validate Tesla's work. It had already essentially been done...it was just a validation of Newtonian physics. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vidar]

qso1, 11/30/06<br />If I understood you right, your comment actually reinforces mine. If your saying Tesla cut and paste Newtonian physics and altered them to be his own, this would be one reason the scientific community has not been able to validate Tesla's work. It had already essentially been done...it was just a validation of Newtonian physics.<br />------------------<br /><br /><br />No, that is not what the posting says. <br />I don’t see how it is possible to twist it that way. <br />... must be some kind of relativity force at work. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />

 

[qso1]

vidar:<br />No, that is not what the posting says. I don’t see how it is possible to twist it that way.... must be some kind of relativity force at work.<br /><br />Me:<br />If I were trying to twist it...I would not have said "If I understood you correctly". Simple misunderstanding on my part is all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vidar]

qso1<br />If I were trying to twist it...I would not have said "If I understood you correctly". Simple misunderstanding on my part is all. <br />-----------------------------------<br />.. and I am not too good at using those smilies. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[qso1]

No problem and your actually better at using the smileys than I am. I have yet to use one. I gotta brush up on my smiley skills lol. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vidar]

here's the info,<br />UBBCode in your posts<br />http://uplink.space.com/faq_english.php?Cat=#html

 

[qso1]

Thanks, I appreciate that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>