Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #51890 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-16 05:30 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-10-18 19:05 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 91 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> - 2016-10-16 05:30 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-16 15:05 +0200
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> - 2016-10-16 06:44 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-16 18:34 +0200
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 14:17 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-10-16 09:58 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-10-16 17:16 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-10-17 01:13 +0000
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 19:36 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 17:23 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 20:49 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:38 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 05:31 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 18:34 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-20 19:18 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-10-20 18:53 -0500
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-20 19:17 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 04:58 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-10-23 11:18 -0500
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-10-27 19:14 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 01:11 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 05:15 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 11:02 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 08:08 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:37 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 05:30 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 18:33 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-10-19 04:03 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-20 19:16 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-21 17:36 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-22 22:06 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-22 23:04 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-23 01:11 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-10-23 12:36 +0100
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 04:55 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 17:32 +0200
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-10-23 11:19 -0500
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-23 15:41 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-11-05 00:48 +0000
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-04 19:37 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2016-10-19 22:13 +0000
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-10-19 13:49 -1000
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-20 21:56 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 19:39 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 14:17 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-16 18:05 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-16 18:42 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 17:09 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 18:11 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 18:26 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-10-17 22:59 -0500
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 01:26 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 01:31 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 22:35 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-10-18 01:10 -0500
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 22:34 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2016-10-19 21:27 +0000
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 22:51 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 00:01 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 00:29 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 00:50 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 08:04 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-18 18:56 +0200
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-10-21 22:02 +0000
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-10-22 16:15 +0000
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-11-04 21:18 +0000
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-11-04 22:26 +0000
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 23:56 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-18 13:02 +0200
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 14:34 +0300
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-18 15:33 +0200
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 16:38 +0300
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:36 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 22:20 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 19:37 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 00:18 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 15:39 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 19:24 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 18:21 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 02:24 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 00:07 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 03:20 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-20 22:38 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:35 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:35 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2016-10-19 21:27 +0000
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 19:35 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-16 18:45 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-16 20:09 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> - 2016-10-18 08:23 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-18 19:05 +0200
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 05:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? |
| Message-ID | <d8aff20f-48eb-4bc9-8cf8-9b05311ba238@googlegroups.com> |
Until now, there is much speculation about what Nikola Tesla did with his mystery electric tower. Some people said, that Tesla tap into freeenergy, Wikipedia says about the Wardenclyffe Tower that is was a apparatus for transmitting energy. For building such a device two problems have to be overcome: first, the invention of a logic gate (called squid device) is a must have, which operates on zero celvin temperature with supra-conductivity (Patent Number US613809). The second invention is a programming-language for controlling the machine. And here comes Forth into the game. Forth is a stack-based programming language for building a domain-specific language for controlling everything. The programming of a quantum computer is not easy. The first principle is, that programs are data and data are programs, there is no difference between them. So my question to the comp.lang.forth community is: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 15:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntvtul$npf$1@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #51890 |
In article <d8aff20f-48eb-4bc9-8cf8-9b05311ba238@googlegroups.com>, Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> wrote: >Until now, there is much speculation about what Nikola Tesla did with his m= >ystery electric tower. Some people said, that Tesla tap into freeenergy, Wi= >kipedia says about the Wardenclyffe Tower that is was a apparatus for trans= >mitting energy.=20 > >For building such a device two problems have to be overcome: first, the inv= >ention of a logic gate (called squid device) is a must have, which operates= > on zero celvin temperature with supra-conductivity (Patent Number US613809= >). The second invention is a programming-language for controlling the machi= >ne. And here comes Forth into the game. Forth is a stack-based programming = >language for building a domain-specific language for controlling everything= >. The programming of a quantum computer is not easy. The first principle is= >, that programs are data and data are programs, there is no difference betw= >een them. > >So my question to the comp.lang.forth community is: Did Nikola Tesla invent= >ed the Quantum computer? As a physicist and a computer expert I would say: "bunk". Tesla was short on theoretical explanations of his devices, leaving a lot of room for speculation by pot heads. This is a good example. At the time of Tesla's demise the very idea of a mechanical computing device was in its infancy, quantum computing was under the horizon. (Mechanical devices in this context include electromechanical and electronic devices. After all, a Pentium could be rebuild in 18-th century clock work fashion, as they did with the Babbage machine.) Groetjes Albert -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 06:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20740973-d03e-4b71-b5f0-9af57991db30@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51891 |
Am Sonntag, 16. Oktober 2016 14:56:22 UTC+2 schrieb Albert van der Horst: > At the time of Tesla's demise the very idea of a mechanical computing > device was in its infancy, Leibniz has invented the first turing-complete computer (Source: Leibniz researcher Nicholas Rescher, http://www.pitt.edu/~pittcntr/Being_here/last_donut/donut_2011-12/09-06-11_rescher.html) The "Staffelwalze" was only part of a larger mechanism. Leibniz lived from 1646 to 1716 in Germany, thats a country in middle europe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 18:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nu0a6n$oo6$1@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #51892 |
In article <20740973-d03e-4b71-b5f0-9af57991db30@googlegroups.com>, Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> wrote: >Am Sonntag, 16. Oktober 2016 14:56:22 UTC+2 schrieb Albert van der Horst: >> At the time of Tesla's demise the very idea of a mechanical computing >> device was in its infancy, > >Leibniz has invented the first turing-complete computer (Source: Leibniz re= >searcher Nicholas Rescher, http://www.pitt.edu/~pittcntr/Being_here/last_do= >nut/donut_2011-12/09-06-11_rescher.html) The "Staffelwalze" was only part o= >f a larger mechanism. Leibniz lived from 1646 to 1716 in Germany, thats a c= >ountry in middle europe. Et alors? Groetjes Albert -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 14:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0508127d-16e4-4c63-b8dd-3700985d8bd9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51892 |
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 9:44:03 AM UTC-4, Manuel Rodriguez wrote: > Am Sonntag, 16. Oktober 2016 14:56:22 UTC+2 schrieb Albert van der Horst: > > At the time of Tesla's demise the very idea of a mechanical computing > > device was in its infancy, > > Leibniz has invented the first turing-complete computer (Source: Leibniz researcher Nicholas Rescher, http://www.pitt.edu/~pittcntr/Being_here/last_donut/donut_2011-12/09-06-11_rescher.html) The "Staffelwalze" was only part of a larger mechanism. Leibniz lived from 1646 to 1716 in Germany, thats a country in middle europe. doubt it
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 09:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2bf5b098-238d-4c44-be02-62017e67de07@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51891 |
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 1:56:22 PM UTC+1, Albert van der Horst wrote: > In article <d8aff20f-48eb-4bc9-8cf8-9b05311ba238@googlegroups.com>, > Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> wrote: > >Until now, there is much speculation about what Nikola Tesla did with his m= > >ystery electric tower. Some people said, that Tesla tap into freeenergy, Wi= > >kipedia says about the Wardenclyffe Tower that is was a apparatus for trans= > >mitting energy.=20 > > > >For building such a device two problems have to be overcome: first, the inv= > >ention of a logic gate (called squid device) is a must have, which operates= > > on zero celvin temperature with supra-conductivity (Patent Number US613809= > >). The second invention is a programming-language for controlling the machi= > >ne. And here comes Forth into the game. Forth is a stack-based programming = > >language for building a domain-specific language for controlling everything= > >. The programming of a quantum computer is not easy. The first principle is= > >, that programs are data and data are programs, there is no difference betw= > >een them. > > > >So my question to the comp.lang.forth community is: Did Nikola Tesla invent= > >ed the Quantum computer? > > As a physicist and a computer expert I would say: "bunk". > > Tesla was short on theoretical explanations of his devices, leaving > a lot of room for speculation by pot heads. This is a good example. > At the time of Tesla's demise the very idea of a mechanical computing > device was in its infancy, quantum computing was under the horizon. > > (Mechanical devices in this context include electromechanical > and electronic devices. After all, a Pentium could be rebuild in > 18-th century clock work fashion, as they did with the Babbage machine.) > > Groetjes Albert > -- > Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS > Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. > albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst any idea how many square miles such an implementation would be - independent of the reliability aspect ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 17:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <20161016171623.57524eff@_> |
| In reply to | #51891 |
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:05:25 +0200 (CEST) albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) wrote: > In article <d8aff20f-48eb-4bc9-8cf8-9b05311ba238@googlegroups.com>, > Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> wrote: <OT> > >Until now, there is much speculation about what Nikola Tesla did > >with his m= ystery electric tower. Some people said, that Tesla tap > >into freeenergy, Wi= kipedia says about the Wardenclyffe Tower that > >is was a apparatus for trans= mitting energy.=20 > > > >For building such a device two problems have to be overcome: first, > >the inv= ention of a logic gate (called squid device) is a must > >have, which operates= > > on zero celvin temperature with supra-conductivity (Patent Number > > US613809= > >). The second invention is a programming-language for controlling > >the machi= ne. And here comes Forth into the game. Forth is a > >stack-based programming = language for building a domain-specific > >language for controlling everything= . The programming of a quantum > >computer is not easy. The first principle is= , that programs are > >data and data are programs, there is no difference betw= een them. > > > >So my question to the comp.lang.forth community is: Did Nikola Tesla > >invent= ed the Quantum computer? > > As a physicist and a computer expert I would say: "bunk". > > Tesla was short on theoretical explanations of his devices, leaving > a lot of room for speculation by pot heads. This is a good example. > At the time of Tesla's demise the very idea of a mechanical computing > device was in its infancy, quantum computing was under the horizon. > > (Mechanical devices in this context include electromechanical > and electronic devices. After all, a Pentium could be rebuild in > 18-th century clock work fashion, as they did with the Babbage > machine.) > I agree that that Tesla developing Quantum computing is most unlikely. As for the idea that it is possible to create things prior to the development of scientific theory, that has been done thousands, perhaps millions, of times throughout history. There was the Baghdad battery around 250BC before static electricity was discovered by Thales of Miletus around 585BC. There was also Antikythera mechanism which predates physics, mechanics, computing, and clockwork mechanisms by 14 to 18 centuries. Etc. And, I don't follow the rationale of Manuel's whereby one needs a 1) squid device and 2) a domain specific language, such a Forth, to create a wireless power source, as suggested by Tesla's Wardenclyffe Tower. As for Wardenclyffe Tower, we've all seen photographs of Tesla holding lit light-bulbs in his hand powered by high-frequency AC induction, as well Tesla sitting in front of high-voltage Tesla coils discharging massive arcs of electricity. What most people don't know, is that you can use the earth as the return path in AC circuits, instead of using two wires. This is called "single-wire earth return." You can read about it on Wikipedia. Today, most understand that broadcasting radio frequencies also transmits a miniscule amount of energy, but Tesla was working before or during the development of electromagnetic theory. In Tesla's case, he was working with high-voltage Tesla coils and high-frequency AC. High frequency AC is directly related to radio frequencies and he was aware of the work of others on electromagnetic waves and radiotelegraphy. If you combine the ideas together, you have a wireless source of high-power energy. So, it's in the realm of possibility that Wardenclyffe Tower was supposed to be either a high-frequency Tesla coil for wireless transmission of AC power via long-range electromagnetic fields and AC induction, or perhaps a radio tower for wireless transmission of high-power energy via radio-frequencies. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 01:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu18k6$fc4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #51905 |
Am Sun, 16 Oct 2016 17:16:23 -0400 schrieb Rod Pemberton: > but Tesla was working before or during the development of > electromagnetic theory. Maxwell's equations were first published in 1864; that was when Tesla was 8 years old. Between 1886 and 1888, Heinrich Hertz evaluated these equations with experiments, and from that point on you can consider them an accepted scientific theory. Tesla started working on this subject in 1891, and had his first stunning experiments of electric power transmitted through air ready in 1893. Thus Tesla based his work on (back then) very recent theories and discoveries, and of course a lot of people didn't understand anything. He was a genius in practical engineering, but the theory was already there, and tested: he just applied that theory. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 19:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4fd51990-54bb-4e69-8fc9-dc2ba1a53089@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51918 |
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 9:14:02 PM UTC-4, Bernd Paysan wrote: > Am Sun, 16 Oct 2016 17:16:23 -0400 schrieb Rod Pemberton: > > > but Tesla was working before or during the development of > > electromagnetic theory. > > Maxwell's equations were first published in 1864; that was when Tesla was > 8 years old. Between 1886 and 1888, Heinrich Hertz evaluated these > equations with experiments, and from that point on you can consider them > an accepted scientific theory. Tesla started working on this subject in > 1891, and had his first stunning experiments of electric power > transmitted through air ready in 1893. > > Thus Tesla based his work on (back then) very recent theories and > discoveries, and of course a lot of people didn't understand anything. > He was a genius in practical engineering, but the theory was already > there, and tested: he just applied that theory. > > -- > Bernd Paysan > "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" > net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* > http://bernd-paysan.de/ Do you think he did things we dont use now? I heard he could beam power from one skyscarper to another, and this could be used instead of power lines. Maybe beam weapons are too powerful? dangerous? hows your webserver? could it be used for big load balanced busy websites?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 17:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <06bc5e2d-1824-4c16-9050-1befe31bf095@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51918 |
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:14:02 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: > Thus Tesla based his work on (back then) very recent theories and > discoveries, and of course a lot of people didn't understand anything. > He was a genius in practical engineering, but the theory was already > there, and tested: he just applied that theory. This is typical Bernd Paysan --- belittles everybody's work --- Tesla actually made significant contributions to people's understanding of electricity, especially in regard to alternating current. AC is used to cancel out inductance, allowing electricity to be transported long distances, although we still lose something like 1/3 of the energy generated in our power plants. Our "understanding" of electricity could better be desribed as "familiarity" with electricity --- nobody actually knows how electricity works --- inductance is a big WTF for any student of electricity (the analogy about water flowing through a pipe is okay for resistance and current, but not for inductance). I read one physicist who said that reality is actually nothing like the physical world that we experience with our sight, hearing and touch. We don't know what reality is like --- we don't even know what it would be like to know what it is like.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 20:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu3rie$m8i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #51961 |
On 10/17/2016 8:23 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:14:02 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: >> Thus Tesla based his work on (back then) very recent theories and >> discoveries, and of course a lot of people didn't understand >> anything. He was a genius in practical engineering, but the theory >> was already there, and tested: he just applied that theory. > > This is typical Bernd Paysan --- belittles everybody's work --- Tesla > actually made significant contributions to people's understanding of > electricity, especially in regard to alternating current. > AC is used to cancel out inductance, What??? Ok, your license to even discuss science has been revoked!!! > allowing electricity to be transported long > distances, although we still lose something like 1/3 of the energy > generated in our power plants. AC vs. DC has nothing to do with canceling inductance or whatever else your mind is thinking. It is the simple fact that with AC it is easy to change the voltage and therefore current while this is not so easy in DC. AC uses transformers (notice the name?) to transform lower voltage AC to higher voltage AC and back again. The advantage is that at a higher voltage the resistive losses are lower because of the lower current. AC has its own set of problem but they are easier to work with... until recently. Now that practical circuits to transform DC voltages exist high voltage DC power lines have become a reality. I have not read up on it to see what the advantages and disadvantages are, but they are being used. > Our "understanding" of electricity could better be desribed as > "familiarity" with electricity --- nobody actually knows how > electricity works --- inductance is a big WTF for any student of > electricity (the analogy about water flowing through a pipe is okay > for resistance and current, but not for inductance). Lol, you must have flunked physics. A simple mechanical system of a mass, spring and a damper use exactly the same equations to describe the motion as the voltage in an AC circuit with inductance, capacitance and resistance. This is actually a good analogy to learn from. > I read one physicist who said that reality is actually nothing like > the physical world that we experience with our sight, hearing and > touch. We don't know what reality is like --- we don't even know what > it would be like to know what it is like. Yeah, people say all sorts of stuff. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 21:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8d85d9ce-d5e0-4e33-9ca3-453bfc3c41b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51963 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:49:38 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: > On 10/17/2016 8:23 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:14:02 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: > >> Thus Tesla based his work on (back then) very recent theories and > >> discoveries, and of course a lot of people didn't understand > >> anything. He was a genius in practical engineering, but the theory > >> was already there, and tested: he just applied that theory. > > > > This is typical Bernd Paysan --- belittles everybody's work --- Tesla > > actually made significant contributions to people's understanding of > > electricity, especially in regard to alternating current. > > > AC is used to cancel out inductance, > > What??? Ok, your license to even discuss science has been revoked!!! > > > > allowing electricity to be transported long > > distances, although we still lose something like 1/3 of the energy > > generated in our power plants. > > AC vs. DC has nothing to do with canceling inductance or whatever else > your mind is thinking. It is the simple fact that with AC it is easy to > change the voltage and therefore current while this is not so easy in > DC. AC uses transformers (notice the name?) to transform lower voltage > AC to higher voltage AC and back again. The advantage is that at a > higher voltage the resistive losses are lower because of the lower > current. AC has its own set of problem but they are easier to work > with... until recently. Now that practical circuits to transform DC > voltages exist high voltage DC power lines have become a reality. I > have not read up on it to see what the advantages and disadvantages are, > but they are being used. > > > > Our "understanding" of electricity could better be desribed as > > "familiarity" with electricity --- nobody actually knows how > > electricity works --- inductance is a big WTF for any student of > > electricity (the analogy about water flowing through a pipe is okay > > for resistance and current, but not for inductance). > > Lol, you must have flunked physics. A simple mechanical system of a > mass, spring and a damper use exactly the same equations to describe the > motion as the voltage in an AC circuit with inductance, capacitance and > resistance. This is actually a good analogy to learn from. > > > > I read one physicist who said that reality is actually nothing like > > the physical world that we experience with our sight, hearing and > > touch. We don't know what reality is like --- we don't even know what > > it would be like to know what it is like. > > Yeah, people say all sorts of stuff. > > -- > > Rick C USA should go 100% atomic power, 0 emissions 0 need for anything but thorium, which we have 100,000 year of and throw awya now export all who disagree to china
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 05:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <49b6e7e4-cc88-4601-9d65-2762ec05bf15@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51974 |
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 05:38:19 UTC+1, polymorph self wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:49:38 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: > > On 10/17/2016 8:23 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:14:02 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: > > >> Thus Tesla based his work on (back then) very recent theories and > > >> discoveries, and of course a lot of people didn't understand > > >> anything. He was a genius in practical engineering, but the theory > > >> was already there, and tested: he just applied that theory. > > > > > > This is typical Bernd Paysan --- belittles everybody's work --- Tesla > > > actually made significant contributions to people's understanding of > > > electricity, especially in regard to alternating current. > > > > > AC is used to cancel out inductance, > > > > What??? Ok, your license to even discuss science has been revoked!!! > > > > > > > allowing electricity to be transported long > > > distances, although we still lose something like 1/3 of the energy > > > generated in our power plants. > > > > AC vs. DC has nothing to do with canceling inductance or whatever else > > your mind is thinking. It is the simple fact that with AC it is easy to > > change the voltage and therefore current while this is not so easy in > > DC. AC uses transformers (notice the name?) to transform lower voltage > > AC to higher voltage AC and back again. The advantage is that at a > > higher voltage the resistive losses are lower because of the lower > > current. AC has its own set of problem but they are easier to work > > with... until recently. Now that practical circuits to transform DC > > voltages exist high voltage DC power lines have become a reality. I > > have not read up on it to see what the advantages and disadvantages are, > > but they are being used. > > > > > > > Our "understanding" of electricity could better be desribed as > > > "familiarity" with electricity --- nobody actually knows how > > > electricity works --- inductance is a big WTF for any student of > > > electricity (the analogy about water flowing through a pipe is okay > > > for resistance and current, but not for inductance). > > > > Lol, you must have flunked physics. A simple mechanical system of a > > mass, spring and a damper use exactly the same equations to describe the > > motion as the voltage in an AC circuit with inductance, capacitance and > > resistance. This is actually a good analogy to learn from. > > > > > > > I read one physicist who said that reality is actually nothing like > > > the physical world that we experience with our sight, hearing and > > > touch. We don't know what reality is like --- we don't even know what > > > it would be like to know what it is like. > > > > Yeah, people say all sorts of stuff. > > > > -- > > > > Rick C > > USA should go 100% atomic power, > 0 emissions > 0 need for anything but thorium, which we have 100,000 year of and throw awya now > export all who disagree to china 0 emissions? So what is the spent nuclear fuel?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 18:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <013f8ed2-60cd-4e56-b231-30ad36d8aa5e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #52003 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 8:31:46 AM UTC-4, Mark Wills wrote: > On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 05:38:19 UTC+1, polymorph self wrote: > > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:49:38 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: > > > On 10/17/2016 8:23 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:14:02 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: > > > >> Thus Tesla based his work on (back then) very recent theories and > > > >> discoveries, and of course a lot of people didn't understand > > > >> anything. He was a genius in practical engineering, but the theory > > > >> was already there, and tested: he just applied that theory. > > > > > > > > This is typical Bernd Paysan --- belittles everybody's work --- Tesla > > > > actually made significant contributions to people's understanding of > > > > electricity, especially in regard to alternating current. > > > > > > > AC is used to cancel out inductance, > > > > > > What??? Ok, your license to even discuss science has been revoked!!! > > > > > > > > > > allowing electricity to be transported long > > > > distances, although we still lose something like 1/3 of the energy > > > > generated in our power plants. > > > > > > AC vs. DC has nothing to do with canceling inductance or whatever else > > > your mind is thinking. It is the simple fact that with AC it is easy to > > > change the voltage and therefore current while this is not so easy in > > > DC. AC uses transformers (notice the name?) to transform lower voltage > > > AC to higher voltage AC and back again. The advantage is that at a > > > higher voltage the resistive losses are lower because of the lower > > > current. AC has its own set of problem but they are easier to work > > > with... until recently. Now that practical circuits to transform DC > > > voltages exist high voltage DC power lines have become a reality. I > > > have not read up on it to see what the advantages and disadvantages are, > > > but they are being used. > > > > > > > > > > Our "understanding" of electricity could better be desribed as > > > > "familiarity" with electricity --- nobody actually knows how > > > > electricity works --- inductance is a big WTF for any student of > > > > electricity (the analogy about water flowing through a pipe is okay > > > > for resistance and current, but not for inductance). > > > > > > Lol, you must have flunked physics. A simple mechanical system of a > > > mass, spring and a damper use exactly the same equations to describe the > > > motion as the voltage in an AC circuit with inductance, capacitance and > > > resistance. This is actually a good analogy to learn from. > > > > > > > > > > I read one physicist who said that reality is actually nothing like > > > > the physical world that we experience with our sight, hearing and > > > > touch. We don't know what reality is like --- we don't even know what > > > > it would be like to know what it is like. > > > > > > Yeah, people say all sorts of stuff. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Rick C > > > > USA should go 100% atomic power, > > 0 emissions > > 0 need for anything but thorium, which we have 100,000 year of and throw awya now > > export all who disagree to china > > 0 emissions? > > So what is the spent nuclear fuel? youtube kirk sorensen and flibe energy and thorium you uneducated sploof
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 19:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nubjcb$gun$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52003 |
On 10/18/2016 8:31 AM, Mark Wills wrote: > On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 05:38:19 UTC+1, polymorph self wrote: >> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:49:38 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: >>> On 10/17/2016 8:23 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:14:02 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: >>>>> Thus Tesla based his work on (back then) very recent theories and >>>>> discoveries, and of course a lot of people didn't understand >>>>> anything. He was a genius in practical engineering, but the theory >>>>> was already there, and tested: he just applied that theory. >>>> >>>> This is typical Bernd Paysan --- belittles everybody's work --- Tesla >>>> actually made significant contributions to people's understanding of >>>> electricity, especially in regard to alternating current. >>> >>>> AC is used to cancel out inductance, >>> >>> What??? Ok, your license to even discuss science has been revoked!!! >>> >>> >>>> allowing electricity to be transported long >>>> distances, although we still lose something like 1/3 of the energy >>>> generated in our power plants. >>> >>> AC vs. DC has nothing to do with canceling inductance or whatever else >>> your mind is thinking. It is the simple fact that with AC it is easy to >>> change the voltage and therefore current while this is not so easy in >>> DC. AC uses transformers (notice the name?) to transform lower voltage >>> AC to higher voltage AC and back again. The advantage is that at a >>> higher voltage the resistive losses are lower because of the lower >>> current. AC has its own set of problem but they are easier to work >>> with... until recently. Now that practical circuits to transform DC >>> voltages exist high voltage DC power lines have become a reality. I >>> have not read up on it to see what the advantages and disadvantages are, >>> but they are being used. >>> >>> >>>> Our "understanding" of electricity could better be desribed as >>>> "familiarity" with electricity --- nobody actually knows how >>>> electricity works --- inductance is a big WTF for any student of >>>> electricity (the analogy about water flowing through a pipe is okay >>>> for resistance and current, but not for inductance). >>> >>> Lol, you must have flunked physics. A simple mechanical system of a >>> mass, spring and a damper use exactly the same equations to describe the >>> motion as the voltage in an AC circuit with inductance, capacitance and >>> resistance. This is actually a good analogy to learn from. >>> >>> >>>> I read one physicist who said that reality is actually nothing like >>>> the physical world that we experience with our sight, hearing and >>>> touch. We don't know what reality is like --- we don't even know what >>>> it would be like to know what it is like. >>> >>> Yeah, people say all sorts of stuff. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Rick C >> >> USA should go 100% atomic power, >> 0 emissions >> 0 need for anything but thorium, which we have 100,000 year of and throw awya now >> export all who disagree to china > > 0 emissions? > > So what is the spent nuclear fuel? Yes, even thorium reactors have spent fuel, just less than a uranium reactor. So thorium may be better than uranium, but it's still a radiation source and not a perfect energy source. Maybe someone here should get interested in the energy generator of Andrea Rossi? Absolutely no emissions other than heat. Unfortunately no energy production other than what is put into it, but nothing is perfect, eh? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 18:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nublci$m4j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52074 |
On 10/20/2016 6:18 PM, rickman wrote: > On 10/18/2016 8:31 AM, Mark Wills wrote: > > Yes, even thorium reactors have spent fuel, just less than a uranium > reactor. So thorium may be better than uranium, but it's still a > radiation source and not a perfect energy source. > > Maybe someone here should get interested in the energy generator of > Andrea Rossi? Absolutely no emissions other than heat. Unfortunately > no energy production other than what is put into it, but nothing is > perfect, eh? > Sounds like the perfect guy to sell you a used bridge in Brooklyn at a discount, cash only please. -- Cecil - k5nwa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 19:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f656d163-3513-4446-9c5a-08c0b64e0f6a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #52074 |
On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 7:18:57 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: > On 10/18/2016 8:31 AM, Mark Wills wrote: > > On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 05:38:19 UTC+1, polymorph self wrote: > >> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:49:38 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: > >>> On 10/17/2016 8:23 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:14:02 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: > >>>>> Thus Tesla based his work on (back then) very recent theories and > >>>>> discoveries, and of course a lot of people didn't understand > >>>>> anything. He was a genius in practical engineering, but the theory > >>>>> was already there, and tested: he just applied that theory. > >>>> > >>>> This is typical Bernd Paysan --- belittles everybody's work --- Tesla > >>>> actually made significant contributions to people's understanding of > >>>> electricity, especially in regard to alternating current. > >>> > >>>> AC is used to cancel out inductance, > >>> > >>> What??? Ok, your license to even discuss science has been revoked!!! > >>> > >>> > >>>> allowing electricity to be transported long > >>>> distances, although we still lose something like 1/3 of the energy > >>>> generated in our power plants. > >>> > >>> AC vs. DC has nothing to do with canceling inductance or whatever else > >>> your mind is thinking. It is the simple fact that with AC it is easy to > >>> change the voltage and therefore current while this is not so easy in > >>> DC. AC uses transformers (notice the name?) to transform lower voltage > >>> AC to higher voltage AC and back again. The advantage is that at a > >>> higher voltage the resistive losses are lower because of the lower > >>> current. AC has its own set of problem but they are easier to work > >>> with... until recently. Now that practical circuits to transform DC > >>> voltages exist high voltage DC power lines have become a reality. I > >>> have not read up on it to see what the advantages and disadvantages are, > >>> but they are being used. > >>> > >>> > >>>> Our "understanding" of electricity could better be desribed as > >>>> "familiarity" with electricity --- nobody actually knows how > >>>> electricity works --- inductance is a big WTF for any student of > >>>> electricity (the analogy about water flowing through a pipe is okay > >>>> for resistance and current, but not for inductance). > >>> > >>> Lol, you must have flunked physics. A simple mechanical system of a > >>> mass, spring and a damper use exactly the same equations to describe the > >>> motion as the voltage in an AC circuit with inductance, capacitance and > >>> resistance. This is actually a good analogy to learn from. > >>> > >>> > >>>> I read one physicist who said that reality is actually nothing like > >>>> the physical world that we experience with our sight, hearing and > >>>> touch. We don't know what reality is like --- we don't even know what > >>>> it would be like to know what it is like. > >>> > >>> Yeah, people say all sorts of stuff. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> Rick C > >> > >> USA should go 100% atomic power, > >> 0 emissions > >> 0 need for anything but thorium, which we have 100,000 year of and throw awya now > >> export all who disagree to china > > > > 0 emissions? > > > > So what is the spent nuclear fuel? > > Yes, even thorium reactors have spent fuel, just less than a uranium > reactor. So thorium may be better than uranium, but it's still a > radiation source and not a perfect energy source. > > Maybe someone here should get interested in the energy generator of > Andrea Rossi? Absolutely no emissions other than heat. Unfortunately > no energy production other than what is put into it, but nothing is > perfect, eh? > > -- > > Rick C no thorium is the answer see here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYa4GnW4zR0
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 04:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1c8e6e63-dbe4-49e3-95b2-248de859b88e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #52077 |
On Friday, 21 October 2016 03:17:57 UTC+1, polymorph self wrote: > On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 7:18:57 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: > > On 10/18/2016 8:31 AM, Mark Wills wrote: > > > On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 05:38:19 UTC+1, polymorph self wrote: > > >> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:49:38 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: > > >>> On 10/17/2016 8:23 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > >>>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:14:02 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: > > >>>>> Thus Tesla based his work on (back then) very recent theories and > > >>>>> discoveries, and of course a lot of people didn't understand > > >>>>> anything. He was a genius in practical engineering, but the theory > > >>>>> was already there, and tested: he just applied that theory. > > >>>> > > >>>> This is typical Bernd Paysan --- belittles everybody's work --- Tesla > > >>>> actually made significant contributions to people's understanding of > > >>>> electricity, especially in regard to alternating current. > > >>> > > >>>> AC is used to cancel out inductance, > > >>> > > >>> What??? Ok, your license to even discuss science has been revoked!!! > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> allowing electricity to be transported long > > >>>> distances, although we still lose something like 1/3 of the energy > > >>>> generated in our power plants. > > >>> > > >>> AC vs. DC has nothing to do with canceling inductance or whatever else > > >>> your mind is thinking. It is the simple fact that with AC it is easy to > > >>> change the voltage and therefore current while this is not so easy in > > >>> DC. AC uses transformers (notice the name?) to transform lower voltage > > >>> AC to higher voltage AC and back again. The advantage is that at a > > >>> higher voltage the resistive losses are lower because of the lower > > >>> current. AC has its own set of problem but they are easier to work > > >>> with... until recently. Now that practical circuits to transform DC > > >>> voltages exist high voltage DC power lines have become a reality. I > > >>> have not read up on it to see what the advantages and disadvantages are, > > >>> but they are being used. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> Our "understanding" of electricity could better be desribed as > > >>>> "familiarity" with electricity --- nobody actually knows how > > >>>> electricity works --- inductance is a big WTF for any student of > > >>>> electricity (the analogy about water flowing through a pipe is okay > > >>>> for resistance and current, but not for inductance). > > >>> > > >>> Lol, you must have flunked physics. A simple mechanical system of a > > >>> mass, spring and a damper use exactly the same equations to describe the > > >>> motion as the voltage in an AC circuit with inductance, capacitance and > > >>> resistance. This is actually a good analogy to learn from. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> I read one physicist who said that reality is actually nothing like > > >>>> the physical world that we experience with our sight, hearing and > > >>>> touch. We don't know what reality is like --- we don't even know what > > >>>> it would be like to know what it is like. > > >>> > > >>> Yeah, people say all sorts of stuff. > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> > > >>> Rick C > > >> > > >> USA should go 100% atomic power, > > >> 0 emissions > > >> 0 need for anything but thorium, which we have 100,000 year of and throw awya now > > >> export all who disagree to china > > > > > > 0 emissions? > > > > > > So what is the spent nuclear fuel? > > > > Yes, even thorium reactors have spent fuel, just less than a uranium > > reactor. So thorium may be better than uranium, but it's still a > > radiation source and not a perfect energy source. > > > > Maybe someone here should get interested in the energy generator of > > Andrea Rossi? Absolutely no emissions other than heat. Unfortunately > > no energy production other than what is put into it, but nothing is > > perfect, eh? > > > > -- > > > > Rick C > > no thorium is the answer > see here > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYa4GnW4zR0 Thorium is the answer, I agree. But it has still has nuclear waste disposal problems. One good thing about it is that it can consume spent uranium. The REALLY good thing about it is its waste products CANNOT be used to make bombs, which was the ENTIRE point of the nuclear energy frenzy of the 50s. That they produced "nearly free" clean energy for the population was a mere selling point to the public.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 11:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nuins1$cau$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52132 |
On 10/23/2016 6:58 AM, Mark Wills wrote: > On Friday, 21 October 2016 03:17:57 UTC+1, polymorph self wrote: >> On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 7:18:57 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: >>> On 10/18/2016 8:31 AM, Mark Wills wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 05:38:19 UTC+1, polymorph self wrote: >>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:49:38 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: >>>>>> On 10/17/2016 8:23 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:14:02 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: >>>>>>>> Thus Tesla based his work on (back then) very recent theories and >>>>>>>> discoveries, and of course a lot of people didn't understand >>>>>>>> anything. He was a genius in practical engineering, but the theory >>>>>>>> was already there, and tested: he just applied that theory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is typical Bernd Paysan --- belittles everybody's work --- Tesla >>>>>>> actually made significant contributions to people's understanding of >>>>>>> electricity, especially in regard to alternating current. >>>>>> >>>>>>> AC is used to cancel out inductance, >>>>>> >>>>>> What??? Ok, your license to even discuss science has been revoked!!! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> allowing electricity to be transported long >>>>>>> distances, although we still lose something like 1/3 of the energy >>>>>>> generated in our power plants. >>>>>> >>>>>> AC vs. DC has nothing to do with canceling inductance or whatever else >>>>>> your mind is thinking. It is the simple fact that with AC it is easy to >>>>>> change the voltage and therefore current while this is not so easy in >>>>>> DC. AC uses transformers (notice the name?) to transform lower voltage >>>>>> AC to higher voltage AC and back again. The advantage is that at a >>>>>> higher voltage the resistive losses are lower because of the lower >>>>>> current. AC has its own set of problem but they are easier to work >>>>>> with... until recently. Now that practical circuits to transform DC >>>>>> voltages exist high voltage DC power lines have become a reality. I >>>>>> have not read up on it to see what the advantages and disadvantages are, >>>>>> but they are being used. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Our "understanding" of electricity could better be desribed as >>>>>>> "familiarity" with electricity --- nobody actually knows how >>>>>>> electricity works --- inductance is a big WTF for any student of >>>>>>> electricity (the analogy about water flowing through a pipe is okay >>>>>>> for resistance and current, but not for inductance). >>>>>> >>>>>> Lol, you must have flunked physics. A simple mechanical system of a >>>>>> mass, spring and a damper use exactly the same equations to describe the >>>>>> motion as the voltage in an AC circuit with inductance, capacitance and >>>>>> resistance. This is actually a good analogy to learn from. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I read one physicist who said that reality is actually nothing like >>>>>>> the physical world that we experience with our sight, hearing and >>>>>>> touch. We don't know what reality is like --- we don't even know what >>>>>>> it would be like to know what it is like. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, people say all sorts of stuff. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Rick C >>>>> >>>>> USA should go 100% atomic power, >>>>> 0 emissions >>>>> 0 need for anything but thorium, which we have 100,000 year of and throw awya now >>>>> export all who disagree to china >>>> >>>> 0 emissions? >>>> >>>> So what is the spent nuclear fuel? >>> >>> Yes, even thorium reactors have spent fuel, just less than a uranium >>> reactor. So thorium may be better than uranium, but it's still a >>> radiation source and not a perfect energy source. >>> >>> Maybe someone here should get interested in the energy generator of >>> Andrea Rossi? Absolutely no emissions other than heat. Unfortunately >>> no energy production other than what is put into it, but nothing is >>> perfect, eh? >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Rick C >> >> no thorium is the answer >> see here >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYa4GnW4zR0 > > Thorium is the answer, I agree. But it has still has nuclear waste > disposal problems. > > One good thing about it is that it can consume spent uranium. > The REALLY good thing about it is its waste products CANNOT be used > to make bombs, which was the ENTIRE point of the nuclear energy frenzy > of the 50s. That they produced "nearly free" clean energy for the population > was a mere selling point to the public. > Nearly free is a joke, but by the time they get the juice to your house, so much money will have been spent on safety factors and pay off old debts that it will be no cheaper than fossil fuels. In my area the Electric Co. was bought by a larger concern, the first item of business was to raise the rates to pay for a nuclear reactor that was shutdown in Louisiana that never served a watt of Electricity to our area or anyone's area since it never started fully operating. The same thing would happen with Thorium reactors. In a strange science fiction book I read a long time ago dealt with beings from an alternate universe and one of the things that was going on was that they would exchange Tungsten in out Universe with Thorium, to them Tungsten was a radioactive material used to generate energy and food and Thorium was a totally inert material in their Universe. But there was no such thing as a free lunch, the outcome would be the merging of the Universes if the process continued, but of course the ruling authorities didn't see it that way. -- Cecil - k5nwa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 19:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <20161027191430.0ce8e303@_> |
| In reply to | #52074 |
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:18:56 -0400 rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/18/2016 8:31 AM, Mark Wills wrote: > > On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 05:38:19 UTC+1, polymorph self wrote: > >> USA should go 100% atomic power, > >> 0 emissions > >> 0 need for anything but thorium, which we have 100,000 year of and > >> throw awya now export all who disagree to china > > > > 0 emissions? > > > > So what is the spent nuclear fuel? > > Yes, even thorium reactors have spent fuel, just less than a uranium > reactor. So thorium may be better than uranium, but it's still a > radiation source and not a perfect energy source. > > Maybe someone here should get interested in the energy generator of > Andrea Rossi? Absolutely no emissions other than heat. > Unfortunately no energy production other than what is put into it, > but nothing is perfect, eh? There is no perfect source of energy. There are only better sources, as technology permits. Next is probably a fusion reactor, but that depletes water over the long term. After that, a Dyson sphere or similar technology to harvest solar energy from existing stars is the better option. Other options might be to harvest the energy released from nuclear bomb blasts, if containable, or use the nuclear explosion to create usable energy, e.g., via steam or high-power lasers. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web