Thanks John, I guess 'learned' is not the correct word to describe what I mean.Learned people are open-minded and hands on. Maybe you want to exclude the pseudo-learned?
I've been a scientist since the 3rd grade. There are others here like me as well.
John
Hey,I don't know about the textbooks (Anyone want to buy an Eggers et al., Physical Chemistry, 1964 textbook?), but sometimes I feel like I belong in an antique shop.Many of the guys on here are retired and have so much experience that the textbooks they learned from reside in antique shops.
I don't mind being asked what I'm trying to do, it's the common indoctrinated automatic negative emotional responses that I don't like. Obviously if it's a project that is well known and in textbooks most people won't ridicule that, it's the new ideas that people get upset about. How are people supposed to come up with something new if they don't look outside the box? It's a good thing we had people like Tesla or we would still be in the dark ages. Sometimes to come up with something new it takes certain parts of projects that have already been done, sections of different systems that can be joined together to make something new. It also takes an open-mind to bring ideas to manifestation.Sorry, but you will be asked what you want to do here. So many times, posters come here with vague questions, only to find out eventually that they do not understand the problem. If you are looking for a solution to a super secret, once-in-a-lifetime inspiration, you may have better luck elsewhere.
John
Oops, I hope this is not some introduction to an overunity, HHO BS thing. Tesla and Einstein knew what was in the box. Newton was right, in a practical sense at least.How are people supposed to come up with something new if they don't look outside the box? It's a good thing we had people like Tesla or we would still be in the dark ages.
It saddens me that Tesla's name somehow got stuck in there with all that junk... Man was a genius, occasionally wrong but you have to respect the fact that he thought big.Oops, I hope this is not some introduction to an overunity, HHO BS thing. Tesla and Einstein knew what was in the box. Newton was right, in a practical sense at least.
John
When it comes to being open minded and science, this doesn't included either overunity (perpetual motion) nor HHO (which is a subset of overunity). Neither of these fall under science, but quackery, there are some very good scientific reasons they will not work (Energy may neither be created nor destroyed comes to mind). Science is about reproducibility and facts. The fact that many people try over and over to create perpetual motion or overunity with zero success is a pretty well established fact, as is the unfortunate fact that scam artists abound in the field.
We have been swamped in the past with these subjects to the extreme, by both people who treat it like a religious concept (facts don't work, as they have faith) or we're just not thinking outside the box. The rules of this box are pretty well established, but many people have other agendas other than science.
It has gotten bad enough that out moderators do not have any tolerance for overunity, perpetual motion, or HHO, and have put stickies up to illustrate why they ran out of tolerance. Put simply, this is not science, it is closer to religion, and based on myth.
Having said that, there is lots of room for real science. This planet is awash in energy, and there are quite a few subjects that aren't quite so clear cut.
So if you are into real science this forum is for you, but if you are into pseudo science we have a lot of articulate people who will not mock you, but will point out the facts (not textbooks, but decades of real experience). People who can't handle this usually leave to find forums with other like minded people that feed on their delusions in a closed loop sort of way, with none of the checks and balances real science has.
Which is the real point. Science thrives on critics, it is the critics that define real science more than anything else. Show me, or better yet, describe it well enough I can build one and duplicate your results, is the corner stone of science.
Two new posts popped up while I was typing this. Wireless transmission of electricity is a common theme here, no one mocks it. Do a search for "zero_coke", who was a member who is very interested in the subject. A search using wireless power will pull up quite a few threads on the subject.
He said free energy!!!I am open-minded to the possibility of free-energy which is why I don't ridicule and persecute people who are trying to figure out a way that may work
Thanks, Bill, that covers a lot of the areas that can cause problems when hope or imagination encounters science.
I am interested in how Wilbur and Orville get mentioned in the list of great innovators who had to overcome disbelief. A little research shows that they based much of their wing and control designs on Otto Lilenthal's work with man-carrying gliders. There were others besides him, and nearly 20 years experience had proven the concept of some man-made object that could fly and carry a man was quite valid.
The really big deal was powered flight. The Wright's contribution was to kludge up an engine that could push a man and the machine through the air. That was engineering. We might note that their wing-warping was really not good for turning the Wright Flyer, and the elevators being placed out in front meant no stall recovery was possible. It might be that Glen Curtis contributed significantly more than the Wrights.
Where we get into problems with people who come here hoping we can make some idea work out is that we seem to lose all respect from the poster as soon as we point out that either physics and/or electronics simply do not work that way.
We urge the individual to read our very long series of threads that developed over the years in which we set forth the reasons why perpetual motion is just not possible (to use that as an example). It always seems that the poster has no background in any science or electronics at all, and is simply quite angry that we refuse to make his dream come true. That has become more than frustrating, so we no longer repeat the explanations, but refer the poster to the stickies.
As far as lighting a fluorescent tube with stray high frequency EM radiations, it's been done. Old TV's had enough leakage around the damper diode to light one. I knew an radar type off the Enterprise who said that they checked the quality of antenna element loading (you may recall that the Enterprise and the Long Beach had the first planar array radars) by opening one of the many drawers feeding the phase shifters and seeing if the 12AX7's were putting out enough stray energy to light the tube.
Any old Tesla coil will do the trick even without those metal plates. I suppose one could do some modulation of the drive waveform, but it may have very little effect (depending on what you expect to have that do).
Movie sorcerers apprentice??I have been wanting to build a small musical or singing Tesla Coil but I don't need it to shoot out streamers, do you know where I can find the simplest schematics for one that is the cheapest. I would also like to be able to re-tune the coil for various frequencies and maybe connect my Ham Radio to it; can I do that, if so, how would I do that? I've researched countless sites but they don't seem to have what I'm looking for.
lol good one magnet, woops I must have said a bad word ...but if you've got some rotten tomatos, that's pretty wasteful of the time and energy that went into producing them. Some people that live the overabundance life tend to walk all over the starving and povert stricken.He said free energy!!!
Everybody, grab your rotten tomatoes!!!
Movie sorcerers apprentice??
You may want to try a plasma speaker, IIRC Tesla coils don't have a continuous discharge, so you couldn't listen to music or audio very clearly unless it was like... 8bit.