Hi, I was wondering if anyone knows of a good scientists site with forums, projects and such. I looking for open-minded hands on people, not just textbook learned people. Any recommendations? Thanks (-:

With Love,
John

 

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

 

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

Thanks John, I guess 'learned' is not the correct word to describe what I mean.

 

I think what you'll find what you're looking for here at AAC,
just because someone learned from a textbook doesn't mean they don't have hands on experience
Many of the guys on here are retired and have so much experience that the textbooks they learned from reside in antique shops.
If you're looking for a forum with just people that taught themselves without ever looking in a textbook, good luck. Most people that are really into electronics will turn to a textbook, they are very useful tools, I'm considering getting one myself because I'm too impatient to wait till college to learn the stuff i want to learn

(and along the top of the page you will see links, all to the online textbook )

 

Many of the guys on here are retired and have so much experience that the textbooks they learned from reside in antique shops.

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.

John

 

I just want to be able to ask questions without being ridiculed as to the purpose of my project. There seems to be many closed-minded people on many sites all over the internet. I guess the word to use besides 'learned' is programmed or indoctrinated. That seems to be the norm from the education system, people read something in a textbook or are taught by a professor who read it in a textbook and don't question that it may be wrong and misguiding. I like the hands-on scientist such as Galileo, Tesla, Edison, Wright Brothers, etc. who went against the so-called eductaion system to do and create things that everyone else strongly oppossed and harshly ridiculed, persicuted and crucified those open-minded thinkers. Thanks.

With Love,
John

 

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

 

Well, unless youre trying for the overunity or HHO stuff, you shouldnt have a problem with that here. Unless its posted in the forum rules section for saftey reasons, anything goes.

I have yet to see project be ridiculed, unless its like PERPETUAL MOTION!!!! or 300,000 VOLTS FULL RECTIFICATION
So if you've got something you think is really out there, please post. I'd love to see it

 

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

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.

Anyway, hopefully I can find some of the answers I need here. Thanks for the responses. (-:

With Love,
John

 

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.

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

 

Ok, I'll ask about something that's already been done that I want to build and hopefully someone can guide me. I want to build a Tesla Effect device like the one shown on the Wikipedia "Wireless energy transfer" page, where you have 2 metal plates hanging vertical which can light a fluorescent bulb put between the plates, it's shown in the Electrostatic induction section of the page but I want to be able to have a variable frequency adjuster knob and I want to be able to modulate other frequencies onto the carrier. Any help would be highly appreciated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer

 

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

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.

 

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.

 

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).

 

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.

Thanks Bill! I will do the search and hopefully I can build some neat wireless energy devices! But… just to make a point, people didn't use to believe in wireless energy either, but the hands-on guys (or Tesla to be more specific) kept trying till they succeeded. I'm sure a bunch of "educated" people agued, ridiculed and mocked them (him) for trying, instead of trying it themselves in a trial and error way.

Just because something doesn't work one way doesn't mean a way that does work can't be found. The trick is to not give up just because of a couple failures. I have much more respect for the ones that try new things and fail than I do for the ones who just sit around and mock those that try.

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; if nobody ever tries it won't ever get done, if it is possible that is. I'm just glad we have people like that that are willing to step outside the proverbial box of indoctrination, atrophy and negativity to try something new.

If everyone wasted the energy and time constantly trying to debunk, ridicule an derail (like many already do instead of using that energy and time to try to figure it out themselves) future exploration we would as a civilization be screwed, or more precisely our children’s and grandchildren's future would be screwed, bleak. We need more Tesla's in this world. (-: Thanks again!

With Love,
John

 

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

He said free energy!!!
Everybody, grab your rotten tomatoes!!!

 

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).

Thanks BeenThere! Wow, what a name! Been there, done that, lol. Since you’ve 'been there' maybe you can direct me.

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. Thanks again!

With Love,
John

 

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.

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.

 

He said free energy!!!
Everybody, grab your rotten tomatoes!!!

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.

 

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.

Thanks magnet! That's a pretty good movie!

Plasma speakers are pretty neat, I've built a few with flybacks. That's not quite what I'm wanting but similar, the coil I want would be silent as it sends a high voltage AM signal into the air with variable frequencies between 1Khz-27Mhz, although of course at the low end I wouldn't use AM because the lack of bandwidth.