EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
Electronics => Projects, Designs, and Technical Stuff => Topic started by: DejanC on August 15, 2024, 03:24:04 am
-
Hi,
This video has nothing to do with free energy. Would just like some perspective on the impedance phenomenon shown in the first 3 minutes of this video.
https://youtu.be/tlx7tDNXYR8?si=-t0_nhXql7G38_qE
Has anyone seen anything like this? Why the difference in light color in the second experiment? Why not lighting of the 50V light bulb in the third experiment? Does not seem to be a VSWR issue here as placement of the light bulbs is not exact along the transmission line.
Just curious to hear your thoughts about explanations that take into account all of the above!
-
The difference in color is simply down to if the lightbulb glows from heat (as per typical operation). Or if arcs are forming inside the lightbulb to add some blue.
-
For Tesla's sake - not fucking again. You were baned once and hopefully gonna be banned again
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/tesla-hairpin-circuit-curious-phenomenon (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/tesla-hairpin-circuit-curious-phenomenon)
-
thats how you extend the life of a bulb, you can raise the voltage to higher levels so it spark in there after the filament burned out. old farmers trick
you know for those bat people that just flash the lights 'to save money' when they open the closet then work in the dark. boss man got hoppin mad when he thought he saw that wheel in the electricity box move
wire up that old dynamo blaster to the remains of the light so you can get a bit of light in the dynamite closet when you gotta grab some sticks
-
Here's what a real engineer would do. Build a replica, take measurements, construct a SPICE model, analyze its behavior.
It turns out there were some interesting details about the circuit elements that were not obvious at the outset, which needed to be included in the SPICE model before it would start to match the observations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7gPeIVVy0A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7gPeIVVy0A)
-
For Tesla's sake - not fucking again. You were baned once and hopefully gonna be banned again
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/tesla-hairpin-circuit-curious-phenomenon (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/tesla-hairpin-circuit-curious-phenomenon)
OP: why are you starting a new thread on this? It's exactly the same topic as the other thread, and you got a decent number of contributions already. What's wrong - do you feel you haven't wasted people's time enough yet?
I agree with what has been said already. 1/ You seem to think that if you don't understand something, then it must be a mystery outside the scope of present-day science. 2/ You reject everyone's efforts to explain it, insisting that no, it is actually a mystery. 3/ What you really want is some personal validation for your big-eyed gullibility, your need to believe in magic, your hope that you might become inducted into a world of secret knowledge and mysterious power.
Just give us all a break, will you? There are plenty of other places far more suited to your needs than a forum hosted by Dave Jones.
-
It's sad for everyone involved.
But I think with some types of people (fortunately rare), they will just keep on creating the same or similar threads like this...
And it will just keep going around in circles and circles, not getting anywhere.
With them just rebuffing, all the good advice, this forum can have, to offer. Them not really processing the responses, sensibly/scientifically.
Which is why, (from what little, I've seen)most/(all?) Physics forums, seem to have robust rules, which are rigidly kept to, for handling, this type of situation.
-
I've hit the "Report" button on it, anyway.
-
I've hit the "Report" button on it, anyway.
Their symbol (the OP), has been changed to the 'BANNED' one (which is sometimes a temporary one). It is not necessarily obvious, until you are familiar with it (A small red exclamation mark, and a small purple unhappy face, circle, around a couple of lines below their user name).
Which doesn't surprise me, with all the trouble, around that user, and the various mentions, of them having previously banned account(s) on here.
-
And there was me hoping that the OP was just finally satisfied with the (part) explanation to their question provided in the video that IanB posted.
-
And there was me hoping that the OP was just finally satisfied with the (part) explanation to their question provided in the video that IanB posted.
I'm not sure how many previously banned or not, accounts, that person has had on here, but I think it is more than one, or even many.
So, the likelihood of them going, "Ah, the scientific method, and doing things properly/scientifically, and no religious like beliefs, or even any magic needed". "Great, I will leave your really nice forum, alone now".
Is not that likely to have occurred, going by past experience.
-
Here's what a real engineer would do. Build a replica, take measurements, construct a SPICE model, analyze its behavior.
This, exactly! 🤗 🤝
It is also exactly what any scientists would do, being a perfect example of applying the scientific method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method).
It is also exactly what a software developer would do, when encountering any unexpected effects or problems: determine the exact situation (inputs, state, outputs) where it happens, and optimally simplify it to a minimal reproducible example, then dissect it to understand how.
Laypeople sometimes think that the problem in science and academia is a big conspiracy, rejecting ideas they don't like, like say Nikola Tesla's research. It is not that at all! (With our current understanding we can replicate Tesla's experiments, and analyse them, and show what and how is happening; problem is, it is not always what Nikola Tesla claimed, especially when it involves transfer or transformation of energy in various electromagnetic forms –– exactly those claims those looking for free energy and such are hoping would be true.)
When we talk about failures and problems in science and academia, it really is that the simple steps IanB described is just not done often enough, nor rigorously enough. On one hand, it is the replication crisis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis): when others replicate the research, they get different results. It means the actual phenomena was not completely and/or correcly described. Like showing a wheel perpetually turning, but neglecting to mention the motor inside the hub connected to a battery. On the other hand, it is the social and human aspects of current scientific discourse: in the past, top scientists have often had not too good social skills and weren't very good at marketing themselves, but today, such people have no room in academia. Furthermore, it is very difficult to get funding for something others are not researching yet, so most contend themselves to researching the same things everyone else is researching already, wasting resources, and turning away from the scientific method, into an exercise in rapid publishing and creative writing. Really. The rise of authoritarian thinking –– considering who is saying more than what is being said –– means tenured leaders easily unwittingly create a social atmosphere where disagreement is cause for dismissal, as critical discussion of ideas one might not actually espouse is gauche/unacceptable/evil. Basically, we've dropped the ball on the steps IanB listed.
And yet, doing science/engineering exactly like this is possible for absolutely everyone, and it is rewarding in of itself: understanding things, and helping others undestand things, gives most humans a huge dopamine boost. All it takes is a bit of self-control, and a lot of effort, but most find it fun, too.
Apologies for the wall-of-text post, but this and the related topics in recent times has weighed heavily on my soul. I love oddball experiments and research (like putting grapes in a microwave), and talking about them in scientific and engineering circles, but somehow when I try, they tend to devolve into unscientific social games and point-scoring (which drives me away instantly).
Finding IanB putting the entire thing in a single sentence, accompanied with a really good example video (made by Fred B's Tech Channel (https://www.youtube.com/@syberraith) on Youtube), just made my day. No, week. No, MONTH. :-+
-
I'm not sure how many previously banned or not, accounts, that person has had on here, but I think it is more than one, or even many.
At least DejanC, Dejan567 and Deco56 seem to be the same person -- sharing the same Tesla fetish and writing style, plus overlapping usernames. All these accounts are now banned.
-
The guy that banned that f*****g fetishist deserves to be awarded the ears and the tail of the troll, I think.
The only complain I could make is it took too much time to do so. I think we all knew it was going to happen... then why let that troll do his thing? I for one would greatly appreciate if those varmints would be exterminated before their post count reaches 20.
-
Don't worry from now on any "new" techobable that quotes tesla's name will get an immediate ban with no "trial period". I still don't know if these people are that dumb or are intentionally trolling and trying to seed arguments among us. They often seem to have Russian sounding names.....
-
Don't worry from now on any "new" techobable that quotes tesla's name will get an immediate ban with no "trial period". I still don't know if these people are that dumb or are intentionally trolling and trying to seed arguments among us. They often seem to have Russian sounding names.....
On the one hand, that does sound a bit harsh, as it could be someone who is going to be receptive to criticism, listen, and amend their ways.
But on the other hand, any poster, who's first (or early posts), is titled something like "Tesla ...", or "Free-energy ...", especially when it includes a video, typical of those sorts of posters, rather than from a proper source, of reliable videos, from established scientists and/or engineers (established/recognized ones).
Then, the thread usually heads downwards, rather rapidly, often/usually ending in the user being banned on here.
But overall, rapidly eliminating, such users, once it is quickly established, they are not going to change their ways, sounds like a good idea.
-
They often seem to have Russian sounding names.....
Serbian rather than Russian.
-
They often seem to have Russian sounding names.....
Serbian rather than Russian.
Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian -- the latter being Tesla's nationality too, of course. I think it's likely that some misguided patriotism is contributing to DejanC's fascination with the man.
-
They often seem to have Russian sounding names.....
Serbian rather than Russian.
Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian -- the latter being Tesla's nationality too, of course. I think it's likely that some misguided patriotism is contributing to DejanC's fascination with the man.
Sigh. Having visited the museum of technology in Zagreb, I really really shouldn't have written "Serbian".
I knew what I meant.
-
Don't worry from now on any "new" techobable that quotes tesla's name will get an immediate ban with no "trial period". I still don't know if these people are that dumb or are intentionally trolling and trying to seed arguments among us. They often seem to have Russian sounding names.....
On the one hand, that does sound a bit harsh, as it could be someone who is going to be receptive to criticism, listen, and amend their ways.
But on the other hand, any poster, who's first (or early posts), is titled something like "Tesla ...", or "Free-energy ...", especially when it includes a video, typical of those sorts of posters, rather than from a proper source, of reliable videos, from established scientists and/or engineers (established/recognized ones).
Then, the thread usually heads downwards, rather rapidly, often/usually ending in the user being banned on here.
But overall, rapidly eliminating, such users, once it is quickly established, they are not going to change their ways, sounds like a good idea.
I'm talking about having made it obvious that they won't listen and that their justification is that tesla had something to do with it.
I really wish people would broaden their education. There were many people involved in the discovery of electricity, yet all these people know of is tesla, maybe edison and rarely Westinghouse, thef definitely have no appreciation of all the others.
-
I'm talking about having made it obvious that they won't listen and that their justification is that tesla had something to do with it.
I really wish people would broaden their education. There were many people involved in the discovery of electricity, yet all these people know of is tesla, maybe edison and rarely Westinghouse, thef definitely have no appreciation of all the others.
That sounds good!
This forum is really setup for established, engineering and scientific things.
Not woo woo science and mechanisms.
As Dave (and co), have sometimes said in some of his videos.
Make a machine, based on the claimed new science/engineering principles, show it working, and we can talk, and perhaps try out the new machine.
Otherwise, it is just speculative hot air. Usually based on very woolly and suspect, science and engineering theories and principles.
-
Another principle is to close such topics once the basic introductions have been made:
- they make a claim, post a video, etc.
- proof (other than video and babble) is kindly requested
- they continue making the same claims, referring to the video, etc. <-- close thread somewhere between here
- firmer requests for factual evidence are made
- and ignored/declined <-- and here
- the regular rabble moves in, smells blood, attacks <-- we should also not tolerate this behavior, and report and reprimand such accounts
Someone coming in, new, unfamiliar with the forum, of course should be welcomed, and not rejected out-of-hand. Even if they're opening rather strongly into a "woo" topic. People can be wrong, that's fine. It's whether they're open to change that matters. Gauge that with the subsequent replies. Keep it civil, ignore the given topic at first, press the importance of facts, of scientific method; note what is expected as a positive reply, and what negative replies will (eventually) result in a ban.
Thus, the fanatic betrays themself, as they can't honestly accept the scientific method, apply it to their belief system, allow their beliefs to be questioned. (This psychology became pretty apparent in this case, with the visceral lashing-out in response to attacking their most-highly-held idol, the conclusive proof.) This leaves one other "in": if they are feeling manipulative, they may feign acceptance, perhaps behaving for now, perhaps trying to drag conversation back towards "woo". This is fine, as in the interim, peaceful (if dubious) behavior is had, and they will at some point eventually tip their hand and reveal their true beliefs, reducing to the above case.
And yes, I mean literally coaching what kind of reply is acceptable. Not to an explicit instructional and word-for-word scripted level, of course not, but more to give a sort of informed consent, that yes this is expected, and to leave enough freedom that they need to compose their own words, a simple search and replace or copy and paste won't suffice. Those smart/mature/manipulative enough to understand the instruction, will behave (at least for the time being), and the immature won't understand it and continue operating from their own internal state of mind.
Tim
-
Someone coming in, new, unfamiliar with the forum, of course should be welcomed, and not rejected out-of-hand. Even if they're opening rather strongly into a "woo" topic. People can be wrong, that's fine. It's whether they're open to change that matters. Gauge that with the subsequent replies. Keep it civil, ignore the given topic at first, press the importance of facts, of scientific method; note what is expected as a positive reply, and what negative replies will (eventually) result in a ban.
That's the key bit. We were all beginners at one time, and we all remain beginners in topics that are new to us.
Starting the occasional idiotic topic isn't a problem for me. What does annoy me is when many people have tried to nudge a person in the right direction over a long time and many topics, but that person persists.
At the risk of using an analogy, it is a bit like having a neighbour that makes too much noise without realising it. Gently pointing out they are disturbing you and asking them to reduce the noise usually works, but occasionally you come across sociopaths that don't care and continue to be antisocial. What should the reaction and next steps be?
-
You also get the regulars who post a few pages, then tell everyone else not to feed the trolls. Worse are the ones that follow up requesting the thread to be locked.
Personally, I would read a thread on free energy and Tesla before I would read anything on social behaviors, religion, vaccinations, politics, race, sexual preferences. These threads seem to have a much higher tolerance (survive longer without being locked).
But, no problem. Not my site and Dave/moderators can run it as they see fit. I'm just happy Dave provides us a place to hang out and interact.
-
Another principle is to close such topics once the basic introductions have been made:
- they make a claim, post a video, etc.
- proof (other than video and babble) is kindly requested
- they continue making the same claims, referring to the video, etc. <-- close thread somewhere between here
- firmer requests for factual evidence are made
- and ignored/declined <-- and here
- the regular rabble moves in, smells blood, attacks <-- we should also not tolerate this behavior, and report and reprimand such accounts
Yes that is what I mean. We have been fairly open and let these people carry on on the assumption that they are reasonable but it's obvious that there are extremists even in what they call engineering and mistake this forums tolerance for acceptance for validation of their so called engineering. So once it is clear that they will not listen to reason they should be banned.
-
Hello,
I am afraid that, we like it or not, there were/are always different Religious Groups and Scientific Groups as well (besides social, sportive and political ones, to name a few). And every believer/follower in these groups, spiritual/religious or material/scientific, thinks he knows the truths that are related to the human’s life (material or spiritual) better than of the other groups. And while I am not sure if this is a gift or not, a human cannot change his deep nature even if he wants to. He can simply change his tactics/methods, once a while, to satisfy better his nature while his knowledge evolves.
After 75 years on earth, I realized that, by design, every human is given the means to know, better than I, what is good or not for him to believe and do. So, I simply try to discover (based on logic/experience) the useful ideas, material and spiritual (related to the deep nature of which I am created), for my personal set of knowledge only (and for whoever doesn't mind to hear them), so that I won’t see a confused man every time I look at a mirror, about whatever I may hear/see.
I mean, please don’t worry, the nature of any member here will not be affected after reading any thread/post in this forum or elsewhere (other than having more knowledge about how real life is). But this doesn’t prevent living, once a while, a hot discussion to pass time. After all, every human tries his best to live various pleasant adventures whose time passes rather quickly while he avoids, as possible, the unpleasant ones (whose time passes very slowly).
In other words, every human tries his best to live, as quickly as possible, his time between birth and death. Joining a ‘Hot Discussion’ of any kind is one of these pleasant adventures. And this is what I do now, though I will not bother you here with more posts. I guess this nonsense one is more than enough, sorry :(
Cheers, Kerim
-
I am afraid that, we like it or not, there were/are always different Religious Groups and Scientific Groups as well (besides social, sportive and political ones, to name a few). And every believer/follower in these groups, spiritual/religious or material/scientific, thinks he knows the truths that are related to the human’s life (material or spiritual) better than of the other groups.
I think one of the greatest strengths of Dave Jones's forums is that they are a place of the Enlightenment. By that I refer to the historical revolution in human thought that rejected "revealed truths" and instead decided to use logic and reason as a way of pursuing the truth, as well as embracing the principles of the new Scientific Revolution (hypotheses, experiments, evidence, theories, advancement and change). I think the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment together are mankind's finest ever moment.
Many people will disagree - people whose natural mode of thinking is faith-based, who selectively apply intellectual rigour, instead of applying it universally. Ultimately, I cannot delegitimise them, but I believe I can safely say that Dave Jones's forums are not the place for them to seek and get validation. This is a place of logic, reason and science; rigorous examination and review. There are other, far better, places for faith-based thinkers. I hope we will continue in the vein set by Dave Jones.
-
when you refuse to question something you can't call it engineering. Engineering is about questioning everything.
-
when you refuse to question something you can't call it engineering. Engineering is about questioning everything.
I am not sure I buy into that. Engineering (as opposed to science) is, to a large extent, about pragmatically relying on established procedures, standards, and tabulated values. If you want to get anything done -- e.g. actually build something -- you can't "question everything".
-
when you refuse to question something you can't call it engineering. Engineering is about questioning everything.
That is the straight recipe for "paralysys of analysys". I had a co-worker who questioned everything and he was a liability to the team, it was very difficult to get anything done with him.
-
when you refuse to question something you can't call it engineering. Engineering is about questioning everything.
I am not sure I buy into that. Engineering (as opposed to science) is, to a large extent, about pragmatically relying on established procedures, standards, and tabulated values. If you want to get anything done -- e.g. actually build something -- you can't "question everything".
I tend to agree, but that also tends to imply quantum[1] advances and rule out radical advances beyond the current standard procedures.
[1]Quantum as in "minimal small step", not the "big step" beloved by journalists and movies :)
-
Engineering is simply using the sciences and any other technical subject to solve a problem. It brings together multiple principles to create a solution. The basic principles are generally hard and fast, but nothing stops you trying to misuse them. People try that. If someone is not willing to consider the validity of their design especially when potential flaws are pointed out then they are a lost cause.
-
when you refuse to question something you can't call it engineering. Engineering is about questioning everything.
Actually engineering is not about questioning everything. It is about using the fruits of science to build a bridge or a locomotive.
Questioning is more in the domain of science rather than engineering. And key to questioning is that you work with the results you get back. Where Tesla fan boys lose touch with science is when they actually reject the answers they get and still choose to believe in woo woo.
-
Actually engineering is not about questioning everything. It is about using the fruits of science to build a bridge or a locomotive.
At which point you ask yourself questions, there are probably several ways of solving each problem, you question each one, maybe invite others to do so and are happy to explain the workings of your own ideas, when the explanation is "magic" it has stopped being engineering.
I carried out a test the other day with a colleague, it involved clamping something between two motorized wheels and pushing said object, lets call it a broom handle. Now that test was to establish how much torque we needed for a given speed, so the machine was set at the given speed and the torque limit set to full. Well we pushed and I got a current reading of the motor from the motor driver to equate to torque. but there was a significant percentage of slippage.
My boss carried out the same test with my colleague and they approached it differently almost by accident, now that they know the % of torque required they set the machine to that torque limit and pushed. This time there was much less slippage.
When I heard the difference in result I noted that the implications had gone over my bosses head as he added it as a mere interesting point. Yes he understood that if we set only the torque we need we get a better result, but it left him with no thought about therefore how we should control the system, that is after all my job. I on the other hand have just totally changed my view on how we should approach a machine control. Rather than have the motor driver primarily control for speed I think I will perhaps go back to what I had been forced to do on another machine and regulate the torque to achieve the speed instead of let the motor driver do as it pleases with the torque to maintain speed, or if I can given a motor driver with access to the relevant settings will carefully control the ramp rates of torque and speed.
See, I designed something, I thought I had it licked, I got new information and now have changed my opinion on how to solve the problem by using a different combination of techniques because I was WRONG, and I don't mind being WRONG, because now I have LEARNT! and my future products will be better. I just did engineering.
Engineering means, the application of ingenuity which basically means cleverness. See a problem, probe it, understand it, solve it.
that is not how these woo woo followers operate. If I remember correctly they never give the technical details unless it is in technobabble that they obviously do not understand as it is always nonsense speak.
-
Hello
Questioning is more in the domain of science rather than engineering.
Not always as sometime science and engineering are linked up to be dependent each other , in material science that a very common thing to ask questions on chemistry or physics in the purpose to use material for engineering purpose.
Regarding Tesla that another case as most of ''amazing '' Tesla discovery are impossible to duplicate with proven results ) see tesla Turbine ) , beacuse there is a noticeable difference between an idea and a working setup / proof of concept validated by calculation .
Regards
OS
-
That "impossible to duplicate with proven results" is complete nonsense.
Tesla turbine is thoroughly understood and not difficult to model at all, relying on the boundary layer effect. It is particularly nice for pumping blood, because it does not damage platelet cells, requires no soft pliable parts, and can be autoclaved at very high temperatures and pressures.
-
At which point you ask yourself questions, there are probably several ways of solving each problem, you question each one, maybe invite others to do so and are happy to explain the workings of your own ideas, when the explanation is "magic" it has stopped being engineering.
Oh, of course. When I said "questioning" I was talking questioning the science. I'm sorry if I didn’t make that clear. Scientists get paid to question and challenge the science. Engineers, not really.
-
At which point you ask yourself questions, there are probably several ways of solving each problem, you question each one, maybe invite others to do so and are happy to explain the workings of your own ideas, when the explanation is "magic" it has stopped being engineering.
Oh, of course. When I said "questioning" I was talking questioning the science. I'm sorry if I didn’t make that clear. Scientists get paid to question and challenge the science. Engineers, not really.
Engineers get paid to challenge the engineering. And should do so.
Scientists discover things that have not been seen/understood before.
Engineers create things that have not been seen/used before.
There is overlap.
Similar mindsets are required for both, albeit for different objectives.
-
Not always as sometime science and engineering are linked up to be dependent each other , in material science that a very common thing to ask questions on chemistry or physics in the purpose to use material for engineering purpose.
Again, I apologise for not making it clear. Of course engineers and scientists ask questions of each other routinely. I was talking about Tesla fanboys questioning the science, and I realise I should have said "doubt" or "reject" the science. I should know by now to be more precise with my wording!
Regarding Tesla that another case as most of ''amazing '' Tesla discovery are impossible to duplicate with proven results ) see tesla Turbine ) , beacuse there is a noticeable difference between an idea and a working setup / proof of concept validated by calculation .
I'm not sure that's true, is it? My research suggests that the Tesla turbine was invented to get around the limitations of material science in the late 19th century which were holding back the hoped-for improvements in bladed turbine efficiency.
It wasn't long before these were overcome and bladed turbines continued to get better and better. The problems with the Tesla turbine now are lower efficiency than bladed turbines, and poor speed stability under load. That is why it is rarely used except for a few niche applications.
-
Engineers get paid to challenge the engineering. And should do so.
Scientists discover things that have not been seen/understood before.
Engineers create things that have not been seen/used before.
There is overlap.
Similar mindsets are required for both, albeit for different objectives.
Nicely put. :)
-
I often have to explain to my boss that no I can't fix this design (usually by others) I have to start again, that is the engineering approach as the problem is that this breaks physics. The way I explain it is that I know this is a bad way to do this but the reason is so rooted in physics that it is pointless it being investigated unless you have a university masters thesis to carry out. It's just a bad place to go and you are getting so close to the finer points of the physics that it's now so borderline it is not a practical solution.
This usually is about one particular machine designed by a contractor before they employed me. The machine is said to work so why do I hate it so much. The problem is that trying to explain to a mechanical person common mode noise can be hard. Trying to explain that yes it works but frankly I put it down to luck rather than design is as close as I bother to go.
When you find that the engineering or solving it relies on the pure application of physics, you have stopped doing engineering :)
-
That "impossible to duplicate with proven results" is complete nonsense.
Tesla turbine is thoroughly understood and not difficult to model at all, relying on the boundary layer effect. It is particularly nice for pumping blood, because it does not damage platelet cells, requires no soft pliable parts, and can be autoclaved at very high temperatures and pressures.
I agree with that, although thought peristaltic pumps were preferred for pumping blood because you don't need to autoclave them, you just insert a new, sterile tube in them. Also, they more closely mimic the pulsing flow from the heart which I believe is considered of value medically. Certainly the blood circulation pumps used on me when I was donating platelets were all peristaltic.
I'm interested: do you have examples of their medical use?
-
That "impossible to duplicate with proven results" is complete nonsense.
Tesla turbine is thoroughly understood and not difficult to model at all, relying on the boundary layer effect. It is particularly nice for pumping blood, because it does not damage platelet cells, requires no soft pliable parts, and can be autoclaved at very high temperatures and pressures.
Hello
My suject was to speak about '' amazing efficiency'' as most Tesla design are linked with tales of '' amazing efficiency '' and not just '' that works'' a short article on Tesla Turbine
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph240/nam1/ (http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph240/nam1/)
Warren Rice have done a lot of work on Tesla Turbine
Regards
OS
-
The engineering of efficient turbine designs today is completely sewn up through a combination of thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, mechanical engineering and computer simulation. If there was a particular scenario where a Tesla turbine was a better option than other designs, then you can be certain it would be used. In reality, such scenarios are very rare.
-
I'm interested: do you have examples of their medical use?
See e.g. PMID:19770799 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19770799)/DOI: 10.1097/MAT.0b013e3181bae73e (https://doi.org/10.1097%2FMAT.0b013e3181bae73e) for a left ventricular assist device.
I don't know much about the actual medical devices, and even this one is experimental (one in vivo patient AFAIK); I've just found the boundary layer effect very interesting, and consider the Tesla turbine a fine invention.
most Tesla design are linked with tales of '' amazing efficiency '' and not just '' that works''
Well, those tales are just that: tales. Not science or engineering.
a short article on Tesla Turbine: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph240/nam1/ (http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph240/nam1/)
Yep, exactly: Tesla estimated possible efficiency up to 97%, but practical experiments show something in the region of 40%, with Warren Rice one of those who have scientifically investigated the reasons and phenomena involved. Very well understood stuff, overall.
Specifically, by "understood and easily modelled", I mean that if you model any fluid in a suitable cavity with a rotating Tesla turbine in it using typical fluid flow modeling software that includes boundary layer phenomena (but no "Tesla"-specific additions or extras), you'll get results that match real-world experiments.
Just like IanB said above, our models of fluid turbines and pumps describe everything we see in real world devices to within numerical precision used.
Many of Tesla's own estimates/claims/projections, however, do not match actual experiments and their results. The conspiracy theory is that everyone repeating the experiments is lying just out of spite against Tesla, or some such nonsense. Occam's Razor, however, says that Tesla had a bit of a problem of exaggerating his claims. Which, to me, just shows that regardless of his scientific genius, he was an ordinary human with his own personal faults, like we all do have. Hell, even Albert Einstein repeatedly cheated on his wives.
-
I don't know much about the actual medical devices, and even this one is experimental (one in vivo patient AFAIK); I've just found the boundary layer effect very interesting, and consider the Tesla turbine a fine invention.
I don't. I think it is interesting, but a bit rubbish. The applications are extremely limited, which is why most of us have never even seen one in use anywhere.
-
I don't know much about the actual medical devices, and even this one is experimental (one in vivo patient AFAIK); I've just found the boundary layer effect very interesting, and consider the Tesla turbine a fine invention.
I don't. I think it is interesting, but a bit rubbish. The applications are extremely limited, which is why most of us have never even seen one in use anywhere.
In my opinion, popularity or wide range of applications is not necessary for an invention to be "fine" (≃ useful, creative, interesting, worthwhile).
-
I would refine the scope of belief vs. proof a bit:
Engineering is pragmatic in all respects.
Science seeks to prove everything it can, often at great expense. New cutting-edge research areas might require expensive instrumentation to probe, whether the intricately hand-crafted instruments of prior centuries, or the exponentially more intricate systems we craft today thanks to, kind of generally just everything about stereolithography, but also the economy of scale, the availability of prior technology as standard products, and just having explored all the simpler avenues, leaving this as the only way forward in most any given domain.
Engineering is, in part, science on a budget. The preference is to test everything, prove design correctness, and update ones' priors on what can be assumed and how (since science is also a personal journey: what a person knows, as well as what we collectively know). But that's expensive as hell. When you can afford to -- and can't afford to fail, both in terms of mission success, and in terms of optimizing everything to reduce costs elsewhere -- you get some truly stupendous costs, like space exploration (weight being an exponentially compounding cost, hence a strong justification for spending quite a lot of time and money engineering it down).
Everything we cannot test within a project scope, we must take for granted; no time to simulate, no time to test, just put in the "it probably works" and go. These assumptions are different for everyone, and the degree of belief-system around each personal toolkit covers a spectrum. Some people use ferrite beads religiously (not understanding what they do, where they shouldn't be used, etc.), some hardly use them at all. Do you ever test different values of bypass cap, or pull-up resistor? Why, or why not?
These same limitations dictate what kinds of projects we can (or should..) accept, or companies we work for. As our toolkits grow and our use of them changes, so too changes the kinds of work we can take on.
And when we fail to take account of all the requirements, top to bottom, make poor assumptions about how much work is involved, how well we know each step; the time required (and budget (hourly project, employees) or opportunity cost (fixed price contracts)) goes up exponentially; each oversight, each trip back to the textbook or journal search, each missed learning opportunity (or missed cooperation opportunity, if someone else in the organization could've addressed it, given the chance), compounds quickly!
Tim
-
Engineering = applied science.
-
Many "metaphysically minded" people nowadays treat science as just one modern religion or kind of magic.
But there´s one incredible difference between science and religion: It works, bitches.... :-DD
-
when you refuse to question something you can't call it engineering. Engineering is about questioning everything.
I disagree. That's not what engineering is. That is what research is.
And even then you don't question everything, because many things are well-established to the point of being considered "known" for practical purposes. For example, there's no point in questioning the physical properties of copper at room temperature just because you are using copper test leads in an experiment which also runs at room temperature. Just look them up.
Even in research, you can't go around questioning everything, because then you'd never get any research done. At some point, you trust established science because you need a practical foundation upon which to build.
It's when you get unexpected outcomes that you have to start revisiting things we thought we "knew" -- and even then, only after ruling out other explanations.
I think that my main objection to your wording is that it suggests one needs to always question everything, which is entirely impractical. What's important in science and engineering is the willingness to revisit things we thought were established when a situation suggests that our understanding may be incorrect or incomplete.
Remember, the context of this entire line of discussion was someone who insisted on questioning things for which we do have explanations that work. Nothing, other than their fanboyism of a particular inventor, actually gave them any reason to question established science.
-
I think that my main objection to your wording is that it suggests one needs to always question everything, which is entirely impractical. What's important in science and engineering is the willingness to revisit things we thought were established when a situation suggests that our understanding may be incorrect or incomplete.
Remember, the context of this entire line of discussion was someone who insisted on questioning things for which we do have explanations that work. Nothing, other than their fanboyism of a particular inventor, actually gave them any reason to question established science.
Spot on - totally agree.
-
That is wrong, there was plenty of time when revisiting known stuff yielded results.
"And even then you don't question everything, because many things are well-established to the point of being considered "known" for practical purposes. For example, there's no point in questioning the physical properties of copper at room temperature just because you are using copper test leads in an experiment which also runs at room temperature. Just look them up. "
For instance, the oil drop experiment. This one is well known and the consequences reached pretty far.
read
***********
Millikan's experiment as an example of psychological effects in scientific methodology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment
We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.
Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of—this history—because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong—and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that ...
-rf
*******
many people got caught up by those dodgy coefficients. The number one way to save money is to trust things are correct. Verifying everything is not popular because beancounter, they are the first ones to tell you to 'cross it off' because their 'confident in previous data'. aka gambling . I bet plenty of people were belittled by administrative types for 'messing up experiments' because they did not get the correct number.... pushed through by handywavy blame related explanations. And there is a less chance of being a science rockstar if your just making sure it works right
Simplest one I found is copper sheet. It came from a good manufacturer, we had two types from two manufacturers in nicely labeled boxes ($$$). Everyone was just saying thicker is better because the label is the same purity. I properly measured two pieces, the one that was 1/2 as thick had better conductivity, even though they were both listed as 99.9% pure. This was a 5 second measurement done with some low resistance meter, but the "consensus" was that it would be a 'waste of time' to even plug in 4 banana jacks to entertain the thought, so we could get slightly better results with something much easier to work with.
And seriously, with how much fake papers there are today, according to reviews, its not even that rare to find a mistake~!
-
I think that my main objection to your wording is that it suggests one needs to always question everything, which is entirely impractical. What's important in science and engineering is the willingness to revisit things we thought were established when a situation suggests that our understanding may be incorrect or incomplete.
Remember, the context of this entire line of discussion was someone who insisted on questioning things for which we do have explanations that work. Nothing, other than their fanboyism of a particular inventor, actually gave them any reason to question established science.
Spot on - totally agree.
Yes we are repeating page two.
-
That is wrong, there was plenty of time when revisiting known stuff yielded results.
True, although I think we might be wandering away from the original point.
The scientific method is the best way we know of for learning and understanding how the universe works. All of the knowledge it delivers is provisional, because all of it might be revised or replaced in the future. But crucially, at any given moment it is our best shot. There is no better method for discovering and learning about our universe than the scientific method.
We can generally assign a level of confidence to what science tells us. For example, thermodynamics was comprehensively bottomed out 120 years ago, and it has barely changed since and we have an extremely high level of confidence in it. Climate science, on the other hand, is very new and very hard, so in the early years our level of confidence was lower.
When it comes to the scientific research and development that Tesla conducted, 130 years later we have an extremely high level of confidence in our current understanding of how it all works. Indeed, we have tested most, if not all, of Tesla's claims and found some that are valid and some that are not. Embracing all of his claims would require the wholesale abandonment of a couple of centuries worth of science, and for that to happen the new science would have to be exceptionally compelling, with extensive experimental evidence and mathematical validation.
It has happened: when Special and then General Relativity came along, we found out that Newtonian physics - successfully used for 250 years - was actually wrong. Or rather, incomplete. And what happened? Science did the right thing: it undertook a major overhaul and embraced the new science.
I'm saying this because science does overhaul itself when the evidence says it needs to. There is no fundamental block to that happening. But in the case of Tesla, the necessary evidence just isn't there. If it really was possible to demolish a building with a device the size of a bag of sugar you can be certain it would be in use today. If it really was possible to transmit a useful amount of power through the air without wires, somebody would have already made billions from it.
So it is quite wrong to afford Tesla's claims the same credibility as the established science of our day. Science cannot establish beyond doubt that Tesla's claims are wrong, but the burden of proof surely rests with the Tesla fanboys, and they simply haven't delivered. It's been 120 years, and they still haven't delivered.
-
Standing waves on a stub terminated transmission line. Who would have thought!