"Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:fo1d22$upg$1@node1.news.atman.pl...

"Vince Morgan"

The only thing that really intrigues me is this odd electrostatic type
radiation that he observed emanating from the wire after his spark gap
when
he was doing research regarding Hertz's theories with his larger coil.
Thank you for that Szczepan.
Unfortunately the area that interests me doesn't (largely) seem to have
much
equivalence to fluid dynamics, except perhaps sonoluminence but that's
seems
an extremely far reach. (Tesla claimed that when his pulse duration was as
short a few microseconds he observed luminance that seemed to emanate from
the air itself)

The radiation mentioned above is an example I think. I've looked at
particle physics (leptons etc) for some hints but there doesn't seem to be
anything that fits the energy range required in the equipment or
arrangements that produce the phenomena.

On Feb 2, 7:41 pm, "Don Kelly" <d...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Benj, I like much of your message, particularly the role of intuition in
what Tesla did.

However, freshman questions don't stump competent profs. What does delay
them is trying to go back to freshman thinking and knowledge and fitting
an
answer to that. The toughest question anyone can ask is: "Why?"

Sure they do. I've seen it all the time. Like you said, all they have
to do is ask "why?" And it isn't about prof's having to reduce their
massive intellects to freshman level again! Feh! Gimme a break here.
The fact is they really don't know the answers to many of these VERY
simple questions. PHYSICS and ENGINEERING doesn't know! The fact that
any freshman can so easily stump a prof was a 'truth" told me by one
of the best profs I ever knew. Dr. A. H. Benade (author of the
classic music physics books)

A good prof (and I am sorry you have met so few), will not bluff and will
say, " I can't answer that off the top of my head, I'll get back to you"
and
do so. He/she is one who knows enough to know the limits of what they
know
and be honest about it.

Yes, they will be MORE honest about it than some, but fact is that
when your profession hasn't a clue, then you are between a rock and a
hard place trying to simply explain some phenomena. I don't buy the
BS that stuff is so complex and mathematical that it can't be reduced
to simple language. That is a con job. If a person truly understands
something you don't need advanced math to explain its basics. Complex
math is often just a cover for lack of basic understanding.
--------------

By the way, Tesla's name is not erased from science books any more than
that of Ohm, Gauss, Weber, Volta, Ampere, Coulomb, Hertz, etc. Texts are
not histories (but some history is nice) and these names live on as
units.

Yes it was. (although it's starting to finally reappear). Sure it's
nice there is a unit named after him, but it would be nicer had his
contributions been included! I noticed that in my old freshman
physics books Edison was mentioned prominently although he wasn't
--------------

Come on. Tesla didn't invent the transformer, but he certainly
perfected it. HE is responsible for the use of 60 HZ in America for
power. He did that by a calculation for optimizing cost and weight vs
losses for transformers (using the iron of the day). It's not
"polyphase" that was the breakthrough, but AC transmission. That
allowed transformers to create more or less constant voltage along the
transmission grid.
---------

obviously flawed that its a wonder that there was ever any argument
about it at all! Yet, Edison is the name in the physics and
engineering books.
-----------

with its lack of brushes and commutator (which Tesla's professor
"proved" could never be eliminated!) and we have the 20th century!
----------

Have you forgotten how factories were built in Teslas age? Big steam
engine out back with overhead belts and pulley's everywhere? What a
major advance to have just a power cord running to each self-contained
machine!
---------

of Niagra Falls and bring it to New York.
---------------------

never have done that. I believe this was the first demonstration of
feasible hydroelectric power in this country. (I could be wrong) but
in any event even though it surely wasn't a one man show, Tesla's
knack for showmanship certainly had to be a motivating factor powering
the enthusiasm for Hydroelectric power and it's transmission to
distant cities would have not been possible without his transmission
patents. But Edison is the one mentioned! Why is that? Does the name
J.P. Morgan ring any bells?
-------------

There are questions that you ask that I can't answer and others that I
can-
that's life. Whether I can convince you depends on what I say, how I say
it,
how I back it up and how well we communicate.

Well, sure. Here's "our" problem. Science is really FAR more primitive
in its understanding than anyone working in the field (me included, at
times) is willing to admit! Each of us can easily ask the other
simple questions that we can't answer. But since we have been
"educated" in the field and worked in the field, if we have half a
brain, we ALSO know where all the dead bodies are buried! If we want
to stump someone, all we need do is dig one up! Freshmen, and often
the public doesn't know these things but they still can easily happen
upon a dead body or two by accident. And as you say, a good
explanation is simply, "I don't know how that got there." A worse one
is "I don't know but I'll find out for you." Come on, the guy should
already know it's a dead body! And worst of all would be the "snow
job": "Well, you can't understand that until you solve this
Schroedinger Equation! Here, let me run through 10 or 20 solutions in
excruciating detail!"
---------

--------------
Funny, even as a kid, I knew of Tesla as well as Edison and others. Edison
wasn't a particular hero to me as there were others, including Tesla, who
were better engineers and scientists. People who thought about what they
wanted to do and often got it right the first time rather than use the thud
and blunder approach.
-------------

--------------
That is why the induction motor is Tesla's greatest achievement and enough
in itself to establish his name. Note that the understanding of AC systems
was brought about by a small crippled man who often worked in a canoe- C. P.
Steinmetz. Some of his ideas regarding grounding etc were wrong but he did
set the basis of AC circuit theory. Some of the early AIEE Journals are
quite interesting- Fortescue's Symmetrical components in 1914 was a big
breakthrough in handling unbalanced systems (although it can be now
explained in far fewer pages than he took)

Have you forgotten how factories were built in Teslas age? Big steam
engine out back with overhead belts and pulley's everywhere? What a
major advance to have just a power cord running to each self-contained
machine!

---------
Note that the early electrically powered factories still used central motors
and the overhead belts and pulleys- the individual motors came later. As a
side issue, this change from belts etc to individual motors would have come
in any case. The DC motor is inherently more flexible in terms of modifying
its speed torque characteristics and control than the induction motor. The
induction motor has the advantage of simplicity and elimination of moving
contacts resulting in greater ruggedness, lower cost and lower maintenance.
Note that none of these are "physics" advantages but engineering factors.
--------------

And of course it was Tesla's dream to tap the immense power> of Niagra Falls and bring it to New York.

---------------------
It was actually Westinghouse's dream. He certainly did recognise Tesla and
they did have a relationship that benefited both.
---------

-------------
Note that the first hydroelectric systems were 25Hz. There were good
technical reasons for this- mainly to do with turbine speeds and also an
advantage for motors/generators of the day. Steam turbines had a great deal
to do with the change to 60Hz.
As for transmission, the only ones that were of concern were the polyphase
ones. Transmission at higher voltages existed and really had nothing to do
with Tesla except for the advantage of 3 phase over single phase
transmission.

Note that higher voltage DC transmission was used in one region in Europe.
It died out because it was too cumbersome but is now often the choice for
EHV transmission because of advances in electronics and inverters. It is
limited in application by the fact that a DC grid is not feasible because of
circuit breaker limitations that exist for DC.

---------
Generally it is not a dead body, but since, being human, we don't always
recall the rationalle behind the stated position, it sometimes takes a bit
of time for it to be dredged out of the background. That may happen in the
subconcious so that a few minutes later, in the same period, one can then
deal with the question (if not -go back to basics or consult with a
colleague to be sure that you have it right or neither know- in any case be
truthful). Saying "I'll get back to you" is no worse than saying "I don't
know" if you actually do get back. If you find that you actually don't know
at that time then say so.
I can agree with you that we don't know all the answers- and the more one
knows about a given topic, the more one realizes the limits on that
knowledge.

There are areas of physics that I concede, happily, that I am not competent.
However in certain areas of engineering, particularly energy conversion and
power systems (not electronics) I can claim reasonable competence (knowing
ones limits is part of that).

Keep asking "why?" but not only of the "establishment" but of the "new and
outre" ideas as well.

On Feb 3, 5:36 pm, "Don Kelly" <d...@shaw.ca> wrote:

--------------
Funny, even as a kid, I knew of Tesla as well as Edison and others.
Edison
wasn't a particular hero to me as there were others, including Tesla, who
were better engineers and scientists. People who thought about what they
wanted to do and often got it right the first time rather than use the
thud
and blunder approach.
-------------

I know what you mean. As a kid I was into Tesla too although in those
days I think there was only one biography of him. I think the primary
reason for this was that Tesla was a consummate showman! He set the
image of the "inventor/scientist" as the dapper-dressed sophisticated
dashing "brain" that permeated the public perception. Although Edison
tended to be pretty rumpled, it wasn't until Einstein did the "I'm so
smart I don't have to dress like a robber baron and can look like I
just rolled out of bed" look that the "new" genius image took hold
with the public and still exists even still today.

--------------
That is why the induction motor is Tesla's greatest achievement and
enough
in itself to establish his name. Note that the understanding of AC
systems
was brought about by a small crippled man who often worked in a canoe- C.
P.
Steinmetz. Some of his ideas regarding grounding etc were wrong but he
did
set the basis of AC circuit theory. Some of the early AIEE Journals are
quite interesting- Fortescue's Symmetrical components in 1914 was a big
breakthrough in handling unbalanced systems (although it can be now
explained in far fewer pages than he took)

Absolutely! Steinmetz was one of the Electrical giants! I could be
wrong but I always sort of had the opinion that Tesla blazed the trail
and Steinmetz came along just a bit later to widen it into a nice
usable highway!

Have you forgotten how factories were built in Teslas age? Big steam
engine out back with overhead belts and pulley's everywhere? What a
major advance to have just a power cord running to each self-contained
machine!

---------
Note that the early electrically powered factories still used central
motors
and the overhead belts and pulleys- the individual motors came later. As
a
side issue, this change from belts etc to individual motors would have
come
in any case. The DC motor is inherently more flexible in terms of
modifying
its speed torque characteristics and control than the induction motor.
The
induction motor has the advantage of simplicity and elimination of moving
contacts resulting in greater ruggedness, lower cost and lower
maintenance.
Note that none of these are "physics" advantages but engineering factors.
--------------

Sure Electric motors replaced the steam engines at first. People are
always like this. The advantages of distributed power would be
overlooked for a while by the "we've always done it this way" factor.
And also it was much simpler to replace one steam engine than to re-
work all the machinery. But in the end the shafts and belts
disappeared because, well, individual motors turned out to be a better
idea.
--------

And of course it was Tesla's dream to tap the immense power> of Niagra
Falls and bring it to New York.

---------------------
It was actually Westinghouse's dream. He certainly did recognise Tesla
and
they did have a relationship that benefited both.
---------

I"m not a Tesla historian so I can't speak with real authority here,
but the Tesla biographies I've read stated that Tesla had the dream of
power from Niagra Falls even when he was still back in Europe.
Obviously Westinghouse and Tesla were pals. So much so that the story
goes that Westinghouse came under attack by stockholders for ownership
of his own company because of the contract he signed with Tesla for
use of his inventions at (supposedly) one dollar per horsepower.
Westinghouse came to Tesla with his story and tesla supposedly said,
"You helped me when I needed it." and he went to the safe took out
their contract and tore it up. Westinghouse maintained control of his
own company and my guess is it was probably the stupidest thing Tesla
ever did! But he never was very good with money. And hey, how much is
friendship "worth" in dollars and cents?

I've often thought if I were Tesla in that situation, I'd have taken
old George aside and said, hey, let them kick you out. We'll keep this
contract and stick it too them! Meanwhile how about you and I form a
new motor company and we can use the patents ourselves with a new
arrangement between us!
---------------

-------------
Note that the first hydroelectric systems were 25Hz. There were good
technical reasons for this- mainly to do with turbine speeds and also an
advantage for motors/generators of the day. Steam turbines had a great
deal
to do with the change to 60Hz.
As for transmission, the only ones that were of concern were the
polyphase
ones. Transmission at higher voltages existed and really had nothing to
do
with Tesla except for the advantage of 3 phase over single phase
transmission.

OK.

Note that higher voltage DC transmission was used in one region in
Europe.
It died out because it was too cumbersome but is now often the choice for
EHV transmission because of advances in electronics and inverters. It is
limited in application by the fact that a DC grid is not feasible because
of
circuit breaker limitations that exist for DC.


Yes, I know this. but DC transmission as far as I know really only
came into it's own much later in electrics as inverter technology
started to catch up with needs.
--------

---------
Generally it is not a dead body, but since, being human, we don't always
recall the rationalle behind the stated position, it sometimes takes a
bit
of time for it to be dredged out of the background. That may happen in
the
subconcious so that a few minutes later, in the same period, one can then
deal with the question (if not -go back to basics or consult with a
colleague to be sure that you have it right or neither know- in any case
be
truthful). Saying "I'll get back to you" is no worse than saying "I don't
know" if you actually do get back. If you find that you actually don't
know
at that time then say so.
I can agree with you that we don't know all the answers- and the more one
knows about a given topic, the more one realizes the limits on that
knowledge.

There are areas of physics that I concede, happily, that I am not
competent.
However in certain areas of engineering, particularly energy conversion
and
power systems (not electronics) I can claim reasonable competence
(knowing
ones limits is part of that).

Keep asking "why?" but not only of the "establishment" but of the "new
and
outre" ideas as well.

Well sure. We see lots of "new" ideas here that are rather suspect! I
think the points I try to make is that first of all the
"establishment" is well, the establishment and therefore have a vested
interest in many things the way they are! This alway immediately gets
me suspicious. Often "debunkers" are nothing more than spokespeople
for the establishment and rather than ask well, "COULD this thing be
true" instead start yelling that it CANNOT be true because "everybody
knows" it's nonsense! Usually these people greatly embarrass
themselves and the profession at some future date. I presume they hope
that by then they'll be dead and the controversy long forgotten by the
public. In the meantime the establishment gets to extract a few more
dollars or whatever. Another suspicion raiser is the fame seekers.
The large crew of the "I'm smarter than Einstein" folks that infest
the internet are a good example. Scientific theories presented as
religious dogma are another sign of trouble and doubt. Such things are
ALL over science today. usually the dogma has a political agenda
behind it. And example is "evolution" presented as ultimate truth.
The agenda there is when all life is based on chance, it means atheism
must be true and therefore if there is no God, morality and ethics do
not exist and "might makes right" and animal behavior is proper for
humans.
----

evolution that are true or might be true, but making science a dogma
sweeps all contrary data under the rug with claims that it doesn't
exist. Sure. And UFO's don't exist either and nobody's seen any. Jimmy
Carter just had a "mass hallucination! Leftist politics. Political
agendas. These things pollute real science. I just saw another example
on recently PBS which boldly assured us the Oswald was clearly the
"lone assassin" and the mountain of evidence that he was probably a
patsy is all nonsense. Not a real historian in the whole program to
speak up. The beat just goes on. This does not mean that the
"debunkers" cannot be correct. The way to find out is REAL science
and REAL investigations. But I point out that the history of grand
pronouncements of learned men that this or that "can never be done"
should be so embarrassing to those of us in science and engineering as
to make us all VERY reluctant to open our mouths without some major
positive proof. But as Kermit the Frog says, "peoples is peoples".
---------------------

----------------------------
"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:d1d9c409-fe59-4bf7-aff4-84d9af728fa2@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 3, 5:36 pm, "Don Kelly" <d...@shaw.ca> wrote:

--------------
Funny, even as a kid, I knew of Tesla as well as Edison and others.
Edison
wasn't a particular hero to me as there were others, including Tesla,
who
were better engineers and scientists. People who thought about what
they
wanted to do and often got it right the first time rather than use the
thud
and blunder approach.
-------------

I know what you mean. As a kid I was into Tesla too although in those
days I think there was only one biography of him. I think the primary
reason for this was that Tesla was a consummate showman! He set the
image of the "inventor/scientist" as the dapper-dressed sophisticated
dashing "brain" that permeated the public perception. Although Edison
tended to be pretty rumpled, it wasn't until Einstein did the "I'm so
smart I don't have to dress like a robber baron and can look like I
just rolled out of bed" look that the "new" genius image took hold
with the public and still exists even still today.

--------------
That is why the induction motor is Tesla's greatest achievement and
enough
in itself to establish his name. Note that the understanding of AC
systems
was brought about by a small crippled man who often worked in a canoe-
C.
P.
Steinmetz. Some of his ideas regarding grounding etc were wrong but he
did
set the basis of AC circuit theory. Some of the early AIEE Journals are
quite interesting- Fortescue's Symmetrical components in 1914 was a big
breakthrough in handling unbalanced systems (although it can be now
explained in far fewer pages than he took)

Absolutely! Steinmetz was one of the Electrical giants! I could be
wrong but I always sort of had the opinion that Tesla blazed the trail
and Steinmetz came along just a bit later to widen it into a nice
usable highway!

Have you forgotten how factories were built in Teslas age? Big steam
engine out back with overhead belts and pulley's everywhere? What a
major advance to have just a power cord running to each
self-contained
machine!

---------
Note that the early electrically powered factories still used central
motors
and the overhead belts and pulleys- the individual motors came later.
As
a
side issue, this change from belts etc to individual motors would have
come
in any case. The DC motor is inherently more flexible in terms of
modifying
its speed torque characteristics and control than the induction motor.
The
induction motor has the advantage of simplicity and elimination of
moving
contacts resulting in greater ruggedness, lower cost and lower
maintenance.
Note that none of these are "physics" advantages but engineering
factors.
--------------

Sure Electric motors replaced the steam engines at first. People are
always like this. The advantages of distributed power would be
overlooked for a while by the "we've always done it this way" factor.
And also it was much simpler to replace one steam engine than to re-
work all the machinery. But in the end the shafts and belts
disappeared because, well, individual motors turned out to be a better
idea.
--------
True.
----

And of course it was Tesla's dream to tap the immense power> of Niagra
Falls and bring it to New York.

---------------------
It was actually Westinghouse's dream. He certainly did recognise Tesla
and
they did have a relationship that benefited both.
---------

I"m not a Tesla historian so I can't speak with real authority here,
but the Tesla biographies I've read stated that Tesla had the dream of
power from Niagra Falls even when he was still back in Europe.
Obviously Westinghouse and Tesla were pals. So much so that the story
goes that Westinghouse came under attack by stockholders for ownership
of his own company because of the contract he signed with Tesla for
use of his inventions at (supposedly) one dollar per horsepower.
Westinghouse came to Tesla with his story and tesla supposedly said,
"You helped me when I needed it." and he went to the safe took out
their contract and tore it up. Westinghouse maintained control of his
own company and my guess is it was probably the stupidest thing Tesla
ever did! But he never was very good with money. And hey, how much is
friendship "worth" in dollars and cents?

I've often thought if I were Tesla in that situation, I'd have taken
old George aside and said, hey, let them kick you out. We'll keep this
contract and stick it too them! Meanwhile how about you and I form a
new motor company and we can use the patents ourselves with a new
arrangement between us!
---------------
I know of this story as well- with a slightly different twist. It may
have
been Tesla's dream but Westinghouse, with some status as an inventor, was
the entrepreneur that drove this dream to success. The combination worked.
There is an old book "Men and Volts" produced by GE before WW2 that deals
with the history of this period. Since it was GE it tends to emphasise its
roots in Edison but, if my long term memory is right, it does deal fairly
with Tesla and Westinghouse.
The problem was that without financial backers, both W and T were up the
proverbial creek. I'm not sure that it was friendship as much as
enlightened
self interest. Those were cutthroat days -Exxon and Monsanto carry on the
tradition.

-------------
Note that the first hydroelectric systems were 25Hz. There were good
technical reasons for this- mainly to do with turbine speeds and also
an
advantage for motors/generators of the day. Steam turbines had a great
deal
to do with the change to 60Hz.
As for transmission, the only ones that were of concern were the
polyphase
ones. Transmission at higher voltages existed and really had nothing to
do
with Tesla except for the advantage of 3 phase over single phase
transmission.

OK.

Note that higher voltage DC transmission was used in one region in
Europe.
It died out because it was too cumbersome but is now often the choice
for
EHV transmission because of advances in electronics and inverters. It
is
limited in application by the fact that a DC grid is not feasible
because
of
circuit breaker limitations that exist for DC.


Yes, I know this. but DC transmission as far as I know really only
came into it's own much later in electrics as inverter technology
started to catch up with needs.
--------
The Theiry system was actually operative for several years. It did involve
series motor generators (with progressive insulation to ground) feeding a
T-line and then a series of motor-generators to provide output to a
distribution system (AC) at the other end.
Post WW2 the Swedes used Mercury Arc rectifiers to supply an island
(Gotland?) and such were then put into place in larger systems. This was
the start of practicalDC transmission as we know it. The first solid state
rectifier/inverter was a back-to back tie in New Brunswick, Canada,
providing an asynchronous tie. These have advantages over Mercury arc
units
(and a few disadvantages which have been overcome). Mind you a 12 phase
Mercury arc glass tube rectifier in operation is a wondrous sight to
see-right out of 1960 SF movies (and about as obsolete).

---------
Generally it is not a dead body, but since, being human, we don't
always
recall the rationalle behind the stated position, it sometimes takes a
bit
of time for it to be dredged out of the background. That may happen in
the
subconcious so that a few minutes later, in the same period, one can
then
deal with the question (if not -go back to basics or consult with a
colleague to be sure that you have it right or neither know- in any
case
be
truthful). Saying "I'll get back to you" is no worse than saying "I
don't
know" if you actually do get back. If you find that you actually don't
know
at that time then say so.
I can agree with you that we don't know all the answers- and the more
one
knows about a given topic, the more one realizes the limits on that
knowledge.

There are areas of physics that I concede, happily, that I am not
competent.
However in certain areas of engineering, particularly energy conversion
and
power systems (not electronics) I can claim reasonable competence
(knowing
ones limits is part of that).

Keep asking "why?" but not only of the "establishment" but of the "new
and
outre" ideas as well.

Well sure. We see lots of "new" ideas here that are rather suspect! I
think the points I try to make is that first of all the
"establishment" is well, the establishment and therefore have a vested
interest in many things the way they are! This alway immediately gets
me suspicious. Often "debunkers" are nothing more than spokespeople
for the establishment and rather than ask well, "COULD this thing be
true" instead start yelling that it CANNOT be true because "everybody
knows" it's nonsense! Usually these people greatly embarrass
themselves and the profession at some future date. I presume they hope
that by then they'll be dead and the controversy long forgotten by the
public. In the meantime the establishment gets to extract a few more
dollars or whatever. Another suspicion raiser is the fame seekers.
The large crew of the "I'm smarter than Einstein" folks that infest
the internet are a good example. Scientific theories presented as
religious dogma are another sign of trouble and doubt. Such things are
ALL over science today. usually the dogma has a political agenda
behind it. And example is "evolution" presented as ultimate truth.
The agenda there is when all life is based on chance, it means atheism
must be true and therefore if there is no God, morality and ethics do
not exist and "might makes right" and animal behavior is proper for
humans.
----
Read Hans Kung "The beginning of all things : science and religion" You
may find it interesting.
----
Note that this does not mean that there are not aspects of
evolution that are true or might be true, but making science a dogma
sweeps all contrary data under the rug with claims that it doesn't
exist. Sure. And UFO's don't exist either and nobody's seen any. Jimmy
Carter just had a "mass hallucination! Leftist politics. Political
agendas. These things pollute real science. I just saw another example
on recently PBS which boldly assured us the Oswald was clearly the
"lone assassin" and the mountain of evidence that he was probably a
patsy is all nonsense. Not a real historian in the whole program to
speak up. The beat just goes on. This does not mean that the
"debunkers" cannot be correct. The way to find out is REAL science
and REAL investigations. But I point out that the history of grand
pronouncements of learned men that this or that "can never be done"
should be so embarrassing to those of us in science and engineering as
to make us all VERY reluctant to open our mouths without some major
positive proof. But as Kermit the Frog says, "peoples is peoples".
---------------------
Fair enough.

Seemingly at first unrelated perhaps, but I believe very relevant is the
following.

the nozzle which of course reduces it's effectiveness to a very large

Prior the formation of the physical research team there was a considerable
amount of literature to examine.  During this time a great deal of material
was unearthed regarding methods of improving laminar flow at supersonic, and
subsonic velocities in many applications

I can tell you the Germans were very active in this area from the early
thirties.  In fact one document showed that they had researched something
very similar to the proposed arrangement.  I "know" of a couple of craft
they were working on that employed laminar flow characteristics during the
late thirties and forties that were extremely advanced for the day.

What I have noticed is that many, no, "most" breakthroughs are not what they
claim to be in the slightest.  In fact some of the hype that comes out of
NASA is either a joke, or there is some other explanation.  A good example
is this
link->http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-023-DFRC.htmlIt
is truly a joke, or a form of disinformation.  Is it NOT new in any way
shape or form, and represents model T type technology compared to what is
actually well and truly very well known.  Perhaps they are just children

when it comes to areas of flight that doesn't include vertical rocketry, but
I find that difficult to believe.
What I DO know very well is that they recovered a great deal of (at the
time)advanced technology in this area from Germany immediately after the
war, including many of the scientists, and that it would be reasonable to
consider that they didn't thereon go backwards in these areas.
There were VTOL aircraft that many would not be able to identify today if
they were to see them in flight.  I guess that would make them
unidentifiable flying vehicles to the average person.

PS. If you are going to worship Tesla you ought to at least spell his
name correctly! [Even better would be to write it in Serbian Cyrillic]

On Jan 30, 10:34 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

PS. If you are going to worship Tesla you ought to at least spell his
name correctly! [Even better would be to write it in Serbian Cyrillic]

k is not correct Latin for c, and neither is c s or z or ts.

inciteful -> insihtful

Steinmetz made AC induction motors first.

Hertz inventd radio.

the nozzle which of course reduces it's effectiveness to a very large

Prior the formation of the physical research team there was a considerable
amount of literature to examine. During this time a great deal of material
was unearthed regarding methods of improving laminar flow at supersonic,
and
subsonic velocities in many applications

I can tell you the Germans were very active in this area from the early
thirties. In fact one document showed that they had researched something
very similar to the proposed arrangement. I "know" of a couple of craft
they were working on that employed laminar flow characteristics during the
late thirties and forties that were extremely advanced for the day.

What I have noticed is that many, no, "most" breakthroughs are not what
they
claim to be in the slightest. In fact some of the hype that comes out of
NASA is either a joke, or there is some other explanation. A good example
is this

link->http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-023-DFRC.htmlIt
is truly a joke, or a form of disinformation. Is it NOT new in any way
shape or form, and represents model T type technology compared to what is
actually well and truly very well known. Perhaps they are just children

"Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:f6e4b19d-0bf3-4dae-80f9-1492264207f7@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 5, 4:34 pm, "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote:

the nozzle which of course reduces it's effectiveness to a very large

"its, retarded shithead"
That would be "it's"

Prior the formation of the physical research team there was a considerable
amount of literature to examine. During this time a great deal of material
was unearthed regarding methods of improving laminar flow at supersonic,
and
subsonic velocities in many applications

"all guesses, as their crafts were not above Mach 1"
who is "their"?

I can tell you the Germans were very active in this area from the early
thirties. In fact one document showed that they had researched something
very similar to the proposed arrangement. I "know" of a couple of craft
they were working on that employed laminar flow characteristics during the
late thirties and forties that were extremely advanced for the day.

"and much slower"
slower than what?  And how is that relevent?

What I have noticed is that many, no, "most" breakthroughs are not what
they
claim to be in the slightest. In fact some of the hype that comes out of
NASA is either a joke, or there is some other explanation. A good example
is this

link->http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-023-DFRC.htmlIt

is truly a joke, or a form of disinformation. Is it NOT new in any way
shape or form, and represents model T type technology compared to what is
actually well and truly very well known. Perhaps they are just children

"Prove or you're bullshit."
To whom? You? That would require me actualy caring what you think wouldn't
it?

"Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
messagenews:f6e4b19d-0bf3-4dae-80f9-1492264207f7@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.co

On Feb 5, 4:34 pm, "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote:

the nozzle which of course reduces it's effectiveness to a very large

"its, retarded shithead"
That would be "it's"

"reduces it is effectiveness" is illiterate gibberish, and you are a
fucken retard.
Autymn D. C." ->A roaming spell checker that occasionaly has has an opinion.

I can tell you the Germans were very active in this area from the early
thirties. In fact one document showed that they had researched something
very similar to the proposed arrangement. I "know" of a couple of craft
they were working on that employed laminar flow characteristics during
the
late thirties and forties that were extremely advanced for the day.

"and much slower"
slower than what? And how is that relevent?

than the one in your NASA link
Yes, the VTOL craft were all subsonic. The "similar to the proposed

What I have noticed is that many, no, "most" breakthroughs are not what
they
claim to be in the slightest. In fact some of the hype that comes out of
NASA is either a joke, or there is some other explanation. A good
example
is this


link->http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-023-DFRC.htmlIt

is truly a joke, or a form of disinformation. Is it NOT new in any way
shape or form, and represents model T type technology compared to what
is
actually well and truly very well known. Perhaps they are just children

"Prove or you're bullshit."
To whom? You? That would require me actualy caring what you think wouldn't
it?

to everyone here