----------------------------
"Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:b71a0f00-3ced-46ac-a5ae-26f3a19230e6@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 6, 11:23 pm, "Don Kelly" <d...@shaw.ca> wrote:
----------------------------
"Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
messagenews:78318ac5-07a6-41b4-8d5f-134971ed3f7c@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 5, 10:32 pm, "Don Kelly" (arsehole who doesn't trim quotes)
d...@shaw.ca> wrote:
The problem with electrostatic machines (and such motors and generators
exist)- in addition to the necessarily high voltages is that the energy
density of such devices, at best, is far inferior to that of
electromagnetic
machines. Thus a 1HP motor might require several thousand volts and be
the
size of a house. Note the sizes mentioned in your reference. These are
practical considerations that limit electrostatic machines- too big,
too
high a voltage and too expensive. The "sprayers" are a minor problem
and
are
a bit more efficient overall than friction contacts. Size is the major
problem (this has a great deal to do with the difference between mu0
and
epsilon0) and is one that can't be wished away.

What about with PZT? LNT? ST? BT? CsF? CF? CsNa plasma?

What about this collection of initials?
Do you have anything useful to say about them?

They're elèctrets. Are their energy density not better than magnets'?

You do have a point there. Electrets are useful but they are essentially
capacitors such that they can be distorted physically and thus the
capacitance changes. This is fine and approaches the performance of a
permanent magnet but with a weight advantage in certain situations such as
sensors and microphones. Piezoelectric devices are also an option for this..
However, if you are considering appreciable electromechanical power devices,
there is a problem with electrets in that they are very restricted in terms
of allowable motion, just as permanent magnet devices and, as

magnets, are not energy sources but act as energy transfer devices.
While one could consider the possibility of a large displacement
electret -the problem of linear motion arises and you are not going to get
much with the small displacements that the electret films will allow so the
advantages of electrets appear to be confined to low power, light weight
devices.

most cases. The energy density that is of concern is not that within an
electret or a permanent magnet which doesn't actually vary much in any real
application but in the "air" gap between parts. This gap is normally a gas
or even a vacuum but practically it is air. Then the air gap stored

and the variation of this with position is what is involved in force
production and energy transfer. The energy density in this air gap is higher
for magnetic devices than electrostatic devices for reasons that I stated
before. Hence, as has been found in the past, the size of

machines becomes a major obstacle except in small, very low power devices.
The principles are there, have been known for many years, and there are
many reference books on electromechanical energy conversion that deal with
them. While most deal with electromagnetic devices, some deal with both. Do
some research.

----------------------------
"Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:9412cbc8-8edf-4c38-8d15-440294a55cb4@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 8, 6:52 pm, "Don Kelly" <d...@shaw.ca> wrote:

My support is accumulated information/experience over the years and
the.....

You don't read my posts here or elsewhere. See my posts:
free_energy@eGroups
my "Refutation of Thermodynamic Laws" treatise of mathematic
froproofs, and thermòkemic and nuclear withbewrayreds and

--------snipped----------

-Aut
-----
I haven't seen free_energy@eGroups because my machine sees it as an e-mail
address to which I could post if I cared to. I don't care to do so-in either

normal English or in Autymn-crap (crap being used legitimately as a noun- in
this case it refers to meaningless verbal diarrhoea).

However, to be fair, I have seen some of your posts (and circular self
references) - that's why I am now ignoring them as well as the meaningless
gobbledegook that you have written and I have excised.

have a good day,

"Don Kelly" <d...@shaw.ca> wrote in message

news:2IM5j.3841$sg.740@pd7urf1no...

Where Tesla's observations are correct is in his doubt about electrostatic
machines.

For some time something has bothered me about the above.
Today it occurred to me.
Don, you are actually claiming here superior understanding of the subject
than that of Nicola Tesla. Do you actually believe this to be the case, or
is the above simply a mistake on your part?
Regards,
Vince

Where Tesla's observations are correct is in his doubt about electrostatic
machines.

Hey Vince,
Of course Don has a superior understanding of the subject over Nikola
Tesla. Are you actually claiming here that Tesla was some sort of
omniscient God come to earth to enlighten us all?

Here, let me give
you a hint: Tesla = 1889; Don = 2008. You don't suppose that the
human understanding of electricity has advanced at all in that time do
you? The mistake on your part is thinking that Tesla knew it all.

No, you have made a mistake believing that I beleive that.

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, 11:49 pm, "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au
wrote:
"Don Kelly" <d...@shaw.ca> wrote in message

news:2IM5j.3841$sg.740@pd7urf1no...

Where Tesla's observations are correct is in his doubt about
electrostatic
machines.

you? The mistake on your part is thinking that Tesla knew it all.

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]

"Just look at the name-calling we've seen right here regarding "crank"
literature as mild as the Jefimenko books!"

"Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:2IM5j.3841$sg.740@pd7urf1no...

Where Tesla's observations are correct is in his doubt about
electrostatic
machines.

For some time something has bothered me about the above.
Today it occurred to me.
Don, you are actually claiming here superior understanding of the subject
than that of Nicola Tesla. Do you actually believe this to be the case,
or
is the above simply a mistake on your part?
Regards,
Vince


------------

----------------------------
"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:47a153a5$0$13113$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:2IM5j.3841$sg.740@pd7urf1no...

Where Tesla's observations are correct is in his doubt about
electrostatic
machines.

For some time something has bothered me about the above.
Today it occurred to me.
Don, you are actually claiming here superior understanding of the
subject
than that of Nicola Tesla. Do you actually believe this to be the case,
or
is the above simply a mistake on your part?
Regards,
Vince


------------
It's not a mistake.

I have a great deal of respect for what Tesla accomplished but his real
accomplishments were the polyphase system and the induction motor (and I
know more about these than Tesla did in his time). The Tesla coil is, for
the most part, now considered an interesting toy- just a high frequency
air
core transformer-spectacular but technically ho-hum. These and his turbine
(of which I know little but it appears to be not quite what many claim for
it) are about it. The first two revolutionised industry and helped
revolutionize the electric power system (Gaullard and Gibbs' invention of
the transformer was the other big factor involved in this. Much of the
rest
is hype or indistinguishable from hype. Remember that Tesla had crossed
the
fine line between genius and insanity by the time he set up his lab in
Colorado. Those who were anxious to support him gradually became
disillusioned and walked away.

Tesla, in one article of his that I read, questioned the proposal for
large
electrostatic machines- not because they were electrostatic (electrostatic
machines work although not "overunity" or free energy devices) but because
they were extremely large for a relatively small output. and needed to be
operated at very high voltages.

Something to replace a 1 HP electromagnetic motor fitting in a breadbox
would be the size of a 1 car garage but would need more space than that
because of power supply and insulation problems.

The result is that electrostatic motor action. except low power devices
such
as electrostatic speakers and microphones (including electrets),
precipitators, some CRT's and particle accelerators, etc. where there are
some advantages over electromagnetic devices, are simply not competitive.
However there are future possibilities such as ion drives for low force,
slow acceleration of some form of space vehicle and further applications
where electrostatic devices may show superiority to electromagnetic
devices.

The mathematics of electrostatic and electromagnetic force devices are
similar but the limiting factors are the physical constants involved and,
in
a practical sense, these act in favour of the electromagnetic device in
most cases.

Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer

Perhaps that is the impression I have given, but that is certainly not what
I believe at all Ben.
My question was trite and disrespectful and I regret asking it.

What I do believe is that he had an understanding of electrodynamics that
was ahead of his time, at that time, but he was certainly as human as any
other man.

When I try to grasp an understanding of some, most (I am not an
electrodynamicist, nor claim any real knowlege in this field whatsoever), of
his notes patents etc it is not easy for me and that should be obvious to
all who have read anything I've asked here, and elsewhere.

mistake on your part is thinking that Tesla knew it all.

No, you have made a mistake believing that I beleive that.
I don't have any real math skills whatsoever. I don't have enough education
to argue well so I ask, and read. What little education I do have is in
entirely different areas. And what I can read, and what I can ask is
obviously limited . What may take you an hour or two to ascess may take me
years, but that is just how it is and I don't feel a need to appologise for
that.

However, when I do enquire about certain things that Tesla either
postualted, or claimed to understand, I often get replies that dismiss these
things out of hand. After some time I often begin to realize that the
rebuttal was entirely without substance.

I'm trying to find the truth about something, and I am working quite hard at
it. If it puts some persons noses out of joint that is unfortunate, all the
more so as I actualy do have far more respect for the likes of yourself, and
Don than I may have indicated.

A simple dismissal is not adequate to my mind. He was no god, but he was no
idiot either.

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. Is
this something you might be able to enlighten me on? It appears to me
that
it was intense displacement current?

The cranks have all sorts of theories about it but some of these guy's
are absolute crackpots so there is little worth in reading their claims
about it.

Fluid dynamics is where I do have some understanding and experience.

On Jan 31, 6:43 am, "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au
wrote:

Perhaps that is the impression I have given, but that is certainly not
what
I believe at all Ben.
My question was trite and disrespectful and I regret asking it.

I accept that.

What I do believe is that he had an understanding of electrodynamics that
was ahead of his time, at that time, but he was certainly as human as any
other man.

Actually he had an understanding that was to a degree ahead of his
time AND intuition that was the true motor behind his work. The key I
believe was his intuition rather than his understanding.


When I try to grasp an understanding of some, most (I am not an
electrodynamicist, nor claim any real knowlege in this field whatsoever),
of
his notes patents etc it is not easy for me and that should be obvious to
all who have read anything I've asked here, and elsewhere.

Hey, it's usually not easy for any of us. Patents, especially, have a
language all their own.

mistake on your part is thinking that Tesla knew it all.

No, you have made a mistake believing that I beleive that.
I don't have any real math skills whatsoever. I don't have enough
education
to argue well so I ask, and read. What little education I do have is in
entirely different areas. And what I can read, and what I can ask is
obviously limited . What may take you an hour or two to ascess may take
me
years, but that is just how it is and I don't feel a need to appologise
for
that.

That's the right attitude, Vince. Let me say something about 'smart"
people. Some people stake a claim on being "smart" by filling their
heads with lots of facts. When a professor speaks they take it all in
with utmost detail. If anyone questions what they "know" they spew
forth a torrent of "facts" to back-off any criticism. But such an
approach really doesn't do it, does it? Professors tend to have all
manner of dogma of the day they teach as fact and hence the "smart"
person only begins to repeat things like "everybody knows" it's been
proved that "heavier than air craft can't fly" or "a motor cannot be
built without a commutator and brushes". and on and on. Tesla on the
other hand knew facts (Including the one his professor told him about
commutator motors being "proved" impossible) but he also had immense
intuition. And THAT was his key!

You know one doesn't need to "know" lots of facts when on can "tune
in" on the universe. Somehow out there in the great beyond is
circulating all knowledge of things. If you can tun into it, all
things are in your hand. I've known people who were so dumb that they
couldn't tie their own shoe laces and yet no matter what I asked them,
the answer they gave would be inciteful and correct. "How do you DO
THAT?" I would inquire in amazement. "OH, I don't know", they'd
reply, "I just sort of "feel" the answers".

Needless to say "traditional physics" is NOT ready to admit any of
this stuff. They are stuck in low level loops of only admitting of
phenomena that are static and what they call "explainable".

However, when I do enquire about certain things that Tesla either
postualted, or claimed to understand, I often get replies that dismiss
these
things out of hand. After some time I often begin to realize that the
rebuttal was entirely without substance.

Correct. See above why this is. If you start asking questions
"outside their fence" all you'll get is a lot of hand-waving at best
and a personal attack at worst. Generally speaking, any freshman
student can easily ask a host of simple questions that easily stump
ANY professor. Hence all the defensive mechanisms.

I'm trying to find the truth about something, and I am working quite hard
at
it. If it puts some persons noses out of joint that is unfortunate, all
the
more so as I actualy do have far more respect for the likes of yourself,
and
Don than I may have indicated.

Persistence is far more important than "ability"!

A simple dismissal is not adequate to my mind. He was no god, but he was
no
idiot either.

Hardly. Since he was the guy who pretty much invented what came to be
known as "civilization" in the 20th century he needs far more credit
than he is typically given. But because his inventions represented
this kind of POWER he came to the notice of people who control power
of a political kind. This probably more than any other is the reason
that his name was (and pretty much still is) erased from science
books. And those people who only parrot what they have been told
always are quick to attack anyone not speaking the "traditional"
accepted dogma. And that pretty much explains what you've observed.

However, While Tesla "invented the 20th century" with power
distribution, induction motors, hydroelectric power, Radio, robots,
AND and OR gates, fluorescent lamps, particle accelerators and all the
rest that drove that century of civilization, we are now at the start
of a NEW century and it will be up to some new names to step up to the
next phase of what drives civilization. Who knows, It could be you.

Benj

On Jan 31, 6:43 am, "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au
wrote:

Perhaps that is the impression I have given, but that is certainly not
what
I believe at all Ben.
My question was trite and disrespectful and I regret asking it.

I accept that.

What I do believe is that he had an understanding of electrodynamics
that
was ahead of his time, at that time, but he was certainly as human as
any
other man.

Actually he had an understanding that was to a degree ahead of his
time AND intuition that was the true motor behind his work. The key I
believe was his intuition rather than his understanding.


When I try to grasp an understanding of some, most (I am not an
electrodynamicist, nor claim any real knowlege in this field
whatsoever), of
his notes patents etc it is not easy for me and that should be obvious
to
all who have read anything I've asked here, and elsewhere.

Hey, it's usually not easy for any of us. Patents, especially, have a
language all their own.

mistake on your part is thinking that Tesla knew it all.

No, you have made a mistake believing that I beleive that.
I don't have any real math skills whatsoever. I don't have enough
education
to argue well so I ask, and read. What little education I do have is in
entirely different areas. And what I can read, and what I can ask is
obviously limited . What may take you an hour or two to ascess may take
me
years, but that is just how it is and I don't feel a need to appologise
for
that.

That's the right attitude, Vince. Let me say something about 'smart"
people. Some people stake a claim on being "smart" by filling their
heads with lots of facts. When a professor speaks they take it all in
with utmost detail. If anyone questions what they "know" they spew
forth a torrent of "facts" to back-off any criticism. But such an
approach really doesn't do it, does it? Professors tend to have all
manner of dogma of the day they teach as fact and hence the "smart"
person only begins to repeat things like "everybody knows" it's been
proved that "heavier than air craft can't fly" or "a motor cannot be
built without a commutator and brushes". and on and on. Tesla on the
other hand knew facts (Including the one his professor told him about
commutator motors being "proved" impossible) but he also had immense
intuition. And THAT was his key!

You know one doesn't need to "know" lots of facts when on can "tune
in" on the universe. Somehow out there in the great beyond is
circulating all knowledge of things. If you can tun into it, all
things are in your hand. I've known people who were so dumb that they
couldn't tie their own shoe laces and yet no matter what I asked them,
the answer they gave would be inciteful and correct. "How do you DO
THAT?" I would inquire in amazement. "OH, I don't know", they'd
reply, "I just sort of "feel" the answers".

Needless to say "traditional physics" is NOT ready to admit any of
this stuff. They are stuck in low level loops of only admitting of
phenomena that are static and what they call "explainable".

However, when I do enquire about certain things that Tesla either
postualted, or claimed to understand, I often get replies that dismiss
these
things out of hand. After some time I often begin to realize that the
rebuttal was entirely without substance.

Correct. See above why this is. If you start asking questions
"outside their fence" all you'll get is a lot of hand-waving at best
and a personal attack at worst. Generally speaking, any freshman
student can easily ask a host of simple questions that easily stump
ANY professor. Hence all the defensive mechanisms.

I'm trying to find the truth about something, and I am working quite
hard at
it. If it puts some persons noses out of joint that is unfortunate, all
the
more so as I actualy do have far more respect for the likes of yourself,
and
Don than I may have indicated.

Persistence is far more important than "ability"!

A simple dismissal is not adequate to my mind. He was no god, but he
was no
idiot either.

Hardly. Since he was the guy who pretty much invented what came to be
known as "civilization" in the 20th century he needs far more credit
than he is typically given. But because his inventions represented
this kind of POWER he came to the notice of people who control power
of a political kind. This probably more than any other is the reason
that his name was (and pretty much still is) erased from science
books. And those people who only parrot what they have been told
always are quick to attack anyone not speaking the "traditional"
accepted dogma. And that pretty much explains what you've observed.

However, While Tesla "invented the 20th century" with power
distribution, induction motors, hydroelectric power, Radio, robots,
AND and OR gates, fluorescent lamps, particle accelerators and all the
rest that drove that century of civilization, we are now at the start
of a NEW century and it will be up to some new names to step up to the
next phase of what drives civilization. Who knows, It could be you.

Benj
Thank you Ben.

"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.
Is
this something you might be able to enlighten me on? It appears to me
that
it was intense displacement current?

Some authors of accepted textbooks use term "electric wave". Probably such
are in nature. May be that the EM wave are only in Maxwell's equations.

The cranks have all sorts of theories about it but some of these guy's
are absolute crackpots so there is little worth in reading their claims
about it.

Fluid dynamics is where I do have some understanding and experience.

So you can do much. The all math for electricity were made before the
electron discovery. In that time the electricity was like an
incompressible
liquid (hydraulic analogy). If you use the gas analogy all is a litlle
diferent (no displacement current).
S*

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?"

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.

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.

Tesla did not invent modern power distribution- that was mainly due to the
transformer invented by others. He contributed to it with the polyphase
concept and its advantages. Nor did he invent hydroelectric power- big names
here are Francis and Pelton as well as Westinghouse. Tesla was one of the
players in a great array of entrepreneur/engineers of the time.

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.