Tesla's Radiant Energy experiments (Amazing video) - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / projects

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 08:25:37 pm
content: Hi,In reference to this video:I am wondering has anyone else seen such effects before that are listed in the video's description?I have not seen this discussed in any modern textbooks so hope someone can enlighten me because I am sure this is a well known effect....Right? Can anyone find another reference?For example, in the first part we see 500W on with kV does not light the lamps. But once connected to the Tesla coil it works with a single wire. Amazing!It's not just due to electrostatic effects as when the leads after the lightbulbs are remvoed the same bulbs do not shine as bright! Wow!!!

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 08:36:38 pm
content: Is it related to this:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/free-energy-is-just-a-bad-name/msg858997/#msg858997

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 08:39:09 pm
content: No. I did not claim this was free energy at all. Just wondering if anyone else has seen this phenomenon and studied it in any of the usual textbooks.Why are you linking the two?

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 08:43:05 pm
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 07, 2024, 08:39:09 pmWell, if you look here:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/amazing-tesla-experiments!-totally-new-science/msg3144712/#msg3144712The name, seems to be the same.I.e.'AMInnovations' from the thread above's opening posts, link, and the Youtube video channel name, you put into the first post.Youtube channel:Quote

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 08:48:01 pm
content: Ok, sure. Are we allowed to re-visit things? Are you going to comment on the video itself and the actual experiments performed or just focus on older posts?

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 08:50:34 pm
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 07, 2024, 08:48:01 pmNo, you can discuss it, that is ok.But it would be better, if you were clearer, as to what connections you might have to the information.E.g. Is that your YouTube channel, by any chance, or are you connected to it?

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 08:52:50 pm
content: So if you can't explain it or won't admit to that you prefer to just ignore it? Is that the point of science and engineering or are we supposed to be curious problem-solvers?I have no affiliation to the YT channel, but I respect the work and meticulous detail and work that went into it.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 09:03:14 pm
content: I can't quickly find it, but I'm convinced, there was already (a possibly long) thread, which started out with that video, in the not too distant past. Perhaps a year or so, ago.IIRC, people complained that it was about an hour long (too long to want to watch, in other words), and just showed standard Physics things, we already know.I.e. Just worked as expected, taking into account various stray effects and things.But the OP of that thread, was never happy with our explanations. (IIRC).

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 09:10:17 pm
content: Being 1 hour long is definitely a problem.I just skipped through it, and it shows someone playing with various electrical bits and bobs on a workbench. Sure, it was probably fun for the person making the video, but it's a bit boring to watch.If it were 10-20 minutes long, and it had a physics teacher describing and explaining the effects being demonstrated, then it would be an interesting and educational video. As it stands, it is not very useful or absorbing to watch.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 10:17:09 pm
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 07, 2024, 08:52:50 pmWas there something specific that I had not covered the last time it came up that is confusing you?QuoteYes, seen it, replicated it and explained it. It's nothing new, magical or exciting. If history once again repeats, you should be upset by this response so feel free to let me have it. Or, if you actually have some question feel free to ask.

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 12:09:31 am
content: Just wondering how you explain the length of hanging cable affecting the brightness of the bulbs without a specific controlled frequency of the discharges? Why does it not matter the lead length if this were an RF VSWR effect? Why just the primary coil supplying roughly same voltage is not lighting the bulbs?Why are metallic and inorganic materials attracted to the bulbs when lit through a insulating glass seal?Why do the bulbs not turn hot as with conventional two wire system?

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 12:24:39 am
content: More surface area = more capacitance. Lead length matters but we using pretty high voltage, like out distribution systems. Copper's a decent conductor, so for the few feet, no big deal. Tesla was attempting to use the ground by adding tunnels, salt, radials when we had a solution, copper wire.Are you asking why when I rub a rubber balloon through my hair that it sticks to the wooden wall? Haven't we moved beyond that?Pretty sure in my case, the bulb would have been at the same temperature when running the same voltage. There's no magic there. I can set it back up and measure it if you like.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 12:25:03 am
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 08, 2024, 12:09:31 amHave you use a CRT TV before?https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4aojvi/eli5_why_did_old_school_tvs_have_a_layer_of/QuoteYou'd need to provide data first: temperature and light output with 120V, temperature and light output with RF.Maybe its just not as bright, or is being pulsed at a lower duty cycle.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 12:54:51 am
content: Quote from: thm_w on August 08, 2024, 12:25:03 amOld enough to remember our first color TV, I sometimes forget how much dust they would collect compared to a modern LCD. My computer CRT monitors were having to be constantly cleaned. These new things, I never touch them except to wipe off finger prints. Its magic!!! Wonder why they didn't market them this way when they first came out.

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 01:32:41 am
content: You guys realize that Nikola Tesla knew about electrostatic effects. Yet, he called these effects Radiant Energy. Why would he use a different term for the same effects? Are we really going to claim that Tesla didn't know about those electrostatic effects?The temperature isn't recorded but it is shown and claimed by the experimenter no significant heating after a long experimental use. Why is the primary coil of the same duty cycle not showing this effect?What about the white plasma discharges from the bulb to his fingers some distance away (1-2 inches)? What about the feeling of "electrical pressure" wave near the bulbs?Y'all are going to have to try a little harder than that to dismiss this as nothing interesting.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 01:46:16 am
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 08, 2024, 01:32:41 amWe used to call humans who did math calculations, computers. Times change. No magic there.QuoteGuessing ignorance. If not maybe their goal is to scam the ignorant. The free energy group has no shortage of claims.QuoteTo be clear, I'm suggesting it's not interesting to me as it's pretty basic and again, I took the time last time to run a few experiments. For you, it could be the most exciting new thing ever. I felt that way a lot when I was a child and seeing the balloon stick to the wall. How could that be??!! Today, I still couldn't explain it.But if you like a bit of quantum physics, here is a home made electron paramagnetic resonance spectrometer I built in operation. If anything, it shows how little I understand about quantum physics!

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 01:53:07 am
content: If there is nothing new or interesting here why is no attempt made to explain the effects? The best you can come up with is experimenter is a scammed when all the setup is shown and nothing seems disingenuous about it.Makes me think if you can only think he's a scammed and can't explain it then indeed it must be interesting...

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 01:56:49 am
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 08, 2024, 01:53:07 am"I can't provide the explanation" => "The world is very complicated, and I am not an expert in every subject""Nobody can explain it" => "You need to improve your basic level of education"

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 02:01:17 am
content: In short, any experiment that can be done by an ordinary person was already done by experimenters in the 19th century or before, and has long been described by standard physics.To do an experiment in physics that can challenge what we understand requires experimental apparatus costing millions or billions of dollars. No ordinary YouTube vlogger has such resources at their disposal.

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 02:11:40 am
content: IanB, I think you missed the point here. Tesla did indeed do these experiments in the early 19th and 20th century. However, it is not well understood or in many textbooks and it obviously does not cost millions of dollars to replicate as shown in the video.If you think new scientific understanding can come from well funded expensive experiments then you have become elitist in your scientific thinking.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 02:34:32 am
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 08, 2024, 02:11:40 amOf course it's well understood. Just because you don't understand it just means you have not studied physics in enough depth.QuoteThat is not what the word elitist means. Your statement is nonsensical.

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 02:56:47 am
content: If its well understood then explain all the effects and reference their explanation in a given textbook.

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 03:10:00 am
content: Saying "it's well understood" and then not explaining how it is does not constitute an explanation as much as you would hope it would.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 04:42:31 am
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 08, 2024, 02:56:47 amHow about you set out where you see the gaps between this and well established theory?We're not here to build a conclusive 100% explanation of everything in such a long an diverse video. Unless you want to pay for that?

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 05:49:33 am
content: Not having looked at the video, but based on the description pieced together from the above (if you want a clearer or better answer, I would suggest writing down a specific example and asking about that), an equivalent circuit might be something like: GND --- voltage source --- lamp --- capacitor -- GND. The long wires having some capacitance to their surroundings, and the power source likewise, thus closing a loop. Most TC frequencies are low enough, and dimensions small enough, that wave behavior is not necessary to understand them, and a lumped-element equivalent circuit such as this suffices.The only surprise, then, is not one of possibility, but unfamiliarity with the magnitude of circuit values present: the capacitance in question might be only some 10s of pF, but just as well, the voltage might be 10s of k, and at 100s of kHz, that 10pF can sink a good 100s of mA, easily lighting an incandescent bulb.Actually a 4W 240V nightlight can be lit with merely 10mA or so, brightly at that, but perhaps still quite bright (on camera) at even 5mA, for which even a quite short length of wire will suffice, or maybe even the lamp's self-capacitance alone.And, such current flows are possible (say, 100s of mA at 10s kV) because capacitance is a conservative impedance: power is spent and recycled every cycle, on the order of say 20kV * 200mA = 4kVA, but only 100s of W might need to be dissipated, in part through lighting the lamp, but also other losses like corona discharge, and resistance in the supply (coil etc.).Quote from: DejanC on August 08, 2024, 01:32:41 amWell, he didn't know about radiation (as we call it today). It's been a while since I read in depth, but IIRC he was avidly anti-Hertzian.He also had an unwarranted fascination with resonance phenomena -- that is, resonance to the exclusion of everything else. In fact you cannot shake a bridge to bits just by waggling your pinky finger at the right frequency, or causing a building-scale earth quake with anything less than -- well, it depends on the building to be sure, but if I had to guess, 10s of kW to low MW. Maybe he didn't often appreciate just how much motive power he was throwing at many of his experiments, but the deeper conclusion seems to be, his knowledge and understanding of differential equations was flawed in a very specific way. Or more likely absent, with respect to what we take as basic linear ODEs nowadays, and I mean that's at least in part none of his fault, this subject was very much a domain of active and intense research back then -- but it was also one for which comprehensive and well-proven answers were possible, at least given the right textbooks and papers to read it from. Maxwell himself ran through a large swath of what Tesla worked with, including EM resonance, control theory, and general dynamics (electric, mechanical and other resonance and wave phenomena).The single missing gap was an understanding of impedance, as a complex quantity; the role of resistance, in most particular.Resistance is why the bridge cannot buckle under the terrible influence of a pinky finger, no matter how well-tuned: the resonant peak will only ever be some finite frequency span, so the tuning really doesn't matter once you're close enough. Meanwhile, resistance dampens the oscillation to some maximum amplitude, corresponding to the input power and its impedance matching. Even if one builds a bridge out of very high quality materials (let's say, fused quartz), installed in a vacuum, there will still be the partitioning of incident energy into all resonant modes of the system, which will interact in certain ways (mechanics are very nonlinear and multi-modal) and thus couple between those modes. At low (pinky-waggle level) amplitudes, harmonic conversion might be small, and we can suppose joints are made well enough to avoid rubbing and slapping motions (say, welded rather than bolted), but even so, there will be energy sinks -- otherwise quite unexpected ones, I would bet. If nothing else, the reaction mass of the soil itself (hey, this bridge has to be installed somewhere, we can't have an ideal neutronium foundation on this thing), which is mechanically lossy: the particles squish and rotate against each other, air and water spaces are smooshed and viscous flow occurs, and, generally, coordinated mechanical motion is lost, scattered into myriad motions of untellably many particles, and eventually it devolves into heat (the most basic, and imperceptible, of mechanical motions themselves).An example of "unexpected sinks" might be, tuning up an anti-resonant dipole antenna. It is indeed absolutely possible. But it's possible for reasons that aren't obvious given an ideal imagined setup. Most often, the resolution arises in terms of imbalance: the feedpoint is a little bit off-center, or there's more proximity to one element or another from nearby materials, or the balun is imperfect and you're actually radiating off the feedline, etc. The impedance of a one-wavelength thin dipole can beextraordinarily high(many kohm, versus a nominal ~70 ohms at 1/2-wave resonance), but with enough matching ratio, we can still pump power into it. We can cook the balun, we can get ludicrous volts on the elements, we can create corona and arcing -- somewhere in the midst of all that, a few watts will still leak out into the air, and we succeed in spite of ourselves!QuoteWell I mean, "pressure wave" means anything, there are those people who think they can project a psychic force field with sheer willpower. Maybe they can mentally shield themselves from others' derision, but it sure as hell ain't gonna win a knife fight. You're taking someones' claim of perception at face value, a very dangerous proposition indeed. If I say I perceive a bright green sky, with a purple sun gleaming in it -- do you believe me as well? Would you not be the least bit curious where or when I saw this? Perhaps what glasses I was wearing, or if I had any perception-modifying drugs in my bloodstream?And, by the way, I don't even mean to disregard perception out-of-hand -- even taking it at face value, there are physical effects that might be present. Ionic wind literally pushes air along the direction of a high-voltage discharge. There are electrotactile effects, like if you've ever rubbed your finger over a cellphone plugged into a poor-quality charger (or even many good ones), and you feel instead of a smooth surface, an almost automatic rubbery vibration: that's a real piezoelectric effect, due to the residual voltage coupled to the device through its filter capacitance (the resulting leakage from mains to GND is mere microamperes, safe to touch, but very little current indeed is needed in this gentle touch -- however, the effect goes away when you grasp the object widely, pulling it and your body to the same potential and thus the tactile sensation disappears).There is certainly some misinterpretation (or more likely lack of understanding) of physical phenomena, in play. There's no such thing as a "feeling of electrical pressure", per se. There are known effects, there are unrelated effects (was there not just a fan nearby? etc.), but nothing that is described that way specifically. I interpret the statement as "a sensation of pressure, having an apparent proximate cause of high-voltage electricity" -- which you'll notice is a far less catchy way to describe it, and (correctly) says nothing about what effects might be in play, but merely what one is suspecting, and perhaps there are blanks to be filled in there.There's also the effect of heat; sparks are very hot indeed. You often don't feel brief sparks or corona brush discharges, but there may be enough heat and electric field (and knock-on effects like piezoelectricity) there to feel something, and with enough stimuli present, the brain need not know properly how to categorize it ("there's (maybe) loud sparking going on, bright lights, conspicuous colors, touch or heat or other sensations, or just stuff going on near my appendages, this must feel like... like something!"), and even people as introspective as myself often have trouble describing perceptions in these most basic aspects, let alone those who just kind of, exist in the world, their mind a forward-flowing state of consciousness taking in everything all at once and not stopping to separate it, break down that sensory input into pieces and think about it; but rather the whole sum of all sensory input is the stimulus. When we perceivequalia, it's not one sense at a time, they aren't separable, rather we experience the vector space that is all sensory inputs simultaneously. It's possible to train oneself to tease apart various sensations, I think, but it's nearly (if not actually) impossible to truly exclude all other senses from conscious experience.Anyway, all that to say: yes, someone can say something, but what they actually felt, that led them to describe it that way, is avery different thing. People are notoriously bad at separating those things, and so we must apply some theory of mind to try and figure out what real effects might've led them to interpret it as that.Or to summarize: "electrical pressure" is meaningless; perhaps it's some simple physical effects, but perhaps it's also just what a brain thought of the show going on in front of it, in that moment.Finally, while I'm in the midst of all this theory-of-mind babbling -- one might also rightfully wonder why someone might seem to take these things at face value; or to take interest in videos that might be reasonably suspected as counter to mainstream ideas, or thought processes -- what is your interest in all of this? Broadly speaking.Do you seek objective truth?Or do you seek perceptive truth?Both are incontrovertible truths to the general-purpose neural network. One of them can even find wide (if not universal) agreement between other neural nets that have been similarly influenced. But only the other can be tested and proven against unthinking, unfeeling physical law.As a practitioner of physical law, I can say this: you won't make it far on the side of objective truth, by perception alone. Careful research and discipline is necessary to advance here.This is really, ultimately, the nature of the skepticism you have been met with here. Most of us are not interested in retreading ideas we've already perceived ourselves, ideas we've long since reasoned out of. Moreover, there is a pernicious, insidious trend among some perceivers, to bring more into their fold, to direct people towards their motive; how this happens, where those followers come from, where their interests lie, isn't really important, just the fact that, by being at least insensitive (even if not actively hostile) to objective truth, such people more easily fall into that pipeline. Thus, there is a nefarious, and yes, conspiratorial taint to that side of things. (The irony that "conspiracy theorist" types are most susceptible to conspiracy itself, is not lost on me; but it is lost on them, as they are sadly largely immune to irony.)And so, you should now understand why barriers are often presented by such communities: mind, if you had said nothing on a fringe topic, no one would have given notice; but since you have, you are being asked to state your intentions, and to show earnest effort towards objective truth. Else, some will assume your presence will have a corrupting effect: even if not actively, then one of dilution.Perhaps this extremely-long-winded post gives some evidence of that last point; consider what other, more objectively important, topics I might've spent this effort on tonight! (And no, I don't mind. It's not like this is a byproduct of some closed-door cabal and I drew the short straw. I like contemplating theory-of-mind and other philosophical topics from time to time, and don't mind writing out my ideas at length -- indeed I expect few actually read it in full; posts like this are, at least as much, if not moreso, an example of "thinking out loud" for my own sake, as to actually convey the ideas within.)Tim

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 11:08:59 am
content: Feynman's response when asked about magnetism:

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 02:07:20 pm
content: QuoteYou estimate the ground wire leads and power source parasitic capacitance in the 10s of pF? That's ridiculously high for how far the ground leads are to the surrounding medium. I am surprised you would venture to guess the capacitance value (and even the order of magnitude) without even looking at the video!!! It's almost like you just wish to dismiss it or something...Quote“My wireless transmitter does not use Hertzian waves, which are a grievous myth, but sound waves in the aether...”— Nikola TeslaThis just shows the level of ignorance when it comes to Tesla's work! Saying the inventor of a form of radio didn't know about radiation is marvelously ignorant and arrogant.Oh, and just if you think he didn't invent it:https://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_whoradio.html#:~:text=Tesla%20filed%20his%20own%20basic,of%20Tesla%20and%20other%20inventors."Tesla filed his own basic radio patent applications in 1897. They were granted in 1900. Marconi's first patent application in America, filed on November 10, 1900, was turned down. Marconi's revised applications over the next three years were repeatedly rejected because of the priority of Tesla and other inventors."Debunked!As far as your other responses, they boil down to "I don't believe the experimenter is telling the truth or knows what is going on". He clearly showed his entire set up, showed everything as fair play and yet no one can explain the white plasma-like discharge off the bulbs, the feelings of pressure emanating from the bulb when lit and it running at a much cooler temperature than the conventional current.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 02:34:50 pm
content: If you are claiming, something on the lines of overunity and/or Free-energy and/or perpetual-motion and/or Major changes to the established laws of Physics and/or etc.You need to produce a working demonstration of it, and let others (ideally suitably qualified/experienced people), examine and test it.A wonky, grainy pictured, long winded, rather amateurish or worse, old YouTube video, doesn't do it.I.e. This:And this one:

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 02:39:32 pm
content: QuoteAll information is available on the below link if you wish to replicate it. The information there is not amateurish. The working demonstration is the video originally shared. I am not claiming any free-energy here just wondering how you would explain it conventionally.https://www.am-innovations.com/teslas-radiant-energy-and-matter-part-1/

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 02:45:19 pm
content: Emphasis and font size change, done by me.Quote from: DejanC on August 08, 2024, 02:39:32 pmYet, if we follow your link, we find on that page, apparently as part of the article (at the very bottom, as part of the sources list):Quote

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 02:49:06 pm
content: You are really looking to nitpick here, eh? Anything not to address the effects shown.No where in the video or in the link does the creator suggest this circuit is a free-energy circuit. Please stay on topic and address the effects, not look for flaws in the titles of references

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 02:50:56 pm
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 08, 2024, 02:49:06 pmIf you think that video you originally supplied, has merit.It is up to YOU to prove and demonstrate it, not us.

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 02:53:14 pm
content: That's what the original YT creator did...

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 02:55:48 pm
content: One of the fundamental problems with threads like this is that physics does not "explain" anything, physicsdescribesphenomena with mathematical models that have predictive capability (see the Feynman video above for example).It is accepted by all expert practitioners that every aspect of electricity and electromagnetism is fully described by current physical models.For proof of this, consider that nearly everyone has a smartphone in their pocket. There is no way that a smartphone could be designed and engineered if the necessary physical models of electricity and electromagnetism were not 100% reliable and trustworthy.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 02:57:04 pm
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 08, 2024, 02:53:14 pmThere are lots of 'iffy' videos, on YouTube.Who knows what people with too little or no, proper scientific knowledge/experience/equipment, can incorrectly think they have discovered or proved.In some cases, they are actually deceptive and do things like hide batteries in the equipment, to make it look like they have invented a perpetual-motion machine.Here is an example of such a video, but in this case, it is ok, as you will see, later in the video:

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 03:00:51 pm
content: Quote from: MK14 on August 08, 2024, 02:57:04 pmWe don't need to bring deception into it, that is unnecessarily inflammatory.Anyone can construct electrical apparatus that has sparks and light shows and electromagnetic effects. If you can build it, it is physical. If it is physical it obeys the laws of physics (physics definition: "the science that describes the physical world").

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 03:02:51 pm
content: QuoteSo many logical flaws here. Yes, if you want to make a smartphone you need to understand and have the theory explain all aspects required for those specific effects. It doesn't mean that there are not effects possible outside the domain required to operate a smartphone...QuoteIt's funny how this thread went from "oh it's just electrostatic effects that we knew as children like rubbing a balloon on my head", to "I see no disingenuous actions but I assume there must be (like in other free energy videos) for this certain specific effects that I can't explain yet the OP does not claim anything free energy here"...QuoteOf course it obeys laws of physics. Are you saying we know everything there is to know about all the laws of physics?

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 03:10:29 pm
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 08, 2024, 03:02:51 pmIf it is an apparatus you can construct in your garage on a workbench, then yes.

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 03:13:24 pm
content: QuoteHubris at it's finest I guess...

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 03:19:03 pm
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 08, 2024, 03:13:24 pmOk, I have a question for you.When was the last time, the main laws of Physics (I will accept, less well known laws, as well). Was officially, initially found and later confirmed/proved/agreed, by the vast majority of Physicists. To end up in Physics text books.By someone, with little formal education, poor, cheap and un-calibrated equipment, on a shoe string budget, working from a small space, such as a (home) garage?

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 03:26:33 pm
content: QuoteDid you miss the part where I said this wasTesla's radiant matter and energy experiments, replicated?Are you saying Tesla had "little formal education, poor, cheap and un-calibrated equipment, on a shoe string budget, working from a small space"?

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 03:28:04 pm
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 08, 2024, 03:26:33 pmI was referring to the YouTube video, you seemed to supply in the opening post.

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 03:42:45 pm
content: Quote...and I am letting you know this effect was first reported by Nikola Tesla, and then replicated in the video.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 03:46:17 pm
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 08, 2024, 03:42:45 pmYou haven't even answered the simplest of questions.I'm wasting my time here with you.

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 03:48:28 pm
content: QuoteWhy would I answer your question if your premise is false? No one is claiming some one uneducated or inexperienced discovered these effects in a garage with a shoe-string budget and uncalibrated equipment

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 03:55:23 pm
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 08, 2024, 02:39:32 pmYou mean the website which has this motto across the top of every page? Sure, that has nothing at all to do with "free energy"...Quote

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 03:56:56 pm
content: Explaining physics to non-physicists ishard. That's why those who can do it well –– like Feynman and Sagan for example –– become famous.I've tried doing that in a few threads here on this forum, and it definitely has not been a pleasant experience. Even if successful, there is no positive feedback. So, why would anyone even try, when it is going to hurt the helper more than it helps anyone else? I definitely won't delve into the topic at hand, that's for sure. (Also, my own focus is in computational materials physics, not EM fields.)Presenting a video and then asking for others to explain with references the phenomena occurring in the video exactly, is pushing the burden of proof to others. "I believe this, and it isyourtask to prove it wrong." That's not how reality and human communities work. If you want others to believe what you believe, you need to prove your belief correct, or at least somehow useful (beyond giving you a fuzzy warm feeling, that is). That is exactly why so many preachers with good intentions fall into faking miracles: they believe so strongly they think helping to reproduce what they believe should happen is not fakery and is fully warranted to "save" others. And also why there are so many Youtube videos either misrepresenting the situation, or outright faking stuff.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 03:58:14 pm
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 08, 2024, 02:07:20 pmHey, prove me wrong. You're the one carrying the burden of proof. Run an electrostatics simulation, watch the video, measure the cables and surroundings, tell me what pF's you really find. Then we'll talk.QuoteYeah. See, your willful misunderstanding is here:I said something very particular.You quoted something supporting that fact.You claim your quote contradicts that fact.Notice I didn't say "deny transmission" or "action at a distance" or anything like that. Clearly there is some action present here.I specified Hertz, because Hertz' work was well known at the time. But Tesla denied it, claiming his system somehow propagated forever -- not suffering radiation loss.In fact, in a trulyidealsystem, even without frequencies low enough to avoid wave propagation, loss can be avoided; wave mechanics just mean your reception might be poor in some spots, but move 1/4 wave over and you're fine again.But in reality, we do not have a superconducting cavity, and even air itself has some dielectric loss that will dissipate waves, rather than transmitting/reflecting them around the world endlessly.Do you see, how precise and specific my claim about losses was? Radiation loss is a distributed effect, a consequence of basic geometry (distance and perspective), but also from lost waves being truly lost, not conserved (wrapping around the Earth or reflected in a box) endlessly. Granted, it's impossible to know precisely where his mental gap lay -- but asserting that he lacked a fundamental understanding of the effect of losses on a system, sure does explain a majority of his questionable opinions.As it turns out -- we didn't really know for sure at the time -- there is, in fact, only one mode of propagation to the "electric aether", which is transverse. There isno such thingas sound (longitudinal) waves, and anyway even if there were, it wouldn't propagate a damn bit differently! Waves are waves!Mind, what "aether" was, back then, was a broad range of things. Some fervently believed there must be some kind of, intangible yet material, medium upon which EM waves traveled, and that other modes (compression, shear) might be possible, if only we knew how to interact with them. This isn't unreasonable: all other kinds of waves known until then consisted of the dynamic behavior of matter: gravity waves on a pond, sound waves in a solid (including shear), in a gas (compression only), etc.To most, "aether" was just a placeholder for "in analogy to matter waves, this is EM wave propagation" -- synonymous with what we call today the vacuum, or the universe itself.After some precise and convincing tests, it turns out that, even if there were such a medium, it has somereally peculiar properties(local frame drag), that simply don't make any sense in regards to some sort of medium. Eventually, enough practitioners leaned into the fundamental quirk of EM law (which hadn't been contradicted since the work of Faraday and Maxwell, only improved, streamlined (e.g. Heaviside notation), and more concretely proven out), the Lorentz transformation, which arises out of the velocity independence characteristic of the equations. Einstein developed this into a complete theory of the universe at its grandest scales, and we've had General Relativity since.Relativity is quite fundamental; we're still searching for a unification of General, but the aspects of Special Relativity (time dilation, etc.) are well known and proven: when integrated into quantum mechanics, we obtain the most accurate theory of physical law yet developed: quantum electrodynamics (QED), verified within 15 digits or so of correctness -- it's literally as accurate as we can measure anything at all, and as much a testament to experimental design to achieve such fantastical precision, let alone the theory to confirm it.And from there, electroweak theory, and QCD, are only less-well-proven just because they're so much harder to design experiments for (and QCD in particular, to solve the field equations of).Even at these greatest of depths, smallest of scales, the same EM law that was discovered so long ago, remains ever present -- just a tiny aspect of much broader and richer symmetries of the universe, but nonetheless one intimately mixed with it.Suffice it to say, if there were such things as longitudinal EM waves, we'd have discovered it, and suffice it to say, even if such a thing did exist, Tesla's circuits and elements clearly do not interact with them.So, again. Burden of proof is on you. If you wish to willfully misunderstand well-proven law, you are welcome to do so on your own. We do not entertain such ideas here.Tim

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 04:03:38 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on August 08, 2024, 03:58:14 pmExactly!

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 04:05:17 pm
content: QuoteYou literally said Tesla did not know about radiation. Dude literally invented the first radio and patent it.In parallel, he also had transmitters that worked on longitudinal polarized EM waves, which you claim don't exist. He didn't deny Hertz's work (another false claim by you), he merely said it is not the most efficient way to propagate signals due to it's spherical spreading nature. The man was a genius and many of his experiments were never replicated or released to the public. At least be open to the idea there are things we do not know yet conventionally. It will do you good.QuoteI am not believing anything. I am just asking if someone has come across such effects before and any references to them in modern texts.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 04:26:53 pm
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 08, 2024, 02:07:20 pmQuote from: DejanC on August 08, 2024, 04:05:17 pmYou are merely trolling. Please go away and troll someplace else.

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 04:29:42 pm
content: QuoteI don't think you studied Tesla's work. He had a variety of patents and transmitters. The "Magnifying Transmitter" was non-Hertzian. His other transmitter he recevied the radio patent for used Hertzian waves. His quote above was about the former, not the latter. Two separate things.No troll detected.

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 04:08:53 am
content: Still no explanation offered for Tesla's discoveries or any text that references these effects.Victory feels good.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 02:00:45 pm
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 09, 2024, 04:08:53 amI thought I had explained them in simple terms. Based on your response, I suspect you lack any higher level education. Explaining in terms you could understand will be far more difficult, if not impossible.The interviewer asking how a magnets work may also have left feeling victorious after Feynman failed to pack years of education into the short interview and explain it. I felt a bit embarrassed for the interviewer. Then again, they came off much like how you are behaving.Quote from: DejanC on August 07, 2024, 08:25:37 pmNear field coupling and single wire transmission is nothing amazing to me. That comes from my own desire to learn new things and doing my own research them over the years.I am reaching the end of my life and still know very little. You may wonder why I wasted my time. First, I don't want to be like you! Second, learning has provided me with the ability to take care of my family.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 02:31:49 pm
content: Quote from: joeqsmith on August 09, 2024, 02:00:45 pmI think there is a common misunderstanding that seems to arise in these situations. Textbooks do not directly provide a cookbook of observable phenomena that can occur in every conceivable situation, since this list would be infinite. Textbooks rather describe the theoretical foundation and the mathematical framework that underpins the theory.The job of the student (or practitioner) is to understand the underlying theory and then apply the theory to practical situations to describe what is observed, or to achieve working designs. The application part is hard, and is a major part of the learning undertaken by students.

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 02:48:00 pm
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 08, 2024, 03:10:00 amIt usually takes several years of intense (and certainly not easy) study of physics and maths - if you are lacking basic knowledge, and then not even interested in getting into it, why should anyone care about explaining it to you? Your brain would literally switch off after less than a minute, trust me. This is not a "Heureka!" event, unless you already have the skillset required.(And I don't claim to have the knowledge to understand and explain complex electromagnetic field theory. The trick is to know your limits.)

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 03:06:49 pm
content: That's funny. I have a undergraduate degree in Mathematical Physics and a graduate degree in Electrical Engineering....still waiting on any references to the effects shown in Tesla's Radiant Energy experiments as shown in the video above.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 03:34:32 pm
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 09, 2024, 03:06:49 pmNow THAT is funny!!! Or if true, very sad!!

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 03:37:49 pm
content: Still no references or explanations of the effects from the forum experts....that is funny!!!I could run circles around you with physics knowledge that supports the possibility of "impossible" devices.Since I am uneducated, I wouldn't know about the Casimir effect. I am sure you can explain it to me!

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 04:13:22 pm
content: Quote from: joeqsmith on August 09, 2024, 02:00:45 pm(Ian, Haenk, you too)Nudge, nudge. Leave 'em be. Let he who has the greatest ego cast the last reply, and all.Tim

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 06:09:03 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on August 09, 2024, 04:13:22 pmOr Dave if you want to take it to that level. I'm sure he would move it to the proper area and lock it if you asked.Personally, I don't mind the banter about free energy. It's at least somewhat technical when compared with COVID vacs, politics, religion, sex preference, race, China bashing ....QuoteI would stop there. My knowledge in physics (and pretty much everything else) is next to zero. I suggest setting your goal much higher than using me as a benchmark. Obviously, you didn't like my short answers, so how about you explain some of what you asked about to me?

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 06:20:32 pm
content: "Let's ignore Nikola Tesla's work, that'll show 'em!""Nothing beats our hubris, that's the whole point""We can't explain it so I prefer to ignore it"Funny how not one response was giving credit to the experimenter for finding some interesting effects and replicating Tesla's work in a organized and professional manner. I suggest you all give a good thorough read on Tesla's Radiant energy and matter experiments and observations, including:https://magstar.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/1891-lecture-New-York-Columbia-college.pdfExplained well in this video:If you are not going to believe the original experimenter, I hope you take Tesla at his word...

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 06:42:44 pm
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 07, 2024, 08:39:09 pmNow you are posting a video, which seems to say, at the beginning in very big letters:"The Key To Free Energy".So, I was right all along, and you apparently were being extremely deceptive or something.Here:Quote from: DejanC on August 09, 2024, 06:20:32 pm

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 06:58:53 pm
content: QuoteLet's say for example it does say "free energy". Does that make studying Nikola Tesla's lecture a waste of time?If you think "free energy" isn't possible then explain to me how the Casimir effect does not allow this? Explain the vacuum catastrophe and the controversy over quantum renormilzation?

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 07:01:34 pm
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 09, 2024, 06:58:53 pmThe problem is it means you have been deceptive (dishonest/lying or similar).So we can't trust you, and have to worry, that you might be dishonestly trying to scam money out of people.So anything you say, such as qualification(s), could be untrue.We don't really know for sure.But the (assumed) trust, has partly vaporized.

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 07:07:14 pm
content: QuoteTrust me, I have nothing to sell. No website, no affiliation, no invention.Just imploring this forum to open their minds to Tesla's work.Still no addressing of the Casimir effect, quantum renormilzation or the vacuum catastrophe, any of the effects showns or discussed by Tesla....but I am guess I am just uneducated.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 07:12:28 pm
content: You seem to be a jammed record player, continuously playing the same track/section, over and over ...

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 07:17:22 pm
content: QuoteAnother duck and dodge....anything but to address the below:Quote

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 07:19:44 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on August 09, 2024, 04:13:22 pm

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 07:21:55 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on August 09, 2024, 07:19:44 pmOk.I'll just leave this as a reference, for anyone into that kind of thing:

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 07:22:34 pm
content: QuoteIt's kind of cowardly to ignore your own blindspots when being challenged, eh?

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 07:30:48 pm
content: Quote from: DejanC on August 09, 2024, 06:58:53 pmReally, even that fact escapes you!!! Too funny!!QuoteI knew your intentions the moment you posted.Quote from: DejanC on August 09, 2024, 07:22:34 pmI was a bit surprised by his response after writing two volumes of war and peace. Tim's far more invested than I am. Then again, last time I took a lot more time going over the basics. Same end result but that's fine.

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 07:39:29 pm
content: Every time there is a response that does not address any of the scientific topics brought up, the weakness of the responses grows exponentially...Anything but answering the technical questions, right guys?

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 08:27:14 pm
content: I thought you were going to educate us while you opened our minds to Tesla's work? Did I misunderstand your last few comments?

author: DejanC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 08:46:17 pm
content: Never did I claim to educate anyone.Just wanted open, honest minds looking at these effects. Give anhonesttake....and also any response to: Casimir effect, vacuum catastrophe or quantum renormalization controversy.Tesla's quotes:"The energy of the universe is infinite. We can tap into it, but we must understand the laws of nature and work with them."Source: "Experiments with Alternate Currents of Very High Frequency" (1891)"The universe is a dynamical system, and its energy is constantly being transformed. We can harness this energy, but we must first understand the underlying principles."Source: "On Light and Other High Frequency Phenomena" (1893)

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 09:03:32 pm
content: Tesla was a cheat, a liar and a charlatan. There is no real evidence that he invented anything. The one thing that poor old Westinghouse paid him for he took years to get to work after he sold Westinghouse the patents. Oddly someone else came up with an electric motor at the same time.... hm. Everything else was a scam.Any wonderous thing you find on the internet with Tesla's name on it is also being pedaled by a cheat, a liar or a charlatan, just like the man himself.The facts: