Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [usa-tesla] URGENT NEWS!

Expand Messages
  • Ed Phillips
    Hib Halverson spins a compelling yarn, someone needs to tell him he is describing the heads side of the coin at the expense of the tails side. I m not talking
    Message 1 of 68 , Jun 6, 2007
      Hib Halverson spins a compelling yarn, someone needs to tell him he is
      describing the heads side of the coin at the expense of the tails side."

      I'm not talking about his "performance engines" but rather to the
      principle of using it; his description is accurate. There are many
      references on the web which give the same story but I picked this one
      because of the mention of the use by the Luftwaffe in WW2. Wasn't
      unique to them but they used it more extensively because they had a more
      desperate need. They didn't dare use fuel rich mixtures on their night
      fighters because of the visible flame from the stacks - look up the
      ME-110 as an example.

      " I've seen that played out too. Didn't he have something to do with
      the invention of alternators? 1888, yeah. The rotating-field AC
      alternator, that would be a unit that outperformed comparable units
      (DC generators) of the day, no?


      If you read the available history of the EE field from 1870 through
      1890 you'll see that he didn't make the first one but rather that he
      made the first PRACTICAL ones; his unique contribution was the invention
      of a complete SYSTEM including poly (two) phase alternators and equally
      important the motors that went with them. The comparison with DC
      generators isn't a complete one. Almost certainly, because of the
      inferior magnetic materials he had to work with, his alternators weren't
      quite as efficient as DC generators of the same size even though they
      had less brush friction loss. [The invention of high silicon
      "transformer iron" in the following decade eliminated that problem.] His
      AC system made the long-distance transmission of power more efficient
      because it permitted use of stepup and stepdown transformers at each end
      of a long transmission line, reducing line losses greatly by use of high
      voltage and low currents. There were abortive attempts by others to do
      something similar with DC by using series generators at the transmitter
      and series motors at the receiver but the scheme really was expensive
      and unworkable.

      All of this has nothing to do with improvements in internal
      combustion engines of course. Tesla did work on ignition schemes but if
      he worked on anything else I haven't seen any mention - have you?

    • Michael Riversong
      Thank you very much for the good words! Right now i m at a cheap motel in Rolla, Missouri about to set out for an interview with a physicist who used to be on
      Message 68 of 68 , Jun 11, 2007
        Thank you very much for the good words!

        Right now i'm at a cheap motel in Rolla, Missouri about to set out for an
        interview with a physicist who used to be on this list.

        Tomorrow probably going to Springfield Illinois, then on to Lancaster,

        At 09:16 AM 6/9/2007, you wrote:

        >Michael ~
        >I had a bout with income for a bit that stalled progress with my idea
        >(gee, is this a new situation, I think not!!) but have still been
        >accumulating info to help correlate the relationships I feel are happening
        >now between fractal renditions and the possible creation of new elements
        >using laser energy...
        >Our world seems to have finally found that the mind is far more powerful
        >in creating new things then originally thought.... giving up is not in my
        >vocabulary.... healed from a broken back and am now bionic.... so life
        >only permits stalls to solutions in my book....
        >Take Care!!!!!! An keep up the good work! Your site is a true tribute!
        >Michael Riversong Education <rivedu@...> wrote:
        >Hang in there! The exchange that you don't like so much is necessary at
        >this time. It's mostly harmless, and can lead us to thoughts about more
        >directly Tesla related topics.
        >Each of us has a possible contribution to make. My own work involves
        >constant publicizing along with technology evaluation. Just today i
        >passed out some booklets about the upcoming ExtraOrdinary Technology
        >conference while unexpectedly visiting Wichita for the first time in 10 years.
        >There are many ways you can help. You can support the Tesla Tech
        >organization by getting books, DVDs, and other materials through
        >them. You could attend the conference and find other ways to
        >contribute. Of course the greatest help would be to build some devices
        >that work. Seems like there are always too many good theorists and too
        >few builders. I've been dealing with that problem for 23 years now, and
        >it's always been like this.
        >-----Original Message-----
        >From: Michael Cavette
        >Sent: Jun 6, 2007 7:37 AM
        >To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: RE: [usa-tesla] URGENT NEWS!
        >It is obviously an overlooked fact that our dependence on oil is all abou
        >money, not practicality.
        >The current trend for auto makers to lessen the pollutants is another
        >farce to add more jobs to the economy, not to combat pollutants.
        >The world is operating on a summary of needs for the greedy, not what is
        >best for the planet in any way and has done so since the industrial
        >revolution started, with the heaviest influence being from the financiers
        >of the 20's & 30's.
        >I am amazed that no comment of Tesla ever entered into this recent
        >exchange between Fred & Reese.
        >Sadly, it reflects the notion that we are totally dependent on the gas-oil
        >moguls and their thirst to both starve the planet and make a buck doing it.
        >Let's try to remember all the inventions of the early 1900's.
        >Our hero, Tesla, had his own method of ridicule aimed at the industrial
        >age with his working stream engine to fuel a motor vehicle.
        >Today, just as in his day, fund-backing is only placed with the inventor
        >that adds to the current stream of commerse.
        >There is a tremendous fear of a new invention that would change the scope
        >of the world's energy uses... those that would be affected with buy, steal
        >& rape the individual that does make a true alternative to current energy
        >usage trends.
        >How about we get real and keep our focus on what this group is all about?
        >"McGalliard, Frederick B" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@...> wrote:
        >We use vast quantities of energy. It is not a waste to expend a gallon of
        >gas to save an hour of walking, or to make it possible to work in town and
        >still own a lovely large home in the burbs, or to lure in millions to the
        >Casino's in Vegas. It may soon become an obvious poor trade off, as fuel
        >oil prices rise unpredictably, but the term waste is just too emotion
        >laden to be a sound judgment. I would not argue with careless, or
        >excessive, use as the issue.
        >From: Codesuidae [mailto:codesuidae@...]
        >Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 11:01 PM
        >To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] URGENT NEWS!
        >Jet Black wrote:
        > > There is plenty of crude oil + natural gas available & it will be available
        > > for 400 to 500 more years
        > >
        >I'll give you the natural gas angle, provided someone can come up with a
        >cheap and effective way to extract methane hydrates, but inexpensive
        >conventional crude oil will soon be quite rare. Sure there's lots of tar
        >up there in Canada, and they've even got it producing significant
        >quantities of usable fuel now (heck, they might even someday be able to
        >get up to producing 1/10,000th of the cubic mile (and rising) of oil the
        >world uses every year), but it's much harder to get than conventional
        >crude, you burn up lots of it to get a little of it to market in usable
        >form. It's so expensive they're considering putting in big nuclear power
        >plants to provide the power.
        >Here, read this US Government Accountability Office report:
        >Their conclusion:
        >"The prospect of a peak in oil production presents problems of global
        >proportion whose consequences will depend critically on our
        >preparedness. The consequences would be most dire if a peak occurred
        >soon, without warning, and were followed by a sharp decline in oil
        >production because alternative energy sources, particularly for
        >transportation, are not yet available in large quantities. Such a peak
        >would require sharp reductions in oil consumption, and the competition
        >for increasingly scarce energy would drive up prices, possibly to
        >unprecedented levels, causing severe economic damage. While these
        >consequences would be felt globally, the United States, as the largest
        >consumer of oil and one of the nations most heavily dependent on oil for
        >transportation, may be especially vulnerable among the industrialized
        >nations of the world."
        >The timing of a peak in production is very difficult to estimate, for
        >reasons described in the report. A recent report from Sweden (a country
        >already working on it's stated goal of becoming petroleum free within 15
        >years) makes a credible estimate of peak production occurring by 2018:
        >Sweden isn't the only group taking this that seriously, a number of
        >smaller groups are doing the same thing.
        >This is an extremely near-term estimate, and yet well within the range
        >the GAO finds credible. This is the sort of time-frame that, if correct,
        >would result in the 'dire' consequences mentioned in the GAO report.
        >Even CERA, an organization associated with the big oil companies, says
        >that our ever-increasing rate of extraction must inevitably decline.
        >They figure we'll see an 'undulating plateau' sometime in the next 20-25
        >years, followed by an irrevocable decline. They are extremely
        >optimistic, more realistic estimates put the date around 2018-2020.
        >The problem is obvious. We waste vast quantities of energy. Certainly it
        >is great fun, but it is also very dumb. While the car companies would
        >love for you to believe that "American's need more energy, not less":
        >the fact is that it is well past time to power down.
        >Start with <http://www.peakaware.com/>http://www.PeakAware.com then head
        >over to
        ><http://www.energybulletin.net/>http://www.energybulletin.net and
        ><http://www.theoildrum.com/>http://www.theoildrum.com Be sure to
        >add both sites to your RSS reader. Oh, and don't trip over the Doomers,
        >their pronouncements of the imminent and unavoidable destruction of
        >human civilization, roving bandits in the post-apocalyptic-mad-maxian
        >world and finally a dirty and defeated return of humanity to the stone
        >age might make you think the whole thing is a load of manure. Don't let
        >'em fool you, they're kind of the Jehovah's Witnesses of Peak Oil (I
        >jest, I jest. Seriously,they won't keep coming back to knock on your
        >door!). It's still possible to squeak by and avoid destruction, but not
        >if people keep thinking that their is lots of oil and so they can just
        >let the next generation take care of that whole 'addicted to oil' thing.
        > -- Michael Riversong Professional Teacher Harpist Cheyenne,
        > Wyoming (307)635-0900 rivedu@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.