Nikola Tesla’s Inventions - Myth or Reality?

[F6FLT]

How well-versed are you on the 'stinging rays' experiments?
And what references did you you use to conclude such a system would be predominantly electrostatic?

I've not personally seen any 'death ray' designs from Tesla and I suspect the notes are still in some dark, moldy corner of an FBI evidence locker.  Would rather see more data before passing broad judgement.

I'm not discussing anyone's beliefs, only the facts (a fact is a reality, therefore accompanied by evidence) and the logical relationships between them.
Do you have any?

[Allcanadian]

In my opinion it's probably a good thing almost nobody has managed to figure out how any of Tesla's most advanced technology works. It goes towards the notion that a person should be intelligent enough to understand a technology and it's consequences before there allowed to use it. Like having to take a drivers course and test before being given a drivers license.

For example, I built working devices to prove what Tesla called radiant energy and matter are in fact real. However it's a dual edged sword, when a person becomes intelligent enough to understand advanced technology they should also understand why they should not tell everyone. They should be intelligent enough to understand no real good could come of it because it would eventually be weaponized by all the least intelligent people. It is the proverbial act of giving a child a loaded gun.

In effect this is why most of the people demanding they be given advanced technology are probably the last people it should be given to.

For example, most said nobody is stupid enough to start weaponizing drones but we all knew they would. Now the U.S., Russia and Ukraine are using  weaponized drones soon to be made autonomous with AI. Soon were going to see squadrons of autonomous weaponized drones everywhere for whomever can afford them including your enemies. Let's be honest, everyone knew it was a train wreck but they did it anyways because there imbeciles.

So it's actually very beneficial there are so many misguided people like F6FLT who believe all this is impossible. The more the merrier I say...

AC

[Hakasays]

I'm not discussing anyone's beliefs, only the facts (a fact is a reality, therefore accompanied by evidence) and the logical relationships between them.
Do you have any?

Anyone making broad declarations I would ask about the level of depth they have on the subject.   I'm just curious how deeply you've studied/replicated Tesla's work to consider yourself an expert,and what source materials you largely relied on to do so.

[Hakasays]

For example, I built working devices to prove what Tesla called radiant energy and matter are in fact real. However it's a dual edged sword, when a person becomes intelligent enough to understand advanced technology they should also understand why they should not tell everyone. They should be intelligent enough to understand no real good could come of it because it would eventually be weaponized by all the least intelligent people. It is the proverbial act of giving a child a loaded gun.
AC

Proverbially, an overly-skeptical scientist might conclude that nuclear weapons are fake because they can't find plans on exactly how they are constructed anywhere online.

[F6FLT]

Anyone making broad declarations I would ask about the level of depth they have on the subject.
...

If you were to use your method, you would have to admit that academic theories are the best representations of the universe since they come from those who have the best "level of depth" on the subjects. For example, the scientists defined what electrons or magnetic fields are and all the concepts of physics, and were at the origin of all the technology used today, from electric motors to radio transmitters to nuclear power plants.

Just because some free energy joker will play with coils for years, and then produce a bunch of gibberish on the subject, doesn't make it relevant. Almost all free energy people use the words of scientists like "electrons" or "magnetic field" rather than creating their own concepts. They would be unable to do so, and in any case, it would be pointless, as scientific concepts are the most judicious.
Those who reject academic science are imitating it, but without understanding it. They should be more modest and study what works before theorising about what doesn't exist.

From what I read, neither you nor AC have any facts to support the myths about Tesla, only vague urban legends with no reproducible or measurable results except in the heads of those who believe them.

Again: I'm not here to discuss beliefs, only the facts (a fact is a reality, therefore accompanied by evidence) and the logical relationships between them.
Do you have any?

[Grumpy]

If you were to use your method, you would have to admit that academic theories are the best representations of the universe since they come from those who have the best "level of depth" on the subjects. For example, the scientists defined what electrons or magnetic fields are and all the concepts of physics, and were at the origin of all the technology used today, from electric motors to radio transmitters to nuclear power plants.

Just because some free energy joker will play with coils for years, and then produce a bunch of gibberish on the subject, doesn't make it relevant. Almost all free energy people use the words of scientists like "electrons" or "magnetic field" rather than creating their own concepts. They would be unable to do so, and in any case, it would be pointless, as scientific concepts are the most judicious.
Those who reject academic science are imitating it, but without understanding it. They should be more modest and study what works before theorising about what doesn't exist.

From what I read, neither you nor AC have any facts to support the myths about Tesla, only vague urban legends with no reproducible or measurable results except in the heads of those who believe them.

Again: I'm not here to discuss beliefs, only the facts (a fact is a reality, therefore accompanied by evidence) and the logical relationships between them.
Do you have any?

It sounds like your mind is already convinced that all of these myths about Tesla are urban legends and are all unfounded.

Yet you have not explored any of these myths with your own work.  So, your conclusions are not based on your own work but based on the work (or lack of work) of others, much as the conclusions of believers in the myths are based.

No one should waste their time trying to convince you otherwise.

[Hakasays]

If you were to use your method, you would have to admit that academic theories are the best representations of the universe since they come from those who have the best "level of depth" on the subjects. For example, the scientists defined what electrons or magnetic fields are and all the concepts of physics, and were at the origin of all the technology used today, from electric motors to radio transmitters to nuclear power plants.

False Authority fallacy.  Being an EE or physics expert doesn't necessarily confer experience researching or replicating the work of Nikola Tesla.

It sounds like your mind is already convinced that all of these myths about Tesla are urban legends and are all unfounded.

Yet you have not explored any of these myths with your own work.  So, your conclusions are not based on your own work but based on the work (or lack of work) of others, much as the conclusions of believers in the myths are based.

No one should waste their time trying to convince you otherwise.

His style seems to infer that because Tesla has legends/myths associated that his actual work is somehow invalid/irrelevant.  He mentions them a lot, but rarely anything written by Tesla himself.   It makes sense that he would conclude everything is bunk/mundane because the bulk of data he's been exposed to is the low-tech fanboys and not actual replications or original source material.   Something to be likened to argument-from-ignorance fallacy.
Also explains the propensity to use non-engineering, non-physics sources like Rousseau to make his argument.

[F6FLT]

It sounds like your mind is already convinced that all of these myths about Tesla are urban legends and are all unfounded.
...

The burden of proof is on those who speak of Tesla's myths as realities. If you don't understand it yet, learn philosophy in addition to science instead of making a stupid remark because ad hominem.

[F6FLT]

False Authority fallacy.  Being an EE or physics expert doesn't necessarily confer experience researching or replicating the work of Nikola Tesla.

It is even the opposite with the conspiracy theorists: the more competent you are, the more you are attacked since you demonstrate the immense stupidity of the discourse they hold.

His style seems to infer that because Tesla has legends/myths associated that his actual work is somehow invalid/irrelevant.  He mentions them a lot, but rarely anything written by Tesla himself.   It makes sense that he would conclude everything is bunk/mundane because the bulk of data he's been exposed to is the low-tech fanboys and not actual replications or original source material.   Something to be likened to argument-from-ignorance fallacy.
Also explains the propensity to use non-engineering, non-physics sources like Rousseau to make his argument.

We are not here to listen to the ravings of preachers, gibberish, twisted conspiracy theories, denigration of competent people, and childish stories from people who entertain modern superstitions.

Produce facts, reproducible setups, measurements.

[Allcanadian]

Hakasays

False Authority fallacy.  Being an EE or physics expert doesn't necessarily confer experience researching or replicating the work of Nikola Tesla.

I think your correct and attribute the average critics lack of success to a variation of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

In my experience many critic/academics have low ability or experience actually building and testing real devices. They also tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge with respect to variations on any given concept or build. They falsely assume because most devices act in one way every device should act in a similar way ie, bandwagon/appeal to authority fallacy.

Many critics/academics also fall prey to what I call the "Edison effect". They would spend extended periods of time studying known phenomena in excruciating detail hoping to find a needle in a haystack. Spend endless hours doing math and equations supposedly to convince themselves no real experiments are even needed. As such many have resorted to a "simulated reality" in order justify there lack of experience or failures in reality.

However, the critics biggest liability is a lack of creativity in my opinion. I see many people doing exactly the same things over and over with no way out of the loop they seem to be stuck in. They seem to lack the ability to just stop, take an objective view of how they could change what there doing and proceed in a new direction. I had this same problem early on when I lacked a working knowledge and hands on experience. As many claim the task would seem impossible but only because they have run out of options on new ways to proceed.

How many here have been stuck in that scenario?. Staring at a patent, diagram or non-working build on the bench thinking "I have run out of options and there's nothing more to do here". That doesn't mean something is impossible it means we lack the proper perspective and creativity to find a new direction to proceed.

AC

[F6FLT]

...
How many here have been stuck in that scenario?. Staring at a patent, diagram or non-working build on the bench thinking "I have run out of options and there's nothing more to do here". That doesn't mean something is impossible it means we lack the proper perspective and creativity to find a new direction to proceed.

AC

It means that at least this device does not work. That's the conclusion to be drawn, and that kind of conclusion is never drawn. No one (except me ) says that Bearden's MEG doesn't work, that Tesla's "death ray" never existed, or that his long-distance energy transmission doesn't work at long distances but only at short distances according to Maxwell's equations.
This is why there is no progress in free energy and why 99% of its actors are going in circles, they do not want to or do not know how to conclude.

[Allcanadian]

F6FLT

It means that at least this device does not work. That's the conclusion to be drawn, and that kind of conclusion is never drawn.

I'm super optimistic and all the critics falsely claiming fusion was impossible for decades were just proven wrong. We just keep winning and the critics just keep losing.

I think things are looking up, the west is making huge progress in clean energy while other primitive cultures like Russia and China are still living in the dark ages. Obviously we can't wait around for all the underachievers but we can sell them our clean technology. So ya, we won't be concluding anything anytime soon and there are so many opportunities it boggles the mind.

AC

[F6FLT]

@AC

Conventional science has always claimed that fusion will be possible, and it will be. When you have a theory as solid as relativity, still tested and confirmed a century after it was formulated, you can be sure that the difficulty is only a question of know-how, not of principle.

It is because nothing is concluded in FE that no progress is made, whereas conventional science makes progress. Conventional science has concluded that magnetic flux is conservative, so Bearden's MEG can't work as he describes it, so there's no point in wasting time on it, we have to move on.
This is why scientists are working on fusion to make it work, but not on Tesla's death ray, or Bearden's MEG as the idea is as incoherent as the pseudo-scientific jargon he uses about it.
The absence of a conclusion is an admission of ignorance, and nothing useful is built on ignorance.

[Hakasays]

It is even the opposite with the conspiracy theorists: the more competent you are, the more you are attacked since you demonstrate the immense stupidity of the discourse they hold.

Why do you continue to deflect away from Tesla's actual works onto such topics?   Is because all you have studied is the conspiracy sites and not Tesla's actual work?

Produce facts, reproducible setups, measurements.

Appeal-to-ignorance fallacy.  You're supposed to make the conclusive, declarative statements AFTER you have the facts, not before.

But I'll bite.

For example, I have a close colleague that accidentally stumbled upon 'Tesla X-rays' reproducing some other experiments a couple years back.  The tube is of a single-wire, and the waves have similar characteristics to X-rays, but the waves are much more powerful per-watt, do not appear to have the negative (ionizing?) characteristic of conventional X-rays, and the beam produced can be deflected/focused via magnetic fields.
The effects are still being mapped/characterized/studied, but it appears that conventional X-rays are either nonexistent or of a very small fraction in such a setup.

Based on his reports I suspect AllCanadian probably has experienced similar beam-like-emissions in his HV work.

[F6FLT]

Why do you continue to deflect away from Tesla's actual works onto such topics?   Is because all you have studied is the conspiracy sites and not Tesla's actual work?
...

Read again, since after 6 days you still don't understand.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.04440

[Hakasays]

Read again, since after 6 days you still don't understand.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.04440

I would have assumed someone of your intellectual background would not be so interested in brief, 3rdhand biography from a non-technical author .   False authority fallacy is always a danger when using 3rdhand sources.

I'm curious how much firsthand Tesla you've actually read+digested?  How much do you know of 'Tesla X-rays' and their properties/replications?

[Grumpy]

F6 has proven that he is not worthy of the time it takes to argue with him.  It's exhausting.

Philosophy, prove it, prove it, prove it, myth, blah blah blah...

Let me know if he ever says anything useful.  Until then, he's on my ignore list.

[Hakasays]

F6 has proven that he is not worthy of the time it takes to argue with him.  It's exhausting.

Philosophy, prove it, prove it, prove it, myth, blah blah blah...

Let me know if he ever says anything useful.  Until then, he's on my ignore list.

Will-do.  My foolish level of optimism occasionally pays off
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge"

[Grumpy]

A better myth to discuss is the Philadephia Experiment, which supposedly involved Tesla, Einstein, and a few other prominent people.

[chief kolbacict]

let's see what i found in my old  computer...

[Hakasays]

let's see what i found in my old  computer...

Love it   Very simple, concise experiments that are directly engineerable and falsifiable.  (even though some of the terms are a bit dated)

[Allcanadian]

Hakasays

For example, I have a close colleague that accidentally stumbled upon 'Tesla X-rays' reproducing some other experiments a couple years back.  The tube is of a single-wire, and the waves have similar characteristics to X-rays, but the waves are much more powerful per-watt, do not appear to have the negative (ionizing?) characteristic of conventional X-rays, and the beam produced can be deflected/focused via magnetic fields.
The effects are still being mapped/characterized/studied, but it appears that conventional X-rays are either nonexistent or of a very small fraction in such a setup.

Based on his reports I suspect AllCanadian probably has experienced similar beam-like-emissions in his HV work.

I came to some strange conclusions based on my successful radiant energy/matter experiments.

From what I learned the phenomena falls somewhere between high energy particles and EM waves as we know them. As you imply, radiant energy can act like radiation but is not radiation as we know it. Radiant matter is similar in that it doesn't just carry a massive surface charge but also acts like an EM source in itself radiating EM energy. Like a mobile charge carrier which is also in oscillation radiating very short wavelength EM energy.

I think this is what confuses most people because the phenomena has extra properties most believe it shouldn't have. I eventually figured out how all this works but as I eluded in another post I'm not sharing because it could be weaponized like nothing we have seen to date. Were talking star wars type weapons and I want no part of that nonsense. I suspect that's why Tesla stopped his research and starting moving in other directions. Tesla got way to far too ahead of his time and realized this kind of advanced technology could destroy mankind. Weapons are for primates.

This video is very similar to my perspective...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJGCAWTgbn0
I went to space and discovered an enormous lie | Ron Garan

I also experienced a kind of "overview effect" which drastically changed my perspective. A sense of freedom and a connection with the universe and nature not dependent on society and it's beliefs. In my opinion it makes science and technology magnitudes easier and removes all the baggage most have to deal with. That's the thing isn't it?, everyone seems to want to force there own beliefs on us and we begin to lose our own sense of individuality.

Here's the real trick I found, when I go to the bench I'm not trying to prove anything to myself or others. I'm trying to learn something new and make progress for myself. The perspective always revolves around learning and discovering not proving anything. Proof is an illusion people make up to convince themselves they have reached an end but it's never an end only another starting point.

AC

[Allcanadian]

chief kolbacict

эл_э1.pdf (538.06 kB - downloaded 14 times.)

Talk about deja vu, I literally have Tesla's static eliminator sitting on my bench right in front of me as we speak.

I invented it, or so I thought, this spring to eliminate the need for static straps on vehicles. In fact, my device looks identical to the one Tesla invented. That's kind of bizarre...

AC

[F6FLT]

F6 has proven that he is not worthy of the time it takes to argue with him.  It's exhausting.

Philosophy, prove it, prove it, prove it, myth, blah blah blah...

I think I overestimated some of the people I spoke to.
If they don't understand that they are talking nonsense, without providing facts, logic or measurements, and that they also make personal attacks when asked to explain themselves, they should take up religion instead. Rational technical questions are clearly beyond them, as is the scientific method for dealing with them. It is not that their discourse is exhausting, it is that it is empty.

[F6FLT]

let's see what i found in my old  computer...

Thanks for the history papers, Chief.

Tesla talks about near-field couplings, a completely conventional technique used today by wireless chargers and perfectly modelled by Maxwell's electromagnetism.

Tesla never understood the principle and convinced himself that he could transmit over long distances. As he despised those smarter than him in physics, he could not progress, and of course always failed in long-distance transmission.

For more than a century no scientist has believed in it, only Tesla bigots, whose fervour is matched only by their incompetence and of course their inability to produce any useful and operational device.