Tesla's Electric Car / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Tesla's Electric Car

previous 1 2 3 4 next

Move Thread

LAN_403

Michael W.

Thu Sept 07 2006, 02:17AM

Registered Member #50 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 04:07AM
Location: Vernon, B.C, Canada
Posts: 324

I agree fully with Goldsphere. In the past, speak of machines that would one day allow you to instantly communicate with people all over the world would have gained you the village idiot title, giving up on psuedoscience is condeming us to a future of undiscovery.

Steve Conner

Thu Sept 07 2006, 10:00AM

Registered Member #30 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706

Yeah, well NOT giving up on pseudoscience is condemning you to a life of bannage from 4hv.

Read Pete's post.

I personally believe that if free energy could be accessed, intelligent life couldn't have evolved, because evolution is driven by competition for limited resources. If it were possible to access it, I bet some bacterium would have done it 2 billion years ago and the whole universe would be a gigantic slimeball by now.

Conundrum: Going to RF metal ceramic tubes with external cooling fins would maybe get you another factor of 10 in power density. I've seen audio amps about the same size as mine that generated 500W using 4CX250B tubes. It's still nowhere near the AC-150 inverter that I posted a link to, that processes 150kW using IGBTs, and with its matching 100lb motor, really can drive a heavy car at over 100mph.

Coronafix

Thu Sept 07 2006, 12:16PM

Registered Member #160 Joined: Mon Feb 13 2006, 02:07AM
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 938

Stove Cenner wrote ...

Yeah, well NOT giving up on pseudoscience is condemning you to a life of bannage from 4hv.

Steve, I respect your opinion highly, but I will not give up on psuedoscience.
I understand that it has no place on this forum and I'm willing to abide by that
even though I have unwittingly crossed the line at times.
I will leave your argument of bacteria to lay in the light of rules.
I understand the importance of keeping such discussions off this forum, it's too much like religion or politics.
I respect your view, the rules, and the scientific community I have found here, I just feel that the
villification of alternative scientific thinking as opposed to the mainstream teaching also has no place here.

WaveRider

Thu Sept 07 2006, 12:37PM

Registered Member #29 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 09:00AM
Location: Hasselt, Belgium
Posts: 500

Pseudoscience = sloppy thinking encapsulated in scientific-sounding language, often used specifically to sell, for example, a "free energy" generator or some-such to unwitting customers. Often, pseudo-religious faith is needed to "confirm" the pseudoscientific theory. Conspiracy theories involving multinational corporations or governments are often invoked to "verify" the claims of "pseudoscientists." Theories do not stand up to experimental validation. No clear physical/mathematical basis exists to explain the phenomenon (altho' this is not necessarily a prerequisite for bona fide observation of an effect, e.g. sonoluminescence)

Science =

1. formulate a theory of some effect,
2. develop a methodology to test the theory,
3. perform experiment to validate theory,
4. if theory predicts different behaviour than experiment shows, modify theory to account for discrepancies in experinmental observations, jump to (2),
5. if theory and experiment coincide,
6. congratulations!... Publish your paper and on to the next problem!

Humanity took a tremendous step forward when Galileo used these simple rules to verify that Aristotle/Ptolemy were not quite correct. He paid a high price for it..... Let's not waste this legacy!

I think it is reasonable to discuss pseudoscience if it is in the context of why it doesn't work. Often, pinpointing where the "necessity of faith" (i.e. missing information about a design, etc.) lies or where theory/observations break down is enough.

Marko

Thu Sept 07 2006, 12:47PM

Registered Member #89 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 02:40PM
Location: Zadar, Croatia
Posts: 3145

There is a 100kW triode somewhere on this forum, and it seems to fit in a car well and probably in box if we pick few times smaller one

But it simply wouldn't work because it needs many kilovolts for full power (vagon of batteries or some other HV source.)

There is no point of discussing the described free energy device when there aren't any (even BS) theories about how it works.

In order for it to work with current physics you must make assumptions that laws of thermodynamics are flawed.

When you start to make a theory about it best one is in wich you make least assumptions (free energy, possibility to make a monster power converter from small valves in a box, convert voltage to suit 3-phase AC in same small box and run a 3-phase motor, vary speed etc) and that one seems to be that ''tesla's car'' never actually existed.

Most realistic theory allowing car's existence would be using lead acid batteries and collector motor drive.

Some people will sometimes go totally opposite from this just because it amuses them more, and you would have nonsense forum like IU born.

I think it is reasonable to discuss pseudoscience if it is in the context of why it doesn't work.

I never had nothing against that, but some people will just keep talking crap no matter what you do. And keep linking on the same geocities page about how world is doomed in 2066 by NLO and their secret US government allies in conspiracy against us, not letting us know anything about their OMG super s3cr3t fr33 3nergy technology by washing our brains periodically. Then bunch of his friends gather and start 'holy war' against us (none on this forum fortunately).

I guess that is what we try to avoid here ^^

Bjørn

Thu Sept 07 2006, 02:24PM

Registered Member #27 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 02:20AM
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 2058

just feel that the villification of alternative scientific thinking as opposed to the mainstream teaching also has no place here.

There is no alternative scientific thinking, either it is scientific or is not. Alternative science is by definition pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is created when someone misrepresent something else as science, meaning they are either liars or don't understand even the simplest of concepts. Having a discussion with such people makes no sense so pseudoscience is not allowed on the forum.

Science and research are so broad definitions that they can contain even the strangest activity as long as it is not presented as something it is not.

Steve Conner

Thu Sept 07 2006, 02:55PM

Registered Member #30 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706

Goldsphere: The rule of thumb we tend to use is that we don't allow discussion of anything that couldn't be tested by an experiment. Even a thought experiment counts: Einstein never actually threw balls around inside a train travelling at the speed of light, but we still trust him

All of these things like Moray devices and the Hutchison effect just fall apart under any kind of rational scrutiny though. If Moray really did invent a box that could produce 50,000 watts of electricity out of thin air, it would have been the easiest thing in the world for him to open his own power station and get really rich really quick, since he wasn't paying for coal like his competitors. After all, people have been known to get rich even building ordinary power stations. So where is the Moray Electric Corp. today? I can think of two possible explanations:

1) A shadowy conspiracy of highly powerful people used mind rays to befuddle him to the point where he couldn't scale his prototype up.
or
2) It didn't actually generate free energy at all and the investors weren't fooled.

Occam's razor compels us to take 2) as the most likely hypothesis. The "fact" that Russian spies supposedly stole Moray's plans, and yet the whole might of the Soviet scientific establishment still couldn't get the thing to work (and win the Cold War with it) just digs a deeper hole.

Marko

Thu Sept 07 2006, 03:09PM

Registered Member #89 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 02:40PM
Location: Zadar, Croatia
Posts: 3145

Stove Cenner wrote ...

1) A shadowy conspiracy of highly powerful people used mind rays to befuddle him to the point where he couldn't scale his prototype up.
or
2) It didn't actually generate free energy at all and the investors weren't fooled.

Occam's razor compels us to take 2) as the most likely hypothesis. The "fact" that Russian spies supposedly stole Moray's plans, and yet the whole might of the Soviet scientific establishment still couldn't get the thing to work, just digs a deeper hole.

True, and as I said, some people simply find 1) more amusing and for some reason consider it more true.

Regarding thread, I think it's answered how tesla's box, car, power conversion etc. would/wouldn't work on some scientific basis.

Coronafix

Fri Sept 08 2006, 03:18AM

Registered Member #160 Joined: Mon Feb 13 2006, 02:07AM
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 938

I see this discussion has degenerated to the ridiculous.

williamn

Fri Sept 08 2006, 04:10AM

Registered Member #55 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 04:56AM
Location:
Posts: 149

I see this discussion has degenerated to the ridiculous.

This is to be expected when the topic of discussion is itself ridiculous.

previous 1 2 3 4 next

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob