Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Arbitrageur

This is more a demonstration of the effects of a Faraday cage, or in this example we could call it a "faraday cup" since it's shaped like a cup. A Faraday cage blocks AC EM radiation above low frequencies, so that's why it's off before he sticks his finger in there, the EM field is being partially blocked by the "Faraday cup". When he sticks his finger in there, his finger is actually conductive enough to conduct the EM radiation past the edge of the Faraday cup. A finger is somewhere between copper and glass in conductance, but in this experiment it's conductive enough. If you stuck a glass rod in there it wouldn't illuminate the bulb, unless it had some conductive contaminants on the surface or something.

yes, this is what I was thinking seeing it

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I didnt ignore anything..... i just chose not to read any of the 30 pages of comments..... i dont have the understanding or the time.

But let me get this right.... you are saying that Tesla is a nutjob who got a few things right but most things wrong.
all the so called stories that he was suppressed by mainstream due to an agenda that he was getting in the way!

Again.... im not a scientist so i cannot argue with your questions or claims. so stop asking me scientific questions. I am however rather cunning at reading situations and this Tesla fellow and his interactions with other entity's has led me to conclude that something about Tesla is being kept from light of day. It is obvious. The sotries about him (or lack thereof) shows that something isnt being told!

originally posted by: combatmaster
But let me get this right.... you are saying that Tesla is a nutjob who got a few things right but most things wrong.
all the so called stories that he was suppressed by mainstream due to an agenda that he was getting in the way!

I think that's a little unfair. He was a good engineer who came up with some great engineering ideas and he deserved credit, respect and praise for those accomplishments.

However, he was a terrible theoretical physicist and it appears that a lot of his ideas about theoretical physics were just completely wrong, and he was even in denial of physics that had been established pretty well in his time, like the existence of subatomic particles, which he didn't believe in.

Again.... im not a scientist so i cannot argue with your questions or claims. so stop asking me scientific questions. I am however rather cunning at reading situations and this Tesla fellow and his interactions with other entity's has led me to conclude that something about Tesla is being kept from light of day. It is obvious. The sotries about him (or lack thereof) shows that something isnt being told!

The stories about government agents seizing his papers upon his death are apparently true, I think, and if you put yourself in charge of national defense for a country, would you want some papers about some "death beam" falling into enemy hands, if it worked? So my guess is they probably went through his papers and may have even confiscated some of defense interest before returning the rest to his family.

en.wikipedia.org...

Nikola Tesla claimed to have invented a "death beam" which he called teleforce in the 1930s and continued the claims up until his death.[9][10][11] Tesla explained that "this invention of mine does not contemplate the use of any so-called " death rays." Rays are not applicable because they cannot be produced in requisite quantities and diminish rapidly in intensity with distance. All the energy of New York City (approximately two million horsepower) transformed into rays and projected twenty miles, could not kill a human being, because, according to a well known law of physics, it would disperse to such an extent as to be ineffectual...."

You wouldn't want technology like this to fall into the hands of your enemy, right?

But given how wrong his ideas were on theoretical physics, to the extent his "death beam" was based on incorrect physics, even if the papers were confiscated or suppressed, the weapons may not have even worked had you tried to build them.

And of course we now have powerful lasers, which according to that quote Tesla was claiming would be ineffective. Here is our modern Death ray, using "ray" technology that Tesla said wouldn't work:

gizmodo.com...

By year's end the Advanced Tactical Laser will be firing at ground targets. According to Boeing, the ATL will "destroy, damage or disable targets with little to no collateral damage," thanks to its "ultra-precision engagement capability."

So is there a secret Tesla-tech based weapon? Could be, but I doubt it based on his misunderstanding of theoretical physics. So if it's not used it's probably because it doesn't work.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I said the physics of attracting the copper strip and the aluminum can appear to be the same. The source of the charge is different as I explained, and I didn't say the electrons are "collecting" on the glass like they do on the balloon, I said they are being driven off the metal as seen by the arcing, while the high voltage source is on, which is different. When the high voltage is turned off, the arcing stops, and the electrons in the "arcs" can return to the metal, because the electrons in the arcs are already flowing, so they aren't stuck on the glass.

here the same effect with plasma



this one is very interesting
The Behaviour of Plasma in an oscillating dielectric field of a Bipolar Tesla coil

a reply to: KrzYma
The arcs in the vacuum light bulb are plasma too, so yes it's similar, though there are a few differences. There is gas inside this glass so you can see the plasma distribution better. He doesn't get any arcing where the metal touches the glass but he does get sparks at the end where it's not insulated by glass, and note even when this happens the attraction doesn't stop, because the supply of electrons is being continually replenished. It looks like the attraction might be lowered a little right after a spark, then goes back up again.

He seems a little confused that the electrons don't seem to be attracted to one pole of the magnet and repelled by the other, so I guess he needs to study some physics. For the most part, I don't think he has any idea what he's talking about, but that doesn't invalidate the demonstration, only his explanation of it.

Does light(a photon) have mass? If so how does it travel through glass?

originally posted by: wtfigo
Does light(a photon) have mass? If so how does it travel through glass?

Neutrinos have mass and about 50 billion neutrinos pass through your body every second. They don't interact with matter very often. We build huge underground neutrino detectors and once in a while a neutrino interacts and we get a signal on a detector. For one thing atoms are mostly space.

Space in atom

Imagine an atom magnified to the size of a football stadium. The nucleus of the atom would be the size of a pea in the centre of the stadium, and the electrons would be whizzing around the outer stands. Everything in between would be empty space.

You could throw a lot of grains of sand in the football stadium before one ever hit the pea.

To beginning students we say photons have no mass, but to advanced students we say that we've established an upper limit on the mass of an photon. It's probably impossible to prove that the mass of an photon is exactly zero, even if it is exactly zero. All we can do is make more and more precise measurements showing its mass to be closer and closer to zero.

Photons do interact with glass, that's why glasses work, they bend the light. The interaction is somewhat complex. I can post an explanation if you're into heavy-duty physics but it's not easy to simplify.

refraction cannot be called bending really
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Arbitrageur

so all the talk about the tower he built that would provide wirelesss electric to the NE..... wats up with that....

fact is.... if the guy invented WiFi electricity back then.... then there is something up that is being covered up!

a reply to: Arbitrageur

To add an extra bit of info regarding how little the neutrinos interact, the neutrino event rate in the largest neutrino detector in the world, Super Kamiokande is about 1 event per day. The total mass and size is as follows ; 41.4 m (136 ft) tall and 39.3 m (129 ft) in diameter holding 50,000 tons of ultra-pure water. (dimensions, copy paste from the wiki)

This rate is from all sources, galactic, solar, geo.

Now mankind is able to produce a neutrino beam, though even with the most intense neutrino beam in the world, (which back when I was doing neutrino physics was the JPARC, T2K beam, (i think it is now been surpassed) gave a neutrino rate of only 1 or 2 events per spill at SuperK, each spill being about 10^12 protons on target. (smack 10^12 protons into a graphite target and produce probably of the order of 10^13 neutrinos (these are guesstimates))

So, these little particles don't really like to interact at all!

Supernova 1987 exploded and globally we observed 24 neutrinos in a very short period of time... well? what that means is that about 99% of the emitted radially during the collapse is in neutrinos... it is pretty incredibly.


OK ill stop rambling about how awesomely interesting neutrinos are

a reply to: combatmaster

It was not truly wireless electrical transfer, the transfer required a common ground, something that can and does allow transfer of power through traditional means. Im sure someone who is far more familiar than I will explain that better.

Point is you make a statement that is not known to be true, but from drawings is most likely to not be true, and then follow it with a statement assuming the first is true.

This happens quite a lot on ATS, its good, it shows you are trying to follow up statements with logic, but the issue is that the statement you follow is made irrelevant by the incorrect assumption of the first. Iv seen whole threads and many many posts based upon a 2 or 3 step logical fallacy that a poster just refused to see.

example below (off topic)
"There are no trees on easter island, so it would have been impossible to roll the moai and move heavy stones by hand, thus space men built the moai on easter island"
Its an incorrect logical statement that because there are no trees now, means there cannot have been trees ever and thus space men. Evidence shows otherwise...

this is no accusation, just an example.

What is dark matter?

a reply to: Ares95PL

What dark matter is, is unknown.

HOWEVER (flame war to ensue, this was covered previously but ill try get a summary down) it is not completely unknown.

There are two types of dark matter, there is regular baryonic matter; protons, neutrons electrons etc that when we look at the night sky, do not radiate enough light for us to detect them. This takes the form of planets, sub dwarf stars, cool binaries, dust, blackholes... etc. Then there appears to be... other stuff... non-baryonic matter

So far so good.
Why do we need dark matter?

Well when we look at a star, we have enough prior knowledge looking at binary stars and how they orbit to be able to say if a star is of a certain luminosity, at a certain distance then the mass of that star is x... when we look at galaxies and look at how spiral galaxies rotate we see that they have very high rotation that appears not to be caused by the visible matter. Stars are expected to exhibit a 1/r like fall off in their velocity as you go to the outside of the galaxies due to increasing radius increasing the gravitation the stars at the edge observe from the centre and the disc. This hypothesis is backed up by simulation.

What we actually observe is that the rotation curve is flat, the simplest theoretical model that works is that galaxies are surrounded by a halo of unobserved matter, so called Dark Matter, which does not interact electromagnetically or via the strong force, only gravitationally and via the weak force.

There have been other hypothesis including massive compact objects that orbit within a galactic halo but so far experimental searches have proven these to be disfavoured.


So what is dark matter?

Well we don't know, but our best bet, and easiest search candidate is the so called WIMP, weakly interacting massive particle.

Here is a picture of possible dark matter theories/candidates for you to enjoy.

a reply to: ErosA433

Fair enough.

I agree.... which is why i stated my lack of knowledge and hence my judgement being based on intuition rather than science fact to begin with.

So what is the deal with eric dollard? i seen a few of his vids and dont understand the jargon but he seems to big up tesla...

are his inventions ever gonna make a bang so to speak?

Iv only seen a couple of his videos, and those where not exactly what I would call...flattering. The ones I saw involved long ramblings that didn't really follow logic, making outlandish claims about the sun being hollow, making very weird statements about the solar cycle which are roughly based upon reality embodied with things that are not only irrelevant but also incorrect.

Saying things like "There is no fusion in the sun, it is well understood, they don't know how the sun works" and "You cannot see the stars from space"

My personal opinion is that in the videos i saw of him, he appears victim of a broken mind, massive ego and an inventive past. He rambles so much too and throw that a lot of what he says about his own history appears to be made up, in a similar way teenagers will tell tall tales of things they have done... when in reality its all fantasy. The kind of person who will say "Oh free energy exists, iv made it" then when asked to prove it he will follow up by saying some government man told him not to or he will go to jail etc.... Maybe some of what he says about his personal history is true, maybe it is not, i have no idea....

Are his inventions going to make a big bang? Well my predictions are that he has nothing, and like many others like him, his own legend became too big for him

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: Arbitrageur

so all the talk about the tower he built that would provide wirelesss electric to the NE..... wats up with that....

fact is.... if the guy invented WiFi electricity back then.... then there is something up that is being covered up!

Nothing is being covered up in this technology. I said I don't know about secret weapons like Tesla's "Death beam", his papers on that might have been confiscated but I doubt it would work anyway.

The issue with wireless transmission of electricity is simple. On average, using the current distribution methods for electricity, we have to generate 107 watts of power to deliver 100 watts to your residence, because 7% or 7 watts in this case is lost in the form of heat from the power lines.

With wireless electricity, tests have been done that show we would likely have to generate more than 200 watts of power to deliver 100 watts to your residence. In rough terms you could say that your electric bill might double to cover the cost of delivering your power wirelessly, though I don't have exact figures on that, but I can say it would cost way more simply because it costs a lot more to generate 200 watts than 107 watts to give you the same thing.

There are no power lines with wireless so the 7% lost in power lines disappears, but it's replaced by other three major losses:
1. Loss converting the power into EM radiation
2. Loss between transmitter and receiver
3. Loss at receiving end when EM radiation is captured and converted to usable electric power.

Also I should say the 50% delivery efficiency (make 200 watts to deliver 100 watts) is optimistic. Here are more realistic figures from the timeline in the wiki on this topic:

Wireless power

2007: Using electrodynamic induction the WiTricity physics research group, led by Prof. Marin Soljacic at MIT, wirelessly power a 60W light bulb with 40% efficiency at a 2 metres (6.6 ft) distance with two 60 cm-diameter coils.[94]
2008: Greg Leyh and Mike Kennan of the Nevada Lightning Laboratory publish a paper on the disturbed charge of ground and air method of wireless power transmission with circuit simulations and test results showing an efficiency greater than 30% can be obtained using the electrodynamic induction method to deliver 800W over 500cm.

So the efficiencies are 40% at 2 meters, and 30% at 5 meters. When you talk about realistic distances between transmitter and receiver, those numbers are going to go way down.

By the way, the wiki talks about Tesla's patent and discusses several alternative methods of wireless power transmission. For biomedical implants, efficiency isn't such a big deal since they have low power requirements and the wiki says a spinoff of Tesla tech has been developed for this application and it may indeed be practical, though I haven't really investigated it:

2012: Christopher Tucker, Kevin Warwick and William Holderbaum of the University of Reading, UK develop a highly efficient, compact power transfer system safe for use in human proximity. The design is simple and uses only a few components to generate stable currents for biomedical implants. It resulted from research that directly attempted to extend Tesla’s 1897 wireless power work.

So these folks apparently built on Tesla's idea, how is it being suppressed? It isn't.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
refraction cannot be called bending really
a reply to: Arbitrageur

We are trying to explain things in simple terms here. This dictionary article uses "refracted" and "bent" interchangeably:

dictionary.reference.com...

Light passing through a prism is mostly refracted, or bent, both when it enters the prism and again when it leaves the prism.

Refraction may be more descriptive but I'm not sure why you say it's not bending. A magnifying glass changes the direction of the incoming light rays and allows you to start a fire by focusing the sun's rays in one tiny, bright spot, which it does by bending the incoming rays so they hit that spot.

originally posted by: combatmaster
So what is the deal with eric dollard? i seen a few of his vids and dont understand the jargon but he seems to big up tesla...

are his inventions ever gonna make a bang so to speak?

I doubt Dollard has any great inventions forthcoming. Scientists and engineers hearing him say there's no fusion in the sun and it might get its power from another dimension don't put much credence in what he's saying, because we think the evidence for fusion in the sun is strong.

However he has the same opportunity as anybody, make an invention that isn't a weapon and it will sell itself regardless of what the critics think (if you make weapons, these could be restricted, as are nuclear explosives). Blacklight power (BLP) just got another $11 million in funding so they are up to what now, maybe $80 million in funding? And they still don't have any products in commercial use.

So, people have bet maybe $80 million on BLP making a good invention and we think they are hoaxers and have nothing. So far I've seen nobody betting millions on Dollard, though I see he asks for and perhaps got some small donations on his website.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I believe that there is a lot of info that was kept black..... and you base all your knowledge on what isnt black.... so it is effective in a way.

we shall wait and see

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I believe that there is a lot of info that was kept black.....

I already said it's possible, but what causes you to actually believe this, which seems like more than just admitting the possibility.

and you base all your knowledge on what isnt black

Implying you don't? The only people who know what's in the current secret projects can't talk about any specifics, but it stands to reason that many of the secret patents are related to nuclear device technology.

We also have examples of declassified technology from 30, 40, 50, 60 years ago and so on, and we can see how advanced it was or was not compared to mainstream tech of the same era. Using these examples, we can make inferences about how far advanced current secret tech might be.

we shall wait and see

Like I said, we already have seen declassified projects from decades ago. They do represent some advanced engineering technology, but I can't think of any that represent advanced physics, can you?

Look, if Tesla's theoretical physics wasn't so dismal, I may hold out more optimism they actually found something in his papers based on his theoretical physics that worked, but I gave you examples of how wrong he was, like the existence of subatomic particles for example. Nobody in mainstream debates their existence. And even if his "Death beam" worked, I already showed you a modern laser based "death beam" unrelated to Tesla tech, which by the way Tesla said it wouldn't work because he said you can't make death beams from "rays" (which is what laser light is called in his terminology). Even the existence of the "death beam" I posted above isn't classified, though technical details probably are (I haven't checked).

a reply to: ErosA433

Thanks for the post

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Actually Teslas papers being taken isnt true even according to the Tesla museum .

There is popular notion that immediately after Tesla's death, U.S. government agents entered his hotel suite, seized all of his scientific notes and papers, and soon after that they vanished, never to be seen again.

This story is historically incorrect. Tesla—s papers did not disappear. From all accounts, the actions taken following Dr. Tesla's death on January 7, 1943 were conducted in an orderly and respectful fashion. According to those present at the time, Tesla's papers and other personal possessions were placed under the charge of the Office of Alien Property. His supposedly 'lost' papers, even the ones on advanced weapons, along with his personal belongings, were brought to the Manhattan Warehouse and Storage Co., locked up, and a certificate of ownership was issued to his nephew Sava Kosanovic. It being wartime and considering Tesla's involvement in remote detection and advanced weapons development the papers were quickly inspected for items possibly important to national defense and then microfilmed. FBI documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) show that these United States Government microfilms were made available for use by the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force. In 1952 the consolidated estate was shipped to Yugoslavia.
www.tfcbooks.com...&a_001.htm

Now the government did copy his papers but on review had this to say.

Following a three-day investigation, Dr. Trump concluded:
His [Tesla's] thoughts and efforts during at least the past 15 years were primarily of a speculative, philosophical, and somewhat promotional character often concerned with the production and wireless transmission of power; but did not include new, sound, workable principles or methods for realizing such results.

But you have to realize Tesla was an inventor he played with electricity but he didnt understand why things were happening. But Teslas real talent wasnt creating things but improving them. He could look at a diagram make changes and it worked better. He was the first troubleshooter he easily found problems and fixed them sign of a phenomenal engineer. But like ive said before in this thread engineers dont need to know why something happens only that it does someone else can figure out the why.

Now groups who like to promote their own science love to piggy back on Teslas bigger than life reputation. Main reason is they can claim almost anything and people will believe it because of Teslas self promotion.