- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
04 Jun 11
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI thought 'no' was pretty hard to misunderstand.
So what you're saying is that the father of the 20th Century.
The daddy of electricity which you're so humbly using as we have
this converstation. Didn't understand the simplest of Mathematical
laws? Am I reading you right??
Tesla proposed a number of possible flying machines, working by a number of methods.
It is certainly possible to make a flying machine without wings, that stands on its jet exhaust, Harrier jump jets often do it when they take-off/land. It is however hugely inefficient, and power hungry.
However making something fly using gyroscopes is not possible. (Not here I am taking 'fly using gyroscopes' to mean the gyroscopes are what's keeping it up, not being used simply as stabilisers.)
To fly you need reaction mass and something moving it. Usually air and/or fuel.
Great minds have often made mistakes or gone down blind alleys, sometimes its only be going down them, or with hind sight that you see they are blind alleys.
Also the aircraft of his day... certainly when he first started on the problem, where flimsy and made of wood. Falling out of the sky was a common problem. If Tesla had seen today's aircraft he would probably have felt differently about them.
So yes you are probably reading me right.
I wouldn't say I was using electricity humbly though... not sure how one does that.
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeYes, no isn't a terribly difficult word to misunderstand.
I thought 'no' was pretty hard to misunderstand.
Tesla proposed a number of possible flying machines, working by a number of methods.
It is certainly possible to make a flying machine without wings, that stands on its jet exhaust, Harrier jump jets often do it when they take-off/land. It is however hugely inefficient, and power hungry.
However mak ...[text shortened]... t.
I wouldn't say I was using electricity humbly though... not sure how one does that.
But what I don't understand though is that this wasn't an off-the-cuff
idea that Tesla thought up and discarded. He claimed it was the greatest of his inventions and the product of years of toil.
It was a technology he talked about well into his old age and took to his
death-bed with him. How could such a genius get it so wrong for so long?
p.s. Thanks for typing 'humbly'.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
06 Jun 11
Originally posted by Thequ1ckIs a scam site. They promise you free energy in your back yard, and then ask you real money for the plans. No different in essence from those sites promising you a way to cut your car's petrol use in half using only a pair of magnets and their patented invention, plans $40, for you only, honest guv'.
http://www.teslaengine.org/main.html
http://www.ganid.net/index.php
Is a nutcase who claims to have invented something similar while meditating. No proof of its existence is forthcoming; as usual with such people, there's a lot of talk about patents. USA patents can be had for inventing the tinfoil hat.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Tesla's_Flying_Machine
Is sane and honest, but contains only speculation and quotation of rumours and vague statements by Tesla himself. As that is all the real information there is about this invention, this page is correct to speculate no further.
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/contents.htm
Lists some writings by Tesla himself, but unless there are some blueprints hidden among them, I don't see anything beyond what we already knew - which is vague hints and no technical plans.
http://www.pbs.org/tesla/res/res_art11.html
Is an article from 1937. It shows an interesting sight into the man's mind, but no real technical content.
In short, there's a lot there which shows that Tesla thought this machine was possible, and nothing whatsoever that shows that he was right. He often wasn't, you know. He often was, but he also often wasn't. That was his essential nature: not the plodder towards undisputed truth, but the visionary whose hits and misses could be equally spectacular. I wish Tesla's fans would recognise that great genius can easily go hand in hand with great delusions, and in Tesla's case, often did.
Richard
06 Jun 11
From the clip offered earlier:
It looks to be an attempt at a three dimensional version of rifling; a rifle bullet goes straighter because it's spinning, which resists forces to push it to the side. A spinning top refuses to fall down because it's spinning. This thing has components that spin in all three dimensions. I've often wondered what would happen if you did that. Isn't there some theoretical law of torques that prevents an object from spinning in three dimensions or something?
07 Jun 11
Originally posted by Shallow BlueThanks for posting back and taking the time to read the links.
Is a scam site. They promise you free energy in your back yard, and then ask you real money for the plans. No different in essence from those sites promising you a way to cut your car's petrol use in half using only a pair of magnets and their patented invention, plans $40, for you only, honest guv'.
[b]http://www.ganid.net/index.php
Is a nutc ...[text shortened]... sily go hand in hand with great delusions, and in Tesla's case, often did.
Richard[/b]
Sorry about the first two, you're right, they are either nutters or scammers.
I was trying to find a sketch that I saw whilst reading up on mrT that illustrated
the concept of adjacent, opposing gyroscopes. I think it was linked from the
engine builders link. Someone did actually try and build one based on this
sketch.
The ganid link shows the concept behind it.
Probably just more scam and misinformation though.
07 Jun 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungRifling is a good analogy, not only in the bullet but in the gun.
From the clip offered earlier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lka6d6DDBs
It looks to be an attempt at a three dimensional version of rifling; a rifle bullet goes straighter because it's spinning, which resists forces to push it to the side. A spinning top refuses to fall down because it's spinning. This thing has components that spin in all th ...[text shortened]... tical law of torques that prevents an object from spinning in three dimensions or something?
Modern guns are able to dissipate the energy created from reaction to the
bullet into their mechanisms. Can it not then be said to be true that the
opposite is possible? This wouldn't violate Newton's second law.
07 Jun 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeAre you saying that Buzz Aldrin was a hoaxer?
anything that relies purely on the rotation of gyroscopes, in whatever combination to produce lift, will not work.
It falls under the heading of reactionless drive.
Otherwise known as breaks the laws of physics drive ;-)