How are moderators allowed to lie?

[IanB]

Take a look around the 47 minute mark...

For anyone region-blocked, the MythBusters used a small vibrating weight to find a resonant frequency of a bridge. But nothing happened:

We've had it running for I think somewhere near an hour at this point, and it's not doing anything but just making the vibrations. The vibrations aren't building. We've tuned it up and down to find a really resonant frequency, I think we've hit a real butter zone here, and still this bridge is standing.

But we both know where this is going. It ain't no earthquake.

[pcprogrammer]

Take a look around the 47 minute mark...

And it is busted. Yes they can make the structure vibrate with the linear actuator, but not to an extend that the bridge collapses. So it does not prove your point.

[DejanC]

Ok you are right guys. He was a complete charlatan....yet he invented valves, turbines, generators, motors, systems of communication, etc.

It all makes perfect sense.

The author of the publication referenced in this article was also a charlatan:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2020/01/07/nikola-teslas-earthquake-machine/

[CatalinaWOW]

To me charlatan is unproven, because that implies that he knew that some of the ideas he was peddling were malarkey.  My personal opinion is that he was a very bright guy, who invented some important things, most notable the 3 phase electric motor and the Tesla coil.  But somewhere along the line he lost it and started peddling things that couldn't do what he claimed.  Whether desperation for money and fame or simple lack of understanding underlay that is beyond my ability to discern.

What irritates me about the Tesla cultists, and other similar groups (the Africans invented everything group is one other example, but there are quite a few of them) is a demonstrated lack of understanding of the things they are claiming.

Example:  Tesla invented remote control.  In one sense you can claim that.  The cultists see a radio controlled model airplane or a drone doing complicated maneuvers and say "Yeah my favorite genius, Tesla, invented that over 100 years ago.  But what he did was implement a couple of simple commands (stop/go or turn/don't turn) in a boat, over a range of a couple of dozen meters.  Nothing that couldn't also have been done with a couple of target paddles and a BB gun and which perhaps already had been done by any of several methods.  The remote control of today is the result of literally dozens more inventions by a similarly large number of people.  And while I believe that Tesla in his early years was bright enough to have comprehended all of those inventions, I also believe most of them were beyond his imagination.


A final comment.  Before anyone uses patents as a demonstration of intelligence they need to go read a few hundred sequential patents.  There are an incredible number of patents that are incredibly stupid.  Most of these stay on the books because no one cares enough to challenge them.  The patent on the PC which I believe was successfully challenged is by far not the dumbest patent I have seen.  The patent claim was that putting a microcomputer board together with a display, floppy disk storage device and keyboard was an invention.

[SteveThackery]

Take a look around the 47 minute mark...

What?!! Now you take a look around the 48m 30s mark. "This ain't no earthquake."

So they set up a source of vibration and discovered that at certain frequencies a steel structure (a bridge in this case) will transmit the vibration over a hundred feet (or was it hundreds of feet? Whatever.)

So what? It isn't the least bit surprising. It's made from steel, which is a pretty elastic material. The crucial point is that the vibrations did not build up until the structural integrity was threatened. Tesla got it wrong! It behaved exactly as any modern day engineer would predict: the amplitude of the vibrations built up until the damping inherent in all structures extracted as much energy as the machine was putting in, and at that point equilibrium was reached. No demolition.  Even after an hour.

The fact that you think the video somehow supports your claim speaks volumes about your lack of critical thinking. It's like you want to believe; like the mindset of a person searching for God to give them a meaning to their life.

You should leave this field to the physicists and engineers, who are intimately familiar with all the phenomena we've been discussing. No need for Tesla's input on this one.

[Xena E]

Who invented what?

Ask a Brit who invented TV... then ask an American... then ask, I dunno, a Russian...3 different answers I'll bet.

That millenium bridge became unstable because of the simple fact that people who walk in a line will tend to do so largely in step, that was friggin' tonnes of humans swaying from side to side, if you've ever walked across a propper rope bridge you will know how unnerving the effect is...

You need to be in fear of the discoverer of the brown note, he will really make you shit yourself. (Laughing probably).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_note

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla%27s_oscillator

[SteveThackery]

To me charlatan is unproven, because that implies that he knew that some of the ideas he was peddling were malarkey.  My personal opinion is that he was a very bright guy, who invented some important things, most notable the 3 phase electric motor and the Tesla coil.  But somewhere along the line he lost it and started peddling things that couldn't do what he claimed.  Whether desperation for money and fame or simple lack of understanding underlay that is beyond my ability to discern.

^^^^^THIS! ^^^^^

CatalinaWOW has totally nailed it. That is exactly what I think, and it is by far the most reasonable and believable interpretation of the history.

[hans]

But that also depends on the structure. Which makes both arguments a bit moot.

You could model such a resonant device as a LC tank with some value Q. Infinite Q does not exist, which means you'll need to keep adding some energy to keep the resonance going. If we keep inputting the same amount of power, then eventually it will settle on some equilibrium where the resonant energy will accumulate but also limit because of the finite Q.

That mythbusters clip shows that bridge won't collapse, but the relatively small weight is able to induce vibrations across a much heavier structure, which is impressive.
But an earthquake? No way. I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I doubt many structures will ever reach such a high Q for that to happen. Not without inputting a ton of power (which Tesla said he didn't need)

[DejanC]

He didn't "lose it" anywhere along the line. He stayed sharp mentally until his last days. There's a reason only SOME of his unpublished work and papers were released to the general public! If it was all malarkey and non-sense, all of it would have been released!

https://www.history.com/news/nikola-tesla-files-declassified-fbi

[SteveThackery]

There's a reason only SOME of his unpublished work and papers were released to the general public! If it was all malarkey and non-sense, all of it would have been released!

And there we have it! It's all a conspiracy!!

Also, a non sequiteur: nobody said it was all malarkey and nonsense. Most of the posts in this thread say some of his claims are malarkey and nonsense.

[DejanC]

And there we have it! It's all a conspiracy!!

Also, a non sequiteur: nobody said it was all malarkey and nonsense. Most of the posts in this thread say some of his claims are malarkey and nonsense.

Did you not read the OP? The moderator said he was a charlatan, end of discussion!!!

[SteveThackery]

You could model such a resonant device as a LC tank with some value Q. Infinite Q does not exist, which means you'll need to keep adding some energy to keep the resonance going. If we keep inputting the same amount of power, then eventually it will settle on some equilibrium where the resonant energy will accumulate but also limit because of the finite Q.

Exactly! Q is a measure of the ratio between energy added and energy stored in the oscillating body. Equilibrium is reached when the energy lost per cycle to damping forces is equal to to the energy added per cycle. The higher the Q, the lower the losses, so the higher the final amplitude. And as hans says, Q can never reach infinity (zero damping forces). All oscillatory inputs eventually result in equilibrium, the amplitude of which depends on the Q value and the input power. As you can see, the physics and mathematics are totally bottomed out and boringly routine. There are no mysteries to be found here.

This is the fundamental principle that Tesla seemed unable to grasp.

[RoGeorge]

Quote from the closed topic (Simon wrote):
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/teslas-radiant-energy-experiments/msg5599659/#msg5599659

Tesla was a cheat, a liar and a charlatan. There is no real evidence that he invented anything. The one thing that poor old Westinghouse paid him for he took years to get to work after he sold Westinghouse the patents. Oddly someone else came up with an electric motor at the same time.... hm. Everything else was a scam.

Any wonderous thing you find on the internet with Tesla's name on it is also being pedaled by a cheat, a liar or a charlatan, just like the man himself.

The facts:

Simon, the lady in your linked video is debunking the cult of Tesla, and the urban legends about Tesla (she's ranting about her misunderstandings, she says that at the end, with her own words as the conclusion of her video):

This text is the .srt subtitles downloaded from that YT video, only the end of the subtitles, her conclusion words:

...
258
00:12:16,080 --> 00:12:16,913
Conclusion.

259
00:12:16,913 --> 00:12:19,860
When I started to research
the history of electricity,

260
00:12:19,860 --> 00:12:22,970
I expected Tesla to be a major part of it.

261
00:12:22,970 --> 00:12:25,780
His devices are so
beautiful, and far and away,

262
00:12:25,780 --> 00:12:28,720
his name seems to be the
most closely connected

263
00:12:28,720 --> 00:12:30,080
to the word electricity.

264
00:12:30,080 --> 00:12:32,130
However, I found most of my knowledge

265
00:12:32,130 --> 00:12:36,037
came from a complete misunderstanding
of his life and ideas.

266
00:12:36,037 --> 00:12:39,020
Nonetheless, we shouldn't discount

267
00:12:39,020 --> 00:12:41,920
that Tesla was a wizard of electricity,

268
00:12:41,920 --> 00:12:45,270
and his devices are still,
over a hundred years later,

269
00:12:45,270 --> 00:12:46,800
things of beauty and wonder.

270
00:12:46,800 --> 00:12:49,400
Tesla's devices are a gateway drug

271
00:12:49,400 --> 00:12:51,290
for many electrical engineers,

272
00:12:51,290 --> 00:12:53,334
and that is not a small thing.

273
00:12:53,334 --> 00:12:57,205
♪ Electricity electricity ♪

274
00:12:57,205 --> 00:13:00,990
♪ Electricity electricity ♪

275
00:13:00,990 --> 00:13:02,360
Thanks for watching my video.
...

See?  She's praising Tesla.  She was angry ranting because she fell for the urban legends.  Then you fell for the emotional content of that video, didn't register the words, and extrapolated your emotional overload to a dead wrong conclusion:  no evidence Tesla invented anything.


Tesla does have many patents (and by the way, she didn't say that there were no Tesla inventions).  Look how long the list of Tesla patents is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nikola_Tesla_patents

Saying Tesla didn't invent anything would make anybody look foolish.  You can find those patents scanned as PDF from Google Patents.  Do you really believe Tesla stolen all those patents?  Don't fall for the emotional message only, double check.

And for the arguments that patents doesn't have to work, well, at least one works, my favorite one, the Tesla Turbine. 
It's a brilliantly simple design, a turbine with no fins, made out of a flat disc.  It is reversible, and can also be used as a pump:  https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/97/2c/df/6f9d46acc4fb80/US1061206.pdf

Very easy to DIY:

How To Make The Ten Minute Tesla Turbine
Robert Murray-Smith

(later edit, replaced the strikeout 10mins video with the following 5 mins video that has explanations of how it works, pros and cons):

How Fast Can a Tesla Turbine Spin?
The Action Lab
https://youtube.com/watch?v=DLKE_DbUdRg


Just to make my position clear, many of the today urban legends about Tesla are just that, legends.  I don't endorse them.  Whoever has had the curiosity to read anything written by Tesla, would notice Tesla was between genius and madness.  No wonder there are misunderstandings.

But patents are patents.  That's physical evidence Tesla was an inventor.

[SteveThackery]

The Wikipedia article on Tesla's turbine is very poor, because certain crucial claims and explanations are not adequately referenced.

However, from what I can make out, the Tesla turbine was better than the early bladed turbines of the day. But bladed turbine technology improved enormously over the following years and decades, whereas Tesla's turbine did not: it was pretty much as good as it could be from day one.

The reason it isn't widely used today is that it simply isn't that good. Reasonable efficiency but not up with the best, reasonable performance, but the speed drops off precipitously with load. I've played with one: it's an interesting novelty and a clever idea. I think it showed that Tesla was good at "thinking outside of the box".

His one way pneumatic valve - with no moving parts - is another example of thinking outside the box. Like the turbine, it's ingenious; like the turbine, it doesn't work that well. I accept that there are probably a few, rare, use cases for both. But that's all.

[DejanC]

The Wikipedia article on Tesla's turbine is very poor, because certain crucial claims and explanations are not adequately referenced.

However, from what I can make out, the Tesla turbine was better than the early bladed turbines of the day. But bladed turbine technology improved enormously over the following years and decades, whereas Tesla's turbine did not: it was pretty much as good as it could be from day one.

The reason it isn't widely used today is that it simply isn't that good. Reasonable efficiency but not up with the best, reasonable performance, but the speed drops off precipitously with load. I've played with one: it's an interesting novelty and a clever idea. I think it showed that Tesla was good at "thinking outside of the box".

His one way pneumatic valve - with no moving parts - is another example of thinking outside the box. Like the turbine, it's ingenious; like the turbine, it doesn't work that well. I accept that there are probably a few, rare, use cases for both. But that's all.

So, not a charlatan, then?

[Doctorandus_P]

I don't care much who invented what. Inventions quite often happen when the time is there for them to be invented. It is quite common that people in different parts of the world and independent of each other do the same inventions.

It's also why I very much dislike patents. I had a short look through tesla's patents, but they mostly look like small variations of the same. I have invented many things that upon a short search had been patented at some time. I am not completely opposed to patents. They do have some application in giving people a chance to put money into commercializing an idea and earning some money with that, but the amount of patents about completely trivial nonsense shows it is a very bad system the way it is implemented now. Patents are hardly suited for anything else than to keep the pockets of the patent office people filled

[DejanC]

Point being....Tesla was NOT a charlatan. A scientist and engineer of the highest order.

[joeqsmith]

I just assumed this was a case of a troll being trolled, and not by me for a change.   

***
From 2020. 
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/tesla-files-(sbs)/msg3164680/#msg3164680

Normally, when you scam, the idea is to set aside the cash for yourself to pay for your hookers, boats and drugs.   Not spend it all on the project and then some.

[Kjelt]

It's also why I very much dislike patents. I had a short look through tesla's patents, but they mostly look like small variations of the same. I have invented many things that upon a short search had been patented at some time. I am not completely opposed to patents. They do have some application in giving people a chance to put money into commercializing an idea and earning some money with that, but the amount of patents about completely trivial nonsense shows it is a very bad system the way it is implemented now. Patents are hardly suited for anything else than to keep the pockets of the patent office people filled

It is an unfair system with the costs involved esp. the yearly incrementing fees it is a system for big companies against individuals and small companies. The only thing I like is the open publication, sharing the invention to be used by others (after 20 years).

[Simon]

And before the thread gets locked, there is of course a problem with the word "invention" as used, for example, with patents.

To a sufficiently advanced mind, one familiar with all the physical laws of the world, every conceivable device is "obvious". Any such device is simply a solution to a problem, and when faced with such a problem, it is pretty obvious how to make something that solves it. Therefore, if there are many people simultaneously encountering a given need or problem, they will all be likely to solve it in a similar way.

The whole legal theory of patents is that most people are not very intelligent, and so when a "smart" person devises a gadget that does something useful, it looks to everyone else like a miracle, and worthy of special regard.

Today, patent law operates like the system of mining claims. Whoever first sticks a stake in the ground and makes a claim, their claim is given legal protection. Which leads to the ludicrous situation today where patent filers make claims about anything and everything, just so they can prevent other people claiming the same thing.

You can thank Marconi, another charlatan that simply connected up other peoples inventions and patented the lot as his own. Since then everyone went nuts and patented just about any discovery they could for fear of another Marconi jerk. Most of our history is factually wrong, as you say, the first guy with an advantage patents it even though it's damn right obvious to any intelligent person.

[Simon]

He didn't "lose it" anywhere along the line. He stayed sharp mentally until his last days. There's a reason only SOME of his unpublished work and papers were released to the general public! If it was all malarkey and non-sense, all of it would have been released!

https://www.history.com/news/nikola-tesla-files-declassified-fbi

So you are a conspiracy theorist, I think that is where we left of with the other thread?

[Simon]

Tesla was a charlatan, end of.

Well I don’t think that’s a reasonable interpretation, and certainly nothing you can say “end of” to, since that’s an opinion, not a fact.

As I said above:

On the video [Simon] posted, I made this YouTube comment 2 years ago, which I think is a more balanced take on the matter:

This video mirrors what I have told people for years. What’s weird about Tesla is that it’s just this century that the history about him went all wacky. As someone who was aware of Tesla and his accomplishments long before that, it was really weird to see him go from “guy who invented a practical AC motor” known by nerds only, to “techno wizard visionary” revered by quacks and laypersons.

And as SteveThackery beautifully worded above:

We honour him most by acknowledging the inventions he proved to work; it dishonours him to fabricate an entire fantasy world of heroes and villains, where magic rules over physics and the forces of evil oppress our hero and us little people.

Did you look at the video? no of course not. Instead of your rage how about some formulated opinion?

Tesla was a charlatan, end of. anyone invoking his name like a god is an even bigger chalatan, at least tesla had the fucking balls to be original. Now quit winging about reality or get the fuck out!

I will also add that, as a moderator, we kind of expect a bit more professionalism than this post exhibits. I can understand your frustration, but as a moderator, this tone looks bad.

You see the problem here is context. I closed a thread with those statements that was about a woo woo free energy device or some such junk with the author claiming tesla links. He has now come back to have his revenge by quoting me out of context. So what is the thread about? whether or not I was justified in closing a thread with numerous reports because it was junk science or is it a new debate about tesla?

The OP has already outed himself as a tesla idol so he won't believe anything but what he wants to.

And yes that is my opinion of Tesla, as has been said no one will properly know. If you actually watch the whole video cathy did (and I thought it was longer so maybe there is another) she politely puts to bed every bit of misinformation and corrects after researching the ORIGINAL documents all of the crap. No she did not call him a charlatan, the woman does not want death threats after all from the tesla sycophant's. But if you want to make a statement about tesla then back it up with facts!

The OP says he was sharp until the end.... The end was that he lived of donations from fans was in love with a pigeon and lived in hotel after hotel as he failed to pay the bill and moved on. Does the OP have any more "facts" to share?

[tggzzz]

So they can have opinions and shut down and lock a thread based on their opinions?

If Tesla died broke, doesn't that point to him not having the influence to be able to claim an invention over all others?

He has a SI Unit named after him but he's a fraud. So then EVERYONE is a fraud.

Did you look at the video? no of course not. Instead of your rage how about some formulated opinion?

Tesla was a charlatan, end of. anyone invoking his name like a god is an even bigger chalatan, at least tesla had the fucking balls to be original. Now quit winging about reality or get the fuck out!

Tesla got some things right, and convinced the world. He also got some things wrong, and failed to convince the world.

Isaac Newton also did that.

Linus Pauling also did that.

Etc etc etc also did that.

Would you therefore claim they are charlatans too?

[Simon]

No Tesla was different, nothing like your list

[tggzzz]

And before the thread gets locked, there is of course a problem with the word "invention" as used, for example, with patents.

To a sufficiently advanced mind, one familiar with all the physical laws of the world, every conceivable device is "obvious". Any such device is simply a solution to a problem, and when faced with such a problem, it is pretty obvious how to make something that solves it. Therefore, if there are many people simultaneously encountering a given need or problem, they will all be likely to solve it in a similar way.

The whole legal theory of patents is that most people are not very intelligent, and so when a "smart" person devises a gadget that does something useful, it looks to everyone else like a miracle, and worthy of special regard.

Today, patent law operates like the system of mining claims. Whoever first sticks a stake in the ground and makes a claim, their claim is given legal protection. Which leads to the ludicrous situation today where patent filers make claims about anything and everything, just so they can prevent other people claiming the same thing.

You can thank Marconi, another charlatan that simply connected up other peoples inventions and patented the lot as his own. Since then everyone went nuts and patented just about any discovery they could for fear of another Marconi jerk. Most of our history is factually wrong, as you say, the first guy with an advantage patents it even though it's damn right obvious to any intelligent person.

I think you misunderstand how science works.

The credit never goes to the person who has the idea. The credit goes to the person who convinces other people that the idea is valid.

Ditto business and engineering; the credit goes to the person/company that implements something.