patent using tesla

Innovations, ideas or patents for sustainable development. Decrease in energy consumption, reduction of pollution, improvement of yields or processes ... Myths or reality about inventions of the past or the future: the inventions of Tesla, Newman, Perendev, Galey, Bearden, cold fusion ...
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 18/06/12, 13:20

Dedeleco
The scientific method is to prove the reality of our world, by reproducibility, verifiable by everyone constantly, as are constantly verified, the laws of electromagnetism, discovered by Faraday and Maxwell, each time we use n any device, TV, phone, GPS, nuclear, etc.

Again you are in confusion! It is enough that an invention is made and tested (even if only once) for it to be considered concrete and therefore achievable. The fact that it is not achievable by others, it is clear from the protection of the invention to maintain its exclusivity and therefore the trials for copying which ensue.
Tesla was an inventor and not a businessman which earned him to exploit several times "scalded cat fears cold water".
but a work of patience, careful, thorough, accepting reality with great care, so that it is reproducible,….

This is where you still confuse, it should not be reproducible by all THAT if the invention is and remains protected and its author living, unfortunately it is hardly possible now considering the costs of filing European or global patents.
…. By everyone, understandable and consistent, verifiable at all times, paying attention with great care and rigor, not to mix everything wrong, as I constantly see on econology, with in addition the refusal to make the necessary efforts of rigor and understanding of centuries of scientific work.

Here again another confusion, most of the inventors have groped with successive failures to the key, including for those that you quote. You confuse invention and industrial exploitation which is the final stage; between the two there are generally imperfect and therefore "unscientific" prototypes according to your terminology.
Apparently, you never invented anything!
0 x
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 18/06/12, 13:34

janic has understood nothing about the scientific method, absolutely nothing, because a patent can remain imaginary in perpetuity and is only very rarely a real discovery, which opens the way to many other discoveries, patents, etc., in cascades.
Example: the discovery of the Maser, then the Laser, with thousands of variants unimaginable in the patent, yet based on Einstein's works of stimulated emission, basic reflections on quantum mechanics a little less than a century ago !!!


Same, for that of the magnetic resonance of electrons and nuclei, that Janic does not know at all !!!
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 18/06/12, 18:23

janic has understood nothing about the scientific method, absolutely nothing, because a patent can remain imaginary in perpetuity and is only very rarely a real discovery, which opens the way to many other discoveries, patents, etc. ., in waterfalls

and dede has understood nothing about the protection of an invention, when one wishes to donate it to humanity for free, it is enough to reveal it to the general public and it is no longer patentable. On the other hand, it is also true that a discovery leads to improvements, rarely to other patents if the subject is well protected (except after 20 years when it falls into the public domain). So a patent can remain unused (since proof of functionality is not claimed), but this should not be made general.
Have you already filed a patent? ask remondo or pascal ha pham who are right in there.
0 x
User avatar
plasmanu
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2847
Registration: 21/11/04, 06:05
Location: The 07170 Lavilledieu viaduct
x 180




by plasmanu » 19/06/12, 21:48

Tesla said / wrote:
To tell the truth, the tension in the air increases at the rate of approximately 150 volts per meter of altitude, which is why we obtain a difference in tension of 20 or even 000 volts between the base and the top of the antenna. The charged atmosphere is in perpetual motion; it transmits electricity to the conductor intermittently, not continuously, which produces squeaks in a sensitive telephone receiver.

According to him, the natural frequency of the atmosphere is around 4 to 15Hz (same as that of the brain between rest and brainstorming).

How did he go about working with high frequencies?
Is resonance a multiplier of the exact value.

At equal frequency there is a difference between good and bad waves.

Strongly my HAARP at home.
If I understood a little HAARP is used to multiply the signal: the big over-unit.
It reminds me of bituminous sand. We use a barrel to recover full: the trick is to find the deposit (quantity depth ...)

EDIT a very clean pdf:
https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... 7b0tuF.pdf
0 x
"Not to see Evil, not to hear Evil, not to speak Evil" 3 little monkeys Mizaru
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554




by moinsdewatt » 20/06/12, 20:47

plasmanu wrote:Precisely there is matter to deepen.
Which requires 220v and 50hz.
Would it be better within 4-10hz


We see the low level that reigns over this forum.

1st year level Deug of science.

Come on, look around. If you can't find it, I'll help you.
0 x
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554




by moinsdewatt » 20/06/12, 20:48

dedeleco wrote:The trolls killed this subject with a total vacuum of information.


8) I don't think less of it.
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 20/06/12, 21:35

moinsdewatt wrote:
plasmanu wrote:Precisely there is matter to deepen.
Which requires 220v and 50hz.
Would it be better within 4-10hz


We see the low level that reigns over this forum.

1st year level Deug of science.

Come on, look around. If you can't find it, I'll help you.

Well, knowing him a little by his words, there is both a good dose of open-mindedness and two doses of second degree : Mrgreen: : Cheesy: and often three doses of humor: which is sorely lacking for some (and I'm not targeting anyone in particular!) and surely zero dose of bigotry.
Last edited by Obamot the 20 / 06 / 12, 21: 37, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
plasmanu
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2847
Registration: 21/11/04, 06:05
Location: The 07170 Lavilledieu viaduct
x 180




by plasmanu » 20/06/12, 21:36

Neither deug nor insa. (Too far)
Just bts analyst.

110v 60hz is better?

Before we wanted to impose the continuous.
Tesla instead saw HT at HF.

Explain ... I'm all ears
0 x
"Not to see Evil, not to hear Evil, not to speak Evil" 3 little monkeys Mizaru
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554




by moinsdewatt » 21/06/12, 21:32

plasmanu wrote:Neither deug nor insa. (Too far)
Just bts analyst.

110v 60hz is better?

Before we wanted to impose the continuous.
Tesla instead saw HT at HF.

Explain ... I'm all ears


The alternating voltage and therefore the alternating current have the great advantage of being able to be '' transformed '' by the voltage transformer either stronger (weaker current) or weaker (and stronger current). It is just a transformation of the IxV product which remains constant (at near losses), there are no miracles.
So that it works well with transformers that are not as big as buildings have realized at the beginning of the electrical engineering that 50 Hz or 60 Hz was suitable. Above there were other disadvantages.
below 10 Hz a transformer would not be very good.
(and in direct current, it cannot work at all).

And then 50 Hz or 60 Hz is very good with electric generators from that time.

When 110 V and 220 V ca is only a story of technical compromises and technical and political will.

I remember that in France we were still in many places in 110 V in the 60s.
The 220 V allows for a given power allows to have 2 times less current than in 110 V, which allows to use less section of Copper for the electric cables and the electrical installations in the house. It is cheaper for the networks. Less fire risk due to the start of electric fires.
Disadvantage and not least, it is more dangerous in case of electrocution. Larger insulators are needed.
The USA which had lots of private electrical networks and not enough political will (well done for these liberals) has never managed to go into 220 V. Too bad for them.

Before we wanted to impose the continuous.''
It is those who had started to make businesses living above that who "wanted to impose" the continuous.
It is the same as facebook which imposed its social network.
(But not for everyone, I don't want it).
So the entrepreneurs who had a different opinion managed to show the interest of alternating current for the transport on electric line.
It was at the end of the 19th century that it happened. In 1896 the Niagara hydroelectric power station (at the famous falls) was the most powerful in the world, discharging on an alternative network. 75 MW!
And that thanks to the development of alternating current by Nikola Tesla a short time ago.

That said, direct current comes back to it for long-distance electrical transport (less loss on line by capacitive effect), because nowadays we know how to transform voltage into direct current thanks to high power electronic components which do not did not exist at the beginning of the 20th century.
Thus there is a line France England underwater which is in direct current. Its called HVDC lines. And there are projects between the North of Germany and Norway under the Baltic. And still others in China and Brazil. I am talking to you about projects that amount to hundreds of millions of Euros.
Last edited by moinsdewatt the 21 / 06 / 12, 21: 42, 3 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
plasmanu
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2847
Registration: 21/11/04, 06:05
Location: The 07170 Lavilledieu viaduct
x 180




by plasmanu » 21/06/12, 21:39

Ok.
That good big good economic logic.
If everyone had three-phase 380v there would be even less copper.

From there to say that at 100000v there should be no copper at all. How do we do : Mrgreen:
I push a little: I know.
0 x
"Not to see Evil, not to hear Evil, not to speak Evil" 3 little monkeys Mizaru

Go back to "Innovations, inventions, patents and ideas for sustainable development"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 148 guests