| a title is a curious thing... |
|
   | |  | | ![]() Tesla was a genius, but no one would support him. | |  | |  |
|
 | |  | | He got swept under the rug essentially.... a really sad situation, as he invented the A.C. that powers most 'heavy' devices nowadays. This technology is highly promising though, imagine power stations working like wifi stations  | |  | |  |
|
| written by Zixinus on Jun 13, 2007 19:40 |
 | |  | | ![]() Is there ever was a mad scientist, that was Tesla.
Tesla rejected Einstein's work, and believed that electricity flows due to harmonics and waves. He rejected atomic theory, and openly scorned Edison.
When he was young, he was fairly sane, and this was the period that he invented his most famous inventions. After that, he became increasingly crazy.
The annoying thing about Tesla, is that he did not leave notes. He often talked about his incredible inventions but did not show the inventions themselves or detailed how the inventions work exactly.
Many people often view Tesla as a scientist, but in fact, he was an engineer and inventor.
Engineering does go where science doesn't. Nobody was quite sure what caused x-rays, but that didn't stop anybody from making medical images beforehand. Tesla is an example of this: he experimented allot. His actual understanding of electricity was quite laughable, but he got results because he experimented allot. He found the idea of fluorescence lighting actually by accident.
Just take a look around here:
http://www.davidszondy.com/future/tesla/tesla.htm
Also, back to topic: how did this thing get around inverse square law again? | |  | |  |
|
 | written by Bgreman on Jun 14, 2007 17:24 |
 | |  | | ![]() Directional transmitter? Inverse square law only applies to a point source, or something which approximates a point source.
E: Ohod I replied to a Zixinus post. | |  | |  |
|
| | | |  | Zixinus said: | | openly scorned Edison |
With good reason, Edison may have been a good inventor but he was a fairly cutthroat businessman and a jerk on top of it. Most of the things invented under him were actually invented by his employees IIRC. He was a valuable inventor, but as a person, what I've heard of him leads me to dislike him.
| Zixinus said: | | Also, back to topic: how did this thing get around inverse square law again? |
I think it uses resonating fields, which i assume (i know, bad word) allows transfer of energy between the two fields. | | | | |
|
| a title is a curious thing... |
|
| | | | ![]() Finally, someone who actually said Edison wasn't a complete genius ! Tesla actually once worked for him, you know? He was fired because he didn't give his ideas to Edison(so he could completely rip him off), or something like that. | | | | |
|
 | |  | | ![]() He quit, actually. Edison promised him a big bonus if he could do X. He did X, Edison said something like "Oh, you don't understand our American humor" (No bonus given). Tesla then quit.
I've forgotten what X actually was. | |  | |  |
|
| | | | ![]() X was a direct current generator, for which he was promised $50,000.00 (a princely sum in those days). So he went out and (with Westinghouse) promoted Alternating Current.  | | | | |
|
| written by Naavis on Jun 18, 2007 15:22 |
| | | | ![]() It's still a pretty princely sum. | | | | |
|
| written by Pomelos on Jun 18, 2007 15:28 |
| | | | ![]() Edison was the Bill Gates of the time. | | | | |
|
| a title is a curious thing... |
|
| | | | ![]() True, I guess. I never thought of it like that... | | | | |
|
| | | | In many ways, yeah basically... | | | | |
|
| 
