1. Home
  2. Electronics Design
  3. Re: Hidden Tesla Technological System

Re: Hidden Tesla Technological System

These forums assume that, later in life, Tesla was crazy, or indulged in dishonest exaggeration, and his amazing claims could not have worked.

Instead, if you want a group which assumes that Tesla concealed some major discoveries; that his later claims were genuine, try "Tesla Experimental" in the link below:

Tesla forums

formatting link

Has anyone ever heard of Tesla having designed two entirely different > systems of technology within one basic hardware design. That is the > one we use now with AC polyphase system and another "hidden" system of > application which uses the same hardware and terminology but is of a > "non-electrical" energy.

Sounds like Bearden's "Scalar" stuff. That work mostly is theory, still no giant Nobel-worthy experimental breakthroughs. There are thousands of alt-theory people out there, far too many to bother with. But if one of them has come up with some replicable experimental evidence or some working hardware, that's different.

The non-electrical component being present in > the electrical but in this other one specifically isolated and freed > from the movement of electrons. It's interesting because when I looked > at both I realized that the other would function just the same with > minor adjustments to all of our existing hardware. Could we have a > hidden potential technology just waiting to be used and applied to our > current electrical grid?

Tesla said this directly in one of his articles. His "World System" was supposed to be totally compatible with an AC power grid running at

60Hz. And Tesla of course was the one who determined the 60Hz value in early Westinghouse days. But this is just an issue of efficiency and expense. If the USA power grid was 50Hz or 133Hz, perhaps Tesla would just need to add some rotary converters.
While reading his paper "Experiments With > Alternate Currents Of High Potential And High Frequency" you could > just as easily think he was describing one type of technology when in > reality a concealed second meaning was being described as well in > which if one had the "key" would unveil a new realm of possibilities.

That's very "Tesla." For example, if we only study their schematics, then his mechanical radio receivers are very obscure.

Tesla's receivers: regen coherers in 1899

formatting link

In their actual operation, we find that Tesla was using components for multiple functions, with more than one separate circuit "overlapped" together.

I see such things as evidence of a genius mind trying to impress others, that or perhaps attempting to conceal valuable engineering tricks from copycat inventors (today it would be a genius software engineer who writes convoluted code which nobody else is able to use.)

(((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty

formatting link
beaty, chem washington edu Research Engineer billb, amasci com UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74

206-543-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
Reply to
wbeaty
Loading thread data ...

Tesla decided on a sixty Hz. frequency because it was easier to design electric clocks with gearing related to 60. Think seconds...

He was asked to think of a 50 Hz system, but declined, even though 50 would be a bit more 'Metric' in nature. The sixty also allowed a bit of a saving in transformer cores and such like.

mike

Reply to
m II

So... why not 100Hz? Too lossy back when this was all being seriously considered?

Reply to
Joel Koltner

..

ould

ing

It wasn't divisible by 3 like his hotel room number, number of laps he swam at the pool, etc.

(((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty

formatting link
beaty, chem washington edu Research Engineer billb, amasci com UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74

206-543-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
Reply to
wbeaty

Also there is a Schumann cavity mode at ~59.8Hz.

Only one trouble: Tesla forced through this standards change from

133Hz to 60Hz many years before going to Colorado and discovering that one of the global resonance freqs was near 60Hz!

(((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty

formatting link
beaty, chem washington edu Research Engineer billb, amasci com UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74

206-543-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
Reply to
wbeaty

The story I heard many years ago had to do with the losses in the silicon steel available at the time. Magnetic loss, such as eddy currents and magnetic hysteresis, increases with frequency.

As I heard it, Europe didn't have as good transformer steel at the time, and so 50Hz was a better choice. Once set, it is hard to change.

-- glen

Reply to
glen herrmannsfeldt

For equal magnetic flux, hysteresis loss is proportional to frequency and eddy current loss is nearly proportional to frequency squared.

However, volts per turn is proportional to frequency, hysteresis loss is approximately proportional to flux squared, and eddy current loss is proportional to flux squared.

So, for equal volts per turn, hysteresis loss varies roughly inversely with frequency, and eddy current loss is constant to varying slightly inversely with frequency (due to skin effect).

Transformers get less lossy and more useful as frequency increases, until stray inductances and capacitances get problematic.

--
 - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Reply to
Don Klipstein

In sci.physics.electromag Don Klipstein wrote: (snip, I wrote)

The reason why aeronautics uses 400Hz, and the usual PC switching power supply, with a ferrite core transformer, run about 20kHz.

I was wondering some time ago about the optimal power line frequency for ferrite core transformers. (And I have no idea on the relative cost.)

-- glen

Reply to
glen herrmannsfeldt

Westinghouse also decided on 60Hz but, at the time, he had more business clout than Tesla so he is commonly cited. How much effect Tesla had on Westinghouse at stage of the game is an open question. There were several systems in use from 16.33 Hz to 133 Hz. 16 and 25Hz were commonly used for industry because of need for lower speed motors driving multiple loads through belts. Some 25Hz generation was still in use at Niagara and in cities like New York and Toronto until the 1960's-70's or later. lamp flicker was unpleasant 16.33Hz is still used for electric railways in many areas (1/3 of 50Hz) 133Hz was considered nicer for lighting than the lower frequencies as flicker is eliminated. 50 and 60Hz were a compromise- a balance between lighting and motor needs. The actual choice between 50 and 60 Hz really was a judgement call made differently in different places (hey, if the Brits went 50Hz, the US would pick 60Hz). In Japan it turned out to be a matter of which salesmen, British or US, had the edge in a particular part of the country- so part is still 50Hz and the rest is 60Hz. Modern electronics made the interconnection between these areas feasible. Differences in gearing are not really a problem: 60/1 vs 72/1 gear ratio (for the second hand -2 pole motor). The rest is the same. Differences in core size- not a big deal but favours 60Hz slightly but initially drive technology favoured the slower generator speeds needed for

50Hz. 50Hz is better for transmission but at the distances then involved it really wasn't a big consideration. Win some lose some. it all came down to a bit of a coin toss as the technical aspects at the time were relatively minor considerations. Once a particular frequency became common- economics of scale took over.

Don Kelly cross out to reply

"m II" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@news.x-privat.org...

On 10-11-16 01:44 PM, wbeaty wrote:

Tesla decided on a sixty Hz. frequency because it was easier to design electric clocks with gearing related to 60. Think seconds...

He was asked to think of a 50 Hz system, but declined, even though 50 would be a bit more 'Metric' in nature. The sixty also allowed a bit of a saving in transformer cores and such like.

mike

Reply to
Don Kelly

I don't know, but skin effect would affect the price of the long cable runs. You also have losses related to induced motion in the cables. It's not just transformer losses.

Clifford Heath.

Reply to
Clifford Heath

(snip 60Hz vs. 50Hz)

I remember touring the Lake Shasta power plant when I was young, maybe about 6h grade, and being surprised to learn that the generators run at 20rev/s, so six pole. I probably didn't know about more than two poles at the time.

Then much more recently on the Grand Coulee tour, I was again surprised to learn that they run at 72RPM. They are much bigger, so I suppose they couldn't really go at 3600RPM or even 1200RPM, but I wouldn't have guessed 72.

I was then wondering if one could measure the pole non-uniformity by looking for subharmonics in the AC waveform, presumably with a lot of averaging.

-- glen

Reply to
glen herrmannsfeldt

One consideration is that when you start dealing with the kinds of currents involved in power supply infrastructure, skin effects, which can be usually be ignored at such frequencies, can be an issue because of the sizes of the conductors required. The higher frequency reduces the size of conductors that can be used without requiring skin-effect mitigation techniques.

formatting link

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

m II schrieb:

Hello,

16.7 % saving in transformer core weight, but 20 % more problems with long power transmission lines.

Bye

Reply to
Uwe Hercksen

Duh? 100, just like any other number IS divisible by three. The result just isn't an integer.

Cheers

Ian

Reply to
Ian Bell

The expression "divisible by x" is conventionally understood to mean an integral number of times, since otherwise the expression would have no purpose as it would, as you point out, apply to any number.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

Isn't there some expression like "evenly divisible..." or some such, to disambiguate the phrase?

Cheers! Rich

Reply to
Rich Grise

glen herrmannsfeldt schrieb:

Hello,

are you sure with 72 RPM? 75 RPM are also possible.

Bye

Reply to
Uwe Hercksen

Clifford Heath schrieb:

Hello,

there are heavy problems with the Ferranti effect when using frequencies of about 1 kHz and more on long transmisson lines.

Bye

Reply to
Uwe Hercksen

If I recall, Edison's distribution was horrible. Ten or twenty miles? Compared to that, anything was an improvement. It doesn't seem very likely they were considering two thousand kilometer long grids back then. Now, we're stuck with the frequency, so they're using super high voltage DC for longer lines and reconverting to AC on the receiving end.

mike (the schrieber)

Reply to
m II

In sci.physics.electromag Uwe Hercksen wrote: (snip, I wrote)

Putting "grand coulee" RPM into google, the first one I find, including pictures of building the dam and generators, has one indicating 120RPM, for one built in 1943.

There are now three power plants, the third one built around 1968. It is the third that runs at 72RPM. Three 600MW and three 700MW turbine-generator units, 615385kVA at 97.5% power factor. Each rotor is 60ft (18m) in diameter.

-- glen

Reply to
glen herrmannsfeldt

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.