Yup. Note that in Tesla's time, "specialists" weren't as specialized as they are today. Polymaths were far more common, perhaps because the body of knowledge one had to absorb to _be_ a specialist in any one field was so much smaller.
No, no, no. Tesla's machine is sorta analogous to the power section of a complete turbine engine; no combustor or compressor. He saw it as replacing most conventional types of compressors _and_ pumps. What's holding it up? The miscomprehension of its operation in that most people at first glance think it works by friction.
Also, I can't see how to build an axial-flow Tesla turbine (as in aircraft types).
That too. See frinst:
Dead right. For more just google for "Tesla turbine" (watch out for the wacko sites, though).
Now, how the hell could you turn this thing inside-out?
No, I meant you had the wrong idea about Tesla's turbine. Your idea would work just fine with a bladed (conventional) turbine, if you could figure out where to put the bearings.
In a Tesla turbine, there are no blades. It's one or more discs with holes in the center (spidered around the shaft they're mounted on) surrounded by an ordinary-looking blower housing. You spin the shaft, it sucks air in through the center and blows it out the nozzle (blower mode). You blow air in through the nozzle, the shaft spins (driven turbine mode).
No doubt. Tesla's design looks adaptable to me. Less turbulence, fewer parts, and the rotors could likely be liquid-cooled easily.
I meant he saw it as a _general_ replacement for any kind of pump/blower or fluid-driven motor (with suitable modifications for a given application), which means it could replace either the compressor or power turbine.
It could happen yet, though it appears to be best adaptable to a fairly narrow velocity and CFM regime.
No, I meant holding up the replacement process.
Did you even _look_ at the link I gave? Did you even bother Googling for "tesla turbine" to see what others have done? I don't see it as my Mission In Life, though it is interesting. Hell, I happen to need a really tiny compressor (to run an itty-bitty Hilsch tube), so I might try building one.
Why are we holding this conversation in an electronics group? I suppose I could suggest immersing the rotors in a magnetic field and providing electrical contacts to the center and rim, thus making a Homopolar motor out of it. Just think; DC in, air out.
You aren't the only one, and there are a lot of other researchers who aren't as generally famous as they ought to be. Know who Charles Proteus Steinmetz was? He became the prototype of the movies' Mad Scientist, but not by doing evil.
Nobody can know everything, not even in their chosen field, much less in several. Being a cross-disciplinarian can also reduce your status in any one field, which crimps funding. Also there's a loss of status for pure scientist who associate with "lowly engineers" as if they were equals. Ever wonder why Tesla got so much done? Partly, because he had no academic reputation to defend.
Getting specialists in many fields together definitely produces results no individual would have thought of, as in your chemist/physicist fusion yielding NMR. But who decides which specialists to put together? You can't just throw random experts together and expect breakthroughs, unless you're Dilbert's PHB. ;>)
What was that about "knowing everything", again? ;>)
Sigh. Who did you think I was? Don't you recall that I told you that I read _The Hidden Persuaders_ as a child?
Unlike you, I make no assumptions about any "perfect" socioeconomic system except that it hasn't yet materialized. If it had, it'd have out-competed all others because it works better.
The Late Latin "democratia" is taken from the Greek "demokratia", and I can't recall the Latin for either fear or terror offhand or even if the Romans bothered inventing a specific term for either; they were great borrowers from the Greek. (You get pedantic about that and not my misuse of "Deimos" rather than "Phobos" to indicate "fear"?)
"Fraudulently alleged"? I was talking about the system you promote. "Rule by terror" is more accurate in describing it anyway; everyone would live in continuous terror that they'd be dragged away to be tortured to death for _any_ crime at all. Why do you think the period immediately following the French Revolution was called "The Terror"? Granted it was milder than your version, they "humanely" guillotined their victims.
BTW why did you suggest "demonocracy"? Did you think I was trying to demonize you or your system? Not at all. I'm merely pointing out what I see as flaws.
I don't doubt that you've intensely studied politics, economics, and so on in order to reach the conclusions you have, but have you studied actual _people_? It's been said that most people live in "quiet desperation" due to the confining effects of the socioeconomic system(s) they're immersed in, and AFAICT it's true. It strikes me that if you offered them the option (or ordered them) to exchange that quiet desperation for active terror, most would decline. Why do you think The Terror ended?
See, that's the nub of our disagreement. I don't believe most people _need_ ruling, whereas you do. BTW, you never answered one of my earlier questions; why do you think _you_ need to be ruled?
No. As I told you before, _my_ (as near as possible) ideal social system provides that all citizens be equally capable of self-defense against all comers. Frinst, laws that ban "assault weapons" are stupid; assault weapons also make dandy _anti_-assault weapons. Similarly, why can't I buy the same (high) grades of body armor available to law enforcement and the military, given I'm not a _proven_ threat to either?
Exactly. If we aren't capable of wronging anyone else (because they can defend themselves), what's LAW for?
Which definition of "just" do you have in mind? My Webster's gives several, and they're all subtly different. Some appeal to objective fact, to reason, or to a moral standard. However, "objective fact" keeps changing its face according to one's Newtonian/Einsteinian/QM prejudices, "reason" evolves as new methods of thought develop, and "moral absolutes" vary by time, place, and culture, even from one person to the next. Hence the concept of "justice" gets rather fuzzy. Better to stick with "fairness" or "equality" as they're easier to define and more broadly applicable.
Yet another example of the "wrongness" of all extant systems (that support themselves by taxation, equal or unequal). You would presumably levy taxes on me to provide a hall for your assorted councils to meet in, paper for records, etc. Screw that, let 'em meet in their homes, or outdoors, and provide their own materials.
According to your definition of "theft". If I buy something made in China (at a lesser price than a similar product made here), am I conspiring with the international network of politicians, manufacturers, distributors, etc. who set up the current system, in order to steal from the laborers involved given that they don't get the same wage as local laborers? Or, am I stealing from the local laborers because I didn't help pay their higher wages? Both? Neither?
What if I _make_ said something instead of buying either local-made or imported? Am I stealing from both groups of laborers?
Lots of opportunity for terror there.
And don't tell me about how you're talking about your ideal situation; I'm talking about the real world. According to your lights, am I a thief _right now_?
Really? I'm talking about _your_ willingness to enforce your system. If you think I'm a thief, why are you letting me get away with it rather than hurrying over with your flensing knives? Do you think I'll passively let you disassemble me?
How many times have you had police's guns pointed at you? For me three so far, and my pants stayed dry partly because I knew I was innocent, and partly because I don't fear death. Tasers, now, that's different. Nobody relishes the prospect of being incapacitated even temporarily.
----------------------------- I don't judge the "perfection" of a social system by its "perfection" of design, or any kind of "elegance of function". I judge perfection in social systems by whether they are fair to everyone. For all I care it can function badly and require us to execute people and suppress evil viciously, and scare many people who richly deserve it, and why would I still support it, you might ask? Because it is FAIR and RIGHT, and it will cause our species to evolve toward its happiest future, even if it must do so by killing those of us with the inherent flaws of dishonesty, unfairness, and unsociable greed!!
----------------------------- That's like saying that if it were possible for an improved human species to exist, that it would already, that's a logical fallacy.
---------------- Demos and Kratia are Greek, and they mean People's Rule.
------------------------------------------ Deimos is panic, Phobos is terror, the children of the God of War, Aries, or in Latin, Mars.
-------------------------- Nope, all they need do to be safe is to desist from engaging in anything that could be regarded as criminal. Crimes are unfair. If you don't KNOW what is fair, ask 20 of your neighbors to vote on it! If you have done these humble things, you need have no fear.
If one wishes not to be jailed or killed then do not kill, steal, or plot to become rich, or benefit by ANY other means than the sweat of your own brow. If you even THINK of cheating someone, you should feel the terror of death at your throat!! There are a million things you can do which can in NO way EVER be regarded as crimes or evil! DO THOSE AND LIVE!!
------------------------------- The humanity of the guillotine is debatable, but the French Revolution and the tumbrills taking them to the blade was about PRIOR bad acts which they might be executed for due to rumor or innuendo, or merely because someone didn't LIKE them, AND without proof.
BUT!: We should offer ONE AND ONLY ONE CHANCE to be forgiven ALL acts that are NEWLY made crimes which are not now punished, other than murder and brutality and prior embezzlement, conditional on them being willing to divest, to desist, to forswear EVER doing such again, and then to live in abject fairness with others and without ANY complaint against that fairness. If they ever depart that, then they can expect NO mercy.
------------------------------- You don't even understand my system, you believed I was some sort of Richelieu. I'm perfectly willing to forgive and forget, as long as they divest and forget ever trying that shit again!
-------------------------------- Since I'm not interested in terrorizing people, except to dissuade people from criminality, your analogy is totally flawed. Yes, I believe firmly that anyone who tries to collect rent should be killed outright, but if they head warnings not to try that and do not, then I am not at all interested in them coming to harm. Yes, I think that anyone who tries to flee with wealth should be killed, but if they don't and accept the loss of their wealth with aplomb, I could care less. Yes, I believe that anyone who tries to pay someone less than he is paid should be killed, but if they do not, then they are not criminals. This is simple. No one is in danger who isn't a stubborn vicious animalistic conspirator against the People's State.
*I* don't, MOST people of GoodWill don't. The good will support, obey, and agree with the rules, but those who do not will have to be dererred from acting out their viciousness by simple fright and terror.
If we did not have law and punishment now, the most strong and vicious would destroy society, steal everything, kill anyone who got in their way and then wonder why they had no place they could plug it all in.
These minority of criminals exist in every population, and they are a sizable minority of deviants who might be eliminated by careful eugenics, that remains to be seen, or simply be made non-existent by better childrearing that is socially enforced by the People's Will.
-------------------------------- It depends on your opinions whether you are or not.
If you are a decent citizen in obedience to the Democratic Will of the People, then you can be certified as someone We Trust. No social group will permit those they don't trust to be armed, and they SHOULD NOT!!!!
Those with no political shadow over them will undoubtedly be permitted private ownership of arms, and they'll be expected to use them against criminals at the behest or their neighbors.
But people who have expressed opinions that are against Fairness and Democratic Equality, or who have been sanctioned politically and forbidden political expression because their opinions were dangerous to the body politic and our freedoms and equality, they must be denied that, as any criminal must be.
---------------------------------- To punish, and thus deter criminality. Self-defense against criminals is iffy, and if self-defense worked perfectly we might not need police. But of course we do, one cannot withstand a seige of bandits, or a silent bandit while you sleep. We are weak things, alone. But together we are VERY dangerous.
----------------------------- I see the absolute same moral absolutes from time immemorial. Fairness and Equality was spoken of old, by ancient prophets and seers.
---------------------------- Nonsense. Taxes of some kind, an extraction of wealth from everyone to do everyone's Democratic Will, is inevitable.
It takes a complete idiot as only a Libertarian can be to stupidly believe otherwise.
------------------------------------- It's up to your neighbors, do what they say, seek their counsel, decide together what is fair, until Democratic Communism can be exported across the entire earth and end ALL inequality. If the People say it's okay for now, then do that, and cite that recorded opinion in your notes justifying yourself and you cannot be held at any fault. When it changes, abide that new ruling as well.
------------------------------------ Making something for yourself is always permitted, it is your labor.
----------------------------------- I don't know your life in detail.
---------------- NO one person enforces a "system". As a member of a Democratic group I'm willing.
------------------- It doesn't matter, if we wanted you, you'd lose. Are you really so stupid that you don't know this??
------------ Liars like you amuse. I worked in an ER for 3.5 years, you're ALL terrified, everyone, to the last moment.
------------------------- Doesn't matter, if we want you, we'll have you. And you'll capitulate or die. That's true tonight, in the current system, and true in ALL systems forever. You are NOT "in charge" of what you get.
-Steve Walz email@example.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
"Fair" I'll accept because your rules would apply to all, but "right" is a flat-out value judgement on your part, with which I disagree, because:
the end does not justify the means. We've (the world, that is) played that game before, remember?
And how do you know that traits like acquisitiveness, which become criminal when taken to extreme, aren't valuable in moderation? Seems to me it's responsible for most of our technological advancement.
No, I said what I said. Don't draw bogus similies.
"Could be regarded". Yep, certain safety.
Better to make everyone filthy rich. Greed requires inspiration.
Why do you exclude "prior embezzlement" (assuming they divest their ill-gotten gains)? Are you merely assuming they can't break the habit?
The flaw I see is its essential brutality. Death by torture as criminal punishment is practically a definition of uncivilized. Hell, why not go for "necklacing"? That's _really_ brutal.
You're not talking about the unfair accumulation of wealth, you're talking about status games, and power over others, with physical wealth as game counters. You cannot completely remove those impulses from humans. _Have_ you ever studied actual people?
Were you terrorized by an asshole landlord, or what? You're extremely fond of imagining using terror to enforce your ideals.
Then they'd kill each other off (status imperative) until one with a smidgen of forbearance filtered down, and quit killing those who actually work. That's how we got where we are, after all. Machiavelli and Nietzsche were full of shit.
Again, you see acquisitiveness as absolute deviancy. I do not.
What? I've never threatened a cop or the security of the USA.
Screw trust, gimme body armor.
I don't care who's armed, if I'm armored.
There's that "political shadow" again; why do you propose letting such people (potential criminals) live at all? I see a logical disconnect here.
Then why are they still breathing? Where's your ruthlessness?
Ever heard of locks, or dogs, or a zillion other things to deter sneaks in the night? A lone, armed (FTM unarmed) man can also be very dangerous _if_ he's taught properly. If _all_ are taught properly, none are dangerous. That may sound like a paradox, but it isn't. Think it through.
Which ones would they be? You and I do not share some important ones, frinst that brutality begets more brutality.
Insults are pointless; try convincing me with logic. Aristotle taught with a stick and some sand; you have much more to work with.
Hello? Not in your Utopia, but here, today.
How about the poor bastard who didn't get the opportunity to sell me said something? Unfair competition is a crime, no?
I gave you examples of things I do (so do you, no doubt). Apply your moral absolutes and give me a straight answer.
Ah, I see. Safety in the mob. Your display of courage of your convictions is inspiring.
But how many are willing to die messily to get me? I know lots of "dangerous" techniques. I'm not so stupid that I don't know some basic mob psychology.
You so easily assume the worst of me; why do you assume I'm lying? Or are you merely projecting?
Then answer my questions about your judgement of my behavior in today's system.
Yeah, I remember your dismissal of free will based on your unfounded belief in determinism.