Using trains to store surplus renewable energy

[Nearholmer]

The proposed way of storing energy might be viable in some places, for some applications, on a 'horses for courses' basis.

 

And, adding inertia (which in this context is really another way of saying stored energy) onto a grid in a way that controls frequency stability, is perfectly feasible using means other than the energy stored in superheated steam and rotating masses.

 

Gibbo - can you point us to any decent quality sources about Tesla's work on the web, proper engineering/scientific explanations? Everything that I look-up on the web looks to have been written by people who failed O-level physics, but achieved a PhD in hyperbole.

 

Kevin

Edited July 3, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Gibbo675]

The proposed way of storing energy might be viable in some places, for some applications, on a 'horses for courses' basis.

And, adding inertia (which in this context is really another way of saying stored energy) onto a grid in a way that controls frequency stability, is perfectly feasible using means other than the energy stored in superheated steam and rotating masses.

Gibbo - can you point us to any decent quality sources about Tesla's work on the web, proper engineering/scientific explanations? Everything that I look-up on the web looks to have been written by people who failed O-level physics, but achieved a PhD in hyperbole.

Kevin

Hi Kevin,

 

I agree with your sentiments regarding the search for information about Nikola Tesla, so far the best I have is from this book pictured below.

 

The better information is definitely to be found in books rather than the internet which is algorithmically governed, but you have to then find the titles of those books.

 

 

 

 

I feel it best to add that I got an A grade in Physics O-level and after a full trade apprenticeship a HND in mechanical and production engineering.

 

There are definite relationships that create energies at certain harmonic frequencies and they are all connected through, various resonances, the properties of light and gravity, the different types of magnetism and electricity both via field variance and conductivity. Added to this there are geodesic considerations that alter the gravitational field due to your positioning upon the Earth and all of the geodesic mensuration systems that are derived from the space time that the realm of the Earth occupies, whether you think it to be spherical, flat, toroidal sky-blue-pink-whatever?!?!?!.

 

Before you mention hyperbole in regard to the above I have been looking into this subject, as a when, for the last twelve years or so and that is the best I've managed so far.

 

This is before you get into Gematria, Sacred Geometry, Eighth Sphere Theory, Remote Viewing, Hermetic Syncratism, Vortex Maths Theory, Thought Projection and all sorts of other so called conspiratorial nonsense.

 

"There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment."

 

I am still searching !

 

Gibbo.

[letterspider]

DSCF0163.JPG

Hi Kevin,

 

I agree with your sentiments regarding the search for information about Nikola Tesla, so far the best I have is from this book pictured below.

 

The better information is definitely to be found in books rather than the internet which is algorithmically governed, but you have to then find the titles of those books.

 

DSCF0163.JPG

 

DSCF0164.JPG

 

DSCF0165.JPG

 

I feel it best to add that I got an A grade in Physics O-level and after a full trade apprenticeship a HND in mechanical and production engineering.

 

There are definite relationships that create energies at certain harmonic frequencies and they are all connected through, various resonances, the properties of light and gravity, the different types of magnetism and electricity both via field variance and conductivity. Added to this there are geodesic considerations that alter the gravitational field due to your positioning upon the Earth and all of the geodesic mensuration systems that are derived from the space time that the realm of the Earth occupies, whether you think it to be spherical, flat, toroidal sky-blue-pink-whatever?!?!?!.

 

Before you mention hyperbole in regard to the above I have been looking into this subject, as a when, for the last twelve years or so and that is the best I've managed so far.

 

This is before you get into Gematria, Sacred Geometry, Eighth Sphere Theory, Remote Viewing, Hermetic Syncratism, Vortex Maths Theory, Thought Projection and all sorts of other so called conspiratorial nonsense.

 

"There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment."

 

I am still searching !

 

Gibbo.

 

Well for a start light never accelerates. It only travels at one speed and it gets to that speed instantaneously.

[Nearholmer]

“There are definite relationships that create energies at certain harmonic frequencies and they are all connected through, various resonances, the properties of light and gravity, .......”

 

Any maths to illustrate these relationships, even if nobody can explain them? Harmonics of what fundamental, for instance?

Edited July 3, 2018 by Nearholmer

[jjb1970]

I think we're closer to Heisenberg than Tesla now.

[Gibbo675]

“There are definite relationships that create energies at certain harmonic frequencies and they are all connected through, various resonances, the properties of light and gravity, .......”

 

Any maths to illustrate these relationships, even if nobody can explain them? Harmonics of what fundamental, for instance?

You could have a jolly good look at all of the things that I have mentioned so far, perhaps even buy the book referenced if you care to do so or, if indeed you are actually that interested otherwise I shall pop around to your house to do the washing up and put the rubbish out for you as well while while I'm at it.

 

Do feel free to decline the offer in a polite manner or I shall send you my address so that you may visit and speak directly to me without the armour of a computer.

[Gibbo675]

Well for a start light never accelerates. It only travels at one speed and it gets to that speed instantaneously.

I don't understand your point, acceleration of light is not mentioned in my post at all, or have you misread something?

[locoholic]

I don't understand your point, acceleration of light is not mentioned in my post at all, or have you misread something?

The reference to the speed of light is on one of the book pages you illustrated.

 

For the record, light does accelerate - that is how refraction occurs. However, the book says that the speed of light in a vacuum is actually a relative acceleration, which I believe goes against Einstein's Theory of Relativity, as that would mean that two photons passing in opposite directions would have a relative speed of twice light speed, which is impossible.

Edited July 3, 2018 by locoholic

[Nearholmer]

Gibbo

 

Fortunately, to save me reading a stack of arcane literature, I’ve found a long summary of Cathie’s methods, by Cathie on the web https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_harmonicconquestspace.htm

 

The key is this sentence: ‘The whole system of universal harmonics is based on the geometrics of the circle, the circumference of which can be divided by its radius into six equal parts.’ his whole system hinges around this.

 

And it is, of course, absolute nonsense, and below is a picture that shows why.

 

My working assumption is that the rest of his mathematics is also absolute nonsense.

 

Kevin

[Gibbo675]

The reference to the speed of light is on one of the book pages you illustrated.

 

For the record, light does accelerate - that is how refraction occurs. However, the book says that the speed of light in a vacuum is actually a relative acceleration, which I believe goes against Einstein's Theory of Relativity, as that would mean that two photons passing in opposite directions would have a relative speed of twice light speed, which is impossible.

Einstein's theory is as yet, a theory, which means it is as unproven as is Cahie's work.

 

As stated, I didn't mention the acceleration of light but your are correct Cathie did in the excerpt of the book shown that forms part of his theory that is as yet as unproven as Einstein's.

 

Also Einstein, whether right or wrong, states that gravity has an effect on time and without time there can be no speed so from that point of view Einstein supports Cathie.

[Gibbo675]

Gibbo

 

Fortunately, to save me reading a stack of arcane literature, I’ve found a long summary of Cathie’s methods, by Cathie on the web https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_harmonicconquestspace.htm

 

The key is this sentence: ‘The whole system of universal harmonics is based on the geometrics of the circle, the circumference of which can be divided by its radius into six equal parts.’ his whole system hinges around this.

 

And it is, of course, absolute nonsense, and below is a picture that shows why.

 

My working assumption is that the rest of his mathematics is also absolute nonsense.

 

Kevin

I take it that Buckminster-Fullers Synergetics is also bunkum, here is another load of arcane tosh that I have read;

 

https://fullerfuture.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/buckminsterfuller-synergetics.pdf

 

I prefered Critical path all the same.

[Ian J.]

There are situations where the speed of light can be exceeded. Two photons travelling towards each other is one, but like the other I'm about to mention, neither photon is actually travelling above the speed of light. The other situation I'm thinking of is the expansion of the universe. If you take one edge/end and compare it to the 180 degree opposite edge/end, then the speed of expansion is I gather about three times the speed of light. But of course even with that, nothing in the physical universe is actually travelling above the speed of light. It's all relative, which is why Einstein named his theories after relativity.

[Reorte]

Einstein's theory is as yet, a theory, which means it is as unproven as is Cahie's work.

 

As stated, I didn't mention the acceleration of light but your are correct Cathie did in the excerpt of the book shown that forms part of his theory that is as yet as unproven as Einstein's.

 

Also Einstein, whether right or wrong, states that gravity has an effect on time and without time there can be no speed so from that point of view Einstein supports Cathie.

A theory is a model that fits various observations (e.g. experimental results, which are the only facts), it is not something "unproven". No theory is ever proved. Some hypotheses never make it further than hypotheses before being thrown out though. The scientific definition of theory is not "idea without sufficient evidence to go further." A theory can fit the observed facts and be used until someone observes things that don't fit it, at which point it may be discarded (or kept if it's simpler and still suitable for practical use, e.g. Newton's theory of gravitation is still very frequently used).

[letterspider]

I don't understand your point, acceleration of light is not mentioned in my post at all, or have you misread something?

 

It's mentioned towards the bottom of the page which has Table 4 in it. To say light accelerates contravenes one of the cornerstones of Relativity theory, that is the whole point of it = light travels at the same, constant speed in all frames of reference.

I haven't read that book or the seen the math but if any of that math is derived from that presumption, then it is going to be wrong wrong.

However, I wouldn't like to put myself up against Nikolai Tesla

 

Back to the trains idea - I think it is great. It does seem a bit Heath Robinson in design (or Rube -Goldberg if you are American) but it uses simple, reliable and well understood technology, (therefore should be cheap) is environmenally friendly and readily scalable.

 

It does help if you have a lot of desert land avaialable...

[jjb1970]

If any of y'all want to impress us, give us a unified field theory that reconciles the ideas of Einstein and Heisenberg. Spare me the details, just tell me when you've done it.

[Pacific231G]

If any of y'all want to impress us, give us a unified field theory that reconciles the ideas of Einstein and Heisenberg. Spare me the details, just tell me when you've done it.

Never mind us. A successful unified field theory would have you bowing to the King of Sweden

They're rather more than "ideas".

The Standard Model (quantum mechanics) is about the most successful theory humanity has ever developed in terms of reliably predicting and explaining phenomena we encounter. Without it we certainly wouldn't be having this conversation online because there would be no such thing as a personal computer (nor DCC but you might consider that a blessing!) .

Relativity is amost as successful and without it you wouldn't have GPS and we certainly wouldn't have started to develop a totally new branch of astronomy based on detecting gravity waves.

 

If you want to be impressed just open the SatNav app in your smart phone and reflect on what that actually means. The fact that the two theories aren't on speaking terms is just an indication of how much is still watiting to be discovered.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Pacific231G

[Gibbo675]

Gibbo

 

Fortunately, to save me reading a stack of arcane literature, I’ve found a long summary of Cathie’s methods, by Cathie on the web https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_harmonicconquestspace.htm

 

The key is this sentence: ‘The whole system of universal harmonics is based on the geometrics of the circle, the circumference of which can be divided by its radius into six equal parts.’ his whole system hinges around this.

 

And it is, of course, absolute nonsense, and below is a picture that shows why.

 

My working assumption is that the rest of his mathematics is also absolute nonsense.

 

Kevin

You wanted maths, here is what Buckminster fuller said on the subject of your little diagram it would seem to support both Newton and Lienitz in supporting Cathies work;

 

982.81 We recall also that both Newton and Leibnitz in evolving the calculus thought in terms of a circle as consisting of an infinite number of short chords. We are therefore only modifying their thinking to accommodate the manifest discontinuity of all physical phenomena as described by modern physics when we explore the concept of a circle as an aggregate of short event-vectors__tangents (instead of Newtonian short chords) whose tangential overall length must be greater than that of the circumference of the theoretical circle inscribed within those tangent event-vectors__just as Newton's chords were shorter than the circle encompassing them. 

 

982.82 If this is logical, experimentally informed thinking, we can also consider the closest-tangential-packing of circles on a plane that produces a non-all-areafilling pattern with concave triangles occurring between the circles. Supposing we allowed the perimeters of the circles to yield bendingly outward from the circular centers and we crowded the circles together while keeping themselves as omniintegrally, symmetrically, and aggregatedly together, interpatterned on the plane with their areal centers always equidistantly apart; we would find then__as floortile makers learned long ago__that when closest packed with perimeters congruent, they would take on any one of three and only three possible polygonal shapes: the hexagon, the square, or the triangle__closest-packed hexagons, whose perimeters are exactly three times their diameters. Hexagons are, of course, cross sections through the vector equilibrium. The hexagon's six radial vectors exactly equal the six chordal sections of its perimeter. 982.83 Assuming the vector equilibrium hexagon to be the relaxed, cosmic, neutral, zero energy-events state, we will have the flexible but not stretchable hexagonal perimeter spun rapidly so that all of its chords are centrifugally expelled into arcs and the whole perimeter becomes a circle with its radius necessarily contracted to allow for the bending of the chords. It is this circle with its perimeter equalling six that we will now convert, first into a square of perimeter six and then into a triangle of perimeter six with the following results: Circle radius 0.954930 perimeter 6 Hexagon radius 1.000000 perimeter 6 (neutral) Square radius 1.060660 perimeter 6 Triangle radius 1.1546 perimeter 6 (In the case of the square, the radius is taken from the center to the comer, not the edge. In the triangle the radius is taken to the comer, not the edge.) We take particular note that the radius of the square phase of the closest-packed circle is 1.060660, the synergetics constant. 982.84 In accomplishing these transformations of the uniformly-perimetered symmetrical shapes, it is also of significance that the area of six equiangular, uniform- edged triangles is reduced to four such triangles. Therefore, it would take more equiperimeter triangular tiles or squares to pave a given large floor area than it would using equiperimetered hexagons. We thus discover that the hexagon becomes in fact the densest-packed patterning of the circles; as did the rhombic dodecahedron become the minimal limit case of self-packing allspace-filling in isometric domain form in the synergetical from-whole-to-particular strategy of discovery; while the rhombic dodecahedron is the six-dimensional state of omnidensest-packed, nuclear field domains; as did the two-frequency cube become the maximum subfrequency self-packing, allspace- filling symmetrical domain, nuclear-uniqueness, expandability and omni- intertransformable, intersymmetrical, polyhedral evolvement field; as did the limit-of- nuclearuniqueness, minimally at three-frequency complexity, self-packing, allspacefilling, semi-asymmetric octahedron of Critchlow; and maximally by the threefrequency, four- dimensional, self-packing, allspace-filling tetrakaidecahedron: these two, together with the cube and the rhombic dodecahedron constitute the only-four-is-the-limit-system set of self-packing, allspace-filling, symmetrical polyhedra. These symmetrical realizations approach a neatness of cosmic order. 

[Pacific231G]

I take it that Buckminster-Fullers Synergetics is also bunkum, here is another load of arcane tosh that I have read;

 

https://fullerfuture.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/buckminsterfuller-synergetics.pdf

 

I prefered Critical path all the same.

I read a couple of pages of Buckminste-Fuller's Synergetics. Don't bother, it really is bunkum.

[Gibbo675]

It's mentioned towards the bottom of the page which has Table 4 in it. To say light accelerates contravenes one of the cornerstones of Relativity theory, that is the whole point of it = light travels at the same, constant speed in all frames of reference.

I haven't read that book or the seen the math but if any of that math is derived from that presumption, then it is going to be wrong wrong.

However, I wouldn't like to put myself up against Nikolai Tesla

 

Back to the trains idea - I think it is great. It does seem a bit Heath Robinson in design (or Rube -Goldberg if you are American) but it uses simple, reliable and well understood technology, (therefore should be cheap) is environmenally friendly and readily scalable.

 

It does help if you have a lot of desert land avaialable...

I agree it is all a bit mind bending but the fact that Tesla built a car with a motor that used electrical energy derived from a box of "Gubbins" on the dash board that was connected to a copper ariel of a specific length is quite astonishing.

 

The maths in Cathie's book, having read the book and other books that may well be considered nonconformist, seem to point toward a solution to what Tesla did and also have other clues and pointers to other aspects of Tesla's work that ought to be explored fully and tested out where possible.

 

Einsteins quote when asked about being the cleverest scientist in the world is most illuminating.

 

Some of Buckminster Fullers work which also ties into Tesla alludes to time being a form of perceptual illusion that consciousness somehow has awareness of, the conscious self being fifth dimensional. In a way that thoroughly confuses me, fifth dimensional or otherwise, light does not travel but the perceptual illusion of time gives the appearance it doing so.

 

Perhaps we should all just talk about trains after all !

[jjb1970]

They're rather more than "ideas".

The Standard Model (quantun mechanics) is about the most successful theory humanity has ever developed in terms of reliably predicting and explaining phenomena we encounter. Without it we certainly wouldn't be having this conversation online because there would be no such thing as a personal computer (nor DCC but you might consider that a blessing!) .

Relativity is amost as successful and without it you wouldn't have GPS and we certainly wouldn't have started to develop a totally new branch of astronomy based on detecting gravity waves.

 

If you want to be impressed just open the SatNav app in your smart phone and reflect on what that actually means. The fact that the two theories aren't on speaking terms is just an indication of how much is still watiting to be discovered.

Indeed, I tend to believe that Newton, Einstein and Heisenberg are probably the holy trinity of science. However as brilliant as quantum theory and relativity are there are certain contradictions between the two. Hence the quest for a unified theory. I must admit I often have a bit of harmless fun as a very good friend is a l physicist in academia and a Richard Dawkins mini-me. When he goes into a rant I sometimes ask him what is the difference between blind faith and his own belief that both Einstein and Heisenberg were right despite not being able to provide a theory to reconcile their theories, he takes the bait every time.....

[Nearholmer]

“I agree it is all a bit mind bending but the fact that Tesla built a car with a motor that used electrical energy derived from a box of "Gubbins" on the dash board that was connected to a copper ariel of a specific length.....”

 

But, there isn’t the slightest bit of evidence that Tesla did devise such a thing, the story is widely considered a hoax, or a misinterpretation of something more mundane. You will note that Cathie uses the phrase ‘it has been reported elsewhere’, giving no reference, which isn’t much different from saying ‘a bloke in a pub told me’.

 

It seems to me that because what Tesla was doing from about 1899 onwards is so difficult to understand, too many people just give-up on trying to understand it properly, and resort to soufflés of nonsense instead. Back to my first question about decent engineering/scientific explanations.

[mervyn]

And this all started with some rail borne electric motors shoving concrete blocks uphill.......brain now completely fried......... gone back to modelling!     

[david.hill64]

It's mentioned towards the bottom of the page which has Table 4 in it. To say light accelerates contravenes one of the cornerstones of Relativity theory, that is the whole point of it = light travels at the same, constant speed in all frames of reference.

I haven't read that book or the seen the math but if any of that math is derived from that presumption, then it is going to be wrong wrong.

Actually not quite correct. The speed of light is constant in a particular medium, but not the same for all media. It is for example slower in water than in a vacuum and particles traveling faster than the speed of light in that medium give rise to Cherenkov radiation. Such behaviour is consistent with the special theory of relativity. It follows that light traveling out of water into a vacuum must accelerate.

[locoholic]

Einstein's theory is as yet, a theory, which means it is as unproven as is Cahie's work.

 

As stated, I didn't mention the acceleration of light but your are correct Cathie did in the excerpt of the book shown that forms part of his theory that is as yet as unproven as Einstein's.

 

Also Einstein, whether right or wrong, states that gravity has an effect on time and without time there can be no speed so from that point of view Einstein supports Cathie.

The results of many experiments have supported the work of Einstein. There are none that supports Cathie's work. The only thing that would support it is a shelf.

[locoholic]

Indeed, I tend to believe that Newton, Einstein and Heisenberg are probably the holy trinity of science. However as brilliant as quantum theory and relativity are there are certain contradictions between the two. Hence the quest for a unified theory. I must admit I often have a bit of harmless fun as a very good friend is a l physicist in academia and a Richard Dawkins mini-me. When he goes into a rant I sometimes ask him what is the difference between blind faith and his own belief that both Einstein and Heisenberg were right despite not being able to provide a theory to reconcile their theories, he takes the bait every time.....

There aren't really contradictions - they just apply at different scales of space and time.