It certainly isn't. I would not describe Newton, Heisenberg, Einstein, Dirac, Feynman as wackos.thaumaturge said:
A TV repairman might know a bit more about electrons than a shoe salesman (or an audio salesman) but probably not enough to do much more than repair TVs. One of the things I have discovered in recent years is just how little about how antennas really work is understood by some professional antenna engineers - they get by on experience and rules of thumb. That is why issues such as alleged Chu-Wheeler limit violating antennas excite much debate among both practitioners and academics (with both appearing on both sides if the debate).
Not necesarily, a TV repair man needs to know nothing about quantum theory (and there are probably more than a couple shoe salesmen with physics degrees). Just like some one who fixes and installs RF electronics dosnt need to know anything about antenna design. Instead of telling us how great your knowledge is (dosnt impress people here), try showing us with some facts (equations, numbers) that are correct (not like your last attempt) You know, physics.
They are all wackos to some degree.
Edison tried over 10,000 materials to before settling on his choice of filaments for the light bulb. Clearly he was ADD and quite capable at hyper-focusing.
Consider the limited coupling of a single wire to radio waves, where the only improvement is in length.
If you pictured it in the "traditional" transformer context, it's weaknesses are obvious.
Think of how a crystal radio works, using a capacitors resonance to it's advantage, now scale this down and paint it on.
I don't think it "extends" the range so much as it "improves" the coupling of the device with RF waves.
Edison tried over 10,000 materials to before settling on his choice of filaments for the light bulb. Clearly he was ADD and quite capable at hyper-focusing.
Consider the limited coupling of a single wire to radio waves, where the only improvement is in length.
If you pictured it in the "traditional" transformer context, it's weaknesses are obvious.
Think of how a crystal radio works, using a capacitors resonance to it's advantage, now scale this down and paint it on.
I don't think it "extends" the range so much as it "improves" the coupling of the device with RF waves.
Edison wasn't a scientist of any sort, nor did he make any scientific discoveries. Not even vaguely a wacko, more like the Steve Jobs of his time. So, not a great example.
Wackos who did make great discoveries (but also did loony stuff) would certainly include Newton, Brian Josephson, and Nikolai Tesla.
Wackos who did make great discoveries (but also did loony stuff) would certainly include Newton, Brian Josephson, and Nikolai Tesla.
Some comments from a bystander...
The claims are virtually unanimously thought to be hyperbolic. They do sound fishy to me, but I lack the knowledge to dismiss them outright.
thaumaturge stated "wackos.... those who believed something the majority didn't" so it's more than a bit unfair to subtly change the definition to refute the statement.
If the claims regarding submarine communications are true, the military(ies) would be all over this. I do know enough to know that using "sub comm" and "50MHz" in the same sentence is a laugher.
Rather than extending transmission range, I tend to think the practical application would be to enable an existing range using much less power. I don't recall seeing this even briefly mentioned. Also fishy.
The claims are virtually unanimously thought to be hyperbolic. They do sound fishy to me, but I lack the knowledge to dismiss them outright.
thaumaturge stated "wackos.... those who believed something the majority didn't" so it's more than a bit unfair to subtly change the definition to refute the statement.
If the claims regarding submarine communications are true, the military(ies) would be all over this. I do know enough to know that using "sub comm" and "50MHz" in the same sentence is a laugher.
Rather than extending transmission range, I tend to think the practical application would be to enable an existing range using much less power. I don't recall seeing this even briefly mentioned. Also fishy.
So how hard would it be to make nano scale capacitors if you don't care about precision?
Materials Today - Nanoscale capacitors pack in the power
Materials Today - Nanoscale capacitors pack in the power
I missed Jobs' YouTube video of Windows killing stray dogs?? (or a certain penguin named Tux)
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/dayintech_0104
Last edited:
I'm somewhat familiar with antenna design (fractal specifically) and underwater communications (ELF). For this to be auto aligning fractal material the temperature and humidity would have to be very controlled during the drying process. Dries too fast and you get nothing, too slow and it drips. 
Not sure how this would work In a spray can.
Not sure how this would work In a spray can.
Scientist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - I think he fits this profile perfectly. He is like 12 regular scientists rolled into one super scientist.
You do not need to have a formal education to bear this title.
Leonardo da Vinci is another example of the uneducated. The epitome of scientists in my opinion.
If by "not a scientist" you mean he did not go to school in the USA in the past 60 years, then I guess he is not a "scientist"
I think most modern "scientists" actually fall into the "engineer" or "technician" category.
Einstein failed math so I guess he is no scientist either.
No, he wasn't a scientist because he didn't do science. Formal education has nothing to do with it- I was trained formally in science, but for most of my career after my post-doc, I did not do science and hence was not a scientist. I'm doing it again, but that's recent (the past 3 years). And I know quite a few autodidacts who have done some brilliant science.
In the Wikipedia entry you linked, "Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms." Edison did nothing to increase understanding of nature. What he did do was a lot of brute force engineering to make salable products, and in that realm, he's at the top of the pile.
BTW, the "Einstein failed math" thing is a pure Urban Legend.
In the Wikipedia entry you linked, "Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms." Edison did nothing to increase understanding of nature. What he did do was a lot of brute force engineering to make salable products, and in that realm, he's at the top of the pile.
BTW, the "Einstein failed math" thing is a pure Urban Legend.
What about his participation in the Draper Expedition, the solar eclipse of 1878?
Rather then copy and paste a bunch of quotes, just google "Thomas Edison Scientist", page after page has scientist in bold.
One could argue what his intentions were, or that he was a physicist, however his vast body of work makes him a Scientist by default.
ie: experimentation an manipulation of natural things, sound, electricity.
I would imagine quite a few "scientists" today have financial gain as a priority rather then furthering mankind.
"When Edison saved the life of a child in 1863, the grateful father (manager of the Mount Clemens railroad station) taught Edison telegraphy. Entranced by the new technology, Edison took up the life of an itinerant "Knight of the Key." But he continued to experiment with chemistry and began tinkering with electrical devices....."
Having said that, Edison on occasion told his secretary that he was not a scientist, he was an inventor.
However if using the literal meaning of Scientist, then he surely is.
Sci-en-tist noun: A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
Have you ever tried to invent something without physical science?
I bet it's a pretty hard thing to do.
The myth about Einstein failing math has some truth and stems from him failing an examination that would have allowed him to study for a diploma at the Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule in Zurich. (Swiss Federal Poly/tech), although I can't find what the specific failure was, so I recant my statement about him failing math specifically.
Rather then copy and paste a bunch of quotes, just google "Thomas Edison Scientist", page after page has scientist in bold.
One could argue what his intentions were, or that he was a physicist, however his vast body of work makes him a Scientist by default.
ie: experimentation an manipulation of natural things, sound, electricity.
I would imagine quite a few "scientists" today have financial gain as a priority rather then furthering mankind.
"When Edison saved the life of a child in 1863, the grateful father (manager of the Mount Clemens railroad station) taught Edison telegraphy. Entranced by the new technology, Edison took up the life of an itinerant "Knight of the Key." But he continued to experiment with chemistry and began tinkering with electrical devices....."
Having said that, Edison on occasion told his secretary that he was not a scientist, he was an inventor.
However if using the literal meaning of Scientist, then he surely is.
Sci-en-tist noun: A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
Have you ever tried to invent something without physical science?
I bet it's a pretty hard thing to do.
The myth about Einstein failing math has some truth and stems from him failing an examination that would have allowed him to study for a diploma at the Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule in Zurich. (Swiss Federal Poly/tech), although I can't find what the specific failure was, so I recant my statement about him failing math specifically.
I smell BullS$#@.
I happen to be an RF engineer. For the last 39 years I have worked for Motorola designing the radios that go into cop cars! The biggest VHF and UHF cop car radios put out 100 watts. The 700 and 800 MHz radios are limited to 35 watt due to Electromagnetic Exposure regulations (EME). I have cranked some of these radios to 150 watts (the limit) and transmitted for hours (meltdown test) the antenna does NOT get hot. If you touch the antenna WHILE the radio is transmitting you will receive a nasty RF burn. You can touch the antenna immediately after transmitting and it is cold. I have been working on cop radios for 34 of those 39 years. For the other 5 it was cell phones. I have never touched a hot (thermally) antenna.
The RFID tag shown in the picture appears to be a passive tag (no battery). It must receive enough energy from the transmitter in the reader to activate the transmitter in the tag. It would be highly unlikely that the reader could LEGALLY emit enough RF energy to power a passive transmitter 700 feet away.
Water is a lossy medium for RF. The US Navy constructed a radio transmitter for one way transmissions to submarines. To minimize the losses they used the lowest practical RF frequency. Station NAA in Maine used to transmit on 17.8 KHz. They have since switched to 24 KHz (I think). THey use 1 MW (megawatt) of RF power into a mile long loop antenna. 50 MHz would not transmit very far under water. My guess is that poor experiment design led to improper feedline decoupling, causing feedline radiation ABOVE the water line. Constructing a proper antenna experiment is not trivial. We have PHD engineers for that stuff.
Assuming I believe that is is possible to spray "nano capacitors" from a can they would have a very small capacitance between each other, possibly below 1 pF. A coating of this material would behave as a solid conductor above a certain frequency, below that frequency it is a lossy medium. What happens to a lossy medium when you pump a bunch of RF power into it?
It's real easy to test, spray some onto a non conductor, say paper, then nuke it in the microwave. If it's lossy it will all fry. If it is a good conductor, it will not burn, or burn at each 1/4 wave point (about 1.25 inches in a microwave oven). Note we used coated plastic RF shields in the early version iDEN (Nextel) phones for a low cost, light weight alternative to solid metal. They were effective at 800MHz, but pretty useless at VHF. They live in the microvave though (2.45 GHz).
Any ham radio operators here? Ever run a wire up in a tree to make an antenna? Did it work worth a damn? Why? Trees contain water! Again, water is a lossy medium for RF, much of your transmitter's RF power was spent warming up the tree!
I am sure that there are more holes in this story, but I have other things to do now. Either it is a fraud, or just bad science....cold fusion anyone?
I happen to be an RF engineer. For the last 39 years I have worked for Motorola designing the radios that go into cop cars! The biggest VHF and UHF cop car radios put out 100 watts. The 700 and 800 MHz radios are limited to 35 watt due to Electromagnetic Exposure regulations (EME). I have cranked some of these radios to 150 watts (the limit) and transmitted for hours (meltdown test) the antenna does NOT get hot. If you touch the antenna WHILE the radio is transmitting you will receive a nasty RF burn. You can touch the antenna immediately after transmitting and it is cold. I have been working on cop radios for 34 of those 39 years. For the other 5 it was cell phones. I have never touched a hot (thermally) antenna.
The RFID tag shown in the picture appears to be a passive tag (no battery). It must receive enough energy from the transmitter in the reader to activate the transmitter in the tag. It would be highly unlikely that the reader could LEGALLY emit enough RF energy to power a passive transmitter 700 feet away.
Water is a lossy medium for RF. The US Navy constructed a radio transmitter for one way transmissions to submarines. To minimize the losses they used the lowest practical RF frequency. Station NAA in Maine used to transmit on 17.8 KHz. They have since switched to 24 KHz (I think). THey use 1 MW (megawatt) of RF power into a mile long loop antenna. 50 MHz would not transmit very far under water. My guess is that poor experiment design led to improper feedline decoupling, causing feedline radiation ABOVE the water line. Constructing a proper antenna experiment is not trivial. We have PHD engineers for that stuff.
Assuming I believe that is is possible to spray "nano capacitors" from a can they would have a very small capacitance between each other, possibly below 1 pF. A coating of this material would behave as a solid conductor above a certain frequency, below that frequency it is a lossy medium. What happens to a lossy medium when you pump a bunch of RF power into it?
It's real easy to test, spray some onto a non conductor, say paper, then nuke it in the microwave. If it's lossy it will all fry. If it is a good conductor, it will not burn, or burn at each 1/4 wave point (about 1.25 inches in a microwave oven). Note we used coated plastic RF shields in the early version iDEN (Nextel) phones for a low cost, light weight alternative to solid metal. They were effective at 800MHz, but pretty useless at VHF. They live in the microvave though (2.45 GHz).
Any ham radio operators here? Ever run a wire up in a tree to make an antenna? Did it work worth a damn? Why? Trees contain water! Again, water is a lossy medium for RF, much of your transmitter's RF power was spent warming up the tree!
I am sure that there are more holes in this story, but I have other things to do now. Either it is a fraud, or just bad science....cold fusion anyone?
Draper was the astronomer, not Edison.
No contributions in chemistry, no contributions in physics. No Edison Equation, Edison's Law, or anything like that. You can call him a scientist, if you like, but that doesn't make him one. Yes, you can find lots of Google hits on your search term, which means only that there's lots of people out there with comic book ideas of what science is (a quick look at some of the things said on this site confirms that!).
You're also still incorrect about Einstein- his performance on the entrance exams for Zurich in math and physics were graded as "outstanding." His performance in French was a different matter.
No contributions in physics??? Are you reading this by candle light?
Remember not so long ago record players were considered "physics" type devices.
-Thermonic emission was "rediscovered" by Edison in 1880.
-Graduate of the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale.
-His invention of the carbon telephone button lead to the invention of the microphone which made early radio possible, as well as the solid state diode.
-Has at least one "pure science" patent.
-Built his first "Science Laboratory" at age 10.
Edison's Law: "Better is the enemy of good"
If you read the dictionary definition for scientist, where does it state you must come up with a "Law, Equation, Contribution" etc?
Scientist/ noun : A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more natural or physical sciences.
How does Edison not fit this definition in every respect?
Remember not so long ago record players were considered "physics" type devices.
-Thermonic emission was "rediscovered" by Edison in 1880.
-Graduate of the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale.
-His invention of the carbon telephone button lead to the invention of the microphone which made early radio possible, as well as the solid state diode.
-Has at least one "pure science" patent.
-Built his first "Science Laboratory" at age 10.
Edison's Law: "Better is the enemy of good"
If you read the dictionary definition for scientist, where does it state you must come up with a "Law, Equation, Contribution" etc?
Scientist/ noun : A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more natural or physical sciences.
How does Edison not fit this definition in every respect?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.