The Implausible Story of Edison's Lightbulb Rectification Er

[Bret Cahill]

One account claims Edison opposed AC thinking that AC wouldn't work or
wouldn't work as well as DC in his incandescent bulb.

At low enough frequencies, maybe < 10 Hz, radiation heat transfer is
fast enough so that the filiamet spends some time outside the visible
light range reducing the efficiency somewhat. Flicker is irritating
and might have been another low frequency concern.

The story is hard to believe when it would be so easy to try AC out at
various frequencies and compare it with DC.

Edison was notorious for discovering everything experimentally, not
theoritically, so it isn't like Edison wouldn't have tried.

Supposedly Newton screwed up on his steam jet carriage when a few
minutes of calculations based on his own laws would have predicted it
wouldn't have the propulsion efficiency. The only explanation is
Newton knew in advance it wouldn't have enough thrust but got a
defense contract or something.

Maybe Edison just opposed anything the theoritician Tesla supported.
Supposedly the hatred between the two inventors was as spiteful as
anything you see here on newsgroups, Edison asking Tesla about Serbs
eating human flesh and Tesla claiming Edison never took a bath.


Bret Cahill

 

[m II]

On 10-11-08 08:23 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:

Maybe Edison just opposed anything the theoritician Tesla supported.
Supposedly the hatred between the two inventors was as spiteful as
anything you see here on newsgroups, Edison asking Tesla about Serbs
eating human flesh and Tesla claiming Edison never took a bath.

Tesla was once asked about a misattributed to Edison quote. The one
that says "genius is 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration"

Tesla replied "If Mister Edison had a better education, he wouldn't need
to perspire so much"

The fact that Edison stole literally billions from Tesla certainly
didn't help their relationship.




mike

 

In alt.philosophy m II <C@in.the.hat> wrote:
[...]

The fact that Edison stole literally billions from Tesla certainly
didn't help their relationship.

"Tesla came over from Graz and went to work for Thomas Edison [in 1884].
Edison couldn't stand Tesla for several reasons. One was that Tesla showed
up for work every day in formal dress - morning coat, spats, top hat and
gloves - and this just wasn't the American Way at the time. Edison also
hated Tesla because Tesla invented so many things while wearing
these clothes."
-Laurie Anderson, "Dance of Electricity".

The clash between the 2 was inevitable given the psychology.
Both Tesla and Edison were what later psychologists
would classify as "extroverted thinking" (ET) types. Such personalities
are attracted to careers in physics and engineering or similar.
In typical cases ET's suffer a creativity block after age 35 or so and
tend to take their frustrations out on those of lower status. Physics
professors shouting abuse at junior colleagues or students for trivial
mistakes is characteristic. Older ET's are conservative and not open
to new ideas and particularly don't like concepts they didn't author
themselves.

The relative ages at the time Tesla (b 1856) came to work for Edison
(b 1847) might indicate their positions with respect to the "developed" DC
technology versus an unproven AC power system. Edison was 38 at the time
he asked Tesla to improve his DC dynamo.

From various sources (see the man at Google):

In the distribution of electricity, alternating current has distinct
advantages over direct current. Levels of voltage and current can be
readily transformed with AC, allowing distribution of power over distances
of hundreds of miles. DC power, on the other hand, is difficult to distribute
in usable levels more than two miles between generator and user.

This was already well-known in the 1880s. Direct current, however, was still
the predominant type of power being installed at the time. The reason, simply
put, was that nobody had yet figured out how to build reliable AC motors
and equipment. AC devices in use at the time used "commutators" - mechanical
current-switchers - to operate, and frequently failed due to heat,
vibration, and an excess of moving parts.

Some scientists and inventors had been trying for years to find solutions
to these problems. Other inventors and financiers, who had invested in DC
power systems, weren't interested in solutions. DC power was firmly under
their financial control, and they saw anything that challenged DC not as
an improvement, but as a threat.

Thomas Alva Edison did not fully understand the light bulbs that he himself
had invented. Though the carbon filaments would work from AC or DC current
equally well, Edison himself believed his electric lights would only work
with DC. It was to be years before he learned of his error. In any event,
when Tesla first arrived in America in 1884, Edison had a large vested
interest - both financial and emotional - in the DC power plants which he
had been building, and which the "robber baron" J. Pierpont Morgan had been
financing.

When Tesla arrived in the United States and sought Edison's backing for
his new AC devices, therefore, Edison refused to listen.

"Hold up! Spare me that nonsense. It's dangerous. We're set up for direct
current in America. People like it, and it's all I'll ever fool with."

Edison promised Tesla $50k to ruggedise Edison's DC generators. When
Tesla solved some technical problems and asked for payment, Edison
apparently told Tesla he did not understand the American sense of humor
and paid him nothing. Tesla was then out of a job but later went
to work for rival Westinghouse.

Subsuently Edison was known to demonstrate the "evil" new AC system by
publicly executing dogs. Taking one of the frightened pets stolen from
the streets of West Orange, Edison would place it on a sheet of metal,
bring forth two wires attached to an AC generator, and announce to
spectators, "Ladies and gentlemen, I shall now demonstrate
the effects of AC current on this dog."

--
R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>

If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken

 

On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 07:23:44 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com> wrote:

One account claims Edison opposed AC thinking that AC wouldn't work or
wouldn't work as well as DC in his incandescent bulb.

At low enough frequencies, maybe < 10 Hz, radiation heat transfer is
fast enough so that the filiamet spends some time outside the visible
light range reducing the efficiency somewhat. Flicker is irritating
and might have been another low frequency concern.

The story is hard to believe when it would be so easy to try AC out at
various frequencies and compare it with DC.

Edison was notorious for discovering everything experimentally, not
theoritically, so it isn't like Edison wouldn't have tried.

Supposedly Newton screwed up on his steam jet carriage when a few
minutes of calculations based on his own laws would have predicted it
wouldn't have the propulsion efficiency. The only explanation is
Newton knew in advance it wouldn't have enough thrust but got a
defense contract or something.

Maybe Edison just opposed anything the theoritician Tesla supported.
Supposedly the hatred between the two inventors was as spiteful as
anything you see here on newsgroups, Edison asking Tesla about Serbs
eating human flesh and Tesla claiming Edison never took a bath.


Bret Cahill

Edison was probably a real asshole from the looks of things. His
anti-smoking campaign that included cigarettes in his factory but not
his cigars. His propaganda on the worthlessness of platinum (when he
discovered he needed it for his light bulbs and found what it cost).
His well known anti AC campaign which included electrocuting an
elephant as a demonstration on the dangerous nature of AC, versus DC.

Not to belittle his achievements; but there could be only one planet
in his orbit.

I visited his NJ factory and house. They showed his working library
with his notes in various books - and rude comments about the
veracity, lineage, and competence of the authors. His house had
another library of unread books just for show (apparently that had
snob appeal in his era) You knew you had "arrived" when you could
afford to own all the classics. Unread- because the pages weren't
separated - still uncut. The factory had a large motor or generator
on display with long magnets, and actual brushes (like millions of
fine copper wires clamped in a holder). He had one early Otis Safety
Elevator in the factory/lab.

Definitely worth the price of admission if you are in the West Orange,
New Jersey, area. (Yonkers NY was close enough to make it worth my
while).

 

[Bret Cahill]

One account claims Edison opposed AC thinking that AC wouldn't work or
wouldn't work as well as DC in his incandescent bulb.

At low enough frequencies, maybe < 10 Hz, radiation heat transfer is
fast enough so that the filiamet spends some time outside the visible
light range reducing the efficiency somewhat.  Flicker is irritating
and might have been another low frequency concern.

The story is hard to believe when it would be so easy to try AC out at
various frequencies and compare it with DC.

Edison was notorious for discovering everything experimentally, not
theoritically, so it isn't like Edison wouldn't have tried.

Supposedly Newton screwed up on his steam jet carriage when a few
minutes of calculations based on his own laws would have predicted it
wouldn't have the propulsion efficiency.  The only explanation is
Newton knew in advance it wouldn't have enough thrust but got a
defense contract or something.

Maybe Edison just opposed anything the theoritician Tesla supported.
Supposedly the hatred between the two inventors was as spiteful as
anything you see here on newsgroups, Edison asking Tesla about Serbs
eating human flesh and Tesla claiming Edison never took a bath.

Bret Cahill

Edison was probably a real asshole from the looks of things.  His
anti-smoking campaign that included cigarettes in his factory but not
his cigars.  His propaganda on the worthlessness of platinum (when he
discovered he needed it for his light bulbs and found what it cost).
His well known anti AC campaign which included electrocuting an
elephant as a demonstration on the dangerous nature of  AC, versus DC.

Not to belittle his achievements;  but there could be only one planet
in his orbit.

The independent nature of creative thinking may make it difficult to
be thoughtful about the needs of others.

You don't see a whole lot of want ads for "prima donna care
providers."

I visited his NJ factory and house.  They showed his working library
with his notes in various books - and rude comments about the
veracity, lineage, and competence of the authors.  His house had
another library of unread books just for show (apparently that had
snob appeal in his era)  You knew you had "arrived" when you could
afford to own all the classics.  Unread- because the pages weren't
separated - still uncut.  The factory had a large motor or generator
on display with long magnets, and actual brushes (like millions of
fine copper wires clamped in a holder).  He had one early Otis Safety
Elevator in the factory/lab.

Definitely worth the price of admission if you are in the West Orange,
New Jersey, area.   (Yonkers NY was close enough to make it worth my
while).

Edison wintered in Ft. Myers, FL, and his lab there is now a museum.
USF may have opened a branch campus there under the Chiles
Administration on or near Edison Community College.


Bret Cahill

 

[Fred Abse]

On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 17:35:46 +0000, kym wrote:

This was already well-known in the 1880s. Direct current, however, was still
the predominant type of power being installed at the time. The reason, simply
put, was that nobody had yet figured out how to build reliable AC motors
and equipment. AC devices in use at the time used "commutators" - mechanical
current-switchers

DC motors used (and still use) commutators - to operate, and frequently

AC motors *may*, but usually do not. Part of Tesla's contribution to the
art.

Precisely the wrong way round. Probably the result of Google / Wikipedia /
Answers.com "research", of the sort favored by "technical" journalists.

--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
(Richard Feynman)

 

[Bret Cahill]

This was already well-known in the 1880s. Direct current, however, was still
the predominant type of power being installed at the time. The reason, simply
put, was that nobody had yet figured out how to build reliable AC motors
and equipment. AC devices in use at the time used "commutators" - mechanical
current-switchers

DC motors used (and still use) commutators - to operate, and frequently

True but most of the multi hp electric motors in industry now are AC.

They are reliable and 95% efficient without any rare earth materials.


Bret Cahill

 

On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 07:47:30 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com> wrote:

One account claims Edison opposed AC thinking that AC wouldn't work or
wouldn't work as well as DC in his incandescent bulb.

At low enough frequencies, maybe < 10 Hz, radiation heat transfer is
fast enough so that the filiamet spends some time outside the visible
light range reducing the efficiency somewhat.  Flicker is irritating
and might have been another low frequency concern.

The story is hard to believe when it would be so easy to try AC out at
various frequencies and compare it with DC.

Edison was notorious for discovering everything experimentally, not
theoritically, so it isn't like Edison wouldn't have tried.

Supposedly Newton screwed up on his steam jet carriage when a few
minutes of calculations based on his own laws would have predicted it
wouldn't have the propulsion efficiency.  The only explanation is
Newton knew in advance it wouldn't have enough thrust but got a
defense contract or something.

Maybe Edison just opposed anything the theoritician Tesla supported.
Supposedly the hatred between the two inventors was as spiteful as
anything you see here on newsgroups, Edison asking Tesla about Serbs
eating human flesh and Tesla claiming Edison never took a bath.

Bret Cahill

Edison was probably a real asshole from the looks of things.  His
anti-smoking campaign that included cigarettes in his factory but not
his cigars.  His propaganda on the worthlessness of platinum (when he
discovered he needed it for his light bulbs and found what it cost).
His well known anti AC campaign which included electrocuting an
elephant as a demonstration on the dangerous nature of  AC, versus DC.

Not to belittle his achievements;  but there could be only one planet
in his orbit.

The independent nature of creative thinking may make it difficult to
be thoughtful about the needs of others.

You don't see a whole lot of want ads for "prima donna care
providers."

Yeah but... Tesla managed to stay a pauper in spite of inventing the
things that made Edison Marconi Westinghouse and others very wealthy,
so it isn't creativity per se.

Bill Gates is like Edison in some respects.

I visited his NJ factory and house.  They showed his working library
with his notes in various books - and rude comments about the
veracity, lineage, and competence of the authors.  His house had
another library of unread books just for show (apparently that had
snob appeal in his era)  You knew you had "arrived" when you could
afford to own all the classics.  Unread- because the pages weren't
separated - still uncut.  The factory had a large motor or generator
on display with long magnets, and actual brushes (like millions of
fine copper wires clamped in a holder).  He had one early Otis Safety
Elevator in the factory/lab.

Definitely worth the price of admission if you are in the West Orange,
New Jersey, area.   (Yonkers NY was close enough to make it worth my
while).

Edison wintered in Ft. Myers, FL, and his lab there is now a museum.
USF may have opened a branch campus there under the Chiles
Administration on or near Edison Community College.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

One account claims Edison opposed AC thinking that AC wouldn't work or
wouldn't work as well as DC in his incandescent bulb.

At low enough frequencies, maybe < 10 Hz, radiation heat transfer is
fast enough so that the filiamet spends some time outside the visible
light range reducing the efficiency somewhat. Flicker is irritating
and might have been another low frequency concern.

The story is hard to believe when it would be so easy to try AC out at
various frequencies and compare it with DC.

Edison was notorious for discovering everything experimentally, not
theoritically, so it isn't like Edison wouldn't have tried.

Supposedly Newton screwed up on his steam jet carriage when a few
minutes of calculations based on his own laws would have predicted it
wouldn't have the propulsion efficiency. The only explanation is
Newton knew in advance it wouldn't have enough thrust but got a
defense contract or something.

Maybe Edison just opposed anything the theoritician Tesla supported.
Supposedly the hatred between the two inventors was as spiteful as
anything you see here on newsgroups, Edison asking Tesla about Serbs
eating human flesh and Tesla claiming Edison never took a bath.

Bret Cahill

Edison was probably a real asshole from the looks of things. His
anti-smoking campaign that included cigarettes in his factory but not
his cigars. His propaganda on the worthlessness of platinum (when he
discovered he needed it for his light bulbs and found what it cost).
His well known anti AC campaign which included electrocuting an
elephant as a demonstration on the dangerous nature of AC, versus DC.

Not to belittle his achievements; but there could be only one planet
in his orbit.

The independent nature of creative thinking may make it difficult to
be thoughtful about the needs of others.

You don't see a whole lot of want ads for "prima donna care
providers."

Yeah but... Tesla managed to stay a pauper in spite of inventing the
things that made Edison Marconi Westinghouse and others very wealthy,
so it isn't creativity per se.

Bill Gates is like Edison in some respects.

"You haven't been paying attention if you haven't observed the rich
stealing from the poor."

-- Nietzsche

"Nowadays it is impossible not to notice."

-- Bret Cahill

 

[Rich Grise]

Bret Cahill wrote:

"You haven't been paying attention if you haven't observed the rich
stealing from the poor."

What can you steal from people who have nothing?

Thanks,
Rich

 

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:55:58 -0800, Rich Grise
<richg@example.net.invalid> wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:

"You haven't been paying attention if you haven't observed the rich
stealing from the poor."

What can you steal from people who have nothing?

Thanks,
Rich

Poor is different than having nothing.

Payday loans, rent to own schemes, televangelists, lotteries, etc.
are perfect examples, where marketing and manipulation are big
business and the poor are their biggest customers.

 

[David Sanders]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:55:58 -0800, Rich Grise wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:

"You haven't been paying attention if you haven't observed the rich
stealing from the poor."

What can you steal from people who have nothing?

Thanks,
Rich

Testicles and vagina lips.
--
Shit! I thought no one knew, goddammit!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/29p4ody
Me, jacking off! http://preview.tinyurl.com/3xpntge Available For
Lessons!

 

[Winston]

Jamie wrote:

David Sanders wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:55:58 -0800, Rich Grise wrote:


Bret Cahill wrote:

"You haven't been paying attention if you haven't observed the rich
stealing from the poor."

What can you steal from people who have nothing?

Thanks,
Rich


Testicles and vagina lips.
Not everyone has those!

We have one of each. On average.

--Winston

 

[Jamie]

David Sanders wrote:

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:55:58 -0800, Rich Grise wrote:


Bret Cahill wrote:

"You haven't been paying attention if you haven't observed the rich
stealing from the poor."

What can you steal from people who have nothing?

Thanks,
Rich


Testicles and vagina lips.
Not everyone has those!

 

[Bret Cahill]

"You haven't been paying attention if you haven't observed the rich
stealing from the poor."

What can you steal from people who have nothing?

IP is nothing?


Bret Cahill

 

[m II]

On 10-11-10 01:23 PM, default wrote:

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:55:58 -0800, Rich Grise
richg@example.net.invalid> wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:

"You haven't been paying attention if you haven't observed the rich
stealing from the poor."

What can you steal from people who have nothing?

Thanks,
Rich

Poor is different than having nothing.

Payday loans, rent to own schemes, televangelists, lotteries, etc.
are perfect examples, where marketing and manipulation are big
business and the poor are their biggest customers.

The cost of hamburger meat and macaroni is higher in lower income
neighbourhoods. Their rents are higher per capita income. Traffic fines
and court penalties are also disproportionate between the classes.



mike

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:55:11 -0700, m II <C@in.the.hat> wrote:

On 10-11-10 01:23 PM, default wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:55:58 -0800, Rich Grise
richg@example.net.invalid> wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:

"You haven't been paying attention if you haven't observed the rich
stealing from the poor."

What can you steal from people who have nothing?

Thanks,
Rich

Poor is different than having nothing.

Payday loans, rent to own schemes, televangelists, lotteries, etc.
are perfect examples, where marketing and manipulation are big
business and the poor are their biggest customers.


The cost of hamburger meat and macaroni is higher in lower income
neighbourhoods.

The costs of doing business are higher.

Their rents are higher per capita income.

What a stupid statement.

Traffic fines and court penalties are also disproportionate between the classes.

It would be a good idea to avoid such, then huh?

 

[Bret Cahill]

"You haven't been paying attention if you haven't observed the rich
stealing from the poor."

What can you steal from people who have nothing?

Thanks,
Rich

Poor  is different than having  nothing.

Payday loans, rent to own schemes, televangelists, lotteries, etc.
are  perfect examples, where marketing and manipulation are big
business and the poor are their biggest customers.

The cost of hamburger meat and macaroni is higher in lower income
neighbourhoods. Their rents are higher per capita income. Traffic fines
and court penalties are also disproportionate between the classes.

The biggest rip off of the poor of all is that they are never paid
market wages in the first place.

Anyone can prove this to himself by watching "market" economists dodge
The Question:

www.bretcahill.com

Every market economists on that list know exactly what is at stake but
they only have three choices for a response:

1. the correct and obvious answer and start looking for a job in the
productive sector. It is 100% certain they would be fired and then
vilified.

2. contradict a self evident truth and start looking for a job in the
productive sector.

3. dodge as long as possible and slowly undermine free marketry.

All this issue dodging could easily come to an end in the future.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

"You haven't been paying attention if you haven't observed the rich
stealing from the poor."

What can you steal from people who have nothing?

Thanks,
Rich

Poor  is different than having  nothing.  

He may have meant cash or tangible assets.

Payday loans, rent to own schemes, televangelists, lotteries, etc.
are  perfect examples, where marketing and manipulation are big
business and the poor are their biggest customers.

And then you have the media doing everything possible to Jerry
Springerize the political debate.


Bret Cahill

 

On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:30:04 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com> wrote:

"You haven't been paying attention if you haven't observed the rich
stealing from the poor."

What can you steal from people who have nothing?

Thanks,
Rich

Poor  is different than having  nothing.  

He may have meant cash or tangible assets.

Yes, undoubtedly.

Interesting. I think nearly everyone means monetary wealth when they
differentiate rich and poor.

We sell people on what they "need" often not making a distinction on
need and want. Marketing manipulation is very successful in the
developed world and is being exported to the developing world.

Some folks are able to possess a lot and still feel poor. We are
taught from birth that money buys happiness, and that idea is
continually reinforced. We begin to see our own importance in terms
of relative monetary wealth or the acquisition of conspicuous
"things."

The goal in life is happiness and satisfaction; everything else is
secondary, but you'd never guess it listening to the marketeers,
politicos, or religions of the world. Wealth and power - theirs not
yours.

Payday loans, rent to own schemes, televangelists, lotteries, etc.
are  perfect examples, where marketing and manipulation are big
business and the poor are their biggest customers.

And then you have the media doing everything possible to Jerry
Springerize the political debate.


Bret Cahill


The fact that Jerry Springer, Sarah Palin, Glen Beck and a host of

others draw so large a following, suggests that scads of people are
unable or unwilling to do their own thinking. That should give one
pause.

Maybe humans are so flawed they can never reach the potential they
seem capable of. For every Leonardo - there are far too many
"Springers."