[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 60 KB, 558x619, engineer-cuck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

10136844

Earthquake Machine Anonymous Mon Nov 12 23:00:26 2018 No.10136844 [Reply] [Original]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla%27s_oscillator
>Tesla said the oscillator was around 7 inches (18 cm) long, and weighing one or two pounds
>Tesla claimed the mechanical oscillator could destroy the Empire State Building with "Five pounds of air pressure" if attached on a girder
>incredibly simple device
>wikipedia article doesn't explain shit about why it wouldn't work
>can't source any working prototypes harboring destructive potential
>can't find proper explanation for why it wouldn't work
The guiding principle behind the idea of a destructive resonance device kinda makes sense from what I've read. I read that buildings design around the threat using "earthquake protection" but I'm still highly skeptical that a tiny machine could destroy a large building, as Tesla claimed, protected or not.
So what's stopping me from building a tiny resonator capable of destroying large objects? Why wouldn't it work?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 12 23:02:28 2018 No.10136847 >>10136844 It does work, mythbusters tested it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 12 23:06:33 2018 No.10136853 >>10136847 Why can't I find any videos of people wrecking shit with these devices?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 12 23:16:09 2018 No.10136862 >>10136853 Because they're not doomsday-tier like Tesla was hoping.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 12 23:22:56 2018 No.10136872 >>10136844 >>10136853 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kQP8Hbl9RM

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 12 23:23:13 2018 No.10136873 >>10136862 EVIDENTLY. NOW TELL ME WHY YOU MONG

>>

Anonymous Mon Nov 12 23:30:34 2018 No.10136884
File: 1.32 MB, 2217x1600, destroy-it.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10136872
>the cabinet fucking shakes a little
I'm not satisfied. Does this shit work or not? The principle of oscillations getting progressively more intense makes sense to me, but I still don't know exactly what's stopping me from destroying large objects under that principle using such a tiny device.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 13 02:08:39 2018 No.10137148 >>10136844 >destructive resonance device pilotbeacon.me/facebookearthquakes

>>

Anonymous Tue Nov 13 02:43:21 2018 No.10137200
File: 126 KB, 634x617, iprqru.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10137148
Just what the fuck. What am I supposed to make of this? Fuck it, and fuck you, and maybe tesla really was a genius. Maybe jew physics is really a coverup to protect the luminiferous aether from discovery, and maybe tesla did build flying cars and death rays and a steam-powered vibrator capable of leveling cities. Who's to question any of these things? Certainly not /sci/, that's for fucking sure. This shit is fucking bullshit and you faggots don't even care.

>>

Anonymous Tue Nov 13 02:48:59 2018 No.10137208

>>10137200
If "it" has destructive potential, whatever it may be, you can be damn sure the US military has investigated it, and probably tested it. Especially during the cold war. Since no devices using such a mechanism have been reported, it is unlikely it it more efficient, cheaper, or easier to deploy than c4.

You don't have to necessarily question or test everything yourself if you just look where the money goes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 13 02:54:54 2018 No.10137216 >>10137208 motherfucker I know it doesn't work, but I still haven't figured out why

>>

Anonymous Tue Nov 13 02:59:45 2018 No.10137222

Without having any especial knowledge of physics, it could be that a building or bridge or whatever is simply too complicated for the device too work on. Too many differing natural harmonics, too many things acting as dampers. A big structure like a bridge often has big gaps built into it to allow for thermal expansion, that could mess with a resonator based on ambient temperature

>>

Anonymous Tue Nov 13 03:14:32 2018 No.10137241

>>10136844
It doesn't really work, because most things are consteucted from different parts woth different resonance frequency, so what you describe can't really happen. Like steel reinforced concrete. The resonance of the steel beams differs from that of the concrete.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 13 03:17:15 2018 No.10137243 >>10136844 >tesla reddit meme at /sci/ we believe in fucking EDISON

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 13 03:34:11 2018 No.10137267 >>10137243 this site is for 18+

>>

Anonymous Tue Nov 13 03:44:42 2018 No.10137277

>>10137200
>What am I supposed to make of this?

an earthquake. if u can work out how I reverse-engineered one using facebook as a destructive resonance device, we might get arrested, so don't.

I made sure to use gentle music so the impact wasn't too great.

how did you like my aim? I think it was damn near perfect.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 13 04:04:12 2018 No.10137293 >>10137277 Hit or miss? I bet you never miss huh?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 13 04:31:07 2018 No.10137317 >>10137293 I haven't done it since that last one because I don't think it's wise

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 13 08:09:53 2018 No.10137512 >>10137216 It works through constructive wave patterns. However, you would find the device quite easily since it is sourced usually at the center of the building and takes its time building up.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 13 08:21:24 2018 No.10137525 >>10137243 >at /sci/ we believe in fucking EDISON neither was a /sci/entist, both were engineers. "at /sci/" we believe engineers are all raging homosexuals.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 13 08:30:15 2018 No.10137534 >>10136884 The system maxes out after enough resonance input and will either break or remain stable.

>>

Anonymous Tue Nov 13 16:19:23 2018 No.10138292

>>10137216
When wave travels to the end if a structure, it bounces back and return to the source. If at the same time it returns to the source, the source imparts the wave again, the new wave is added to the old one. The period of time it takes for the wave to return is called the object's resonant frequency.

Large, tall buildings have tuned mass dampeners installed that have a resonant frequency essentially inverted from the structure's resonant frequency, that would counter any such vibrations, dampening them. These are installed already not in case of an attack, but because wind alone is enough to destroy buildings when conditions are right. They also reduce the impact of earthquakes.

The reason a small device would never be able to destroy a building is because it would take so much power just to influence so much mass. It would more quickly destroy the support it is attached to than it would shake apart the building. And do it less effectively than c4 or thermite would.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 13 23:28:22 2018 No.10139256 >>10136847 Not at all. Mythbusters were surprised as hell such a small device created a resonance on that bridge, but in no way did it cause destruction. That said Tesla didn't build the thing.