Top
Best
New

Posted by jnord 21 hours ago

Data centers are transitioning from AC to DC(spectrum.ieee.org)
273 points | 336 commentspage 3
sghiassy 20 hours ago|
I’ve always wondered about these new High-Voltage DC (HVDC) transmission lines.

I always thought AC’s primary benefit was its transmission efficiency??

Would love to learn if anyone knows more about this

adgjlsfhk1 20 hours ago||
AC is less efficient than DC at a given voltage. The advantage of AC is that voltage switching is cheap, easy and efficient. Switching DC voltage is way harder, more expensive, and less efficient. However the switching costs are O(1) and the transmission losses are O(n) so for some distance (currently somewhere around 500 km) it's worth paying the switching cost to get super high voltage DC. The big thing that's changed in the last ~30 years is a ton of research into high voltage transistors, and fast enough computers to do computer controlled mhz switching of giant high power transistors. These new super fancy switching technologies brought the switching costs down from ludicrous to annoyingly high.
arijun 20 hours ago||
> AC is less efficient than DC at a given voltage

To expand on this, a given power line can only take a set maximum current and voltage before it becomes a problem. DC can stay at this maximum voltage constantly, while AC spends time going to zero voltage and back, so it's delivering less power on the same line.

adiabatichottub 18 hours ago|||
Maybe if by "same voltage" we mean DC voltage the same as AC peak voltage. When we talk about AC voltage we are referring to root-mean-square (RMS) voltage. It's kind of like saying the average, though for math reasons the average of an unbiased sine wave is 0. Anyhooo, 1 VRMS into a load will produce the same power as 1VDC. If AC delivered less power than DC at the same voltage then life would be very confusing.
manwe150 18 hours ago||||
That’s true, but my understanding is the main contributor is skin effect, since AC travels only on the surface of the wire, while DC uses the whole area, resulting in lower resistance loss (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect)
adgjlsfhk1 19 hours ago|||
this iirc is the smallest of 3 problems. the other 2 are skin effect (AC wires only store power on the outside of the wire) and capacitive effects (a write running parallel to the ground is a capacitor and AC current is equivalent to constantly charging and discharging the capacitor)
cogman10 20 hours ago|||
The primary benefit of AC is it's really easy to change the voltage of AC up or down.

The transmission efficiency of AC comes from the fact that you can pretty trivially make a 1 megavolt AC line. The higher the voltage, the lower the current has to be to provide the same amount of power. And lower current means less power in line loss due to how electricity be.

But that really is the only advantage of AC. DC at the same voltage as AC will ultimately be more efficient, especially if it's humid or the line is underwater. Due to how electricy be, a change in the current of a line will induce a current into conductive materials. A portion of AC power is being drained simply by the fact that the current on the line is constantly alternating. DC doesn't alternate, so it doesn't ever lose power from that alternation.

Another key benefit of DC is can work to bridge grids. The thing causing a problem with grids being interconnected is entirely due to the nature of AC power. AC has a frequency and a phase. If two grids don't share a frequency (happens in the EU) or a phase (happens everywhere, particularly the grids in the US) they cannot be connected. Otherwise the power generators end up fighting each other rather than providing power to a load.

In short, AC won because it it was cheap and easy to make high voltage AC. DC is comming back because it's only somewhat recently been affordable to make similar transformations on DC from High to low and low to high voltages. DC carries further benefits that AC does not.

prezk 20 hours ago|||
Important factor is that AC at given nominal voltage V swings between 1.41V and -1.41V, so it requires let's say 40% better/thicker insulation than the equivalent V volts DC line. This is OK for overhead lines (just space the wires more) but is a pain for buried or undersea transmission lines; for that reason, they tend to use DC nowadays.

BTW, megavolt DC DC converters are a sign to behold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pole_2_Thyristor_Valve.jp...

topspin 18 hours ago|||
> I always thought AC’s primary benefit was its transmission efficiency??

There are many factors involved, and "efficiency" is only one. Cost is the real driver, as with everything.

AC is effective when you need to step down frequently. Think transformers on poles everywhere. Stepping down AC using transformers means you can use smaller, cheaper conductors to get from high voltage transmission, lower voltage distribution and, finally lower voltage consumers. Without this, you need massive conductors and/or high voltages and all the costs that go with them.

AC is less effective, for instance, when transmitting high power over long, uninterrupted distances or feeding high density DC loads. Here, the reactive[1] power penalty of AC begins to dominate. This is a far less common problem, and so "Tesla won" is the widely held mental shortcut. Physics doesn't care, however; the DC case remains and is applied when necessary to reduce cost.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_reactance

cjbgkagh 20 hours ago||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
shdudns 20 hours ago||
How is DC better than a three phase delta 800Vrms, at 400Hz?

- Three conductors vs two, but they can be the next gauge up since the current flows on three conductors

- no significant skin effect at 400Hz -> use speaker wire, lol.

- large voltage/current DC brakers are.. gnarly, and expensive. DC does not like to stop flowing

- The 400Hz distribution industry is massive; the entire aerospace industry runs on it. No need for niche or custom parts.

- 3 phase @ 400Hz is x6 = 2.4kHz. Six diodes will rectify it with almost no relevant amount of ripple (Vmin is 87% of Vmax) and very small caps will smooth it.

As an aside, with three (or more) phase you can use multi-tap transformers and get an arbitrary number of poles. 7 phases at 400Hz -> 5.6kHz. Your PSU is now 14 diodes and a ceramic cap.

- you still get to use step up/down transformers, but at 400Hz they're very small.

- merging power sources is a lot easier (but for the phase angle)

- DC-DC converters are great, but you're not going to beat a transformer in efficiency or reliability

adamking 20 hours ago||
> no significant skin effect at 400Hz -> use speaker wire, lol

now run that unshielded wire 50 meters past racks of GPUs and enjoy your EMI

> The 400Hz distribution industry is massive; the entire aerospace industry runs on it

nothing in that catalog is rated for 100kW–1MW rack loads at 800Vrms

> 3 phase @ 400Hz is x6 = 2.4kHz... Your PSU is now 14 diodes and a ceramic cap

you still need an inverter-based UPS upstream, which is the exact conversion stage DC eliminates

> large voltage/current DC breakers are.. gnarly, and expensive. DC does not like to stop flowing

SiC solid-state DC breakers are shipping today from every major vendor

> DC-DC converters are great, but you're not going to beat a transformer in efficiency or reliability

wide-bandgap converters are at 95%+ with no moving parts

shdudns 19 hours ago||
"now run that unshielded wire 50 meters past racks of GPUs and enjoy your EMI"

Multipole expansion scales faster than r^2.

Also, im not in the field (clearly) but GPUs cant handle 2.4 kHz? The quarter wavelength is 30km.

"nothing in that catalog is rated for 100kW–1MW rack loads at 800Vrms"

Current wise, the catalog covers this track just fine. As to the voltages, well that's the whole point of AC! The voltage you need is but a few loops of wire away.

"you still need an inverter-based UPS upstream, which is the exact conversion stage DC eliminates"

So keep it? To clarify, this is the "we're too good for plebeian power, so we'll transform it AC->DC->AC", right?

"SiC solid-state DC breakers are shipping today from every major vendor"

Of course they do. They're also pricey, have limited current capability (both capital costs and therefore irrelevant when the industry is awash with GCC money) and lower conduction, and therefore higher heat.

They're really nice though.

"wide-bandgap converters are at 95%+ with no moving parts"

transformers have no moving parts. Loaded they can do 97%+ efficiency, or 2MW of heat eliminated on a 100MW center.

prezk 20 hours ago|||
An advanced AI rack might use 100kW = 800V 125A, requiring gauge 2, quarter inch diameter---this isn't your lol speaker wire. Actually, I apologize, I realized I may be talking to a serious audiophile, didn't mean to disrespect your Monster cables.

The skin depth by the way is sqrt(2 1.7e-8 ohm m / (2 pi 400Hz mu0))=~3mm for copper---OK for single rack, but starts to be significant for the type of bus bars that an aisle of racks might want.

As for efficiency, both 400Hz transformers AND fancy DC-DC converters are around 95% efficient, except that AC requires electronics to rectify it to DC, losing another few percent, so the slight advantage goes to DC, actually.

As for merging power, remember that DC DC converter uses an internal AC stage, so it's the same---you can have multiple primary windings, just like for plain AC.

bigiain 19 hours ago||
> I realized I may be talking to a serious audiophile, didn't mean to disrespect your Monster cables.

I am a recovering audiophool.

I do own a pair of 2m long Monster Cable speaker cables (with locking gold plated banana plugs). I am fairly certain I've used welders with smaller cables.

(In my defence, I bought those as a teenager in the late 80s. I am not so easily marketed to with snake oil these days. I hope.)

(On the other hand, I really like the idea of a reliably stable plus and minus 70V or maybe 100V DC power supply to my house. That'd make audio power amplifiers much easier and lighter...)

hrmtst93837 11 hours ago|||
400Hz is an aircraft hack. In a data center, where batteries and most of the stuff behind the PSU already want DC, cutting conversion stages and a bunch of UPS weirdness is a boring win even if DC breakers are nastier and pricier. If you want switchgear with aerospace pricing in a building full of racks, AC at boutique frequencies is one way to get there.
shiroiuma 20 hours ago||
>- no significant skin effect at 400Hz -> use speaker wire, lol.

What are you talking about? There's a very significant skin effect at 400Hz. Skin effect goes up with frequency. These datacenters use copper busbars, not cable, so skin effect is an important consideration.

shdudns 20 hours ago||
At 100 000 A for a 100 MW data center at 1000 V, speaker wire is a joke.

You obviously need at least a dozen stands in parallel!!

Clearly skin effect scales with frequency but, 400 Hz is still low, only 2.5x lines frequency (the scale is by the root); so the skin depth is 3mm. 3mm on each side makes for a pretty hefty rectangular cross-section.

bigiain 19 hours ago||
If you could get that 100,000Amps flowing through your speaker wire, the vaporised copper and the plasma channel would probably keep your 100MW flowing, at least until your building caught fire.
jacquesm 19 hours ago||
Even your monster cable? ;)
bigiain 19 hours ago||
Well, it'd still vaporise, but it'd sound smoother and more musical as it did it, and the soundstage from the plasma arc would be _stunning!_
jacquesm 19 hours ago||
It's almost worth the experiment and your cables are a sacrifice I'm willing to make. For science, of course.
bigiain 19 hours ago||
You're _so_ right!

I'm pretty sure you have my delivery address from when I bought sorted Lego from you about 10 years back.

Let me know when to expect the 100,000Amp test equipment!

I shall make sure I wear better PPE than just my reading glasses.

:-)

jacquesm 18 hours ago||
This would be the funniest thing to do. 100K Amps is doable, the question is for how long. That would be one very impressive bank of capacitors. And to turn a 00 into plasma would have some spectacular side effects, such as raining molten copper across a sizeable area. Just your reading glasses would indeed not be enough, there probably isn't any PPE that I would consider entirely safe other than sufficient distance from ground zero. But now I'm really curious. I have a spot welder that will do bursts of 5KA and that will happily throw the breaker every so many welds. 100KA sustained will be a fair engineering challenge.

Ah, that lego project... that was one I always wondered if I should have industrialized it but sourcing enough lego was a real problem.

adiabatichottub 18 hours ago||
Ho ho ho, you asked for it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC7sNfNuTNU

jacquesm 16 hours ago|||
Holy crap. That's a whole series of bad ideas extremely well executed. That guy probably has never seen what a lead acid battery can do when it explodes. He keeps hiding away from the hot metal but in the path of ~half of those batteries. Ignorance is bliss.

That's low voltage lightning :)

adiabatichottub 16 hours ago||
He was gifted an arch flash suit by the guys from Lightening on Demand :D
jacquesm 16 hours ago||
"The gift of life". Complete madness.
bigiain 16 hours ago|||
See also (as posted elsethread): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoGbrgOhPes
Aloisius 19 hours ago||
This article seems to imply that 800V DC is high-voltage DC, but that seems quite low.
bigiain 19 hours ago||
I think there'a a regulatory "Low Voltage" definition of "below 50V", which has implications around whether you need to be a licensed electrician to install it or not. Anything above that is - for at least some purposes - considered "High Voltage".

Other people, of course, have other definitions of high voltage:

"This resonant tower is known as a Tesla coil. This particular one is just over 17 feet tall and it can generate about a million volts at 60,000 cycles per second."

and:

"This pulse forming network can deliver a shaped pulse of over 50,000 amps with a total energy of about 1,057 times the tower primary energy"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoGbrgOhPes

MathMonkeyMan 19 hours ago||
Quite low compared to a power utility's HVDC, but quite high compared to the 5/12/24 V output of most AC/DC converters used for electronics.
skullone 19 hours ago||
Transitioning? It already happened decades ago. Only smaller scale/generic or less proficient "we bought all Dell and HP" use AC. At large scale it's been a ton of DC for literally decades. And for 70 years in telco and network gear.
tibbydudeza 6 hours ago||
Have a solar system at home and from the panels it is DC into the batteries but then the inverter needs to convert it to 220V/50Hz AC for home use.
flossly 9 hours ago||
AC is also waaaay safer for households: since the power drop to to zero 100x (50Hz) per second switches are cheaper and safer, and electrocution is less likely to happen.
saltyoldman 17 hours ago||
The large brick you have on all your tech when you plug it in is the converter. AC works great for some applications, none of them really technical in nature.
hristov 20 hours ago||
It is absolutely stupid to talk about this as edisons revenge. If Tesla had the modern high power transistors needed to get high voltage dc out of the ac produced from a spinning turbine he would be all for high voltage dc too. Tesla understood that high voltage was needed for efficient long range transmission. He also understood that transformers were the inly remotely efficient way to climb up to and down from these high voltages. And transformers only work with ac. So he designed an ac system and even designed some better transformers for it.

If there was anything like a high power transistor back then he would have used that. High power transistors that are robust enough to handle the grid were designed inly recently over 100 years after the tesla/edison ac/dc argument.

teleforce 18 hours ago||
>It is absolutely stupid to talk about this as edisons revenge. If Tesla had the modern high power transistors needed to get high voltage dc out of the ac produced from a spinning turbine he would be all for high voltage dc too.

This!

The soon people realized these facts the better. The pervasive high rise buildings did not happen before the invention of modern cranes.

Exactly twenty years ago I was doing a novel research on GaN characterization, and my supervisors made a lot money with consulations around the world, and succesfully founded govt funded start-up company around the technology. Together with SiC, these are the two game changing power devices with wideband semiconductor technology that only maturing recently.

Heck, even the Nobel price winning blue LED discovery was only made feasible by GaN. Watch the excellent video made by Veritasium for this back story [1].

[1] Why It Was Almost Impossible to Make the Blue LED:

https://youtu.be/AF8d72mA41M

ta9000 16 hours ago|||
Does that mean when we run out of Ga there are no more LED TVs?
adrian_b 5 hours ago|||
Gallium is expensive to extract because it is extremely diluted in the environment.

It accompanies in very low quantities aluminum and zinc, so it is extracted only in the mines of aluminum or of zinc, as a byproduct.

However, the abundance of gallium is similar to that of lithium, while gallium is used in smaller amounts, so there is no risk to not have enough gallium in the near future.

On the other hand, all semiconductor devices with gallium also use some indium. Indium is used in even greater quantities in all LCD or OLED displays, to make transparent electrodes.

Indium is an extremely rare element in the entire universe, comparable with gold, so for indium there is a much greater risk that its reserves will become insufficient.

This could be mitigated by extracting such critical elements from the dumped electronic devices, but this is very expensive, because only small amounts of indium are used per device, so very large amounts of garbage would have to be processed in order to extract a sizable amount of it.

AndrewDucker 12 hours ago||||
Why would we run out of Ga?
mikkupikku 11 hours ago||
There's a component of modern culture that trains and expects people to be extremely pessimistic about long term human development. It results in situations above, where without any further information people just assume by default that were going to run out of a thing and are on some collision course with not just a disaster, but every single conceivable one.

(Gallium is a byproduct of aluminum production. We aren't going to run out.)

threetonesun 10 hours ago|||
My understanding of most elements is if we want more it’s either pretty easy to make from something else we have a lot of, or we need to redo the Big Bang, the latter being, in my opinion, a bit of a disaster scenario.
nkrisc 9 hours ago||
Even synthesizing helium is prohibitively expensive. Unless you want whatever heavy decay products we have from nuclear waste, synthesizing elements at industrial scale probably isn’t happening.

Unless by “make from something” else you mean extract the element from existing chemical compounds found in Earth, in which case we’re still just using existing deposits on Earth.

bananaflag 10 hours ago||||
On the other hand, it is possible to run out of a metal when all of it is either somewhere in some device or scattered among landfills (i.e. not concentrated in a place like a mine).
margalabargala 7 hours ago|||
It's a byproduct of aluminum production.

The earth's crust is 8% aluminum.

We will have bigger problems before hitting this one.

adrian_b 5 hours ago||
That is true, but gallium is present in the aluminum and zinc ores only in minute quantities.

We will not remain without gallium, but it is impossible to scale up the gallium production to a higher level than provided by the current productions of aluminum and zinc.

So there is a maximum level of gallium that can be used per year and it would not be possible to increase the production of blue and white LEDs and of power transistors above that level.

Fortunately, the amount of gallium used per device is very small, so it is not likely that we will hit that level soon. A much more serious problem is the associated consumption of indium, for which the resources are much less.

pyrale 2 hours ago||||
> On the other hand, it is possible to run out of a metal when all of it is either somewhere in some device or scattered among landfills

The metal isn't going to disappear, but it won't be concentrated enough to be as easily retrievable.

nkrisc 9 hours ago||||
That’s still not running out. It’s still there, just more effort to get.
card_zero 8 hours ago|||
"At 10 parts per quadrillion, the Earth's oceans would hold 15,000 tonnes of gold", says the Wikipedia page on gold.

I'm inclined to think we've lost that gold.

nkrisc 4 hours ago||
Practically speaking, sure. It's obviously not cost-effective to extract it. But it's there if someone can get it. I don't expect anyone to be extracting gold from ocean water, but there are other source of other elements that may not be cost-effective now but could be in the future or may simply become necessary despite the cost.
PowerElectronix 8 hours ago|||
Effort high enough to consider that material lost to any practical purpose like a tv.
nkrisc 4 hours ago|||
If prices of certain metals were high enough I bet people would stop throwing out TVs and dig up old ones from the dump.
swiftcoder 6 hours ago|||
Cost scales with refinement effort, so it just results in more expensive TVs. That said, pretty sure we'll have drowned the planet in landfilled TVs long before this becomes a serious issue
pwndByDeath 7 hours ago|||
Its concentrated in a place like a landfill that already has access for large vehicles.
ta9000 11 hours ago|||
[flagged]
jcattle 10 hours ago||
From your earlier comment, your curiosity was more about what happens after we run out.

In your question you stated the running out as a given fact ("When" we run out, not "if").

If that was what you wanted to say I can't tell you, but that's definitely how it was received and thus you also got the harsh response. Since it reads a lot like doomsday thinking.

(Example: Does that mean when we run out of oxygen there are no more humans?

Why would we run out?)

ta9000 7 hours ago|||
Yes, my curiosity was about when we run out, because I didn’t know if we would run out. That was the whole point of the question. Have some leniency, we’re not all experts about everything.
margalabargala 5 hours ago||
> my curiosity was about when we run out, because I didn’t know if we would run out

You still seem to be missing the point.

If you talk about "when we run out", you are presenting yourself as an expert stating "we will run out" and asking about the aftermath.

It would be appropriate, and better received with more leniency, for you to ask whether we would run out.

pixl97 9 hours ago|||
?Why would we run out?)

Of oxygen, because of rising temperatures interacting with rock weathering binding all the oxygen.

Now, that's more of something to worry about at geological time scales, but Earth in fact, is not infinite.

ta9000 6 hours ago||
I love that you countered pedantry with pedantry. <3
nancyminusone 8 hours ago||||
Except for gaseous hydrogen and helium, and some spacecraft, all other atoms remain on the earth and are recoverable with enough energy and effort.
philipkglass 6 hours ago||
One more exception: uranium. It actually splits into smaller atoms when it's used as fuel.
myrmidon 9 hours ago||||
Sidenote: Whenever someone tells you that (vital) reserves of some ressource are going to run out soonish (implying drastic consequences), you should be extremely skeptical:

Such predictions have an abysmal historic track record, because we tend to find workarounds both on the supply side (=> previously undiscovered reserves) as well as flexibility on the demand side (using substitutes).

This applies historically for oil, lithium, rare earth metals and basically everything else.

edit: I'm not saying we're never gonna run out of anything-- I'm just saying to not expect sudden, cataclysmic shortages in general, but instead steadily rising prices and a somewhat smoothish transition to alternatives.

reylas 9 hours ago|||
I always add "cheap" to the sentence. It seems they are always talking about the cheap version of anything. Going to run out of water? Or are we running out of the "cheap" version of water that does not have to be processed?
myrmidon 8 hours ago||
This is a valid point: quickly depleting reserves often indicate that pricing is not sustainable. Which is bad.

But non-sustainable pricing is very different from "cataclysmic collapse", and too many people expect the latter for too many things, which is just not realistic in my view (and historical precendent makes a strong case against that assumption, too).

A society where water prices gradually increases to "reverse-osmosis only" (instead of "pump-from-the-ground-everywhere") levels is very different from a society where water suddenly runs out.

mschuster91 9 hours ago|||
> Such predictions have an abysmal historic track record, because we tend to find workarounds both on the supply side (=> previously undiscovered reserves) as well as flexibility on the demand side (using substitutes).

That's a classic example of the "preparedness paradox" [1]. When no one raises the alarm in time or it is being ignored, resources can go (effectively) exhausted before alternatives can be found, or countries either need to pay extraordinary amounts of money or go to war outright - this has happened in the past with guano [2], which was used for fertilizer and gunpowder production for well over a century until the Haber-Bosch ammonia process was developed at the start of the 20th century.

And we're actually seeing a repeat of that as well happening right now. Economists and scientists have sounded the alarm for decades that oil and gas are finite resources and that geopolitical tensions may impact everyone... no one gave too much of a fuck because one could always "drill baby drill", and now look where we are - Iran has blasted about 20% of Qatar's LNG capacity alone to pieces and blocked off the Strait of Hormuz, sending oil prices skyrocketing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano

bluGill 5 hours ago|||
I've seen articles from the 1880s claiming oil will run out by 1890. 140 years latter...

Yes we can run out of oil, but nobody really knows if or even when that will happen. Right now I'm guessing we won't run out because wind and solar is so much cheaper for most purposes everyone is shifting anyway - this will take decades to play out.

myrmidon 8 hours ago|||
I don't see the Guano industry as a straight counter-example, it even illustrates my point:

If you had made predictions/scenarios in 1850 based on Guano deposits running out within a decade or two, you would have mispredicted completely, because a lot of the industry just transitioned to sodium nitrate (before synthetic fertilisers took over). Nowadays media landscape would've gladly made such doom-and-gloom predictions for global agriculture back then.

I completely agree that quickly depleting reserves often indicate non-sustainable pricing for ressources (which is obviously bad long term), but that is very different from sudden collapse.

asah 8 hours ago||||
> The pervasive high rise buildings did not happen before the invention of modern cranes.

yyy! if we're going to wander off-topic :-) then I should mention elevators, water pumps, fire suppression including fire truck ladders and more! :-)

mcbishop 18 hours ago||||
I've heard the EV charging has played a big role in the maturation of GaN / SiC.
teleforce 17 hours ago||
Yes, EV and high frequency electronics (microwave, mmWave, photonics) that require very fast switching capability.
UltraSane 17 hours ago||
And military radars love GaN
jibal 17 hours ago||||
https://shrunk.ai/research-journals/f/cranes-skyhooks-and-it...
da02 11 hours ago|||
What are some novel processes or technologies you see becoming more important in the next 5-10 years?
chrneu 18 hours ago|||
the internet really needs to stfu about tesla and get over that oatmeal comic that spawned a billion internet myths. dude was a decent inventor but suffered from chronic mental health issues and, in his lifetime, wasted so much time/energy/money and burned so many bridges with his horrible attitude. there's a reason most people didnt like him in his day, he was a depressed asshole who alienated everyone around him, and yes I know he was likely gay in a time when that wasn't cool. the fact still remains; his inventions are massively overblown by internet nerds.

the podcaster Sebastian Major from "Our Fake History" did a looonnngg patreon episode on tesla and debunked most of the weird myths around tesla. Sebastian doesn't have a vendetta or anything, it's just amazing how much of the Tesla stuff is just nonsense or is viewed through a very weird bias nowadays. Major also briefly touches on the weird Edison stuff and how the internet has twisted Edison into a villain.

throw4847285 7 hours ago|||
Software engineers idolize Tesla because they see themselves as the Tesla (a selfless devotee of the abstract idea of technology) against evil Edisons (businessmen who only care about money and steal other people's ideas). They've basically projected the Jobs/Woz divide back onto two historical figures who, in reality, barely interacted.

The funniest part is that The Oatmeal comic didn't invent this concept, but drew on pre-Internet narratives put forward by The Tesla Society, who were mailing busts of Tesla to universities around the country since the 70s at least. And that organization is explicitly nationalistic and religious, tied to other Serbian-American heritage organizations, and doing events with the Orthodox church.

balamatom 1 hour ago||
> And that organization is explicitly nationalistic and religious

So are many Serbs (more so if emigrants from atheist-socialist Yugoslavia, or descendants of folks who moved before WW2) as well as many other nations and organizations (America itself lol). So are many Something-Or-Other-American individuals and communities.

I presume that the organization(s) sending Tesla busts, being American-rooted, have had no illusions about which matters will forever remain impossible to communicate to Americans. (Such as anything not reducible to paperclip optimization.)

Instead, I consider it more likely that the point of promoting Tesla was not to impress anyone in America, but to uplift Serbia and generally the South Slavs of the Balkans who'd only gained national sovereignty in Tesla's day: "look, our heritage has already produced an honest-to-god American inventor half a jebani vek ago, so you guys have zero excuse to act as if you're stuck in the middle ages - do join the cargo cult of mordorn civilization instead, will ya - we got value to extract from ya!"

>They've basically projected the Jobs/Woz divide back onto two historical figures who, in reality, barely interacted.

I'd rather say this has been projected for them, but by whom is anyone's guess; not like there's a shadowy cabal operating. Besides said Serbian-American heritage promoters and whatever their game is, I guess - but here we're not talking mid-XX century Serbian diaspora any more, but a "culturally nonspecific" audience.

Much safer to call it "a hivemind situation" when nobody knows where some idea comes from, and nobody is accountable for rebroadcasting it either, since it comes pre-tagged as Good and True and Useful and it is wrongthink to doubt those. Especially when the idea is so obviously Useful for excusing nonaction. ("I can't be bothered to learn the first thing about electricity, even the history of why I have access to it in the first place - but now that Tesla guy I've vaguely heard of, he was the great genius of the people! What better reason to Experience a Positive Emotion!")

elar_verole 12 hours ago||||
People need heroes. It's like the Keanu Reeves or Musk era, all the ""badass"" stories about this or that soldier / local hero / w/e that are very often overblown and get further and further away from the initial facts every time they resurface. No hate here, just noticing there is a weird visceral need to distill stories to their most essential, good vs evil, and the Tesla v Edison thing embodies this perfectly I think.
ngvrnd 10 hours ago|||
Except for Keith Moon. All the stories about him are true and if anything underplay the truth. :-)
Imustaskforhelp 10 hours ago|||
Keanu Reeves and Nikola Tesla to a degree as well, are decent figures.

Aside from all the cult classics Keanu is part of like john wick and the matrix, even discounting that, he is a good person in it of itself who is genuinely humble and might be one of the best persons within hollywood.

What I feel pissed about is that people like Andrew Tate and others like them took the concept of Matrix and the contributions Keanu did within that movie and tried to capitalize on that cult classic decades after in the most toxic form that might be the issue if we are talking about an era

To be honest, Nikola tesla is also a great person within the context of his time. GGP's comment is still true but Tesla's contributions can hardly be reinstated and I'd much rather people believe these to be the heros (Keanu/Tesla) rather than Tate/Musk etc.

If I take anything from Keanu, I would like to take his humility/humbleness.

giancarlostoro 9 hours ago|||
Tate is just attention hungry. It’s pretty obvious. If you feed no attention to him, he will go back to where he crawled from.
ndsipa_pomu 8 hours ago|||
Whilst I agree that Keanu is a most excellent human, he was hardly responsible for the concept of the Matrix. In my opinion, Philip K Dick was a major influence (I'm a fan and consider him the prophet of the modern age), though Gibson's Neuromancer was likely a big influence too. (Also, there's the old Doctor Who episode "The Deadly Assassin" which features the Matrix).

It always seems to me that the far right are bereft of original ideas and always co-opt other pre-existing concepts. There's exceptions, but I always find that right wing works are always lacking humour or irony (c.f. Ayn Rand's works).

something765478 7 hours ago||
> the far right are bereft of original ideas and always co-opt other pre-existing concepts.

That's not unique to them: Good artists copy; great artists steal.

tomtomtom777 6 hours ago|||
"It is only the unimaginative who ever invents. The true artist is known by the use he makes of what he annexes. And he annexes everything."

- Oscar Wilde

ndsipa_pomu 6 hours ago|||
Yes, but I'd have difficulty in pronouncing Andrew Tate as a good or great artist. Maybe con-artist would be the highest that I'd go.
boomskats 10 hours ago||||
I mean yeah, but it's not like the guy's 'horrible attitude' came from nowhere. He naiively romanticised migrating to the US thinking the game was about scientific progress rather than capital, and so he got repeatedly screwed over by almost everyone around him for decades.

If I was in his position I'm not sure I'd have taken it as well as he did.

wil421 9 hours ago||
There’s no way he suddenly developed autism or whatever mental illness plagued him upon arrival to American. Like most absolute geniuses he struggled in other areas. He said he had visions as a child.
balamatom 1 hour ago||
But there is: his neurotype suddenly became considered "whatever mental illness" upon arrival in Eugenicsland.
KaiserPro 8 hours ago||||
> he was a depressed asshole who alienated everyone around him,

enough Edison bashing!

Look, Tesla was a weirdo, but, he was a very good inventor who actually invented shit.

Edison was an industrialist, who knew the price of everything, and wasn't above spending a lot of money to destroy a rival.

Do I idolise Tesla? no, but I respect his understanding of high frequency electronics with really primitive tooling.

Do I despise Edison? also no, but he is a massive prick. Excellent buisness man, but an abrasive prick never the less.

tibbydudeza 6 hours ago||||
Did he also not fall in love with a pigeon ?.
aaronbrethorst 17 hours ago||||
We’re talking about Nikola Tesla, not Elon Musk, and I don’t think Musk is gay.
beAbU 14 hours ago||
I think you need to read the post you are responding to again.
aaronbrethorst 14 hours ago||
[flagged]
anonymousiam 18 hours ago|||
Tesla was an outstanding technologist, but a poor businessman. He had a "vision" (actually more than one) about how his ideas could transform the world. Some of his ideas were amazing, but he was swindled out of his patents because the investors knew he had a passion and wanted to see them in use. The polyphase AC motor or fluorescent light bulb could have made him millions.

IMHO, the vision he had about universal free electricity (transmitted wirelessly) was the dumbest. It was a novel idea, and he invested a lot (his time and other people's money) in it. The problem with his idea is that there was no way to monetize it (and profit from it). (There were also the technical issues of the power loss over distance (1/R^2), the harm to the environment, and the interference with radio communications.)

Edison was quite a villain. He stole many of his "inventions", and orchestrated a PR campaign against Tesla touting the "evils" of AC power. AFAIK, the electric chair was either invented or inspired by him.

I know these things because I've read many books on various topics related to Tesla, and all of this knowledge predates the Internet.

fsh 16 hours ago|||
Essentially none of this is true. The war of the currents was between Edison and Westinghouse, not Tesla. Tesla's downfall was that he turned into a crackpot who rejected modern science, such as Maxwell's equations, and started defrauding investors. Edison was an outspoken opponent of the death penalty, and the electric chair used AC simply because it is much more deadly.
chipster_f00 11 hours ago||
> The war of the currents was between Edison and Westinghouse [...]

Thank you for quashing the gross misinformation. I was going to post this, but searched and found your comment. `\m/`

(I learned of the "Current War" in the 70's, since the Edison Museum was in my "backyard" -- and was a common destination of local school field trips.)

HWR_14 16 hours ago|||
Edison did not invent the electric chair. When the inventors were trying to choose between using AC or DC he helped them decide on AC as part of his PR campaign.
arijun 20 hours ago|||
Also, if anything would have been Edison's revenge it would have been HVDC, where they're sending power long distances with DC. (But as you said, even there it wouldn't make a ton of sense, since they were arguing in a different era).
themafia 19 hours ago|||
The two primary reasons to do that are to allow the intertie of two AC grids that are not otherwise synchronized, and to take advantage of "earth return" paths when necessary to double the capacity of the line. The latter you may need to consider just to make the line cost effective over an equivalent AC span.
Georgelemental 19 hours ago|||
It's just a fun title, you are overthinking it
bryanrasmussen 16 hours ago|||
sure, and also Montezuma didn't actually plan on diarrhea ruining people's vacations, but vernacular usage being what it is we have the phrase Montezuma's revenge.

I only found Edison in the headline, I didn't find it anywhere in the body, nor did I find Tesla. Glancing through the article it almost seems like someone tried to make a catchy headline to get clicks.

jacquesm 19 hours ago|||
Agreed, for the IEEE to go down this route is more than a little weird.
superxpro12 8 hours ago|||
Yeah this isnt an argument. It was far simpler to wrap some copper wire around a chunk of metal than it was to fire up a mosfet fabrication plant in the 1800's.

You can have the best idea in the world, but if you cant manufacture it you're SOL.

ghighi7878 9 hours ago|||
Title is clickbait. Edison is not mentioned anywhere else in article. I am okay with it.
fsh 16 hours ago|||
It was Westinghouse who pushed the AC grid against his rival Edison's DC approach. Tesla was a minor figure working for both of them for a bit.
amelius 9 hours ago|||
But there was an equivalent: a mechanical switch. Or an electromechanical relay. Or a spinning wheel with electrical contacts.
dang 5 hours ago|||
Ok, we've deposed Edison from the title above.
altairprime 5 hours ago|||
Note that one could email the mods to de-clickbait/enrage the title, especially with such a concrete point as this comment’s. (I haven’t done so as TIL is a poor basis for such an argument.)
crimshawz 7 hours ago|||
Agree, clickbait.
bluGill 20 hours ago|||
Tesla also design the modern induction motor which needs ac. Though these days we often run them on a phase generator which has a dc step.
metalliqaz 7 hours ago|||
yes, this! thank you good post
mr_toad 12 hours ago||
> If there was anything like a high power transistor back then he would have used that.

Mercury arc rectifiers were used long before his death.

crote 11 hours ago||
Yes, but a rectifier only rectifies. That's not going to give you DC-DC conversion - let alone converting it to a higher voltage for long-distance transmission.
wildzzz 5 hours ago||
DC-DC before the transistor was difficult to do at scale. Vibrators and relays existed but were not reliable long term.
fredgrott 10 hours ago|
That is about like aying the band AC DC had its revenge.....

can we stop vibe generating headlines?

More comments...