Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Nikolai Tesla and his Earthquake Machine

What's this I hear about an earthquake machine? Can we put some information on this? IT SEEMS PRETTY DAMN IMPORTANT!

-G

->try searching for oscilators -> one of them caused that earthquake

[edit] Main Photograph

The photographed looks shopped. More to the point, it looks edited at the source. I think this may be an example of 1920's vainity photoshopping in action.

[edit] Year of death of Tesla's mother

In the Wikipedia's entry on Tesla there is a wrong data on the year of death of Tesla's mother. It was 1892, at the time of Tesla's only visit to Europe since he left for the US. This can be easily verified, in Tesla's autobiography or elsewhere.

The year stated in the Wikipedia entry is 1882. In my opinion, it would be very important to fix this error. Otherwise, congratulations for the good work.


[edit] quirks?

I've read about tesla in various places before and one of the most interesting things about him were his extreme alleged eccentricities, which don't seem to be mentioned here at all. Things like having to do everything in multiples of 3 and whatnot (I forget exactly what they were). Or maybe such quirks are false and a prank played by historians or himself- perhaps assisted by mark twain..

[edit] Synaesthesia? Asperger syndrome?

In a number of different places I've read that Tesla had synaesthesia, but I've not been able to find the source of such information. Could someone give a reference?

Tesla was one of the famous people mentioned in the book "Different like me: my book of autism heroes" by Jennifer Elder. I've not read the book myself. Is it worth mentioning that Tesla might have been on the autistic spectrum (along with many other great minds like Newton, Einstein etc)? OCD and synaesthesia seem to be associated with autism. I think Asperger syndrome could explain a lot about Tesla's life.

[edit] reverts

Can we stop this senseless pattern of reverting others' edits? Reverting people who fix spelling errors, correct grammar and make other uncontroversial changes is no way to build good faith amongst editors. If you disagree with part of an edit, revert that part if you must, but don't revert the whole thing wholesale. –Joke 15:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

When you revert, it is not considered good form to revert other users' spelling corrections, link fixes, punctuation corrections and grammar and style corrections while pursuing your favorite hobby-horses. –Joke 03:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I wish we could but apparently people think they have the power to do anything they want to an article without consensus. It's quite simple:

A) If you don't think Tesla's cat has relevance in this aricle, you can

a) remove it b) change it or give it relevance

do not

c) change it along with other parts of the article that you don't agree with.

72.144.150.233 08:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, stop changing edits. People who do that are

A) annoying.

If you don't like my part of my post, that's no reason to go and erase averything I've added. That's why I somtimes don't leave an edit summary.Dan

99% of the material in this article has already been reviewed by and accepted by the majority of editors on here. Now, we're getting massive changes and adding POV claims like "Tesla is also known for his ground breaking contribution to the radio, whose patented research in 1897 allowed Guglielmo Marconi to broadcast the first signal across the English Channel in 1899." While an editor is consistently removing sourced and relevant information in this article, such as a paragraph outlining the prototype of a loudspeaker invented by Tesla. 72.144.150.233 08:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It is your responsibility when doing the reversions not to needlessly revert others' work. Frankly, I don't know anything about this Marconi sentence. Remove it if you find it offensive, and reinsert the loudspeaker. But as long as you keep doing these robotic reverts back to a version with spelling errors, poor grammar, mismatched parentheses, an overlong introduction and ambiguous links, I will continue to revert your changes. Why don't you try and compromise? –Joke 13:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Marconi used Tesla's research without giving Tesla credit. This is widely known historical fact known to any biographer of the man. The only problems that appear in the anon user's edit is that they sound sycophantic. No one can believe that something is pov when lines like

"It is of some interest to note that Tesla was reportedly born at the very stroke of midnight during a lightning storm, according to various biographies" or "In the United States, Tesla's fame rivaled that of any other inventor or scientist in history or in popular culture". and "he was widely respected as America's greatest electrical engineer." This sounds like something out of a fan club and does not constitute valid research. Finally, what is it with that pet cat? Guy Montag 06:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There, I have reinserted the stuff about the loudspeaker and removed the stuff about Marconi. I have almost surely annoyed someone else in doing so... –Joke 13:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Joke. Please make any edits you have to make on the original version, not on the one that was recently butchered and vandalized, including the removal of numerous sentences almost by random, plus the addition of weird sentences like "When Edison was a very old man and close to death, he said his biggest mistake was that he never respected Nikola Tesla or his work." and farfetched POVs like a change from "Tesla's theory is ignored by some researchers (and mainly disregarded by physicists)." to "disregarded by nearly all researchers" (which is untrue). For an example of random deletions:

the following was deleted by a user without posting any reason for why it was removed in talk:


Furtheremore, an entire paragraph was randomly removed from the intro, and several sentences were replaced by the nonsensical sentence "He was one of the pioneers of modern electrical engineering; however, due in large part to the unfavorable course of his competition and disputes with other inventors, such as Thomas Edison." 72.144.60.85 18:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You really ought to pay attention. I removed the weird Edison sentence already. I am finding it hard not to see your behavior as willful obstinance. It is certainly true that Tesla's theory of gravity plays no role in modern physics – who else other than physicists (and perhaps historians of science) would study a theory of gravity? Why don't you look at the diffs yourself and fix the part that was butchered and vandalized. –Joke 18:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Researchers and physicists are two different occupations last time I checked. Instead of reverting by random as you're doing, how about helping me improve the original? I can't fix the parts that were butchered and vandalized without reverting, because too much was randomly removed. I explain everything I do in here. No one else does. 72.144.60.85 18:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to improve the original. Here are some things that are wrong with the original. In the intro:

Actually you did nothing to the original. Last time I checked those changes were made before you came.
  • It is too long and hagiographic.
It's taken from several official biographies, and is no more hagiographic than some of the information of Newton, Einstein, and others. I did shorten it though, it was a bit long.
  • The "editor's note" is bad style.
That's true. That should be moved.
  • "mechanical and electrical engineer" can be shortened to engineer
Um no...there are computer, industrial, civil engineers too
  • He is recognized as one of the most accomplished inventors, not scientists.
No, he made fundamental contributions to physics theory (it states right in the intro) as well as numerous other fields.
Do some research.
  • He did not die forgotten. That is melodramatic and wrong.
The fact that nearly all official biographies state this is clear enough evidence he died pretty much forgotten.
  • The caption writes "Dr. Nikola Tesla." It is not conventional to use a title with the first name. Why not just "Nikola Tesla."
Fine change that.

Aside from those changes, some links in the table of electromechanical devices, paragraphs about Edison and Hinduism which could easily be removed, and some minor rephrasings and changes to links, there is essentially no difference between the two versions. Finally, as far as I can see, "physicists" are a superset of "researchers in theories of gravity".

It didn't state anything about "researchers in theories of gravity"...in fact, it said "researchers".

Also, you've violated the 3RR.

Ok.

–Joke 19:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reported the 3RR. Hopefully those lazy 3RR admins will do something for once :-))). Joke - credit to you for trying to sort out this page. I hope you persist. While you do, I'll try to help William M. Connolley 22:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I am getting tired of all the senseless and childish reverts and re-reverts on this article. Therefore, I am disassociating myself with it. When you CHILDREN decide to agree on an article, then I shall return. Erzahler 22:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Speculation

On par with a recent edit by Philosophus, I removed the line "It was possible that Tesla was told of the plans of the physics award committee and let it be known that he would not share the award with Edison." because it is seemingly an opinion placed in the middle of a biography. It could possibly be readded with a source stating "Some Biographers conclude......." Etc...

72.144.150.233 09:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT an opinion placed in the middle of a biography. It is from various news stories of newspapers at the time. It is also recorded in most of the reliable biographies (Man out of time, Wizard, etc ...) which cite that he and Edison were told of this (and both were surprised when the prize was awarded to others). Removing the line is uncalled for and is another egregious act of removing information. 17:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The Seifer book "Wizard" contains documentation from the Nobel committee files that neither Tesla nor Edison was offered a Nobel. There was an incorrect story in the London Daily Telegraph in early November, 1915, from their correspondent in Copenhagen, reprinted in the New York Times, that listed Tesla, Edison, and several others as recipients. Tesla said the previous day's NY Times was the first he had heard of the possibility. The info was all wrong, about other supposed recipients as well, and was corrected. The recipients had actually been decided 9 months before. See the article on Nobel Prize Controversies for more info. This is a myth which has been debunked. The various sources were all basing it on an erroneous press report. Edison 17:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compatibility with Nature line

I removed "Tesla considered his exploration of various questions raised by science as ultimately a means to improve the human condition with the principles of science and industrial progress, and one that was compatible with nature.[1]" because its a very unusual line. I put it here in talk so someone can fix it up and have it make more sense, and be more "compatible" (no pun intended) with the article. 72.144.150.233 09:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

How is this "very unusual"? 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopædia Britannica

In thier article on Ferraris, Galileo ... "Meanwhile, other physicists came independently to the same principle — among them Nikola Tesla, who applied and patented it. In the assessment of Thomas Edison they state, "yet [Edison] employed as his aides, at various times, a number of eminent mathematical physicists, such as Nikola Tesla and A.E. Kennelly." They themselves (though not explicity stating him being a physicists in his own article) call him a "Serbian U.S. inventor and researcher". And note, at the end of his entry that "Due to lack of funds, many of his ideas remained only in his notebooks, which are still examined by engineers for inventive clues.".

This latest lil' series of "improvement" (and I use that term loosely) on the Wikipedia article of Tesla proves that Wikipedia suffers from opinions at the cost of facts.

(ps. Inparticular the actions of User:Joke, User:Hillman, and User:William M. Connolley)

134.193.168.250 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electrotherapy

Something should be added on Tesla currents (as defined in the 'IEEE dictionary') and Tesla's pioneering work in Electrotherapy. This article could be cited for a reference:

  • Rhees, David J., Electricity - `The greatest of all doctors': An introduction to `high frequency oscillators for electro-therapeutic and other purposes'. Proceedings of the IEEE. Vol. 87, no. 7, pp. 1277-1281. 1999 ISSN 0018-9219

(PS., This is his article on it: Tesla, Nikola, "High Frequency Oscillators for Electro-Therapeutic and Other Purposes". 1898-09-13. (ed., available from tesla.hu))

134.193.168.250 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling?

I suspect the recent history of edits of this article may include some trolling, hence the new flag added to the headers at the top. I hope that all editors who feel genuine passion will employ restraint and discuss possibly controversial changes in this talk page before trying to unilaterally implement them. ---CH 23:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

None of it has been discussed. The majority of anon greivances on here have been generally ignored and as far as I've seen, the users who are editing this page are in cahoots with eachother. LaGrange 00:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Both 134.193.168.250 and User:177.140.153.233 have pointed out the unsound actions of WMC and Joke (I'm not as certain of your participation) in the editing of this page. LaGrange 00:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that

  1. the IP 134.193.168.250 (talk • contribs) is an instance of the kc.umkc.edu anon, registered to the University of Missouri in Kansas City, MO. Compare the Linda Hall Library anon, also geolocated in Kansas City, MO.
  2. I can't find in the history page any edits from the IP 177.140.153.233 (talk • contribs). This IP is registered to ARIN itself. Did you perhaps write down the wrong IP while trying to check registration? I guess you might have meant 72.153.86.152 (talk • contribs) (the mia.bellsouth.net anon)

In any case, you should be on the lookout for possible shilling.---CH 03:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

How ironical is your flag: ...Remember to always assume good faith. which you missed to assume yourself...Lakinekaki 05:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am trying to reduce arguing so let's not start arguing over my motivations, Lakinekaki. And LaGrange, I don't understand who you think is "in cahoots" with whom, but if you look at Talk:Chaos theory you will probably agree that it is unlikely that I am "in cahoots" with Lakinekaki.

All I am asking is that the edit war cease. Let's try this instead: if you don't like something in the article,

  1. describe your objection here in the talk page,
  2. present an argument why you think it should be changed,
  3. describe the change you want to see,
  4. react reasonably and fairly to comments on your proposals.

The talk page is here for this kind of discussion, and in my experience compromise is often possible. Fair enough? ---CH

[edit] Semi-protected

Note: this page is semi-protected at the moment, largely in response to anons breaking 3RR. I'm in favour of keeping it for a while; if anyone else has strong opinions that it should be lifted (or kept), please place them here where people can see. William M. Connolley 13:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's sad the that users Hillman, WMC, and Joke can destroy this page. WMC's, inparticular, ignorance and removal of the verifiable and cited facts (such as that Tesla's papers and writing are still being researched today; he's repeatedly questioned this [but has been cited by the standard EB professionals (see above)]). Hillman, WMC, and Joke have before tried to exclude cited and reliable information; this probably will not stop. WMC is in favour of keeping semi-protected for a while because then the opinionated editors (the ontes cited and others that can be contacted to do so on thier behave [such as IRC, etc.) can remove information that they deem "extraneous" or "bloat" and remove the more valid and cited information. As stated in other posts, Wikipedia suffers the ill informed opinion at the cost of verifable and reliable facts. The pathological skeptical actions of some of these editors is at Wikipedia's peril. 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC) (registered to Linda Hall Library, Kansas City, MO)

Thanks for sharing. –Joke 16:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Our Linda Hall Library anon also edited History of perpetual motion machines very recently. ---CH 18:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Negotiations with British Government on Death Ray

I have doubts about the accuracy and timescales in this article refering to Tesla's negotiations with the British government. I also am doubtful about linking them only to Chamberlain. The article states negotiations began in the Twenties. Baldwin was prime minister 1923-24, 1924-29 and 1935-37 whilst Chamberlain was prime minister 1937-40 and he was replaced by Churchill, not Baldwin.

I suggest removing the line "The incoming Baldwin government..." and adding a line making it clear this is conjecture, not established fact.

There is established folklore in the UK about successive British governments interest in a "Death Ray", but I've been unable to find any hard facts. Arpley88 08:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not conjecture! This is not folklore ... sessh ... it's a fact .... 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs)
Nikola Tesla worked on an actual Death ray in the early 1900's and at the time of his death. He offered the US War Department the secrets of his "teleforce" weapon on January 5, 1943 but was assumed to be crazy. Tesla then offered his device to several European countries. Records which recently turned up in Russia showed that his proposed death ray was based on a narrow stream of atomic clusters of liquid mercury or tungsten accelerated by high voltage, probably produced by a huge Tesla Coil. At the time of his death, a prototype compact version of the "death ray" called an "Anti-Tank gun" was located in a trunk in the basement of his hotel. Immediatly after his death a Russian spy had raided the room and the safe containing the schematics of the "death ray". The FBI never found any of the important parts of the schematics nor the trunk with the prototype, as far as we know. Schematics of the projector nozzel have surfaced, though. 204.56.7.1 19:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (taken out of the Death ray history, now a redirect)
PBS has a good page on this. "A Weapon to End War". :204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs)
Other time-period news articles that might help you.
204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Bear in mind that large parts of this article may be dodgy, especially the wacky death-ray stuff. If you think you know better, please edit away. William M. Connolley 11:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Bear in mind that you have an uninformed opinion. 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Please be polite, Linda Hall Library anon (see WP:CIV). Also, please see the header for instructions on how to wikisign your comments. TIA ---CH 03:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll be polite when the editors stop being a prick (in the side) [this was suggested before, but removed by your friend, WMC]. WP:CIV states exactly what you (among others) are doing, personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. A editor can wikisign thier comments with ~~~~ or ~~~ (the note @ top is a guideline). 204.56.7.1 14:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superconductivity references

Pulled out of the archives (as posted by user:reddi), just so more ramblings and POV edits can be headed off.

  • The patent office classifies U.S. Patent 685012 as superconductivity technolgy via several classifications
  • Thomas Valone (ed.) book contains the information on the superconductivity in one of the essays. The essay "Effects of Tesla's Life and Electrical Inventions" specifically notes this.
  • Oliver Nichelson talks of Tesla's invention in this context.
  • In "The Problem of Increasing Human Energy - Through Use of the Sun's Energy," (The Century Illustrated Magazine), Tesla cites Carl von Linde (inventor of a method for liquefying air via "self-cooling"). As Tesla states, "This was the only experimental proof which I was still wanting that energy was obtainable from the medium in the manner contemplated by me ." In 1892, Tesla went to London and saw Professor Dewar's experiments with liquefied gases. Tesla noted that others had liquefied gases before, notably Ozlewski and Pictet. Later, Tesla was working on a project, together with other pojects, which would give a refrigerating machine of exceptional efficiency and simplicity. This is the time of the 1895 Houston Street lab fire which delayed his endeavors. Shortly afterward, "Linde announced the liquefaction of air by a self cooling process, demonstrating that it was practicable to proceed with the cooling until liquefaction of the air took place". Tesla sought to simplify Linde's accomplisment, also. Tesla's endeavors in his own projects (with this as one part) would lead to (according to him) a "self-acting machine deriving energy from the ambient medium".
  • In addition to the above reference, Seifer ("Wizard, the Life and Times of Nikola Tesla". ISBN 1-559723-29-7 (HC)) in the footnote states that (though doubtful) it is probable that Tesla contemplated superconductivity for his world wireless system (this a decade before Onnes experiment). 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The Linda Hall Library anon in Kansas City, MO; compare Reddi (talk • contribs)
I have some concerns regarding shilling; see WP:SOCK. ---CH 15:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no shilling, fraudulent or damaging. Have all the concerns you want, but there are WP:SOCK#Legitimate uses of multiple accounts (Keeping heated issues in one small area). User:reddi may or may not edit at the library here.204.56.7.1 17:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/i/k/Talk%7ENikola_Tesla_Archive_5_e230.html"