Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

Related articles

Main list of articles related to Tesla

Nikola Tesla's Category — Dynamic theory of gravity — Egg of Columbus — History of physics — History of radar — History of radio — Magnifying Transmitter — Picture thinking — Tesla, SI unit — Tesla patents — Tesla coil — Teleforce — Tesla turbine — War of Currents — Wardenclyffe Tower

Physics and math

History of physics — Mad scientist — Lightning — Plasma cosmology — Polyphase system — X-rays

Electricity

Alternating current — Electric motor — Electric power — Electric power transmission — Microwave power transmission — Photoelectric effect — Skin effect

Communication

Radio — Telegraphy — Telephone — Wireless telegraphy

Things

Ark of the Covenant — Battery — Death ray — Electrodynamic tether — Internal-combustion engine — Kennelly-Heaviside Layer — Logic gate — Lightning rod — Magnifying Transmitter — Radar — Regenerative circuit — Remote control — Sacred fire of Vesta — Space elevator — Torpedo — Transformer — Vertical take-off and landing

People

Albert Einstein — Lee De Forest — Thomas Edison — Elisha Gray — Oliver Heaviside — Duka Mandic — Mileva Maric — Guglielmo Marconi — Mark Twain — George Westinghouse — Jonathan Zenneck

Other

Asperger's syndrome — Government Warehouse — High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program — Life magazine — Polymath — Serbs — Tunguska event — Westinghouse Electric Corporation

Lists and timelines

History of radio — List of Serbs — List of Slavs — List of electrical engineers — List of inventors — List of notable eccentrics — List of people on stamps of the United States — List of physicists — List of physics topics — Timeline of invention — Timeline of lighting technology — Timeline of motor and engine technology

The Gush in the first part

I understand that many people who edit this page love some of the sentences that appear primarily in the biography section because they keep getting reverted to, but you have to realize that some of them are blatent gush about Tesla. I'm going to address some of them here specifically because they get changed back and forth multiple times every single day, so I think its worth talking about.

1) "In Tesla's early years in America, his fame paralleled that of any other inventor or scientist in history and in popular culture"

There is no way a person can parallel EVERY SINGLE other scientist and inventor. Its just not possible because the personalities and achievements of scientists vary so much. Why does my sentence of:

"In Tesla's early years in America, his fame paralleled that of other inventors or scientists in history and in popular culture."

keep getting reverted to a statement which cannot be true?

2) "His name became a byword for innovation and practical achievement."

Probably applies to Edison more than Tesla. While this might (I'm not convinced completely) have been true at the time, its certainly not true any more (once again, sorry Tesla fans, but Edison wins). Also, I dont think that the word "byword" is being used in a technically correct way here, but is being used colloquially. See dictionary.com.

What is wrong with:

"He was known for innovation and practical achievements."?

This sentence is undeniably true and says the same thing.

3) "He was a "magician" who conjured up technical feats"

This sentence is blatant gush and makes a joke of the entire section in my mind. Tesla was not a magician. He was a scientist. I don't care if you put quotation marks around the word. This sentence transmits no information and explicitly and implicitly compares Tesla to a sorceror. Why?

4) "Tesla was born at the stroke of midnight"

Sensationalistic writing that has no place in an encyclopedia.

Minor Issue:

Extraordinary genius vs. genius

Calling Tesla a genius is a fact. You could argue with almost complete certainty that he was a genius, which is a quasi technical term that is well defined. Calling him an extraordinary genius is an opinion, and wikipedia is not the place for opinions. In my opinion he is not of the same caliber as Einstein, Newton, Galileo etc. Thus he is an extraordinary human being, but not an extraordinary genius (I actually think of him as a good example of a genius). That makes this sentence WRONG in my mind, but I realize that some people do consider him an extraordinary genius. It should be simply "genius", which nobody can dispute really.

-Krazikarl


The inventor of radio and other disputed facts

(Top posting above his huge list.) Securiger, just fix it. It's a wiki. Make the changes. (BTW, I agree with you point by point, but lacked the sources to cite to make the case. Well done. Just go to the main page and fix it. -- Rick Boatright 14:53, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

OK with me, just be gentle and don't simply delete everything. For example, sentence about X-rays could be changed to "Tesla was one of the first scientists who warned about biological hazards associated with X-ray exposure, though he thought the problem was ozone generation." or something similar, to which I believe noone would have any objections. Nikola 20:02, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

How do I go about disputing the factuality of this article? It is just too riddled with Tesla idolatry/crack-pot stuff. A few examples:

  • X-rays: "... led him to alert the scientific community first to the biological hazards associated with X-ray exposure". Not true. Tesla did not discover the harmful effects of excessive exposures to X-rays. In June 1896 he did warn experimenters not to stand too close to an X-ray tube (because it had made his eyes sore), but he thought the problem was ozone generation. He also suggested a screen of wires to prevent coronal discharge occurring close to you - something completely ineffective against X-rays. Other early X-ray experimenters had reported damage to the skin and eyes as early as March 1896. It was Elihu Thomson of the Edison Laboratories who proved that the damage was caused by the rays themselves (crippling his hand in the process), while Wolfram Fuchs enumerated the basic principles of radiation protection in December 1896 [1]
  • Radio: "In St. Louis, Missouri, Tesla made the first public demonstration of radio communication in 1893." This is arguably true but very misleading. Firstly, Tesla's 1893 demonstration was not of radio communication, it merely demonstrated radio energy crossing space (one side of a stage to the other); there was no communication involved. Secondly Heinrich Hertz had made such demonstrations, repeatedly, five years previously. Hertz' demonstrations were not public (they were conducted during his physics lectures) but strictly speaking neither were Tesla's (the Franklin Institute didn't open to the general public until 1934).
  • Radio: "When Tesla was 41 years old, he filed the first basic radio patent (No. US645576)". (This patent was filed in late 1897, and awarded on 20th March, 1900). There are two problems with this. First, Marconi's patent - which really is about radio communication - was filed on 2nd June 1896 and awarded on 2nd July 1897, before Tesla had even filed. Second, I have a copy of US Patent 645576 in front of me right now, and despite all the guff that has been said about it, it clearly isn't about radio, never mind radio communication. (There are many points which make this abundantly clear to anyone who understands electromagnetism, but the clearest passage for the layman is page 2, lines 66 to 80.)
  • Radio: "... awarded the patent for radio to Guglielmo Marconi, though his work is based on Tesla's widely-discussed demonstration years prior." Tesla's "widely-discussed demonstration" was nothing but an upscaling of Hertz'. Both Tesla and Marconi were aware of Hertz' work, as indeed was everyone involved in physics at the time. Both of them were also drawing on the prior work of Righi, Heaviside, Lodge, and many others. What Marconi's patent presented for the first time, was use of radio waves for long distance communication, and a fully working apparatus for doing so - having sent actual messages 400 m in July 1896, 2.5 km in September 1896, 5 km in March 1897, 14 km in May, 18 km (over the horizon) in June 1897, and 54 km in October. By January 1898, only a few months after Tesla's patent was filed, the first news report to be transmitted by wireless was sent over a Marconi set.
  • Tuned circuits: "Tesla ... discovered the concept of tuned electrical circuits". Both Righi and Hertz had worked with tuned circuits earlier. Hertz predicted the concept mathematically from Maxwell's equations, and included tuning elements in his basic spark gap receiver. Righi developed much more sophisticted tuning systems. The patent for tuned circuits was awarded to Oliver Lodge.
  • MRI: "These air core high-frequency resonate coils were the predecessors of ... magnetic resonance imaging devices". This is nonsense. There is practically no similarity between these.
  • Wacko "broadcast power" nonsense: "Instead of supplying electricity through a current grid system, users would simply "receive" power through antennas on their roofs." It is well known that it is possible to distribute electrical energy in this way. Contrary to the Tesla crack-pots, there is no conspiracy to suppress this fact. However, also contrary to the Tesla crack-pots, the efficiency of this system is extremely low because much of the energy radiates away into space or couples into natural conductors (the soil, the sea, etc). So low, in fact, that it is totally useless as a power distribution system.
  • I could go on but it's late. Securiger 19:27, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


Lets see what we can do here ...
>> X-rays: "Tesla did not discover the harmful effects of excessive exposures to X-rays"? Mabey a rewording along the lines of "Tesla's later X-ray experimentation by vacuum high field emissions led him to be among the first to alert the scientific community over the biological hazards associated with X-ray exposure" or mabey "His X-ray experimentation by vacuum high field emissions led him to alert the scientific community to the biological hazards associated with X-ray exposure" ... what do you think?
As you state [and your link] that in 1896, Tesla began warning experimenters not to stand too close to an X-ray tube. I was unable to find an exact November or June reference the link cites. If you can find a agumenting source to support your link's EE November 1896 reference or the June 1896 reference, I'd be appreciative. Below is a list of known publication over X-rays by Mr. Tesla in 1896 (which can be read here; none of these though have your link's dates, though there is a remote chance I may have missed it) :
1896-03-11: On Roentgen Rays
1896-03-18: On Roentgen Rays - Latest Results
1896-03-18: Tesla's Latest Results - He Now Produces Radiographs at a Distance of More Than Forty Feet
1896-04-01: On Reflected Roentgen Rays
1896-04-08: On Roentgen Radiations
1896-04-22: Roentgen Ray Investigations
1896-05-09: On Apparatus for Cathography
1896-07-08: An Interesting Feature of X-Ray Radiations
1896-08-12: Roentgen Rays or Streams
1896-12-01: On the Roentgen Streams
I would believe that your source is citing this document "On the Roentgen Streams" (December 1896) in actuality. I also found this reference doc concerning your link's info, "On the Hurtful Actions of Lenard and Roentgen Tubes" (a _1897_ reference, not a 1896 one). Ozone generation was among the reasons in the dangers of the x-rays (though your link doesn't give the full reasoning [and I suspect may be misportraying Tesla's exact understanding after quickly reading through the above list of documents]). Tesla did suggest a screen of aluminum wires connected to the ground (preferably through a condenser), to guard the person. Now, Aluminum is a poor absorber of radiation, unless the radiation is _very low in energy_ (which may have been the case in his experiments; Tesla was working with a specialized high voltage, low current devices to produce x-rays IIRC). Not completely ineffective against X-rays, but ineffective against high energy x-rays (which may have not been used by Tesla).
Now, aside from the previously mention people, can you tell me exactly what other early X-ray experimenters reported damage to the skin and eyes as early as March 1896? I would welcome any info on this ...
>> Radio: Lets cover the part "... awarded the patent for radio to Guglielmo Marconi, though his work is based on Tesla's widely-discussed demonstration years prior" first. Tesla's widely-discussed demonstration was more than "upscaling of Hertz" experiments ... it contained all the elements that were incorporated into radio systems before the development of the vacuum tube (and this is the opinion of the IEEE).
"In St. Louis, Missouri, Tesla made the first public demonstration of radio communication in 1893." This is true ... but how do you see it as "misleading"? Tesla's 1893 demonstration was radio communication, it demonstrated radio energy crossing space (one side of a stage to the other) to produce a electro-mechanical effect, IIRC [one of which could be a speaker; see below for more].
[snip Hertz note]
Lets now cover your problems with "When Tesla was 41 years old, he filed the first basic radio patent (No. US645576)" [filed - 1897-09-02; "awarded" - 1900-03-20]. The US Patent 645576 "System of Transmission of Electrical Energy" is related to wireless telegraphy. He states in this patent that lamps, motors, and/or other mechanical devices can be used from the reception [I would presume such as a speaker]. Your comment "despite all the guff that has been said about it, it clearly isn't about radio" conveys that you either do not understand this or are ignoring this. To the point of being "clear", _please state_ the "many points" and try to not make amorphous references (as I have tried to do).
Also, to your specific point in the patent (on page 2, lines 66 to 80), Tesla is talking about radio transmission experiments as related to using _non-metallic conductors_ in an insulating atmosphere [something which he states is futile, from my reading of it, if the atmosphere was not also conductive]. This does not make any case against Tesla's radio communication (but adds to the case that it was radio). I'm not sure if you misread this or just didn't understand it (I had to reread it a few time myself to get the full meaning).
As to Marconi's radio communication patent (filed - June 2nd 1896; "awarded" - July 2 1897 [this presumably is the British patent]), it was based primarily on Tesla's system that was demonstrated during a widely known lecture (read as: "reported in Europe and America") titled "On Light and Other High Frequency Phenomena", presented before a meeting of the National Electric Light Association in St. Louis and the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. Also, Marconi's pretended ignorance of the nature of a "Tesla oscillator" being little short of absurd. Marconi's patent presented a use of radio waves for long distance communication and a fully working apparatus for doing so only through using principles and methods originally developed by Tesla. By 1901, transmision by wireless was sent over a Marconi set [which used around seventeen of Tesla's patents]. [2]
BTW, Marconi's first patent application in America was filed initially on November 10, 1900 and was repeatedly turned down [see above reasons].
>> Tuned circuits: Mabye the sentence "Tesla ... discovered the concept of tuned electrical circuits" could use a rewrite; I'll try to to do it ASAP. Both Righi and Hertz had worked with "tuning" devices (or oscillator) earlier in the form primarily of primative detectors [not resonant coils]. Heinrich Rudolf Hertz did predict the concept mathematically from Maxwell's equations, but it would be a stretch to say that Hertz "tuning device" (or oscillator) by means of his basic spark gap receiver was a "tuned circuit". Augusto Righi developed, in your words, more sophisticted "tuning systems" [though, again, I would remember that these were very primative ... and these were not "tuned circuits" in the same sense that Tesla used and developed] ... Righi's detector (i.e., Righi's oscillator) would influence Marconi's work, though.
The "syntonic" (or "tuning") patent from the United States Patent Office for circuits was awarded to Oliver Lodge ("US609154, Electric Telegraphy". August 16, 1898) was basically a primative detector for wireless telegraphy (read as: "tuning device, not resonant coils"). Tesla's wireless transmission of electric power distribution system (US1119732 - Apparatus for Transmitting Electrical Energy - 1902 January 18) was one of the 1st patents over tuned circuits mainly using coil resonance (not a coherer/detector).
I'll see if I can find any other references over this [as I recall there is ealier instances, but I cannot off-hand recall it; though I could be in error] and I'll come back here to note it.
>> MRI: let's 1st put in the full statement: "These air core high-frequency resonate coils were the predecessors of systems from radio to radar and medical magnetic resonance imaging devices."
Now ... how is this is nonsense? The MRI works off the homogenous magnetic field, something air core high-frequency resonate coils can produce. No similarity between these? I'm not too sure about the "similarity" of the devices [the exact implemntaion do differ], but it was a early "predecessor" .... in other words, the general principles are the same (and I would refer you to this page). I'll see if I can find any other info on this.
>> Power: Wacko "broadcast power" nonsense? Wha? ... Not very NPOV o' you ... "It is well known that it is possible to distribute electrical energy in this way"? To whom? Not very many from my experience ... "Tesla crack-pots"? Not very NPOV o' you again [I see your POV now; plaese be careful to not slip into bein' a psuedoskeptic] "no conspiracy to suppress this fact" There is a "supposed" conspiracy? hmmm .... didn't know that ... conspiracies are usually secreative and this isn't ...
"the efficiency of this system is 'extremely' low"? Do you have any data on this? Or is this just "from the hip"? "much of the energy radiates away into space or couples into natural conductors (the soil, the sea, etc)"? Yep ... all part of a phantom circuit, much like the electrodynamic tether uses. "Totally useless as a power distribution system"? Hmmm ... that's not what Tesla stated in reguards to Wardenclyffe Tower. And not what the tether experiments of recent years indicate.
You "could go on but it's late? Ok, please do when you are able ... (I'll try to answer your concerns as time permits for me) ...
As the above answers are incomplete (and written in haste) to address your concerns, I may revisit my above coments at a later time (mainly adding additional information, as I find it) ...
Sincerely, JDR 21:19, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Category:Nikola Tesla

The category exists (categories being the MediaWiki 1.3 replacement for article boxes). All the Tesla series articles are in it now, except of course this one, because it's locked ... - David Gerard 23:48, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why would this particular category replace this particular box? Nikola 07:18, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Because article boxes are complete eyesores in general. IMO. If you think they're a particularly useful idea, I suppose they could be put back :-) The category is still useful - David Gerard 08:28, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I think they should be back. Nikola 23:51, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tesla early creator of a F.E.L.?

I am entirely unconvinced that Tesla did anything even remotely related to FEL's as stated in: "He also produced the effects that are now referred to as "free electron lasers."" under the "propagation and resonance" section. The concepts needed to understand and build a FEL are rather beyond the reach of turn of the century physics I think. If no source for this information is provided I think this line should be removed.--Deglr6328 08:17, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Couldn't find any credible evidence to support this so removed. --Deglr6328 12:53, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The Tesla Society archive has a photo in thier collection that has a picture of several coils that are producing the FEL effect. Throught HV resonance. 65.30.121.64 [I'll see if I can find the picture] PS., this is during his time in Colorado.
    • Didn't find the origginal [which is alot better] but this link shows in the 2nd pic shows the FEL.
      • That is not a free electron laser, and does not particularly resemble one. These are clearly pictures of corona discharges in air. If you know nothing else about FELs it should be apparent that a free electron laser requires a free electron beam, i.e. in vacuo. It also happens that the beam must be relativistic, monoenergetic and collimated in order to exhibit gain in stimulated emission, the ase part of laser; this makes it more than slightly improbable that Tesla ever produced such a thing. (Other things that are required for a FEL, and not apparent in this picture, are a resonant optical cavity (N.B. optical) and an array of static (usually permanent) magnets with spacially periodic alternating polarity.) Securiger 08:43, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • hte magnifying transmitter (@ colorado) was a resonator ... read up on Corum's analysis of this! JDR

FELs (free electron lasers) require a "electron" beam, notice the coherent beams between the coils (don't get distracted by the corona discharge). Tesla understood the monoenergetic energy for incident electrons (as shown in his discovery of the bremsstrahlung process). This effect is much akin to the cathode rays (without the vacuum) of negatively charged "particles"; a stream of "corpuscles". Things required [which Tesla had set up] for a FEL are a resonant "cavity", not just a "optical cavity" (the resonance between the multiple coils through the natural medium (eg., air) could preform this function to "bounce" energy back and forth within an area). As to the array of static (usually permanent) magnets used today, the energized coils themselves preform this function.

The resonance between the coils sets up a high frequency monoenergetic coherent "ion" energy beam (or "stream") (today it is achieved by means of collimated light). The electron plasma density would exhibit a gain in emission when the coils are in resonance. This is the ase (amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) part of laser [specifically, the spacially periodic alternating polarity electromagnetic radiation Tesla was experimenting with]. JDR 18:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) [PS. I would advise you to find the paper by T. Grotz's "Development of Particle Beam Weapons Based on Nikola Tesla's Design of 1937" for the ultimate culmination of this research. Also, here is a nice link for you].]

These pictures prove nothing. That some visible discharge looks like it follows a roughly linear path, need have nothing whatever to do with a laser; I can produce a similar visible effect by leaving a gap in my curtains. The caption of the picture does not support the claim that this is a FEL. And when I said "does not particularly resemble one", I did not refer specifically to "modern ones", but to the absence of the essential features of such a device.
For heaven's sake! Those aren't electron beams!! Electron beams are invisible, and cannot pass through air for more than afew centimetres. Those are either beams of light, or possibly plasma discharges.
When I say "monoenergetic", the emphasis is on precisely monoenergetic, throughout the beam. Any electron beam produced by an of the usual methods will be approximately monoergetic. But it needs to be much closer than that; they must have a spread that is considerably narrower than equivalent energy of the lasing frequency. Further, it must be in vacuo; quite apart from the difficulty of maintaining an electron beam in air, as soon as the beam impinges on air and causes plasma ionisation the energies will be thermalised.
{concerning the bremsstrahlung process} Another claim of which I am gravely skeptical.
What on earth do you mean by without the vacuum) of negatively charged "particles"; a stream of "corpuscles"? This phrase just doesn't parse.
The reason I emphasised optical resonant cavity is specifically to avoid the confusion you have evidently fallen into here with regard to resonance. We are not talking about electromagnetic coil resonance with the beam current, which is completely beside the point. In order to get lasing, the optical cavity (i.e. chamber with mirrors at either end) must be resonant at the wavelength of the laser emission (i.e., the light produced). This is typically a frequency of somewhere on the order of 1014 Hz, 1,000,000 times higher than anything that can be achieved with coils.
Notice the word static? That means, not varying in time. You could do this with an array of a large number of DC powered solenoids (although permanent magnets would be far simpler), but not with a resonant coil, which implies, as you put it, alternating polarity - and hence not static. You could probably also get close enough with a near-critical waveguide (close to the cutoff wavelength) (in which your magnetic field is not actually static, but travelling slowly w.r.t. the electron beam), but that would require microwave frequencies and incredibly precise engineering tolerances.
This (resonance between the coils part) makes no sense. If it is being driven by resonant coils, then it must be AC, and hence can't be monoenergetic. And what is being achieved by collimated light? The sentence seems to be claiming that a monoenergetic ion beam is being created by a beam of collimated light in modern FELs; that would be utter nonsense.
This sentence just does not parse. Plasma density cannot exhibit a gain in stimulated emission; that's like saying weight becomes brighter, or temperature becomes louder. What are you trying to say?
All electromagnetic radiation is AC, almost by definition, and we have been experimenting with it since time immemorial. But to be laser, it must achieve amplification by stimulated emission. That is, energy must be stored in a population inversion, and released when it is stimulated by existing radiation which is resonant with the emission lines. Your Tesla scenario does not have any lasing medium that can achieve a population inversion. It does not have anything to stimulate emission. You mention resonance, but you are confusing resonance of a coil (at a few hundred kilohertz, at most) with resonance of the energy levels of the lasing medium (at the order of 1014 Hz).
This would be the Toby Grotz who writes about Gnostic and Vedic mysticism for the "Gnostic Liberation Front"? I think I'll stick to peer reviewed stuff, thanks.
It is an interesting link. It also does not address your argument in any way. Securiger 19:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I may not be able to dis this @ great length right now ... but I will try to respond to this later (I'll get an offline copy so I can make a proper response; as of now, I'm offline for the most part and for the foreseeable future). And... be skeptical about the bremsstrahlung thing ... though, this is what you get when you use his single noded light bulb and produce HF like he did.
As to sticking to peer reviewed stuff, as Hannes Alfvén knew, those sources are not everything they are cracked up to be ... JDR 14:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Everyone is right to be skeptical. It has nothing to do with FELs. Although Tesla discussed passing hundreds of horsepower through a channel far smaller than the width of a human hair, he was discussing his "Death Ray" invention which was based on atomic clusters of liquid mercury or tungsten accelerated in a vacuum, brought out into the air, and used as a weapon. The accelerating voltage was provided by a huge VandeGraaff machine with a high velocity gas as its charge-carrying belt. It's a particle beam, but one composed of charged atomic clusters rather than single subatomic particles. It's closest relative is the modern water-jet cutting machine. Tesla claimed that it could bring down aircraft at a distance of hundreds of KM, claimed that he had built fully functioning versions, and he attempted to sell this invention as a coastal defense system to several governments at the end of his life. Unfortunately he died during negotiations. The "death ray" is fully explained in the recent PBS show TESLA, MASTER OF LIGHTNING. The "hair-fine channel" discovered by Tesla is easily reproduced in desktop experiments, and currently finds application in research under the name "electrospray."--Wjbeaty 02:10, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Wjbeaty, 1st ... I take it that you run the amature scientist site ... kudos on that site (if it is indeed you) ....2nd ... the colorado experiements and his death ray research are linked via thier evolution (Tesla does say later IIRC that a laser would not be effective ... and that his device used particles, not electormagnetic waves of frequencies in the light spectrum). His research in CS [and the FEL he produced there; along with his other research] allowed him to make these later statements.

When is a transducer not a transducer?

Tesla invented a telephone repeater (or amplifier), which could act as an audio speaker (not an audio transducer).

What does this mean? If something can act as a loudspeaker then, by definition, it is a transducer. -- Heron 10:23, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On the strength of this summary of this book, I separated the descriptions of the telephone repeater and the loudspeaker, which our article had got mixed together. Although details of both inventions are sketchy, it appears they were invented at different times. --Heron 20:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I believe that it was pointing out a difference between an passive device and active device. I'll see if I can find anything out; this probably got tweaked the wrong way during the various edit). JDR (His invention, IIRC, could recieve and transmit ... so it was an audio transducer (not just an audio speaker; eg., it could pick up the signals, also) ... I'll get back to the article on this if I find out specifics)

Dielectric level?

He chose this location [Colorado] primarily because of the frequent thunderstorms and the thinness of the air (reducing its dielectric level), making it more conductive.

What is "dielectric level"? (I know we have a stub article on it, but that doesn't define the term.) Can you use a conventional physical term, please? Do you mean permittivity, conductivity, dielectric breakdown strength, resistivity, or something else? How is thinner air more conductive, and why is that a good thing? -- Heron 10:51, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I found a comment by Tesla on the air quality in Colorado in Electrical World and Engineer, March 5, 1904 (reproduced here). In one place he says that the clean air made him feel better. Later, he says that the dryness of the air makes electrostatic experiments easier. I think that the statement in our article that thinner air is "more conductive" is the opposite of the truth. --Heron 20:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This has to deal with the nitrogen in the atmosphere. The higher altitudes reduce this, IIRC. See his essay on increasing human efficiency, "The Problem of Increasing Human Energy". (PDF file) JDR
PS., As to why made him feel better, clean air [with more oxygen) does would make one feel better (especially when city have so much pollution [especially @ that time]). I'm not too sure how the dryness of the air would electrostatic experiments easier [more later on this prehaps].

Thanks. I read the PDF article you referred to. Your statement in the Wikipedia article seems to be combining two of Tesla's statements which I do not think are related. First, he talks about oxidizing atmospheric nitrogen to make fertilizer. Well, that's possible, if expensive, but he says nothing to connect the availability of atmospheric nitrogen with the location of his laboratory in Colorado or with the conductivity of the air. Second, he says that it's easier to ionize air at high altitudes where the pressure is lower. This is also a well-known fact, but has nothing to do with nitrogen. The proportions of nitrogen and oxygen in the air are constant with altitude up to about 80 km [3]. I can see no link between nitrogen and Colorado.

I do not remember the exact reaon I put it in initally (the nitrogen thing) ... but your suggeted change is great. You are correct about the nitrogen thing ... but I still am under the impression that he choose this site because of the thinness of the air (reducing its dielectric level; irreguardless of the quantity of nitrogen) [it may have been elsewhere that I read about this ... I'll look @ his lightning conductor patnet and a few other sources I have and see I can locate it]. My apologisies, JDR

I suggest we replace your statement:

He chose this location primarily because of the frequent thunderstorms and the thinness and dryness of the air (reducing its dielectric level, via less nitrogen in the air, making it more conductive).

with this:

He chose this location primarily because of the frequent thunderstorms, the high altitude (where the air, being at a lower pressure, had a lower dielectric breakdown strength, making it easier to ionize), and the dryness of the air (minimizing leakage of electric charge through insulators).

What do you think? --Heron 13:44, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That would be great. JDR (looks like it's been done a long time ago though =-])

featured article candidate with unresolved objections

What can be done about:

  1. Overwikification
  2. rather long read (not to mention page size warning).
  3. detailed text to Nikola Tesla's inventions to serve as the body text (summarizing mention of most of his inventions).
  4. Annotated list of patents to List of Tesla patents move (inventions article link)
  5. Cover each theme
  6. merged for longer sections

Done

  • Move the prose to Tesla biography.
  • Quotes section IS NOT Tesla's quotes ... but other scientists on Tesla.

Other > is the "External links" section is too long?

Thanks for any input ... JDR

Tesla a Vlach?

In the last week this article has been constatly sneaky-vandalized, and we're all pretty sick of reverting it back to serbian instead of vlach (and others). I took the liberty to list this page in WP:RFPP, thought this might not be the proper action.

What actions should we take about this? — Kieff | Talk 02:44, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)) OK, we have an anon who would like Tesla to be a Vlach. If he was, this is fine by me, but I see no evidence that he was. The Vlach page map would appear to suggest not, but that is hardly definitive. This page [4] includes a quote attributed to Tesla: I am a Serb but my homeland is Croatia, which may or may not be reliable. This page [5] has User:GeneralPatton saying T is a Vlach, so I shall leave a note for him.

Simply read Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 1#Vlach stuff which is right here... --Joy [shallot] 21:19, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OTOH, I remember now that that has a bunch of rambling... the short version is that there isn't much evidence that he was an ethnic Vlach, certainly no more than the evidence that he was an ethnic Serb, so this should stay as it is. --Joy [shallot] 21:24, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 21:33, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)) OK, thanks. That was interesting... to boil it down, most of the he-is-a-vlach stuff came from irismeister and redddi (say no more) with weak support from GeneralPatton (who *is* sane) but who now doesn't want to get involved [6]. So I agree with you: no evidence.
Connolley, you need to adhere to the "don't make it personal" guideline (e.g., 'say no more') ... I don't really care if he was Vlach or not (but I think this was originally from a page with information on his Mother and Father (when I was writing a article about his mother, IIRC)) ... but since we are making this personal, when I see your name in a edit list, the article is less for it, but that is JIMO. JDR

Well, i've lived close to tesla's house (5 kilometres), and i know wery well history of the area, and i'm perfectly aware which kind of people are calling Tesla Vlach. Small nationalists trying to erase any trace of cultural existance of local serbs in the area. Like making parking lot from the tesla's father church: http://www.eparhija-gornjokarlovacka.hr/Images/Eparhija/Gospic/Gospic4.jpg or or by destroying graveyard where his parents are burried http://www.eparhija-gornjokarlovacka.hr/Images/Eparhija/Gospic/Gospic11.jpg. Or dinamiting his statute in the centre in the town. More sofisticated are trying to proclame him Vlach. Well guys, why destroy the churches, statues, graveyards of the Vlachs? You were at the war with the serbs? Aren't you?

I'll see if I can find the source(s) again [it's been awhile] ... but, I would like to say that this was not an attempt to erase any trace of cultural existance of serbs, on my part ... JDR 12:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

relativity , esoterical

Tesla unfortunately has become commonly associated with nutters these days, despite apparently being an unsung genius...

this is true. A lot of stuff has been published that speak of fantastic inventions of free energy forever, a motor that runs on gravity or whatever, which have been suppressed by the FBI or men in black. There are many claims that relativity was invented before Einstein such as by Edgar Allan Poe and others. I guess there are at least 50 Reativity inventors in each country  ;) --FrankA 01:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fantastic inventions? there's a book by that name ... as to "free energy", Tesla was intrested in "Radiant energy" that is everywhere [naturally] and being able to harness it (you could say that would be free) ... the "gravity motor" is from one of his essay that he sets up a thought experiment (talking about his early life; I think it's in thomas valone's new book (the essay)) ... he talks about making a "gravity shield" (the disk being turned because of g-force differential) .... there hasn't been a way to block gravity [yet, though mabey after they unify gravity and electromagnetism there may be =-] ... the FBI thing is "traceable" ... the Office of alien property did take his belonging even though they were not suppose to [he was a naturalized citizen] ... and I've never heard that Tesla invented relativity [he had his own dynamic theory ] JDR

But the "well documented" claims that he lit lights at 25 miles... can anyone document this?

I read this as well, but under a pretty dubious bio. A lot of his experiements still can't be reproduced today. Makes you wonder how he did them. --James 10:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He did this (the light thing) with his magnifying transmitter ... the Corums think he used it as a resonator to excite the earth-ionosphere cavity. JDR (PS. I'll look for a link about the bulb)

The 25 mile claim is apparently erroneous. It was never directly reported in any of Tesla's lab notes or direct writings. --Bert 05:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are photograhs of bulbs on coils bein lit @ a large distances. JDR Large photo file
The Tesla society say this in his bio: terrestrial stationary waves. By this discovery he proved that the Earth could be used as a conductor and would be as responsive as a tuning fork to electrical vibrations of a certain frequency. He also lighted 200 lamps without wires from a distance of 25 miles( 40 kilometers) ... you can read it here.

9th/10th for birthdate?

Anybody care to comment on his birthdate. 9th and 10th both seem to feature with google.

Nikola Tesla wurde exakt um Mitternacht zwischen dem 9. und 10. Juli 1856 geboren. He was born exactly at midnight:

http://www.dpg-fachgremien.de/p/informationen-dateien/plasmaphysiker/tesla.html

I think that this was talked about before ...
Being born on midnight would make it the 10th (@ 00:00 military time), IMO ... there is a birth certificate @ the museum (there's a link somewhere; may need translating)
JDR 11:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

ethnicity/nationality mention

66.68.252.119 wrote: Smiljan, Croatia is no where near serbia and Tesla websites and encyclopedia articles consider him as a Croat not a Serb and changed "Serbian" to "Croat".

This first issue stems from a misunderstanding that the adjective "Serbian" refers to "Serbia", where in fact it refers to "Serbs". I don't know if we'll ever be able to rectify this without using the unusual adjective "Serb". The second issue is patent nonsense. --Joy [shallot] 01:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla called himself Croatian because he was born and lived there, he also spoke Croatian a slightly different language to Serbian. Yes his father was Serbian but his ancestry is not Serbian. Tesla family name is Romanian in origin. This concludes that Nikola Tesla is Croatian and where his family comes from and their origins are irrelevant...we are talking about him only and he is Croat without doubt...... We can trace most cultures back to Africa .so are we all African...... Nikola liked to be called Croatian and not Serbian and in the end what evidence is there that Tesla name originated in Serbia = NONE.his parents are Serbs of Romanian origin We are not talking about his parents We are talking about Nikola alone and he was born in Croatia.

Leave it to say that he was a Serb of Croatian origion, he was batized in the serbian orthodox church. Klonimus 05:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Life magazine

I don't think that the mention of the Life magazine list deserves to be in the lead section. It's particularly ironic that Edison is number 1 and Tesla number 57 in the same list... but judging by the rest of the list, that may not have been done intentionally, but merely due to U.S.-centricity. --Joy [shallot] 17:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

hmm

i thought he died after being hit by a taxi .not of heart failure.

Vandal

I would advise someone to check 137.132.3.11's edits as s/he only knows how to vandalise. Do not want to revert any later edits (unsigned comment by User:SqueakBox

the only edit by him that i could see on the first page of history seemed to be a legitimate category addition some other recent edits by others im not so sure about though. Plugwash 17:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Links

An anon user, 66.17.239.99, made several edits in a short span of time that added and/or removed external links. I'm having difficulty following what the user was trying to do, (there were no edit summaries). Can someone confirm that no legitimate links were removed? Thanks. (P.S. Please make use of the "Preview" button, rather than filling up the page history with minor changes, that's what it is there for.) func(talk) 14:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll check it. -Anon [this by 204.56.7.1]
(William M. Connolley 15:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)) Will you now? In fact, 204.56.7.1 just removed the disputed notice under the edit tag "Propagation and resonance".
No. That edit was after the disputed notice tag was removed (which had no comment). The Propagation and resonance edit was adding information. sheessh, if you are going to accuse, do it right!
(William M. Connolley 16:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)) You're right. However, silently removing the dispute tag isn't permissible either. Please sign you edits.
Next time the edit will have a comment, if i can remember to. It doesn't need a dispute tag (unless there is a glaring reason to put one in).

Please sign your edits, unless you want to be seen as deliberately impolite. Use: ~~~~ (but without the nowiki...) William M. Connolley 11:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Also: Dynamic theory of gravity

Those interesting in trying to rein in the tesla-philes might also look at Dynamic theory of gravity which also needs attention after a recent bout of boosting by an anon. I've used up my reverts for now :-(. Maybe it should be VFD'd.

tesla-philes? That's not very NPOV. Are the statements referenced? Seems that they are. Seifer is one of the better recent biographers. Most of the other citations are from Tesla himself. -Anon [this by 204.56.7.1]
(William M. Connolley 15:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)) The pages have to be NPOV, not the comments. Please sign your contributions with four tilda's.
But your comments on the talk pages are very telling of your NPOV editing of the pages. -Anon (P.S., jsut to make it clear your page editing isn't very NPOV)


Double exposure publicity photo of Tesla

Other than the new Wizard, the Life and Times of Nikola Tesla book, does anyone have a link to the fact that this was a Double exposure? Sources usually denote that this was a single exposure (Seifer was the first I know to say that it was a double). Any links? Books? etc? If not, then statement that the photo was a double exposure should be qualified in the article. (PS., Tesla could ingulf himself in plasma ... there are several accounts of him doing this (in america and europe), so this may be an instance that he was not afraid of the amps killing him (the plasma in the photo being just EHV and extremely low amperage)) 9 Jun 2005 by anon user 204.56.7.1

The larger parasitic capacitance and higher voltage of large Tesla Coils combine to create relatively large peak discharge currents (tens or even hundreds of amperes) particularly in the path to ground). You can see the difference by comparing the brilliance of the arc like streamers that reach the resonator at the right versus those merely dissipating in the air. No sane human (Tesla included) would risk being in that position while the system was running, since a single accidental streamer "hit" could have been lethal. Tesla may have been eccentric, but he wasn't crazy... Bert 12:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It has to be a double exposure.

  • Look at the location of the arc. -- which is a very bright light. --
  • Look under Tesla's chair at the shadow.
  • Look under the coil on the right at the shadow.
  • Look at the vertical reflection highlight on the coil on the right.
  • Look immediately under the cage on the left at the shadow on the floor.
  1. If it was not a double exposure, there would be a VERY dark shadow off to Tesla's right (left of him in the photo), resulting from the illumination from the arc. There is no such shadow. Instead there is a shadow BEHIND Tesla indicating illumnation from IN FRONT of him.
  2. The coil on the right has dark shadows which clearly result from a light source immediately to the right and above the camera lens. (Probably a magnesium flash pan) If the arc had been on when that part of the image was exposed, those shadows would have been illuminated by the arc
  3. If it was a single exposure the coil on the right ITSELF would have been illumated from above and to the left (the right side of the coil would be dark). It isn't. Instead, there is a highlight reflection on the CENTER of the coil (again showing a flash immediately to the right of the camera.)
  4. The cage on the left has shadows on the floor to the right and behind it. These are consistant with a secondary light source which ALSO resulted in Tesla's shadow which goes BEHIND him (instead of off to his right.)

Conclusion: It has to be a double exposure. On line sources which concur: [7] [8] [9] (none of these are wiki mirrors...) Rick Boatright 18:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Found orignial citation. Tesla credited the photo as a double in his notes. Cited now on the photo's page. Rick Boatright 16:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Page bloat

This page is growing excessively (I've just cut it down somewhat) due to people adding stuff thats already on the sub pages. It doesn't all need to be here and it shouldn't be. Also, every semi-mythological tesla factoid (tungaska...) does *not* deserve a place.

This page is needs to be long. The stuff on the sub pages need a mention. It all needs to be here and should be. Also, every semi-mythological tesla factoid (ex, tungaska...) does deserve a place (and explained if necessary; but that would be better on the specific sub page).
(William M. Connolley 09:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)) Wrong on all counts.

Merge

According to Wikipedia (and general encyclopedic) convention, to biography of Nikola Tesla should be put under the lemma Nikola Tesla, not Biography of Nikola Tesla. To make a coherent, readable article, that would require, to shorten the sections on Teslas works and invention, which is no problem at all, because there exist already several separate articles for them. --Pjacobi 17:06, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

O.K., the merge tags get deleted. That isn't an argument. Please try to argue here:
Pjacobi 17:53, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
Actually, this separate article was introduced some time ago in order to include all the excessive attention to detail in this article. The final goal should be to spread out the content, we should not include all the stuff from over there back in here. --Joy [shallot] 18:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be a merge.
If Biography of Nikola Tesla is a biography, what is Nikola Tesla? NT is the preliminary entry, the BNT is the detailed article [to cut down on size].
I'm glad that Joy stated what the deal is and this should be kept this way [as POV edits from people that want to "disprove Teslaisms" lose information]. (unsigned comment by... 204.56.7.1, of course)

I think the best thing would be for the main article to be the biog. The inventions etc can be summarised and sub-paged. That would be better than having the biog sub-paged. William M. Connolley 19:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC).

It easier to list the inventions in the main and have the details of his life in the biography.
@Joy: giving the excessive attention to detail exile in separate articles is an inferior solution. We shouldn't react to pressure in this way. If the detail is excessive, is has to be cut, to conform with encyclopedic style.
@204.56.7.1: We don't do deals.
@William M. Connolley: Exactly!
Pjacobi 19:31, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
Pjacobi, that was the way (the deal) it was before and should stay. Attention to detail is needed due to pseudoskeptics and their ilk that want to "disprove Teslaisms". It's a better solution than losing the details. If the detail need to be moved, it needs to be put in an appropriate place. Wikipedia is not paper. Biographies and articles are supposed to be encyclopedia articles. After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic. Where print encyclopedias have small articles, however, the fact that wiki is not paper also allows us to have a more thorough treatment.
Bigger is not always better. --Pjacobi 20:26, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
Not bigger, just better and more thorough.

Also, please clarify your statement: NT is the preliminary entry. Do you mean there should be short and a long bio of Tesla? This would set a rather strange and unfortunate precedent. Or do you thing the version Nikola Tesla should be deleted and replaced with Biography of Nikola Tesla? --Pjacobi 20:31, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

NT should be a preliminary set of facts (Kept to it's size because some delete the info because the try to resort to the page size rule of thumb). It should stay much as it is, IMO. The BNT should be kept and expanded, if needed, allowing the full set of fact to be heard (though the other one is getting big and would be in danger of the same problems, POV edits hiding behind the "size" rule). I guess the editing will go on ...
No, it won't work this way. If a temporary private workspace is needed, use a subpage of user page (after creating an account), or if more editors would like to co-operate on temporary workspace, Nikola Tesla/temp can be used.
Also, a full set of fact isn't the measure called for in an encyclopedic article. We don't simply accumulate facts, but knowledge, so carefull selection is needed to create a good article.
Pjacobi 20:52, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
What part of wiki is not paper ... allows us to have a more thorough treatment do you not get?
AND the way to have a encyclopedic article is allow the reader to gain awareness and understanding of the facts, truths, and information (part of wikipedia goal (see this article) is to be largest encyclopedia in history, in terms of both breadth and depth).
I suggest doing some reading in Wikipedia, especially biographies, which were considered well done by your fellow editors, by promoting them to a featured article.
Among other things you will learn:
  • Biographies don't have a "biography of" in their lemma.
  • No person other than Tesla has two biographies in Wikipedia (discounting a fresh arrival at Zhao Yun)
  • The 32k limit is soft one.
  • Even for the most important persons, there are things not to report in a Wikipedia article, because they are irreleavnt and cannot be considered knowledge.
Pjacobi 21:13, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
I've read several Wikipedia articles, including biographies, considered some that are well done. The featured article is a popularity contest. A person other than Tesla who has has two biographies? John Paul II (discounting Zhao Yun).
The 32k limit is repeatedly cited to take relevant information out (at least here). Can you cite some of these "most important persons"? I'm sure there are things not to report in a Wikipedia article, because they are irreleavnt (bathroom habits, types of food ppl like) and cannot be considered knowledge. The information included is relevant (not just mundane factoid).
Just to let you know, I merged Zhao Yun bio. It was easily under 32k. The Bio of Pope John Paul II should stay the way it is, as the bio of Tesla should stay the way it is. -Anon
Wikipedia is not paper, but it's also not intended to contain the complete compendium of human knowledge in one place. There's a reason we have "Further reading", etc, sections. An encyclopaedia article on a topic should be an introduction to a topic; people who want to know more should be referred to specialist works which focus on that particular topic. Noel (talk) 06:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not intended to contain the complete compendium of human knowledge in one place? That is the goal of wqikipedia. See wikipedia under characteristics. It states Wikipedia's goal is to create a free, reliable encyclopedia — indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, in terms of both breadth and depth. I would take the reason for having "Further reading", etc, sections is to verify the fact or they are offline sources of information relevant to the article. Mabey we should look up what is an article? but that just send the reader to the encyclopedia mainly. (I'll look around the Wikipedia:FAQ, though. Mabey something there will be helpful.)
A wikipedia article on a topic should more than just an introduction to a topic; it should contain all the relevant information to that topic. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. People who want to know more shouldn't be referred to a specialist work, if a person that knows the information (specialized or not) wants to contribute it to wikipedia.

Pj: I admire your patience in arguing with The Unsigning One. But... it looks to be pointless. William M. Connolley 21:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC).

WMC, your a deletionist (from reviewing your history). It's pointles to try to discuss things with you.
Oh Unsigned One, a review of my edit history will indeed confirm that... I very rarely vote on VFD. William M. Connolley 09:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC).
O' upside down pictured one, not VfD. Just deleting information that is relevant.
Of course it's pointless, but it is required by policy and politeness. --Pjacobi 21:13, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

I've restored the merge notice. Just to clarify (because it is in fact a touch misleading, from my POV): I think there is text on the biog page that should be merged in here, and stuff here that should then be moved out, to keep the article size down to about 32k. If there is a tag for that instead of merge, then lets us it, but failing that I'd like to see the merge tag stay. William M. Connolley 22:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC).

WMC, please stop inserting the mergy tag. This article is like that of Pope John Paul II. His expanded biography is in a "Bio of" page. Thanks.
So far, you are the only one, voting against merge. --Pjacobi 21:46, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
I think that the previous edits (from the history) on why the NT and the BNT articles exist have shown the "votes" against a merge. As to the original reason why BNT exists is that the NT article was too long, while some want to add even more to it. User:Nikola Smolenski created the BNT to shorten the NT article while allowing the information to be saved.
Do you think that the John Paul II article should be merged? If not (which I believe is the case), then it a blantant POV in your editing. -Anon
Yes, of course, that one should be merged too. But he's just dead, so I'll give the hagiographers some months time, and after the dust has settled, we can go for that one. --Pjacobi 16:00, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
No, if you do not post it on that page, do not post it here. Don't wait to do it (As that is not NPOV editing). If you don't post a merge article notice there, then leave the merge notice off here. -Anon

Forking

After wandering over from RFC and reading both articles and discussions, I absolutely agree that this page should be the biography - it's an article about the man, therefore it's a biography. Biography of Nikola Tesla is just a fork for the Teslaites to rave about how wonderful he was and how we'd all be living high on the hog if all of his marvelous inventions weren't suppressed. If the article is really getting too long create additional articles about his inventions or the crackpot theories surrounding him. Soundguy99 04:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

this page (NT) should be the biography? It is the primlinary biography (more detail is in the BoNT) - it's an article about the man, therefore it's a wikibiography.
The Biography of Nikola Tesla is not just a fork. It was done, as far as I can tell, because of the page size.
How would you propose to create additional articles about information on Tesla himself?!? The inventions or theories surrounding him already have thier own articles?
As for your comment on Teslaites raving about how wonderful he was (a POV) and how we'd all be living high on the hog if all of his marvelous inventions weren't suppressed, that's just funny. Lord Kelvin stated that "Tesla has contributed more to electrical science than any man up to his time." Edwin H. Armstrong stated that "The world, I think, will wait a long time for Nikola Tesla's equal in achievement and imagination." Arthur Compton stated that "Tesla is entitled to the enduring gratitude of mankind." There are plenty of others that would support this. I would take their opinion and POV over yours.

Ethnicity?

I wonder if someone trustworthy and knowledgeable (Joy) could clarify the ethnicity stuff. The page suffers fairly regularly from people swapping serb for croat for vlach for... well I don't know. William M. Connolley 08:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC).

To say that he was a "Croat" is simply false and can be reverted without a second thought. "Croat" designates *ethnicity* rather than belonging to the toponym of Croatia — for that the term would be "Croatian", and then you could easily supplement it with the ethnicity - "Croatian Serb".
The term "Vlach" was in the old times sometimes used for all of the Orthodox people in Croatian hinterland, but by the end of the 19th century when Nikola Tesla was born, the Serb Orthodox faithful were all organized into the Serbian nation. To call him Vlach would be outdated and likely condescending.
As for the recent siliness in changing the location of where Smiljan and Gospić are, that is revert material because I've created pages for both long ago so it's obvious where those places are.
I realize that it can get confusing with so many anonymous vandals around, but that's what you get with probably the most famous scientist from the area. --Joy [shallot] 09:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks William M. Connolley 23:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Tesla is Vlach

His grandparents came from Romania !!! (by an anon)

I'll trust Joys version, above, thanks. William M. Connolley 19:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC).


Book

Because of the edit wars and non-NPOV edits, should the excess information be moved to wikibooks?

Wikibooks
Wikibooks has more about this subject:
The wikibooks article appears to be a duplicate of the info on "biog of NT" so I've restored the link to biog, for now. I'm half inclined to say "fine, dump all the tesla-phile junk over there" (I'm certainly not watching the wikibooks) but that doesn't seem terribly responsible. You realise (don't you) that refusing to sign, wanton breaking of the 3RR, etc, just annoys people for no purpose? William M. Connolley 09:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC).
You break thge 3RR and should be banned also. I sign as anon and that is perfectly acceptable to the policies of wikipedia.
Being deliberately impolite (as you appear to be) is against policy. It also does you no good at all. William M. Connolley 18:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC).
I have not been deliberately impolite, atleast not without provocation (as you have done). It does noone any good in not being nice. - Anon

I don't know who's brillian idea it was to start a Wikibook with this material, but it has created a firestorm of activity at The Wikibooks Staff Lounge. If you want to help to define in part the relationship between Wikibooks and Wikipedia, I would recommend that you get involved in the debate. Trust me, there are people at Wikibooks that are watching the content that comes over, and Wikibooks should not be considered a "dumping ground" for random content. Even so, I thought that the material that did make it to Wikibooks was well done in terms of Wikibook format.... before it was deleted by an Admin. That, for me, is what has touched off the controvercy all over again. --Robert Horning 04:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Merge/Fork

Its clear we have agreement that *this* should be the biog page. The biog can then be a redirect here. Some of the excess stuff here can probably then be cut/moved elsewhere to keep this page at a managable size. I will do this tonight I think unless someone (other than 204, of course) objects. William M. Connolley 09:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Well, tis done. I merged in the biog and removed vast amounts of duplication. I also cut some stuff (but not too much) and now its nearly down to a sensible length. William M. Connolley 20:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC).

WMC's POV edits

  • After Tesla's demonstration of wireless communication in 1893 and winning the "War of Currents", Tesla became world-famous.
  • In his early years, his fame exceeded that of any other inventor or scientist in history and in popular culture. Tesla had become a byword for innovation and practical achievement. His name was one of the most recognizable in the world, a magician who conjured up technical feats. Tesla's vision was to find a means to provide humanity the means for unlimited energy. He gave his life to make real these plans, while others made fortunes with his inventions.

This the view of the documentry of PBS : Tesla : Master of lightning

  • This is incorrect concerning cathodic X-ray tubes. Tesla later observed an assistant severely "burnt" by X-rays in his lab.

This is what Tesla stated on his single noded tubes. The 2 node x-ray tubes cause damage differenctly. Later, Telsa did have an assistant hurt from his x-ray experiments.

This is true. He was "forgotten", because of the political historical revisionism furthered by D. Sarnoff (who bought the marconi corporation). He was also in poverty near his death. -Anon

He may well have been broke. But it doesn't need wikilinking. Linking forgotten to revisionism is just POV, unjustified by anything in the article or reality. Last I heard, the fact the PBS said something doesn't automatically gain it a place in wiki, do let us know when policy changes. Oh, and as before, deliberate impoliteness by failing to sign is not helping you. William M. Connolley 18:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).
Broke can mean alot of things (broke in spirit: which he wasn't; broke in wealth: which he was)
the revisionism is true. It's documented (see the book "The Tesla papers", ISBN 0932813860 ).
PBS can be attributed for the paragraph overall tone. (You should go read the website and mabey buy the video; it'd be an eye-opener to you mabey (mabey not)).
I'll Sign with anon (if I remember to). -Anon
As a side note: WMC, if you are worried about the page size, go look at the page size of Albert Einstein, over 40 kbs. - anon
AE is easily worth 10 times Tesla or more. William M. Connolley 21:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC).
WMC, on this particular point, I'm going to disagree with you. Yes, Einstein was more important - but Tesla was an incredibly important engineer. Tesla's inventions in the field of electical power engineering have had an unbelievable impact on the world. His championing of AC for the power distribution system (allowing easy voltage conversion via transformers, and therefore long-distance power transmission with low losses due to resistance), and his invention of the brushless electric motor, made the widspread electrification of industry and homes possible in the 1900-1970 time period. Yes, we could do it differently now with solid-state electronics - but we likely wouldn't have them without the electrified industrialized society that Tesla made possible.
Having said that, I do think the article could use further toning down; Tesla was important, but the article still gushes. It could also use a bit of a reduction in size: Wikipedia is not intended to contain full-depth articles on topics; that's what "Further reading" references are for. There are a number of good books on Tesla (I forget which ones I have), and we should people who want to know more about him at those. Noel (talk) 29 June 2005 05:57 (UTC)

OK, I think we (Jnc) and I are in agreement: Tesla was important, but the article gushes. Also... if you have time, take a look at the various duplications... Colorado Springs is here and in Wardencliff tower. William M. Connolley 2005-06-29 08:49:16 (UTC).

Yeah, the article definitely gushes in places. I have edited some of the gush without changing any actual meaning except for the bit on superconductivity. The article was quite misleading in implying that Tesla had a role in the discovery of superconductivity, which is most definitely not the perception in the scientific community. Per wikipedia's NPOV policy, I clarified the issue. Krazikarl August 5, 2005

I looked up the actual patent info and noticed that the primary classification -- OR in the Patent office, which according to the instructions online is the only one used for prior art -- is for a device relating to induction. There are then 12 other cross-references classifications, of which the 11th is a device relating to superconductivity. I don't think superconductivity should be mentioned since it is such a tangent, but I left it in. Salsb 14:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I didnt think it had anything to do with superconductivity either, but I wasnt positive so I left it in and added a caveat. It should probably go, but maybe somebody knows something more about that than me. Krazikarl

Duplicate material

WMC stated, 20:17, 25 Jun 2005, in the edit history: stop hrowing around baseless charges of vandalism. Why do you insist on duplicating material that exists elsewhere? Reponse: I'll stop charging "vandalism" when that is not being done. The material does not exists elsewhere in the full form. The Magnifying Transmitter article (which you must be citing) covers only alittle bit about the dirary and it doesn't cover the othr aspects in the main NT article which you are removing. -Anon

Ahem... try [11] or [12]. You've been removing stuff from MT to try to justify it being in the main NT article. Clearly, its better the other way round. Even now there is still extensive dupl: for example:
Tesla kept a diary of his experiments in the Colorado Springs lab where he spent nearly nine months. It consists of 500 pages of handwritten notes and nearly 200 drawings, recorded chronologically between June 1, 1899 and January 7, 1900, as the work occurred, containing explanations of his experiments.

is still in both. Only a true Telsa-phile could think that - gasp - keeping a diary - how extraordinary! The man *must* be a genius - could be worth mentioning, let alone in two seperate articles. And it had 500 pages! Wowie!

The diary is applicable to both (the majority of magnifying transitter (wireless power transmission) stuff isn't on the Tesla page; the Tesla page has the other investigations he did in Colorado (telegeodynamics, tuned electrical circuits, solar radio signals)).
Only a true pseudoskeptic would talk about the diary without knowing anything about the diary.
A copy of the diary cost 500$ on the second hand market [you can't get it, it's out of print] 172.159.57.80

Actually, copies of Tesla's "Colorado Springs Notes" can be easily had via the used book market for $35-40. Bert

Incomplete sentence

I truncated this sentence:

Some believe that Tesla never fully developed the Unified Field Theory, nor that any physicist in the years since it was first postulated.

at the comma, because the rest of it doesn't make sense. If we can decide what the second clause means, I'll fix it and add it back to the article. --Heron 11:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some pictures from the museum

I have some pictures from the Nikola Tesla Museum from Belgrade. and i have no time for editing the Tesla page. If someone woud ike the pictures, (s)he can contact me at mulaz@email.si or on irc (www.ircnet.com -> servers and choose one from your country) nick = mulaz . I'm online weekdays usualy all the time, and some weekends.

oh yeah - 19 pics - 12MB

Dead link

Might try to see if this becomes active @ some time. -Anon


Historical revisionism ?

Why is forgotten linked to Historical revisionism? Salsb 7 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)

forgotten is linked to Historical revisionism (political) because of the efforts of some (such as Sarnoff) to write Nikola Tesla out of his many accomplishments. Some have selectively used certian facts, such as him trying to contact martian without explaining why he did this (he picked up planetary signatures, well known today in radio astronomy). The denial or derision of known facts; such as denyhing that Tesla demonstrated the principles of radio first (stating other did; such as Hertz) or derisively stating that he won the court case against Marconi for the true right to radio (saying, for example, that this was because the government was trying to harm Marconi). Another actions is the obfuscation of facts, such as removing his statements (as some editors here in wikipedia do). -Anon

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tesla's Tributes and honors

If you like Tesla... you may like Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tesla's Tributes and honors. Check it out... William M. Connolley 2005-07-07 22:18:08 (UTC).

==Tributes and honors== [[Image:Tesla Memorial NF small.jpg|thumb|right|135px|Tesla Memorial at Niagara Falls]] There have been many things named in tribute to Tesla. Below are a list of [[Tesla's Tributes and honors]]. The scientific compound derived [[SI]] unit measuring [[magnetic flux density]] or [[magnetic]] induction (commonly known as the [[magnetic field]] '''B'''), the [[tesla (unit)|tesla]], was named in his honor (at the ''Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures'', [[Paris]], [[1960]]). Nikola Tesla was: * Life Fellow IEEE (United States) * Fellow [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] (United States) * Fellow [[American Electro-Therapeutic Association]] (United States) * Member of [[New York Academy of Sciences]] (United States) * Member of [[American Philosophical Society]] (United States) * Member of [[National Electric Light Association]] (United States) * Member of [[Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts]] ([[Serbia]]) * Member of [[Societe International des Electriciens]] ([[France]]) [[Image:Serbia100Dinara.jpg|thumb|135px|Tesla on 100 [[Serbian Dinar]]s in 2004. Photo courtesy of [[National bank of Serbia]].]] ''[[Life magazine]]'', in a special double issue, listed Tesla in the "''[[Life magazine#LIFE.26apos.3Bs_100_most_important_people_of_the_second_millennium|100 Most Important People in the Last 1000 Years]]''". He occupied the 57th position, cited as "[one of] the most farsighted inventors of the electrical age". They state his work on the [[rotating magnetic field]] and alternating currents helped electrify the world. [http://www.teslasociety.com/lifemag2.jpg] Some Tesla monuments include: * Nikola Tesla Corner, 40th Street & 6th Avenue, Manhattan, New York City * Tesla monument at [[Niagara Falls]] : located on [[Goat Island (New York)|Goat Island]] in [[New York]] In addition, a number of things have been named after him or dedicated to him: * A [[Impact crater|crater]] on the far side of the [[moon]] was named after Tesla. It is 26 km in diameter at -2,0°width, -132.0°height. (The USGS [http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/moon/mooncrat.html] has the following data: 43.0 km diameter, 38.5°N 124.7°E.) * [[2244 Tesla]] is a [[minor planet]] named after him * The 100 [[Serbian Dinar]]s banknote in 2004. [http://www.nbs.org.yu/serbian/slike/73s3p.jpg See photograph], courtesy of the [[National bank of Serbia]][http://www.nbs.org.yu] * [[Nikola Tesla (power plant)|Nikola Tesla]] - the largest [[power plant]] in [[Serbia]], 2.8[[gigawatt|GW]] * [[Tesla (band)|Tesla]] - a [[rock band]] Tesla is a continuing character in a series of novels by [[Spider Robinson]] concerned with [[Callahan's Crosstime Saloon|Callahan's]]. The Tesla Coils of the PC games [[Red Alert]] and Red Alert 2 are named in his honor. The super person Nikola Tesla is a [[Japan]]ese comic ([[manga]]). The Tesla Cannon in the computer game Blood is a weapon that shoots electric projectiles. ----

The info between the horizontal rulles (and nowiki tags) needs to be put into the Tesla article if the Tesla's Tributes and honors article is deleted. It was removed becaue WMC complained about the article size, but then wants to delete the split article. If it's not going to be able to exist as it own, then it need to be in the main article. 216.185.232.203


I think some of this deserves to be in the main article. Tesla was a great engineer. However, 1) All of it? any publically known emminent scientist has these honors and more 2) the article is still around for now, so at least wait to see if it gets deleted Salsb 8 July 2005 01:18 (UTC)

Tesla Power Stations

Howdy, Could someone please upload the picture of the turbine generator of block A5 in Nikola Tesla power station found at http://www.ear.eu.int/publications/main/news-a1a2b3bo4.htm It's from the EU and so is in public domian.

It would be nice if we could have a articles on the two Tesla Power Stations. It's been established by VfD precident that all public electric power utilities are notable and worthy of inclusion. Together these power plants generate 47% of Serbia's electricity

For more information see http://www.eps.co.yu/about/nikola_tesla.php

Klonimus 9 July 2005 03:14 (UTC)


awards vs societies

Could we include his awards, but not his memberships? I ask this because some of them are simply societies any scientist can join with just dues. Also, any famous scientist is named as a fellow to multiple societies, but it is not considered worthy of mention for other scientists. Yet, of Tesla's notable awards none are listed in the award section, and only one is mentioned at all; the Edison medal.

I would prefer we include the socieities. Membership in prestegious scientific societies is a sign being active in your scientific area. Most articles about scientists ought to include memberships and awards. Klonimus 9 July 2005 05:50 (UTC)
I don't think the rest of the article leads any doubt about his activity. :) I do dispute the prestige of some of these societes: the New York Academy of Science, The National Electric Light Association, and the french SEE are all trade or professional organizations, which almost anyone can join with payment of dues; sort of like a realtor belong to the National Association of Realtors, or an electrical engineer being in IEEE, or a physicist being in the APS. I'm in four societies like these myself, for networking, reduced fees at conferences, free journal subscriptions, etc. Many scientists don't even put these organizations on CV's, unless they are fellows, or in leadership positions in these orgnaizations. On the other hand, the American Philosophical Society is one of the most selective invitation-only societies in the world -- more selective and prestigious then being an IEEE or AAAS fellow even -- and so its truely an honor. I don' t know that much about the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, but I do know that like the american National Academy of Sciences it is invitation only, and unlike the US version is also a collection of research institutes, like the Polish Academy of Sciences for example. So I would add the latter two to the first paragraph under "Membership in Scientific Societies", prehaps " He was also a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the American Philosphical Society, and the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts", and maybe something to emphasis the prestigous of these memberships, and then axe the rest of them because they are not notable parts of his career. Since there is some discussion here, I'm not going to edit yet Salsb 9 July 2005 17:39 (UTC)
Being an IEEE fellow is a quite an honor in the world of electrical engineering, less than 0.1% of IEEE members are fellows. So that definately deserves mention. As is I think just mentioning the fellowships, and menberships in inivitation only socieities would be enough. 24.60.163.16 9 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)
I agree, the fellowships should be mentioned. I merely pointing out that the American Philosophical Society is more selective than being an IEEE fellow. Incidently, this isn't relevant, but to be precise, the restriction is that no more than 0.1% of IEEE members can be made fellows in a single year; this year 268. The total number of IEEE fellows is more like ~5000. IEEE fellowship program Salsb 9 July 2005 19:12 (UTC)
I share your sense of propriety here, salsb. (peeking in b/c of the renewed discussion at Wikibooks :) +sj + 06:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"American humor" myth

During a meeting with Edison, after working for him for some time, Tesla outlined many improvements for efficiency and power in Edison's dynamos. Edison was so skeptically impressed, he said jokingly, he'd pay 50 thousand dollars to someone who would do as Tesla had outlined. But Tesla didn't realize the joke and took Edison's words seriously, designing a series of dynamos over several months in fulfillment of his offer. Only when he came to collect the $50k, did Edison let him know he had made the offer in jest.

Thomas Edison was forefront, at the top of the fledgling American electronics industry. And Tesla, some tall spindly eccentric character who seemingly just stepped off a boat, broke, from Europe was offering to make major redesigns to his devices which were years beyond the work of his best engineers. It is easy to see how Edison could joke about Tesla's offers. And it's easy to see how a non-English native speaker could misinterpret the jovial conversation: "I can redesign such, such and such." "Ha! No way, if you can do that I'll give you 50 grand!" "I can do it." "Ha, ha, OK, you can try (but it'll never happen)."

If Edison were more morally inclined, he would have given Tesla the $50k, despite his offer being originally in jest, but it is rewriting history or promulgation of existing mythology to say that Edison "reneged on his agreement" or "promise" since agreement was made only by Tesla, one-half of the two parties. Later in life, Tesla remarked that it was a stupid mistake on his own part not to have realized that Edison was only joking during that meeting. I don't think the article does a good job of revealing the facts of this story. --D. Estenson II 10:25, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well Tesla thought that there was an agreement, and hence he interpreted edison's refusal to pay as Edison reneging on his agreement. If you wish to rewrite that section, has it been established that Edison was joking? $50,000 was not an unreasonable sum to pay for Tesla's work, considering how important it was to DC power generation. If you would like, let's work on a concensus text. But it must emphasis that Tesla was insulted by Edison's refusal to pay. Klonimus 14:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
If Tesla did later remark, that it was a stupid mistake to not realize that Edison had been joking, that establishes that in hindsight at least it was apparently a joke. How about something to the effect of "When Tesla inquired about the $50,000, Edison replied to him, "Tesla, you don't understand our American humor", and offered Tesla a raise of $10 per week as a compromise. Tesla resigned on the spot; insulted by Edison's apparent reneging of what Tesla had understood to be an agreement. Later in life, Tesla did remark that it had been a stupid mistake on his own part not to have realized that Edison was only joking during that meeting" Salsb 14:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

My problem is that the article implies, incorrectly, that Edison originally considered the $50k offer a real deal. About a year ago, I read an article published in the late 1930's or early 1940's where Tesla in his own words wrote it was naive or simple-minded of himself to think the "agreement" with Edison was a verbal contract, when Edison was never serious. Though it is true that Tesla felt insulted not to have been paid what he thought was owed. I should try to find this article again to verify his comments. --D. Estenson II 00:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oddity

I personally think the U.S. government has created the deathray, it was identified to me as a low-class terrorist defense weapon for crowd control at first. It does exist though, it can be stronger. I heard about this device on CNN last year or so. Besides that, does anyone know if the time and place Tesla lived enabled him to learn multiple languages at once, or did he simply take interesting into linguistics? --Cyberman 10:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Tesla lived much of his life in Europe where he was exposed to several languages before moving to the US. He learned to speak them mostly by necessity rather than interest. I don't think he had any greater ability to learn languages than anyone else with his background. --D. Estenson II 08:22, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Info on his time in europe for the article would be nice. -Anon

Citation Question

Is there a reference for the following: "In the same year, Tesla devised an electric igniter (spark plug) for gasoline engines which was nearly identical to ideas about the same process used by modern internal combustion engines." in particular the "which was nearly identical ...." clause ? Salsb 21:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Read the primary source: U.S. Patent 609,250  - Anon (I'll see if I can find a secondary source, though)
This question is about being "nearly identical to the same process used by modern interal combustion engines". That isn't answered in the patent. Salsb 21:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Read the patent (particularly the claims), it describe the process. Read about the interal combustion engines operation. They are nearly identical.
I'll keep looking for a secondary source though [might not be able to today though]. -Anon
Without a cite that would be original research Salsb 21:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I'll change it to "Nikola Tesla gained one of the first patents on the mechanical ignition system with U.S. Patent 609250, "Electrical Igniter for Gas Engines", on August 16, 1898". 216.185.232.3 23:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Changed to In the same year, Tesla devised an electric igniter (spark plug) for gasoline engines. He gained U.S. Patent 609250, "Electrical Igniter for Gas Engines", on this mechanical ignition system. avoids any question of "original research", just stating the facts. 216.185.232.3 23:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Fluid mechanics

The article should mention that Tesla's expertise was not limited to electricity. While not a pioneer in the field, he knew a great deal about fluid dynamics, and had several patents based on the mechanical properties of fluids. His knowledge of fluid mechanics proved essential when he famously built the hydroelectric turbines at Niagra Falls. I think some of his knowledge of fluids also assisted his understanding of electrical currents. It is important not to neglect this subject, since it contributed to his success. --D. Estenson II 19:53, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes his design of a bladeless turbine (using the Prandtl effect) shows evidence of an excellent understanding of fluid mechanismisms. Klonimus 04:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

rtter

Tesla Unit

There was some text introducted by an anon on the generation of magnetic fields, which I removed. I did keep the conversion between Tesla and Gauss and corrected the size of the earth's magnetic field in Tesla {~50microT, not ~1microT}, although I am not sure this belongs here. Salsb 16:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Power Plants

Shouldn't some of these details be in an article about the plants themselves? Salsb 16:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I tried removing it. X put it back. Have another go... William M. Connolley 19:05:16, 2005-07-24 (UTC).
Could we merge the two units of the power plant into one article? There's almost no difference between the two articles on the A and B units and I doubt there'd be enough general interest to warrant two discrete articles. --Wtshymanski 17:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Go for it! Salsb 17:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
No, they are separate powerplants with entirely different architectures and generating sets. Both are important to documenting the history of electricity in Serbia. Klonimus 22:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Could you add some details to make it clear because the reference doesn't make it clear that they are distinct. "The generating units of TPPs ``Nikola Tesla`` represent 36% of the to-tal generating capacity of the power system of Serbia. It consists of four thermal power plants: TPP "Nikola Tesla A", TPP "Nikola Tesla B", TPP "Morava" and TPP "Kolubara". TPP ``Nikola Tesla A`` and TPP ``Nikola Tesla B`` give an average annual production of 16 bil-lion kWh, which makes about 47% of the total power generation within Electric Power Industry of Serbia."

After looking at the reference, I noticed that the text was incorrect (47% of Serbia's power}, so I corrected it.Salsb 23:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

There are two power stations TPP (Thermal Power Plant) Nikola Tesla A/B. The Plants are physicaly separate, and have different architectures and generating sets. Together they are 36% of the capacity of the total system, however they generate 47% of the electricity produced. This means that there is some fairly large idle capacity in the system Klonimus 04:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC).

Another Tesla Band

Nikola Tesla is also a hardcore band in Calgary AB


Birth?

"Tesla was born around midnight with lightning striking all around during a summer storm"? Is this certain? Do we have a reference? Kel-nage 15:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Certian? yes. Reference? yes. It's in his Autobiography. his birth certificate is around here in a link (see talk archive). JDR 00:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Just sounded a bit strange to me... Kel-nage 15:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Patent class and subclass

The patent office clasiifies inventions by Class/Subclass. The 1st 3 digits are the class. The second digits after the backslash is the subclass. This is from thier site:

patents are classified (organized) in the U.S. by a system using a 3 digit class and a 3 digit subclass to describe every similar grouping of patent art. A single invention may be described by multiple classification codes. Classification def @ USPTO

Heron, a primary class of patent US685012 is 178/43 (it is bolded), but other equally applicable classes include 505/825; To look up the up what the classes mean, go to the classification search.

505 SUPERCONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGY: APPARATUS, MATERIAL, PROCESS (This is the generic class for subject matter involving (a) superconductor technology above 30 K and (b) Art collections involving superconductor technology. Apparatus, devices, materials, and processes involving such technology are included herein. (1) Note. Precursors of high temperature (Tcgreater than 30 K) superconducting material under the class definition or process of producing the same are placed in this class if proportionally constituted to provide the desired superconducting product upon decomposition, heating, deoxygenation, or oxidation. The following class(es)/subclass(es) in References to Other Classes, below, specifically provide for subject matter including superconductors functioning at temperatures of 30K and below. ) / 825 APPARATUS, PER SE, DEVICE, PER SE, OR PROCESS OF MAKING OR OPERATING SAME (Art collection involving, (a) apparatus, per se, or (b) low temperature (Tc at or below 30k) superconductor device, per se, or (c) a process of making or of operating either (a) or (b) or the combination thereof.)

Sincerely, JDR 14:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all that. It broadly agrees with the edit I made. Is there anything you would like me to change? --Heron 18:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikibooks

There used to be a Wikibook at b:Biography of Nikola Tesla, which got VFD'd. This decision has now been reversed, and it's back. A couple of things:

  1. Can someone add the appropriate template or div or whatever to indicate it's back?
  2. If you find yourself needing to trim content from this Wikipedia page, feel free to move it to the Wikibook instead. We could use some more content.

Thankyou. - Aya 42 T C 01:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to Reddi for adding the div. Is there not a template for this? - Aya 42 T C 03:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Pigeons

Tesla was noted for his obsession with pigeons in his later years. His obsession with pigeons can be lumped together with his other eccentricities. Simfish 01:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Tesla's research on Tai Chi Ch'üan?

During the later years of his life, Tesla became fascinated with T'ai Chi, and I have read & heard that he witnessed in real life, some extraordinary thing sthat inspired many of his more esoteric inventions / concepts.

I believe it is all related, and if you have any more information since you started looking, I would really like to know about it.