Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 4

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 3

Archive 4

Archive 5 →

Mad scientist

As unfair and unfortunate as it is/was, Tesla encapselates the mad scientist better than most people the term refers to. Sadly, if he hadn't been viewed that way, and had possessed better marketing and social skills, we would likely have a far more futuristic, modern world than we have today, technologically speaking. In any case, he was viewed that way, and his life was arather tragic example of how unmeritocratic our society is, much to its own detriment. Sam Spade 12:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree to an extent. Especially late in his life he became someone that reporters would go to whenever they wanted a silly "Noted Scientist Says [something outlandish]" story. He was broke and probably didn't mind the publicity. However, just calling Tesla a mad scientist in the article without some kind of citation or source gives the article an unprofessional feel, IMO. KarlBunker 15:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was calling him a mad scientist, and I don't know of any serious historian who would describe him as insane. Also, I don't know that he experimented on himself, one of the basics for calling someone a mad scientist. That said he was widely viewed that way in the years leading up to his death, and we would be remiss to ignore that fact. Sam Spade 15:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Calling him a mad scientist is in no way unfair, as in all definable terms, he was the quintessential. What is unfair, is categorizing some of his less understood innovations "pseudoscience" - which is ten fold as POV as saying he was "among the greatest innovators of his time." 72.144.147.32

I agree w the anon. Sam Spade 21:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, its the magic weapons time again. And what does Many of Tesla's original researches and innovations are being rediscovered and reanalyzed today. mean? William M. Connolley 21:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how I could make the sentence any more clear :-[??? The evidence of the growing interest in Tesla's work (ie: engineering techniques derived from his notebooks and his numerous unpatented material etc) can be easily viewed in the numerous Tesla-related TV specials that have arisen, as well as the emergence of the so-called "Teslaphiles". In addition, the biographical books on Tesla often conclude on the note that some of his works are still being understood today. Good example of reanalysis etc [1]

It does not surprise me you pry on this article and not the countless other scientist pages that make farfetched and way more "gush" praises, because there have been some pretty radical claims made about Tesla's inventions. Nonetheless, too much prying just destroys the potential of the article and obfuscates any true statements about his work. 72.144.147.32

Explanation of Reverts

I have reverted continual controversial removal of "gush" and other sentences (unexplained deletions) by some editors. Regardless of attempted compromise with the editors, showing and explaining how the prude "gush" associated with saying Tesla was one of the most practically-accomplished scientists in the timeframe of late 19th to early 20th century is paralleled much more forcefully on numerous other articles like Carl Gauss, Michael Faraday, Isaac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, and an innumerable other amount of "pioneers", I simply got the response of "Tesla does not compare to them" - which is irrelevant to the case at matter, for the main point seems to be "let their accomplishments speak for themselves and do not innumerate their success". This main point is not followed on wikipedia, and thus should fairly not be followed on this article. If the vast majority of articles followed this trend, the editors edits would be acceptable. 72.144.114.155 04:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

While "Tesla does not compare to them" is a weak justification (I would say he does in some ways, but that's beside the point), that doesn't mean "gush" isn't bad. And just because gush exists in other articles doesn't mean that should excuse it in this one; it should also be eliminated from the others, but one thing at a time. Maybe just start by removing the most egregious stuff, until we reach an equilibrium of what stays and what doesn't.--ragesoss 05:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed so. However, the comment on this article is hardly the most "egregious", and can be supported, much like some of the claims on the articles. I see no need to begin an entire effort to remove all "gush" unless it is totally uncalled for. Thanks for the response by the way. 72.144.114.155 05:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I really cannot understand all this fights on Tesla's origin. Why cannot we say just the truth : that Tesla was a Yugoslawian with Romanian ethnic ancestry?

Popular culture and games

I think that most of this stuff should be briefly summarized, with the note that Teslas mention is significant in pop-culture, and should be linked to the disamiguation page 'Tesla (disamguation)' where they can have separate links. This article is about Tesla and not about all other stuff. Lakinekaki

Where should this go?

Dr. Nikola Tesla described the propagation of some of the electric waves from his "Tesla Coils" as being "many" times the speed of light. [A Tesla Coil built as described by Tesla generates both transverse waves and longitudinal waves.] [2]Lakinekaki

The Corum give a very resonable explination of this. Read thier papers ... if you are really interested i could find the exact reference. it basically has to do with cavity resonation of the eart-ionosphere .... but look in the links /ref ... of do a search for some of thier papers. J. D. Redding 02:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC) (PS., the speed of light is broken by cherenkov radiation [the medium is important]... so that is not a big deal really.)

As to the whole transverse and longitudinal ... one is hertzian ... one is maxwellian ... transverse are decent for radio ... but not power ... longitudinal waves in plasma are good for power transmission. J. D. Redding 02:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

serbian-american croatian-american REDUX

Tesla was a Serb! His father was an Orthodox priest, his mother a daughter of an orthodox priest, and he himself said that he is a Serb and not only that but also said that his greatest satisfaction is the fact that all his accomplishments were a work of an Serb. Croatia didn't exist since the 11th century and at the time it was Austro-Hungary. In World War II 500 Serbs from his village Smiljani were killed by the Croats, while in the latest war his statue in Gospic was blown up by Croats and his museum destroyed.

Tesla is definately a serbian-american inventor and not a croatian-american because he was a serb. Also because the croatians destroyed all evidence that serbs lived in the area tesla grew up in, in the 1990s. I think its shameful that wikipedia is calling him a croatian-american inventor when even the house he grew up in, was destroyed in the 1990s. Gospic was especialy hard hit in the slaughter called "operation storm". Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself!!!!! - Lazar

Don't listen to this lies, his house wasn't destoryed in operation storm which was legimited operation blessed by US goverment in which there was absolutly no destroying or killing civilians. His house is being renovated and will be a part of soon to be built Tesla theme park. : - Tomy108

Tesla was Croat, because he was born in Croatia. So he is croatian inventor, not serbian. He once said that he was proud of his serbian nationality and croatian citizenship. And Lazar stop spreading lies. - EIM

About Tesla croatian homeland in article of newspaper "Jutarnji list" - his relative lives today in Zagreb, Croatia. Damirux 13:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Tesla's earthquake machine

There are a lot of information regarding about this, so I will spare you the details. Personally, I find this fascinating and it's worth a mention in this article.

PS. Sorry about not loggin on, for some reason, I can only log on in wikiquote, but not here.

Tesla superconductivity

Tesla's Means for Increasing the Intensity of Electrical Oscillations ... U.S. Patent 685,012 . The The patent office classifies the patent as superconductivity technolgy, specifically "Dynamoelectric; liquid coolant" (310/54) and "Specific Identifiable Device, Circuit, or System; Superconductive (e.g., cryogenic, etc.) device" (327/527). 172.137.217.68 05:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on superconductor says that it is a myth that Tesla knew anything about superconductivity. Bubba73 (talk), 02:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it to what is factual, as far as I can tell. The McGraw-Hill Concis Encyclopedia of Science and Tecnology, 4th edition, doesn't mention Tesla under Superconductor. this makes no mention of Tesla either. There is a big cult around Tesla that believes (and publishes) things about Tesla that are not accepted generally by scientists and jistorians. Bubba73 (talk), 03:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Valone's "Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature" ( ISBN 1-931882-04-5 ), a reference used in this article as a reliable source, talks about superconductivity in one of the essays.

I would imagine McGraw-Hill Concis Encyclopedia of Science and Tecnology probably doesn't mention Tesla in reguards to remote control (his boat) nor radar (which the French based thier systems on his ideas). J. D. Redding 14:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC) (ps. a more detailed book about tesla's involvement and experiments would help.)

See also Talk:List of Tesla patents. pstudier 03:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Just read the patent. It has nothing to do with superconductivity, since it mentions using liquid air as the coolant and does not specify any exotic high-temperature superconducting materials (which didn't exist then, anyway). It simply exploits the positive temperature coefficient of resistance of metals. For example, copper has an α of +0.393%/K [3], and air liquefies at about -196°C [4]. The drop in resistance of a copper wire starting at 30°C would be roughly (ignoring second-order terms):

$(20 - (-196))\times 0.393\approx 88%$

which would indeed produce a marked 'increase in oscillations'. This is a conservative estimate, since the wiring would probably be hotter than 30°C when operating. The confusion arises because the U.S. patent office lumps cryogenic and superconducting devices together under the class 327/527 [5]. --Heron 12:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I was worried about that "ignoring second-order terms" disclaimer, so I tracked down this paper that shows in Figure 2 that the resistance drops linearly down to about -220°C (50 K). My estimate is therefore reasonably accurate. --Heron 13:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you really stating that all devices 327/527 are not superconductive? Do note that 505/825 (SUPERCONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGY: APPARATUS, MATERIAL, PROCESS, APPARATUS, PER SE, DEVICE, PER SE, OR PROCESS OF MAKING OR OPERATING SAME) is applicable here too ... are you suggesting all the devices classified as 327/527 or classified 505/825 are not superconductive? J. D. Redding

Just do really read the patent ... not just liquid air (and to portray it as such is disingenious IMO ... as the claims plainly state this ...) ... he states that that he does NOT limit the specific manner or mean of articial cooling (the patent clearly states "not-of course intend to limit myself to the specific manner and means described of artificial cooling") ... the patent's claims states that the devices is "containing artificial refrigerant" ... J. D. Redding (please reread the claims if you missed it!)

High-temperature superconducting materials did exist then and were known. Yttrium (discovered in 1794 and isolated in 1828 as an impure extract of yttria), barium (first identified in 1774 and extracted in 1808) and copper were known in the scientific community. There probably are more ... but that is use one set of high-temperature superconducting materials that were known.

There is no confusion because the U.S. patent office see superconducting devices (cryogenic, etc) in it's classification (one of the many application the patent can be used for ... the code list has other part ... and the patent before the one in question, which also talks about "freezing" the conductor (eg., Method of Insulating Electric Conductors), is not clasified as a superconductor because of the difference in the patents; eg., 685012 (Means for Increasing the Intensity of Electrical Oscillations) was used to produce supreconductivity). J. D. Redding 13:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC) ()PS, do note that US4869598 (Temperature-sensitive multiple-layer thin film superconducting device) cites this patent as part of it's prior art list!)

You seem to fail to appreciate that "lowering resistance by lowering temperature" - Tesla's patents, and superconductivity, the complete absence of resitance in certain exotic compounds below critical temperatures, are two entirely different and unrelated phenomena. Rmhermen 15:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to fail to appreciate reliable books on Tesla's experiments and the USPTO the two are entirely the same and related phenomena. Are all the devices classified as 327/527 or classified 505/825 not superconductive? J. D. Redding J. D. Redding (Do note that other people have superconductive patents before Tesla ... in the search of 327/527 ; 685,012 Ostergren is one)

I just read that Ostergren patent. It's not about superconductivity either. It talks about a copper conductor cooled with liquid air. --Heron 20:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No superconductivity is an entirely different physical process from temperature-lowered resistance. The patent office doesn't write the laws of physics, they only interpret the laws of the U.S. related to patents. And that link did not provide any content - only a list of numbers. At any rate, the mere fact that the current classification system of the USPTO fails to distinguish between superconductive and cryogenic electronic devices does not say anything about the specific nature of a particular device that falls into that broad category - it could be cryogenic, it could be superconductive, "etc." as the catergory title says. And the current category name certainly did not exist when Tesla patent was filed as the word wasn't even in use for another decade or more. Rmhermen 15:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's well known that the term "superconductive" didn't exist at the time (even Onnes didn't intitially use the term intially!).

The list of numbers is the classification list!!!! The is a cat and a sub cat ... and the these 2 numbers go onto the patent. If you do not understand the USPTO class schedule, please do not misinterpert the facts. J. D. Redding

Reddi, I shall pass over your opinion of my honesty and address your objections.

Yes, he did say that the invention would work with other methods of cooling. However, he specifically mentioned liquid air as one of those methods, so his invention must have worked at -196°C. Whether or not he had access to lower temperatures is irrelevant to this point.
Yttrium, barium and copper are not superconductors. The existence of the ingredients is not proof of the existence of the recipe.
The opinion of the patent office has no bearing on Tesla's actual achievement. The U.S. Patent Handbook says that the whole system has been revised since 1900 and more so since 1940. According to the Classification Order Index (COI), class 327/527 was established in 1994 [6]. Who knows how Tesla's patent was classified before that? It's Tesla's words in the patent that count, and there is nothing in them to imply superconductivity.
Patents usually cite other patents as prior art, and they chose which patents to cite based on the classification that the patent office gave them. If the patent office got it wrong, then all subsequent citations will be wrong.

--Heron 16:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

He specifically mentioned he was NOT limited to the specific manner or mean of articial cooling. He also had access to apparatus for lower temperatures (the double coiled method developed by Carl von Linde (who filed for patent protection in 1895) and William Hampson and widely known (it was used by Onnes himself)). The mentioned "liquid air" (composed of many different elements) as one of those methods, his invention need not to have worked at a "certian" temperature. The temperature would differ pending the element of the air you liquify. Again, he was NOT limited to the specific manner or mean of articial cooling.
Yttrium barium copper oxide is a high-temperature superconductor with a superconducting temperature of around 94K. The existence of the ingredients is not controversial. You stated exotic high-temperature superconducting _materials_ didn't exist then. (Do note that I am not saying that this formula was discovered by Tesla, but that only superconducting materials were known and available) Your current point is argumentum ad ignorantiam; if evidence of something has not been proven to a person's satisfaction, then it cannot exist.
The expert opinion of the patent office (recognized by argument and authority) has some bearing on Tesla's actual achievements. Patent examiners investigate the scientific literature databases for prior art, such as Einstein did (at one time). And your point that it didn't exist till then add to the fact ... as an examiner had to go back and reclassify the patent was such ... examiner are well train in thier fields.
The patent office did not get it wrong.

J. D. Redding 16:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC) (please answer if are you suggesting all the devices classified as 327/527 or classified 505/825 are not superconductive?)

I am saying that there is at least one patent in those classes that is not about superconductivity, and that is the patent we are discussing. I have no opinion on the other patents in those classes. --Heron 17:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

All but this one? Ha (rofl) ... Patent examiners don't mess up very reguraly (eg., vast majority the patents are correct)... and this fit is correct ... inaddition, the patent office doesn't allow other devices to cite them if the cited device is not a form of prior art (eg., the patent 4,869,598 was approved in 1989).

It's sad that facts here in wikipedia suffer because it's not accepted (opinion) ... to adhere to various people's "truths". J. D. Redding 18:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand the patent system more than adequately. For this category, it clearly includes both cryogenic and superconductive, two separate kinds of things in one class. No patent examiner has called Telsa's inventions superconductivity. Yttrium barium copper oxide is a late 20th century invention, not an unmentioned early 20th century one. If you wish to claim otherwise the burden of proof is on you to show as the patent office would say "prior art". Rmhermen 17:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above ... I am not saying that this formula (Yttrium barium copper oxide) was discovered by Tesla, but that only superconducting material components were known and available. There were material that Tesla used that could reach supercondivity state ... your statement that evidence of something has not been proven (unmentioned), then it cannot exist is fallacious. There were material that could reach superconductivity ... such as mercury (Onnes himself used that; Tesla circuit controller utlized mercury switches, he was knowledgeable in the use of vast many elements.) that could be used.

Patent examiners have called Telsa's inventions superconductive by the application of 327/527 and 505/825. The burden is not on me. US4869598 (Temperature-sensitive multiple-layer thin film superconducting device) cites it ... and it classification (something that had to be done after the fact) is proof that the device is sperconductive. J. D. Redding 17:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No, again. I can as easily claim that cave men used shotguns, because they knew about charcoal and lead. Just because some materials existed doesn't mean Tesla invented all their uses. Next you will claim that Tesla invented CDs and hard drives and fried Mars bars - I mean Tesla knew about chocolate and fry oil. And now you must prove me wrong. I don't need, according to you, to supply any more evidence.

The patent office did not "prove" that Tesla invented superconductivity. They merely reclassified his patents into a category which includes low temperature electronics and superconducting electronics. Two different things - one category. Rmhermen 18:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have given the patent office and Valone's book on the subject. There are other that have stated this. Your appeal to ridicule only hurts your points (eg., Next you ) ...

... "merely" reclassified as 327/527 and 505/825. This doesn't "merely" include low temperature electronics, the patent class is of superconducting devices. Please only just distort the fact once you get them straight. J. D. Redding 18:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No the class is not superconducting devices. It is superconducting devices, cryogenic, etc. This obviously includes a range of devices - some of them not superconducting. Please don't misrepresent your own facts. The patent examiner did not mess up this is the appropriate category - and it still isn't superconduction. Having yttrium is as unrelated to having Yttrium barium copper oxide as having a handful of iron ore is to having stainless steel. Rmhermen 18:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No you are wrong. This only includes a range of superconducting devices. Please don't misrepresent the facts. The patent examiner did not mess up. This is the appropriate category -and it is superconduction.

As to the material ... there is alot of material (such as mercury) known at the time and elements of compounds that (now fully known) that possess the characteristic of superconductivity. - Anon [User:204.56.7.1]

A couple of points. First, the USPTO classification scheme page I'm looking at [7] says "Superconductive (e.g., cryogenic, etc.) device". The brackets say to me that this category is for superconducting devices only, with "cryogenic" being one example. Rmhermen, you interpret this differently: your view is that the class is broad enough to include non-superconducting devices; mine is that the class is narrower and the Tesla patent is misclassified. Second, Reddi, if you don't believe that patent classifiers make mistakes, see the list of patents under 327/527 here, then click on the fourth entry (6,339,526) or the fifth 6,259,309 and tell me that they have anything to do with superconductivity. --Heron 19:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Does 6,259,309 (Method and apparatus for the replacement of non-operational metal lines in DRAMS) and 6,339,526 (Low voltage cutoff circuit with short circuit detection capability and method of operation thereof) have anything to do with superconductivity? YES. Both relate to superconductor-insulator-superconductor (SIS) tunnel junction technology.

Tesla patent is not misclassified.

- Anon [User:204.56.7.1] 16:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Reddi, neither of those patents has anything to do with superconductivity. Where did you get this SIS idea from? Neither patent mentions it. The DRAM patent talks about a conventional silicon chip with some redundant metal traces on it. The other one is a control circuit for an uninterruptible power supply, and works using FETs. Both these designs use semiconductors, not superconductors. --Heron 20:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

1st, Patents DO NOT need to mention various applications in the text itself, just the novelty or innovation ... (an example, the US1008577 make no mention of it for radio transmission ... just the amount of rotation made by the device ...)

Both of these deal with superconductor-insulator-superconductors. 6,339,526 is applicatible to "Superconducting Field Effect Transistors". 6,259,309 is applicable to applicatible superconductors which can be used for storing and retrieving digital information (part of "Quantum Computing With Superconductors"). 6,259,309 is not just 'conventional silicon chips' ... but applicable to "conductive lines".

BUT this digresses from the point that Tesla's patents are superconductive (from the text of the patent), have been referenced as such by experts (patent examiners), and have been written about as such in various essays/books (ex., Tesla's biographers). Sincerely, J. D. Redding 00:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was interpreting it based on other patents I found in the category. You managed to find even less related ones. I found the actual definition of the category: "Subject matter including a particular circuit which operates at temperatures which are approximately absolute zero (i.e., less than or equal to 30 K) where electrical resistance becomes essentially zero."[8] So Tesla's patent is wrongly classified as it was meant at least partially to apply to temperatures above 30 K which is a different class, and because he wasn't using superconductivity. Even if he had had YBCO - this would be the wrong category. Rmhermen 00:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It is classified correctly. It was meant to apply to temperatures below 30 K which is a this class and because he was using superconductivity. This is the right category. - Anon [User:204.56.7.1]

The phrase "essentially zero" makes me wonder whether they understand superconductivity at all. -- Heron 11:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

phrase "essentially zero" is not confusing, if you understand the definition. It means, '"basically" zero' and basically means '"at bottom or its very nature" zero'. Trying to FUD because of language used isn't good. Bust out a dictionary. - Anon [User:204.56.7.1]

Superconductivity References

It should be noted in the article that superconductivity was part of his inventions. As to Tesla's Means for Increasing the Intensity of Electrical Oscillations references ...

The patent office classifies U.S. Patent 685,012 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".

Sincerely, J. D. Redding 02:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC) (PS., please read the "The Problem of Increasing Human Energy - Through Use of the Sun's Energy")

In addition to the above reference, Seifer ("Wizard, the Life and Times of Nikola Tesla". ISBN 1-559723-29-7 (HC)) states that it is possible that tesla contemplated the use of superconductivity. His diagram cites -197 degrees, BUT in the footnote in the chapter he states that (though doubtful) it is probable that Tesla contemplated superconductivity for his world wireless system (this a decade before Onnes experiment). J. D. Redding

Tesla mention in Edison article

This is from the Edison article, under "Improvements of Edison's work":

Nikola Tesla developed alternating current distribution, which could be used to transmit electricity over longer distance than Edison's direct current due to the ability to transform the voltage. It could be said that alternating current was not derivative of Edison's work, but it was related as were the two men. Tesla was a former employee of Edison, and left to follow his path with alternating current - which Edison did not support.

It doesn't seem quite right. It seems to imply that Tesla did his work in this area only after being exposed to Edison's.

Nationality

Tesla said he is proud of his Serbian nationality, as well as his Croatian country. There fore this is the most objective definition of him, he was Croatian-Serb(Croatian citizen with Serbian nationality) who moved to USA.

Made some Changes regarding his Nationality. I mean how could any Serb ever be an "Croatian-American" Inventor - if he was born as a Serb in Austro-Hungary, being a Citizen of the same?

Why not only Serbian inventor? If we talk about country of living , he is Croatian-American inventor. If we talk about nationality, he is Serbian inventor. Serbo-American is nonsense.

And one more thing. He lived in Croatia. Croatian Duchy was part of Austro-Hungary, and later part of Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians. Croatians Duchy was legal part of both countries.

tesla photographs

The article mentions that only one photograph of Tesla was ever taken, and that the picture was lost. How then is there a picture of Tesla on the page?

No, it says to pose, which mean to dress up and all for a great picture.Reply to David Latapie 17:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Nationality comedy

I think this war about Tesla is comedy because we all know he is Serb from Croatia. Some Croatian nationalist claims he is Vlach and not Serb but that is false because he said that he is Serb and there is no evidence of his Vlach origin. On the other hand, Serbian nationalists claims he is not from Croatia witch is also false becouse he was from Military Frontier and Military Frontier was part of Croatia but under direct command of Austro-Hungarian emperor because of Turks invasion.

Serbian-American inventor doesn't make any sense. If we talk about nationality, he is Serbian inventor but than he has nothing to do with America. On the other hand, if we talk about his place of living he is not Serbian inventor.

So, I changed article to "inventor, physicst,... of Serbian origin". I am Croat from Croatia so I know that I have Croatian POV even if I want to have NPOV. For that reason, I have not mention "Tesla is from Croatia" or "Tesla is Croatian inventor" in article. Please read that few lines. I hope we can live with that until we solve this conflict on talk page.

Sorry for bad English knowledge.

Jakiša Tomić 22:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, mate. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 20:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If we talk about nationality, he became an American inventor. ONE of his most proudest moments in his life (according to him and his biographers) was his naturalization. J. D. Redding ("Serbian-American" is the "hyphenated American" category, such as "Irish-American")

This really is getting to be a drag. I think it's fine as it stands. He isn't "of Serbian origin", that would imply that his parents/grandparents were Serbs, not him. He was born a Serb and became a naturalized US citizen i.e. he was a Serbian-American. It's clearly mentioned that he's from the territory of today's Croatia, so I don't see what the problem is... If you don't have any other arguments Jakisa, I propose we take off the npov tag in 2 or 3 days. Can we just finish with this once and for all, come to a clear decison we can refer everyone to in the future. --estavisti 18:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I assure you edit war will not finish because he is/somebody think he is Croatian-born inventor and he will put it instead of Serbian-American inventor (even if Serbian-American is more important thing which I don't think because nationality is of minor importance if we talk about some sientist and not about politician - but that is only my opinion). I will not be one who will continue edit war but there are other users who will do it. I think problem will not be solved with constant reverting etc. because this is not forum but encyclopedia and if you come to page about Nikola Tesla 5 times a day and to see 5 different versions, that is not improving but a comedy. Therefore I suggest to make effort to do some stable version. We have very good article about one of the greatest scientist and only disputable part about him is one sentence. You are right about origin. He is Serb. Not "of Serbian origin". Serbian-American inventor, as you speak is correct and fine to me but withot your description about what "Serbian-American" is, somebody who read just that part can make conclusion he lived in Serbia before he moved to America. And, what is important, that is first paragraph of article.

Again, I will stop edit war to myself but I don't think this will be stable version. I suggest version "inventor of Serbian nationality" instead. I will put it without npov tag and that will be my final word. I can't help if some Serb or Croat doesn't like it and change it. Jakiša Tomić 22:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

How about Croatian-born Serbian-American? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That won't solve anything. We've so far avoided the issue of whether the Military Frontier was part of Croatia at the time or not. A bunch of people saying it wasn't will just come out of the woodwork. Jakiša, can I put it to you this way. In my last version, his birth within today's Croatia is mentioned in the first sentence of the second paragraph and in the box on the right. Do you really care what someone who doesn't get that far thinks? Could that version be acceptable. If not please suggest something else, as your last version sounds slightly clumsy in English (and leaves out the American part). Looking forward to resolving this farce soon. :) --estavisti 22:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you put that version with endnote near "Serbian-American" term and then at endnote describe what that term means (like you did on talk page)? Jakiša Tomić 22:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Correction: (like you did on talk page) -> (like J. D. Redding described it on talk page). Jakiša Tomić 23:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Correction again: Like J. D. Redding and you described it on talk page. :) Jakiša Tomić 23:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I took out the serbian thing in the 1st sentence since it is repeated in the following paragraph. 21:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

He is Serbian, Croats please get over it already. Just like a German born in Egpyt, he's not Egyptian but German who was born in Egypt.

Yes, he is Serbian and that is covered in the second paragraph of the article. Double wlnk'ing "serbian" doesn't make him any more serbian. 204.56.7.1 17:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

An additional complication in the minds of some people who perpetuate this edit war may be that "Serbian" is often perceived to mean "of Serbia", not "of Serbs". This might be the result of the common use of "Croatian Serb", "Bosnian Serb", "Bosnian Croat", etc. in media. He was definitely a Serb, but if one follows that interpretation, he wasn't Serbian. Is there any way we could work that into the first sentence without making it sound stupid? Zocky | picture popups 15:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You must distinguish between Serb/Croat in national/regional sense. Serb in national sense means that his parents, grandparents etc. were Serbs - as they were.

One could argue on whether national affiliation in the modern sense existed at all. But, since he went to elementary denominational school affiliated with Serbian Orthodox church, we can safely assume that he would (as he did, as I recall having seen a xerox of his application for scholarship funding sent to Serbian govt somewhere in 1870s-1880s) identify with national Serbdom. Mir Harven 14:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

To be a Croat, you must either be born Croat or have a Croatian passport - which he *didn't*!

No, you got to have a sense o belonging to a certain group of people who identify as "Croats". August Šenoa was a Croat, although his parents were Germanized Czechs & he didn't have any passport except the Austrian one. Tesla was a Serb simply because he actually didn't identify with Croatia & Croatdom (as he did, to a degree, with Serbdom). Parentage only is irrelevant. Mir Harven 14:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

He only had Austrian and Austrian-Hungary passport - never Croatian.

So, Vuk Karadžić, Đorđe Petrović Karađorđe & Miloš Obrenović were, according to this "logic", Turks. Interesting. Mir Harven 14:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, later he got an American passport. So, calling Tesla a Croat, or linking him with Croatia in any sense would be a stupidity.

Croatia was a political entity during entire history from 800s to 2006. Get a look at [9], [10]. Your view is simplistic & not generally accepted. Tesla was born of Serbian parents in Croatia, which was then a part of the Hapsburg empire. No more, no less. Mir Harven 14:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling him a Yugoslawian is another mistake, he never said he was one, but Tito's socialist agenda alluded he was Yugoslavian because of a telegram he sent to Machek's government that supported the new Serbo-Croatian state but which never said a word about Tesla being a Yugoslavian. So, bottom line: Tesla was Serb, Wernher von Braun was German, but both lived in USA and had US passport - but does that make them Americans? I don't think so.

Actaully-it does. Von Braun, or Einstein are frequently referred to as American scientists/engineers of German ancestry (or German-born). Though, since Tesla was not thoroughly assimilated within the mainstream of American society (this too can be questioned, having in mind his social connections with Mark Twain etc.), he may be referred to as Serb, too. But: 1) he was a produce of Austrian-Hungarian education, 2) he made all his inventions in the US-it's unthinkable he could have done it elsewhere in the world, even in the Europe. I understand wish of many Serbs to stress Tesla's Serbian affiliation in order to boost national pride, but: a technical genius is at home everywhere, and Tesla's carrer was unimaginable without the US. Serbia, Serbdom, even the Hapsburg empire are of secondary importance here. Mir Harven 14:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

His father was a Serbian ortodox priest, and his mother was a Croat, but the important thing is that he was an inventor who didn't invent stuff for profit, but for the good of everyone... hh

"His mother was herself a daughter of a Serbian Orthodox priest". Did you miss that line in the article? C-c-c-c 22:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

SI Unit

I think that a lot of people coming here will be looking for the SI unit. Is there any good way to make it more prominent? I considered adding it to the TOC, but adding everything under "Recognition and honors" would make the TOC really long, and I could hardly make only some of them headers. Maybe there just isn't a solution better than the disambiguation page now in use... Ealex292 22:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, the disambig note is the best, IMHO. Most people coming here are looking for the person, the disambig will lead them to the unit. 18:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Tesla Files/F.B.I.

Hmm, my other post disappeared. Sorry If it ends up being a double post.

I wandered in here and read a great article on Nikola Tesla. I'm left with a question: Did the FBI ever release the rest of Tesla's papers or are they still considered Top Secret??

Tanru 12:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The "known" papers have been release under FOIA. ~~Someone must have removed the link, look through the history of the article for in the external articles/sites.~~ 204.56.7.1 The link is @ the external reference sites in the article: "Hoover, John Edgar, et al., FOIA FBI files, 1943." 18:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it true that Tesla said to be in contact with aliens?

Yes. When Tesla was performing his experiments in Colorado Springs, he claimed to be receiving messages from Mars. I believe he wrote a paper to that effect. Erzahler 19:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.mentalfloss.com/archives/archive2003-04-22.htm

The "Alien messages" (which Marconi also believed in) where cosmic signals NOW known radio astronomy. 134.193.168.107

tesla

Nikola Tesla is a serbian inventor and please corect that croatin because hi is not ustasa.

Ustasa was a Croat minority hahaha RELAX MATE... -- Tesla is Serbian and is listed as that on wikipedia. Fair enough, no problem. We should all agree and those who do not must be stupid. ON THE OTHER HAND Why do Serbs keep changing origin of Croats Andric and Boscovich into Serbian???

Andric and Boscovich have no link to Serbia and have no Serbian blood or origin. All Serbs have to agree that if Croats have left Tesla as Serb ...Serbs have to leave Andric and Boscovich as Croats.

Ciao Polska

Wrong. Ruđer Bošković's mother was Serb. Andrić lived in Belgrade for most of his life, all his books are writen in Štokavian dialect, ekavian variant - mostly used in Serbs in Serbia. so, Anrić lived in Serbia, spoken Serbian - he was a Serb.

     Vlado

Now some historan, Vlado, invented another myth about Ruđer Bošković. One myth that was unknown, even on Wikipedia: "Ruđer Bošković's mother was Serb". Clown. Jakiša Tomić 13:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

TESLA WAS BETTER THAN EDISON

OK, now that I have your attention, I'd like for everyone who's contributing to this article to watch this 40-minute documentary about his life. I hope you like it as much as I did:

Nikola Tesla - The Genius Who Lit the World

Note that documentries often are pretty dubious sources to draw information from! Its certainly true that tesla had a better grasp of the mathematics of electricity (in particular he saw the great advantages of polyphase AC over either DC or single phase AC) than edison did but whether that makes him better is a different matter.

Well, we use Tesla's polyphase AC to light the world today, and not Edison's DC... I think I can guess who's better. --serbiana - talk 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The Aum Cult and Telsa WMDs

What value is there in adding the interest of the Aum group in his work? http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1995_rpt/aum/part06.htm to quote According to an official of the International Tea Society in the United States, a representative of the Aum in New York City, Yumiko Hiraoka, inquired into the Aum becoming a member of the Society. etc

Physicist ?

I don't get why Tesla is being almost invariably described as "physicist" and/or "scientist" ? He didn't make any contribution to the physics whatsoever & he hasn't done reasearch in any field of physics. He didn't author a single equation, didn't perform a single scientific experiment. Zero, nothing, zippo, zilch. He's enormously influential as an inventor (IMO, grossly underrated in comparison to the very successsful self-promoter Edison)-but, he simply was not a scientist. Mir Harven 13:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"...he hasn't done reasearch in any field of physics..."? Electrotechnics is sub-science of physics. I don't understand what are you talking about. Jakiša Tomić 14:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Electrotechnics is not a part of physics, which is a science. Electrotechnics is a field of engineering (electrical engineering). Any division of science & technology is clear on that matter. Mir Harven 17:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually he was messing around with plasma, if you read Margaret Chaney's book. So, I guess you could call him a physcist C-c-c-c 18:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This may be a bizarre & interesting info, but, it doesn't entail that he was a physicist. Any person, for instance a nutty perpetuum mobile addict can dabble with some experiments for a time, but this does not qualify them as physicist. Scientific work is more than just a dabbling. Mir Harven 21:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Mir, I am sorry but that is not true. Electrical engineering is not the same thing as a electrotechincs as a part of physics. Actualy, electrical engineering is an application but Tesla was big contributor to theoretical aspect of electrotechins. Jakiša Tomić 18:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Electotechnics is nothing more than a part of electrical engineering. See, for instance [11]Mir Harven 21:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just ask a physicist? There's obviously enough on the Reference Desk...geez idiot. C-c-c-c 01:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mir, but yes, I am asking physicist Wikipedians. (That's what the flags are doing: bye and bye a bot will add this page automatically to a list; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics.)

C-c-c-c, please don't edit the page until we resolve this. TIA ---CH 02:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.C-c-c-c 02:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. It might take a few days. BTW, above I was trying to give everyone distinct indents by username. If this annoys anyone, speak up and I'll stop. I find it very useful in keeping track of who said what. ---CH 03:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at this either tomorrow or on Monday. --Philosophus ^T 05:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Under Education it says "Bachelor Degree in Physics", his studies obviously involved physics, so did his experiments. But whatever, I'll not include it. What if we settle with something like this: "Nikola Tesla was a Serbian inventor, engineer and scientist. His inventive genius was in part due to his vast knowledge of physics and engineering, and his relentless desire to succeed". At least something along those lines. Any ideas? C-c-c-c

To repeat: a) Tesla was not a physicist, since one's academic degree does not necessarily have any repercussions with regard to their later work. For instance, a mathematician can turn out to be doing pure physics, a physicist may devote their energies to chemistry or genetics etc. To be classified a research scientist in the field of physics, one must do some work in either theoretical or experimental physics, ie. to try to expand the knowledge on the chosen area. Tesla's work did not expand our knowledge about "workings" of the physical world; they changed the way of life and technological outlook of the civilization we live in. 2) as for the label "scientist", I'm not sure either- but, I'm less positive than about "physicist" tag. Was Edison a scientist ? Or Gutenberg ? Or Diesel ? Maybe we should check some more contemporary guys like Marvin Minsky & see what one needs to be qualified as a "scientist". If their work consists of inventions based on the existing knowledge one is not devoted to explore & discuss further, either conceptually or experimentally, then, Tesla was a scientist.Mir Harven 09:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm in sympathy with the view that a physicist is not a person who has a degrees in physics but one who performs physics experiments or creates physics theories. Nonetheless I think that the description of Tesla as a physicist is not unreasonable, despite the fact that we can all agree that his contributions were more in electrical engineering. In the 19th and earlier centuries, few of the greats were pure scientists who were setting out to make fundamental contributions. The reason is, academic positions for scientists were even fewer than now and people of a technical bent who weren't independently wealthy had to make a living. While Tesla may not have published papers about physics, I don't think that's sufficient to disqualify him. Alison Chaiken 04:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd disagree. During the "heroic age" of Ampere, Humphry Davy, Faraday, Oersted,...the "reserach" and "technical" aspects were more intimately interwoven. Yet, even then, these scientists formulated laws, equations etc. Tesla did not formulate any physical law, nor did he write any equation in the field. Just, there is a nagging doubt somewhere in my mind: I recall I've read in Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics" that Tesla conceived the earth as a giant resonator. It's somewhere in the footnotes, but if my memory is correct, this (or something similar) would suffice to make Tesla a physicist in the usual meaning of the word: he formulated a new physical hypothesis which turned out to be correct. Anyone having Jackson by the bedside ? Mir Harven 14:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I just checked Jackson and found no mention of Tesla in the section on propagation of waves in the ionosphere. Alison Chaiken 14:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Alison, from a historical POV I agree that you have a point, but on balance I think you may have failed to take adequate account of the key question we should always ask ourselves as Wikipedia editors whenever we confront some decision: what course of action best serves our readers? In this case, I think the answer is clearly that our readers (and Tesla's memory) are best served by describing him as an engineer and inventor, not as a physicist and scientist. ---CH 05:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that what best serves readers is what we want here. I would guess that more inclusive descriptions (e.g. "electrical engineer, inventor and physicist") will do the most to help readers find articles. More extensive and inclusive descriptions are always better than narrower ones unless they are truly misleading. The difference between a physicist and an EE is inscrutable to a lay reader. The question always is, what is the audience that these articles are written for? We all struggle with this question. Alison Chaiken 14:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Many textbooks consider him a "physicist". A unit in physics is named after him (unless you don't consider electromagnetism a significant part of physics). It is utterly farcical to debate this. 72.144.103.135 22:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the best you can come up with ? A physical unit is named after Gauss, who was a mathematician & not a physicist. I'm wasting my time here...Mir Harven 22:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You certainly are, so go pry on a new article. By the way, maybe you should check out Gauss before making far-ranging statements like the above. 72.144.103.135 22:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you don't trust the editable Gauss article (I wouldn't) .. here's a nice short article about Gauss, the physicist [12]. 72.144.103.135 22:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted an anon (in fact the one just above... well you see the problem) who insists that T was a physicist. I have a degree in maths; I'm not a mathematician. Tesla was primarily an inventor.

On a slightly wider note: this article has for a very long time suffered from bloat from the Teslaphiles who insist on absurd puffing-up of Tesla, to his ultimate detraction: too much praise just makes him look silly. We may, finally, have enough editors here who could be more neutral and perhaps have some hope of knocking the article into shape, and maybe looking at some of the more outlandish claims (VTOL? etc etc). William M. Connolley 22:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly: as I said in an edit line, Tesla's contributions to technology are very impressive, so why this silly but persistent attempt to "promote" him from a remarkable if flawed human being into some kind of caricature of the Übermensch? I don't get it. And I entirely agree that the Teslamaniacs just tend to distract attention from Tesla's genuine achievements, to the detriment of our readers. ---CH 05:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I just googlefighted '"Nikola Tesla" physicist' and '"Nikola Tesla" engineer', "physicist" won by almost double. See for yourself: [13] Also, WMC has a history of abusing this article and accusing it of "bloat" while completely ignoring the thousands of other articles that have blatant bloats of towering proportions. He has a subset of his userpage devoted to his "raid against Teslaphiles" as he likes to call everyone. 72.144.103.135 22:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I just did the same with '"Nikola Tesla" physicist' and '"Nikola Tesla" inventor' ..the results:

inventor: 478,000 physicist: 468,000

[14] Remember, wiki:NOR. We are not here to debate whether Tesla was or was not by definition a physicist, we are here to accurately reflect what his biographies say about him. Also, VTOL is a Tesla patent, not sure how that's an outlandish claim. Although WMC is an admin, I don't see how he has the right to waltz into an article that has reached a nice equilibrium with outside contributions and completely change it around - usually deleting information by random (or so it seems). 72.144.103.135 22:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I urge the Miami area bellsouth.net anon to be more skeptical: Google results can be easily misinterpreted; for example an incompetent search can affect the results! In this case the problem is that there are a huge number of Teslamaniac blogs and websites (see this page for just a few). These tend to quote each other endlessly, which can inflate hits. Bottom line: instead of uncritically accepting every hit, particularly in this subject you also need to screen for quality or at least for repetition.---CH 05:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I do? Gosh, where? I looks like you know my userpage better than me. But if there's something there thats of use against the Tesla-philes, do please point it out! As for being an admin... that gives me no extra editing rights. We all know that, so why bring it up? As for waltzing in... I've been here longer than you William M. Connolley 22:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Right here: User:William_M._Connolley/Whats-wrong-with-wikipedia. Plus your frequented "name-calling" of people as "Teslaphiles" because they disagree with your massive changes to this article. Waltzing into the article - you do it periodically as anyone can see from the page history. 72.144.103.135 22:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, even the VTOL article itself has no problem mentioning the Tesla patent: In 1928, Nikola Tesla received patents for an apparatus for aerial transportation. Tesla called it the "Flivver". It is one of the earliest examples of VTOL aircraft.

Yes, there should be changes made to this article - but in no way with the overpowering method you're going by. 72.144.103.135 22:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that... yes you're right: Tesla is a good example of whats-wrong-with-wiki. sadly people become obsessed with him and insist on inserting non-notable facts like the name of his pet cat into an already overcrowded page. Sigh. William M. Connolley 22:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Though it will likely make no difference, as a physicist, after reading this article, I do not believe Tesla was a physicist. An inventor and engineer, certainly, but not a physicist. --Philosophus ^T 04:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but my training is in math (though I've worked in engineering and astronomy labs).---CH 05:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Too bad its not about how you "feel" about the subject - that could left for discussion forums. 72.144.60.65 19:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did I use the word "feel"? I came to that conclusion from the definition of physicist and this article. Making mostly-obvious conclusions from a synthesis of multiple sources is acceptable. --Philosophus ^T 20:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

www.tesla-museum.org: Nikola Tesla, electrical engineer and inventor ... American scientist ... No word 'physicist' is on the website. 'Only' engineer, inventor, and scientist.Lakinekaki 22:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. So of which science was Tesla a scientist (let's skip his engineering side)? Scientists go beyond the boundaries of what known in specific field of engineering. They advance. Tesla did so. While "Electrotechnics" and "Electric engineering" are engineering fields, Tesla covered more than those. For example, he made motors. Not just their electrical parts - the whole thing. He was "toying" with fields and particles. I can't really recall to which science these terms belong - maybe Biology or Sociology?

Look up another thing - for example a definition of Physicist. What does it say? No... can't be... they must be wrong somewhere. Let's look up Yahoo. Can't be - right? Everyone knows electro/magnetic fields, electrons, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with Physics. Even that pesky unit of measure is likely a mistake.

Well... You do know what my opinion is... But, then again, I believe that Physics is a "super science" of all "sub-sciences" that Tesla was a scientist of, even Chemistry (why not, laws of Physics drive laws of Chemistry, Physics deals with both greater and lesser particles than Chemistry, so Chemistry is just a detail-oriented part of Physics)...

Well, go on.. doesn't really matter. Tesla was a scientist and that is a good definition. Better than just "Physicist". He was, after all not limited to Physics...

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 02:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Tesla wasn't a scientist either, in my opinion. But to answer your physics question, certainly physics involves electromagnetic fields and electrons. Biology involves plants and animals, and chemistry involves chemicals. That doesn't make a cook a biologist or chemist, even if the cook comes up with innovative new recipes. Science is about finding how things work. Engineering and inventing, at least for innovative engineers, is about learning how to make better things. It isn't that we are trying to degrade Tesla, it's just that he wasn't a scientist - he was a great inventor and engineer. --Philosophus ^T 07:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You POV'ed editing in of your opinion do not match the facts. (see below) 134.193.168.107 14:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to get deeply involved in this discussion, but Hillman made a request on my talkpage to comment. There is no doubt that Tesla, although an iconoclast, was a great engineer and inventor. I, however, know of no major contribution he has made to physics other than giving his name to the unit of magnetism. He did not, as far as I know, substantially advance the state of knowledge in physics theory or experiment. Although, see the page 376 of Jackson (3rd edition) which suggests that Tesla "may have observed" (his emphasis) Schumann resonances before 1900. There is a footnote which reads:

In U.S. patent 787,412 (April 18, 1905), reprinted in Nikola Tesla, Lectures and Patents and Articles, Nikola Tesla Museum, Beograd, Yugoslavia (1956), this remarkable genius clearly outlines the idea of the earth as a resonating circuit (he did not know of the ionosphere), estimates the lowest resonant frequency as 6 Hz (close to the 6.6 Hz for a perfectly conducting sphere), and describes generation and detection of these low frequency waves. I thank V. L. Fitch for this fascinating piece of history.

Make of that what you will. I don't think it qualifies him as a great physicist. –Joke 02:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone read the article? - once considered a front runner for the Nobel Prize in Physics, now you want to doubt that he was even a physicist? Rmhermen 03:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Being rumoured to be a candidate for the Nobel Prize in Physics does not make someone a Physicist - even winning doesn't. Marconi certainly wasn't a physicist (I don't understand the rationale behind the choice that year), and didn't even do any physics - he just developed radio. According to the article, the rumour about Tesla being considered was based on Marconi's award, so that hardly is evidence of Tesla being a physicist. --Philosophus ^T 07:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Baccalaureate of Physics: Austrian Polytechnic Institute (Graz) and the Graduate studies Physics at Charles University in Prague (A physicist is a scientist trained in physics) ... also contributed the rotating magnetic field theory and much other electromagnetic research.

Other great physicists stated, "Tesla has contributed more to electrical science than any man up to his time.", Lord Kelvin ... "[Tesla is] an eminent pioneer in the realm of high frequency currents... I congratulate [him] on the great successes of [his] life's work", Albert Einstein ... "... all scientific men will be delighted to extend their warmest congratulations to Tesla and to express their appreciation of his great contributions to science", Ernest Rutherford ... "Tesla is entitled to the enduring gratitude of mankind", Arthur Compton ... nuff said ... 134.193.168.107 14:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Philosophus: what is your definition of "Physicist"? According to every otherwise available defition Tesla is one. As can be seen from sources already mentioned:

He studied Physics
He was good at it
He advanced a field of Physics

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 14:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A note re Reddi: 1/7R

Regarding Reddi, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2#Reddi_placed_on_revert_parole: Reddi shall for one year be limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page. He has, obviously, broken this William M. Connolley 19:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

To wit: three rapid fire reversions in face of community protest by User:Reddi on 18 May 2006:

reversion 10:08, 18 May 2006
reversion 10:00, 18 May 2006
reversion 09:53, 18 May 2006

These immediately followed similar anon edits 07:17 to 07:39 18 May 2006 by anon using IP address 134.193.168.107, aka the kc.umkc.edu anon. This machine is registered to University of Missouri-Kansas City and geolocated in Kansas City, MO. User:Reddi suggests on his user page that he resides in Kansas City. If he was indeed 134.193.168.107 (talk · contribs), who clearly holds very similar views regarding Tesla, this episode smacks of gaming the system and would appear to violate WP:SOCK WP:3RR. I note that quite a few problem edits to the WP appear to originate with Kansas City anons, all holding very similar views and exhibiting similar interests. These anon edits typically come from various library systems in Kansas City.---CH 21:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a case for WP:RFCU William M. Connolley 22:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC). Hmmm... on reflection, probably not serious enough yet. William M. Connolley 22:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think 204.56.7.1 is probably Reddi too William M. Connolley 20:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Proved his point, Tesla was a Physicist

Aleksandar proved his point, Tesla was a Physicist. --serbiana - talk 03:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert any further changes to this article from the original on site unless each change is explained an noted in here. Thanks. 68.215.52.35 21:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think we need to know the name of Teslas pet cat? William M. Connolley 22:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't. I don't think anyone would care if you just removed that part. 68.215.52.35 16:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh good. Pity you kept re-inserting it then. Still there is so much else in there that is junk, wurble and gilding the lily William M. Connolley 16:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

How about you delete it without vandalizing the rest of the article then? I wouldn't revert if it was done properly and orderly. 72.144.60.85 18:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives