Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 1

Wardenclyffe Tower

Why do we have so much detail on Wardenclyffe Tower here when the article on the tower says no one knows how it was supposed to work? From PBS story on Tesla it appears that he was trying to transmit power through the ground not the air. But they claim no one knows as does the Wardenclyffe article. Rmhermen 15:52, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Inventions

It'd really be nice to have a section that lists just his inventions. It'd make this article a lot more useful. :-) —Frecklefoot 14:54, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There's page on Tesla patents, perhaps it could be linked from here more visibly. Nikola 16:51, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

1912 Nobel Prize

Reddi: are you sure about the 1912 Nobel Prize? I cannot find supporting evidence for it. The official Nobel prize site [ http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1912/] just talks about Nils Gustaf Dalen, no one else

Some sites ...

http://webusers.physics.umn.edu/~selina/famous_story.html

http://www.genordell.com/stores/maison/Tesla.htm

"An announcement came from Sweden, in 1912, that Nikola Tesla and Thomas A. Edison had been chosen to share the 1912 award in physics. The awards, however, were never made; and the prize went instead to Gustav Dalen, a Swedish scientist. [ ... ] Tesla was the Wrst, and probably the only, scientist to refuse this famous prize." - http://www.uncletaz.com/library/scimath/tesla/prodigal3.html [this is from the prodigal genius book]

I just convey the info ... not make it up ... reddi 15:29, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You know, I'm starting to think this is an urban (scientific?) legend. Neither web site that you cite are very authoritative. I think I know the source of the legend, however. Check out Eric Weisstein's biography of Tesla at [1]. There, he cites Hunt and Draper (who are well-known biographers of Tesla). Weisstein states

There may have been some unusual maneuvering in the awarding of the 1912 or 1915 Nobel Prize. Biographer disagree on the dates, but report that Tesla was confidentially informed that he was to share the physics award with Edison, and was then surprised to see it go to a scientist (Hunt and Draper 1991, pp. 166-171).

This is different that "turning it down" and more consistent with the Nobel process. You see, recipients don't have an opportunity to "turn it down". You're just awarded it. I suppose you could refuse to go to Sweden to meet with the King, but you still have the award. However, backroom secret politics could have leaked out to Tesla, and that's what was recorded in his biography, and eventually turned into this possible urban legend. I don't have access to the Hunt and Draper book to double check.

May I suggest weakening the statement in the article, to make it NPOV? Something like, "Some people believe that Tesla and Edison were to share ..." -- hike395

I hope the present form is better ...

There is accounts of a New York Times article that may conflict with the "privately" part though. [ see the reference at http://www.teslasociety.com/biography.htm and in the prvious links (the 2nd one IIRC)] I'll see if i can find a newspaper ref for the article.

BTW, what is authoritative? Prodigal Genius [the book] is commonly accepted as a authoritative source of much information on Mr. Tesla ....

more later ... reddi 16:35, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's better, thanks. I didn't realize that the quote (and third link, which I overlooked somehow) was from O'Neill's book, which seems authoritative (i.e., a researched biography of Tesla, rather than a web page full of anecdotes). Thanks again! -- hike395

Street Gang?

What's a street gang, and can someone expand on that (intriguing) sentence? Graft 02:24, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A street gang is a term for a type of laborer job he held (I believe he was diggin' ditches or some meanial task). He did this shortly after leaving Edison's employment IIRC ... there a few references to him doing this ... he did this to acquire capital to begin his next experiments [again IIRC]

Middle Name?

On a COMPELETELY different topic ... doew anyone know Tesla's middle name? I have search a long time for it (since a year ago, when it started to bother me) .... but to no success (doesn't everyone have a middle name?) ... his museum has his birth certificate, but I cannot read it (i only read / write english and bad english) ... if anyone can, please tell me and I'll find the link to it [or goto the meuseum site and look around) reddi 02:38, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Serbs don't have middle names :)) In fact, I think that most people on Earth don't have middle names. Nikola 06:40, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Follow me on instagram: @travis.terayama

oh ... ok ... but could you check the record? [ala. can you read serbian? (or whatever lang it is in?)] ... never know, might have something on it reddi 06:43, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Of course I can, but where could I find his birth certificate? What museum it is in? Nikola 08:25, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Museum in Belgrade. OK, I'll try to go there in the following days and look up the certificate. Tesla might have middle name if Austrian jurisdiction of the time required it, but I doubt that. Nikola 08:27, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Or if you have a scan of it you could send it to me, that'll be faster. Nikola 08:33, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Here's the birth certificate link: http://www.yurope.com/org/tesla/pic/rodimage.gif ... a translation of any applicable information would be great. reddi 04:41, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

First, the certificate is in Old Church Slavonic. There is no middle name. But I found you something interesting:

File:Teslaname.png

Tesla was baptised in Old Church Slavonic rite and got Old Church Slavonic name Николай; that is, Nikolai, same as Nikolai_Gogol for example. Check for yourself in Cyrillic alphabet if you don't believe :) Now, it doesn't mean that we are calling him wrongly, at that time names were being translated and Tesla's name in Serbian language is indeed Nikola.

Tesla' date of birth is:

File:Tesladate.png

month of June, day 28th, year 1856. Now, that is in Julian calendar. Could you look up why there are two possible Tesla's birthdays? Perhaps we could sort this out. Nikola 08:23, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm editing Tesla's mother's entry right now. On this page they refer to it ... "Nikola, was born on June 28, according to the Julian calendar, or July 10, according to the modern calendar." ... it must be a transitional thing between the different calendars. more later ...

Past Tense

Please use past tense to discuss historical facts. Alternating back and forth between past and present tense is rather disconcerting for the poor reader.

Alternatively, if you insist on writing in present tense, the for God's sake be so good as to do it consistently throughout the article. I mean really:

First Tesla is born... then The midwife commented,...then Tesla moves to the United States of America...

Mkweise 02:47, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree. I found the switch from present to past tense jarring. I think we may have a non-native speaker as the main contributor to this article, so we really can't fault him for it. But at the very least, the same tense should be used throughout the section. But for historical subjects, past is preferable. If no one else does it, I'll try to get around the changing it. It's pretty darn lengthy, though, so we may have to settle for one section at a time. —Frecklefoot 14:52, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As to history and the tense it is written in ... a course I took in college "Writing on History" (or something similar to that) taught me to write to history in the present tense. It's commonly accepted by historians when writing on history that you write in the present tense (unless something has changed in the last decade since I left school). IIRC, It may be that it helps the readibility of the timeline (atleast from historians' view). Changes between tenses are mostly a preference (pending the exact phrase under consideration), but, primarily, historical writings should be written in the present tense. I'll try to keep it active, and not stale [as past tense is the latter and the present tense is the prior]. reddi 15:07, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of present tense in historical subjects. I don't have any evidence to back me up as to the "proper" tense to use, but it just seems common sense that when speaking about something that has already happened, put it in the past tense. We are writing for the public at large, not historians specifically. If there were a WikiHisty, perhaps we'd write in present tense for it. Also, I've read plenty of history books that always used the past tense. Just MHO, but I think others might back me up on this.

As to past tense being stale, this doesn't have to be the case and rarely is. Any tense can be passive or active. I've read plenty of novels written in the past tense that kept me riveted and were very active:

"Jake thrust the jagged knife into Jim's abdomen."
"Sheila ripped off Tim's shirt."
"Lisa smashed her fist into the wall."

So, my opinion is to write history in the past tense and in the active voice as much as possible. :-) —Frecklefoot 15:39, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It may seem common sense that when speaking about something that has already happened, put it in the past tense ... thought it's better form to write in the present tense. This is for historical accounts in general (not just for historians, as you imply).

As to past tense being stale ... i'll example this ....

"On monday, Sheila ripped off Tim's shirt." [passive; stale]

or

"On monday, Sheila rips off Tim's shirt." [active; alive]

As can be seen, the latter is abit more active and alive than the prior ... other examples can be done ...

I'll See if i can dig up my old book on this (from the class... I have it probably packed up) to give you a citation of th title of it .... reddi 16:18, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, it would be acceptable style to use present tense, if it were done consistently. But this random mix of past and present tense is ugly - we have to agree on one or the other, and most historical articles on Wikipedia do seem to be written in past tense. Mkweise 16:38, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree that either tense would be preferable to the current jumble. But I did find this doc from Brown University (How to Write History) that states that history should be written in the past tense to avoid confusing the reader. Which was my point in the first place. :-) —Frecklefoot 17:10, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In the hopes of settling this (good natured) dispute, the table below has a short section of the biography written in the current present tense and the past tense. Which is more readable?

In 1884, leaving the warfare of his birthplace behind, Tesla moves to the United States of America to accept a job with the Edison Company in New York City. He arrives in America with 4 cents to his name, a book of poetry, and a letter of recommendation (from Charles Batchelor, his manager in his previous job). Tesla supports his brother-in-law's church in Gospic while in America.

In 1884, leaving the warfare of his birthplace behind, Tesla moved to the United States of America to accept a job with the Edison Company in New York City. He arrived in America with 4 cents to his name, a book of poetry, and a letter of recommendation (from Charles Batchelor, his manager in his previous job). Tesla supported his brother-in-law's church in Gospic while in America.

—Frecklefoot 19:31, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK, this is beyond silly. History is almost always written in the past tense because it happended, in well, the past. Why the heck do you think there is a past tense at all? The only exception is the day and year pages because there is an immediacy to them. And Wikipedia general practice has been overwhelmingly to write history in the past tense. --mav 19:38, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thank you! My feelings exactly. I just couldn't seem to get anyone to agree with me (up until now). Thanks again, Mav. —Frecklefoot 19:55, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't think this is "beyond silly", but my preference would be for past tense, because:

Our articles may mix "history" sections with other perspectives on a subject, so the clarity of past tense=past is useful.
Our articles are aimed at and written by non-experts, and amongst non-experts history is normally in the past tense.

Of course, people should write in whatever tense they feel comfortable with - copyediting wikipedians can change articles to be in an appropriate tense. Has anyone mentioned this discussion on wikipedia talk:Manual of Style? Martin 21:25, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Is this a joke??? You NEVER write professional history articles in the present tense, not for history books aimed at anyone over the age of 6!!! Never ever ever. Lightweight 'cartoon' coverage of history may do it, usually with pictures you colour in with crayons on the side. But no serious textbook, let alone an encyclopædia, does it. If they did they would make themselves an international laughing stock. As someone said above, it is "beyond silly". It is absurd in the extreme. Is this idea some sort of belate April Fools' day joke??? It is so nonsensical an idea as to be sidesplittingly funny. Why next? Writing every thing article in capitals? Bold every second word? Write backwards? FearÉIREANN 21:13, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've asked a colleague on the phone and (once he had stopped laughing) he explained that writing in the present tense was a rather naff fad a few people on the fringes of historical researches tried, and like all naff fads (roller discos, leg warmers, 1970s architecture, perms, writing 'hir', the Bay City Rollers, Fame, electing Jimmy Carter) is looked back upon with embarrassment, usually of the sort of 'what the hell were we smoking/taking/thinking of at the time?' :-) FearÉIREANN 21:25, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

(the following few paragraphs were moved from village pump)

Over at Talk:Nikola Tesla, a disagreement over whether history should be written in the past or present tense has resulted in an article that alternates between past and present tense in a very ugly fashion. I've started a discussion at Talk:Nikola Tesla; if there is an authoritative answer, please post there. Mkweise 16:45, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I posted a link to How to Write History from Brown University, which I assume is authoritative enough. I couldn't find any arguments stating that history should be written in the present tense except from Reddi. I'd appreciate any further input, either for or against present tense (with evidence for stance). Reddi's objection to past tense is that it is "passive." I countered that both present and past tense can be passive, and he countered again. I still hold that history should be written in the past tense, but as Mkweise notes, the discussion should be furthered on the Talk:Nikola Tesla page. —Frecklefoot 17:20, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

My wife, who was a History major, says that it can be either past or present tense (but obviously it shouldn't be both in the same article); apparently there is no standard among historical writers about which is better. I personally find it strange to read about past events in the present tense, but it can be pulled off convincingly by skillful writers. My preference is past tense for historical subjects; the only potential problem with it is how to transition from events of the past to events of the present; it is probably for this reason that the policy for adding to the Current events is to use present tense. Anyhow, I would find any arguments regarding the passivity of either tense to be specious; it's very much possible to use an active voice while using past tense (consider how you would write a resume!). Anyhow, I have no solid evidence for either, but I strongly oppose the intermixture of the two. We should pick one and stick with it. -- Wapcaplet 19:43, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A lot of the problem is that people are switching back and forth between tenses in the same article. I've also run across the future tense -- "He would go on to ..." form. I change those to "He went on to ..." whenever I see those. RickK 02:12, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Since it's clearly the consensus, I suggest we make it official Wikipedia style that historical articles be written in the past tense. While we're at it, how do you all feel about past vs. present tense when describing legendary and mythological events? I personally tend towards describing legends and mythology in the present tense. Mkweise 23:39, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia:WikiProject History or Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology we could move this to? Martin 22:29, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've started converting the bio to past tense and have done some rearranging and rewording in the process. As of this writing, I've reached "Laboratory Construction." If you see any grammar errors or instances of present tense that I've missed, please go ahead and fix them. Changing passive voice to active would also be appreciated (<-- note: that sentence is passive-voice) :-) —Frecklefoot 14:50, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I've finished the conversion. It wasn't really all that bad, but I encountered some awkward wording in some places that others may want to revise. This doesn't really belong in the article, but my father-in-law has a personal anecdote involving Tesla. I'll post it here for your reading pleasure. :-)

My father-in-law is a physicist and reviewed some data regarding an electrical device a fellow scientist was going to build. He asked the scientist, who was quite a bit older than he, if he was going to base it on AC or DC. He replied, "Alternating current." My father-in-law nodded and then asked, "Why?" The scientist replied, "Well, I knew Tesla, and he was a real nice guy. I also met Edison, and he was a real son-of-a-bitch." :-) —Frecklefoot 16:52, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

some rather dubious material...

some of this article comes across as rather credulous, repeating the conspiratorial Tesla stuff one comes across on the Internet but which is never properly sourced and is clearly dubious at best.

some of this article comes across as rather credulous? which part? anything inparticular? please read the several biographies out there 1st too ...

Conspiratorial stuff? Conspiracies are prefectly acceptible to mention ... most are not this also (look @ the links) ... clearly dubious? YMMV on that ...

For example, most people consider Tesla's obsession with wireless power transmission to have been quixotic; the practical inefficiencies doomed it to failure on anything but a very small scale. Similarly his "death ray" (if it existed) was most likely a focussed microwave beam, which would happily fry a bunny at two feet but would have had no practical combat use.

"most people" consider Tesla's obsession with wireless power transmission to have been quixotic? The IEEE doesn't ....

The practical inefficiencies doomed it to failure? ummm no ....

His "death ray" (if it existed) was most likely a focussed microwave beam? and that's doesn't make it any less of a "telkeforce" device ...

No practical combat use? YMMV on that ...

Would be great if someone with knowledge of the relevant history and electrical engineering could update the article to show the borderlines between Tesla the scientist, Tesla the obsessive, and Tesla the part-fictional construct of latter-day conspiracy theorists.

knowledge of the relevant history and electrical engineering? The IEEE and several other knowledgeable and reliable sources state these commonly known FACTs regularly ... sorry you don't believe them ...

update the article? it's uptodate ...

Tesla the scientist? he was that all his life ... Tesla the obsessive? that is clearly covered in the present article .... and Tesla the part-fictional construct? I believe that is covered too ...

sincerely reddi 02:04, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I second the above motion that this article is unduly credulous about several of Tesla's ventures, and this leads me to think that there should be a section in the article about Teslaphiles. You know who I mean. For some reason there seems to be a Tesla fan club that attributes the man with visionary powers beyond all ken. It may have to do with sympathizing with the "crackpot genius vs. the uncaring bureaucracy" mentality. I propose this section not to discredit Tesla or make fun of his defenders, but because it seems to be an actual phenomenon. Tesla fans are about 1000 times more passionate about the subject than Edison fans. Incidentally, see Cecil Adams for a (rather undetailed and summary-like) dismissal of Tesla's broadcast power. Tempshill 22:40, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Tesla's ventures? Most of these are covered (not sure if there are any other ones out there? but there could be) ...

"crackpot genius vs. the uncaring bureaucracy" mentality? hmmm ... mabey ...

Teslaphile ... actual phenomenon? yes ... there are followings of him [not to mention some fringe religions that incorporate him] ... also, there is a band named after him ...

Tesla fans vs Edison fans? vs. Marconi fans? vs Hertz fans? hmmm ... mabey seperate articles? =-]

Cecil Adams on Tesla's broadcast power could be put into a crtics section? (or critical links) .. though I'd like to say that Mr. Adams had not experienced anything like the magnifying transformer [which is a modification and improvement on the original tesla coil] (of which Adams bases his judgement too from what I can tell) nor does he mention his radient energy work. If you read the Tesla patents, you know that he does lie down the many fundementals of broadcasting (among other things).

Sincerely, JDR

As a postscript, see this on the Teslaphile phenomenon ...

Kelley, Thomas Lee, "The enigma of Nikola Tesla". ARIZONA State UniversitY. [Thesis]

And if you are going to bring IEEE into it you had better note that they state "he became oracular in his later years and, for example, offered no proof of the potent "death-ray" that he announced in 1934, on his seventy-eighth birthday" and "he began work on a worldwide communications system, and a 200-foot transmission tower was constructed at Shoreham" (not as the article claims a power transmission plant) and again " It was at his Colorado laboratory, too, that Tesla, who had become increasingly withdrawn and eccentric ever since the death of his mother in 1892, announced that he had received signals from foreign planets"! And in contradiction to our article which claims Wardenclyffe was a radio wave generator "Engrossed as he was with the transmission of substantial amounts of power, however, he almost perversely rejected the notion of transmission by Hertzian waves, which he considered to be wasteful of energy. He thus proposed wireless communication by actual conduction of electricity through natural media," All from the biography at IEEE [2] Rmhermen 15:17, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

IEEE is pretty good site for some things ... though history sections are brief articles mostly ...

"[Tesla] became oracular in his later years" ... "offered no proof of the potent "death-ray"" of 1934? If you read the article by Joseph W. Alsop ("Beam to Kill Army at 200 Miles Tesla's Claim on 78th Birthday", New York Herald Tribune. July 11, 1934.) you'll see that the force cited is produced by the system using the same basic principles for a death-ray and wireless transmission ... so, it's probably an improvement and slightly different implementation of previous works (may be in the missing patents or papers? mabey not ...) there was also no working model of it though (and wouldn't o' past the patent ofice at the time) ;-] ... more later on this hopefully, though ....

"worldwide communications system at Shoreham? See the Wardencylff article for possible uses of that facility.

Colorado laboratory? It's a neat facility ... the pictures are neat, atleast ...

received signals from foreign planets? Yep ... amazing ... though he misinterperted the data ... he thought that they were messages ... but it was really radio astronomy (electromagnetic signatures of the planets) ... wouldn't be till another few decades that the scientific community would acknowledge them as a real science (IIRC, Geber (sp?) is credited as the father of that science) ...

claims Wardenclyffe was a radio wave generator? Tesla was able to transcieve substantial amounts of power ... Hertzian waves are one type ( Tesla also refers to longitudal waves [which are not akin to hertzian lateral waves, as he puts it] ... lateral waves may be wasteful of energy, longitudal waves may not be (though the info on it is scare). Remember, too, that much of his terminology is different to that of modern tech, as he was on the "edge" ... robots are an example, he called them teleautomatons (or something like that (I could look it up to be more precise)).

"wireless communication by actual conduction of electricity through natural media"? That is a possibility ... see the ultilization of radiant energy patents (2 or 3 o' em, I forget at this monent) ... or any of the radiant energy patents ...

Sincerely, JDR

Here's an article on the so-called Non-Hertzian waves: The real science of non-Hertzian Waves. Having done some reseach on Tesla for a newspaper article, I agree that the Wikipedia article way too uncritical. There is a lot of very compelling pseudoscience out there about Tesla and Wardenclyffe, but let's not forget that Tesla abandoned the scientific method in his later years. He did not accept critique regarding the flaws in his theory which were one of the reasons why Wardenclyffe never worked. The article gives the impression that the only reason Wardenclyffe never went operational is because of greedy investors.

First allow me to say that I am no Tesla expert and certainly not an EE. I have no expertise as to evaluate how plausible/crazy Tesla's wireless tranmission ideas and work were. My impression from this article (alone) is that the indications are that wireless ground/air power transmission as proposed by Tesla might actually work, but that it has not been tested as a full system. The informative science comments in this section seem to be asserting that pieces of his work on this were subsequently confirmed by independent research. So if his wireless transmission does not work (as one might suppose given we don't see them), perhaps a section akin to the one on the signals from space would be appropriate? Indicate what parts of the discovery have been confirmed, which parts were inaccurate, and which if any remain speculative. As a reader, that would be very helpful. Thanks. - JohnG

Croatian, Serbian, American

I was wondering .... besides being American ... what's up with the Serbian - Croatian thing going on? Is there any data to conclusively state one or both? I was under the impression that it is preferrable to referred to Tesla as a Serbian-American (IIRC, I read this on the Tesla Society (or a letter by them) that he was this) ... but a few web sites, again IIRC, cite him as a Croatian-American. A minority of other sites do both. It really matters little to me ... but I've seen a few edits back and forth and would like to get a general concensus ... and mabey stop the flip-flop ... Sincerely, JDR

Tesla was of Serbian ethnicity but lived in Croatia before moving to the U.S. That's it. (Some people might tell you how that place was not Croatia because it was in Krajina, but that's just wishful thinking on their part.) So if you wish to state his national affilliation, you'd say he was a Serb, but if you wish to say where he was from, you'd say he was from America and from Croatia. --Shallot 23:39, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, he wasn't from Croatia. He was from Austria-Hungary. And from a region of Austria-Hungary that will be a part of a Croatia some 100 years after his birth. Nikola 07:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that's sufficiently accurate. Croatia is a geographical entity which was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, a political entity. Croatia didn't lose its geographical identity under Austro-Hungarian rule any more than Serbia did under Ottoman rule. Saying that Tesla was from Austria-Hungary is insufficiently precise because it doesn't identify which part of the empire he came from (Austria? Hungary? Croatia? Slovenia? Transylvania? The Veneto?). He's usually described by encyclopedias as being "Croatian-born": e.g. "American electrical engineer, born in Croatia (Austria-Hungary)" (Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology), "US electrical engineer and inventor, b. Croatia" (Philip's Encyclopedia), "American electrician and inventor, b. Croatia (then an Austrian province)" (The Columbia Encyclopedia). I see no reason why we shouldn't use a similar description. -- ChrisO 08:02, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What ChrisO said. The place had acquired a common name of "Croatia" several centuries before Tesla was born. Even the political entity where his village is was also officially renamed back to "Croatia" not long after he had left it (and the country later). There is very little basis to omit the term in reference to his origin. --Shallot 19:56, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Croatia and Serbia are political and not geographical regions; there is no geographical region which is called Croatia or Serbia (unlike, for example Kosovo, which at a time was both a political and a geograhical region). You say that the political entity where his village is was renamed back to "Croatia"; how was it named before? Nikola 06:27, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I beg to differ. While Serbia can be construed to have grown out of smaller regions (notably Raska and Zeta), Croatia also grew out of smaller regions but the regional names Pannonia and Slavonia stopped being applied to the central region at hand around the beginning of the second millenium. Pannonia was used for it in Roman times and during the Slavic settlement; Slavonia was relegated to the eastern region some time around the early Hungarian rule.

I agree but still don't see how is it geographical region. Nikola

I can't remember offhand a wide regional designation for the areas of Karlovac, Sisak, Ogulin... heck, even towards Zagreb. There are many toponyms like Zagorje, Prigorje, Bilogora, Turopolje, Pokuplje, Posavina, Moslavina, Banija, Kordun, Krbava, Lika... but very few of them can be said to describe that whole chunk or even a noticably large part of it. The common name for the whole kit and caboodle is "Croatia", I don't think there is any other. --Shallot 11:27, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As you once said, Croatia's shape is hard to outworse; there simply is no geographical region in which Croatia is, which is of course the case with many other countries. Logically, the whole "kit and caboodle" (whatever that is) could only be called Croatia because it is politically in Croatia. I'd say that Lika is geographically in Dalmatia, for example, and I don't mean Austro-Hungarian province of the same name.

(In case we don't understand each other, I mean geographical region as in region delimited by some geographical characteristics.)

Now I don't see why this is important. Nikola 23:52, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well,you know,if you would say that an american was born and grew up in germany youd still only call him american,so why would this be different?cause tesla is a serb so now he is not allowed to be a serb anymore? he was a serb and son of an orthodox priest so im more than surprised about the croatian claims on tesla.i thought they hate orthodoxy:) so why do they want an orthodox person?cause they cant make their genious?:) anyway,tesla mostly studied in austria which is totally understandable considering that croatia didnt even exist,it was a province of austro-hungary. igore,i heard about the romanian claims on tesla and i cant understand who started with this nonsense:)there are absolutelly no proof of any romanians in these areas. the only people who can say they exist in dalmatia (not like) is the italian national minority. i believe from what i understood on some page that tesla never accepted american citizenship,at least the office for aliens dealed with whats left after his death which brought me to that conclusion. - Katarina

I think it is acceptable to refer to Tesla as a Serbian Croat. Otherwise, is it ever possible to be an inhabitant of a Balkan (or European) region without having an identical ethnic heritage that is synonomous with the region's name. Yes, Tesla was technically born in Austro-Hungary, but it was well known and accepted at the time that Lika was part of Croatia, as it is today, even when it was occupied. He himself referred to his homeland as Croatia, and not Serbia. The conflict between these two ethnic groups was not as contentious as it is today, in fact they were quite allied back then, with a common cause to keep out invaders(which is why the first Yugoslav state came about). Zagreb was part of Austro-Hungary as well, but I doubt anyone would argue that Zagreb was not part of the region of Croatia. That is to utterly deny that Croatia existed at all during Tesla's time. Let's not forget the difference between Ethnicity and Regional "Nationality". His Ethnicity was Serbian, but his home was Croatia. It is admirable that any Croatians would honor Tesla, while knowing that he was an ethnic Serb. This makes Tesla a role model for the future of the Balkans. I think this is a sign that it is possible to be a Croatian National and not necessarily be ethnically Croatian. They are two different things, but unfortunately this is not widely accepted due to fervent nationalism. Technically, Croatia today consists of Croats, Serbs, Muslims (or Bosniaks), Slovenes, Italians, Albanians, and Romas, and even more ethnic groups. If any European nation is ever to thrive and prosper socially and economically, it is going to have to learn to embrace ethnic diversity. This ethnic identiy crisis seems to be a problem all over the European continent. In America you are considered American first, regardless of your ethnic background, it is trivial in most cases, at best. Perhaps it is easier for me to see this, as I have a Greek father and Croatian mother and live in America. -Christos (a view from a Greco-Croatian American)

In that time croatia didn't exist, and that region where he is born was (and is still) called Lika and people were Licians (Licani). No one of Licians having Serbian nationality were called Croats, because that name had only Catholic Licians. Ortodox licians were called Serbs. Tesla's father was ortodox pastor, so he was probably called Serb.FormatC

I think there's a confusion here between his ethnicity and his geographical origins. It seems clear enough that Tesla was an ethnic Serb. It's also clear that he was from the geographic region of Croatia. This map from 1911 [3] shows a unit of Austria-Hungary called "Croatia-Slavonia," within which Gospic falls (it's not marked on the map but is just above the western end of the dotted line separating Croatia-Slavonia from Dalmatia). As has already been said on this thread, the name "Croatia" was given to that geographic area long before it was given to a political entity. So it's entirely fair to say that he was a Serb from Croatia, or a Croatian Serb. -- ChrisO 17:06, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Was Tesla born in 1911 or when??? Nikola 23:52, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Suppose I were to tell you that Karadjordje Petrovic or Vuk S. Karadzic "were not from Serbia" but "from the Ottoman Empire/Turkey" because "Serbia did not exist at the time they were born". You would probably say I'm crazy - and rightfully so, because it's ludicrous. But that's exactly the kind of argument that keeps popping up here. Let's have some intellectual honesty and stop with the double standards: if you claim that "Nikola Tesla is not from Croatia", you're in fact saying that "Vuk Karadzic is not from Serbia". Are you really saying that? 00:44, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It might be interesting to see how was Tesla referring to his origin in his patents: [4].

Birthdate?

The article starts off saying he was born on "1856 July 10". The Biography section does not mention what year (I had to go looking), and says that birth certificate date says "June 28". Can someone clean this up? Scott McNay 09:45, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)

This is a difference between the Julian calendar vs. the Gregorian calendar. Sincerely, JDR

I'd say that non-Gregorian dates should be documented as such, most especially for any dates within the changeover period.

Is there a Wikipedia standard for historical dates? If not, then perhaps we need one, with this being one of the items mentioned.

Scott McNay 03:03, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)

Non-Gregorian dates should be documented (as it is herewiththe Julian note). What about the dates within the changeover? I'm not sure if this is done, though i'll look into it.

Wikipedia:History is a prelim on history std (add to it if you can) ... I'll post a talk itme on this difference somewhere (to get other's feelings) ... I agree that this needs to be pointed out (when necesary). JDR

Some sources suggest July 9 and some sources both July 9 and July 10

Cosmic Waves

The "Cosmic waves" section is crazily repetitive. It is actually several edits stuck together. If someone can sort out the facts and fix it. I am not too sure what to discard. Delta G 22:51, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I took a whack at it and am OK with the result except maybe the accuracy of this portion: He recorded measurements of repetitive signals conducted via his transmitter... Maybe someone can verify/clarify this? RatOmeter 07:30, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Transmitter" should be his "transciever". JDR

Vlach stuff

Huh, easy there, Irismeister. Where's the corroboration for this huge Aromanian ethnic nationalist litany? Some quotes from the autobiography perhaps...? Google has astonishing 4 matches for "Nicu Teslea", and I know a few Serb nationalists who will take offense at this (albeit, regardless of whether it's true or not :)... --Shallot 23:14, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Teslea is a Vlach. Teslea is also a genius. All governments would like to see their "subjects" boost their governmental legitimacy. Serbs know Vlachs for they prevent them from having schools in their own language. They know the truth and hide it. Therefore it's not in Serb official documents that you'll find what you call my "allegation" on Teslea's ethnicity. As for taking offense, it's their privilege and character, as much as mine are discovering and unearthing the truth, for historical and informational purposes.

As a whole, in the Balkans, you must use your own judgement in lieu of Google or else you'll see how easy it is to bomb those poor Serbs only because of some Google "fact". Let me stress that everybody respects humans in the Balkans, and much as I resent ethnic lies, I also respect Serbs, complete with their governments. Also, bombing them was a war crime and a big mistake.

As for the ethnicon, in truth, you will find it in visiting Lica and Teslea's family, as I did. The corroboration is in facts, and in your own careful analysis and understanding. Or, alternatively, only in your putting together the evidence (linguistical, bibliographical, historical).

Look, if you insist in deleting the fact, I will let you delete my stuff and I will even let you take Google as your ultimate bibliographical source :O) Then, and only then, I will bring you the ISBN and jpg and certified historical files.

What I will not do is either homework for you, or letting you believe Google is the arbiter. Hope this helps :O) - Sincerely, irismeister 13:18, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

This answer is about as incoherent and circular as is the addition to the article. I wonder why I bother... --Shallot 15:22, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Don't then. Why bother ? You can say it's circular, throw anathema, cut it, and avoid understanding, pretending you did a (good) Wiki job, or whatever. Yet truth has a way of making itself known no matter what. You'll see. I'll wait, didactically, having been trained in Wiki for months, and long enough to know the habits around. When you will be googled enough, I'll publish here the evidence to show the quality of sources, critical judgment and Wiki standards.

If truth were only "corroborated" as you put it, my friend, by our poor understanding, then the world would be fairly chaotic. I concede to you, Shallot, that more and more, these days, people become interested in Google far more than in the real life.

No wonder to me then, that we bomb people to liberate them, that we liberate them to rob them, and we rob them so that we can bomb them more. Talk about circular arguments :O) In the mean time, let this Wiki article NOT be a collateral damage of the "American attitude" to truth, liberty, thinking and culture.

Suggested homework:

01. see if "allegations" contain anything interesting and relevant to the subject matter;
02. do your own research
03. gather material
04. now look at what you've got so far
05. then use your judgement
06. draw your conclusions
07. temptatively put them into writing
08. communicate them to us on this page

THEN we can discuss. But then again, why bother ? It's much more simple to dismiss what you care not accept. In the mean time, remember our Nicu Teslea and all our ancestors would turn into their graves looking at what you do to truth and to their ancestral values.

Yours - irismeister 16:00, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how people are able to turn just about anything into a holy war and how quickly can they stoop to pointless ad hominem attacks. First of all, please get off the soapbox regarding google and whatnot. Secondly, understand that the onus of making sure the article is verifiable is not on the observers, but rather on the person who adds the information. Thirdly, notice that we've had edit wars on the page regarding the birthplace, so it's not unreasonable to assume that the ethnicity could also be target of a flamewar. In fact, your holier-than-thou attitude is a very good indication that this will indeed happen. --Shallot 16:15, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

That's a cliché, not real thinking! Just because Americans have no roots, it doesn't mean that roots are not important. They are essential! Peoples who don't know who they are, become like the Americans, prone to impose a changing in the world before they have a chance to change (or only understand themselves, I'm afraid). There is more than Horatio in philosophy :O) - irismeister 15:26, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

No, my friend, it's the other way round :O)

Most Americans have CEASED to judge critically. For a great description of this end of the game and bitter fall, read the book called "The CLOSURE of the American mind". They just watch corporate-media-controlled (what we call CMC in Europe) tv. They are fed lies and every day more lies are rammed down their big mouths and deep throats. They want everybody to be like them. And then they genuinely ask why is it that everybody hates them. Nobody hates them, everybody just pities them! Remember? yYu can't applaude with only one (american) hand! And we don't judge people by "indication" (hence The Ugly American "I bomb you in order to liberate you" approach). But we judge people by recognizing they are human beings FIRST - just as you are, or I am.

Clearly, in all recent international activities, including the so called "international" Wiki in English, this is not the case.

The problem with most Americans thinking they hold the power, mystery and final word in this world is that the "others" get diabolized in the process and ultimately, and sadly, immediately bombed out of their "opinion" and "POV".

Americans call this process "freedom of speech" and "fair" debate.

They first set the rules, then they play by them, then they expect everybody to play the same game, then they don't play by their own rules, and finally they only recognize whatever those rules didn't bomb out in oblivion - themselves.

This is an old logical disaster called petitio principii.

Morally, the disaster is called hubris.

Technically, this is called "globalization".

Please note I did not, nor will I start an edit war.

I just said what the truth of the matter IS.

It's up to you, who cared to react, to take notice.

I have time to comply to whatever onus you invoke, being a volunteer contributor and a free person. See you soon back here, pal, with all the necessary documents - if you still care :O) - irismeister 16:45, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

PS Being a true Vlach, and a man of honor besides being the genius he is, Niţă (tender Nicu, as his beloved mother called him) Teslea suffered enormously from the Ugly American Edison, the FBI and everything and everybody who now run to grab his heritage one more and again. He never suffered from his fellow Vlachs - and fellow Serbs, and fellow Croats for this matter. Americans simply cannot grab everything and then spit on everybody - simply because that they thus only spit on their own foot :O)

Actually, this thing about him being a Vlach was written in an older version of the article [5] as added by User:Reddi ([6])

It's actually this Reddi's edit, BTW. --Shallot

Yes ... I did this it seems, though I do not remeber the source of this right now (I think it was during my investigation into his family (his mother, IIRC, to be more precise)). I'll try to see if I can find the source I got this from [but I'm not holding my breath on that]. This factoid was inserted in good faith. A simple Kansan, JDR 22:08, 19 May 2004 (UTC) [who is still looking for that "Ugly American" with the "American attitude" ppl here are talking about][reply]

Edison ? Now you see your 50 K - now you don't, cauz you don't understand American humor ? Now you see those WMD, now you don't - twenty thousand dead civilians later! Now you surely see them again, cauz' we planted them there post hoc ergo propter hoc - irismeister 22:14, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

-- he wrote quite a signifiant part of this article, but it was deleted by the anonymous with the IP 67.68.69.25. Bogdan | Talk 19:51, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The Nicu Teslea Vlach ethnicon fact is really brand new in this formulation AFAIK. I wrote it, based on new data and a visit of the places. There are interesting files in the Teslea museums too - irismeister 07:33, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

Just for the record, Tesla is indeed a nickname last name, as in Serbian it means adze. Same Slavic root is visible in words relating to carpentry, such as tesar or tesati. Dr?ghici is a romanised spelling of Serbian last name "Dragić"; drag means "dear" in Serbian and is also a common Slavic root.

Negative, my friends! The Slavs took the word from the Vlachs, who had, just like the DALMATS, HUNDREDS of florishing life years, using this word in their Romance language, even for their Christianity, before the Slavs arrived. The historical records of the first Serb dynasty, the Nemanides, show this clearly, and with utter respect for truth:

Teslea, opcina, plemena, katunar, sud, "voinuci", pronoiari, cnez, celnik, comes, primikjur are thoroughly documented as applied to Vlachs as trademark "qualifiers", even ethnicons.

Serbs have a history of taking local words and making them look like Slavic. For instance they also took ponos from Greek, hence ponosnici in the Nemanide chancellery papers starting with the early 13th century.

Yet another example of theft and re-appropriation of history: Vlastelini, the people of the place existed everywhere before the Serbs arrived, and were thus named by Southern Slavs, since they were ubiquitous for eons before the Slavs even entered the Balkans in the late 6th century, and early 7th century, with the Avars.

More such words passing from the Vlach language to Southern, Old and even Pre-Slavic are documented every day now:

Serbian kjelatori, for instance, comes DIRECTLY from Early Romanian and Vlach călători - classical (non-popular) Latin viator.

Actually, c?l?tor is derived from "cale" (=way, road), which is from lat. "callis" (=mountain path). If we're to be off-topic, at least be completely. :-) Bogdan | Talk 23:09, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This certainly didn't look like Latin, but was popular Latin, not Serbian, just because classical Latin had viator instead. Yet another example here: fientia documented as popular Latin, which exists only in Vlachian and Daco-Romanian - but I do not want to start boring you :O).

So, my friend, your élan national is commendable, but we must together say the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I will let you restore it, and then (if not restored), I will bring the documents to show how what you said hid the facts.

We will not go into an edit war!

We will, however, let the truth be known, and formulate it correctly, and completely, as good as we can, in common, for the record.

As I said, the Serb government, much unlike the Americans, did good to our Teslea, and the bombardment of Serbia by the Americans was a cowardly, criminal, war crime act.

Teslea will not forgive us for telling something else than the truth - and since we all admire him, let it be known. Hope this helps. - Yours, all - irismeister 08:12, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

For whoever kept Aromanian in front, my respect, heartful thanks and grateful credit, in the name of Teslea, and of our people! You are honoring us and the spirit of truth! Keep up the great work - this is one of the best Wiki articles around! - irismeister 12:58, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

I can't believe I am wasting my time on this, but point by point: that Lika is inhabited by Istro-Romanians isn't confirmed even by Bogdan's map. That Tesla's father's last name was Tesla could be clearly seen in Tesla's birth certificate (fourth row of the main text, second and third word). First name of Tesla's father was Milutin; this is old Serbian name, coming from word "mil" (now "mio") which mean "dear" which could be confirmed by Serbian-English dictionary. That Teslea is an Aromanian last name is dubious; as I said, Tesla in Serbian means "adze" and is related word to other carpentry-related words such as "tesar" (carpenter) or "tesati" (to hew); does Teslea means "adze" or something similar in Aromanian I don't know because the word is relatively rare and not in dictionaries; however, "carpenter" in Romanian is "tâmplar" or "dulgher", according to English-Romanian dictionary. Old last name of Tesla's family was indeed DragiŪ Draghici is Romanian variant of that name. "Drag" means "Dear" in both Serbian and Romanian but it is clearly a Slavic borrowing into Romanian because it doesn't exist in Latin languages (English-Latin dictionary) but does exist in Russian which could be confirmed by English-Russian dictionary. Romanian phonebook does list 995 Draghici living in Bucharest, while SCG phonebook finds 200 (maximum search result) Dragić living in Belgrade. They also find one Teslea and three Tesleanu in Bucaresti

also one "teslan", one "teslariu", one "teslar" and 10 "teslaru"

In Belgrade, there are 23 teslićs. Even without them, the last name is predominant here. Nikola 00:17, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

while there are 30 Tesla families living in Belgrade. Gica indeed is a Romanian name but it appears to be a male name. According to Tesla's birth certificate, name of Tesla's mother was Georgina, which is a Serbian name (female variant of "George" actually) and Djuka is nickname of that name. Names of Tesla's sisters, Anghelina, Milica and Marica, are also common Serbian female names; Anghelina is a Christian name while Milica has same root as Milutin. Nikola 07:18, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

All those name are also valid in Romania. In fact, there is in the Bucharest phonebook someone called "Maricica Teslaru". :-)

Yes, but that is borrowed Slavic name, just as Bogdan. Nikola

You could also argue that I am ethnic Serbian, since my family name is "Djushka", akin to Tesla's mom and my first name is "Bogdan", which is entirely Slavic. :-) Bogdan | Talk 10:56, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I argue that since all names in Tesla's immediate family are either Serbian or Christian it was a Serbian family. One could guess that a Vlach family would name at least one of their children with a purely Vlach name.

Which is all speculation. Bottom line: Nikola Tesla called himself Nikola Tesla in his patents, his articles and his autobiography. As we have shown above, any attempt to trace his ancestry through his last name is ambiguous at best. And there are no sources tracing his ancestry in any other way - Google:Nicu Teslea returns one hit - a message posted on three Romanian message boards which is so similar to what was in this article that it could be well be a copyvio translation. Nikola 00:17, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bogdan, it?s a long standing Serb nationalist policy to claim everyone in the Ex-Yugoslav territory of the Orthodox denomination is an ethnic Serb.GeneralPatton 17:55, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But regardless of that policy, has Nikola Tesla ever indicated that he wasn't primarily of Serbian ethnicity and nationality? AFAIR he did not. Idle contemplation about the origins of his forefathers is one thing, what the man said is another. --Shallot 20:05, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

~~User:Irismeister is a currently banned user, and you now have some insight as to why~~ - David Gerard 17:34, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tesla's Vlach ancestry has been mentioned here long before he came in, he merely brought back the stuff Serb nationalists took out, for the sake of NPOV it has to be mentioned in the article. GeneralPatton 18:05, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Irismeister is still a loon, though. ;-) -- ChrisO 22:38, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

FYI I'm more of a boon, though ;-) -- irismeister 17:00, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

But it wasn't Tesla's doing, so that's off-topic! - David Gerard 23:07, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good point, David boy! So we've seen the evidence, the hard stuff and the circumstantial. What is your judgement of the situation ? - irismeister 17:00, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

Definatley.GeneralPatton 02:32, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, de-finat-ley (is it Latin or something ?) So anyway, does anyone still care to discuss facts on this talk page ? - irismeister 17:00, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

I been doing some research and his mother's maiden name is Mandic which is very common in Croatia so she's very likely a Croat. This father is most likely a Serb. He himself identified as a Serb and took after his father but is very likely he is a Serbo-Croatian (not pure Serb). He was born in a very multicultural region in Croatia then under Austrian empire and was schooled in Austria. There may some truth to the idea of Serbs "re-writing" history to turn him into a pure Serb. And also there may be some truth to the whole "vlach" background although is quite impossible to prove.

He was born close to Dalmatia which is a historical region inhabited by eastern latin speaking peoples. The actual extents of this region are unknown and were probably much larger than documented. Note that dalmatian people were not same as vlachs. There were at the time vlachs coexisting with dalmatian peoples and vlachs were different. These dalmatian didn't seem to have a very unique and different culture but only spoke a very different language. These people were "slavicized" but they didn't completely vanish. Some of the proper names of places and people were converted into slavic variants. Such as for ex Cattaro became Kotor, Jadera became Zadar names still used today but sometimes completely changed like Ragusa becomes Dubrovnik etc. Is quite likely some Croatian names from the region may be dalmatian people or names that were slavicized. All this is purely speculative but totally possible in regards to the hestory of the region.

Read the blurb above to understand the point of this final message. The name Mandic is actually most common in the Dalmatian region. See here https://actacroatica.com/en/surname/Mandi%C4%87/ Is possible this name is connected to these eastern european latin speaking peoples and the name was probably spelt differently originally. It is possible that he was Serbo-Croato-Dalmatian . His mother's side may be ethnically Dalmatian but due to history she became a Croat. Friendlyworkout (talk)

Tesla msg?

This article is part of the
Nikola Tesla series.

Tesla, SI unit

Tesla patents

Duka Mandic (his mother)

any suggestions on a msg? JDR

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [7]
- (William M. Connolley 20:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Checked with the link; done.
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).
- (William M. Connolley 19:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)) I've edited this.
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.)
- (William M. Connolley 19:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)) I've deleted that sentence.
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)[reply]

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]. _[8]

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)[reply]

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

10^{14}

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

10^{14}

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)[reply]

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 [9]. 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:

Overwikification
rather long read (not to mention page size warning).
detailed text to Nikola Tesla's inventions to serve as the body text (summarizing mention of most of his inventions).
Annotated list of patents to List of Tesla patents move (inventions article link)
Cover each theme
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 [10] includes a quote attributed to Tesla: I am a Serb but my homeland is Croatia, which may or may not be reliable. This page [11] 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 [12]. 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)[reply]

There is absolutely no doubt that Tesla was a Serb, a very proud one too. He was a huge fan of serbian literature and a writer of poems as well. In his biography I read a qoute from him and it goes something like this "I have invented many great things in that will improve the world but nothing makes more proud then when I think that it was done by a Serb". The qoute is 95% correct as its been some years since I read the book. In another qoute he says that "We Serbs are a proud people that guard the gates of Europe from the Asian hordes" I read a few books on Tesla and the one that these qoutes are from is called Wizard if I'm not wrong. It is one of the more recognized of his biographies.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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.
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
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.)
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: [13] [14] [15] (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:

If Biography of Nikola Tesla is a biography, what is Nikola Tesla?
Did you notice, that only three articles exist under an "Biography of..." lemma? [16]

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).

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:

Biography of Nikola Tesla

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)[reply]

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.

broke and forgotten.

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 [17] or [18]. 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

Yale's Scientific Legacy of Nikola Tesla

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Power Plants

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

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)[reply]

Go for it! Salsb 17:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Just sounded a bit strange to me... Kel-nage 15:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

~~Can someone add the appropriate template or div or whatever to indicate it's back?~~
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.

Time Macihine , question for Aleks

Do you know if Tesla ever worked on a Time machine? I read somewhere once he was working on such a thing and made something disapear.. Tesla said it was possible to travel in time

Is this true????

Ivo

I can only say that I don't know. I was interested in his scientific/technological work (currents, ttransformers, motors, transmission of energy, radio, loudspeakers, ...) and not so much about various "extras". I also don't know whether Tesla said time travel was possible but from todays relativistic and string theory we can assume that it might not be impossible, just impossibly hard. On top of that we still have no clue "when" would that take us - i.e. may not be out future or past at all and even the "space" may be entirely different... --Aleksandar Šušnjar 03:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aleks

I heard that he made something disapear but he didnt know where it went...Tesla said it was in time travel... He was said to be working on it with some other scientist..name escapes me now... RE movie Philledlphia Experement with actor Michael Pare had a documentury on how the movie was based on some facts ... they mentioned that Nikola Tesla was working on time travel ...im 90% sure its where i heard that story.......or a program on Time Machine... Nikola was a very smart man...im sure he would have tested anything and everything given the money, which for most of his life he didnt have enough of.....I also heard he got ripped of with inventions..others taking his inventions...which is sad for Serbs. We Croats have many inventions among them , Parachute, Cravat, Torpedo, finger printing machine, maglite, pen etc...and we have the Dalmatian dog....so we have our pride but you Serbs did have one great man in Tesla...shame the world doesnt pay him the respect he deserves....bit like our Croat Jew David Schwarz.....

Ivo..........

:) Tesla has so many inventions that dispensing some of them around isn't really a problem. Serbs, too. Don't think that Nikola was the only Serbian inventor. Just add Mihailo Pupin, for example. Put those two together and you've got electricity, telecommunication, long-distance telephone, remote control, logical circuits, etc. Essentially those two alone make the World (as we know it today) spin. As for the stuff of "maglite" level, Serbs got many of these things, too e.g. Šljivovica, celebrated around the world, including Croatia. If zou're interested in more have a look at the List of Serbs. Nothing really to be sad about. Only proud. --Aleksandar Šušnjar 04:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania Serbomania

Nikola Tesla is Serb.
Rudjer Josip Boscovich is Croat.
Ivo Andric is Croat.

Other views on origin over this have no merit...just propaganda from both sides..

The above people lived in a time when that sort of thing wasnt important nor should it be today. Life was much better when they were all called Yugoslav. EVERGREEN

WE ALL NEED SOME RAKIJA TO COOL DOWN

Let's end the edit wars here and now! I'm tired of everyone arguing about this point and constantly changing and reverting edits. Let's settle the issue once and for all and be done with it. This childish bickering is completely unacceptable and very unprofessional! Erzahler 17:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this ethnic war keeps up, I'll recommend to the Wikipedia adminstrators to delete this entire article!! Erzahler 19:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Erzahler

Its all stupid.... Someone is editing to say Tesla is Serb only while keep changing Andric into Serb and Croat. People should leave things alone. Tesla is Serb of possible Vlah origin. OK Andric is Croat only but did write in Serbian and had a liking of its people...Thats all... Boscovich is Croat and Italian...saying he has serb blood is silly. Someone should go in and change to the above as I think this is correct. Most will agree from both sides. PS If we are Slavs and if we have same or simular last names...Croats and Serbs could well be the same or mixed with one another...so pointless if we are the same people hahahah get my drift

Evergreen

I have requested a block of the user using IP address 88.111.97.240 due to his/her continued vandalism of the page. Erzahler 18:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J. P. Morgan

Could someone summerize the facts about J. P. Morgan and Telsa and add it to the J. P. Morgan page? There is nothing about Telsa there. I know that Morgan financed Telsa but I don't really understand why and for which project so I am unable to write about it and I think it would make an important addition to the Morgan page. cda 18:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post a lil something. JDR

To do this properly would be to write a book. Morgan and Tesla were friends, and Morgan payed Tesla to play in his lab, giving him first dibs on any marketable ideas. Basically, anything after 1900 or 1904 or whenever the two got together would be a project Morgan financed (with the exception of electricity while in Colorado Springs, that he got free from someone else)

Pigeons and Tai Chi Ch'üan

Answers to archive questions.

Simfish, good idea. Tesla, in his later years, was obsessed with pigeons ... this should be mentioned (and his other obsessive compulsive fixations).

Anon, I have not heard that Tesla became specifically fascinated with T'ai Chi. I do know that he became interested in Vedic philosophy (which has many similarities with quantum theory today). He was well read and, later in life, did research various worldviews in developing his inventions. I'll look into it. JDR (PS., NT later became concerned with germs and his health, so this may fit in with that.)

I was listening to CBC radio today and they saifd that tesla had been in love with a pigeon outside his window and that when it dies he was inconsoloble. It also said that he produced nothing significant after this tragic loss. Though CBC mentioned it in passing and didn't site a referance I think it should be looked into aswell.--Matt D 00:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolutions to featuring the article

The article was nominated for featuring twice. The first nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2004#Nikola Tesla and the second at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nikola Tesla. I will copy-paste here a list of objections to see if we could resolve them. Nikola 14:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First

The first try:

box of Tesla related articles

~~Oppose. The box of Tesla related articles should go at the bottom, in the see also section. Furthermore, the see also section needs to be dramatically trimmed. Perhaps some categorization is in order?~~ Snowspinner 17:06, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
- nope about that box! it is top box or whatever it is called! it is placed in the top of the article. see also is never organized, if we have that much see also's than that is becuase we need to. This was just because of Armstrong.[[User:Avala|Avala★Talk]] 18:08, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  - Article series boxes are generally to be avoided, and that see also list is excessive. This has nothing to do with Armstrong, and I would appreciate if you stop accusing me of retalliation. I object to your nominations because they have, for the most part, all needed improvement. Snowspinner 19:31, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
    - I think we are done with the box, We agreed that see also should be smaller and it is smaller. The box is just overview of the long article.[[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 19:36, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      - I still think the box is jarring up there, and redundant with Category:Nikola Tesla. This would ordinarily not bother me, but the box is the first thing you see in the article. Snowspinner 19:45, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
- I second the article box objection. I tried shuffling that box and the image around before, and now someone's shifted it back except they've caused a collision. It adds nothing and detracts from the article. I dislike article series boxes in general, but this one is particularly obnoxious and clunky and keeps colliding with the picture. Make it considerably less obtrusive or, better yet, lose it altogether - it's redundant with Category:Nikola Tesla If the box stays gone, I'll be happy - David Gerard 00:23, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The box is completely gone for some time now; so, this is resolved. Nikola 14:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object: "see also" is really overwhelmingly large, and contains some totally spurious links (Government Warehouse?!). Also: "An ongoing lawsuit regarding this was finally resolved in his favor after his death." - whose does "his" refer to? Tesla? -Sean Curtin 09:40, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. List of articles related to Nikola Tesla is still quite padded. -Sean Curtin 22:10, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See also is now completely gone???? I believe it would be a problem for nomination, so it should be returned in some form. Nikola 14:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article length

Object - 54 KB makes for a rather long read (not to mention page size warning). Not everybody is interested in going through so much detail (esp for the absurdly long 'middle years' section). I suggest summarizing mention of most of his inventions in this article and move the detailed text to Nikola Tesla's inventions to serve as the body text. Then move the prose from Tesla patents to serve as the lead and overview. Finally move the very long annotated list of patents to List of Tesla patents and link it from the inventions article. --mav 09:23, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The article is shorter now, but still 47KB long. This is not resolved. Nikola 14:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a "real" concern ... as several featured articles are over this limit ... such as Buddhism, Italian Renaissance, The Beatles, etc (this is from a cursory glance; a closer look would find more) ... JDR

Images and Overwikification

Object. 1. We need information on certain images, namely: Image:Stesla.jpg, Image:Tesla2.jpg, Image:Serbia100Dinara.jpg, Image:Colorado GeoMag Map.png. 2. Some changes need to be made to the sectional divisions. The "Middle Years" section is rather extensive. Furthermore, the page misuses "quote"—I believe the appropriate word in this context is "quotation." Also, is "Namings" really an appropriate word in this context, or, for that matter, in any context? 3. The navigation box should replace Tesla's image atop the page, and the image sent elsewhere. Navigation boxes belong at the top—they look rather unfortunate in other places. 4. Why is it necessary to indicate in paranthetical format that the Institution of Electrical Engineers is a British body? Similar indications are not made for other bodies. Just the title would suffice. -- Emsworth 02:48, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

I have resolved problems with most images, however a few still remain, see below. Sectional division is different now, so this probably doesn't apply. Navigation box is gone. IEE no longer marked as British. Nikola 14:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Overwikified (only wikify a term once or twice in an article, not each time), persistently if politely POV, and oddly narrated with numerous gaps in grammar and continuity. The article should cover each theme of his life in a coherent paragraph; a single paragraph should not switch from discussions of his financial state to discussions of the state of a legal battle to a note about where he moved that year and what notes he was taking at that time. Needs deep work by someone who cares about the subject and has time to copyedit the entire text for continuity and flow. +sj + 22:50, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not sure about this one. Nikola 14:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the article and completely agree. It is difficult to read because it is overwikified. Tesla greatly contributed to mankind and some of his ideas may yet be developed more. Can't we write what is know of this historical figure without every other word being a link? It gives a guy double vision when common words like "engineer" are linked. Terryeo 10:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overwikified? So is Einstein's article overwikified too? Or mabey Newton's? Can you give an example of how every other word is being a link? I did see copper was a wlnk ... but most are relevant and need a link. Mabey some of the dates can be unwlnked (but that gives an idea of the timeframe of what he was doing; which was usually much earlier than the "norm" of when such activity was established) .... and in most biographies, engineer (and other applicable fields) are wlnked. Sincerely, J. D. Redding 16:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sections and subsections

Object. 1) Some sections and subsections are only one paragraph long; these should be merged into longer sections. 2) The quotes section should be removed; the WikiQuote entry suffices. 3) I suspect the "External links" section is too long: Wikipedia is not a link repository and I suspect that many (e.g. the H2G2 entry) are not necessary. — Matt 14:57, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think there are no more paragraph-long sections. Quotes section removed. External links now shorter. Nikola 14:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second try

The second try:

Structural things

Object. Structural things: Why is there a separate section on his education, wouldn't this be better merged into the relevant parts of his life? The ===h3=== heading in the honors section are over doing it considering the amount of text. External links should probably f ollow after references. Text things: The lead seems quite underdeveloped. --nixie 06:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the first objection: an overview of education is good, while of course it should also be stated in biography. I agree with the second objection. Section order should be easy to change as per manual of style (if there exists a guideline for this). Not sure about the lead. Nikola 14:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

images

Object. The images Image:BrochureWardenclyffe .PNG and Image:Tesla.jpg do not have copyright information. --Carnildo 07:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BrochureWardenclyffe now has copyright info, while we might perhaps remove the other image. I have seen it once on the net, on a Flickr-like site (or perhaps Flickr itself?), IIRC it is a photo by an amateur photographer, and I am confident that I could get the permission if someone could find it again, as it is quite nice. But until then, we could remove it, or perhaps replace it with Image:Tesla statue at Niagara Falls.jpg, which has a free licence? Nikola 14:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A copy of it is @ http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/0/0e/Tesla.jpg .... get the permission if you can ... I asked the original uploader about it too. JDR 20:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, this seems to be copied from Wikipedia. Nikola 10:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ... it is a copy ... I was citing it as where it can be found IF a license can be obtained. J. D. Redding 16:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object per above. Could someone dig up previous peer reviews and nominations? - 131.211.210.15 11:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon votes don't count, I think. Nikola 14:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla origins

THIS WOULD MAKE A GREAT SUBSECTION IF A NPOV VERSION COULD BE PUT TOGETHER

Firstly: Tomingaj is a Serbian village in Lika. Secondly: Nikola wasn't born in Croatia, but the Military Frontier. Thirdly: What is this about his "Romanian" origin? HolyRomanEmperor 17:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tomingaj is a Serbian village in Lika. OK thanks ... that could be posted @ the NT talk page ...
Nikola was born in the Military Frontier. I came across this very early. I am, from my various reading, in the postion that NT was a serbian ... I do not state that he was Croatian (though others do). If you thought I was responsible for the post, I am not ... I just pulled it out of the archive (... it was posted by an Anon IIRC)
The Romanian thing (eg., the Vlach thing; or do you mean somthing else?) came from a page on his parents IIRC. It was about his ancestory (but I can't remeber if it was the maternal or paternal side). Sincerely, JDR 17:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But his second name's (Tesla) has origing strictly from the Serbian language: tesla means adze in Serbian. HolyRomanEmperor 21:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was some time ago that I looked into this. Is it (or was it) the practice to pass the last name down the paternal side of the family? If so, then that would be in accord with the Serbian origin of his last name (as his father was a Serbian; as far as I remember). I do not have any problem with stating him as Serbian and he himself stated he was a Serbian (and, more generally a Yugoslavian). Though, IIRC, he did make some references to him having a portion of his heritage from Croatia ... I'll see if I can did up a reference and post it at the NT talk page later. Inaddtion, the Vlachs of Serbia may be relevant to the discussion of his serbian heritage and Vlach references.

ALSO, it may be nice to explicitly address this in the NT article though ... as there is some confusion about it (but may be a contentios issue). JDR 22:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vlach origins were made up by some Croat nationalists who wanted to weaken the Serbian claim on Tesla and establish a Croat one. Croat nationalists have for centuries negated the Serbian nationality of Serbs in the Krajina and even in Bosnia. Fact is Tesla claims he was a Serb, his family claimed it too, he did not even speak Vlach and as far as historical documents go neither did any of his ancestors or neighbours. The closes things to Vlachs you have there are the Cici in Istria a sea and a couple of hundreds of islands away, or the long extinct Dalmatians living in the seaside. Tesla's roots are Slavic and the claim about his alleged Vlach origins come form over-zelous Romanian nationalists who picked up on the Croat myth but cannot substantiate it with any tangible evidence. [anonymous, 17 January 2006]

Then what were you trying to say on the talk page of Nikola Tesla? HolyRomanEmperor 21:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to repost the anonymous editor's comment on the talk page of Nikola Tesla (after I had archived the old talk .... I had moved it there and it was "relatively" new). Again ... this may be a great subsection in NT's article ... and help reduce the confusion around it. JDR 22:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I can explain that perfectly. I am a Vlach (Serb). The Serbs of Krajina (Frontier in Serbian) (in present-day Croatia) were called Vlachs. 147.91.8.10 18:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Habsburg Emperors have issued several edicts called Statuta Valachorum, translated as Serbian statute(s) in which the Serbs of the Military Frontier gained more and more power (independently from the Emperor of the Croatian Ban) 147.91.8.10 18:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Habsburgs issued many edicts by the name Statuta Valachorum, translated as Serbian statutes which the Krajina Serbs used to draft more and more power independant from the Emperor or the Croatian Ban. 147.91.8.10 18:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vlach was a name generally used in the Habsburg Empire for Orthodox Christians, and since the only church was the Serbian Orthodox Church, so did many indeed Vlachs assimilate into Serbs but the number was minimal and unimportant, and long ago. 18:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

My mother comes from Upper Dalmatia, she is a Vlach (by descendency and tradition), but she is no nationality or ethnicity other than Serb. Do you understand what I am trying to say? 147.91.8.10 18:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[COMPIED FROM MY TALK JDR 20:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC) ][reply]

I'd add that there are ongoing efforts of Croatian propaganda to present Krajina Serbs as "Serbized Vlachs" for obvious reasons, so that spills onto Tesla as well.

Unrelated, the village is likely called Tomin gaj. Nikola 06:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...which in Serbian means Toma's Grove HolyRomanEmperor 14:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Several Croatian nationalists have cherished the Serbian migrations in hopes of proving that no one should regret for all the Serbs that were killed or exiled in the Seconds World War (700,000-1,000,000) and in the Yugoslav Civil Wars (700) in Croatia. HolyRomanEmperor 10:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

but now they are trying to prove that all those Serbs that came (tens of thousands) were not Serbs, but Vlachs - which is ironic, since Vlachs are a native population of the region and they had no greater migration whatsoever. The largest population of Vlachs lived in Dalmatia, both Catholic and Orthodox - Morlovlachs (a sub-group of Istro-Romainians). They were majorily assimilated into Croats. The last of them live on Istra. HolyRomanEmperor 10:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In short notice, there is no controversial notice on Tesla's ethnicity, only notifications that have arisen as a result of Greater Croatian propaganda (try to make him Croat, if can't, at least make him not Serb) HolyRomanEmperor 12:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final solution => Name: Nikola Tesla; Date of birth: Jully 10 1856; Place of birth: Smiljan (village), Gospić (county), Military Frontier, Habsburg Monarchy/Austrian Empire; Religion: Serbian Orthodox Christian; Ethnicity: Serb; Nationality: Croat, Serb, American; Date of death: January 7 1943; Place of death: New York City, New York (state), United States of America HolyRomanEmperor 12:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

we could also add Yugoslav in nationality. I must also point out that my ancestors in the XVII century wereforced to declare themselves Vlachs at times, because the name of the edict was Statuta Valachorum, so the Croatian Ban and the Catholic Church in Croatia and Slavonia forged a master plan - to turn all Serbs into uniates (Orthodox, but for the Pope) and all muslims to convert to Catholics. It wasn't easy being Orthodox and other than Vlach in those times... HolyRomanEmperor 12:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

purpose of radio-controlled boat demonstration

The article as it stands reads as follows: "A year later, he demonstrated a radio controlled boat to the US military, believing that the military would want things such as radio controlled torpedoes." This is incorrect. Here is Tesla's own quote, outraged at the suggestion from a reporter that his invention might be used for this purpose: "You do not see there a wireless torpedo, you see there the first of a race of robots, mechanical men which will do the laborious work of the human race."

Um ... in "My Submarine Destroyer - by Nikola Tesla" doc no. 18981113 @ tesla.hu, it plainly states that, "my invention of a submarine torpedo boat that I am confident will be the greatest weapon of the navy from this time on." So, it is coreect. Mabey he changed his mind later, but this was on 1898-11-13. Sincerely, J. D. Redding

a "[radio controlled] submarine torpedo boat" is different from a "radio controlled torpedo"; if I program C-3PO to throw rocks, I haven't created robotic rocks, but instead a rock-throwing robot

Tesla vs Hertz

In "The True Wireless" Tesla explaines that after the publication of Dr. Heinrich Hertz's results investigating Maxwell's electro-magnetic theory (at the time, Tesla was developing a commercial system of power transmission), Tesla constructed several forms of apparatus with the object of exploring the avenues investigated by Dr. Hertz. Tesla removed several limitations of the devices Hertz had employed and concentrated his attention on the production of a powerful induction coil (his "oscillation transformer"). After extensive experimentation and documating the test, Tesla went to Bonn, Germany, in 1892. There he confered with Dr. Hertz in regard to his observations. Hertz seemed disappointed to such a degree that Tesla regretted his trip and parted from him sorrowfully.

Before 1900, two innovations were made. One of these was my individualized system with transmitters emitting a wave-complex and receivers comprising separate tuned elements cooperatively associated. The other a peculiar oscillator enabling the transmission of energy without wires in any quantity that may ever be required for industrial use, to any distance, and with very high economy. In 1900, Tesla constructed a wireless transmitter which enabled Tesla to obtain electro-magnetic activities of many millions of horse-power, he attempted to prove that the disturbances emanating from the oscillator were "aether vibrations" akin to those of light, but was met again with utter failure. For more than eighteen years Tesla was reading treatises, reports of scientific transactions, and articles on "Hertz-wave" telegraphy, to keep informed on the topic, but the information have always imprest upon Tesla like works of fiction. He arrived at the conclusion that "Hertz waves have little to do with the results obtained even at small distances". His experimention with own transmitters plainly shown radiating space waves of considerable frequency. He demonstrated that the different forms of aerials that the signals picked up by the instruments must actually be conducted and induced by earth currents and air currents and were not "aetheric space waves" (as Hertz believed).

Sincerely, J. D. Redding

Why all these problems?

Nikola Tesla was born in Smiljan. Back then it was a Military Frontier ruled by Austrian Empire and present day it is Croatia. He himself said of being proud of being Serbian and of his "Croatian homeland".

Few things to note:

Nikola Tesla was not a citizen of Croatia simply because Croatia was just a region at the time. However, he was born in what is presently Croatia. From that perspective it would be more appropriate to say that he was Austrian. He is no more Croatian than, for example Constantine Drageses is Turkish although he was born in what is present-day Istanbul, Turkey. As to this I think we should follow a good practice found elsewhere in Wikipedia - use political geography of the time. "Present day" comments are disconnected with time and may change, like we all witnessed. What already happened does not.

By nationality he was Serbian, as he himself said.

He, however, was most likely of Yugoslav aspirations and only present political conditions make this an awkward situation.

Whatever nationality one considers him, he gained his elementary related education in Austria Politechnic, in Graz, Austria. For scientists it may sometimes be more imporant to mention the school than anything else. However, at this school he was also discouraged to try what he later proved to be some of the greatest innovations of man kind.

Tesla gained significant experience working in Austrian Empire (Maribor, present day Slovenia), Hungary and France.

The country that made it possible for him to create his innovations is United States of America.

Some say that he has some Romanian heritage as well.

Inventors can be characterized:

as to how they stated themselves (Serbian and American for Tesla)

by their national/ethnic origin (Serbian)

by their citizenship (Austrian, American and Yugoslav, although details would need to be verified)

as of those countries that positively influenced their work, and their nationality (Serbian, Austrian, Hungarian, Slovenian, French and American)

by where they made their inventions (Tesla got ideas in Austria but implemented them in the United States of America)

by the country they called 'home' at the time (Yugoslavia)

As for the regions and their names it is possible that we go and list all possible scales, the city, the municipalities, districts and other divisions over the history since he was born but I don't think this is necessary. All the facts above are easily verifiable.

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 19:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image

A later NT image.

J. D. Redding 03:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikification

Is it just me or does this article seem overly wikified? Dark Nexus 22:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reddi appearently doesn't agree with my suggestion (to the up). HolyRomanEmperor 16:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I didn't agree ... just don't have strong feelings on it one way or another and didn't comment .... personally, i'd think that some verison of it should go into the article. J. D. Redding 05:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False Quote

I removed the 'quote' attributed to Nikola about his 'pride'.

As far as I know - it was invented by Bogdan Radica who claimed that Nikola said: 'Iam a Serb, but my homeland is Croatia' (see Margaret Chenney book - Tesla - Man out of Time).

There is no other resource that comes from the people who maintained contacts to Tesla.

Place of birth in the infobox

Why putting "Austrian Empire" in infobox? Yes, Tesla was born in Austrian Empire, I'm not trying to start a flame far on whether the article should say he was born in Croatia, I'm saying that in infoboxes, we put current geographical location. In infobox of George Washington it doesn't say Virginia but Virginia. Moreover, article about Pope Adrian VI says "He was born under very modest circumstances in the city of Utrecht, which at that time was capital of the bishopric of Utrecht and a Low German-speaking part (whose inhabitants considered themselves to be part of the German nation) of the Holy Roman Empire (more specifically, Burgundy), and is now in the Netherlands. His ancestors were from present-day Germany." His infobox says "birthplace=Utrecht, Netherlands".

I don't want to begin an edit war, that's why I ask now, before I edit the infobox: can anyone show me a Wikipedia article about a person which has name of former country in it's infobox? If not, I'll remove reference to Austrian Empire from infobox and adjust the infobox to style of two previously quoted. --Dijxtra 19:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two reasons that I know of. First, if the information isn't complete, people will either start adding Austria or removing Croatia, or both; it happened numerous times.

That's why I discussed it first. We will reach a consensus here, then if anybody reverts we will point to him that he can discuss the matter further here if he wishes. If it turns out that situation became untolerable, it edit warring continues to wage for weeks, I personally will revert to current situation. --Dijxtra 10:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second, I don't think that Pope example is good. If we follow that route, there are several Roman emperors born in "Serbia" (which will not exist for centuries) and similar things. Nikola 10:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, where's the problem? Can you provide the infobox of emperor born in Serbia which says he was born in Roman Empire? If so, no problem, just link the example here. Problem is that I think this infobox is an exception from established customes, and I would like to see it comply to customes. I don't see how pope example is not good. In fact, I consider it very good as Tesla was a Serb born in present day Croatia, and Pope Adrian VI was a German born in presend day Netherlands. --Dijxtra 10:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, AFAIK there is no Wikipedia policy about this. Surely, somewhere there is an article with the infobox which lists the place of birth in contemporary country, or even if not it might be there tomorrow. We should decide what is the best for this article. Even if we would find out that large majority of the articles with the infobox have current country in it, we can conclude that that should not be the case here. Nikola 16:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't se arguments which make us conclude that that should not be the case here. In fact, I think that we can conclude that this article is no different than any article about person being born in place which was in country X back then and which is now in country Y. I don't see why Nikola Tesla is so different from Washington or the Pope. Can you deliver some arguments why this article has to be deviation from wikipedia customs? --Dijxtra 16:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because for the other articles, there are few click-happy individuals which wish to POV the fact one way or another? And, it has not shown that this is deviation from Wikipedia customs. Nikola 18:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do click-happy individuals got to do with being accurate? Are you suggesting that Wikipedia should conform to them? And, yes, I have shown it is wikipedia custom, and asked if somebody has an counter-example. Haven't seen any. --Dijxtra 18:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it is accurate as-is. And, you only showed a few articles, but there are a lot of articles with the infobox. It's very hard to find out if this is really a custom. Nikola 08:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Term "present day" is very relative geographically speaking - things change and encyclopedias should stay (what was true truth never stops being one; only lies and half-truths change).

Pick up 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica from 1909. Why does it speak of Austro-Hungarian Empire as it still exists if we know that's not true? Moreover, condider this: [19]. Wikipedia changed the moment Karol Wojtyla died. Therefore, this encyclopedia adapts to current information. --Dijxtra 00:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about current events. Tesla was born in one point of time and that can not change. In the article we state that "Tesla is born in ... which is now in Croatia"; if that place in future is no longer in Croatia, we of course should state that "Tesla is born in ... which is now in Wherever". But that the place was in Krajina back then is unchangeable fact. Nikola 16:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. And the article says it is, and that's not going to change. But, tell me, if you ask a person born in Belgrade in 1960 to tell you where he was born, would he say "Belgrade, SFRY", or "Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro"? If you ask peson born in 1960 in Volgograd the same question, would he say "Stalingrad, USSR" or "Volgograd, Russia"? Geographical places are current events. If you are locating a place, you will request it's current name. Tesla was born in one point of time, and in that point of time that place was in Military Frontier. But, if you sit in a car and head to Tesla's birth place, you won't look for Austrian Empire on the map. That's why the Pope and Washington have names of currently existing places in their infoboxes. That's why Tesla should have it too. --Dijxtra 16:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different people will answer differently to that question. Nikola 18:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sophism won't look good on your record... we very well know that people who use non-existent countries in stating geographical sites are in vast minority :-) --Dijxtra 18:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I don't have a record. But, this isn't sophism. Of people who are born, say, 20 years ago in Belgrade, some will say that they are born in Serbia, some in Yugoslavia. Probably very few will say that they are born in Serbia and Montenegro when I think about it. Nikola 08:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example, it may become one day "present day European Union" or something else, and I don't think we're supposed to put the names of lesser regions in there.

1) Croatia is not a lesser region of EU yet. 2) The Netherlands is lesser region of EU, Adrian VI has "The Netherlands" as birth place in his infobox. Wikipedia uses currently existing countries in infoboxes. I'm asking you to prove me wrong, not to change Wikipedia policy... --Dijxtra 00:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was Tesla "American", "New Yorker", or, maybe "Illinoian".--Aleksandar Šušnjar 19:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of keeping this discussion up to the point, please reread my first post (preferably the bold parts, they are in bold because they are extra important) and what I'm planing to do. I'm not planing to change his nationalty from Serbian to something else because that's silly. I'm proposting a change in his infobox to confrom it to WP standards. Now, let me ask again, has anybody a counterexample? --Dijxtra 00:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. Have a look at Constantine XI, for example and try to find either Istanbul or Turkey in it.--Aleksandar Šušnjar 04:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said previously, I beg you to reread what I'm talking about. I'm talking about... how should I put it... infobox. Get it? And does article about Constantine XI have a infobox? No, it does not. --Dijxtra 09:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information in Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, regardless of how it is formatted - and infobox is nothing more than a differently presented summary, so don't try to propose that it should follow different rules.

I'm not proposing the change in the rules. You are. This article does not follow the established custom. I'm asking to change this article to follow the rules. --Dijxtra 16:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that, Wikipedia has an aspect that no other encyclopedia has on this planet - sheer volume and, likely, longevity, which requires specific approaches to writing style. For example, writing an article that "presently the fastest Intel CPU is such-and-such" is extremely limited time. Absolutely nothing is different in this case. --199.71.120.67 15:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then go and fix the articles which use current geographical places to their historical names. And, while you are at it, go and fix George W. Bush article. It says "George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the 43rd and current President of the United States.". That will be a terrible lie in few years. So, why not fixing it to be encyclopedic?--Dijxtra 16:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to fix all the (future) errors. Someone else might, but that is the whole point. And, so far, I did not propose ANY change. But now I will... Let's expand Wikipedia's system to be able to handle geographic coordinates. That way we can link to geographic databases, GPS, satellite pictures and... maybe most importantly... avoid conversations like this. "Present day XXX" could be automatically handled - seems good for all involved. --Aleksandar Šušnjar 19:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to propose that at WP:HD, this is not the place for this discussion :-) Here we discuss why Nikola Tesla article does not conform to established customs... --Dijxtra 21:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is nothing to discuss, as it does violate any standards. --Aleksandar Šušnjar 23:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I hope you understand what you just wrote :-) --Dijxtra 00:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I most absolutely do! You want to impose something you may wish to be the standard, although it is not. If you want to discuss standards, then this is not the place for it either. --Aleksandar Šušnjar 05:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem... "it does violate any standards". That's what you wrote. OK, if it violates standards, then I have your blessing to change the infobox. Nice. I'll do that right away. --Dijxtra 11:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... true... I omitted "not" (as can be seen from the sentence that does not make sense by itself). But the change you made is entirely incorrect and away even from the "standard" you were proposing here. Tesla was not born in Croatia but Austrian Empire, just what presently is Croatia, as the article already stated. --Aleksandar Šušnjar 14:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion in becoming a bit to tabbed, so I'll decrease number of tabs... Your sentence "Tesla was not born in Croatia but Austrian Empire, just what presently is Croatia, as the article already stated." implies that you did not quite understand my previous elaboration of purpose of infobox or that you understood but are refusing to acknowledge that Austrian Empire does not exist any more (as the article correctly states). In both cases I do not see how the two of us can came to reasonable agreement, so I will abandon this article now and do some usefull work instead. Cheerz, Dijxtra 15:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Nikola Tesla was YUGOSLAVIAN!

--69.199.95.31 23:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Nikola Tesla was not croatian! My father went to a high school named after him called "Nikola Tesla." This high school is located in Belgrade! During the time that he lived: Serbia and Croatia were becoming one country: YUGOSLAVIA! Therefore Nikola Tesla was Yugoslavian.[reply]

In the wikipedia article, it said "Nikola Tesla was of Serbian descent and a citizen of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, after 1918, Yugoslavia and nowdays Croatia." The "Croatia" part is incorrect because today, what is left of former Yugoslavia is called "Serbia and Montenegro." 'Serbia and Montengro' has the same flag as former Yugoslavia had, different from the lone serbian flag. The flag of former Yugoslavia is blue, white, and red. The Serbian and Montenegrian flag is blue, white, red. The Serbian flag (Serbia on its own) is red, blue, and white. The croatian flag is red, blue, and white with a symbol on it. Therefore former Yugoslavia, today, is Serbia and Montenegro. NIKOLA TESLA WAS YUGOSLAVIAN!

-Mina (tri prsta!)

It's becoming obvious why you guys in that region can't stop having your little wars and genocides.

Date of 'Death Ray' reporting

Based on this PBS article: http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_wendwar.html, there was no report to the media of Tesla's death ray and the article implies that he didn't 'market' his invention to various nations until that time, so the date should be changed from the 20's to the 30's. Of course, there might have been rumors swirling around an earlier prototype, in which case this should read 'it was rumored that' rather than 'reportedly'.

Also interesting to add from the article: his belief that his 'death ray' weapon would 'end all wars'

Richard Jordan Gatling said the same thing thing about his invention... I suspect Tesla figured the invention of such a weapon would make war too horrific to wage. For that matter, the same was said of nuclear weapons at one point. -Fuzzy 21:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla's fame

I replaced "Tesla's fame rivaled that of any other inventor or scientist" for "Tesla's fame exceeded that of any other inventor or scientist." It is surely false that Tesla was more famous among inventors than Edison or more famous than Einstein among scientists.

I agree, but I think you misread or rather misinterpreted the sentence. I'm fairly certain it meant to say that at ONE point, Tesla's fame exceeded all others, but that he later died forgotten. It did not state that he was the most famous of all.

Also, just out of curiousity. How is stating the following: "After his demonstration of wireless communication in 1893 and after being the victor in the "War of Currents", he was widely respected as America's greatest electrical engineer. " puffing up Tesla into a superhero? These are more facts than praise.

Who owns Tesla's patents today? I think I read somewhere that his wife sold his patents to GE, his enemy, to make ends meet. Or this could be a different inventor I'm thinking about. I'm not sure.

First of all, Edison's only great invention was the light bulb, Tesla invented the method by which we have electricity in out homes today. --serbiana - talk 23:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you heard was wrong, since Tesla was a bachelor his entire life. C-c-c-c 01:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much better version

Much better version Aleksandar! The old maps will also show you that Croatia formed part of the Austian-Hungarian Empire and if we want to be correct, so that people will know where he was really born, this should be mentioned (yugoslavia was created much later and is now already history - how time goes by swiftly...). Anyway it's Nikola Tesla year in both countries - Serbia as well as Croatia. Nothing mentioned about that so far... ;) --Neoneo13 21:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... Maps actually don't show that - they show banovinas that were formed later. That article also needs improvment and better NPOV, but that does not concern this article. As to knowing when and where he was born - that information already existed in the article and actually did not need to be duplicated, but if that'll keep you happy - its fine.

There are things, though, that puzzle me. Why the Croatian interest in Nikola Tesla? By all means if he lived there at very slightly wrong time he'd experience some pretty horrible things, wouldn't he (e.g. ethnic persecutions of NDH and Jasenovac concentration camp, not to mention recent events)? Pardon me, but all that Croatian behavour is actually funny and sad at the same time.

As for place of Yugoslavia in the article... There actually needs to be more of it and we should work on that. Tesla decided that Yugoslavia should get his plans, not any other country. That counts a lot as to his opinions and I don't really see it mentioned.

Finally, I am still of the opinion that "present day" stuff should be treated better and automatically. In some ways, it already is. Smiljan article says where the city is, no need to spam it all over the place. I would go even further and put longitudes and latitudes, but that'll have to wait.

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 22:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, borders continuously changed, but Croatia always existed as a constituent part of the Hungarian monarchy. No doubt about that. Just have a look at the Hungarian coat of arms - the Croatian is on it too... On concentration camps: He did not live in Croatia at this time - thank god. Anyway, I think this only reinforced his anger about this cruel regime and everything what was happening over there in Europe. There were many scientists who sadly followed the news from Europe - and it was terrible, I admit. However, this does not mean that all Croats can be seen as one single entity. Not all Croats were in favor of killings and murders. They also did not have the chance to express their opinion. There were lots of different opinions, but it is another matter of the studies of history to reflect what happened in the past, not only in Croatia, but also in Germany and elsewhere... Mentioning Yugoslavia within the article: You could mention that Tesla was fond of the idea of a Yugoslavian state. However, he could not live up to this day to see what happened with this state and how things got out of control. And I think he would not have been a good politician, neither did he wanted to be one. I think Tesla always believed in fair treatment of people, irrespective of their ethnicity - and THAT is something that we all should admire. Why should not the Croatian Republic honor the ideals and wonderful things this man invented? He originated from this place on earth - today known as Croatia. He was a forethinker of his age, however, he did not live long enough to see his ideas realized, and still many of his inventions remain unrealized... I think Croats as well as Serbs can be proud of this man - it is at least, something that unifies both people, and therefore I believe it is fair enough to mention present-day places. Or do you still remember the exact position of some ancient Roman cities? I not really sure. Greetings! --Neoneo13 23:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Finding information on correspondence between Tesla and Katherine Johnson

I am a student and am fascinated with one of the great geniuses of our time - Nikolas Tesla. I would greatly appreciate it if you could tell me where I could read correspondence between Tesla and Katherine Johnson. They were friends and I would like to know more about their relationship and the letters they wrote to one another. Many thanks! studentpam2000 at msmath@prodigy.net

I somehow don't think this will help you much, but if there are any letters surving at least some of them would be in the Museum of Nikola Tesla. Some correspondence is mentioned in their archives - visit the archive of the Museum of Nikola Tesla. Nothing on-line, unfortunately.

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 19:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 9/10 issue, DST and time zones (just for fun)

Tesla was born "on the stroke of midnight" between July 9 and 10 1856. This is definetely something that needs to be put in the article but which of the two dates should be taken as official?

Well, which time zone are we talking about? Usually the one used at location of birth. In 1856 there was no such a thing as Daylight Savings Time or summer time. But now there is. During summer time people's clocks show the time as one hour ahead of what would have been usual, "winter" time.

What does this mean? Well, if Austrian Empire observed those rules in 1856, then the "stroke of midnight" would reallu have been 01:00 (am) of July 10. You can wrap this backward as well - if one would now like to celebrate exact "birthday instants" of Nikola Tesla they would have to do it at 01:00 (am) on July 10.

We can take this purely mathematically as well. Let's suppose that he was born exactly at midnight (without any error whatsoever). By that fact alone we can conclude that Tesla lived on this world for no time at all in July 9th, 1856 but did the entire July 10th. If we define "birthday" as the first day in which the person lived after birth for more than 0 time (not at all) then we still get July 10th as Tesla's birthday.

Now let's introduce some small, at the time immesurable, error. If it was slightly on the July 10th side then we're still fine with July 10th. If it was on the July 9th side then we still have slight dilemma - whether to use the summer time "excuse" (covers up to 1 hour error - just fine) or not (then we still may have a dilemma) ...

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 18:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct? ... I agree with you ... but it's like the 2000 / 2001 millennium thing ... does the day start @ 12:00 or 12:01? I believe it is 12:00 (AM, of course) ... I'll look around though ... Sincerely, J. D. Redding 06:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found this in the day article ... "Present common convention is for the civil day to begin at midnight, that is 00:00, and last a full twenty-four hours until the next 00:00 (also known as 24:00, but this is not as widely used)." J. D. Redding 06:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla said that his birthday was celebrated on the 10th. I do not remeber where I read this, but I will try to find the book. I own many books about Tesla, so this may take a while. In the meantime, if you remeber you can post, it too.-CK

Tesla in Science fiction and computer games

Tesla technology is recurring in alternate history works like steampunk, or stories concerning secret pre WWII technology

Tesla appears as a character in the 1995 novel The Prestige by Christopher Priest.
Tesla also makes a brief appearance as a character in the 1989 novel Moon Palace by Paul Auster.
Tesla is a continuing character in a series of novels by Spider Robinson concerned with Callahan's Crosstime Saloon.
In the ZBS series of audio plays The Adventures of Ruby, Tesla is considered to be the deity of technicians and engineers and can be summoned with a special chant near a reproduction of a Tesla Coil.
The Tesla Coils and Tesla troopers of the PC games Command & Conquer: Red Alert and Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 are named in his honor.
The superperson Nikola Tesla is a Japanese comic (manga).
Tesla is a character in the DC Elseworlds comic, JLA: Age of Wonder
Tesla is a playable character in the game Martian Dreams, from the Worlds of Ultima spin-off series by Origin games
The Tesla Cannon in the Blood series of computer games is a weapon that shoots electric projectiles, possibly intended to represent ball lightning.
The Tesla Coil was a buildable Sentry Tower for a Quake Modification called "Shaka" Team Fortress - a now defunct mod. The sentry was stationary and shot arcs of lightning at enemies.
The Tesla Gun in the computer game Return to Castle Wolfenstein is a weapon that projects lightning-like electrical arcs.
The Tesla Armor of the Fallout series of computer games provides excellent protection against laser and plasma/electrical attack types.
In the computer game Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura, there are items such as the Tesla Ring and the Tesla Rod, which can both be created by the player using the technological skill Electricity.
The Tesla Barrier in the PS2 game Ratchet & Clank is a powerful force field that protects the player and kills nearby enemies with electricity.
The Tesla Claw in the PS2 game Ratchet & Clank is a powerful weapon shooting electricity arcs which are self-guiding due to the fact that the lightning grounds itself in the nearest enemy.

[Moved because of WMC removal (he like to remove alot of information that is relevant to articles) ... J. D. Redding]

I've noticed that too. He removed important information on Tesla's claimed inventions and the teleforce because he claimed they were "fairy stories". Though there is no evidence for either side, even if they were fairy stories, they deserve inclusion in an article about Tesla. People think Nostradamus' predictions were "fairy stories" yet they still get notice here on wikipedia: Nostradamus.

If the Teslaphiles had their way (sadly they mostly do) this article would fill up with irrelevant junk. You should thank me for removing the clatch; this article should be about Tesla and what he actually achieved, not the fairy stories that people try to attach to him; those just make him look stupid. If this tower and/or ariport ever get built; put it in if you must. But for now its just vapour. William M. Connolley 20:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I guess you can consider me to be a "Teslaphile", but in this regard I agree with (re)moving various games, music and related stuff. I honor who and what Tesla was and believe relevant info should find its way in the article. Anything else, if worthy of mention, (e.g. institutions named after him) should be listed in separate articles or in dissambigation page. There are many "fairy stories" around Tesla. In fact so many of them that they may deserve a separate article just by themselves. Just don't know how to call it. Final note: the airport already exists - Belgrade airport and they seem to be in the process of naming it "Belgrade Nikola Tesla International Airport" (similar to Charles de Gaulle International Airport).

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 21:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, feel free to create Fairy stories about Tesla :-) William M. Connolley 18:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

:) I'm not the one to do it as I really don't know them. I am just familiar with his work in pure electrical engineering/science. All I meant is that stuff like that, if needed, should not be present in the main article but somewhere else. --Aleksandar Šušnjar 18:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla's Claimed Inventions

This section was removed from the article because it was claimed as "fairy stories." Though it may be true that some of these inventions are a little whacky and may make the article appear to have pseudo-scientific tendencies, how does that lead to their complete exclusion from the article or a sub-article? They are as crucial a point in Tesla's biographical information as Isaac Newton's alchemy and religious fanatacism is in his biographies. 72.144.147.32 23:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newtons alchemy is (I assume) properly documented and placed in context; there is no attempt made to make it seems like it might really work. William M. Connolley 23:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

There is little or no evidence to support the inventions working or NOT working. It is not up to you to decide whether they do or not. The information is nonetheless attached to Tesla's biographical information, and is as encyclopedic as, for example, existentialism or the bible code. It at least merits another smaller article for the category. 72.144.147.32 04:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [20]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.] [21]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.)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.)[reply]

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 [22], and air liquefies at about -196°C [23]. 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 [24]. --Heron 12:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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!)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [25]. 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)[reply]

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?)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [26] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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."[27] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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")[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [28], [29]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Electotechnics is nothing more than a part of electrical engineering. See, for instance [30]Mir Harven 21:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Also, if you don't trust the editable Gauss article (I wouldn't) .. here's a nice short article about Gauss, the physicist [31]. 72.144.103.135 22:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I just googlefighted '"Nikola Tesla" physicist' and '"Nikola Tesla" engineer', "physicist" won by almost double. See for yourself: [32] 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)[reply]

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

inventor: 478,000 physicist: 468,000

[33] Remember, Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Proved his point, Tesla was a Physicist

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wardenclyffe Tower

Inventions

1912 Nobel Prize

Street Gang?

Middle Name?

Past Tense

some rather dubious material...

Croatian, Serbian, American

Birthdate?

Cosmic Waves

Vlach stuff

Tesla msg?

Related articles

The Gush in the first part

The inventor of radio and other disputed facts

Category:Nikola Tesla

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

When is a transducer not a transducer?

Dielectric level?

featured article candidate with unresolved objections

Tesla a Vlach?

relativity , esoterical

9th/10th for birthdate?

ethnicity/nationality mention

Life magazine

hmm

Vandal

Links

Also: Dynamic theory of gravity

Double exposure publicity photo of Tesla

Page bloat

Merge

Forking

Ethnicity?

Book

Merge/Fork

WMC's POV edits

Duplicate material

Incomplete sentence

Some pictures from the museum

Dead link

Historical revisionism ?

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

Tesla Power Stations

awards vs societies

"American humor" myth

Oddity

Citation Question

Fluid mechanics

rtter

Tesla Unit

Power Plants

Another Tesla Band

Birth?

Patent class and subclass

Wikibooks

Pigeons

Tesla's research on Tai Chi Ch'üan?

Time Macihine , question for Aleks

Wikimania Serbomania

J. P. Morgan

Pigeons and Tai Chi Ch'üan

Resolutions to featuring the article

First

box of Tesla related articles

TOC

Article length

Images and Overwikification

sections and subsections

Second try

Structural things

images

Tesla origins

purpose of radio-controlled boat demonstration

Tesla vs Hertz

Why all these problems?

Image

Wikification

False Quote

Place of birth in the infobox