Not Vape Related Such a huge fan of this man, just had to share

I'm happy to engage in an informative dialog rather argue.

This claim was in the John J. O'Neill biography of Tesla. No other evidence. Even in that claim, it was said to have used "100 million volts of high frequency electric power." 100 million volts for 200 light bulbs. Wasteful even if it was true? Maybe a bit.

I couldn't find any verifiable evidence of this. Some homemade websites posting "facts." There it says 130ft, wikipedia says 140ft (and no records held). As the largest Tesla coils were built after his death, it might seem a bit unrealistic that he would still hold this record today.

Another claim from the same biographer above. A bit of an embellisher isn't he?

Tesla's oscillator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please also have a look at the Mythbusters section below the earthquake claims.

Westinghouse did this under contract with Tesla for his AC patents that he may or may not have copied from someone else who invented earlier.

Wikipedia puts this number at a minimum of 278. Google and wikipedia clearly dispute these "facts."

List of Nikola Tesla patents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I've seen the Mythbusters episode and to me it proves nothing. They were using a device they built that may or may not have be built by Tesla's plans. They were also using electricity instead of steam as Tesla was. Maybe he left something out on purpose. The fire department responded to the incident and it was widely reported by the neighborhood. Mark Twain himself actually saw a test of the device and demanded Tesla turn it off immediately. The illumination of the light bulbs has never been disputed by anyone. Google and Wikipedia do not prove how many patents Telsa holds or held. That information would need to come the patent offices where they were filed. Not all were US patents. Let's say that it is 278. Not many quacks can procure that many patents. The more we know, the more we realize we don't know. Recent "impossible" discoveries Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Speed of light not so constant after all | Science News All of these discoveries should be impossible but now we realize that we don't know as much as we think we do. Who's to say someone else didn't know things of this nature many years ago.

 

For the record, I'm perfectly OK with having my personal bias adjusted. It would give me a lot more faith in the man and his ideas if I could find any authoritative source on any of these claims.

Google now indexes the U.S. patent system and all of them are available online. In that last link I posted about his patents shows patents held by country which is what comprises the list of 278 known patents. It definitely says that there may be patents held in other countries, but in its lower various countries list they are mostly all in single digits. There is a large gap between 278-700 that I don't think the deficit could be made up by single digit increases or by the number of countries in the world.

To apply for a patent, you don't need a working prototype or are required to demonstrate evidence that your product idea can do what it says. I think you might be surprised by the number of ridiculous things that patents have been issued for. Here is a website maintained by a law firm devoted to them: CrazyPatents.com

 

The biggest problem with Tesla is that he preferred to work alone or with as few assistants as necessary. Notes would have been nice but still wouldn't have proven anything. It was a lot harder to document things back then and I don't think it was at the top of Tesla's list anyway. Just because there isn't concrete evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you tried to tell someone the stories I linked to above a few years ago, you would be ridiculed and lose all credibility you had. The difference between Tesla's time and now is that everything can easily be documented and reproduced by other sources. Believe or don't believe, it's completely up to you. Tesla had nothing to gain from lying and everything to lose from making the claims he did. The truth is we don't truly know what he did or did not do. I do have one question for you though. Where would we be today in terms of electricity if it were not for Tesla? He did invent the AC motor and by the same design in reverse the AC generator.

 

His working alone or with as few people as possible could also be considered a form of information control. Having notes about his experiments wouldn't have proved anything by themselves, but they would have allowed these experiments to be replicated. As far as documentation, this was the mid-late 1800's A.D. Books, newspapers, pens, pencils, and paper were all readily available commodities. He was able to document his ideas for the patents he did receive. Calculus was documented in early Egyptian papyrus back to 1800's B.C.

Tesla had everything to gain from lying. It was how he funded he projects, his lifestyle, his facade. He had nothing to lose by making these claims, because without the claims, he had nothing else to go on. Of the claims he made and what was actually produced, we have a pretty good idea of what he didn't do publicly. Based on that, I find it difficult to accept the belief that the claims he made and what he conducted in private were somehow all successful projects.

As far as the claim that he invented the AC motor, Mr. Galileo Ferraris might like to get a word in. Galileo Ferraris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Today, if we didn't have Nikolas Tesla, several investors in his projects would have a bit more money in their bank accounts and I'm not sure the rest of the world would even notice there was anything missing.

 

OK I will say this about Galileo Ferraris, according to the Edison Technology Center there was less than one month between the time that Ferraris released his papers on the AC motor and the time Tesla was demonstrating a working motor. I find it hard to believe that an idea was stolen and a working model made in less than a month especially in the 19th century. Clearly a case of simultaneous work and this is using information from the Edison Technology Center. Believing anything that they would say about Tesla would be the same as letting The Nazi Information Center educate you on the Jewish people. It all boils down to what you want to believe. Like I said before we are making "impossible" discoveries on a regular basis now. Just because someone chose not to document their work doesn't mean it didn't exist. If I invented a "Death Ray" I surely wouldn't document it or if I did document it there would be some important parts missing or some extra parts thrown in. Probably both. Was Telsa a genius or a thieving quack? That is something you will have to decide for yourself. For both of our sake we will leave Edison out of this, I think it's pretty accepted that he was a thieving quack.

 

I would question the Edison Technology Center as a source as well which is why I made no reference to them. Wikipedia also does not use them as a source. Try this link as a more reliable source: AC motor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The short part "Ferraris demonstrated a working model of his single-phase induction motor in 1885, and Tesla built his working two-phase induction motor in 1887 and demonstrated it at the American Institute of Electrical Engineers in 1888" There are three independent sources for that statement.

1. Fritz E. Froehlich, Allen Kent, The Froehlich/Kent Encyclopedia of Telecommunications: Volume 17, page 36. Books.google.com. 1998-12-01. ISBN 9780824729158. Retrieved 2012-09-10.
2. Jump up^ The Electrical Engineer. (1888). London: Biggs & Co. Pg., 239. [cf., "[...] new application of the alternating current in the production of rotary motion was made known almost simultaneously by two experimenters, Nikola Tesla and Galileo Ferraris, and the subject has attracted general attention from the fact that no commutator or connection of any kind with the armature was required."]
3. Jump up^ Galileo Ferraris, "Electromagnetic rotation with an alternating current," Electrican, Vol 36 [1885]. pg 360-75.

Everyone else who truly contributed something to the world has authoritative sources to back up their claims. Tesla has none of those. Literally nothing to show for any of his claims.

My point is, we can only get an grasp of someone's genius if they've actually given us anything to demonstrate it. Newton, Galileo, Einstein, published works that we can reflect back on and verify their genius. It is one thing to make a series of claims, it is another thing to demonstrate them. If we changed his name from Nikolas Tesla to Jesus, Joseph Smith, or Magick Man, would you still ask for no verifiable proof of his claims?

I think we have a lot more reasons to be skeptical of Tesla and his claims than we do to take him at face value. Why should we give him any more credit than those before and after him who have published and demonstrated their works? I don't choose to believe something because I want to. I choose to believe something that I can back up that information with proven and verifiable sources.

 

I try to keep science, religion, and magic separate from each other. If you don't feel there is enough scientific evidence then you are being completely fair about your skepticism. As I stated before with the recent discoveries about the speed of light and states of matter, I'm sure no one would believe you without the proof these scientists have provided and until their proof was shown they were considered crazy. There are still many theories about many things that have yet been proven or disclosed if actually known. If I say we are living in the Matrix, you will think me mad. But some real scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson believe the universe is a hologram and they are starting to gather facts and evidence to back up that theory. What if it is proven to be true? You can say that's impossible but is it? Throughout the history of mankind we are learning things that we once thought true are untrue and things once thought impossible are actually possible. Skepticism is fine but the truth is there are things that exist or have existed that are not documented or known only by a select few. This is not a conspiracy theory issue just the way that some things are.

 

I submit that there is a difference between the point that you are trying to make and what we actually know. Having an idea about something and demonstrating a working concept are two completely different things. Should we say that Leonardo da Vinci invented the airplane because of some sketches he drew or should we give the credit to the Wright brothers who actually built something that could fly?

As you stated for the theories you mentioned, those people are working on documenting verifiable evidence that their theories are legitimate. That is how science works. If any of these things are proven to be true, I'm certain we will have replicated verifiable evidence to back it up. They explicitly state, here are our theories, we are working on finding evidence to support them. I can take this at absolute face value. They don't just come up with these theories and say, believe me because I say so. Or, trust me, but I'm not going to show you my work. Why is Tesla excluded from this level of basic science?

Like Leonardo ds Vinci, what is in question here is not if something can or will be invented in the future. The question is did Tesla invent these things he claimed in the 1800's?

 

i would say follow the money... that general rule of thumb does always work ... certain rich people def. had a intrest that the is no free energy and i am sure they have to power that documents, witnesses and the founder himself disappear.

 

Easy answer, we will never know. He is long gone and anything he did do without credible documentation or what he kept to himself went to the grave with him. As I said before if I invented a Death Ray or Earthquake Machine that could destroy the world, I would keep the secret with me. It's not something that needs to be out there. There are many that would be glad to show it off and sell it to the highest bidder ensuring the end of the world. No matter what you believe about Tesla, it was never about the money. The contract he tore up with Westinghouse would have make him one of, if not the richest man in the world. This is a fact that is not disputed. Edison promised him $50,000 to improve a motor design because he thought it couldn't be done. When Tesla did in fact improve the design to Edison's specifications, Edison refused to pay saying "You obviously don't understand American humor." Another undisputed fact. There are things out there now that only a handful of people know about. Not a conspiracy theory but the truth. Like many things in life some things are better left unsaid and unknown. Did any of this apply to Tesla? Who knows.

I can't help but bring up one thing that you mentioned about Tesla and comparing it to the Wright Brothers. You stated that powering 200 light bulbs over distance of 26 miles "100 million volts for 200 light bulbs. Wasteful even if it was true? Maybe a bit." Assuming it's true it was the first time in history it was ever done. Efficiency is not always present the first time something is achieved. Let's compare to the Wright Brothers first flight. The first flight, by Orville at 10:35 am, of 120 feet (37 m) in 12 seconds, at a speed of only 6.8 miles per hour (10.9 km/h) over the ground. The next two flights covered approximately 175 and 200 feet (53 and 61 m), by Wilbur and Orville respectively. Their altitude was about 10 feet (3.0 m) above the ground. It seems efficiency was not on the docket for them either. They did the best with what they had.

**Updated**

Always follow the money, there are many cases other than the one we are discussing that have strange stories behind them. Most people just like to claim conspiracy theory or hoax. That's fine if that's what you want to believe. But not everything falls into those category's. There have been many cases of what were thought to be conspiracy theories or hoaxes to actually be proven true.

 

If I claim to invent a time machine but I tell everyone I don't want to share it with the world because of the catastrophic possibilities of such a machine and don't provide any evidence that I have, would you take me at my word? Is that substantial enough to automatically qualify and give me credit as the inventor? When you buy VG to make juice, do you automatically trust that every supplier is USP grade or do you ask for their documentation? What is different between the two? Isn't the burden of proof on the claimant? Why is Tesla getting a free pass to be released from the same burden of proof standards that we expect from everyone else?

You made an odd comparison about the Wright brothers. A standard light bulb today is 120 volts/40 watts and requires exactly that number to light it, 120 volts. Doing the math, in order to light up 200 of these light bulbs we would need 24,000 volts of electricity. Tesla claimed to use 100,000,000 volts for 200 light bulbs that I'm sure were not 120v at the time. Calculating the efficiency of his claimed achievement using the standard light bulbs we have today, we have an efficiency loss of -99.976%.

Now back to the Wright brothers. Number of flying machines before their invention, 0. Number of flying machines after their invention, +1. Distance, altitude, and speed are irrelevant in this comparison. There were no flying machines before it to compare against. On the other hand, electricity distribution already existed before Tesla's claim.

 

We are on completely different wavelengths. If you feel Telsa is over rated then that is your right. If you don't think he did anything of value, that is your right as well. If you think he was a thieving quack, again your right to do so.

I once hit the same arrow with another during archery practice. Since they were graphite shafts it wasn't really splitting another arrow but it did but open the end and went as far as it could. I had one person with me to witness the event. Since I wan't planning to do this I have no proof that I did it other than the fact that I and one other person saw it and a busted up arrow. Since I have no proof, did I hit the other arrow in the center? At least two people know it happened. Whether anyone else believes it is up to them.

I also have a paper target that shows 10 rounds from a Ruger .22 in a dime size hole at 100 meters. Myself and 2 other people witnessed the event. The paper target is the evidence, but how do you know it was me that fired the rounds? How do you know that it was at 100 meters? How do you know that I didn't just take a sharp object and make the holes? In this case I have evidence but is it enough for you to believe? Do I have a video? No. Again I wasn't planning on doing anything worthy of recording. I know that I did this and so do 2 other people. Other than that, it again is up to the person to believe or not to believe.

 

Maybe you did split that arrow. Maybe you did hit that paper target in the exact same spot ten times. Let's say that you are the first and wanted to submit it to the Guinness Book of World Records. Would your claim along with your friend as a witness be enough to qualify you for a world record? Or would they ask for documented and verifiable proof? Again, in this unrelated comparison, you are talking about chance vs. science. Science can be repeated over and over again in different parts of the world and we can expect to get the same results. Chance is, well, chance. We can't expect to get the exact same results over and over again.

Likewise, if you believe the stories behind Tesla without any verifiable evidence that any of them are true, you are completely within your right to do so. You have made a spectacular effort evading the answers to any of my critical questions. You might be able to imagine how some could draw comparisons with this and any strong belief in a religion of choice.

 

First of all archery and shooting are not things left to chance. It takes skill and lots of practice. There is also a lot of science required in both skills. Any projectile will change properties due to many conditions. Wind, temperature, humidity, elevation. A number of factors have to be taken into consideration. I will concentrate more on firearms since that is where I have the most experience. Sectional Density- wight of the bullet, Ballistic Coefficient- air resistance of the bullet, Bullet Drop- how much the bullet drops over a set distance, Shooting up or down hill. At longer distances you also have to factor for spin drift (the spinning of the bullet at such a high rpm will move it in the direction of it's spin), and lastly the Coriolis Effect (only used at extreme distances, it is the actual pull on the bullet from the rotation of the earth.) Saying archery or shooting is "chance" is a statement from someone that obviously has no experience with either and insulting to those that have spent many years honing their skills. It doesn't matter if I wanted to document these achievements or not, the fact lies in whether or not they happened. I can take you to the range today and repeat the results with a rifle if you so choose.

I don't know what spectacular effort I have make to avoid answering anything. I have stated what I believe based on the evidence that I have been presented. As far as religion, I don't see how it has anything to do with this conversation at all. I have not once discussed religion and don't see how religion would play any factor in the statements I have made.