Talk:Nikola Tesla

Older resolved talk archived at Archive 1.

The inventor of radio and other disputed facts

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

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

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

X-rays: "... led him to alert the scientific community first to the biological hazards associated with X-ray exposure". Not true. Tesla did not discover the harmful effects of excessive exposures to X-rays. In June 1896 he did warn experimenters not to stand too close to an X-ray tube (because it had made his eyes sore), but he thought the problem was ozone generation. He also suggested a screen of wires to prevent coronal discharge occurring close to you - something completely ineffective against X-rays. Other early X-ray experimenters had reported damage to the skin and eyes as early as March 1896. It was Elihu Thomson of the Edison Laboratories who proved that the damage was caused by the rays themselves (crippling his hand in the process), while Wolfram Fuchs enumerated the basic principles of radiation protection in December 1896 [1] (http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1298.html)
- (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)

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 (http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1298.html)] 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 (http://www.tesla.hu/tesla/tesla.htm); 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 (http://www.tesla.hu/tesla/articles/18961201.doc)" (December 1896) in actuality. I also found this reference doc concerning your link's info, "On the Hurtful Actions of Lenard and Roentgen Tubes (http://www.tesla.hu/tesla/articles/18970505.doc)" (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 (http://www.tesla.hu/tesla/patents/p-645576.086/index.htm) "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 (http://www.tfcbooks.com/mall/more/210tmot.htm#demonstration) during a widely known lecture (read as: "reported in Europe and America") titled "On Light and Other High Frequency Phenomena (http://www.tfcbooks.com/mall/more/313irw.htm#L4)", presented before a meeting of the National Electric Light Association in St. Louis and the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. Also, Marconi's pretended ignorance of the nature of a "Tesla oscillator" being little short of absurd. Marconi's patent presented a use of radio waves for long distance communication and a fully working apparatus for doing so only through using principles and methods originally developed by Tesla. By 1901, transmision by wireless was sent over a Marconi set [which used around seventeen of Tesla's patents]. _{[2] (http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_whoradio.html)}

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 (http://www.teslasociety.com/munich.htm)). I'll see if I can find any other info on this.

>> Power: Wacko "broadcast power" nonsense? Wha? ... Not very NPOV o' you ... "It is well known that it is possible to distribute electrical energy in this way"? To whom? Not very many from my experience ... "Tesla crack-pots"? Not very NPOV o' you again [I see your POV now; plaese be careful to not slip into bein' a psuedoskeptic] "no conspiracy to suppress this fact" There is a "supposed" conspiracy? hmmm .... didn't know that ... conspiracies are usually secreative and this isn't ...

"the efficiency of this system is 'extremely' low"? Do you have any data on this? Or is this just "from the hip"? "much of the energy radiates away into space or couples into natural conductors (the soil, the sea, etc)"? Yep ... all part of a phantom circuit, much like the electrodynamic tether uses. "Totally useless as a power distribution system"? Hmmm ... that's not what Tesla stated in reguards to Wardenclyffe Tower. And not what the tether experiments of recent years indicate.

You "could go on but it's late? Ok, please do when you are able ... (I'll try to answer your concerns as time permits for me) ...

As the above answers are incomplete (and written in haste) to address your concerns, I may revisit my above coments at a later time (mainly adding additional information, as I find it) ...

Sincerely, JDR 21:19, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Category:Nikola Tesla

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

Why would this particular category replace this particular box? Nikola 07:18, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Because article boxes are complete eyesores in general. IMO. If you think they're a particularly useful idea, I suppose they could be put back :-) The category is still useful - David Gerard 08:28, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think they should be back. Nikola 23:51, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Couldn't find any credible evidence to support this so removed. --Deglr6328 12:53, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Tesla Society archive has a photo in thier collection that has a picture of several coils that are producing the FEL effect. Throught HV resonance. 65.30.121.64 [I'll see if I can find the picture] PS., this is during his time in Colorado.
- Didn't find the origginal [which is alot better] but this link (http://www.teslasociety.com/page4.jpg) 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 (http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/selene-satellite.html) 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 <math>10^{14}<math> 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 (http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/wguide.html)) (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 <math>10^{14}<math> Hz).

This would be the Toby Grotz who writes about Gnostic and Vedic mysticism for the "Gnostic Liberation Front"? I think I'll stick to peer reviewed stuff, thanks.

It is an interesting link. It also does not address your argument in any way. Securiger 19:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I may not be able to dis this @ great length right now ... but I will try to respond to this later (I'll get an offline copy so I can make a proper response; as of now, I'm offline for the most part and for the foreseeable future). And... be skeptical about the bremsstrahlung thing ... though, this is what you get when you use his single noded light bulb and produce HF like he did.

As to sticking to peer reviewed stuff, as Hannes Alfvén knew, those sources are not everything they are cracked up to be ... JDR 14:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

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

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

When is a transducer not a transducer?

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

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

On the strength of this summary (http://www.tfcbooks.com/teslafaq/q&a_040.htm) of this book (http://www.tfcbooks.com/mall/more/314ntac.htm#more-ntac), 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 (http://members.aol.com/ELECTRPOW/POWER.HTM)). 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 (http://www.aw-verlag.ch/Tesla/ProblemOfIncreasingHumanEnergy.PDF)". (PDF file) JDR

PS., As to why made him feel better, clean air [with more oxygen) does would make one feel better (especially when city have so much pollution [especially @ that time]). I'm not too sure how the dryness of the air would electrostatic experiments easier [more later on this prehaps].

Thanks. I read the PDF article you referred to. Your statement in the Wikipedia article seems to be combining two of Tesla's statements which I do not think are related. First, he talks about oxidizing atmospheric nitrogen to make fertilizer. Well, that's possible, if expensive, but he says nothing to connect the availability of atmospheric nitrogen with the location of his laboratory in Colorado or with the conductivity of the air. Second, he says that it's easier to ionize air at high altitudes where the pressure is lower. This is also a well-known fact, but has nothing to do with nitrogen. The proportions of nitrogen and oxygen in the air are constant with altitude up to about 80 km [3] (http://vortex.plymouth.edu/atmosphere/compose.html). 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 =-])

Tesla a Vlach?

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

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

(William M. Connolley 20:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)) OK, we have an anon who would like Tesla to be a Vlach. If he was, this is fine by me, but I see no evidence that he was. The Vlach page map would appear to suggest not, but that is hardly definitive. This page [4] (http://www.croatianstudies.org/index.php?action=page&id=67) includes a quote attributed to Tesla: I am a Serb but my homeland is Croatia, which may or may not be reliable. This page [5] (http://www.mbapedia.org/index.php/MBApedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection) has User:GeneralPatton saying T is a Vlach, so I shall leave a note for him.

Simply read Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 1#Vlach stuff which is right here... --Joy [shallot] 21:19, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OTOH, I remember now that that has a bunch of rambling... the short version is that there isn't much evidence that he was an ethnic Vlach, certainly no more than the evidence that he was an ethnic Serb, so this should stay as it is. --Joy [shallot] 21:24, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:33, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)) OK, thanks. That was interesting... to boil it down, most of the he-is-a-vlach stuff came from irismeister and redddi (say no more) with weak support from GeneralPatton (who *is* sane) but who now doesn't want to get involved [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3AWilliam_M._Connolley#Tesla). 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: or or by destroying graveyard where his parents are burried . Or dinamiting his statute in the centre in the town. More sofisticated are trying to proclame him Vlach. Well guys, why destroy the churches, statues, graveyards of the Vlachs? You were at the war with the serbs? Aren't you?

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

relativity , esoterical

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are photograhs of bulbs on coils bein lit @ a large distances. JDR Large photo file (http://www.tesla.hu/tesla/colorado/c_344.gif)

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 (http://www.teslasociety.com/biography.htm).

9th/10th for birthdate?

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

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

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

I think that this was talked about before ...

Being born on midnight would make it the 10th (@ 00:00 military time), IMO ... there is a birth certificate @ the museum (there's a link somewhere; may need translating)

JDR 11:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

ethnicity/nationality mention

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

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

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nikola_Tesla&diff=10670114&oldid=10666082) by him that i could see on the first page of history seemed to be a legitimate category addition ~~some other recent edits by others im not so sure about though.~~ Plugwash 17:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Links

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

I'll check it. -Anon [this by 204.56.7.1]

(William M. Connolley 15:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)) Will you now? In fact, 204.56.7.1 just removed the disputed notice under the edit tag "Propagation and resonance".

No. That edit was after the disputed notice tag was removed (which had no comment). The Propagation and resonance edit was adding information. sheessh, if you are going to accuse, do it right!

(William M. Connolley 16:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)) You're right. However, silently removing the dispute tag isn't permissible either. Please sign you edits.

Next time the edit will have a comment, if i can remember to. It doesn't need a dispute tag (unless there is a glaring reason to put one in).

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

Also: Dynamic theory of gravity

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

tesla-philes? That's not very NPOV. Are the statements referenced? Seems that they are. Seifer is one of the better recent biographers. Most of the other citations are from Tesla himself. -Anon [this by 204.56.7.1]

(William M. Connolley 15:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)) The pages have to be NPOV, not the comments. Please sign your contributions with four tilda's.

But your comments on the talk pages are very telling of your NPOV editing of the pages. -Anon (P.S., jsut to make it clear your page editing isn't very NPOV)

Double exposure publicity photo of Tesla

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

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

It has to be a double exposure.

Look at the location of the arc. -- which is a very bright light. --
Look under Tesla's chair at the shadow.
Look under the coil on the right at the shadow.
Look at the vertical reflection highlight on the coil on the right.
Look immediately under the cage on the left at the shadow on the floor.

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: [7] (http://members.tripod.com/RandyHiatt/teslapage2.html) [8] (http://www.magnetricity.com/Tesla/Tesla.php) [9] (http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/cwillis/tesla.html) (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? [10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllpages&from=Biography&namespace=0)

Pjacobi 17:53, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Actually, this separate article was introduced some time ago in order to include all the excessive attention to detail in this article. The final goal should be to spread out the content, we should not include all the stuff from over there back in here. --Joy [shallot] 18:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a merge.

If Biography of Nikola Tesla is a biography, what is Nikola Tesla? NT is the preliminary entry, the BNT is the detailed article [to cut down on size].

I'm glad that Joy stated what the deal is and this should be kept this way [as POV edits from people that want to "disprove Teslaisms" lose information]. (unsigned comment by... 204.56.7.1, of course)

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

It easier to list the inventions in the main and have the details of his life in the biography.

@Joy: giving the excessive attention to detail exile in separate articles is an inferior solution. We shouldn't react to pressure in this way. If the detail is excessive, is has to be cut, to conform with encyclopedic style.

@204.56.7.1: We don't do deals.

@William M. Connolley: Exactly!

Pjacobi 19:31, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Pjacobi, that was the way (the deal) it was before and should stay. Attention to detail is needed due to pseudoskeptics and their ilk that want to "disprove Teslaisms". It's a better solution than losing the details. If the detail need to be moved, it needs to be put in an appropriate place. Wikipedia is not paper. Biographies and articles are supposed to be encyclopedia articles. After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic. Where print encyclopedias have small articles, however, the fact that wiki is not paper also allows us to have a more thorough treatment.

Bigger is not always better. --Pjacobi 20:26, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Not bigger, just better and more thorough.

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

NT should be a preliminary set of facts (Kept to it's size because some delete the info because the try to resort to the page size rule of thumb). It should stay much as it is, IMO. The BNT should be kept and expanded, if needed, allowing the full set of fact to be heard (though the other one is getting big and would be in danger of the same problems, POV edits hiding behind the "size" rule). I guess the editing will go on ...

No, it won't work this way. If a temporary private workspace is needed, use a subpage of user page (after creating an account), or if more editors would like to co-operate on temporary workspace, Nikola Tesla/temp can be used.

Also, a full set of fact isn't the measure called for in an encyclopedic article. We don't simply accumulate facts, but knowledge, so carefull selection is needed to create a good article.

Pjacobi 20:52, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

What part of wiki is not paper ... allows us to have a more thorough treatment do you not get?

AND the way to have a encyclopedic article is allow the reader to gain awareness and understanding of the facts, truths, and information (part of wikipedia goal (see this article) is to be largest encyclopedia in history, in terms of both breadth and depth).

I suggest doing some reading in Wikipedia, especially biographies, which were considered well done by your fellow editors, by promoting them to a featured article.

Among other things you will learn:

Biographies don't have a "biography of" in their lemma.
No person other than Tesla has two biographies in Wikipedia (discounting a fresh arrival at Zhao Yun)
The 32k limit is soft one.
Even for the most important persons, there are things not to report in a Wikipedia article, because they are irreleavnt and cannot be considered knowledge.

Pjacobi 21:13, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

I've read several Wikipedia articles, including biographies, considered some that are well done. The featured article is a popularity contest. A person other than Tesla who has has two biographies? John Paul II (discounting Zhao Yun).

The 32k limit is repeatedly cited to take relevant information out (at least here). Can you cite some of these "most important persons"? I'm sure there are things not to report in a Wikipedia article, because they are irreleavnt (bathroom habits, types of food ppl like) and cannot be considered knowledge. The information included is relevant (not just mundane factoid).

Just to let you know, I merged Zhao Yun bio. It was easily under 32k. The Bio of Pope John Paul II should stay the way it is, as the bio of Tesla should stay the way it is. -Anon

Wikipedia is not paper, but it's also not intended to contain the complete compendium of human knowledge in one place. There's a reason we have "Further reading", etc, sections. An encyclopaedia article on a topic should be an introduction to a topic; people who want to know more should be referred to specialist works which focus on that particular topic. Noel (talk) 06:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not intended to contain the complete compendium of human knowledge in one place? That is the goal of wqikipedia. See wikipedia under characteristics. It states Wikipedia's goal is to create a free, reliable encyclopedia — indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, in terms of both breadth and depth. I would take the reason for having "Further reading", etc, sections is to verify the fact or they are offline sources of information relevant to the article. Mabey we should look up what is an article? but that just send the reader to the encyclopedia mainly. (I'll look around the Wikipedia:FAQ, though. Mabey something there will be helpful.)

A wikipedia article on a topic should more than just an introduction to a topic; it should contain all the relevant information to that topic. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. People who want to know more shouldn't be referred to a specialist work, if a person that knows the information (specialized or not) wants to contribute it to wikipedia.

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

WMC, your a deletionist (from reviewing your history). It's pointles to try to discuss things with you.

Oh Unsigned One, a review of my edit history will indeed confirm that... I very rarely vote on VFD. William M. Connolley 09:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC).

O' upside down pictured one, not VfD. Just deleting information that is relevant.

Of course it's pointless, but it is required by policy and politeness. --Pjacobi 21:13, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

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

WMC, please stop inserting the mergy tag. This article is like that of Pope John Paul II. His expanded biography is in a "Bio of" page. Thanks.

So far, you are the only one, voting against merge. --Pjacobi 21:46, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

I think that the previous edits (from the history) on why the NT and the BNT articles exist have shown the "votes" against a merge. As to the original reason why BNT exists is that the NT article was too long, while some want to add even more to it. User:Nikola Smolenski created the BNT to shorten the NT article while allowing the information to be saved.

Do you think that the John Paul II article should be merged? If not (which I believe is the case), then it a blantant POV in your editing. -Anon

Yes, of course, that one should be merged too. But he's just dead, so I'll give the hagiographers some months time, and after the dust has settled, we can go for that one. --Pjacobi 16:00, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

No, if you do not post it on that page, do not post it here. Don't wait to do it (As that is not NPOV editing). If you don't post a merge article notice there, then leave the merge notice off here. -Anon

Forking

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

this page (NT) should be the biography? It is the primlinary biography (more detail is in the BoNT) - it's an article about the man, therefore it's a wikibiography.

The Biography of Nikola Tesla is not just a fork. It was done, as far as I can tell, because of the page size.

How would you propose to create additional articles about information on Tesla himself?!? The inventions or theories surrounding him already have thier own articles?

As for your comment on Teslaites raving about how wonderful he was (a POV) and how we'd all be living high on the hog if all of his marvelous inventions weren't suppressed, that's just funny. Lord Kelvin stated that "Tesla has contributed more to electrical science than any man up to his time." Edwin H. Armstrong stated that "The world, I think, will wait a long time for Nikola Tesla's equal in achievement and imagination." Arthur Compton stated that "Tesla is entitled to the enduring gratitude of mankind." There are plenty of others that would support this. I would take their opinion and POV over yours.

Ethnicity?

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

To say that he was a "Croat" is simply false and can be reverted without a second thought. "Croat" designates *ethnicity* rather than belonging to the toponym of Croatia — for that the term would be "Croatian", and then you could easily supplement it with the ethnicity - "Croatian Serb".

The term "Vlach" was in the old times sometimes used for all of the Orthodox people in Croatian hinterland, but by the end of the 19th century when Nikola Tesla was born, the Serb Orthodox faithful were all organized into the Serbian nation. To call him Vlach would be outdated and likely condescending.

As for the recent siliness in changing the location of where Smiljan and Gospić are, that is revert material because I've created pages for both long ago so it's obvious where those places are.

I realize that it can get confusing with so many anonymous vandals around, but that's what you get with probably the most famous scientist from the area. --Joy [shallot] 09:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks William M. Connolley 23:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Tesla is Vlach

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

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

Book

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

Wikibooks 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).

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).

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Nikola_Tesla"