Talk:World Wireless System

Capacity of Earth

It's stated that Tesla estimated the Earth's capacity is .001 of a Farad. Then following this quote some wrote the Earth is 710 microfarads and that Tesla's estimate was essentially correct. But the actual number is only 71% of the estimate which is a statistically significant difference. His idea was on track but his predicted number isn'tessentially the same as the actual number. (User:76.98.90.132 04:01, 29 August 2013‎)

I guess someone must've changed it. Because now it says "Earth's self-capacitance is about 710 microfarads, much greater than one thousandth of a farad.", which is incorrect (unless I am misinterpreting it). But one thousandth of a farad should be equivalent of 1000 microfarads, which is greater than 710 microfarads. 85.226.118.18 (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Its one of a series of claims based on examining primary sources, in other words WP:OR. In this case its comparing Tesla's writings (A) to a value found in an online Physics text (B) and drawing the conclusion "Tesla.... was therefore essentially correct" (C). "Implying conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources" is specifically WP:SYNTHESIS. How to fix this? The short answer is delete it all, Wikpedia is not a publisher of primary sources. The slightly longer answer is maybe moving it all to Wikibooks? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

According to Wolfram Alpha Earth's electrical self-capacitance is 708.5 microfarads. I will modify the article accordingly, if that's okay.GPeterson (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is: what does this have to do with Tesla?. I don't mean to HOUND this article but that whole section, for a start, has no encyclopedic (reliable secondary) sourcing, and is mostly referenced to Tesla's own writings. It seems to run afoul of WP:NOTMIRROR, i.e. it is using Wikipedia to distribute public domain or other source material (and throwing in un-referenced or not very reliable opinion as fact). Just griping right now, and maybe I am suggesting the whole article be moved to Wikibooks,, WikiSource, or Wikiversity, just not sure. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr on all these points, particularly the YESPOV issue. Large parts of the section are written as if Tesla's ideas are established facts, while the truth is that there is no credible evidence Tesla transmitted power farther than about a hundred yards. Neither is there any evidence for any of the atmospheric conduction ideas he espoused; his demonstrations can all be accounted for by ordinary resonant induction between tuned circuits, and in 114 years no one has demonstrated power transmission the way he described. The whole article needs to be rewritten. --Chetvorno^TALK 03:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive tag removal

Re: GPeterson's continual removing of cleanup tags[1][2][3][4][5][6]. Large parts of this article fall into original research re: comparing a definition of "Hertz waves" to a Tesla experiment and claiming one is the other, a whole section called "Theory of wireless transmission" which is GPeterson's analysis of the system, the section "Resonant inductive coupling" comparing Tesla's work to unrelated modern experiments and claiming "It is believed", "This was confirmed". "This article's factual accuracy is disputed" is because there are statements such as "The venture failed due to insufficient funding.", "This was the first step towards a practical wireless system", and GPeterson's general analysis of primary sources and drawing his own conclusions from them. Article relies on many fringe sources pushing into undue. GPeterson removal of the Undue tag with comment "failure to cite a single "engineering source" asserting "the system would never work"."[7] seems to show a major misunderstanding somewhere. We do not prove or disprove whether things work(ed) in Wikipedia, we cite (many) secondary source's take on the feasibility of something, not our own research.

Also, not to tag bomb, the article has major WP:TONE problems, it starts "World Wireless system was" (a historical treatise) but switches to "is" through the article. Tone should be a "was" historical view throughout. "is" is, again, taking a tone to try to prove something. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. I added to the introduction 8 sources stating that there is no evidence Tesla ever transmitted wireless power long distances, and 9 sources expressing modern scientific opinion that Tesla's ideas were mistaken and his World Wireless System would not have worked. GLPeterson's edits seem to be trying to obscure these facts and pretend Tesla's ideas are proven and accepted by modern scientists, and the only reason the World Wireless System failed is that investors like Morgan didn't have faith in him. To support his POV, the only sources that GLPeterson can cite trace back to one person, Tesla. It should be clear now, if it wasn't before, that these views and much of the article are nowhere near WP:VERIFIABLE and are a WP:FRINGE theory. --Chetvorno^TALK 14:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

GLPeterson, you seem to be WP:PUSHing without talking. Let's talk it over here on this page, rather than just reverting. I'd like to hear your side. --Chetvorno^TALK 14:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Expansion

A small cleanup turned into a major rework and expansion, mostly trying to integrate redundant passages and add in some history and basic description. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks much much better. For the first time since this article was created, it has an objective, unbiased viewpoint, in place of the previous deliberately slanted pseudoscientific propaganda. The account of Tesla's development of his ideas in the "History" section is a valuable addition. MrX also did a lot of work culling out the schlock science, worthless references, and pointless Tesla quotations that were such prominent features of the previous text. Thanks to both of you we now have a decent article. --Chetvorno^TALK 01:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits seem to be returning article to FRINGE state

I am concerned the recent wholesale edits to the article [8], seem to be an effort by the original editor to return the article to its previous WP:FRINGE WP:YESPOV state, in which it implied that Tesla's erroneous 100 year old ideas about wireless power work and are supported by modern science:

• Replacement of the conditionals "would allow" with "allows" and "could" with "can" and the past tense ("consisted") with the present tense ("consists") gives the false implication that these ideas worked and are an accepted part of modern science; see WP:YESPOV.
• Replacement of "...most modern scientific opinion is that his wireless power scheme would not have worked." with "...modern scientific opinion exists that his wireless power scheme would not have worked." is clearly a POV weakening of the position. The nine sources at the end of the sentence support the previous version.
• The addition of the new information: "The only known report of the long-distance transmission and reception of electrical energy by Tesla himself is a statement made to attorney Drury W. Cooper, of the law firm Kerr, Page & Cooper, that in 1899 he collected quantitative transmission-reception data at a distance of about 10 miles (16 km)." is good, but needs clarification. First, the citation does not give the page number and I cannot find this statement in the source. @GLPeterson, can you add the page number? Second, was this a demonstration of radio communication or wireless power transmission? The sentence implies it was the latter, but Tesla was also doing tests of wireless communication at the time. How much power was received? What sort of receiver was used? Without further data we must assume this was just a test of radio communication. By this time Marconi was transmitting 60 miles, so it is not clear this information is very notable.

--Chetvorno^TALK 04:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree and took a small whack at cleanup per WP:YESPOV. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Support the whack, and took an additional small whack myself. Can you find the Tesla statement on the 10 mile transmission in the Anderson source? What does it say exactly? If it's in there, Google is blocking it in my browser. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Had a look, Anderson as PDF ---> [9], search phrase "miles or so" will bring it up. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, got it. So these were clearly low energy wireless communication experiments; he used wireless detectors such as bolometers which detected extremely low energies. Describing this as "transmission... of electrical energy" is clearly fraudulent. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

FRINGE state redux

This seems to be Gary Peterson copying his own website into Wikipedia (for about the 100th time?). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The next time this type of COI FRINGE content is dumped into this, or a similar article, I will be inviting GLPeterson to explain himself at AE.- MrX 21:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed the statement that Tesla suggested that radio waves might be used to send information and I rewrote the part where all the scientists laugh at Tesla for believing in radio waves. It's a little longer, unfortunately. I'm not sure how much I will be able to do myself for this and the other Tesla articles, but I'll do what I can.

There is some value in this article, but not if it is about Tesla the outsider who had the truth all along. He learned and practiced the scientific consensus of his time. That's why I think he would have abandoned the WWS idea if he knew what we now know about the atmosphere of Earth. Roches (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The premise of the edit seems to be off by 180% re:"scientists laugh at Tesla for believing in radio waves": Tesla did not believe in radio waves or electromagnetic wave theory, he thought they were mis-identifying an ether/conduction phenomenon. Also not sure where Hertz/1893 comes from. But I like the gist of the edit and tried to put in even more WP:OBVIOUS. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Roches, Tesla was an "outsider", theorywise, but he didn't have the "truth". In general Tesla belittled the Hertzian wave theory that became the orthodox theory of wireless (N. Tesla The True Wireless, Electrical Experimenter, 1914). He undoubtedly didn't have the math to understand Maxwell's equations (very few wireless researchers did). At different times he either didn't believe in Hertzian waves (radio waves), or believed they was inefficient and useless. He said there was a second method of communication, his "earth resonance" waves, and that they could travel faster than light and did not diminish with distance by the inverse square law as Hertzian waves did. When Marconi and other wireless pioneers achieved transatlantic communication by reducing the frequency of their transmitters from the VHF region that Hertz used to the longwave region that Tesla's coils used, he said their transmitters were actually using his "earth waves" and not radio waves.

I think the article should emphasize more that Tesla did achieve the first wireless power transmission, between nearby resonant circuits, and that these experiments formed the basis for his World Wireless ideas. Tesla "scaled up" the 19th century electrical resonance theories which applied to the metal balls he used as terminals of his Tesla coils, to apply to the entire Earth. His tragedy is that he apparently didn't do the experimental work which would have shown that this electrical resonance was a near field effect, and in the far field beyond the vicinity of the transmitter you have to use Hertzian wave theory. He just observed, on July 3, 1899, what he thought were worldwide standing waves generated by lightning strikes, and jumped to the conclusion that the Earth was acting as a resonator (Tesla, "Transmission of electric power without wires", Sci. Am. July, 1904). (this was Tesla's "eureka moment" and should be emphasized in the article). Of course, all of this is just my own WP:SYNTHESIS and can't be included in the article without sources, which I haven't found. --Chetvorno^TALK 04:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The revision by Fountains of Bryn Mawr is good. The "scientists laugh at Tesla" part, I think, needed more context, and I didn't include that context so the post wouldn't be overly long. If the section mentions only Tesla and "others", then it casts Tesla as a hero that has the right idea while the establishment got it wrong. That's linked to the idea that Tesla is still right and the establishment is still wrong.

The only way I can try to understand the WWS is if I think it relied on the idea that a plasma would form between the transmitter and the receiver balloons. There isn't a wave in the ground in the model I'm using, and it appears Tesla was convinced there was. I think, from the article near and far field, that Tesla must have thought that the energy at distance r from a transmitter was always 1/r, as it is in the far field, when in fact his early induction experiments measured an energy that varied as 1/r + 1/r² + 1/r³ + 1/r⁴ ... 1/r^∞, in the near field. I don't know a lot about Tesla's publications, but, as I said, I can try to keep the pseudoscientific stuff out of the article. Roches (talk) 06:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edits look fine to me. I agree with your sentiment; the last thing we need is to confirm the Tesla Cult's view that Tesla discovered some "secret" unknown to modern science. Re Tesla's WWS ideas: I'm sure Tesla didn't have any concept of the difference between "near field" and "far field". At the time he formulated his wireless power ideas (~1893) electromagnetic waves had only been discovered 6 years previously. He just took the elementary 19th century idea of an oscillating capacitor, a tuned circuit, discovered by Kelvin and Fedderson and applied it to the Earth. I think your idea that Tesla was relying on a plasma for his balloon idea is correct [10], although of course he didn't use the term, all they knew was that the conductivity of the atmosphere rises as the pressure falls. [11]. The holes in this idea were pointed out to Tesla even at the time [12]. The Feasibility section could probably be expanded to discuss the many shortcomings of Tesla's theories. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict/just a general comment) Pointing out what Tesla did is a good idea, especially if we can reference it to some mainstream sources that state what was going on (that may be hard but Carlson seems to have a good grasp of the topic). We should watch out for words like "Schumann Resonance", "plasma", "ELF", and even "radio" because we are getting into concepts that either postdate Tesla or that he had no grasp of. Tesla seemed to be intuitively extrapolating from observed resonance, crookes tubes, and predating low pressures high altitude conduction theory[13]. My take on the recent reverted edits (the Corum/GLPeterson material) is that it seems to be making a claim that Tesla's WWS was going to work because of X and Y phenomenon that Tesla knew nothing about. Its sort of like the "bad smells cause disease theory", the people who formulated it knew nothing about germs but getting rid of bad smells (all the filth) still worked. The problem is its all research papers or conclusions implied by juxtaposing primary sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed lead paragraph revision

Existing:
The World Wireless System was a turn of the 19th century proposed telecommunications and electrical power delivery system designed by inventor Nikola Tesla based on his theories of using Earth and its atmosphere as electrical conductors. Tesla claimed this system would allow for "the transmission of electric energy without wires" on a global scale as well as point-to-point wireless telecommunications and broadcasting. He made public statements citing two related methods to accomplish this from the mid-1890s on. By the end of 1900 Tesla had convinced banker J. P. Morgan to finance construction of a wireless station (eventually sited at Wardenclyffe) based on his ideas intended to transmit messages across the Atlantic to England and to ships at sea. Almost as soon as the contract was signed Tesla decided to scale up the facility to include his ideas of terrestrial wireless power transmission to better compete with Guglielmo Marconi's radio based telegraph system. Morgan refused to fund the changes and, when no additional investment capital became available, the project at Wardenclyffe was abandoned in 1906, never to become operational.

During this period Tesla filed numerous patents associated with the basic functions of his system, including transformer design, transmission methods, tuning circuits, and methods of signaling. He also described a plan to have some thirty Wardenclyffe-style telecommunications stations positioned around the world to be tied into existing telephone and telegraph systems. Tesla would continue to elaborate to the press and in his writings for the next few decades on the system's capability's and how it was superior to radio-based systems.

Despite Tesla's claims that he had "carried on practical experiments in wireless transmission" there is no documentation he ever transmitted power beyond relatively short distances, and modern scientific opinion is generally that his wireless power scheme would not have worked.

Proposed:
World Wireless was a turn of the 19th century telecommunications and electrical power system design proposal made by inventor Nikola Tesla.  It was based upon his theory of using Earth as an electrical conductor.  Tesla claimed this system would allow for "the transmission of electric energy without wires on a global scale for point-to-point wireless telecommunications, broadcasting and industrial power transfer.  From the mid-1890s on he made public statements about methods to accomplish this.  By the end of 1900 Tesla had convinced banker J. P. Morgan to provide $150,000 to finance construction of a wireless system to transmit messages across the Atlantic between the United States and England, and to ships at sea, based on his ideas.  After the contract was signed Tesla decided to construct a single more powerful station, instead of two smaller stations as had originally been discussed, in order to extend its range and better compete with Guglielmo Marconi's radio-wave based wireless system.  Costs nearly tripled due to an economic upheaval and construction came to a halt.  Morgan refused to provide further funding, and when no additional investment capital became available from other investors the Wardenclyffe station was abandoned in 1906, never to become fully operational.

During this period Tesla was granted numerous patents associated with the basic functions of his system, including transformer design, transmission methods, tuning circuits, and methods of signaling.  He also described a plan to have some thirty World Wirelsss system telecommunications stations, based upon the Wardenclyffe power plant and Wardenclyffe tower prototypes, positioned around the world, to be tied into existing telephone and telegraph systems.  Tesla would continue to elaborate to the press and in his writings for the next few decades on the system's capability's and how it would prove to be superior to systems based upon radio waves.

Tesla claimed that he had carried on practical experiments in wireless energy transmission, and while there is no clear documentation that he ever transferred power beyond relatively short distances, there is modern scientific opinion that his wireless telecommunications scheme could have worked.

                                                                                                New York, October 15th, 1904

   J. P. Morgan
    New York City

Dear Mr. Morgan:-

            I would beg you in all earnestness to peruse the following statement of facts which I have brought separately to your attention.

            1. Five years ago (as you may have gathered from my original announcement in the Century of June 1900, copy of a patent specification filed May 15, 1900, and article in the Electrical World and Engineer of March 5, 1900) I succeeded in encircling the Earth with electrical waves.  What gave to this result far-reaching in itself, a tremendous significance, was the observation that in their passage from Colorado Springs to the diametrically opposite region of the globe and return, the waves suffered no perceptible diminution of intensity, thus affording an absolute experimental evidence, that by my system power in unlimited amounts can be transmitted, without wire, to any distance and, virtually, without loss.

            2. I recorded my discoveries in the patent office and secured broad and uncontested rights in Patents, some of which I am still keeping back, for reasons which it is unnecessary to explain.  When they appear they will create a profound impression.

            3. I was even then firmly convinced that these advances would prove of greater importance than the steam engine, the telegraph, the telephone, and my multiphase motor combined, for the offered an ideal solution of the problems of fuel, transportation, and intelligence-transmission in all their ramifications.

            4. Desiring to obtain a support such as this work was deserving, more for the good of the world then my own, I approached you, naturally enough with the easily realizable project of establishing communication across the Atlantic, which required a smaller investment.

            5. I was fortunate to enlist your interest, but not quite on the lines of my own suggestion.  I contemplated the formation of one or two companies to which all inventions in wireless telegraphy and telephony and my system of lighting were, respectively, to be assigned and proposed that you take fifty-one percent of the stock (not fifty, as you yourself said in our first conversation, because then you would not control), the remainder to go to my parent company.  But when I received your formal letter it specified an interest of fifty-one percent in patents on these inventions.  That was different though my share was the same.  It was a simple sale.  The terms were entirely immaterial to me and I said nothing for fear of offending you.  You have repeatedly referred to some stock and it is just possible, that a mistake was made, and that you intended to take exactly what I had proposed, and what would have been, for many reasons, greatly to my advantage.

            6. Your participation called for a careful revision of my plans.  I could not develop the business slowly in grocery shop fashion.  I could not report yacht races or signal incoming steamers.  There was no money in this.  This was no business for a man of your position and importance.  Perhaps you have never fully appreciated the sense of this obligation.

            7. When I discovered, rather accidentally, that others, who openly cast ridicule on what I had undertaken and discredited my apparatus were secretly employing it, evidently bent on the same task, I found myself confronted with wholly unforeseen conditions.  How to meet them was a question.  Of course I could not enjoin the infringers.  In Canada, almost midway, I had no rights.  My Patents on the art of individualization, insuring non-interference and non-interferability, were not as yet granted in England and the United States.  Suppose I was anticipated in this invention?  Then I would have to rely on ordinary tuning.  This was in a measure, satisfactory so long as I was alone, but shrewd competitors, with the advantage they had, could make me fall short, as the capital I had at disposal was only a sufficient for two small plants.  Once I failed with you in the first attempt, you would not listen to any other proposition.  Once I lost your support I could not because of your personality and character of our agreement, interest anybody else, at least not for several years, until, the business would be developed and the commercial value of my patents recognized.  But there was one way, the only way, of meeting every possible emergency, and making the ultimate success perfectly certain.

            8. Here I must add a purely explanatory paragraph.  Suppose a plant is constructed capable of sending signals within a given radius, and consider an extension to twice this distance.  The area being then four times as large the returns will be, roughly, fourfold on account of this alone.  The messages, however, will become more valuable.  Approximately computed, the average price will be tripled.  This means that a plant with a radius of activity twice as large will earn twelve times as much.  But it will cost scarcely twice as much.  Hence in investing a certain sum destined for two small plants into a single one, the earnings will be six-fold increased.  The greater the distance the greater the gain until, when the plant can transmit signals to the uttermost confines of the Earth, its earning power becomes, so to speak, unlimited.

            9. Thereby to do was to construct such a plant.  It would yield the greatest returns, not only for the reasons just mentioned, but also because every other plant erected anywhere in the world, by anyone, was sure to be turned into a source of income.  It would give the greatest force to my patents and insure a monopoly.  It would make certain the acceptance of my system by all governments.  It discounted in advance all possible drawbacks, as anticipation of the results by the trespassers of my rights and delay.  It offered possibilities for a business on a large, dignified scale, commensurate with your position in life and of mine as a pioneer in this art, who has originated all its essential principles.

            10. The practicability of such an undertaking I had already demonstrated in Colorado, but to make those feeble effects, barely detectable by delicate instruments, commercially available all over the earth, required a very large sum of money.  You had told me from the outset that I should not ask for more, but the work was of such transcending importance and it was of such enormous value in your hands, that I undertook to explain to you the state of things on your first returned from abroad.  You seem to misunderstand me.  That was most unfortunate.  Had I obtained your hearing, your enemies would not have succeeded in inflicting you injuries, for the first motor or lamp operated across the Pacific would have delivered them in your power.  To achieve a great results is one thing, to achieve it at the right moment is another.  That favorable moment is gone forever.  Your popularity has suffered, the moral force of my work has been weakened by delay, the audacious schemers who have dared to fool the crowned heads of Europe, the President of the United States, and even His Holiness the Pope, have discredited the art by incompetent attempts and spoiled the public by false promises which it cannot distinguish from those sure of fulfillment, based on knowledge and skill and legitimate right.  That is what pains me most.

            11. Still, in spite of all this, Mr. Morgan, I can realize what I have held out to you when you yourself said to me that “you have no doubt”.  I know you must be skeptical about getting hundredfold returns, but if you will help me to the end you will soon see that my judgment is true.  When my first plant is completed I can place a dozen of such at once.  I do not need to wait for returns from subscribers.  There are one thousand million dollars invested in a submarine cables alone.  This immense property is threatened with destruction because just as soon as people find that messages for, say, five cents a word can be transmitted to any distance, nothing will stop the demand for the cheaper and quicker means of communication.  The investment in cables is too large to pay on this low basis and the only chance the companies have is to take hold of the new advances.  My patents control every essential element of the art.  They are impregnable.  In your hands, and backed by these great results, they should be of enormous value.

            12. My work is now far advanced and could be finished quickly.  I have expended about $250,000 in all and a much smaller sum of separates me from a great triumph.  If you have lost faith in me have you not someone in whose knowledge and ability you have greater confidence than in mine, and to whom I could explain?  Seventy-five thousand dollars would certainly complete the plant and then I would have no difficulty whatever in getting all the capital necessary for the further commercial expansion.

            13. Since a year, Mr. Morgan, there has been hardly a night when my pillow was not bathed in tears, but you must not think be a weak man for that.  I am perfectly sure to finish my task, come what may.  I am only sorry that after mastering all the difficulties which seemed insuperable, and acquiring a special knowledge and ability which I now alone possess, and which, if applied effectively, would advance the world a century, I must see my work delayed.

            In hope of hearing from you favorably, I remain,

                        Your is most faithfully,

                                   N. Tesla

[Tesla, Nikola, 1856-1943. http://lccn.loc.gov/mm82050302, Library of Congress, Nikola Tesla correspondence, 1890-1934. 7 microfilm reels.]

GLPeterson (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Article content is not based on interpretation of primary sources (such as Tesla letters) and a 1904 letter is going to contain allot of Tesla obfuscation. We look at secondary sources (such as Carlson and even Seifer).

• "Costs nearly tripled due to an economic upheaval and construction came to a halt" - the letter you copied and pasted above clearly states cost increased because Tesla increased the size of his plant: from a small wireless plant that would beat Marconi in transmitting signals across the Atlantic, to a much larger power transmission plant. The contract with Morgan was signed in November 1900 and the whole thing was down the crapper in July 1901 when Morgan decided Tesla was in breach of his contract. The "economic upheaval" claim is an after the fact Tesla claim in a 4/8/1903 letter[14].

• "would not have worked" is based on several non-Tesla sources (making them more reliable). Trying to PUSH "could have worked" by adding several Tesla-centric sources (Marinčić twice, Seifer once) is not improving reliability.

In other words, Wikipedia is not the place to promote Tesla. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. I oppose the proposed changes in the introduction as POV and unsourced. It appears to be an effort by this editor to gradually, incrementally change the article to insert his fringe, OR Tesla theories. A major distortion in the proposed version is it removes all mention of Tesla's making Wardenclyffe into a wireless power station, describing it's purpose only as a transatlantic wireless communication station. This is apparently an effort to hide from readers that Tesla failed to achieve long distance wireless power transmission, and even with a huge budget was unable to demonstrate any results which Morgan thought were worth investing in. Tesla himself in many later articles [15] explicitly describes the Wardenclyffe plant as a wireless power transmitter. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It has always seemed to me that Tesla's failure to find funding for his wireless power scheme is the most persuasive proof that he never accomplished long distance transmission. This was the Gilded Age; fortunes were being made on electrical inventions. In 1901 Tesla was one of the most respected engineers in the country. If Tesla had been able to transmit practical amounts of power even a quarter-mile, it would have been incredibly valuable. Electric utilities would not have to go to the great expense of wiring buildings, but could just put a wireless power transmitter on every city block. Robber barons like Morgan and Westinghouse were not stupid; they made their living investing in new technology. If Tesla had been able to demonstrate practical power transmission, even just across the street, they would have beat a path to his door. The fact that Tesla could find nobody on Wall Street to invest even a dollar in his scheme is pretty persuasive proof that he had nothing. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Back to the same edits

This edit is not an improvement and seems to be another attempt by GLPeterson to return the article to its previous WP:FRINGE WP:YESPOV state (as noted by Chetvorno above). It simply turned the section into a dense WP:OR/WP:QUOTEFARM (Tesla is not a reliable source on Tesla) and made it more dense by obfuscating points: radio waves---> electromagnetic radiation, and radio waves as "theorized" is turned into the very WP:FRINGE "others theorized" (this is not some "other" theory). Also back handed re-spawned the deleted Terrestrial stationary waves article by inserting it as a section and referencing it to Tesla. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Attempting to transmit electrical energy along the surface of the Earth?

The continual reinsertion of claim that Tesla was attempting to transmit electrical energy primarily along the surface of the Earth[16][17] (and related ELF material?[18]) is not supported by the reliable secondary sources provided. Carlson et-al describe many modes with the primary being conduction through the Earth and attempts to use a conduction path through the atmosphere. A claim that Tesla was attempting ELF needs very strong secondary sourcing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

"transmit electrical energy along the surface of the Earth" was re-added here without comment. Tesla's 1927 claims on the mode of operation are not relevant to the 1901 system (and primary sourced as well). He made many such proclamations over the years on how he thought Wardenclyffe could work after it failed, claiming to adapt new theory to fix the perceived problems. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The edit above indicates a lack of understanding about how the World Wireless System was intended to work. Michael H 34 (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You need to supply reliable secondary sources on how Tesla intended the World Wireless System to work. So far you have supplied your own opinion here (not reliable and WP:OR to boot) and a quote from Tesla himself (not secondary and not reliable). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Diagram in Tesla's 1919 article of his fluid analogy of Earth current radio transmission. He believed his Earth currents traveled like water pressure waves in a balloon, spreading throughout the interior of the Earth.

@Michael H 34: I agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr about the need for secondary sources, but I also think you may not have read your Tesla source closely enough. Tesla's 1927 article says: "...the energy travels chiefly along an orthodromic line, that is, the shortest distance between two points at the surface of the globe...". The shortest distance between two points on the surface of a globe is not a surface path, but a chord; Tesla was talking about a chordal path. Obviously, for widely separated points such a path does not travel along the surface but deep into the Earth (see diagram right). This is consistent with Tesla's other articles over the years, in which he maintained that his wireless system did not work by surface waves but by oscillating currents throughout the Earth. In Nikola Tesla, "Scientific Illusions", Electrical Experimenter, February 1919, p. 692-696, 728-729 he said:

"Imagine the earth to be a bag of rubber filled with water, a small quantity of which is periodically forced in and out of the same by means of a reciprocating pump, as illustrated. If the strokes of the latter are effected in intervals of more than one hour and forty-eight minutes, sufficient for the transmission of the impulse thru the whole mass, the entire bag will expand and contract and corresponding movements will be imparted to pressure gauges or movable pistons with the same intensity, irrespective of distance. By working the pump faster, shorter waves will be produced which, on reaching the opposite end of the bag, may be reflected and give rise to stationary nodes and loops... This is a crude but correct representation of my wireless system."

In Nikola Tesla, "The true wireless", Electrical Experimenter, May 1916, p. 28-30 he said: "It is generally believed that these waves pass along the earth's surface and thus affect the receivers. I can hardly think of anything more improbable than this "gliding wave" theory..." "The fact is that the radiations of the transmitter passing along the earth's surface are soon extinguished...".

Of course all this was completely wrong; Tesla was stuck in outdated 19th century ideas about electricity. He apparently didn't understand the theory of electromagnetism published in 1864 by James Clerk Maxwell called Maxwell's equations. Radio frequency currents cannot pass through the interior of a conductive object like the Earth. Radio waves of the very low frequency Tesla is talking about travel not as earth currents but as "ground waves", Hertzian waves which travel through the air just above the ground. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The orthodromic line is along the surface. Michael H 34 (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

This article has been focused on what Tesla did not know at some point in his life instead of the World Wireless System. Michael H 34 (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The World Wireless System was a failure. There is no indication Tesla transmitted power beyond short distance demonstrations, and modern engineering sources explain why it would never have worked. This is not generally known. Tesla is now a cult figure, and there are huge numbers of pseudoscience websites which promote erroneous conspiracy theories like Tesla lit 200 light bulbs wirelessly at a distance of 26 miles [19] [20] [21] [22], and Tesla's World Wireless System worked but industrialists like Morgan suppressed it because Tesla's "free energy" would have put electric grids out of business [23] [24] [25]. This article needs to explain where Tesla went wrong to debunk these myths. Besides, it is a fascinating story. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The orthodromic line is along the surface. This was sourced to Tesla. Yet, this information about the World Wireless System is not included in the article. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Michael H 34

The World Wireless System was a product what Tesla did not know, it is hard to explain the one without explaining the other. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Tesla knew that the orthodromic line is along the surface. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Michael H 34

"It is generally believed that these waves pass along the earth's surface and thus affect the receivers. I can hardly think of anything more improbable than this "gliding wave" theory..." Nikola Tesla, "The true wireless", Electrical Experimenter, May 1916, p. 28-30. Read the article and look at the illustration from it above. "...the energy travels chiefly along an orthodromic line, that is, the shortest distance between two points...", i.e. a chord. Look at the white dotted lines in Tesla's righthand drawing above. They show the energy taking the shortest distance path between the transmitter and receiver - through the Earth, not along its surface. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Physics

Nekola Tesla invention of WiFi charging 2402:A00:173:110D:7047:8DBB:2E54:89C0 (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thomas H. White

Why is the article by Thomas H. White linked at cited URL 15 considered a valid source for citation? "earlyradiohistory.us, Thomas H. White, Nikola Tesla: The Guy Who DIDN'T 'Invent Radio', November 1, 2012" There are statements made on White's page which conflict with ones made by other reputable historical sources in this article (including a PBS documentary) such as the fact that SCOTUS upheld Tesla's radio patent 645,576 over Marconi. Who is Thomas White? The website earlyradiohistory.us has no further information about him and what his expertise or knowledge is and the article cited seems rather opinionated and inflammatory in addition to being inaccurate. Mikecap (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

A source is reliable if it has further citations supporting the material in the source. "Nikola Tesla: The Guy Who DIDN'T "Invent Radio" Thomas H. White -- November 1, 2012" has that. Most of what is being cited about Tesla are repetitions of claims made by Tesla himself so if you are seeing conflicting claims, well, maybe those other sources didn't read Tesla's writings?. PBS documentaries are not particularly reliable, especially when it is further material put up on a website by some anonymous web person.. Also SCOTUS did not rule on the invention of radio, just on a later case involving tuning patents, one which only tangentially mentions Tesla. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

This is highly arbitrary reasoning, and your dismissal of PBS documentaries as "not reliable" makes me think you have some very odd biases. Mikecap (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's both read this source, who is a lawyer in energy and electric power which clarifies more about the court rulings and is printed by a historical society: https://mercurians.org/antenna-newsletter/rereading-the-supreme-court-teslas-invention-of-radio/ Mikecap (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

"I interpret it as referring to Marconi’s reputation".. so, opinion, found on a blog. Not really RS. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

So you refuse to acknowledge expert opinions from the Society of History of Technology. This demonstrates a highly unreasonable and illogical bias against accredited experts who likely know a lot more than you. Mikecap (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding sources here that shows that PBS does produce mostly factual content and has high credibility. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pbs-news-hour/ https://adfontesmedia.com/pbs-bias-and-reliability/ Mikecap (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

We are not talking about the News Hour, we are talking about a documentary based on the pop-culture books by a non-engineer. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

There are two links there, only one refers to NewsHour. The other refers to PBS as an organization, and and their reputation is solid to anyone who doesn't have overwhelming bias. To flat out claim that PBS documentary productions on the whole are not "reliable" yet to acknowledge NewsHour as being "reliable" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's not like PBS is producing documentaries about flat earth and aliens building pyramids. Mikecap (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

PBS is not an entity making documentaries. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Mainly agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr. @Mikecap: Your source is written from a legal POV, not a historical POV.

Chris Cooper 2018 The truth about Nikola Tesla: The myth of the lone genius in the history of innovation says the patent system is winner-take-all, designed to credit a single inventor, which is not how invention happens. The invention of radio was an incremental, collective achievement. Tesla may have had priority among several scientists who invented the 4 circuit system, which became important in radio, but he didn't apply it to radio communication, only to his wireless power experiments. Lodge, Stone and Karl Ferdinand Braun applied it to radio. --Chetvorno^TALK 12:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Paul J. Nahin 2001 The Science of Radio, p.9 "There is... not a shred of credible evidence that Tesla did anything more than just talk about radio... Modern biographers of Tesla (none of whom have any technical training) continue to muddy the historical record, so let me be quite clear: Tesla did not invent radio..." --Chetvorno^TALK 12:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

This conversation has risen to a level of ridiculousness that would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic. How could anyone take you seriously after saying "PBS is not an entity making documentaries." Mikecap (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, PBS is a broadcasting network, the name is actually in their title. They do not make documentaries. If you are looking for the people who are responsible for the content of a documentary (the source) then you need to look to New Voyage Communications, Florentine Films, etc. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)