Re: Telsa was:Re: SSTC As a transmitter.

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "davep by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <davep-at-quik-dot-com>


>>engineer.  Perhaps he reserved this style for public consumption,
>>for raising finance, but he does seem to have the habit of making
>>extraordinary statements and claims, without qualifying them with
>>answers to the obvious questions raised by their apparent
>>indifference to the laws of physics.  What we seem to find when
>>looking at his writings and descriptions of things, is that as we
>>draw closer to the core principles or key functional details of

> Particularly so in later writings... I think that he became more of a
> "showman" as he got older.

	I think we need to go gently here.  The Way Science
	(and engineering) was done was different then than now.
	Tesla came along at the end of the time when it was
	_expected_ for a scientist to 'educate the public'
	by public lectures and demonstrations.  What looks
	showy to us, was (to some extent) the norm of the
	time.


> I've read that he was, at times, the "talk of the town" and

> prized as a dinner guest and raconteur (with that exotic (and
> dangerous) hint of Balkan/Continental about him).  
	All accounts agree on this, say up to 1900.


 
> As fashions (and finances) changed, I suspect he fell out of

> favor in the social whirl, and become a bit more extreme and

> showy.

	My impression is that, say, post Wardenclyffe, his
	major outlet was pieces for the populr science mags.
	His demos with HV had been showy at the time (say
	1890-1900, without checking.)

> Also, at a time when new inventions were coming out everywhere,

> he probably had to make ever more florid and fantastic

> predictions to get investors interested.
	Without rechecking, post Wardenclyffe there Were no

	investors .

>>Have you noticed how many times you come across some situation in
>>which people are arguing over the interpretation of some statement
>>made by Tesla?  You hardly ever find this with other engineers and
>>scientists of the day. They almost invariably spelled things out
>>with great thoroughness, taking pride in the clarity of their
>>expositions. In particular, whenever a controversial argument was
>>presented, it would come equipped with well constructed responses
>>to the obvious questions which fellow experts in the field would
>>be certain to ask.  I've yet to come across this sort of dialogue
>>in which the obvious problems that we mention here are dealt with.

> I don't know... there were some pretty famous disputes going on in the 19th
> century: source of the Nile, exploration of Africa and South America, etc.
> with wild aspersions cast, suspicious suicides, and all manner of dispute.
> Perhaps in the physical sciences your statement may be true (because all
> the wailing and thrashing had already been done earlier?).

	One can settle engineering problems in a lab (with
	replication) Source of the Nile means someone has
	to go there.  Each is equally definitive in solution,
	each has a different approach.

	best
	dwp

...the net of a million lies...
	Vernor Vinge
There are Many Web Sites which Say Many Things.
	-me