What DID Tesla do? was: Re: About the skin effect in humans

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

Original poster: Mddeming-at-aol-dot-com 


Hi Adam, All, (comments interspersed)

In a message dated 5/25/04 10:08:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
tesla-at-pupman-dot-com writes:
 >Original poster: "mercurus2000" <mercurus2000-at-cox-dot-net>

 >I'm afraid you're wrong about the largest streamers being 35 in length max,
 >I have the actual copy of Tesla's Colorado springs notes, According to
 >Tesla's own words in writing in his notes, he said in one instance with his
 >extra coil in action streamers "50" feet in length he recorded, and in the
 >next page after watching the streamers at higher power and noticing their
 >extremely curved path from top to ground the streamers were actually 120-130
 >feet in length.

As has been mentioned before, Tesla liked to describe the distance "along 
the path" not the straight line distance.
 > If the terminal was raised higher above the ground he would
 >have been able to easily get this in a straight discharge to an elevated
 >grounded terminal.

Unfortunately, "IF it had been done, the results WOULD have been" is 
CaCa-Poo, not Science.
 > This was his direct observation and words, not an estimate
 >on voltage but actual easy, observable spark length that anyone with a good
 >eye which Tesla had could verify.

Unfortunately, there were no other observers that left a written record and 
the results have not been reproducible elsewhere.
 >He also goes on to comment that he could
 >get streamers much larger but was afraid of lighting his building on fire.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda = caca-poo

 >He also goes on to give clues that his magnifier setup wasn't actually
 >running at it's most efficient either, because already he was pushing
 >burning his building down.

Hints and clues are not data.

 >You could be skeptical of this, but it doesn't
 >make much since, [sense?] these are his personal notes, the he didn't 
mean to reveal
 >to anyone. So if he was lying about it, he would be lying to himself, which
 >doesn't make any sense at all.

Inventor's notes are the basis for later patent claims. It is unlikely, 
given the number of Tesla's patents, that he intended his notes to remain 
secret. In my reading of it, as a working document, the notes contain a 
number of ponderings and "enlightened speculations".
      One of the most difficult things to teach in science and engineering 
is the separation of observations from opinions, conclusions, and 
projective speculations. Many seasoned professionals also have this problem 
in the thrill of the moment. Later, in preparing for publication, it 
becomes necessary to sort and sift. When talking to journalists, Tesla had 
a well-documented, special propensity to not sort and sift, if it was 
dramatic enough to inspire investors.

 >On another note, Tesla actually used the Wardenclyffe Tower.

Yes, the physical wooden tower was used for some experiments, but the main 
project, as described in his patent 1,119,732, was never completed and 
never went operational.

 >It was verified in the New York Sun reported on July 16, 1903,:
 >    Natives hereabouts are intensely interested in the nightly electrical
 >display shown from tall tower where Nikola is conducting his experiments in
 >wireless telegraphy and telephony. For a time, the air was filling with
 >blinding streaks of electricity traveling thro the darkness on some
 >mysterious errand. Tesla gave no explanations.

Newspaper accounts of anything technical are notoriously unreliable other 
than "something" happened on a particular day. Example: According to a 
reporter in the Charleston (WV) Gazette July 5, 2001, MY Tesla coil 
produced three-foot lightning at fifteen thousand volts from a "microwave 
motor". The reporter also stated that Tesla lost out to Edison on the AC/DC 
power generation question.

 >These incidents were also verified in the recorded conversations Tesla had
 >with his attorney that I have.

What kind of recordings? Or do you mean personal or "official" 
correspondence in preparing for the lawsuits at the demise of Wardenclyffe?

 >Who knows just how large the streamers or better put the artificial 
lightning being issued >from his tower. It's quite possible they easily 
dwarfed Electrum.

Exactly the point: WHO knows? Unreproduceable claims that are contrary to 
known scientific principles are outside the realm of science, but are the 
"meat and potatoes" of "esteemed journals" like the Globe, the National 
Enquirer, and thousands of fringe websites.
 >Adam

This does NOT make the claims false, but it does put them in the purgatory 
basket labeled "Unverified/Unverifiable Claims Which Seem on Their Face, to 
be Contrary to That Which has Already Been Shown to be Valid.", where they 
must remain unless and until others take the time, effort, and capital to 
verify them.

Matt D.
Evangelical Agnostic, Skeptic, and Admirer of Tesla's Real Achievements.