Edison vs Tesla

How about Galvani, Volta, Benjamin Franklin, etc.?

(BTW, it's Nikola Tesla.)

This has some serious room for debate. I'm very ill equipped to participate since my knowledge is rudimentary at best, but I'd like to toss this into the fray.

Thanks for sharing this. Hopefully Edison, Westinghouse, and Morgan are burning in hell, the coprorations they started are still screwing the world.

Loved your link!

I think you are comparing apples and oranges here.....and obsessing over the shade of each.....It's a meaningless debate in my opinion, and I am content to say they were both major contributors to our modern way of life....anything they have done has been improved upon to the point of almost being unrecognizable from it's original state.....and anything they accomplished was based on the work of many that came before them....The importance or prolific nature of each others accomplishments are subjective and based on hearsay evidence.....History's claims are never quite accurate, are they...?

Charles P. Steinmetz is even more underrated than Tesla ever was.

Hear hear!

I have to admit...I am a big Tesla fan...

When I found out that we are finally building a Tesla museum at Wardenclyffe it almost brought me to tears. My family, no matter what age the kids will be at the time, will be making the cross-country trek when it is finally open. My kids loved helping me make parts of my various coils and showing off their dad's coil when I did in school lectures and presentations.

But...I have to admit that through diligent research in to the War of the Currents and all of that other hullabaloo with Westinghouse, Edison, Marconi, Morgan, etc. I came across Steinmetz.

Now...there is someone who apparently has received a raw deal. The public really has no idea who that poor guy even is...at all! I am stumped, considering his nearly parallel research path, why his name never comes up in any of the Tesla biographies or literature. It really is quite curious. He worked at GE and had a lightning lab, etc., but their paths didn't cross? Truly bizarre goings-on I should think.

Personally I would like to go back in time and punch Edison in the face, and everywhere else. The man was a monster. He electrocuted horses and an elephant to death, in public using alternating current in an attempt to discredit Tesla and bolster his own (bad) case. There is an old grainy black and white film of an elephant being publicly murdered with smoke pouring off it, while Edison controls the voltage. It is one of the most sickening things I have ever seen. Not a hero - an utter monster!

Ya know, this is what you get when you only tell half of the story.

Because she had killed three men, Topsy the Elephant was to be destroyed. This is today an accepted solution to a domesticated animal that has become dangerous. This a solution that nobody enjoys, but that is a different issue.

Are you upset that she was destroyed at all, or that she was destroyed by electrocution after being given a lethal dose of cyanide?

It was essentially a PR stunt. Edison saw an opportunity to demonstrate the lethal effects of AC, i.e., if it can kill an elephant you don't want it in your home.

Why else, under logical analysis, would an inventor and man who otherwise had no stock in the care and feeding of circus pachyderms decide to set up and film the execution of said elephant. It is true that the beast was to be put down anyway...but a bullet would have been a helluvalot cheaper and more efficient.

I don't think you mean that electrocution is accepted solution for elephant dispatching, though your wording may make that appearance.

I want front row seats for the next elephant cook-off.

"...electrocution is accepted solution for elephant dispatching, though your wording may make that appearance."

Oh, ooooh, I hope you don't think that I believe electrocution of animals is the usual and accepted method. If my comment makes it appear that I think this is a good idea, please accept my apologies for this blunder.

Agree, it was a PR stunt... sensationalizing the event surrounding the end of the creature's life was, as energyconservation also seems to feel, in extremely poor taste. My point is, the event was not a demonstration using some randomly selected beast.

Not at all...I need to find a tongue-in-cheek "smiley".

I knew that you didn't mean that...I thought it was a "funny" way to interpret your post.

My other post requesting a front row seat to an electrocution is also glib...I am sure I would cry and throw up at the same time.

Yes, Topsy was an unfortunate result of man's attempt to domesticate a wild animal and suffered a horrible death as a result of acting on her instincts.

To answer your question: I am upset because this ogre of a man made a spectacle of killing the elephant in such a hideous way, in public, in order to discredit Tesla. The geezer was wrong, wrong and wrong. You may admire him, but to me he is completely discredited as a "hero."

I would more likely like to sit down and have a man-to-man and sort all of that crap out. It had to all be based on business decisions...it just had to be.

Thinking of the day led many people to abuse animals at man's pleasure. He simply didn't think anything of it.

It really is a shame.

There is a brilliant, but alas not widely performed, play about the "current wars":
A Peep into the Twentieth Century, by Christopher Davis. (Adapted by the author from his book of the same name.)

Everybody knows alternating current became the most widely used because it was cheaper....ie: higher voltage = smaller wire = lower cost....The Colombian Exposition, held in Chicago in 1893, was the first World's Fair to be illuminated with electric lightbulbs...The contract to light the Fair was up for bids, Edison's bid was nearly twice that of Tesla's due in large part to copper wire size....The rest is history....

Indeed.

The play I mentioned didn't feature this part about the Fair. It did include some focus on the first person to be electrically executed, whose main objection (at least in the play) was that it might disfigure him.

I saw the Seattle Rep production in an experimental preseason.

Certainly these electrocutions were as they were meant to be , sensational and horrifying....A regrettable display that Rockefeller was said to have initiated in a bid to protect his market of kerosene for lamplighting, but that Edison carried out in a series of public demonstrations....Rockefeller had used the same strategy to start Standard Oil by horrifying people with explosive displays of over refined volatile kerosene....Opening the way for guaranteed non-volatile kerosene of a standard grade....Supplied of course by him, Standard Oil....

"alternating current became the most widely used because it was cheaper"

Actually, there IS another reason for AC to be used, at least in incandescent lighting, and that is a factor called "notching" which occurs in incandescent filaments when a bulb is switched on and off regularly (think, turn-stop-and-tail lights on automobiles). It isn't readily obvious because vibration of the automobile, even just due to a rough-running engine, but more because of road vibration, kills bulbs fairly quickly, but microscopic examination of a blown filament shows regularly spaced areas where the filament is notched, by the blowing away (from the filament) of filament material, weakening the physical structure of the filament. It doesn't apparently occur in AC powered incandescent bulbs.

I was going to just post one or two references, but there are too many, and for too may reasons, to post just one. So, reference material for those interested.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=filament+notching&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35

Happily, it doesn't affect LED lamps! Gotta love those long-life LEDs!

Of course, it also does not affect flourescents, or Mercury Vapor, or any number of other lamps that don't meet ROHS standards. But those, well, don't meet ROHS standards, AND most cost more to produce, as well as living shorter lives than well designed LEDs

I heard that Edison was a big proponent of RoHS compliant sourcing and manufacturing.

_{^{yeah, that}}

Don't bite that tongue in your cheek, K?

Needless to say, ROHS is relatively new, but that was only my stab at the people who have pushed so hard for flourescents because they have money there, and didn't get into LEDs in time (or aren't convinced LEDs will pay off soon enough)! What bugs me about that bunch is that they believe they have the right to force us to buy their product by declaring a product they don't like to be illegal.

I am a fan of LEDs, and believe that we will be using them extensively in the next 5 years to replace virtually all of our home lighting, and a lot of commercial lighting. I have stock in manufacturers of LEDs. But I wouldn't think in a million years of forcing the public to buy products just to enhance my retirement, and I despise those who do. Of course, I don't hold a lot of hope, nor respect, for those who buy into the unfounded pseudo-scientific arguments of the Al Gores and their ilk, either.

So, NOPE, I suspect Edison didn't hold a lot of truck with ROHS sourcing and manufacturing. Nor did Tesla. Nor Marconi, et al. Irresponsible lot, those!!

Irresponsible by today's standards...but I wouldn't kick DuPont in the stomach either if I met him face-to-face.

Nope. Specially like those Dupont lures his company makes!!

LED's will most certainly light the way more in years to come, but have you heard about the electrolumininence panels that have been developed for the military. They are flexible thin film panels that can be adhered to any surface for a total light emitting surface. Could be great for overall lighting in places like shopping malls.

It wasn't because AC was cheaper although cost savings was a plus. It was because AC could be transmitted much longer distances. DC voltage drop over long distance was the biggest disadvantage.

My main point, exactly. I²R losses are a bear to deal with. But higher voltage gets lower I, for the same R, so the second-order losses are minimized, as transmission line voltage is maximized.

Tesla not being honored, ack phooey! Tesla is appropriately honored by being a standard unit of magnetism. Edison does get way way too much credit because of being the business man in this pioneering era. Edison certainly deserves great credit and accolades because without an inventor that could count beans at the helm, many an innovation would have fallen into obscurity.

I'll tell you who has not gotten the credit he deserves, Charles Proteus Steinmetz! Steinmetz lead the introduction of the mathematics of imaginary numbers to AC equations with the use of "j" instead of "i" for the imaginary number. He was the brilliant mind who figured out how Tesla's invention of the induction motor actually worked. This work became the Steinmetz equivalent circuit for an induction motor.

Maybe we could replace horse power(seems dated anyway) with steinmetz'es...?

Steinmetz was profiled on CR4 a few years ago:

Charles Proteus Steinmetz: The Wizard of GE (Part 1)

Charles Proteus Steinmetz: The Wizard of GE (Part 2)

Charles Proteus Steinmetz: The Wizard of GE (Part 3)

Charles Proteus Steinmetz: The Wizard of GE (Part 4)

Think I hear the echoes of Edison vs. Tesla whenever the discussion about 240 V being or not "two phase" comes back to CR4. Edison introduced the 3-wire concept using DC. 180 degrees is a degenerated angle, but still an angle...

As for the use of "j" instead of "i", remember Steinmetz was educated in Germany. "J" is mostly regarded as an initial "I" in German. Think of the way the symbol for "iodine" is written in German, sometimes halfway between I and J. I think it's pointless to say electrotechnical and math symbols should be different. Same way as to use 3 different units for power (kW, kVA. kvar).

Edison had the original vision that electricity would free man from the dark. At the time there was no electric infrastructure grid, so power had to be generated and distributed locally. DC current was a much better choice for local generation and distribution.

Tesla took Edison's vision and developed a superior method to distribute electricity over long distances. It was Tesla who made electricity commercially viable and laid the foundation for the modern power grid. Interesting note: if Tesla was employed by Edison while he invented AC current, then should Edison own the concept?

Today's home power revolution has created resurgence in DC current. All the surplus power from solar panels and windmills is typically converted to DC current and stored in batteries. Now that it's popular to go "off grid" we will see more DC microsystems. Technology has gone full circle.

As I understand it the only advantage Tesla had was step down transformers, he could produce higher voltage which could be transported over longer distances because of the smaller wire size needed.....Edison had no such design for dc....as far as the electric light bulb, he was the first to patent it in the US, but I believe it was invented in England...

Here's a blurb I found,,,,

"The first electric light was made in 1800 by Humphry Davy, an English scientist. He experimented with electricity and invented an electric battery. When he connected wires to his battery and a piece of carbon, the carbon glowed, producing light. This is called an electric arc.

Much later, in 1860, the English physicist Sir Joseph Wilson Swan (1828-1914) was determined to devise a practical, long-lasting electric light. He found that a carbon paper filament worked well, but burned up quickly. In 1878, he demonstrated his new electric lamps in Newcastle, England.

In 1877, the American Charles Francis Brush manufactured some carbon arcs to light a public square in Cleveland, Ohio, USA. These arcs were used on a few streets, in a few large office buildings, and even some stores. Electric lights were only used by a few people.

The inventor Thomas Alva Edison (in the USA) experimented with thousands of different filaments to find just the right materials to glow well and be long-lasting. In 1879, Edison discovered that a carbon filament in an oxygen-free bulb glowed but did not burn up for 40 hours. Edison eventually produced a bulb that could glow for over 1500 hours.

Lewis Howard Latimer (1848-1928) improved the bulb by inventing a carbon filament (patented in 1881); Latimer was a member of Edison's research team, which was called "Edison's Pioneers." In 1882, Latimer developed and patented a method of manufacturing his carbon filaments.

In 1903, Willis R. Whitney invented a treatment for the filament so that it wouldn't darken the inside of the bulb as it glowed. In 1910, William David Coolidge (1873-1975) invented a tungsten filament which lasted even longer than the older filaments. The incandescent bulb revolutionized the world.

Source....

Did you know that there is an original Edison light bulb that has been burning continuously for I don't know exactly, but lots and lots of years and is still burning?

The bulb you speak of I believe is not Edison's....It has burned for 109+ years and was invented by Adolphe A. Chaillet, and was made by the Shelby Electric Company. It is a handblown bulb with carbon filament. Approximate wattage-4 watts.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243138/Still-glowing-strong-109-years-worlds-oldest-lightbulb.html#ixzz2OgNFPJyL
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Unless you are mistakenly referring to the light at the Edison Memorial in Edison, NJ....This light was called the "Eternal Light" which was discovered in 2003 to be a fraud....It actually was a glass dome with 4 automobile headlights mounted underneath pointed upward which made the lightbulb appear to be on, but in fact had no element....

Are you calling yourself a liar in #55 or your link?

Explain or retract.

His link in #55 (submitted by him) shows the bulb that is still burning, but in #60 he calls it a fraud.

Ooooh, so sorry. Don't get your tail in a twist. Pardon me for skimming and working between posts. SE seemed to be replying to himself. I knew Edison didn't invent the light bulb, but I didn't know the one burning wasn't made by his company. The fraud is indeed a shame, one I hadn't heard of before. There was a previous thread about the bulb still burning on CR4. It is more than a 4 watt bulb, but is powered by 4 watts to keep from blowing it out. You could call that deception too.

The bulb is rated at ~4 watts, it is connected directly to line voltage 120v....

"'The man who invented the bulb was Adolphe Chailet and he sounded by all accounts to be a very serious person.

'But when it comes to spark, he did perform an experiment where several competitors, including Edison.

'All the bulbs were subjected to a test of increasing voltage, and exploded, all except for Chailet's which just got brighter."

Here is a live webcam watching the bulb....no kidding!

http://www.centennialbulb.org/cam.htm

"Proof of Longevity: From local newspaper records; also GE engineers researched it. Was donated to the Fire Department in 1901 by Dennis Bernal who owned the Livermore Power and Light Co.

Vital Statistics: The improved incandescent lamp, invented by Adolphe A. Chaillet, was made by the Shelby Electric Company. It is a handblown bulb with carbon filament. Approximate wattage-4 watts. Left burning continuously in firehouse as a nightlight over the fire trucks. For some research test results on a sister bulb at Annapolis follow this link. Recognition: Declared the oldest known working lightbulb by Guinness Book of World Records. Ripley's Believe-It-or-Not in 1972 researched it and declared it the oldest. Charles Kurault of the TV program 'On the Road with Charles Kurault' visited the bulb in the 1970s and included it in his book as well. Declarations from the President of the U.S., Congress, Senate, State Senate and Assembly, and Shelby Ohio.In 2007 it was again recognized in Guiness, and Ripleys books.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243138/Still-glowing-strong-109-years-worlds-oldest-lightbulb.html#ixzz2OtKNaI13

"Edison and the Eternal Light

Thomas Edison designed a bulb that was supposed to last forever, called the Eternal Light, and turned it on on October 22, 1929. The bulb is located in the Memorial Tower at the Edison Memorial Museum in Menlo Park, New Jersey. The tower fell down in 1937, but the bulb's power was supposedly uninterrupted, according to General Electric, and the bulb continued to burn while a second tower was constructed. However, according to museum curator Jack Stanley, the bulb is fake, consisting of a hollow bulb illuminated by a series of automobile headlights mounted in the display's base.^{[2]"
The not so eternal, light....}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest-lasting_light_bulbs#Edison_and_the_Eternal_Light
News article from June 1961 Edison light goes out....
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1917&dat=19610617&id=43ghAAAAIBAJ&sjid=s4kFAAAAIBAJ&pg=689,2516159

Didn't it finally burn out several years ago?

Though I support Tesla through and through...

He did not invent AC power. He devised methods to better use and distribute polyphase AC. One of his greatest feats was devising various methods for brushless motors which was aided greatly by polyphase currents. One of his greatest interests was actually in the field of high frequency experimentation which led to his "invention" of radio control (U.S. Patent 613,809) and (essentially) radio.

The historical significance of the radio patents are easily researched by any person who knows how to navigate the USPTO site...don't take my word for it.

I have had a interesting discourses with some individuals who run various "history centers". Their web sites are a clearing house for information which holds some value.

I am loathe to recommend, though it provides a nice counterpoint to the ignorance of Tesla's achievements, the _^(shudder) Edison Tech Center.

I purposely didn't use the word "invent". Instead I said "developed" or "discovered". I think there is a difference between inventing, developing and discovering. Edison invented a talking machine, Ben Franklin discovered electricity while Tesla developed AC. Is it just semantics?

I suppose it is largely semantical...and that is where most of the arguing is...

...but I was replying to #19, i.e., "...if Tesla was employed by Edison while he invented AC current, then should Edison own the concept".

DC is certainly very important, but for bottom line use, DC whether from wind power or solar panels, has to be converted to AC for everyday use.

"DC...has to be converted to AC for everyday use"

DC only has to be converted to be compatible with modern AC appliances. Most computers and many electronics have DC power supplies, and you can install LED lights that run on DC. Air conditioning compressors can spin from the same engine that spins your DC generator.

If you want to live "off grid" and sacrifice some of the modern inconveniences it is possible to survive on a DC microsystem.

A DC power supply has to operate from AC if your are using the household mains. Sure, computers operate using DC, but it's a very low voltage,(5 V) You can't get this without some sort of voltage conversion from a higher voltage source. DC would have to be stepped down through resistors which would result in waste in the form of heat.

What about the conspiracy side of the Tesla argument? All those 'missing shipping container full' of 'confiscated' material. That's what got me amazed with Tesla.

I too believe that Edison was/is given way too much credit...i believe he stole other peoples ideas and knew how to market them...thus getting the credit because people saw his face/name behind it. That said...I too wish I was as clever as Edison...I have many ideas but don't know how to 'get it out there'.

The main difference between Edison and Tesla, Swan and many of the others mentioned to date is that Edison commercialised his patents. In this respect he stands along side Marconi (who didn't invent radio, see Hertz), Ford (who didn't invent the production line, see rope block and sheave production in UK naval dockyards during the Napoleonic wars), and Gates (who didn't invent windows style software, see Apple history).

These men all had or have a talent for marketing and a gift for either predicting market demand or creating that demand through clever advertising and self publicity. They are also not entirely responsible for their own status. Others have jumped on the bandwagon to promote iconic personalities in engineering for their own motives.

Others hold this iconic personality status being without fully deserving. I K Brunel's railway ignored the standard gauge width, his ship Great Eastern was a floating disaster and his efforts at tunnelling resulted in more tunneller deaths per mile than any contemporary engineer.

In fields outside engineering Paul Revere the great American hero, actually failed to complete his famed ride, was court marshalled for cowardice (condemned by an inquiry but later cleared by a politically biased military trial. See history of Fort George, Mass.), and indited for appropriation of stores (charge not proven). His fame stems from the poem by Longfellow but he was shunned and reviled by most of his contemporaries

Yup, and Ben Franklin was fired for mail fraud.

Wasn't it Henry Ford who was responsible for interchangable parts?

Samuel Colt was earlier with that idea.

Yes you are correct on that. I think I saw that on "Guns of the World".

No, he followed where others led. The whole point of the UK naval dockyards cited earlier was that all the blocks an sheaves were standardised and interchangeable. When a British ship damaged in battle came in for repairs it could be turned round and back in battle much faster than their French counterparts. This gave Britain a massive advantage and made a major contribution to winning. In fact the design and original build quality of most French ships was superior. They were generally faster and could sail closer to the wind. (Though neither were as good as small American built vessels) Bolton and Watt steam engines had interchangeability parts that were built in their Soho Factory in Birmingham, England. The worlds first engineering factory. Whitworth was the first to mass produce a standardised nut & bolts. In the US both Colt and Remington produced weapons from fully interchangeable components long before Ford. The technology had advanced to enable greater accuracy in parts production, the concept of interchangeability inevitably followed.

Let's not forget that the Europeans were well ahead in practical AC at the time Tesla and Steinmetz were theorising.

From Wikipedia:

The first transmission of three-phase alternating current using high voltage took place in 1891 during the international electricity exhibition in Frankfurt. A 25 kV transmission line, approximately 175 kilometers long, connected Lauffen on the Neckar and Frankfurt.

Tesla was European...

Transmission over great distances, yes, but not first for generation and use.

There were many, many people who did parallel work...yet Tesla's patents in the US preceeded patents with identical intent in Europe as did his earlier development in 1883 of an AC brushless motor which was initially demonstrated in Strasbourg.

Tesla had already fully developed, created, and patented polyphase electrical distribution systems by 1888. The system was sold, in whole, to George Westinghouse for $75,000 and a horsepower royalty. The royalty contract, which would have bankrupted Westinghouse, was later torn up by Tesla to further his desire for cheap electricity for everyone.

Oddly missing from even the Wikipedia page you linked is detailed information regarding the manufacture and patent-holder for the generation plant.

I would like to see a citation for this on the Wikipedia page: "As a result of this successful field trial, three-phase current became established for electrical transmission networks throughout the world, thus ending the ongoing War of Currents."

Semantics, again.

I believe that JPMorgan (GE)acquired the patents for Tesla's AC generation system from Westinghouse....

I understand all his notes were sent back to his home country to be put into a museum, after the U.S, government got through with them.

Speaking of Westinghouse, maybe the title of this thread should have been Armstrong vs Marconi.

A fascinating piece of history! What a nasty piece of work Sarnoff was - a pity he didn't live to see the break-up of RCA. I note elsewhere a quote from David Sarnoff (General Manager of RCA) in 1955: "Television will never be a medium of entertainment."

It still isn't.

They call television a medium because it is neither rare nor well done.

I wish I could remember who said that first.

Nice one!

Morgan financially backed the Niagara project along with a few others. He became familiar with Tesla through that venture. Tesla later received financing for Wardenclyffe from Morgan. Morgan was the last major backer Tesla had before his fall.

Morgan was not the long-term kind of visionary Tesla had hoped for, and as some have speculated, was not enamored of the idea of providing free energy without wires and a way to control/charge/make money from such a system. Once he learned of Tesla's true intent (which was originally agreed to be just "radio") he pulled the plug, so to speak.

I am sure you know this, but I like the discourse.

You ask us to give credit where credit is due. Then make this statement.

"Sure Edison was smart and came up with many great inventions, but none of those inventions would be possible today without Nicoli Tesla"

Edison being 12 years senior to Tesla. Had inventions that had to due with none of Tesla work. His work on the teletype and phonograph.

Granted Edison does get a lot of credit for expanding on others work. But Tesla contributions come after his short employ with Edison.

YouTUbe Epic Rap Battles... Tesla VS. Edison! ROTFLMAO!

Seriosly, I've always wanted to build a Tesla Coil!

Build one!

It's actually a lot easier and cheaper than you may think. The joy you get is only surpassed by the refreshing ozone breeze.

Actually, Ron, I think it was Benjamin Franklin who "discovered" electricity, along with Leyden, Faraday, and many others. Tesla is definitely the father of modern electric generation (AC), along with some other interesting ideas we have no idea how to safely implement.

Benjamin Franklin did not "discover electricity". He discovered that lightning was electrical in nature. And, technically, Dalibard beat Franklin to the punch with the lightning experiment after reading up on Franklin's musings.

Some old Greeks in the BC era "discovered" electricity by rubbing fur and amber together.

My bet is that someone was trying to get the fur coat off of someone really fast and her jewelry shocked her. He went to bed alone I am sure.

The Tesla of the 30's and 40's is what piqued my interest, and many conspiracists are still researching many of the theories of that period. One was "Cloaking", or Degaussing of Military ships to avoid mines and Radar detection. I remember reading about the Philadelphia Project, and Tesla's possible collaboration with Einstein, and others, wild tales, and also, many others totally debunking the incident. Of course, we also have Tesla's Free Energy Receiver and the Death Ray. These projects may have led to the disappearance of his research materials after his death.

And I get every much annoyed when Tesla fans put Edison down, which has happened several times here. Both are great IMHO.

...none of those inventions would be possible today without Nicoli Tesla

What a laugh. At least 1000 inventions before AC was used!

True, Edison had lots of good inventions, but it wasn't until Tesla developed AC did those inventions become practical. If it were not for AC, we might be using a hand cranked DC generator to power our computers.

My grandmother has a hand cranked record player. It didn't need DC or AC, and it was practical.

Mark Twain said it best, "Thousands of geniuses live and die undiscovered - either by themselves or by others"

I think the correct way to describe Tesla's accomplishments and those of others is to say they were responsible for "harnessing" the power of electricity. The word "invent" really doesn't apply in this case.

Well, that was fun.

Newton v. Leibnitz anyone?

And why are they Maxwell's equations when they show up in Lord Kelvin's notebooks long before Maxwell published them?

Because that was before "America Invents Act" took effect March 15, 2013.

It seems both men were on the arc of a progression of knowledge, succinctly summed up here. (A bit of Pixii dust.) Was there a precursor to his device? I guess Faraday's.

Faraday's (or Francesco Zantedeschi) observation made the invention of all "generating" devices possible.

I can't help adding one more post to this thread. Solar Eagle started a thread about the aluminum-air battery concept. The comment was made that this idea was supposedly proposed by Tesla. I searched for some writing by him where he might have mentioned it. The first promising link was a writing by him entitled, "The Problem of Increasing Human Energy." I found it fascinating reading -- especially the latter half, where he extrapolates his ideas (supported by his own experimental results, according to him) to, what many now consider fanciful musings. Also interesting was his mention of detecting an error/oversight in one of Hertz's experiments.

What a mind and imagination. I find parallels with Leonardo da Vinci. If he were around today and I was independently wealthy, I'd bankroll the guy, no matter how crazy others would think him to be.

(I note that if one does a search on CR4 for Tesla, one gets 47 pages of post links. More interesting reading, no doubt.)

If he were around today and I was independently wealthy, I'd bankroll the guy, no matter how crazy others would think him to be.

Problem is, how would you differentiate, of being crazy or just a abstract creative mind?

I guess for starters the fact that he had a track record. Beyond that any of us can veer too far. I was specifically speaking about him and using the retrospective of his record. It could turn out to be a waste of money, but many have made worse financial decisions. I'd be willing to see how far he could get with full support -- meaning, even if he hit dead ends, he did seem to have the ability to reassess where he made mistakes and rethink things. I wouldn't necessarily feel the same about someone today taking up his ideas and saying they could make his ideas a reality without some sort of track record or at least some demonstration of concept.

There may be no way to differentiate. Crazy often turns out to be rationale much later on.

It interesting to know what drives a man like Tesla, if he had unlimited amount of backing...... could he concentrate long enough to accomplish something, or will skirt around on so many different ideas, that he couldn't really finish anything to a completion where it would be recognizable and to be useful.

That is a good question. Too many irons in the fire is, often, an accompanying characteristic of creativity. But having a concrete list of accomplishments, again, would have me tend to bet on him. Of course, senility does have to be considered. It, too, can be characterized by lack of focus. I would want him in the age range of 50-60, with good health, where he had some wisdom of past failures and yet was still young enough to not likely be close to senility.

The following quote is an example of the possible crossing over of the two:

I would now undertake, with much less apprehension that I had in that experiment, to transmit through my body with such currents the entire electrical energy of the dynamos now working at Niagara-forty or fifty thousand horse-power. I have produced electrical oscillations which were of such intensity that when circulating through my arms and chest they have melted wires which joined my hands, and still I felt no inconvenience. I have energized with such oscillations a loop of heavy copper wire so powerfully that masses of metal, and even objects of an electrical resistance specifically greater than that of human tissue brought close to or placed within the loop, were heated to a high temperature and melted, often with the violence of an explosion, and yet into this very space in which this terribly-destructive turmoil was going on I have repeatedly thrust my head without feeling anything or experiencing injurious after-effects.

Just a dandy person. The kind you'd like to have dinner with occasionally. Although, being the loner he was, it probably would never have happened. He mostly ate alone as far as I remember.

I would want him in the age range of 50-60, with good health, where he had

Thats interesting, usually the prime age when they are in their most creativity is when they are younger, later 20's early 40's.

I read/hear about that in the last 6 months...... now I have to look. Have a great easter!

I don't disagree with that general assessment. Einstein is one example.

I know your last post indicated a signing off for the weekend, but I took a quick look for this type of info. before leaving, myself, and found this.

One interesting quote from the article:

"It may be that young scientists did better, in part, because they never learned the older ways of thinking and could think in new ways."

This is what I think Tesla excelled at and what all real shifts in thinking have in common.

I felt the same way,........ except I would have put it that their minds were not poluted with the old guard way of thinking.

I might also add that sex, or the lack of probably had something to do with his ability to excel where others were corrupted by carnal desires. Kids do well in school until they get involved with the opposite sex. To some, it can become a crippling obsession.

I think I was on my first hitch in the Navy when I read "The prodigal genius" the book expressed total admiration for Tesla and came to some of the same conclusions expressed in this post.

I think that in fairness to Edison even he said that genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration, It is a well known fact that he had a large staff at his disposal and had no qualms about exploiting the ideas of others. His penchant for hit and miss, trial and error, were never to my knowledge denied by him.

I think of the two as if I were trying to compare Henry Ford and Einstein. I can admire both for their contribution to science and industry and not get carried away with the personality quirks of either one.

It seems that when Tesla and Edison are compared the basis for assigning success is allotted to the success of AC or DC current, It is obvious that AC transformer and the polyphase induction motor were the determinant factor in the success of that system.

If we look at todays realities DC motors have many areas where they are better suited than AC and High Voltage DC transmission is a reality.

In my opinion it didn't make a lot of difference which one was right or wrong, I just some times wonder what in hell this planet must look like to some alien race that has an optical apparatus that isn't in the same frames per second range as ours. They would probably get sea sick and pass us by.

I saw a TV program last night about Tesla. Marconi was credited for inventing the wireless, but it was based on several of Tesla's patents. Tesla finally was credited for wireless by the U.S. patent office. Edison screwed Tesla out of a $50K bonus. He also invented radio control and was 17 years ahead of radar. So now the truth of his greatness comes out.

Not to mention the two Nobel prizes Tesla didn't receive...but he did get an Edison Medal.

Marconi received a Nobel for inventing radio...which is amazing considering that years before Tesla had created and demonstrated radio control.

Tesla would have had to share the '15 prize with (if the rumors were ever proven)...of all people...Edison.

I don't think it mattered to Tesla publicly, but it must have hurt his pride to see other people getting credit over and over again for things he had already discovered, proven, or invented. How very frustrating that must have been.