25 APRIL .... the day of the father of the radio : MARCONI

That covers the transmission of a control signal but ignores the necessity of a receiver and the recognition of a transmitted tone. And this, by tuning fork, would be at an audio level, not at radio frequencies. But, again, if what we conceive as logical occurs, the only problem to fruition is in the implementation.

 

This is the old Electromagnetic Field argument which insists that this is not Radio. As if Tesla knew this was what it does and called it Air Conduction because Air was not a known medium. It later because universally called Ether (aether) but this was disproved much later by two physicists. Until then, "ether" was the preferred term, replacing the term Air which was accepted by others. If it had been a problem, even the patent office would have refused it, n'est ce pas?

 

The boat was propelled by a battery on the boat. The boat was controlled by the "switch on the box" held by Tesla.

Check the design drawings and you will see a battery. The fact that the boat was also submersible indicates why Tesla tried to give the Navy a design for underwater detection but, instead, the navy went with SONAR because water was a much better "conduction" medium for short ranges than that used by radio. But Tesla's boat was controllable when over or under the water. Still, though, it was by Electromagnetic Field "Conduction" methodology. "Air" in this case was two-fold: By Air/Ether and by whatever medium was used by the water IF insistence is that it not be by an Electromagnetic Field. At that time, in that era, the idea of an Electromagnetic Field was not being taught in this way in the schools. These refinements were quantified by mathematics but they were still trying to come up with the terminology that best identified what they had.

 

Sounds more like relay control of electrical circuits and those circuits, of course, were then being controlled wirelessly.

 

Again, the matter of a great receiver is here in question. The "greater distance" consideration means how far away the signal can be detected. In Tesla's day, receivers were not a matter of amplification because until the vacuum tube and those amplifiers, the only concept for amplification was how to affect current or voltage by way of a transformer. There was no super-conduction, either.

All they had were machines and mechanisms on their workbench that were a far cry from out solid state world, also. But the age of vacuum tube technology was a necessary phase or even the solid state era would possibly never have been achieved.

 

I believe O'Neil more than Tesla naysayers. Those who deny Tesla extend EVERYTHING to saying that Tesla was a fool or worse (insane?) but that is going against the majority of people who lived in those days. O'Neil was a Tesla contemporary just like Mark Twain. You think they were writers of fiction where it came to Tesla? Think again.

 

Did Mythbusters use a steam-powered "engine of destruction" with a bi-directional/opposed piston arrangement that was capable of many horsepower? I think not.

Reminds me of an idiot from Cornell who was busy on TV trying to call Emmanuel Velikovsky a fool and he has been proved wrong countless times. However, he had his following but here is how he is similar to the Tesla naysayers: He was not shy about skewing his "data" where it came to discrediting Velikovsky and this was proved in the book Velikovsky Reconsidered by the Univ of [the state of] Washington press. Since those days, other things that Velikovsky said have proved to be true.

The same thing today. Regardless of protestation, what Tesla proposed, maybe using terminology replaced with modern terms, is coming full circle. After some investigation into what Tesla proposed, it is being reconsidered and there are modern applications of what he envisioned and being put into service. The naysayers, however, are more into discrediting this notion than actually looking into it because their minds are made up.

 

The "receiver" could be as simple as a tuned "antenna" that would also resonate vibration at the same tuning fork frequency.

That's an interesting mechanical engineering device but to call the transfer of vibrating oscillation from one physical object to another physical object, is not necessarily "radio."

This also occurs in nature too.

 

The Spark at a Distance by Hertz also cannot be necessarily called Radio.

See how the imagination is constantly being stretched?

 

Emmanuel Velikovsky WAS a fool.

Go BIG RED!

 

Velikovsky could have saved America four trips to the moon. He gave them 17 things they should check when
they went to the moon and "finally," when moon exploration was all over, they had made those checks he recommended.

Velikovsky was a contemporary of Einstein at Princeton. When Einstein died shortly after the Venus probe was sent and burned up, Einstein died. When they went to clear Einstein's desk, they found he was rereading Velikovsky's book and making notes in the margin.

Velikovsky was a fool? I figured you'd say that.

Who is the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?— Obwan Kenobe, Star Wars

Copycat Parrot... Nothing original. All you know has academia painted all over it. Try thinking out of the little box.

 

Today is the anniversary of Franklin's kite-flying, lightning-attracting experiment. Miracle is that Franklin did not go up in a flash.

Few remember Franklin's kite-flying experiment. They remember more that he invented and sold the Lightning Rod. It did spark a lot of interest in lighting and he was the first to experiment with it this way...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

 

Waiting breathlessly in anticipation to see the correlations between N.Tesla and this device ...

 

Hmmm.
L. Ron Hubbard?

Thetans?

Let's talk about Jack Parsons next....

I remember the day I got tested in 1975 and I pinned the meter. It flustered all the thetans present...

 

Would you kindly stop this crap?

There wasn't even a Venus probe until 7+ years AFTER Einstein died.

Deceased Einstein 'ANTICIPATED' Venus probe.