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

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by IW2BSF, Apr 24, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: l-BCInc
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
  1. KK5R

    KK5R Ham Member QRZ Page

    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.
     
  2. KK5R

    KK5R Ham Member QRZ Page

    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?
     
  3. KK5R

    KK5R Ham Member QRZ Page

    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.
     
  4. KK5R

    KK5R Ham Member QRZ Page

    Sounds more like relay control of electrical circuits and those circuits, of course, were then being controlled wirelessly.
     
  5. KK5R

    KK5R Ham Member QRZ Page

    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.
     
  6. KK5R

    KK5R Ham Member QRZ Page

    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.
     
  7. KK5R

    KK5R Ham Member QRZ Page

    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.
     
  8. KC8VWM

    KC8VWM Ham Member QRZ Page

    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.
     
  9. KK5R

    KK5R Ham Member QRZ Page

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

    See how the imagination is constantly being stretched?
     
  10. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Emmanuel Velikovsky WAS a fool.

    Go BIG RED!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page