Talk:List of Nikola Tesla patents

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconLists List‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale.
 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhysics List‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


How can a person invent rotating magnetic fields? It's like inventing light, or gravity, or fish. -- Tim Starling 02:10, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

It's not invented or made (as you imply) ... mainly they are discovered (or rediscovered, like the battery was). The foundational principles are explained, but the items are there ... just not understood. Einstien didn't invent light ... but he explained the photoelectric model. Tesla didn't invent the rotating magnetic field, but he explained the model. There are plenty of other examples (I hope you can find them ... i'm kinda surprised you didn't know this). reddi

Then maybe someone had better change the article, because it says:
Tesla's inventions include the Rotating magnetic field...
-- Tim Starling 02:38, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)
Putting "model" after it is better, but not perfect. Can you tell me: what is the rotating magnetic field model? So far you've managed to tell us about applications of rotating magnetic fields, but no models as such. So what is it? -- Tim Starling 03:40, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

I think the reference to a "rotating magnetic field" should be removed until somebody finds out what it is. Vancouverguy 03:41, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Read the patent US381968 [among several others]. Look it up the term in your favorite search engine .... Electrical engineers can tell you about it ... has a bit on it .. also, if Mr. Starling didn't remove the rotating magnetic field article, you probably could have read about it here in wikipedia. oh well ... reddi 03:52, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I read that article, I talked to you about it, attempting to make sense of it, but in the end I discovered that you have no idea what a rotating magnetic field is. Hence I doubt your ability to judge whether or not it is worthy of a mention in the introduction of this article. As for the tpub link, do you mean this? It's just discussing applications of rotating magnetic fields and methods of generating them, not a model. Unfortunately I can't read TIFF files when I'm at uni, you'll have to wait until I have a moment free at home before I read US381968. -- Tim Starling 02:43, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)
Nice attack on me [i.e., you have no idea] ... be skeptical ... but I am not the only person to make this statement on Mr. Tesla [or his work], other more qualified than me [or you] have stated this fact (among which are member of the IEEE, including thier excutives)]. Are you seriously implying that the idea of a rotating magnetic field doesn't exist? Or there is not a model for them?
The model for rotating magnetic fields is exactly the same as the model for other magnetic fields -- i.e. Maxwell's equations or quantum electrodynamics. Tesla didn't invent either of them. Tesla produced some patents regarding how rotating magnetic fields could be generated and used. Good on him, but it doesn't constitute a model. -- Tim Starling 03:40, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)
RMFs are magnetic fields which rotates at non-relativistic speeds. Nikola Tesla invented the first AC motor based on this principle. This principle work in all types of mediums.
Here's a few pages from a simple search ...
Two experiments with RMFs
Magnetic Holes in a Rotating Magnetic Field
Rotating Magnetic Field (animation)
There are others ... but i am not going to waste my time trying to contest for this [try to research it .. I am not going to try to discuss it with you as you have something personally against me, it seems]... I will focus my efforts on more productive actions ...
It's regretfull that this common knowledge in electrical enginnering isn't being included in the wiki on objections by people that have not read nor understand this information .... reddi 03:14, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It's nice that you've finally found an animation of an actual rotating magnetic field, rather than just a static one that looks like its rotating. You're not obliged to discuss these things with me, but I'm not going to tolerate incorrect information in articles, regardless of who wrote it. -- Tim Starling 03:40, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)
this one is an example but then you'd have to take the next step and realize that it's spinnin (i.e., not just static, as the image implies) [as this animation was to a earth discussion we had IIRC]. Don't tolerate incorrect information ... but please don't keep correct information out of wiki ... as for me, I'll try to move forward and add some content ... BTW, have you updated that SQL list on me lately? There's some other pages to add to it [like the battery article, not sure if it's listed] .... reddi 03:57, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC) "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." — Max Planck
I'm glad you now understand that the image describes a static field, that's certainly not what you implied with this edit. While I'm quoting diffs, I may as well put this one in as well, because it's always good for a laugh. No I haven't updated the list recently, thanks for reminding me. -- Tim Starling 04:09, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)
yep ... the magnetic field [of the earth] is alternating and rotating. It goes from south to north as the earth is spinning around (this in part allow the compass work; there's more to it I believe ... but I digress) ... it is a form of a RMF. Mabey i didn't make myself clear (probably not; I need to work on my expressing my thoughts clearer ... ), mabey I did (but this is a relapse ... now if i can just stop gettin pulled into this discussion, I'd be happy [puts way the treats]) ... and thanks for the list of items I worked on [not that you are doin it as a favor for me, but more of an attack (mabey, mabey not ... probably) ... though it matters little either way]. Catch the wiki on the flip side, time for bed - reddi 04:35, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC) "I have 10 fingers but only two eyes" - anonymous
I think it's because a field doesn't naturally rotate on the axis he was proposing. Gammaworld1 (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)John WilkinsonReply[reply]
If none of you have an idea of what the phrase "rotating field" means - and your admissions clearly demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea - why are you even discussing it????
The "rotating field" refers to the fact that a magnetic field in an electric motor is created around the central axis in a sequential manner, such that the field changes place on the stator every time it is switched on. It "rotates" around the motor's axis because it CHANGES its POSITION. The field itself does NOT rotate in space. To claim such a thing shows a deep ignorance about the matter and all the naysayers should do us a favour and excuse themselves from the debate.
Nikola Tesla knew what he was talking about. The engineers in the field of electricity understand him perfectly. If someone does not understand his technical language, there is always knitting and gardening that needs some input. Those who are struggling with the meaning of the phrase "rotating magnetic field" should find these subjects as more suitable to their skills and knowledge. (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can't be invented[edit]

Theseitems can't be invented either "x-rays, ionized gases, high field emission, " Rmhermen 04:29, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps "discovered" would be a better term?Gammaworld1 (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct. And the terms "discovery/discovered" were in fact used at that time for that precise reason. Everything already exists. We just do not know everything, so by experiments and research we discover things. We do not invent them.
We do invent the tools (such as electric motor) to apply, as in this case, electricity to use. (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I deleted reference to superconductivity. The patent mentions the well known fact that resistance increases with temperature. The patent talks about reducing the resistance by cooling, but no mention of zero resistance. He discusses metallic conductors and liquid air cooling. Even today, there is no metallic conductor which is superconducting in liquid air. The patent mentioned is: [1], "Means for Increasing the Intensity of Electrical Oscillations". 1900 March 21. USPTO. pstudier 00:27, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

The patent current U.S. Class is classified as :

527 Superconductive (e.g., cryogenic, etc.) device
888 Refrigeration
870 Power supply, regulation, or energy storage system : Including transformer or inductor
856 Electrical transmission or interconnection system

This is besides the mention of the recent US patent citation of US4869598.

It doesn't matter how the patent office classifies the patent. The patent makes no mention of either superconductivity, nor of zero resistance, nor does it describe any process that would result in superconductivity. pstudier 21:07, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how the patent office classifies the patent? Yes ... it is very important. So, do you propose that wikipedia just deny the facts? I hope not.
As to the "mention of superconductivity"? This is in retrospect (as many of his inventions are evaluated analyzed for thier true character [BTW, Ratzlaff's Selected Patent Wrappers has a good note on Tesla's battle with the then understanding of the patent office AND why the patents are term as they are] ... Tesla was decades ahead of his time) ... and this is by people qualified to say so (physicists and inventors). This patent covers a process to 'increase the ability to transmit or convey electromagnetic energy.
As to the "zero resistance"? Why don't you reread the patent ... specifically the lines 62 - 78. [If you are just debunking without reading ... please don't remove the information!]
It does describe the process that would result in superconductivity.
First, the fact that the patent office classifies something does not mean much. They classify not to certify anything, but just to make it easier to find similar patents. They have even granted patents on perpetual motion machines. Lines 62-78, emphasis mine:
It is a well-established fact that as the temperature of a metallic conductor rises its electrical resistance increases, and in recognition of this constructors of commercial electrical apparatus have heretofore resorted to many expedients for preventing the coils and other parts of the same from becoming heated when in use, but merely with a view to economizing energy and reducing the cost of construction and operation of the apparatus.
Now I have discovered that when a circuit adapted to vibrate freely is maintained at a low temperature the oscillations excited in the same are to an extraordinary degree magnified and prolonged, and I am thus enabled to produce many valuable results which have heretofore been wholly impracticable.
Here he makes no novel claim concerning resistance nor does he claim zero resistance. Nor would this result in zero resistance because even today no metallic conductor becomes superconducting in liquid air, and most metals are not superconducting even at absolute zero.
pstudier 19:07, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

pstudier, nice try ... but READ THE NEXT PAGE! you missed it ... I would have thought you'd read all the lines on both pages ... but you just picked the 1st page ... [shakes my head]

As to the claims ... it's concerning free oscillations (as far as I can tell this is Tesla's term for superconductivity [as that specific term is coined a bit later by Onnes] ) Notice the sentence : intensity of the oscillation ... will be incrased in same proportion to the resistance is reduced. (This is (along with a longer conductor) all for a greater self-induction [if you keep readin this part]) ... Tesla states the "conductivity vs. restistance" ratio, also.

Tesla states that he doesn't limit himself to the any one specific artificial cooling process.

See the claims at the end too ... specifically number 5.

Please Read the whole damn patent!

I have read the whole patent, and even your excerpts here do not support your conclusion. If a wheel is "free" to spin, it does not mean that it has no friction and will spin forever. More importantly, intensity of the oscillation ... will be incrased in same proportion to the resistance is reduced implies that the intensity would increase without limit when the resistance is zero. This is not mentioned. Claim 5 just refers to the well known reduction in a metal's resistance as the temperature is lowered. Never does he claim zero resistance, nor did any technology exist in 1901 that could produce zero resistance. Helium was not even liquified until 1908. It was decades before any superconductor was demonstrated that did not require liquid helium temperatures. pstudier 01:12, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
You must not have read page 2 over the stated lines (62-78) .... BECAUSE you were not citing the correct portion of the patent earlier! (and ... you still seem confused on the contents ... I do conceed that I didn't mentiopn the exact page and I am sorry for that ... but you were suppose to have read the whole thing so I thought you would grasp the location ... mabey not ...)
As to intensity thing not being mentioned (ala. the intensity of the oscillation ... will be incrased in same proportion to the resistance is reduced ...), See Page 2 line 65-67. On these lines this phrase is stated!!!! This DOES imply that the intensity would increase when the resistance is dropped via bring the conductor near zero temperature.
Claim 5 does NOT refer to the resistance - temperature thing ... YOU ARE NOT READING THE PATENT! Claim 5 is about intensifying and prolonging the electrical oscillation! (BTW, if you are ignorant of where the claims are in patent ... they are @ the end.)
If you are not goin to read the patent ... nor comprehend the FACTS ... please stop removing the information!

Enough of this nonsense. Superconductivity was not possible with the cooling technology available at that time. pstudier 21:50, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

BZZT ... wrong ... see Carl von Linde! Superconductivity was possible with the cooling technology available at that time ... Tesla mention Linde concerning this (in a lecture,IIRC, not the patent) ...

Study some physics please. Linde liquified air. We have already discussed liquid air. No metal is superconducting with liquid air. pstudier 19:14, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

No ... you are wrong ... see Conventional superconductor ... Linde's process can be used to achieve cryogenic Kelvin temps. (PS. see BCS theory)
Temperatures necessary for superconductivity were first achieved by Onnes in 1908. Onnes had the best equipped cryogenics lab in the world and had been working continuously in the field for decades. Although Onnes' process used Joule-Thomson cooling (same as the Linde process), it is especially difficult for helium because the "inversion temperature" for helium is 40 K, i.e. you have to pre-chill it to below 40 K or else JT actually heats it. Quite apart from the technical unlikeliness of Tesla achieving this, in secret, without any prior work on super-cooling, nearly a decade earlier than Onnes (and then not telling anyone how he did it), this speculation is simply unnecessary. Not only is there nothing in that patent which suggests superconductivity, there is stuff which strongly suggests there was not any superconductivity--because a superconductor does not make a good oscillator, in fact it strongly resists oscillations. Securiger 20:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The patent office classifies the patent as superconductivity tech (that is important). The patent suggests superconductivity.
The process patented is to increase the ability to keep current (as Onnes himself verified in 1912).
It does describe "zero resistance" .. read the patent, Page 2, lines 62 - 78.
The theory necessary for superconductivity was established by Dewar and Flemming. Tesla understood this and was using Linde's machines [the same thing that Onnes himself used and modified]. Tesla had best equipped lab in the world (from the vast amount of money he made from Westinghouse; and he had many wealthy financiers backing him).
Tesla achieving this, not in secret (read his notes written in colorado springs; he states in his notes that it was bitterly cold (IIRC) during his experiments), with prior knowledge on super-cooling (he had a physics degree and was widely known in europe and america by the best scientists (note who is in his quotation section)). The theory of superconductivity was established nearly a decade earlier than Onnes (again, Dewar and Flemming set forward the notion!).
The superconductor is not an oscillator, but the particular winding of the coil sets up the oscillations. (But you'd have to understand coils (like the bifilar that Tesla invented), each have a specific resonance and frequency, to grasp that!)

Superconductivity has a lot of meaning nowadays. Then it would have simple been a medium through which millions of amperes could travel which does not require expensive quantities of material. In which case I propose he did. In either of his inventions, one - radio waves. No wires needed. And two - the Tesla Magnifier which dealt with "current waves" or ampere waves. Of course, we have yet to see that one proven out,Gammaworld1 (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of references - superconductivity[edit]

Telsa had methods for providing extremely low level of resistance to the passage of electrical current.[2]

  • U.S. Patent 685,012 - Means for Increasing the Intensity of Electrical Oscillations - 1900 March 21 - A method for producing a "great increase in the intensity and duration of the (electrical) oscillations excited in a freely-vibrating or resonating circuit by maintaining the same at a low temperature". Producing increase intensity and duration of electric oscillations; Combination of a circuit to possess freely-vibrating excitations and of means for artificially cooling the circuit to a low temperature; Low temperature resonating circuit; Uses of electrical impulse oscillations; A circuit upon which oscillations are impressed, and which is adapted to vibrate freely, in combination with a receptacle containing an artificial refrigerant in which the circuit is immersed; superconducting oscillators in a series of transmitting and receiving circuits in a system for the transmission of energy.[3]

US patent 685012 - Classifications: 178/43; 174/15.5; 310/54; 327/527; 330/6; 330/61R; 333/24R; 336/58; 343/700R; 439/196; 505/825; 505/856; 505/870; 505/888

  • ^ U.S. Patent 685,012. The The patent office classifies the patent as superconductivity technolgy, specifically "Dynamoelectric; liquid coolant" (310/54) and "Specific Identifiable Device, Circuit, or System; Superconductive (e.g., cryogenic, etc.) device" (327/527).
  • ^ Ibib
We have been over this before. Low does not mean zero. No technology exits even today to produce superconductivity with liquid air. Etc, ad nauseam. pstudier 23:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
absolute zero is impossible (notice the It is unachievable in practice in the wikipedia article) ... near zero (eg., low) is attainable with certian types of liquifide gases. pstudier read a book about it (as I have), get a clue, Etc, ad nauseam ... J. D. Redding (PS ... "high-temperature" materials (such as yttrium, barium, and copper) all were discovered well before the time of the patent ... and as a side note, it would even take some time for term "superconductivity" to come into wide use ... please don't be ignorant of the history!)

It is possible he actually did discover a near zero resistance method. Remember that he was a pioneer even by today's standards. There are ideas which are still far out there. So because of the negative resistance properties of a vacuum it could be that he, via the Tesla turbine or extreme heat, found a method to reduce the resistance to near zero. Or even negative, if you can believe it. A very interesting topic, if you're interested it taking it up further.Gammaworld1 (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Superconductivity References[edit]

It should be noted in the article that superconductivity was part of his inventions. As to Tesla's Means for Increasing the Intensity of Electrical Oscillations references ...

  1. The patent office classifies U.S. Patent 685,012 as superconductivity technolgy via several classifications
  2. Thomas Valone (ed.) book contains the information on the superconductivity in one of the essays. The essay "Effects of Tesla's Life and Electrical Inventions" specifically notes this.
  3. Oliver Nichelson talks of Tesla's invention in this context.
  4. In "The Problem of Increasing Human Energy - Through Use of the Sun's Energy," (The Century Illustrated Magazine), Tesla cites Carl von Linde (inventor of a method for liquefying air via "self-cooling"). As Tesla states, "This was the only experimental proof which I was still wanting that energy was obtainable from the medium in the manner contemplated by me ." In 1892, Tesla went to London and saw Professor Dewar's experiments with liquefied gases. Tesla noted that others had liquefied gases before, notably Ozlewski and Pictet. Later, Tesla was working on a project, together with other pojects, which would give a refrigerating machine of exceptional efficiency and simplicity. This is the time of the 1895 Houston Street lab fire which delayed his endeavors. Shortly afterward, "Linde announced the liquefaction of air by a self cooling process, demonstrating that it was practicable to proceed with the cooling until liquefaction of the air took place". Tesla sought to simplify Linde's accomplisment, also. Tesla's endeavors in his own projects (with this as one part) would lead to (according to him) a "self-acting machine deriving energy from the ambient medium". Read the "The Problem of Increasing Human Energy - Through Use of the Sun's Energy")
In addition to the above reference, Seifer ("Wizard, the Life and Times of Nikola Tesla". ISBN 1-559723-29-7 (HC)) states that it is possible that tesla contemplated the use of superconductivity. His diagram cites -197 degrees, BUT in the footnote in the chapter he states that (though doubtful) it is probable that Tesla contemplated superconductivity for his world wireless system (this a decade before Onnes experiment).

Nitpick: (Wiki-markup? idea) why restart the numbering at 1 every 50?[edit]

(idea for improvement:) At the beginning of the section "===Fifty-one to one hundred===", it re-starts the numbering at one. Isn't there some feature of the wiki mark-up that we use, that could be used to cause that section to start with 51? In my opinion, if there isn't [already] (such a feature), then there should be -- in the near future. (note: a similar issue exists for the "101-and-up" section). Just my 0.02 Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being a newbie not sure how to do this but reference #4 is incorrect stating that the ozone machine is a superconductive device. It is not. How to fix this? And obviously this is posted in the wrong section Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Handyandy802 (talkcontribs) 21:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Broken Link[edit]

The link to the book "Man out of Time" is broken. (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New York Times quotes this article[edit]

A Battle to Preserve a Visionary’s Bold Failure - New York Times - May 4, 2009 has this sentence: "Wikipedia says the inventor obtained at least 700 patents." I put this on the Wardenclyffe Tower talk page (the article is about sale/preservation of the tower) but the article actually to be referring to this article. Americasroof (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dates of patents[edit]

I believe the dates of the patents should be the date of application, not the date of issue. They are currently given as date of issue.

The patentee's rights relate to the date of application, not the date of issue which in some cases may be many years later. An extreme example is Edison's US patent 480,567 which was issued after the patent had expired. Further, since this is essentially a historical article the date of invention, as evidenced by the date of application, is likely to be of more interest to readers. ianw 08:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Many inventions developed by Tesla were not put into patent protection[edit]

In the end of the opening paragraph there is that sentence. If there are plenty of documented but not patented inventions, then good. Otherwise that could be said about anyone. The other question is about Margaret Cheney's book. It was mentioned as a source and page number 62 was given. I found it on Amazon. On page 62 of her book Cheney does not mention anything about Tesla's inventions that he did not patent. Instead of that she writes: "Within six months after opening his shop, Tesla sent two motors to the Patent Office for testing and filed his first AC patents. In all, through 1891, he applied for and was granted a total of forty patents. So original and sweeping were they that he met with no delay." I have absolutely no doubt that Tesla invented more than he patented. My point is that on page 62 Cheney does not say anything about those inventions. Nikolas Ojala (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

force field?[edit]

whats the reference for "a magnetic field dome made of energy that will eventually be built big enough to protect a city from attack during wars" everything i've read said it was a scalar field/beam interference. -- (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tesla Did Not Discover Superconductivity[edit]

"superconductivity" is the sudden and surprising drop to zero resistance that occurs in some metals at liquid-helium temperatures. It has been recently produced at higher temperature (liquid nitrogen) using exotic ceramic materials. The term does _not_ refer to the gradual reduction of resistance with cooling, which was a well known phenomenon at the time of Tesla. The effect of cooling and resitance was studied long before Tesla, for example by Augustus Matthiessen in the 1860s, and was not a precursor to the phenomenon of superconductivity. Superconductivity is a sudden phase change, similar to super-fluidity. It is caused by Bose condensation of charge carriers that only become stable at an extremely low temperature -- so-called Cooper Pairs of electrons bound by phonon exchange force. Tesla had absolutely nothing to do with the discovery of superconductivity, and his patents make no such claim. The theories of quantum mechanics and solid state physics were not yet discovered, so he certainly did not deduce the existance of superconductivity. There is no evidence that Tesla experimented with liquid helium, which was not produced until 1908. DonPMitchell (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No one in particular discovered superconductivity. The path to superconductivity was gradual from the very first observations of resistance being reduced under cooler temperatures - as a result of attempts to reduce ambient temperatures of electric coils due to their excessive heating under the current - to the improvements of such methods of cooling the machinery, electric and internal combustion, because the people have empirically realised that a cooler machine works better. The developments in various technical categories all led to conclusions that then gave the birth to the idea that at a certain low temperature it may be possible to achieve zero resistance/losses.

To claim that Onnes "invented" it is a gross error. The same goes for Nikola Tesla. But the fact that the naysayers are struggling with is that Nikola Tesla was the first to discover a working method of achieving near zero losses, which then gave the birth to the phrase "superconductivity". At first the phrase did not imply zero losses, just near zero losses/resistance. And that, whether the naysayers like it or not, at the time was categorised as "superconductivity" in a context completely different to the context the naysayers, in their limited ability to understand and even more restricted knowledge of physics of resistance and losses, are just unable to grasp. Lucky for them wikipedia helps them display their academic and intellectual limits in a completely unsupervised, and unhinged, manner.

No wonder the support for maintaining wikipedia is dropping fast. Why feed the beast?

Superconductivity has a number of properties. Humans are currently working on a room-temperature superconductor. If we discover one it doesn't negate that it is a superconductor because it is not supercooled. At the time, I believe, simply reducing the resistance would suffice. And that was discovered using vacuums, ie Negative Resistance.Gammaworld1 (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patents in other countries[edit]

No references have been provided for the patents that Tesla had received from other countries. For example, if you claim that Tesla received 1 patent from Japan or India, what was the nature of the patent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cleanup unverified and deceptive claims.[edit]

Per this edit, I have removed the info box "Nikola Tesla worked on during his career": The deceptive wording and being on a Nikola Tesla patent page makes the reader think Tesla invented these things, some of which he did not. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:YESPOV problems[edit]

It is hard to figure out where the claims in the patent descriptions come from. I assume its quotes from the patent but the way its worded creates a WP:YESPOV problem, Tesla claims stated in Wikipedia's voice as fact. I have cleaned up one entry, much more should be done. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The title of the article, when viewed on the page, should be de-italicized.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flying Machine[edit]

The source for the supposed flying machine is garbage it makes all kinds of irrational claims and misrepresents Tesla quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, allot of Tesla fan mumbo-jumbo there with article links to stuff that doesn't exist. Pruned it with extreme prejudice. Rewrote other parts trying to decipher this bunk. If anyone can find reliable sourcing for more please re-add it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Nikola Tesla patents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article title is italicized. This is not appropriate.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]