To all, I will say this, any who try to dismiss or deny the patent claims made by Tesla which are correct will end up looking silly as they should, and by the same token those who make claims for Tesla's devices or patents that Tesla did not make and attribute them to Tesla will also end up looking silly as they should.

The patents are clear if read and understood as he intended, he wanted people to be able to build and use his devices as he intended, unless the text was tampered with or edited (which I see no evidence of) there is not much to argue about, read the patents and decipher them so that they make sense and logic, Tesla did not intentionally lie or deceive, on some things he may have been a bit off, but in the claims of the patents he is pretty much spot on. People should pay no regard what so ever to the claims people other than Tesla make, there is no reason to do that when the patents tell the claims at the end.

Those who say to disregard the patents are not to be trusted. And that is because they are deniers of truth.

Cheers

Take the patent linked below as an example of the way his patents are misunderstood and misrepresented. In reality the claims begin on page 2 from line 101. They are all true and correct, and so the patent is valid. As far as the claims go if the setup transmitted some energy to anywhere and that was utilized in any amount then the patent is valid and correct. It makes no claims of efficiency in figures that I can see. Just the principal of the design of the transmitter apparatus. It is obvious they can transmitt some energy without man made wires and that was demonstrated by Tesla and since by many others. All the BS that some spew about it's near field or bla bla bla mean nothing, the efficiency means nothing in the context of the patent, the patent claims are correct and true and in line with the physical  laws of nature. End of story on that patent. A different patent covers the details of how the transmission physically happens.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=m7R9AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

I question the motives of both the folks making the wild claims as well as those who want to dismiss facts by confusing people ect..

Cheers

You can take this discussion full circle.

Tesla made a patent for a self-resonating coil with interleaved windings.  In his patent he views it as a band-pass filter where at the resonant frequency it acts like an AC short circuit while it resonates.  That corresponds to a damped series LC circuit.  It can also be viewed as a notch filter that acts like an open circuit if you view it as a damped parallel parallel LC circuit.  It looks like some of the clips doing the testing on a small setup show a parallel LC circuit but I am not aware of a definitive one.  I am not aware of a clip that shows the current and the voltage at the same time.

It's even possible that a big series "bifilar" coil that Tesla played with acted as both a series LC circuit and as a parallel LC circuit depending on the excitation frequency.  Hence two resonant points at two different frequencies.  It's also possible that his patent for a self-resonating coil, presumably being used either for energy storage or as a notch or band-pass filter has absolutely nothing to do with an "electro-magnet."  Again, in the historical context, almost nobody understood electronics and nobody understood what inductance was.  However, people would probably have understood "electro-magnet" and the term is used in the patent just to make it "friendlier" for the patent office.  It's possible that he used the term because it meant something to people and they could latch onto it and he never intended for the design to be used as an electro-magnet at all.  "Coil for capacity-inductance electricity self-inducer" has no ring to it.  If that was true then it would deflate Synchro1's dreams for sure.

Does Tesla talk about the application of his patent in other writings?  If not, then you are left with a damped resonator.  A very big one might resonate for perhaps a few tens of seconds before it dies down, just a guess.  Can anybody suggest an application for this?

Tesla is not "the greatest genius in the Universe" like some of you seem to be implying.  He did basic basic experiments that have been learned and since then technology has evolved and progressed and improved in the last 120 years.  Where the application of this type of technology is going on today is what's important.

QuoteAll the BS that some spew about it's near field or bla bla bla mean nothing

That's BS, near field vs. far field is an important concept that's used in antenna theory all the time.  In your own way Farmhand you are not that much different than Sychro1.  Some of what you don't understand or disagree with you will dismiss out of hand or you might get upset with others that don't share your views.  Sometimes you will try to steamroll your views over other people's opinions.

Personally, I would not be too surprised if the Tesla self-resonating coil was just an experiment that he did and decided to take out a patent on in case he could use the design.  Ultimately it had no real practical use and ended up being nothing more than a curiosity.  120 years later and it generates about 20 megabytes worth of text per day on the Internet, day in and day out.

MileHigh

MileHigh, In the context of this patent below, near field v's far field has no bearing.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=m7R9AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false 

That subject is dealt with in another patent. The claims show that. You show what I meant by my post.

If I am mistaken you ought to show the claim from the patent that makes near field vs far field relevant.

Cheers

I guess I should repeat myself here. If I have made a specific claim that anyone disputes as untruthful, then just quote me (in context) with the reason why my claim is seen as incorrect and if I cannot explain it with logic or provide evidence to my own satisfaction and I can see I was wrong I will retract the claim. But I pay little regard to innuendo and do not take kindly to it. Please do not confuse an opinion given as such with a "claim". I have no reason or desire to defend my opinions on things when I give them as opinions of thinking. If I make a claim I will defend it if I think it correct or retract it if I see I am mistaken. Like anybody I make mistakes and I can admit it when I see it. If I explain myself concerning a claim and I don't think I was understood or am being mistaken about it I might just give up trying to explain it and ignore the complaint. So people should stick to the point. Like many others on these sites I lack the proper terminology in a lot of cases so I just try to explain what I mean if what I say does not immediately make sense. A misuse of terms is not always a mistaken claim, but rather the misuse of words to describe a valid claim. No one is perfect, and few of us have the training to use all the correct words, but it ought to be obvious who understands what by what they can do. Many of us are trades people or otherwise trained in the engineering fields to differing degrees.

Some of us see some minor details as unimportant depending on our goals and motives, we need not feel as though we need to learn to be an electrical engineer in our spare time so we can argue with electrical engineers. I respect very much the knowledge of the people trained in the field. But in a similar way I didn't need to train to be a mechanic to be able to show some mechanics a thing or two about cars and motorcycles, but do I think I know more than them ? No I don't. I just know things that make a difference for me that they might see as insignificant in their frame of reference. Perspective.

Cheers