What happened to Tesla's files?

a reply to: TheRedneck

In 1893, Westinghouse, with Tesla working for him, won the bid to provide electric lighting for the World's fair.

1893 World's fair. Interesting. Are you sure you don't mean 1939? Misread.

So he threatened to sue Westinghouse over the patent rights to the light bulbs used.

Who held the patent?

Tesla held the patent on the new fluorescent bulb, but Morgan had so much more wealth than Westinghouse that Westinghouse could not afford to fight such a lawsuit. He convinced Morgan to drop the lawsuit by signing over Tesla's patents.

So, the patents were assigned to Morgan by Westinghouse? That may be verifiable.

Supposedly, the conversation went along the lines of:

Yeah, a lot of "supposedlies" involved with Tesla.

That's the end of your history lesson, Phage... tutoring services are $20 an hour after the trial. You can find out more by watching an old History Channel documentary called, if memory serves, "The Men Who Built America" (or something along those lines).

There's a difference between history and mythology. The "History" Channel also has some documentaries about ancient aliens.

Here is the lightbulb patent
patents.google.com...

added the other ones...
patents.google.com...

patents.google.com...



and one from the UK for good measure
www.keelynet.com...



gonna edit this again, so you can see a full list of his patents
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: TheRedneck

Also, you forget that Westinghouse was part of Tesla's success.

Although he didn't make as much noise about it, Wesinghouse was a scientist, engineer and inventor himself. In my opinion, probably more accomplished than Tesla, but that is my opinion.

George Westinghouse was interested in AC generation and power systems after reading about them in the UK journal "Engineerig" in 1885, four years before he even met Tesla, in 1889.

So, Tesla didn't "invent AC" and the first patent of Tesla's that Westinghouse acquired was for an AC brush-less motor, not a generator, or transformers which Westinghouse already had (the generators were made by Siemens and the transformers by Gaulard–Gibbs).

In fact, Westinghouse's first practical AC generator that provided significant power was the hydro generator that lit homes and business in Great Barrington, Massachusetts in 1886, three years before he even met Tesla.

The 'histories' also don't seem to mention that it took years of work by Westinghouse's engineers (principally Benjamin Lamme) before they got an actual efficient implementation of Tesla's patents. So much for Tesla's purported 'perfect' designs.

Consider this patent by Westinghouse himself for a transformer/converter coil, and this patent for a system of relay switched power distribution, ensuring fault resistant supply, both from two years before he met Tesla.

Also, in 1889, the same yer he met Tesla, Westinghouse described a way of using a synchronous DC motor to rectify AC to DC for adapting AC power supply to existing DC locomotives (Westinghouse had significant business interests in railways and is the inventor of the air-brake).

a reply to: dubiousatworst

Here is the lightbulb patent

That is not a fluorescent light. It's an arc light. And it does not seem to have been assigned to anyone. In other words, Tesla kept the patent.

a reply to: Phage

There's a difference between history and mythology.

I'm well aware of your differences. "Mythology" is whatever disagrees with you.

I told you, tonight is not the right for your typical tactics.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

"Mythology" is whatever disagrees with you.

No. Mythology is folklore unsupported.

The journals and loose notes were gathered up and copied at Wright Pat because that was the closest facility for large scale copying under government control. They currently reside in Belgrade, Serbia at the Tesla Museum.

Aside from endorsing AC over DC, Telsa’s lasting contribution to everyday electricity is 60Hz. Although he filed and held a boatload of patents in Electrical Engineering including one that Motorola and IBM constantly ran up against dealing with microprocessors.

a reply to: chr0naut

Also, you forget that Westinghouse was part of Tesla's success.

No, I don't. Westinghouse was practically all of Tesla's success.

Tesla worked with Westinghouse; Edison worked with Morgan. That's after Tesla worked for Edison, who rejected his ideas. Westinghouse and Morgan were financial competitors, both seeking the emerging electric power market. Tesla's ideas were superior to Edison's, but Morgan had the upper hand financially.

I am also well aware that Westinghouse was an aspiring inventor, but he lacked the solid mathematical foundation and keen insight that Tesla had. He was driven as much by a desire to provide electricity as the profit motive behind providing electricity. JP Morgan, on the other hand was strictly profit-driven. Edison had a mathematical background, but his technique was more "bulldozer-style" than Tesla's. Where Tesla would spend hours pouring over equations and making notes before building, Edison would just make a few mental calculations and start building... and failing and building again... and failing and building again... that's why you don't hear much about ideas Edison had but never built, but there are quite a few similar stories surrounding Tesla.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Ahabstar

They're in Belgrade? I need to get over there sometime; I wasn't aware of that. I also wasn't aware that he held any patents that concerned microprocessors... that was pretty far ahead of his time!

I do know the ignition system in an internal combustion engine is wholly Tesla... it's really just a miniature Tesla coil, with advancements in more modern, solid-state ignition systems of course. Three phase power was also his idea. Tesla also had several non-electrical patents, like the one-way valve with no moving parts or the Tesla pump which uses surface tension of water to create the pumping action via centripedal force. That last one is my go-to design for embedded pump systems, as it is more efficient than a traditional pump, simpler to construct, and much quieter as well.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Another odd one was radio controlled boats that he demonstrated for the Navy twice and discussed doing the same with airplanes. Basically creating drone warfare to save personnel as the end goal.

It took the Supreme Court to do it in the mid 1950’s, but Tesla was finally recognized over Marconi for the wireless, but guess which is still taught in school.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Aside from endorsing AC over DC, Telsa’s lasting contribution to everyday electricity is 60Hz.

In some places, yes. In most places it's 50Hz.
www.oaktreeproducts.com...

It took the Supreme Court to do it in the mid 1950’s, but Tesla was finally recognized over Marconi for the wireless, but guess which is still taught in school.

No, not really. You may be referring to this case:
Marconi Wireless Tel. Co. v. United States, 320 U.S. 1 (1943)
While Marconi did lose, it was not to Tesla. The case involved a patent for a tuning system which was held by Marconi. Marconi made a claim against the government because, during World War I, the government used the patent (and others) without concern for licensing or royalties. As part of the case, a patent prior to Marconi's was presented. A patent issued to John Stone Stone in 1902. Work done by Oliver Lodge and Tesla was also brought up but it was Stone's patent which won the Government's case against Marconi.

The majority opinion (against the claim of Marconi):

Marconi's reputation as the man who first achieved successful radio transmission rests on his original patent, which became reissue No. 11,913, and which is not here in question. That reputation, however well deserved, does not entitle him to a patent for every later improvement which he claims in the radio field. Patent cases, like others, must be decided not by weighing the reputations of the litigations, but by careful study of the merits of their respective contentions and proofs. As the result of such a study, we are forced to conclude, without undertaking to determine whether Stone's patent involved invention, that the Court of Claims was right in deciding that Stone anticipated Marconi, and that Marconi's patent did not disclose invention over Stone. Hence, the judgment below holding invalid the broad claims of the Marconi patent must be affirmed. In view of our interpretation of the Stone application and patent, we need not consider the correctness of the court's conclusion that, even if Stone's disclosures should be read as failing to direct that the antenna circuits be made resonant to a particular frequency, Marconi's patent involved no invention over Lodge, Tesla, and Stone.

Marconi's original patent stood, quite clearly according to the SCOTUS, Marconi holds the first patent for wireless communications. The patent for the tuning system did not stand, but it was lost to Stone not Tesla.

If you have another case in mind, can you present it? Because this one certainly does not really fit the bill for this myth, not even close:

but Tesla was finally recognized over Marconi for the wireless

Stone's patent

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

Also, you forget that Westinghouse was part of Tesla's success.

No, I don't. Westinghouse was practically all of Tesla's success.

Tesla worked with Westinghouse; Edison worked with Morgan. That's after Tesla worked for Edison, who rejected his ideas. Westinghouse and Morgan were financial competitors, both seeking the emerging electric power market. Tesla's ideas were superior to Edison's, but Morgan had the upper hand financially.

I am also well aware that Westinghouse was an aspiring inventor, but he lacked the solid mathematical foundation and keen insight that Tesla had. He was driven as much by a desire to provide electricity as the profit motive behind providing electricity. JP Morgan, on the other hand was strictly profit-driven. Edison had a mathematical background, but his technique was more "bulldozer-style" than Tesla's. Where Tesla would spend hours pouring over equations and making notes before building, Edison would just make a few mental calculations and start building... and failing and building again... and failing and building again... that's why you don't hear much about ideas Edison had but never built, but there are quite a few similar stories surrounding Tesla.

TheRedneck

How, then, did Westinghouse figure out that AC power distribution was more efficient than DC, before had even begun experimenting? And then he poured his money into equipment and tech after already establishing DC electrical generation and distribution business, again, years before he met Tesla.

Perhaps he wasn't as tardy with the math as you suppose, or he had good advice?

a reply to: chr0naut

It doesn't take much math background to understand why AC is more efficient than DC at transmission. Faraday developed the math in 1831 and the first practical transformer was invented in the 1880s, so the foundation was already there.

In order to use a transformer in a circuit, all one needs to know is the ratio of turns between the primary and secondary and optionally a little basic calculus to determine the inductive load transfer. In order to design a transformer for a specific application, one needs an intuitive understanding of equations developed by Faraday, Maxwell, Hertz, Euler, Henry, and Lenz. Westinghouse was quite capable of understanding concepts (which is likely why he was so impressed with Tesla's abilities) but was not quite as adept at designing actual components.

You seem unable to comprehend things in an analog fashion. One can be versed in mathematics and still not be intuitive to the point needed for certain tasks. Even you can multiply numbers together given the equations (at least I am assuming so). I'm sure even you could hook up a component stereo. Yet, you could not begin to design a basic amplifier circuit from scratch (evidenced by the statements in this thread you have already made). You simply lack the comprehension required to understand the necessary concepts. Talent and comprehension is not a binary thing. Lucky for you.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

1943, thought it was later like 1956, but seems there are conflicting stories Link

The case law documents if you have insomnia More than just Tesla’s were used by Marconi in his patent.

a reply to: Ahabstar

but seems there are conflicting stories

That story completely ignores the fact that the case was not decided because of Tesla's invention, but Stone's.

The case was not about who "invented radio" it was about a tuning system. The court determined that Stone's patent for the system anticipated Marconi's. The court affirmed Marconi's original patent for wireless communications.

a reply to: Phage

That story completely ignores the fact that the case was not decided because of Tesla's invention, but Stone's.

Phage, you are a very intelligent man, but sometimes trying to talk to you is like trying to explain quantum physics to a bumblebee.

No one is disputing that Marconi received the first patent for a working radio, and thus that he, in a legal sense, invented radio. What we are disputing is that he did it in a vacuum. There were many engineers, inventors, and scientists who contributed to the technology, and that certainly includes Marconi.

Patents are not decided the way you seem to think they are. The court weighed several aspects of Marconi's patent and determined that many were previously patented by others, which invalidates Marconi's claim to the rights for those aspects of his patent. It is quite rare for a patent to be simply revoked because some one had the idea earlier; it is quite common for certain aspects of a patent to be revoked due to earlier patent claims, while leaving the remainder of the patent protection in place. Every patent builds on previous ideas; we all stand on the shoulders of giants before us. Some just seem to refuse to acknowledge the fact.

Ahabstar's link to the court finding points that out very well. Each claim of earlier disclosure is individually tested, including Tesla, Lodge, and Stone. Stone held the most recent patent under consideration and thus his patent had more in common with Marconi's. Yet, Stone's patent built on earlier patents by Marconi, Tesla, and Lodge. There is no "he was right, he was wrong" here... there is only a determination of which improvement of the concept of radio belonged to whom.

Tesla's specifications disclosed an arrangement of four circuits, an open antenna circuit coupled, through a transformer, to a closed charging circuit at the transmitter, and an open antenna circuit at the receiver similarly coupled to a closed detector circuit. His patent also in- [320 U.S. 1, 15] structed those skilled in the art that the open and closed circuits in the transmitting system and in the receiving system should be in electrical resonance with each other. His specifications state that the 'primary and secondary circuits in the transmitting apparatus' are 'carefully synchronized.' They describe the method of achieving this by adjusting the length of wire in the secondary winding of the oscillation transformer in the transmitter, and similarly in the receiver, so that 'the points of highest potential are made to coincide with the elevated terminals' of the antenna, i.e., so that the antenna circuit will be resonant to the frequency developed in the charging circuit of the transmitter. The specifications further state that 'the results were particularly satisfactory when the primary coil or system A with its secondary C (of the receiver) was carefully adjusted so as to vibrate in synchronism with the transmitting coil or system AC.'

Tesla thus anticipated the following features of the Marconi patent: A charging circuit in the transmitter for causing oscillations of the desired frequency, coupled, through a transformer, with the open antenna circuit, and the synchronization of the two circuits by the proper disposition of the inductance in either the closed or the antenna circuit or both. By this and the added disclosure of the two-circuit arrangement in the receiver with similar adjustment, he anticipated the four circuit tuned [320 U.S. 1, 16] combination of Marconi. A feature of the Marconi combination not shown by Tesla was the use of a variable inductance as a means of adjusting the tuning the antenna circuit of transmitter and receiver. This was developed by Lodge after Tesla's patent but before the Marconi patent in suit.

Again, that does not mean "Tesla invented radio." Only a simpleton would even consider such a statement to be anything more than concentrated ignorance. It means that one of Tesla's earlier patents covered the aspect of tuning the antenna stages, so Marconi could not claim rights to that. Stone's patent, as well as Lodge's, covered other aspects of Marconi's claim.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

What we are disputing is that he did it in a vacuum.

What I am disputing is this myth.

It took the Supreme Court to do it in the mid 1950’s, but Tesla was finally recognized over Marconi for the wireless, but guess which is still taught in school.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ahabstar's link to the court finding points that out very well.

Yes. I know. I also provided a link to the decision.

The other key was the end goal. Marconi was going for wireless telegraph, Stone seemed be more towards modern radio voice transmissions and Tesla was aiming for wireless transmission and reception of electricity.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Stone did not specify voice transmissions. His invention was for a method of selecting the frequency at which the transmission was made.
Also interesting is that he know he was working with Hertzian waves (radio), something Tesla scoffed at.


www.freepatentsonline.com...

a reply to: Phage

What I am disputing is this myth.

The myth is that Marconi developed radio by himself. That is what is taught today in schools, and it is incorrect. There were several inventors all working on the concept at the same time, and all contributed to what we know today as radio communications. Marconi got the first patent for transmission of EM waves, and others then improved on his concept to make radio communication reliable. The patents we are discussing simply concerned methods of tuning the transmission to specific frequencies. The earliest radio devices simply transmitted and received on a range of frequencies (what we would today call a band).

TheRedneck