... Jim: I was joking about 144 t00. Take almost any reasonably large number and factor it and you can come up with all sorts of apparently meaningful things!Message 1 of 64 , Feb 1, 2004View SourceJim Farrer wrote:
> " Where did you get that info? Always seemed to me that
> Tesla was quite
> > casual about frequency.
> > Ed
> > 144=6x6x2x2. Anything magic about that?"
> 1. Got info on frequencies from either the 1990 International
> Tesla Symposium book introduction, or from the Tesla's 1899
> or perhaps both. Books all packed away now, can't verify.
> 2. No magic in factors of 144. Tried to indicate that by my
> question marks.
> I'm of the opinion that Tesla was very interested in the power
> frequency, and battled hard for 60 cps.
> Jim Farrer
I was joking about 144 t00. Take almost any reasonably large number
and factor it and you can come up with all sorts of apparently
As for frequency, I sure don't remember any discussion of 60 cycles in
CSN or Richard Hull's guide thereto. Likewise, I've never seen anything
favoring a particular frequency in any of the ORIGINAL Tesla material I
have here, only in the land of myth and heresay. I'll look through what
I have again and see if I have to recant. I'm very much interested in
Tesla's power transmission technology stuff, which I happen to believe
is pure nonsense from the magnitude of some of the numbers involved.
Since, whatever he called it, his transmitter would have had exactly the
same circuit configuration as a base-loaded vertical antenna, it would
have obeyed the laws of physics insofar as impedance vs frequency was
concerned. For the efficiencies he claimed the bandwidth would have
been thousandths of a cycle at most. In Leland Anderson's book he has
several quotes from Tesla on frequency and they go something like "a few
hundred cycles or so", never 60.000000 cycles or something like that. I
can't remember a single specific frequency being mentioned. Point is
that anyone trying to design and build such a system would have been
acutely aware of the exact frequency used and I would think it would
show up somewhere in what he wrote. If it does I can't find it, only in
someone else's references. I always look for the attribution and
haven't seen it.
As for ITS, if its information were accurate it would have had to come
from Tesla himself, not someone else's interpretation, hence the
interest in original source material.
Ed Phillips wrote: As for ITS, if its information were accurate it would have had to come from Tesla himself, not someone else s interpretation, henceMessage 64 of 64 , Feb 2, 2004View Source"Ed Phillips wrote:
" As for ITS, if its information were accurate it would
have had to come from Tesla himself, not someone else's
interpretation, hence the interest in original source
Ed, would Tesla's "Colorado Springs N otes 1899-1900,"
published by Nolit, Beopgrad, Terazije 27, Yugoslavia,
copyright 1978 be an acceptable souce to you of what Tesla
said? Nikola certainly didn't write this book, and it was
interpreted by ?????, with scientific commentaries by
Aleksander Marincic, D.Sc.
Same question for "Proceedings of the 1990 International Tesla
I believe that the material in CSN is all authentic Tesla, particular
because of the frequent reproductions of his notes in his own
handwriting. I doesn't necessarily agree with all of it (in particular
his observations of "standing waves in the atmosphere") but I believe it
came from him. In another note I'll list some more things I believe or
Having never read the ITS Proceedings directly, I have no valid
first-hand comments. However, I believe that some of the stuff which I
have read which is REPORTED to have come from ITS is pure blather. Used
to read a couple of the free energy lists and among the things I
remember is the report that Tesla was able to light a bank of 100 watt
light bulbs at a distance of 20 miles. Has to be pure nonsense, if for
no other reason that there were almost certainly no "100 watt" light
bulbs floating around then and, if there had been, they'd have been
rated at candle power. Other reports referred to free energy machines
reported by ITS. Finally, there's the myth of the "Tesla automibile".
No way I can ever believe that it existed and was anything more than
pure fiction. As to Tesla's own words on the subject, I've never seen
anything that sounded like it came from him!
What I or you believe to be true (or false for that matter) doesn't
necessarily prove anything, of course. What I observe is that before
CSN what Tesla wrote was mainly about stuff described in enough detail
that you, I, or anyone "versed in the art" could build and expect to
work as claimed. After that and particularly the world power
transmission and death rays I believe are pure nonsense, whether Tesla
reported them or not. If you read his works carefully you'll see a very
distinct change in tone after his return from Colorado Springs. Sweet
reason and obvious genuine pioneering before that and "dreamy" stuff in
Note that his wireless power transmission patents purport to give
enough information that anyone "versed in the art" can duplicate them.
That I believe, as I also believe independent of whatever magical powers
he claimed for them they would of necessity have obeyed also the laws of
physics and engineering that I use every day. Some fairly rudimentary
calculations (which apparently Tesla never bothered to make) refute the
practicality of the whole system. Apparently he let his experiments
with lighting bulbs at the end of an evacuated tube get to his head. He
couldn't have been able to measure the resistance of those "columns of
ionized air" and if he had he'd quite possibly have had second thoughts.
I'll probably have something more to say after I go through my
library. I guess what I would say now that, insofar as reliability is
concerned, I rate CSN and "Inventions Researches and Writings" at one
end, Spiers (at least the earlier parts) toward the middle, and Cheney
at the far out end. His patents and correspondence (Patent Wrappers)
concerning them are a matter of public record which can't be disputed.
even though a lot of them are "lawyer talk".