Talk:Tesla's oscillator

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering 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.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Both all links to other language versions and several category links are wrong referring to Tesla Coil which is electrical device. Tesla's oscillator is mechanical device.

GREAT ARTICLE! TESLA NEEDS A MUSEUM IN THE US!

Great article Tesla needs his own musuem in the U.S.! Maybe the poroised Wardenclyffe (shoreham now Long Island) site The brick building of the great Wireless eletric station Tesla built there designed by the famed Stanford White still stands!(Dr. Edson Andre' J.) Andreisme (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)decd amwed.480921stcnt[reply]

This is a Theoretical and claimed inventions that hasn't been proven to have existed. but this article doesn't read that waySerialjoepsycho (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Edit the Mythbusters crap

"The Mythbusters television program made a small machine based on the same principle, but driven by electricity rather than steam, to test the claimed earthquake effect; it produced vibrations in a large structure that could be felt hundreds of feet away, but no significant shaking, and they judged the effect to be a busted myth." I just watched this episode and it is full of errors! Nevertheless: This part is found several times in other articles and makes readers with no background on this topic believe, that Tesla's oscillator was tested and didn't work out. (btw. this 'large structure' was a steel frame bridge)

- They stopped their test after one hour. Tesla's oscillator ran for days.

- It has to run for days/weeks/months, since the maximum energy an oscillator can induce into the resonator equals the energy of the oscillator's motion. (You don't get free energy out of nowhere. It has to add up.) A bridge needs very much energy to overcome inertia.

- They used a fixed frequency, instead of lowering it over time. It is like pushing a swing: In the beginning you push more often (the swing has a low max altitude and reaches the second max altitude faster). In the end it needs a longer time to get from one max altitude to the other.

- They used a very high frequency (I think they said 25 Hz) until they could feel a light vibration far away, which must have been a multiplicity of the bridge's frequency (which is not equal to the resonance frequency!). The resonance frequency of such a structure is way under 1 Hz due to the high damping factor.

- Tesla claimed to have shaken a house with the small device. Mythbusters tried to shake a >100 meter bridge without scaling the device.

- Tesla's device was deployed on the most upper floor of a house. Mythbusters used it on a bridge. (one fixation point vs. two fixation points)

etc. pp.

=> They failed to recreate the experiment, therefore their results and especially their interpretations are useless.

Could someone please edit/delete this section in all the articles. I don't know how debunking in wikipedia works and have no time to back up the points with formulas/links/etc. --84.177.223.106 (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the Tesla oscillator stuff seems to forget that every real oscillator system has dissipation mechanisms; if you can't supply energy to a system faster than it is being dissipated, no accumulation occurs. Tapping my finger on the wall will not knock it down no matter what resonances are present, since the air itself damps vibrations. If no accumulatin was visible in an hour, a week wouldn't have made any difference. Doubtless Tesla knew this but dissipation never gets mentioned in all these "Earth-shattering" claims. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on the damping factor, not on the fact that your finger is small and the wall is big.

You can't answer the question of whether a week would have made a difference before you know the damping factor (Q). Even if you add all the driving oscillator's energy to the bridge, it will take of the order of a million seconds (days, weeks) for a 1kgm (kilogram-meter - unit of moment of inertia) oscillator to get a 1000 ton bridge moving a meter side to side. So while I share your doubt about this Tesla oscillator stuff, the IP user above is also correct in pointing out that the Mythbusters "experiment" never had a chance to replicate Tesla's supposed results.

I agree with the IP user above that this "Mythbusters crap" should be deleted/edited - they're in it for the entertainment, not for scientific rigour. Perhaps it should go into a "In popular culture" section? Hey, I might even do that in a moment or two. Bernd Jendrissek (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've seen the episode and was mortified by their hasty judgement. I will delete it right now.Slushy9 (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

This article is about Nikola Tesla, not about Thor the Norse god of thunder !

So many people would be helped to live better lives if this article were removed from www.wikipedia.org

Thank you ! :-)...............................................

...for anything you can do to dispel suuperstition in bad taste — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.233.42 (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]