Talk:Singing Tesla coil

Merger Proposal

Zeusaphone/Singing Tesla Coil: To me, these articles seem to be discussing essentially the same thing. If there are no objections to a merger, I suggest the pages be merged by someone who knows how to work the wiki magic. –eruditionFISH 17:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I realise some editors seem to dislike the idea of combining these two articles, as evident from the repeated removal of the merger tag. In the interest of constructive work towards a consensus, I would like to ask the editors involved to leave a comment here on the talk page to elaborate on why they want the merger tag gone. If a constructive debate leads to a consensus of "no merger", I will not oppose the removal of the merger tags from both articles, but until that point, I see little purpose in removing the tag from only one of the articles, without explanation or even an edit summary. –eruditionFISH 23:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Support the merger, as they appear to me to be the same thing also. (Subject to revision if someone identifies a distinct difference between the two.) Neutral on which should be the main article title and which should be a redirect. Chuck (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I support the merger. I think the main title should be Zeusaphone, because it is a specific name, whereas "singing Tesla coil" is just a description. Calling the main page "Singing Tesla Coil" would be like calling the page for TNT "A Stable Explosive Based On Nitroglycerin". -Jtle515 (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't support the merger, "Singing Tesla Coil" was a term that was coined years before the zeusaphone existed. The term "zeusaphone" was created as method to sell a product. The most widely known name for the device is Singing Tesla Coil. Changing the title to "zeusaphone" would be the equivalent of calling cell phones "iphones", since the term "cellular phone" is a description, and not a title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epilectrik (talk • contribs) 19:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following your argument—it sounds like you would be fine with a merger as long as "Singing Tesla Coil" was the main article title. There's really three possible options here: 1) Merge the articles, with "Singing Tesla Coil" as the main title; 2) Merge the articles, with "Zeusaphone" as the main title; 3) do not merge the articles. Maybe I'm missing something, but your argument sounds like it is in support of option 1. Also, please don't remove the pointer to this discussion on the main page while the discussion is still going on. Chuck (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You obviously aren't reading the articles. The Zeusaphone article presents the idea as if it were brand new, has absolutely no verifiable references, and points directly to a product web page selling "zeusaphones". It is misleading, and does not reference the fact that the device existed for years before hand. The articles should not be merged. If someone wanted to add a foot note to the singing Tesla coil article saying something like, "These machines were also nick named "zeusaphone" after steve ward's duckon performance in 2007", I would have no problem with that, but that's all that should happen at most. If anything, the real question is whether or not the "Zeusaphone" article should exist in the first place. If the suggestion was to merge the "Singing Tesla coil" article with an article that actually meets basic wikipedia criteria, I would leave the merger tags, but this fairly obvious. Read the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epilectrik (talk • contribs) 16:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the most relevant information to the Singing Tesla Coil article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epilectrik (talk • contribs) 17:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• The Zeusaphone article presents the idea as if it were brand new, has absolutely no verifiable references, and points directly to a product web page selling "zeusaphones". It is misleading, and does not reference the fact that the device existed for years before hand. WP:SOFIXIT
• If anything, the real question is whether or not the "Zeusaphone" article should exist in the first place. You are welcome to nominate it for deletion if you feel that's the appropriate course of action. That's a separate discussion in addition to the merger discussion though, not instead of it.
• ...I would leave the merger tags, but this fairly obvious. Read the articles. First, you did leave the merger tag on the Zeusaphone article. Second, I have read the articles, and I do not agree that your assertions are obvious. Third, "merge" does not mean that we just ram everything from two articles together without any other changes and then chisel it in stone so that no future changes may ever be made to it, as you seem to believe. The usual editing process for articles can continue both during the merge and afterwards.
• I went ahead and added the most relevant information to the Singing Tesla Coil article. Congratulations, you have already begun the merger process that you claim not to want. Chuck (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Chuck, it may be helpful for you to know that Steve Ward is a friend of mine, and he had nothing to do with the creation of the Zeusaphone article. His involvement in the project, which is vast, is mentioned on the singing tesla coil wikipedia article, and was before my last edit as well. The Zeusaphone page was created specifically to sell a product and was created by a person who had an interest in selling a product. I would be more than delighted if you would update the singing tesla coil page, by reasearching and adding valid references to the page itself. There are very few people that are capable of notating the history of the device accurately, and I am one of them. Verifying that the Zeusaphone article has false information is simple. Read this article which is a reference in the "singing tesla coil" wikipedia entry: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9696332-1.html. Notice the date, March of 2007. Comparing that to the claim in the "Zeusaphone" article, as a first demonstration that happened in July of 2007 is an obvious discrepancy. I could, in the singing tesla coil article reference older sources from Livejournal and Youtube that date all the way back to 2006, but avoided putting them in originally because they are not valid references. The Zeusaphone article does not have a single valid reference in it. Please consider this before adding the merger tag back into the singing tesla coil article, and feel free to modify the singing tesla coil article as references permit. As far as having the zeusaphone article deleted, I don't feel as though it's my responsibility and suggest that the original author of this page, who has not bothered chiming into this conversation, edit the page to be more relevant, or add the relevant information into the singing tesla coil article. As far as merging this page, there is nothing to merge. There is no information that has a valid reference to move over, other than the fact that the Duckon performance happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epilectrik (talk • contribs) 20:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to have been away for a few months. Anyway, I feel like we're talking past each other here. You make a lot of good arguments why the Zeusaphone article is poorly written and needs a lot of work, if it is to stay. But as I see it, none of these are relevant to the entirely separate question of whether Zeusaphone and Singing Tesla Coil should be merged into a single article. It seems to me that the central question is, are "Zeusaphone" and "singing Tesla coil" different names for the same thing? If they are (which seems to be the case as far as I can tell), then there should be a single page for both. The fact that the Zeusaphone page is unsourced and contains misinformation is a completely separate issue. Chuck (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: would it be fair to say that you would not be opposed to bringing any accurate and properly sourced information from the Zeusaphone article into the singing tesla coil article, then changing Zeusaphone to be a redirect to singing tesla coil? Chuck (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a fine idea. I definitely support making the singing tesla coil article as informative as possible, I'm just waiting for people to make some edits that don't involve overhauling the whole content of the page, as some uninformed and disgruntled Wikipedia readers have been doing on occasion, and denying credit to all the people who worked to bring this project into existence. You seem to be a fine mediator, I'd appreciate it if you would apply your suggestions to the page and see what you come up with. I also want to start focusing on more important aspects of the article, like explaining in more detail how they work, schematics, diagrams, etc.Epilectrik (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Also I'd like to add, making this article accurate is difficult, because the development of the device, and the application in a performance environment are deeply intertwined. While I have a timeline of events that I know personally happened, I have been trying very hard to leave out information that isn't properly sourced. There is a time-line of events between 2003 and 2006 in which there are no references at all, let alone valid ones. The nature of the documentation could be sensitive to some people. I suggest that we gear the article towards documenting how the machine actually works, and cite enough references to which a wiki reader can find all the info they need to build a simple singing tesla coil from scratch. My involvement in this project has been for education, and as an artistic outlet. Needless to say, when I see the device being commercialized and advertised by people that I don't even know, I take it a bit personally. I understand very well that aspect of my behavior doesn't belong in the wording of wikipedia articles, but at the same time I will dispute anyone that tries to seriously sidetrack the article while not being able to provide any references to back up their claims.Epilectrik (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The information that the Zeusaphone created by Coppersmith, etc... is the first musical tesla coil is false. Steve Ward created a musical DRSSTC well before 2007 and this information can be found at the http://www.4hv.com website showing exact dates when he presented his initial musical experiments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.36 (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please actually read the references in the singing tesla coil article, and you will see that the articles date back to well before the first Zeusaphone presentation, also please stop overhauling the page without some form of usable references. The term "singing tesla coil" was coined in reference to a presentation by DiPrima and Greaves for Dorkbot's SXSW presentation in March of 2007, made popular by CNET. Functional prototypes existed well before that. Also, the scope of the device is limited to interrupted Tesla coils, and does not include AM or PWM constant wave mode modulated devices.Epilectrik (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Support with Singing Tesla coil as the master and Zeusaphone as a redirect; with internal link to the following? Zeusaphone can be noted as a trademarked synonym in the lead, with a subsection designated to the history of that term. --Belg4mit (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge into Singing Tesla coil. Strict subset. - Frankie1969 (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Audio?

This article would be greatly enhanced if it included a short (20-30 seconds) section of audio illustrating what it actually sounds like. T-bonham (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. 71.67.130.195 (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Video has been added. --Belg4mit (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The Sorcerer's Apprentice

There is a scene (plenty of clips on YouTube) billed as having singing Tesla Coils. Without a making-of DVD or other production insights it's hard to say for certain; there's a lot of other instrumentation added, schmaltzy dialogue, etc. The audio may have been tweaked, but the essence of it does not sound unreasonable. However, it's pretty obvious that the discharges visible in the scene are special effects. --Belg4mit (talk)

The easiest way to do Tesla special effects is to hire in a Tesla coil (although it's hard to use one on a sound stage, as they're a nuisance for pickup). I think these were probably audibly dubbed though, as the visuals don't look like a typical coil does when making that sort of sound.

Whether they're genuine or not though, the intention is clearly to portray a singing coil, as a minor plot device. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Zeusaphone

This following section has been migrated from Talk:Zeusaphone. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I created this page on the basis of first-hand information from the individuals I've named in it. To the best of my knowledge there are no better, and specifically no print, sources of information.
There is a commercial offering of a product under the name "Zeusaphone" but it is not being marketed by any of the named individuals or on their behalf, and the name was not initially adopted for commercial purposes. It is not the intent of this article to promote any commercial product, and so I have omitted any specific reference to it. The article is intended only to be informational for designers, engineers, musicians and people with related interests.
Suggestions for improvement are welcome. SteveG23 12:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that an audio file of the Zeusaphone in action would be a welcome addition to the article.Sam Paris (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)