Talk:Wardenclyffe Tower

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wardenclyffe Tower article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Low‑importance 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. National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. New York (state): Long Island This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Long Island, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rameen215.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone actually understand all this, and if so could they explain in an intelligible way? This very lengthy and verbose article entirely fails to explain what the tower was meant to do, how it was meant to do it, and whether it would have worked or not. Apparently it has been that way since at least 2005. Just a little explanatory section would do wonders. 109.130.39.77 (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the enthusiasts don't know how it would have "worked" either. Tesla claimed magical things would happen if he could just get enough money to finish Wardenclyffe - instead it all got spent on hotel bills and feeding pigeons.

If you read the Tesla articles, Wardenclyffe would have broadcast free power to the world, lit the oceans at night, broadcast sound and pictures to your pocket device with absolute security and fidelity, etc. etc.; it was supposed to do all this by treating the space between the Earth's surface and the ionosphere as a giant cavity resonator, and connecting to the ionosphere by means of high voltages and (relatively) high frequency current in the mushroom-shaped terminal of the tower. What no-one has ever explained to me, though, is why voltage would jump the gap of scores of miles to the ionosphere and not just strike down at the ground a few feet away. Evidently J.P. Morgan couldn't understand what Tesla was trying to do (or caught on to the scam at some point) and quit paying for apparatus, etc.

There's no point trying to truncate the article to common sense, as the only people writing about Tesla were such..."enthusiasts" as O'Neil,so anything that's referenced about Tesla winds up sounding the same. You're welcome to prune down the purple patches, at a cursory glance this article is about 3/4 the same as the Tesla biography. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Morgan held up his side of the bargain "to the letter" as Tesla puts it in his autobiography. $150,000 to be precise. Morgan was under no obligation to provide further funding as realistically he should have seen his functional world communications system come to fruition at that point. Marconi's untimely transatlantic radio transmission proved that one didn't need an expensive and ambitious Wardenclyffe Tower to accomplish this. It seems people with a latent introduction to Tesla favour the 'suppression' angle on this subject. On that note, perhaps someone could provide a cite that links 'free electricity' to the Wardenclyffe Project? I'm aware that Tesla spoke of providing 'free energy' in the sense that he would use solar and hydro power to uproot coal and wood as the main energy sources but in what definition does Tesla use the the term 'free electricity' and where is it specifically tied to Wardenclyffe? Who was to pay for the coal to fuel the generators?

According to Tesla, apart from wireless communication the tower would demonstrate wireless transmission of energy on a small scale with conviction. Wireless transmission of energy was not the tower's main purpose.

I have found an article in an old book that describes how the thinga ma jigs are constructed. This credible source of 1897 does not question that it works. It is not in English and would be difficult for me to translate because I don't really know much about electrical engineering. However, it is perfectly clear, to catch the electricity on the other end you need a particular equipment and why that should not have a meter is not logical. But maybe anybody could build such a receiver easily and get freebies. With today's computerised world and set-top boxes that should not be an impediment. Protection of billions of investment in wires are a much higher bar. What it also says is there is less loss in engery transmission, i.e. transmission through air is better than through wire. There was also a reference to a German language article published in Halle, Germany in 1895. Please note that Yougoslavia did not exist when Tesla was born. He was born in what was then Austria ruled Croatia, German spoken. 144.136.192.45 (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The caption on first picture of the Wardenclyffe Tower on the main page also needs claryfing and a cite.

How can one possibly say "The station, including the tower structure, was not completed due to J.P Morgan not allowing it to be finished because in his own words "He couldn't put a watt on it.""? I have read a lot of correnspondence between Tesla and Morgan and have never once seen Morgan to refer to himself in the third person persepctive, nor any material that backs up this ever changing quote of his.

No wonder people get confused.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 34.253.3.201 (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the bulk of the article about the system be split out into a separate article. How about Tesla's World Wireless System ? -- Beardo (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. Good luck (see my comments below re Chain reaction). (EEng draws on bulletproof vest and hazmat suit, raises blast shields.) EEng (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity issues involve shifts in verb tenses, and some quotes that are used repeatedly in questionable context. The tense issues make it unclear what parts actually occurred or would have worked. Tesla's quotes appear to be used as the only authority on the subject of how it would have worked, over more recent criticisms with no other recent rebuttal cited. Mynameisntbob1 (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In 2009, NYT reported that Agfa offered the site for sale. Was it sold? User:Shattered (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wardencliff was supposed to power a sister Light tower in Paris at the World Fair to showcase wireless transmission of industrial strength power. Tesla designed Niagra Falls to be able to generate enough power to wirelessly power the entire planet through the Ionosphere using Wardencliff as the antenna. But before this could be showcased, the Bank asked Tesla, "How do we charge people for this". And when Tesla answered, "You cant, its like the radio, you can not monitor what is passively received. It was not economically viable to the banks, so the banks pulled the plug on him and had the US army destroy it and take all the research for it. Imagine free power? Ever watch Chain Reaction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.32.2.46 (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like this article, Chain Reaction narrates how the secret of limitless, cheap power was suppressed in the name of profit. And like this article, it's a sci-fi fantasy which feeds some people's desire to believe that only some vast international conspiracy stands between the common man and life on Easy Street. EEng (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Tesla had been able to build a functional system, it would still be possible to charge for it - after all, as I understand it towers would be placed at various points around the world, but you'd still need to distribute the electricity to individual properties / businesses, so you could still meter it and charge people for the distribution of it, as well as the maintenance of the towers. Just because the generation is 'free', the collection and distribution definitely isn't! Mittfh (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Inman from The Oatmeal is reportedly starting a campaign to help preserve the property and the tower. MsFionnuala (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the Main article, within a week Inman had raised the necessary finance to purchase the site, but will still keep the fundraising page open so the excess can be channelled into repairs and renovations of the building, as well as installing the necessary fittings and fixtures to turn it into a museum. Mittfh (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Tesla Science Center at Wardenclyffe to this article; most of that article is a recap of the history already here and this article already has a description of the fund raising efforts. WP:CRYSTAL applies as well, as yet there's no museum built. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - They are separate topics. The fundraising efforts are tangential to this article, which has more of a historical perspective. Also, Tesla Science Center at Wardenclyffe is an organization which already exists, and there is sufficient history, media coverage and current activity to justify a separate article. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply (to the article, although it may apply to some forward looking plans). – MrX 14:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per above, they are separate articles. --Turn685 (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose They are seperate topics. The article carefully avoids anything that would fall under WP:CRYSTAL and is quite noteworthy in and of itself. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 04:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Recently the property was bought by Tesla Science Center at Wardenclyffe. Most of the funds were raised by donators to Matthew Inman's Campaign Let's Build a Goddamn Tesla Museum. This is quite important info as the site will now become a museum. this should be added to the Wiikpedia article.

This information can be found at http://www.indiegogo.com/teslamuseum and http://theoatmeal.com/

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/tesla_museum_1m

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.128.21 (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The transmitter itself was to have been powered by a 200 kilowatt Westinghouse alternating current industrial generator."

And what was to provide mechanical energy to the generator? A coal-fired steam turbine?

Because at most 200 kilowatts was input to the tower, seems to me that the consumers of its wireless power, collectively, could have drawn at most 200 kilowatts from the system. If this is correct, the article should explicitly say so, to combat a myth that Wardenclyffe somehow would have distributed unlimited quantities of wireless power. 75.163.215.184 (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. It was supposed to run on a 200KW generator, later to be replaced by power from Niagara Falls. But, with this 200KW input it would distribute 10.000 HP which is 7.46 MW. I have done extensive research on the subject, you can read all about it with references and verification experiments here: http://mage00000.blogspot.com. Most of what is written in this article is based on assumption and at best incomplete. Ernst122.155.42.1 (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "World Wireless System", "Variant receiver", and "Particle beam invention" sections because they seem to be entirely based on original research being: primary sources re:turn of the 20th century (and before) sources and Tesla's own writings, analysis/synthesis of more modern sources that do not mention Tesla, and one editor (Gary Peterson) apparently citing himself as a source. This could be fine research (hard to tell since there are no reliable sources), but, in its current form, it does not belong in Wikipedia. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I would have been quite as bold in removing all of that content, but the sourcing is weak and there does seem to be some original research, so I don't have any objections. Much of this content could be useful if verified and copy edited, but we would need corroborating secondary sources, and far less emphasis on primary sources (for example, patents). - MrX 20:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the content several times checking sources, and as far as I can see per WP:V and WP:RS, the sourcing is not weak, its non-existent. It goes 12 paragraphs before you get a non-primary source... but that source is just a modern ref to "Earth's self-capacitance", it has nothing to do with Tesla. And the references get no better after that (and gets worse re:self sourcing). This is a personal essay on how these things could would work, it could be true, who knows. It seems to be in the wrong article and in the wrong project. The question I think we should answer is "where in the Wiki universe" should it go? I guess Wikinfo? I would note this and this have the same problem noted here. We could always WP:NORN the whole lot to get a general opinion on how to handle it.

For this article the content needs to be way boiled down and fit to WP:PST to answer "How did Tesla intend the trans-Atlantic wireless telephony, broadcasting to work", "how was the wireless power transmission for Wardenclyffe intended to work", and "when did Tesla reveal the secondary function?".Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit has eviscerated the article. Sadness. --J. D. Redding 03:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this material keeps getting restored without comment, in one case by (the person who did the research?[1]). My take on this material is that its fine research, but that's the problem, its WP:OR. It may belong somewhere in the WIKI universe but probably not in Wikipedia. WP:OR seems to suggest a route for publishing original research re:Wikiversity:Publishing original research. That may be the best route, then that resulting article can be linked in this article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The individual's objections are noted and the problems will be corrected. - GPeterson (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested the "World Wireless System" section be split off into a new article titled "World Wireless System." - GPeterson (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a good idea based on the volume of related content that has been added to this article. I would strongly recommend though that it be titled World wireless power system, or similar, to avoid ambiguity. - MrX 16:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose - a non-executed plan by Nicola Tesla does not warrant a whole article. Material also runs afoul of WP:NOTESSAY and the previously mention WP:OR problems and looks to be a copy of these sources [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. In other words material is not encyclopedic and moving it to its own article does not correct that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GLPeterson has already forked it. At his point, I would recommend addressing the content at the new article, including major copy editing to remove content that doesn't comply with WP:RS and WP:OR. If what is left is trivial, then AfD might be the appropriate route. I think there is a rough consensus that most of the material does not belong in this article. - MrX 13:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed after I posted, ty. I plan to leave it for a while, and see how it shakes out. Its on my back burner along with other similar content. I noticed someone has already had a go at some of the other problematic content I listed earlier. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'd be interested in rewriting the mess at World Wireless System in the near future when I finish some other projects, particularly if there are other editors who would like to collaborate. I would be in favor of merging it back here if there's room, as I agree Tesla's unexecuted dream doesn't really merit a separate article. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does any know GPS coordinates of point where tower was standing? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.38.62 (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shoreham, Long Island, the 0.4sq mile area in which the tower is situated, is centred at 40° 57' 25? N, 72° 54' 31? W (40.956944, -72.908611), and I imagine you could get a more precise location of the actual tower using Google Earth. It should be easy to locate visually given the resolution of the satellite images of Google earth Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 09:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes the tower up front in the lead but the tower was a small (and short lived) component in Tesla's Wardenclyffe project, which also included a grounding well and a building that was the transmission facility as well as a laboratory and factory (as the majority of the article describes). Maybe the title should be changed to "Wardenclyffe". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The science center article duplicates most content in this article. Also, the museum has not even begun construction yet. It is likely that the museum will not be built for some time, and the article can be created then. Epicgenius (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - These are very different subjects. The tower no longer exists, but has significant historical importance. The museum only happens to be located at the site of the former tower, and it will incorporate Tesla's former laboratory on the site. The museum is a work in progress, but has already generated a significant amount of media coverage, in part due to Matthew Inman's fund raising efforts and Elon Musk's sizable contribution to the project. - MrX 04:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is only because of Inman's fundraiser that the museum idea even exists. (Note that the fundraiser was half in jest, in response to a popular The Oatmeal comic praising Nikola Tesla.) Otherwise, it is just that, an idea. Besides, this article is not really about the tower, but about the entire complex; I will put a Requested Move for that later. The museum, however, is not a definite plan, and already duplicated most of this article before the merge. Epicgenius (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The museum is a definite project, not just an idea. Wardenclyffe Tower article is not about the property that the tower happened to be built on; it's the COMMONNAME for Tesla's grandiose plans for wirelessly transmitting electrical power, the withdrawn funding, and the ultimate dismantling of the tower. The science center has nothing to do with the tower, other than being constructed on the same site and bearing Tesla's name.- MrX 05:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said, I am going to try to move this to cover the entire site. Also, the museum needs 6 million more dollars. Epicgenius (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be clear. I'm opposed to any such move that changes the article rsubject to an "entire site". This needs to be discussed and consensus needs to be reached before such a move.- MrX 05:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Regarding MrX's COMMONNAME claim above; no its not. The common name for Tesla's grandiose plan was the World Wireless System, which we also have an article about. I don't really see the need for separate articles (yet) about this minor site and a science center being built to commemorate it.--Chetvorno^TALK 06:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I disagree that that's the common name for the first of these power (and radio signal) transmission tower projects—the one constructed at Wardenclyffe. It should be easy to look at sources to see what they have to say. World Wireless System describes the system that Tesla envisaged, which would have towers installed at locations across the planet. I'm not sure what you mean by "minor site". notability simply requires a few sources that cover the subject in depth, or several independent sources that cover the subject in a non-trivial way. World Wireless System may be a WP:POVFORK of Wardenclyffe Tower, and it contains some original research, so there may be case for merging it here.- MrX 13:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Original research" doesn't do it justice. That article is almost total fantasy. Sorry, I didn't mean to step on any toes. All I meant was, I thought as long as there was a separate World Wireless System article that covers the technical side of Tesla's system, that there would be room in this article for the museum. If World Wireless System is going to be merged here, then I would guess not. I don't really have strong feelings either way. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)I would also oppose the merge. The museum is independently notable. The "museum" section in this article could be pared down and a {{main}} link to Tesla Science Center at Wardenclyffe added, with something similar done to the "early history" section in the museum article. But the articles are effectively on two different subjects on the same site. Mr.Z-man 16:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, the museum doesn't exist yet. I propose, however, to recreate the article as soon as full funding for this idea is found and the museum starts construction. Epicgenius (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The physical museum isn't open yet, but it does exist as a non-profit organization named The Tesla Science Center at Wardenclyffe, headed by Jane Alcorn. All that matters is that there are adequate sources to justify an independent article. WMF is not that short on server resources to require that we start merging articles of loosely related subjects, not that that would really help anyway. Perhaps you could explain why your proposed merge is necessary, or why it would be an improvement to the encyclopedia. In other words, how would it serve our readers?- MrX 19:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability guidelines don't require things to be finished or even started. We've had articles on movies before they even started shooting. We had an article on the new One World Trade Center 2 years before construction started. Mr.Z-man 20:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • To answer the issues: The new 1 WTC was famous and was fully funded. However, the organization is less notable. It would also be unnecessary to direct readers to an entirely new article about a museum on the site, which pertains to the "After Tesla" (reuse) section. The nonprofit can be mentioned here too. Epicgenius (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, but that reasoning it outside of policy, and seems to be nothing more than a personal preference.- MrX 23:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it is not a personal preference, it is a fact. Epicgenius (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • That doesn't make any sense. As you say, there is no museum yet. Therefore almost all the coverage is essentially about the organization. Wikipedia's standard for having a standalone article is not fame or funding, it's "notability." All notability requires is significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, which it clearly has. Mr.Z-man 00:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Oppose - Wardenclyffe (the facility built by Tesla) has its own description and history, which is more than enough for a wiki article. "Tesla Science Center at Wardenclyffe" should have its own separate article. Per the COMMONNAME for this article, it should be "Wardenclyffe" per what we have in the way of reliable sources out there[7][8][9][10]. "Wardenclyffe Tower" is an odd name for this article (naming an article after a minor antenna component that stood on the site for a short time). Its also a very naive name, there was (120 feet x 600 feet?) of structure below ground, 200 acres of land, that big ol' brick building with laboratory area, instrument room, boiler room, generator room and machine shop, and the eventual planed community full of workers building Tesla receivers. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so we make a requested move for this article. Epicgenius (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Wardenclyffe Tower's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "about":

• From Tesla Science Center at Wardenclyffe: "About Tesla Science Center at Wardenclyffe". Friends of Science East, Inc. Retrieved August 23, 2012.
• From National Register of Historic Places: "About the National Register". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. Retrieved March 22, 2007.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a major expansion and cleanup of the article adding more historical information referenced to secondary sources and moving/merging sections referenced to primary texts into a more prose oriented form. Lead has been adjusted to match content. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A huge improvement, removing the unsourced WP:FRINGE pseudoscientific Tesla-POV material which has marred this article for years, and adding a modern analysis of Tesla's 19th century misconceptions about electromagnetics which led him to believe he could transmit wireless power long distances. The detailed, well documented history of the funding of the project and its failure debunks a number of misconceptions that were implied in the previous text. For the first time, Wikipedia has a reasonably accurate, WP:NPOV description of this project. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ty, Marc J. Seifer' article on Tesla and Morgan's letters turned out to be a good source. I noticed Seifer put them out of order to tell a story but fortunately he footnoted them with the date. I was surprised to see how fast the project went down hill, they signed a contract and 4 months later Morgan was pulling the plug (or Tesla was shooting himself in the foot, depending how you look at it ;)). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So - it looks as though Morgan pulled his funding because Tesla went over budget and/or because he violated his contract by expanding the project from a "small wireless telegraphy station" to a large wireless telegraphy/power station? (although I guess no one can say for sure) --Chetvorno^TALK 06:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we got descriptions of what is under the tower [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. Tesla describes the pipe pushed into the ground under the 120foot well as "there I had special machines rigged up which would push the iron pipe, one length after another, and I pushed these iron pipes, I think sixteen of them, three hundred feet, and then the current through these pipes takes hold of the earth." sixteen 300 foot pipes of 16 lengths of pipe that pushed end to end = 300 feet? In those same sources there is description of four 100 foot long brick lined tunnels radiation from the bottom of the 120 foot well. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A 100 years since the destruction of the Tesla Tower will be this year 2017.Suppossely yhe Tesla Tower was demolished to prevent"spies"! From useing the tower to report on ship conveys when the U.S. enteretd the First World war! Is this the true story?ThanksMinEdsonAndreJohnson (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wardenclyffe Tower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130129033039/http://assets.mediaspanonline.com/prod/3777889/168314_w407.jpg to http://assets.mediaspanonline.com/prod/3777889/168314_w407.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101028120344/http://www2.timesreview.com/SUN/stories/S121109_Tesla_psh to http://www2.timesreview.com/SUN/stories/S121109_Tesla_psh

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A noe Jan7th 2018 is the,75th anniversary of Dr.Teslas death NYC<On Jan.7th1943!Remember TSLA!MinEdsonAndreJohnson (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add the "Pop Culture" section and add Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween? DynastiNoble (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Incidental appearances of "X" in TV or film is not encyclopediac content for an article about X. We don't list every Road Runner cartoon under "Anvil", for example. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In June of 1902, Tesla moved his lab to Wardenclyffe, and he also took up residence in the village at Wardenclyffe. The rented a cottage and resided there “until his own palatial mansion was built.” [Port Jefferson Echo] The Tesla cottage still exists. I have photos and documentation as well as anecdotes about Tesla’s life in the Village. How do I get his Wardenclyffe residence added to the Nikola Tesla page? Shorehamcottage (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds interesting! You can be WP:bold and add it yourself, you don't have to ask anyone. Wikimedia Commons is the image repository for Wikipedia, you can upload pictures there and display them in Wikipedia articles. A few things to consider: Wikipedia content must be WP:verifiable. Is the content from a WP:reliable source like a newspaper, magazine, or book? Another is WP:due weight. The Nikola Tesla page covers a lot of material, and other editors may feel minor anecdotes of one period in his life are not that important and may edit down your additions. Maybe your material would be more appropriate for this article, since it focuses on this part of Tesla's life? These are just suggestions. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help with adding information. The trouble is, I don’t understand the brackets. (I live in the Tesla cottage, but I’m a near Luddite. So sad!) I do have proper sources: newspaper articles, title search, etc. and great photos of then and now. I’ll just have to get someone to help me with the mechanics. Shorehamcottage (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why Wardenclyffe? what is the etimology of the name? why was it chosen? it can't be the name of the place, as that's shoreham, so why or how did tesla pick this name? 77.138.224.125 (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be answered in article: "James S. Warden who was building a resort community known as Wardenclyffe-On-Sound". So the land developer named it after himself. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the LI energy infrastructure category was removed. It is important for the category to remain since, despite the argument of "it never really worked," it was still a piece of energy infrastructure on Long Island (and one of the most famous and historic ones, for that matter) – and that is an indisputable fact. Please keep this in mind. To say "not really part of "infrastructure" as it never worked" simply is not a valid reason to not include one of Long Island's most famous energy-related structures in a category named "Energy infrastructure on Long Island, New York." AITFFan1 (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructure are things that exist and the category title is all we have to go by. Per the article this is a disputable fact, not an indisputable fact in that the tower was billed as a wireless telegraph, not energy Infrastructure. Even if it worked as an energy transmitter (actually never had a chance of working), it was a back door demonstration project, not Infrastructure. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Fountains. Does not belong in the same category as modern power plants and transmission lines. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The George Boldt article mentions that "Boldt and the Waldorf-Astoria foreclosed on the property [meaning Wardenclyffe] in 1915" and cites two references, but this article says that it wasn't until 1922? Which is the correct date? (Also, perhaps that information and citation should be in this article.) Based on the fact that Boldt died in 1916, I would lean towards the 1915 date, but don't know myself. BlueIris2 (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per article: "(1922) Tesla lost an appeal of judgment on Boldt's foreclosure". So this was an appeal, not the original foreclosure Appeals can go on forever. More here. The "Boldt" beginning of that sentence is out of place, could be made clearer in the article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reworked it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]