Talk:Teleforce

Copyright infringement
Re: Removed possible copyright infringement. Text that was previously posted here is the same as text from this source:


 * http://www.tfcbooks.com/teslafaq/q&a_011.htm

This page is now listed on Possible copyright infringements. To the poster: If there was permission to use this material under terms of our license or if you are the copyright holder of the externally linked text, then please so indicate on the talk page.

I hereby certify that I am the author and copyright holder of the text located at :http://www.tfcbooks.com/teslafaq/q&a_011.htm.

Gary Peterson, Twenty-First Century Books (Note: material here courtesy blanked by User:GLPeterson 15:50, 9 September 2012)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.193.15.11 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 6 December 2003 (UTC)

Feasability and Reality
This entire article speaks about the teleforce in a tone that implies it actually existed as a device. While a few conspiracy theorists may maintain that it has been hidden in secret for 70 years, there is no public evidence that it was ever constructed - by Tesla or anyone else - or that its scientific principles are in any way practical, or that even blueprints or diagrams were completed! The failure of this article to mention any of this seems a truly glaring omission. IdahoEv (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup subjects
I added the cleanup tag because this odd, disjointed article needs sources for some of its statements; other statements are either irrelevant or need a lot of explaining on why they're relevant to the article.


 * First off, it would be useful to mention how long he was working on this, what exactly was the New York Sun article, where was he working on it, was it a side-project of his or did it consume his life. These details would make this subject worthy of an encyclopedia article.
 * Teleforce applications and particle beam device must meet four conditions and involved four inventions...
 * Must meet them? According to whom?  Is this something written by Tesla?  Source please.


 * (four bullets following)
 * Some items are italicized. Does this mean it's a quote from one of Tesla's notebooks?  Source please.


 * The generating device, reportedly from some sources, is embodied upon a large Van de Graaff generator...
 * This rather credulous line implies that the death ray was constructed. I presume it should read something like The generating device would presumably be a large Van de Graaff generator...


 * ...were accelerated in a vacuum...
 * Again, credulous, sounds like the writer stood there and watched the death ray machine working.


 * ...The particles were projected out of the tube...
 * Same credulity.


 * Teleforce's mechanical power transmission system...
 * What does this have to do with the previous paragraph, or the teleforce system as a whole?


 * The concepts of teleforce is reasonably founded on...
 * I don't understand this paragraph. Is the writer saying that the teleforce concept is plausible?  If so, then if it's so plausible, why hasn't someone invented it in the subsequent 70 years?


 * The principles of underground mineral detection are not well understood. 
 * What does this have to do with the rest of the article?

Tempshill 22:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Much information comes from Tesla's 1937 patent application for the "death ray", published in the 1984 symposium proceedings of the Intl Tesla Society.  We need the source details.   Tesla proposed a gigantic VandeGraaff machine tower, with a particle-beam "gun" mounted within its metal sphere.  The particle beam was to be created in vacuum then passed through a specially designed orfice described in earlier patents. --Wjbeaty 17:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "a special type of open-ended vacuum tube." Now that is special. 92.6.215.238 (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Spelling
"Tesla" is mispelled "Telsa". I tried to fix it but I think someone reverted the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.48.131 (talk • contribs)
 * It appears to have been fixed since then. RJFJR 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy section
The entire article is a mess, but this section in particular was unacceptable:

Pseudoscience, Conspiracy Theory, etc.

 * 1) Teleforce principles would have introduced a new generalization of physics.
 * 2) The concepts of teleforce is reasonably founded on the alternating current polyphase wireless transmission systems developed by Tesla and is related to general mechanical energy principles.
 * 3) The principles of wirelessly transceiving high potentials (in the millions of volts) and transmitting high tension currents on narrow radiant energy ultraviolet ionizing beams by means of conductive rarefied gasous media (similar to the means of artificially creating auroral displays) are incorporated (and thus eliminates the need of a high vacuum).
 * 4) “Death ray” research is the basis of the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program.
 * 5) The “death ray” was responsible for the Tunguska event.

No context, no sources, no nothing. Needs to be fixed if it is to be restored.--Eloquence* 11:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

GREAT ARTICLE! No mention of these plans in hands of US Goverment though!
No mention(see Tesla Man out of time By Margret Cheny) About these Teleforce plans being in the \Lawrence Livermore, Labortory research Library Livermore, calif. They formed part of the Star wars defense system proposed in the 1980s by President Reagn!(Dr. Edson Andre' J.) Andreisme (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC) dedam480921stcent.

Feasible?
So, is this device considered feasible? I suspect that it is not, because if it was somebody would have built it by now. The article should tell whether this device is generally considered an impossibility, whether there is some controversy, etc. It seems to me like the atmosphere would stop the beam rather quickly (this thing basically sounds like a very high power BB-gun to me). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstahlke (talk • contribs) 00:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree this needs to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.30.20.179 (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is this marked as a hoax?
Seriously, why is it? 168.99.85.223 (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I can see why. This probably needs a rewrite, seeing as it appears to believe that the device actually exists. 168.99.85.223 (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Created?
Was the teleforce ever actually created? I assume it wasn't but the page never explicitly states so- it should. What were the technical issues that prevented the teleforce from being created?


 * The Teleforce was never created, to my knowledge, because by the time he came out with the theory Tesla was widely considered the research-equivalent of a medical quack. He had a sort of vendetta against Edison earlier in his life, which was heartily reciprocated, and I believe each man spent a significant portion of his funds trying to discredit the other. Tesla failed miserably, but Edison was at least moderately successful. The Teleforce could work, theoretically, but it's too mired in the infamous quackery of Tesla's late life for anyone to take it very seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.181.41 (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion (2012)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This subject is already covered, in some detail and with a more neutral tone, on the Nikola Tesla page itself.

This page has also had some serious, longstanding quality issues; it was originally donated wholesale from a very non-neutral publisher (effectively making it original research), it uses unacceptably sparse and low-quality citations, and it has to some extent been hijacked by conspiracy theorists (the talk page has received various dubious posts and been blanked at last once; the article has consistently been written in a tone which indirectly suggests that the Teleforce at some point existed). While this isn't in itself reason to delete the page, it does suggest that covering this topic solely in the more heavily-trafficked Nikola Tesla article would be a good idea.

82.35.199.68 (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have switched your AfD tag to a merge tag, as it appears that is what your seeking. Monty  845  16:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge Standalone article is fine for me. It needs to be improved. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support merger - per nom re: not encyclopedic. Article is primary sourced (except for one publisher's website supplying some analysis of their published Tesla primary source). As such there is no article at all. I am not sure if there is any way to re-write it citing secondary sources (there are allot of secondary Tesla biographies out there but the editors of this article didn't bother to use them). There is the bigger problem that "Teleforce" was Tesla's personal name for what is better known as his "Death ray". As such we already have a (poor) section on it at Nikola Tesla and this article should be deleted/merged per WP:DICTIONARY - "things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge. Split sections from the previous section in the N. Tesla article was done by editing consensus, IIRC. (Something that newer editors will not know, a drawback of Wikipedia's growth I guess.) It is an encyclopedic topic, but the article does need to be improved. --J. D. Redding 22:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge. I am an early contributor to Teleforce and would like to see its continued development and improvement as a stand-alone article. The question of whether small macroscopic metal particles can actually be projected through free space by means of electrostatic force is touched upon in The New York Herald Tribune, 11th July, 1934, Joseph W. Alsop Jr., "Beam to Kill Army at 200 Miles . . .". “He said he could feel a sharp stinging pain where it entered his body, and again at the place where it passed out. . . .” GPeterson (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Problem to note. Restoring this vandalized talk page brought up the fact that most of this article is a copy paste of a web-page done by the editor of the [21st Century Books] website, re: Gary Peterson, Twenty-First Century Books (Note: material here courtesy blanked by User:GLPeterson 17:21, 9 September 2012) diff. Not withstanding any outcome on merge, there is a clear Conflict of interest here that I will take to a notice board some time soon, or simply to AFD. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Charged Particle Beam?
If it's shooting Tungston pellets how can it be a particle beam weapon? Isn't it more similar to a prototypical railgun? 24.67.92.104 (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Mystery Quote
Who said this?

"Whether Tesla's idea was ever taken seriously is still a matter of conjecture. Most experts today consider his idea infeasible. Though, his death beam bears an uncanny resemblance to the charged-particle beam weapon developed by both the United States and the Soviet Union during the cold war." Dubinia (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed it and similar material, rewrote other parts, cited to better sources. Cleanup claims sourced to what seem to be primary and wp:fringe). The quote is a copy/paste from an unreferenced PBS page. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)