RankingsPrimerArbiterPhysicistMathematicianContrarianQESites logClaimsSourcesResearch notes

Tesla: Physicist review (Step 2)

Reviewer: PhD physicist. Inputs read: claims.md, facts.json (skimmed by claim), deep/ reads (patents, 1891 lecture, Dissipation letter, Voltage-gain, Thermodynamics2, Hayes, Famous Illusions and others), sites.md "Leads for review", research/ notes, and in research/files/: Colorado Springs Notes (3-4 July 1899 entries, read by me), the 1904 Electrical World transcription (read by me), the 1916 interview and Corum and Hoya-Guha notes (read as the Investigator's notes plus spot checks). Tags: [read] from a document in the folder or research/files; [web] with URL; [memory] with confidence; [calc] my calculation (scratch Python, numpy).

Source-gap status: claims.md says the Colorado Springs Notes and the 1904 article were not in the folder. The Investigator obtained both; claim 1's key experimental evidence is now read from Tesla's own diary and article (below). Still not obtained: Allis-Chalmers report, Trump report, Eyring raw data, any output measurement of a "fuelless" device. Conclusions on those rest on secondary quotation and are marked.

Corrections to Step 1 and to the Investigator

  1. Date of the diary entry. The Investigator and claims.md speak of "the 3 July 1899 entry". In the Notes the storm observation is under the heading "Colorado Springs, July 4, 1899: Observations made last night" [read: colorado-springs-notes djvu, lines ~2655-2755]; the 3 July entry holds circuit data (0.0225 uF, about 367 x 10^4 cm, ~11,800 cycles/s planning figure). The storm was the evening of 3 July, written up on 4 July. The quotation and its content are as the Investigator gave them.
  2. What the diary shows beyond the Investigator's note. The instrument first responded at 80-100 miles (distance estimated from thunder delay), then stopped near "about 50 miles", then began again "continuously increasing in strength, although the storm was moving away rapidly", repeated with half-hour gaps, and the storm was "greater than 200 miles at least". Tesla's own wording: "It showed clearly the existence of stationary waves, for how could the observations be otherwise explained?" He prefers reflection from the cloud-to-ground point, which makes the strike "a nodal point" [read]. This is an observation, the explanation is his; the diary offers no record of the traces, no distance log, no frequency of the sferics.
  3. claims.md claim 1 text. Agree with the Investigator: separate (i) stationary waves seen on 3 July (diary, 200+ miles), (ii) the generalisation to antipodal reflection and "almost without loss" (1904 article, patents). The diary calls antipodal reflection "difficult to believe ... though it may be possible" [read]. The 1904 article does not repeat that doubt [read: transcription p.2].
  4. Fuelless / 1902 claim and 1900 caveat (claims.md claim 4): confirmed as written; I add that the 1916 interview (Investigator) shows Tesla himself defining "18 million horsepower" as peak capacitor-discharge activity [read via research note]. Not net gain.
  5. Investigator's suggested test ("maxima 30 minutes apart imply lambda = 2 v t"). Correct as geometry but it assumes the signal is a single-frequency standing wave and that the receiver tracks it; see claim 1 [calc].
  6. No error found in the voltage-gain, Fuelless or Hayes corrections of claims.md. One addition: Nichelson's "voltage gain" defined as X_L/R with R=1 ohm assumed is not an input-output gain at all (see claim 3).

Mainstream physics used here (stated fairly)

  • Maxwell's equations plus Hertz (1887-89) and Marconi: an accelerated charge radiates transverse waves; far from sources fields fall as 1/r. The near field of a short antenna has a large non-radiating electric (quasi-static) part, which is real, large near the source and what Tesla's lighting demonstrations used.
  • Ground and sky: the earth is a lossy conductor (ground conductivity sigma ~ 1e-3 to 1e-2 S/m on land [memory, medium], ~4 S/m sea water [memory, high]). Skin depth delta = sqrt(2/(omega mu sigma)): at 150 kHz and 0.01 S/m about 13 m; at 12 kHz about 46 m [calc]. Current does not fill the planet; it runs in a shell, with Sommerfeld-Norton ground-wave loss.
  • At VLF (3-30 kHz) the earth and the ionosphere's D-region form a spherical waveguide about 60-90 km high [web: https://reeve.com/Documents/Articles%20Papers/Propagation/Reeve_LFProp-ConceptsP1.pdf]. Attenuation is of order 2-3 dB per Mm (1 Mm = 1000 km) [web: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.05789, as reported by search summary; NIST TN 300 Wait & Spies gives the model]. Navy VLF stations (about 20-25 kHz) do reach submarines worldwide; this is established, and it is the closest working relative of Tesla's scheme [memory, high].
  • At 8, 14, 20 Hz the earth-ionosphere cavity has Schumann resonances, with Q of order 4-10 [web: summary of Jackson via pupman.com list posts, secondhand; https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.10685 for the modes]. Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics does mention Tesla's idea of the earth as a resonant circuit, per Marinčić quoting it [read via research note].

Claim 1: Transmission of power and signals to any distance through the earth, by resonance, with little loss, by conduction not radiation

a. Mathematics. Tesla gives no derivation in the patents; the quantitative content is the circuit (0.04 uF, 50 kV, 230-250 kHz model) and the quarter-wavelength rule L ~ lambda/4 for the coil [read: deep patents]. Wave speed in the earth: Tesla's Notes/lectures use a speed of order light (and, per the Notes, estimates of 6, 18, 30 Hz for the earth's modes [read via research note: Marinčić]). Internally a standing wave on a quarter-wave resonator is consistent. What is not consistent: his phrase "radiation reduced to an insignificant quantity" [read: 1904] yet the energy reaches distant receivers; any such energy is radiation in the sense of Poynting flux (guided by earth and ionosphere), whether or not Tesla uses the word. Worked check of "a small fraction of one per cent" loss [calc]. (i) Radiation resistance of a short vertical monopole R_rad = 160 pi^2 (h/lambda)^2; for a 57 m (Wardenclyffe-scale) height at 150 kHz this is about 1.3 ohm; at 12 kHz about 0.008 ohm [calc]. Ground-system loss resistance of a few ohms (typical, [memory, medium]) then dominates, so the transmitter is already inefficient. (ii) Even a perfect launch into the waveguide: for a 1 MW source at 10 Mm range, area of the guide cross-section is 2 pi a sin(d/a) h = 2 pi (6371 km)(1)(70 km) ~ 2.8e12 m^2, so power density 3.6e-7 W/m^2 before attenuation [calc]. At 2 dB/Mm over 10 Mm the factor is 0.01 (20 dB), so 3.6e-9 W/m^2 [calc]. A receiver collecting from 1 km^2 (an impractical antenna) would get about 4 W of 1,000,000 W. Energy conservation and geometry rule out "almost without loss" delivery to a localised receiver; the receiver intercepts only its own cross-section of an expanding guided wave. Antipodal convergence (field enhancement near the antipode, 1/sqrt(sin(d/a))) is a real effect and one place where Tesla's intuition is partly right [memory, medium].

b. Consistent with experiment? Split. - Supported: long-range propagation at low frequency (VLF, ELF); the earth plus ionosphere resonate (Schumann, ~8 Hz, near Tesla's ~6 Hz estimate, which Marinčić quotes from Jackson and Wait [read via research note]). Marinčić states Tesla's errors: the frequency range, the need for high voltages, and that the waves live in the earth-ionosphere cavity rather than in the earth [read via research note, an interested party: the Tesla Museum published the edition]. - Contradicted: low-loss delivery of power; "conduction through the earth" as the mechanism (skin depth above); the claim that the earth behaves as an ideal conductor of limited dimensions at 10^4-10^5 Hz. - The 3 July observation, what mainstream says: maxima and minima of sferic signal strength versus time while a storm moves away are expected for several reasons: waveguide mode interference (modes 1 and 2 beat with distance, minima spaced of order 100s of km at VLF [memory, medium, not verified]); sunset at about 7-8 pm local time shifting the D-layer height during the observation (3 July, evening) [memory, medium]; several storm cells at different ranges producing bursts; the relay's threshold, hysteresis and Tesla's own readjustment of the spring ("adjustment was rendered more delicate"), which makes the on/off pattern depend on his adjustments [read]. Timing check [calc]: a half-hour between maxima and storm speed v gives node spacing 0.5 v hours; v = 20, 40, 60 km/h gives 10, 20, 30 km, i.e. lambda 20, 40, 60 km and f = 15, 7.5, 5 kHz if the wave moves at c. This is near Tesla's 12 kHz oscillator scale, which is suggestive but not discriminating: it also fits any mechanism with periods of tens of minutes. Honest assessment: Tesla's observation is real, recorded in his own diary the next day with caveats, and not shown to be wrong; it was never reproduced under controlled conditions.

c. Tested? Tesla's Colorado experiments (1899), Lowenstein "similar observations" (named by Tesla in 1904 [read]; no account by Lowenstein found); Wardenclyffe was never completed as a working transmitter (historical record, Investigator). Corum & Corum reconstructed the 1899 receivers and report sensitivity "more than adequate" to detect natural radio signals [read via research note; the Corums have an interest in a Tesla-based wireless-power firm, [memory, medium], not verified]; this supports detection of natural VLF signals, not the stationary-wave interpretation or power transmission. The closest modern test is the Viziv/CPG tower near Milford, Texas (Zenneck "guided surface wave"): more than 100 patents, no published measurement of power delivered at distance found [read via research note, interested party]. Absence-of-evidence analysis: possible reasons are commercial secrecy before licensing, negative results, or measurements published where the Investigator did not look (IEEE conferences, FCC experimental licences); records named in the note would decide. Zenneck surface waves on lossy ground are in mainstream theory (Sommerfeld 1909) but their launch efficiency is disputed [read via Hackaday note: web https://hackaday.com/2019/11/20/texas-tesla-tower-titillates/]. MIT/WiTricity resonant coupling cites US 787,412 and works in the near field over a few metres, not through the earth [read via research note].

d. If true, what would have to change? Low-loss global power would require that the earth-ionosphere system be a high-Q, low-attenuation guide at tens-of-kHz with a coupling that bypasses the cross-section limit above. That conflicts with measured VLF attenuation (2-3 dB per Mm), with the Poynting/energy accounting, and with ground conductivity measurements; mainstream propagation theory (Wait, Sommerfeld-Norton, waveguide mode theory) would have to be wrong at a basic level. The weaker claim (signals, not power; low frequencies) requires nothing new.

Verdict (split): - Signals to global range at low frequency by resonant elevated-terminal transmitters: Established (VLF/LF stations), though by guided radiation, not "conduction". - Stationary waves observed on 3 July 1899 as Tesla interprets them: Never properly tested (not dismissed without testing, but no controlled replication on record; mainstream alternatives exist and have not been excluded). - Power delivered to any distance "almost without loss": Refuted by calculation (geometry, VLF attenuation, ground loss; numbers above). - The earth as an ideal conductor of limited dimensions at his frequencies: Tested, not supported (ground conductivity and attenuation measurements; Schumann-type resonance exists but at 8 Hz, not at the frequencies he used).

Claim 2: The transverse ether of Maxwell and Hertz is wrong; the effects are electrostatic, carried by a particle medium ("electric sound waves"); later called longitudinal or scalar

a. Mathematics. Tesla gives words, no equations, for the "electric sound wave" (Dissipation letter: waves "propagated at right angles from the charged surfaces when their charges are alternated" [read: deep, p.1]). Nothing to check; the claim is qualitative. The later "longitudinal wave" readings (Valone, Bass chapter) are the Mathematician's concern; the deep read finds E parallel to B and zero energy flow in Bass's version [read: deep Valone], which is not a propagating wave in the Poynting sense.

b. Experiment. Tesla is right that electrostatic (near-field) forces dominate close to a high-voltage, high-frequency terminal, and right that air dissipates energy at such terminals: corona, ionic wind and dielectric heating are measured effects [memory, high]. That is a real, observed loss mechanism in his Dissipation letter. He is wrong, by every subsequent measurement, that Hertzian waves do not exist or that Maxwell's transverse picture is replaceable: radiation at a distance, polarisation, interference, and the speed c were measured (Hertz 1888, Lodge, Marconi, and all radio since) [memory, high]. In free space and in ordinary media there are no longitudinal EM waves with energy flow; longitudinal electric field components do exist in waveguides, near fields, plasmas (Langmuir waves) and on Zenneck/Sommerfeld surface waves, all consistent with Maxwell [memory, high].

c. Tested? The dissipation hypothesis is testable by changing gas pressure and measuring energy loss; Tesla offers observations (heating, glow), no controlled data in the letter. "Longitudinal ether waves": Tesla never used the term in the pages read (claims.md); Rauscher, Van Bise, Corum and Bass work is the later literature; the deep reads found no independent measurement of a propagating longitudinal EM wave in vacuum.

d. If true: Maxwell's equations as wave equations would fail for the radiation seen by every antenna; Lorentz invariance and the whole of radio engineering would have to be re-derived. A particle medium must also explain the null result for an ether drift (Michelson-Morley, 1887) [memory, high].

Verdict (split): Tesla's observation that high-frequency high-voltage terminals lose energy to the air through electrostatic and corona processes: Established. His replacement of the transverse-wave picture by "electric sound waves" in a particle medium: Historically superseded but instructive (a reasonable stance in 1891-92 with an unproven ether; Hertz's results and the electron theory replaced it). Modern "scalar/longitudinal wave" propagation of energy: Not testable as stated in the forms in the folder (undefined E and B relations; where defined, zero energy flow).

Claim 3: High-frequency resonant circuits do things ordinary circuits cannot (wireless lighting, single-wire power, large voltage rise, the bifilar coil); some claim a measured voltage gain

a. Mathematics. Resonant voltage magnification V_C = Q V_in in a series RLC circuit is correct and textbook (Q = X_L/R at resonance) [memory, high]. It is not a power gain: the energy is stored, and input power equals dissipation. Nichelson's "voltage gain" is defined V.G. = 2 pi f L / R with R silently set to 1 ohm [read: deep voltage-gain]; the numbers 25,000 and 14,000 depend on that assumed R and are not measurements [read]. His measurements are S21 transmission on a network analyzer, 0.18 (single) and 0.97 (bifilar), both below 1 [read: page image]. A passive series element between two 50 ohm ports cannot give S21 above 1. The bifilar coil's higher transmission (0.97 vs 0.18) is consistent with its self-resonance lying at a different frequency (11 MHz vs 19 MHz), so the measurement frequency sits at a different place on each coil's impedance curve [calc: |S21| = 2Z0/(2Z0+Z) for a series impedance Z; the coil's own parallel resonance gives a large Z and low S21]. The ratio 5.39/0.57 = 9.46 (not 929%): the "measured exceeds theory ninefold" compares a transmission ratio with a Q ratio, which are different quantities, so the comparison has no physical meaning [calc]. The Coil patent US 512,340 claims only a coil whose own capacitance partly balances its inductance; the deep read confirms no voltage-gain claim in it [read: deep].

b. Experiment. Wireless lighting of vacuum tubes in an alternating high-frequency electric field, single-wire transmission with capacitive return (displacement current), and large voltages from resonant transformers are all reproduced routinely (the Tesla coil) [memory, high]. The claim of ordinary-circuit impossibility is not true: ordinary resonant circuits show the same voltage rise.

c. Tested? Tesla demonstrated these publicly in 1891-93; amateur and professional replications of coils are universal. Nichelson's S21 test (HP 3577B, 10 Dec 1990, Eyring Corp.) is one two-page measurement; the only replication is none known; raw data not obtained.

d. If true: Only the claimed ninefold "gain" would need new physics, and it does not follow from the data.

Verdict (split): Wireless lighting, single-wire power, resonant voltage rise, self-capacitance of a coil: Established. A power gain or "voltage gain" greater than theory in the bifilar coil: Tested, not supported (his own measured values are all below unity; the "9x" compares unlike quantities). Nichelson's calculated 25,000 and 14,000: Internally inconsistent as "gain" (R assumed 1 ohm, not measured).

Claim 4: Energy can be drawn from the ambient medium (fuelless generator, radiant energy, "cold electricity")

a. Mathematics. Tesla's 1900 sink argument (a cylinder with a low-energy interior and a high-energy ambient exterior) [Correction 2026-10-08, arbiter F9.8: "cylindrical" is in square brackets in this reprint, probably an editor's insertion; Tesla's text says "an enclosure T" (page image p.20)] is a statement that if an energy gradient existed work could be extracted; Tesla adds the caveat (continuous pumping, no known perfect converter) [read: deep Thermodynamics2, Century 1900]. Logically that is consistent with the second law. Nichelson reads it as licence for a device in thermal equilibrium; that step requires a gradient that nothing in the paper supplies, and Nichelson's own Fig. 6 shows a ratio of about 5 where the text says "orders of magnitude" [read: claims.md correction]. Numerical slip: 1.6e11 J should be 1.6e10 J (4.5 MWh) [read: deep Fuelless]. Lindemann/Vassilatos "short impulses are cold": the deep read could not find the statement in Vassilatos's text [read: claims.md].

b. Experiment. Real ambient energy sources exist and are not controversial: sunlight, wind, thermal gradients, and the atmospheric electric field. Calculation for the last [calc and web]: fair-weather current density about 2 pA/m^2 at about 100 V/m gives 2e-10 W per m^2 of ground; the whole global electric circuit (about 250 kV, 1000-1800 A) dissipates about 250-450 MW in total [web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_atmospheric_electrical_circuit; consistency checked in my search summary]. A 1902 or 1931 "cosmic energy" source delivering kilowatts to a car (the 1931 Pierce-Arrow story in Free Energy and Prodigal Genius) would need orders of magnitude more than fair-weather electricity offers per collector. Cosmic-ray energy flux at ground is roughly 1e-3 to 1e-2 of the solar flux in power terms per m^2 would not apply here; [memory, low] the figure is only an order-of-magnitude recollection and I do not rely on it. Tesla's 1916 own definition: his "18 million horsepower" figure is the peak rate of a capacitor discharge in microseconds, and an undamped wave "gives you only ... 1 kilowatt and nothing more" [read via research note: 1916 interview]. So in the inventor's own words the large power figures are not net energy gains.

c. Tested? No output measurement of any such Tesla device is in the folder. Edwin Gray's conversion tube and Moray's and Baumann's devices: reports are from promoters (Lindemann, Vassilatos) and tabloid sources; no neutral, instrumented test on record in the folder. Not dismissed after a test; neither tested.

d. If true: A closed system delivering net work from a single temperature reservoir would violate the second law (Kelvin-Planck). A system using an external gradient (atmospheric, solar, thermal) violates nothing. Which of the two is meant is exactly what the documents do not say.

Verdict (split): Extracting work from existing ambient gradients: Established (but at densities far below the "fuelless generator" claims). A device delivering net work from equilibrium surroundings, as Nichelson reads Tesla: Refuted by calculation (second law; no gradient supplied). Tesla's 1902 and 1931-33 statements that he had such a device: Never properly tested (no device, no measurement, no description; not tested rather than tested and failed). Gray-type "radiant energy" devices: Never properly tested (claims from interested promoters; no instrumented independent test in the folder).

Claim 5: The Tesla disc turbine and pump give very high power for their weight and good efficiency

a. Mathematics. Boundary-layer drag between a viscous fluid and a spinning disc is real physics (Navier-Stokes in the thin gap; fluid spirals inwards) [memory, high]. Recalculation in the deep read [read: deep Hayes, steam tables from memory, medium]: with isentropic drop at 140 psia saturated to 14.7 psia, ideal steam rate about 15.5 lb/hp-h and measured 38 gives about 41%; with Tesla's own stated 130 Btu drop it is 2545/(38 x 130) = 52% [calc: 2545/4940 = 0.515]. Lowenstein tables give 27% and 28-39%. Dahlstrand 38% "mechanical efficiency", basis not stated. All are below the "80 to 90 per cent" Tesla stated [read]. The ideal figure of about 15.5 matches my recollection of the Rankine drop for these conditions (~164 Btu/lb; 2545/164 = 15.5 [calc]); steam tables not checked online here [memory, medium].

b. Experiment. Independent measurements: Armstrong (1952) 14%, Rice (1965) and others 20-35%, Hoya & Guha 2009: 140 W at 25,000 rpm and about 25% efficiency, nozzle losses dominant [read via research note; web https://facweb.iitkgp.ac.in/~aguha/research/Hoya_Guha_IMechE_PartA_2009_Tesla_Turbine.pdf]. Tesla's own figures (27-52%) are of the same order and these contradict 80-90%. The distinction in the Investigator's note is fair: Guha's group attributes much of the gap to the nozzle, which fits the view that the rotor itself can run at higher efficiency than the whole machine. That is not yet shown by the measurements cited.

c. Tested? Yes: Tesla/Lowenstein 1910-11 (Tesla's former employee, writing in support of patents; instrumented), Allis-Chalmers (Dahlstrand; manufacturer; known only as a quotation in O'Neill), then others over decades. Not replicated at the claimed efficiency. "10 hp per pound": the folder records the claim; I did not verify the rotor weight.

d. If true: Nothing in mainstream physics changes; a boundary-layer machine with 80-90% efficiency would be an engineering surprise, not a violation. Reduced to practice, the disc turbine works but is not better than bladed turbines at large scale (Dahlstrand's note on disk distortion and gearing) [read].

Verdict (split): The disc turbine works as a boundary-layer machine and is simple and robust: Established. Power-to-weight claims (10 hp per lb): Never properly tested by a neutral party (the claim is Tesla's and Lowenstein's). The 80-90% efficiency: Tested, not supported (measured 14-52% by Tesla's own data and others; the best-case figure rests on Tesla's heat-drop assumption).

Claim 6: Teleforce beam (death ray) and the fate of Tesla's papers

a. Mathematics. The deep read of Death Ray essay and Prodigal Genius gives no equations, no beam parameters. To judge feasibility: a charged-particle beam in air is stopped within metres at atmospheric pressure (range of a 1 MeV electron in air is a few metres [memory, high]); a neutral beam would need an unspecified process. 250 miles through air is ~400 km. Tesla's 1934 and 1940 descriptions (open-air tiny-particle beam) cannot be tested from the words alone.

b. Experiment. Neutral particle beam weapons have been studied from the 1980s (Strategic Defense Initiative) and are designed for space, not for travel through dense air [memory, medium]. Nothing in the folder records an apparatus.

c. Tested? No. 'Project Nick' (Wright Field) appears in PBS (2000) and probably Cheney (1981): a popular source chain, no primary record found [read via research note]. The 1983 FBI airtel (Wright-Patterson staff seeking the papers because the Soviets "allegedly" used them) is one primary document nearer [read]. Absence-of-evidence analysis: if Project Nick existed and was dropped, records would be in NARA RG 342; if it did not, the story is a legend; the record decides, not me. Trump's 1943 report (government evaluator, an institutional stake) said the papers were "speculative, philosophical, and somewhat promotional ... but did not include new, sound, workable principles or methods" [read via research note: PBS https://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_mispapers.html]; the full report is not online. Where the papers went: sealed by the Alien Property Custodian 9 January 1943; released to Sava Kosanović (1952) [read: FBI files and research note]. The Tesla Museum in Belgrade holds an archive of 163,911 call numbers [read via research note] that would show what was in the papers. The Investigator's historical items (Wardenclyffe 1917 demolition: government order per The Sun 19 July 1917 versus commercial development per Anderson 1992) I keep in the record as unresolved; competing explanations are set out in the Investigator's note.

d. If true: A beam capable of melting engines at 400 km through air would require a new particle or interaction, or a source far beyond known accelerator practice, and would break atmospheric attenuation of known particles. The papers claim is a historical question, not physics.

Verdict (split): The teleforce beam as Tesla described it: Not testable as stated (no apparatus or parameters), with the specific range claim through air: Refuted by calculation for any known charged particle beam (range of metres in air). The fate of the papers: not a physics claim; facts are documented in the FBI file as quoted (sealed 9 January 1943; examined; released 1952), and the claim of FBI seizure is contradicted by the file while FBI "no involvement" is overstated (claims.md corrections). Soviet/US use of the papers: Never properly tested (one 1983 FBI airtel, "allegedly").

Claim 7: Priority and discovery claims made for Tesla by admirers (cosmic rays, artificial radioactivity, atom smasher, electron microscope, X-rays, neon lighting, radio, vacuum tube, induction motor)

a. Mathematics. None applies; these are historical priority claims. O'Neill concedes the experimental records "are not available" [read: deep Prodigal Genius].

b. Experiment / record. The rotating field, induction motor and polyphase system are documented, patented (1888) and mainstream [read, memory high]. Tesla's 1891-92 lectures describe electrode "disintegration", moving phosphorescent spots and a "very special radiation" [read: claims.md; deep 1891]. That is an observation consistent with several things: sputtering and X-rays from the high-voltage tubes (he did make X-ray-type images c.1895 [memory, medium]); but no measurement identifies cosmic rays or nuclear processes, and the instruments could not detect cosmic particles at the time. The Corums' interpretation of the 1899 signals as natural VLF, with a possible Jovian/Io origin [read via research note] is a hypothesis built on the diary; I treat it as speculative and untested; they are Tesla-coil interested parties.

c. Tested? Priorities are historical, tested by documents. X-ray priority: Tesla reported tube radiation effects before or about the time of Roentgen (1895) but did not isolate or publish it as a discovery [memory, medium].

d. If true: Nothing in physics changes; the history of science would.

Verdict (split): Induction motor, polyphase system, high-frequency lighting and the coil: Established. Priority for X-rays, radio and the vacuum tube: Historically superseded but instructive (Tesla's contributions are partly documented; priority in each is contested and not decided by the folder). Priority for cosmic rays, artificial radioactivity, atom smasher, electron microscope: Never properly tested (a claim without surviving experimental records; the records, if any, would be in the Tesla Museum archive).

Investigator's findings kept in the record (whatever the verdict)

  • Colorado Springs Notes (3-4 July 1899), Electrical World 5 March 1904, 1916 interview, Rankine letter 19 April 1904 (Tesla raising money, an interested party): all in claim 1 and 4 above. The 1904 article says the planned Wardenclyffe plant would emit "a wave complex of total maximum activity of ten million horse-power", one percent of which was "amply sufficient to 'girdle the globe'" [read]; at 1% of 10 MW-hp (~7.5 GW) the delivered power would be ~75 MW; no mechanism for how the 99% "activity" is stored or delivered is given [calc: 1e7 hp x 745.7 W = 7.5 GW]. As the 1916 interview indicates, "activity" is a peak rate.
  • Marinčić (editor, Tesla Museum, an institutional stake) quoting Wait 1974 and Jackson: Tesla's earth-resonance idea has an "intriguing similarity" to ELF communication. Kept; physics: the match is ~6 Hz vs 8 Hz, but the mechanism (cavity, not earth) differs.
  • Lowenstein second observer; Corum receivers; CPG/Viziv; MIT WiTricity; Armstrong/Rice/Guha turbine data; Wardenclyffe demolition accounts; FBI Vault three parts (354 pp. vs 265 in folder); Trump report; Project Nick; Tesla Museum archive; Allis-Chalmers report absent. All retained above or in claim 6; none removed.
  • Records that would settle things: Colorado Springs original traces (none known), raw Eyring data, a published field measurement from Viziv/CPG, NARA RG 131/342, Tesla Museum archive.

Summary of verdicts

  1. Global power/signal transmission through the earth: signals by VLF-type resonant transmitters Established; stationary waves 3 July 1899 Never properly tested; "almost without loss" power Refuted by calculation; ideal-conductor earth Tested, not supported.
  2. Electrostatic/"electric sound wave" ether replacement: Historically superseded but instructive (air-loss mechanism Established; longitudinal/scalar forms Not testable as stated).
  3. Resonant circuits/bifilar coil: Established for lighting, single-wire and voltage rise; claimed gain Tested, not supported; Nichelson's "gain" Internally inconsistent.
  4. Energy from the medium: ambient gradients Established but small; equilibrium generator Refuted by calculation; Tesla's own device Never properly tested.
  5. Disc turbine: works, Established; power/weight Never properly tested; 80-90% Tested, not supported.
  6. Teleforce/papers: Not testable as stated; long-range beam through air Refuted by calculation; Soviet-use claim Never properly tested.
  7. Priority claims: motor/polyphase Established; X-ray/radio/tube Historically superseded but instructive; cosmic rays and similar Never properly tested.