Nikola Tesla, His Work and Unfulfilled Promises Page 5

It was asserted that similar effects to those shown by Tesla had previously been produced by Crookes, Hertz, Rayleigh, Spottiswood, Lodge, De La Rue, Kennedy and Thomson, some of those effects having been patented nine years before the first Tesla lecture (British patent, No. 4,752, Rankin Kennedy, 1882). But Tesla had made his experiments more spectacular by the use of higher voltages and higher frequencies, and the difference in degree passed for novelty in kind. It is true that the lectures abounded in fallacies and absurdities, as; for instance, Tesla's favorite theory of magnetic screening ("Inventions, Researches and Writings of Nikola Tesla," p. 185), his misconception of harmonics (Id., 187), his inexplicable statement regarding Arago's experiment (Id., 233), and even a gross misunderstanding of the fundamental law of physical science — the conservation of energy (Id., 147) — but all were overlooked or forgiven. Few, if any, measurements are recorded in the lectures; nor is there more than the feeblest attempt at even orderly sequence in the experiments, but spectacular sensationalism was accepted as a substitute for scientific methods. No attempt at any commercial adaptation of the experiments is described, but, instead, Tesla's vague hints at possibilities won him the reputation of prophet of the new era.

To-day, as we look back on those lectures of ten years ago and the developments since then, it is hard to understand the scientific enthusiasm Tesla aroused. Have any useful results ever come from those famous experiments? Instead of Tesla's high frequencies, the tendency has been steadily to lower frequencies. Instead of using static effects for power transmission, the chief problem on modern long-distance lines is to diminish those very effects. The electrostatic light is still a laboratory toy, while two wires and a filament are still used in commerce. Central stations still produce their power and distribute it through their mains. The prophecies of those lectures and articles are still unfulfilled, and their suggestions forgotten or disregarded. But ten years ago those who could see beyond the glamour of the Tesla tubes were few. Even then, however, there were some who regarded the lectures in the less spectacular light of science. The London "Electrical Review," in an editorial expressive of some bewilderment at the chaotic mass of experiments and of an inclination to suspend judgment until Tesla should have opportunity for further explanation through the press, calls attention to the fact that Tesla's work was not in a wholly unexplored field. (London "Electrical Review," Vol. 30, p. 184.) "The Electrician at first called attention to the fact that the experiments were not new, but consisted in repetitions of well-known effects on a large scale ("Electrician," Vol. 28, p. 395), and later expressed itself conservatively as follows ("Electrician," Vol. 31, p. 139) "If a few quantitative determinations of current, voltage, or even of frequency, had been given in the lecture it would have had a definite scientific value. To reduce even one out of the 50 experiments to a complete research would be worth all the other 49 brilliant and suggestive demonstrations." And "Industries" said (London Electrical Review," Vol. 29, p. 193): "We have no desire to pick out weak points in such an interesting lecture, but we think that any one who read Mr. Tesla's articles must have had great difficulty in understanding his repeated idiomatic statements. Is it asking Mr. Tesla too much, holding the prominent position he does in the American electrical world,