Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Could Nikola Tesla's Wardenclyffe Tower Have Worked?

dryriver writes: For those who are unfamiliar with the story, from 1901-1902, inventor Nikola Tesla had a 187-foot-tall experimental wireless electricity transmission tower called the "Wardenclyffe Tower" built in Shoreham, New York. Tesla believed that it was possible to generate electrical power on a large scale in one part of the world and transmit that electrical power to electrical receivers in far away parts of the world wirelessly, using parts of Earth's atmosphere as the conducting medium. Tesla had huge problems getting the project financed -- powerful banker J.P. Morgan didn't play along and U.S. President Woodrow Wilson didn't help a pleading Tesla either. An excerpt from a Wardenclyffe documentary shows the tower finally being dynamited and sold for scrap in 1917. The Wardenclyffe Tower never reached operational status; wireless electrical transmission between continents never happened; Tesla became an emotionally broken man who died regretting that he did not manage to finish his life's work; and to this day nobody knows exactly how the Wardenclyffe Tower was supposed to function technically. To the question: Do you believe that Tesla's dream of electrical devices anywhere in the world essentially being able to draw electrical power from the sky with a relatively simple antenna could have worked, had he gotten the necessary funding to complete his experiments?

38 of 365 comments (clear)

  1. Believe? by NEDHead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is believe? Either the math / physics works or it doesn't. Science is not an opinion based enterprise

    1. Re:Believe? by Spazmania · · Score: 5, Insightful

      EM radiation from the wireless source drops off according to the inverse square law. This has been figured out in the time since Tesla. So no, Tesla's tower could never have worked. Beyond a short distance (like the inches between an RFID card and its reader) power transmission is not feasible because of, you know, physics.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    2. Re:Believe? by twms2h · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is believe? Either the math / physics works or it doesn't. Science is not an opinion based enterprise

      It's about a belief whether there might any physical principle for wirelessly transmitting electricity that Tesla knew about back then and we don't nowadays.

      It might be possible, but I believe it unlikely.

    3. Re:Believe? by JBMcB · · Score: 2, Informative

      By your reasoning, if I hold a large metal block and connect one part to mains electricity, I will be safe.

      Radio waves traveling through the air work differently than electricity moving through a conductor, to the point where RF engineering is a specialized field within electrical engineering.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    4. Re:Believe? by doom · · Score: 4, Informative

      EM radiation from the wireless source drops off according to the inverse square law.

      Yeah, those newfangled "lasers" will never work.

    5. Re:Believe? by hey! · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is another thing to consider, an uncertainty which inventors often forget: economics. If you take all the inventions ever made and discard the ones that simply wouldn't work, the successful ones would still be a tiny fraction of what's left.

      Tesla's scheme seems to have been to use the entire Earth/atmosphere's electromagetic field as a kind of filter/transmission medium to transfer power from something like a gigantic Tesla coil. Leaving aside the inefficiency of passing a massive white noise signal through a bandpass filter, and assuming the transmission was effective as Tesla believed it would be, you still wouldn't be able to meter or regulate the power usage. Literally anyone with an antenna could use it.

      I'm not sure whether the arguments for the system's physical infeasibility based on what is now known about *conventional* radio transmission really apply to what Tesla had in mind, which appears to be forcing the entire Earth's EM field to resonate on a global scale. Presumably it would take some time and a huge amount of energy to get to the point where someone on a distant continent could extract power.

      Tesla was inventing by the seat of his pants; he has a basic engineering education and immense ingenuity, but he didn't have the theoretical foundation to judge the feasibility of his scheme; to some degree that knowledge didn't even exist yet, in fact some of it may still not exist. He was making an unjustifi8able leap of imagination from his lab near-field power transmission experiments, which he could see worked with his own eyes, to a global scale. Some elements of his scheme were pure wishful thinking, e.g. creating an ionized path from the ground to the stratosphere and losslessly transmitting power over it.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re: Believe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I see you have no clue what the word socialism actually means.

    7. Re:Believe? by epine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You stole my thunder.

      Word to the wise: he also stole your lightening, which is a fine mode of atmospheric power transmission if you can buffer the surge.

    8. Re:Believe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Having studied everything I can find about Tesla's notions behind Wardenclyffe, I could summarize my understanding of it as follows:

      1) Tesla was fascinated by resonance wherein small impulses of energy are trapped losslessly in a mechanism, and are aggregated into large stores of said energy - a well-known example of this is case of the "galloping gertie" bridge.

      2) Tesla postulated that earth's atmosphere presents an electro-magnetic structure (or mechanism) which would have a resonance condition into which power could be pumped by EM transmissions at that resonant frequency.

      3) Similar apparatus could be configured to extract the EM power stored resonantly in the atmosphere.

      4) Hence the promise of wireless power distribution.

      My take on the whole thing is that he was likely over-optimistic in his ability to fathom and harness a system as vast as earth's atmosphere (Ham radio guys could probably tell him a thing or two). Then again this may be a case where you never really know until you try. What Tesla got wrong was that there is no way in such a system to extract payments from users, hence his capitalist backers bailed out before Tesla could demonstrate the soundness of his conjectures.

      BTW, yes I am a physicist.

    9. Re:Believe? by j-beda · · Score: 5, Informative

      By your reasoning, if I hold a large metal block and connect one part to mains electricity, I will be safe.

      Radio waves traveling through the air work differently than electricity moving through a conductor, to the point where RF engineering is a specialized field within electrical engineering.

      one relies on Maxwell's equations and the other...

      One relies on Maxwell's equations with permiability and permitivity appropriate for a metalic concuctor, and the other relies on Maxwell's equations with permiability and permitivity appropriate for the gasses in the atmosphere. The different parameters give different behaviours.

    10. Re:Believe? by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lasers are coherent and tightly focused beams of light. The Wardenclyffe Tower was an omni-directional transmitter. Both continue to obey the inverse square law. The existence of lasers in no way counter the GP's point that Tesla's tower could not possibly work.

    11. Re:Believe? by thrich81 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you are trying to imply that lasers don't exhibit the inverse square law in the relation of area power density with distance you are wrong. Lasers do propagate power via the inverse square law once you get past near field effects (same as any antenna), that's why laser beamwidths are spec'ed in milliradians, the angular extent of the beam. Constant angular extent = inverse square law power density. The reason lasers get a reputation for tight power propagation is because they can be produced with very small beamwidths to begin with. That all applies to propagation in a vacuum or a medium which doesn't interact with the laser light, but once you get into mediums which actually interact with the light (to attempt some sort of self-focusing) you start to deal with scattering and losses to heating the medium, too; one reason why the megawatt laser weapons envisioned in the past haven't been fielded.

    12. Re:Believe? by StormReaver · · Score: 3, Informative

      What is believe? Either the math / physics works or it doesn't. Science is not an opinion based enterprise[.]

      I think you're missing the real question in your quest to be snarky. The real question isn't whether the physics work or not; that's like saying that time travel either works or it doesn't, but without any evidence either way. Of course that's the case. Just like explosions can be controlled to propel large, heavy objects into space.

      The real question is whether Tesla understood physics at a level sufficiently advanced to make wireless, intercontinental electrical transmission work. If so, then he would have expanded our knowledge of physics.

      That presumes that such a feat is already allowed by physics, but the mechanism for doing so needs to be discovered by humans. To me, it seems at least plausible. After all, we watch wireless transmission of electricity over multi-mile distances all the time, and we know how it works. Tesla believed that he understood how to manipulate that same energy over vastly greater distances.

    13. Re: Believe? by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No socialist ever said otherwise. The socialist contention is that overall we work less for the same things if we don't have rich dudes skimming off a heap of the productive effort so they can have a solid gold toilet seat and play golf all day.

      The dudes with the solid gold toilet seats greatly appreciate your ignorance. At least in the abstract sense.

    14. Re: Believe? by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's very possible to tap into the magnetosphere. The varying layers all have interesting phototropic controls as the earth spins on its axis. It's somewhat static, but changes as we go through the day (add in slight lunar-effect changes, too).

      Screw it up, just a bit--- and neutralize it in some way, and watch the atmosphere become damaged beyond your wildest imagination. If you thought Climate Change was fun, strap on.

      Gravity keeps the atmosphere and weather somewhat intact against the 1000miles/hr rotation of the earth, but we're also very happy with the shielding the magnetosphere provides, layer densities (so yeah, we can breathe), and the insulations it provides from solar winds.

      There is a huge iron core inside the earth that moves around, which is why the north magnetic pole is moving. It plays a huge part in how the Van Allen Belt and the magnetosphere keep this planet's life intact. Muck with this at our peril.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    15. Re:Believe? by jythie · · Score: 2

      If I recall correctly, the reason his backers bailed was he told them he was building one type of device but was actually constructing another. One of his recurring issues was he kinda scammed his supporters under the idea that when his genius idea worked they wouldn't care, with the problem that many of his ideas did not actually work.

    16. Re: Believe? by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      'Virtual particle' implies mathematical errors rather than concrete phenomena.

      Um, no. The various forces describes by virtual particles are not measurement errors; they are quite real.

      As far as I can tell from the literature, they do not appear to exist in a physical sense, only on paper (otherwise they would just be called 'particles' lol).

      They haven't been observed "in a physical sense". This may be a valid objection insofar as virtual particles may not "exist" in the same sense as real particles, but the effects which we ascribe to them certainly do exist. Whatever the underlying reality may be, thinking of them as virtual particles is useful until we have some better model to explain it (or until we do observe them). Just like Newtonian physics was useful before we understood relativity and quantum physics (and continues to be useful in many everyday situations, despite the fact that it's "wrong").

      And is it not the conventional understanding of the Big Bang that an extremely large amount of energy entered into our universe at one specific point in time? Does that not fit the definition of 'free energy'?

      No. The big bang describes the beginning of our universe. Energy couldn't very well enter a universe which didn't exist.

      Are 'Big Bangs' consistent with the second law of thermodynamics?

      Universal laws such as the laws of thermodynamics are properties of our universe. It's nonsensical to talk about something being consistent with laws which only formed after it occurred.

    17. Re:Believe? by magarity · · Score: 2

      What Tesla got wrong was that there is no way in such a system to extract payments from users, hence his capitalist backers bailed out before Tesla could demonstrate the soundness of his conjectures.

      Mandatory subscriptions. Works for the BBC.

    18. Re: Believe? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      And the socialist reality is you end up with no one producing anything

      Funny how multiple countries survived multiple decades without producing anything. They must have had some secret magic...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    19. Re: Believe? by Reiyuki · · Score: 2

      You're right about that. I don't think most physicists even stop to understand the concepts behind the math and terms they are using. They indeed appear valid and accurate, but I think many may be relying on false assumptions about the nature of reality.

      As a semi-recent example, the Ptolemaic model of astronomy was extremely accurate and made many valid predictions, despite it operating from a completely false set of assumptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Anyway, from my understanding, a virtual particle is one that possesses zero mass that is used as a bridge to convey energy (dielectric and magnetic) across space. And since E=MC^2, a particle that contains energy without possessing mass should not be possible.

      Now there are other eloquent models that eliminate the need for these contradictory particles while still being compatible with modern science, but they are generally less complete than the current system, so they are still shrugged away.

      Since this is a Tesla thread, I thought he would be able to weigh in on this: "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

      I hope this not all come across as rude, I am thoroughly enjoying our chat. Very stimulating. :-)

    20. Re:Believe? by jythie · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but in THIS case he was telling the person paying for the tower that he was going to provide trans-atlantic radio communication. The 'businesses were against him' was retconned in decades later.

    21. Re: Believe? by Reiyuki · · Score: 2

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

      It's an interesting idea, and certainly possible. I love exploring and testing possible alternative models.

      I think my gripe is in the difference between a particle that was physically discovered, and a particle that was invented in order to balance an equation.

      There is a similar problem with 'dark matter'.

    22. Re: Believe? by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is from Time's 1939 Man of the Year [time.com] for Hitler. Compare that to the current "socialist" mantra of the Democrat party: ownership of companies, restriction on profits, nationalization of industries, wealth taxes. The Democrat party is literally the party of Nazism, and Hitler's platform is enshrined in their own platform, just with different names.

      *blink*

      I'm not sure if you are misusing the word "literally" or you just have no clue what the Nazi party stood for. The main thing the Nazis were known for is blaming immigrants for the country's problems and then using that as an excuse to try to eradicate the Jewish people. If any party is even approaching being literal Nazis, well let's just say that there's only one party in the United States whose leader has ever suggested that illegal immigrants are the cause of our crime problems and that we should ban people from entering this country based on their religion, and it ain't the Democrats.

      But ignoring the Elephant in the room, the biggest thing you're completely missing is any sense of nuance. You talk about socialism and capitalism as though it's an either-or situation. That couldn't be farther from the truth. No economic system in its purest form works, period. All economically viable countries involve a combination of economic systems. They combine some aspects of socialism (e.g. public healthcare, public schools, public roads and freeways, etc.) with some aspects of capitalism (publicly and privately owned businesses in competition with one another, wealth accumulation, etc.). Government inherently is a balancing act between those two forces. Any government that goes too far in either direction will fail. Every. Single. Time.

      Anybody saying that socialism is bad or equating it with Nazism or claiming that it can't work is wrong — not just subjectively wrong, but objectively, provably wrong. Every country requires some amount of socialism, because capitalism run amok results in erosion of the middle class and eventual devolution to a servant class and an aristocrat class. Similarly, every country requires some amount of capitalism, because socialism run amok results in no incentives to innovate, create, or improve the state of the world.

      Take the arts, for example. There are two things that increase artistic output: Providing funds to pay artists enough money that they can create without having to "sell out" (this is socialism) and providing laws that guarantee that artists' creations cannot be freely copied without their permission (this is capitalism). The two exist in balance.

      Or take our system of roads. Businesses and individuals alike depend on these roads. They are, by nature, socialist. However, there is a secondary capitalistic aspect to them in that taxes are charged based on road use to prevent the tragedy of the commons. So although the benefit is provided to all, those who benefit more also pay more.

      Compare that to the current "socialist" mantra of the Democrat party: ownership of companies, restriction on profits, nationalization of industries, wealth taxes

      In order:

      Nobody is proposing that the government take over businesses en masse. At times, governments do have to buy out companies for various reasons, usually involving keeping them in business. What's wrong with that?

      Nobody is proposing restriction on profits by businesses. The Democrats do, however, want companies to pay their fair share of taxes on those profits. What's wrong with that?

      Nationalization of industries: See above.

      Finally, what's your objection to wealth taxes? There are people who earn hundreds of millions of dollars per year or more. Surely two or three million is enough. It has been proven time and time again that the joy derived from making more money does not continue to increase much at all after your needs are met. Yet many people earn far more than is necessary to m

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    23. Re: Believe? by Z80a · · Score: 2

      The problem is that capitalism is the thing we found to keep a much worse and horrible system out, the monarchy.
      There is an horrible tendency on people to want a king, and many to be kings, so capitalism (when working), lies to everyone, telling em they can be kings, but thanks to competition, none ends being, well until someone literally buys the right of being the king.
      But when you try to replace capitalism with socialism, the system gets immediately corrupted both by those that want a king and those that want to be kings, and you end up with a monarchy because socialism has ZERO resistance to it.
      So if you want to replace capitalism, find something that is as good as it or maybe even better at stopping the kings from rising, otherwise you're just opening the pandora box.

  2. Better question by OffTheLip · · Score: 2

    Could Elon Musk monetize it?

  3. Of course it would have worked by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Funny

    This I Tesla you are talking about, who would have willed it's function into being, then left scientists decades to explain why it actually worked.

    What a shame he was never give more backing to come up with some more amazing things...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  4. The Truth About the Mysterious ‘Tesla Tower& by t00le · · Score: 5, Informative

    We may find out soon enough since Viziv Technologies has built a Wardenclyffe Tower in Texas and is actively working on the project.

    -----

    The Truth About the Mysterious ‘Tesla Tower’ in Texas

    Viziv Technologies, the party responsible for the construction of the tower in Milford, has similar goals. If their experiments with the tower are successful, this would mean they can safely and wirelessly transmit energy between any two points on the globe. Their aim is to utilize the Zenneck surface wave, an electromagnetic wave that uses the surface of the earth as a guide, enabling it to carry signals and electricity over long distances. (Electromagnetic waves are results of vibrations between electric fields and magnetic fields.)

    The Zenneck surface wave is named after Jonathan Zenneck, a physicist and electrical engineer. He was among the pioneers that studied electromagnetic waves. Zenneck surface waves have not yet been experimentally observed, and Viziv is unique in that its technology only uses these surface waves, as opposed radiated waves.

    https://texashillcountry.com/m...

    --
    When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail
  5. Freakout by JBMcB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People freak out about a few mW of RF being pushed though cell phones. Can you imagine the freakout if someone said they were going to build giant towers pushing millions of watts of low-frequency RF blasting out in all directions?

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Freakout by Lije+Baley · · Score: 2

      It's worse than that. Some of them live in cities teeming with RF going every which way through their house and yet in the utility business the regulators have to carve out special rules so that irrational folks can have meters with no radios. If somebody really has "RF sensitivity" they should be moving out of the city.

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
  6. Belief doesn't matter - Physics do by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 3, Funny

    As others have indicated, we don't know how the device was supposed to work. It's possible Tesla had a new theory (or, as postulated on Ancient Aliens, received from beyond this planet or realm). But, baring the existence of such a theory, current EM physics would seem to say "No".

  7. Re:Wireless Transmission of Power's Time has Come by tsa · · Score: 2

    Many houses will in the very near future generate their own electricity.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  8. We will soon find out by sirsky · · Score: 2

    Since they're actually doing this for reals in Texas, we will soon find out: https://texashillcountry.com/m...

  9. Yes, solar by mlheur · · Score: 2

    "Do you believe that Tesla's dream of electrical devices anywhere in the world essentially being able to draw electrical power from the sky"

  10. Re: The Truth About the Mysterious ‘Tesla To by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's been more than a few people looking into Zenneck waves. It doesn't change anything as far as power transmission is concerned since it's still limited by the inverse square law. It's a promising concept for communication, which is why people are interested in it, but the idea that it could be a useful method for power transmission is just a pipe dream.

  11. Tesla Earth Maser by ka9dgx · · Score: 5, Informative

    I believe (as I said back in 2014) that Tesla's plan was to modulate the conductivity of the ionosphere, effectively turning it into a MASER, and thus capturing a great deal of the energy imparted by the solar wind and making it available for use.

    At the time, it would have seemed unlimited, but long ago I did the math, and if I recall correctly, it would be about 1 Terawatt of power, which is about 8% of our current worldwide power demand.

    So, yes... I think it would have worked, but we would have outgrown it quickly enough.

  12. Assumptuous and arrogant by Excelcia · · Score: 5, Informative

    Your comment starts at assumptuous and arrogant and then moves to being just plain wrong.

    Assumption:

    EM radiation

    You are just assuming he meant by EM radiation. Given his actual patents this is likely not the intended medium of transmission. Tesla's patent 645,576drops off according to the inverse square law

    Tesla, as much of a "mad genius" as he may have been, was still a genius. I credit his intelligence more, I think, than yours. Even if the inverse square property wasn't known (more later) already, this would have been pretty obvious to him anyway. He had been electric field Geissler tube light induction for at least a decade prior to his tower proposal. I'm pretty sure that he figured out that the light dimmed and went out as per the square of the distance involved.

    Just plain wrong:

    This has been figured out in the time since Tesla.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Maxwell's_equations

    Now, that being said, what about the actual question asked in the article. Could the towers have worked? Once electricity ionizes the channel, the air resistance is really quite low. If he could have figured out a way to ionize a channel high enough from multiple towers, it's actually conceivable it could work. No one, and I really mean no one at all, has done as much experimentation with the conduction of ultra-high voltage electricity as Tesla did. He knew what it took to create a path between two points. He knew the effect of distance. And he thought he could do it. I credit his knowledge and experience then more than any armchair (read Slashdot) critic today. Also remember this is before powered flight of any sort, so no one cared about what was going on in the sky. Using a tower to open an electrical path into the upper atmosphere wouldn't have been a hazard to anything. I suspect what he was going for was a sort of huge scale porcupine effect. Each tower creating a channel up into the sky up to an altitude where there is already sufficient ionization that the electricity could then be conducted laterally. The whole reason why the post I responded to wasn't alone in just assuming that Tesla must have been (errantly) trying for radio or electric field transfer is that the sheer scale of using "lightning" towers to transmit power directly up into the sky on that kind of scale is, well, at the mad genius level of unprecedented scale. The effects it would have on the RF spectrum, air navigation, electronic devices... renders it into a modern catastrophe more than a workable power transmission system. But back then none of that existed. The sky was just a huge open opportunity for him. He certainly thought big.

    1. Re:Assumptuous and arrogant by Excelcia · · Score: 2

      What are you saying exactly? Which field do you believe he was going to leverage if not EM?

      And another one who doesn't actually read the patent, my whole (admitedly partially bungled) post, or even do a basic google search on what Tesla was proposing. You're not alone though. Everyone nowadays just hears "wireless electrical transmission" and simply assumes this has just gotta mean by an electric field (a la mutual inductance) or by an electromagnetic field (a la radio).

      To answer your question: Which field did he propose? No field!. At least, no more so by a field than electrons moving through a wire are using a "field" to directly conduct electricity. Patent 645,576 (I'm not going to link it again here since you didn't bother to click on it to read it before) describes a "System of Transmission of Electrical Energy" directly through the air. Or, since when you hear the word "transmission" you understand "radio transmission", how about if we use rename his patent "System of Conduction of Electrical Energy". He was going to transmit... err... conduct it directly through the air. Like a thunderstorm does. Like a (wait for it) "tesla coil" does. By arcing it up into the sky.

      Tesla knew that rarefying air made it far more able to conduct electricity, and he knew that the atmosphere thinned as you proceeded up. So, he reasoned, if you broke down the ionization barrier from the surface and arced the electricity far enough up, that once up there it would continue to conduct fairly easily laterally. Tesla proposes in this patent to use giant transformers to force "electrical impulses of sufficiently-high electromotive force to render elevated air strata conducting, causing, thereby current impulses to pass, by conduction, through the air strata". He knew the voltages would be massive - he thought 20-50 megavolts. Where he got those numbers we don't know. But what we do know is that Tesla did more experimentation on what voltages at what frequencies it takes to arc electricity over large distances than anyone then or since.

  13. Triumph or folly? by az-saguaro · · Score: 2

    There is an intrigue here that goes beyond the mere physics and engineering of it all. This is really about triumphs and folly.

    1 - It could be brilliant. This could be the engineering equivalent of Fermat's Last Theorem. A brilliant mathematician has a clever insight to answer an interesting problem, writes the notes on a napkin so the story goes, and then the idea is lost. It turns out though that the math problem is not so innocent or trivial, but no one after Fermat can come up with a suitable proof. Perhaps Tesla's experiment was the real deal, but we cannot know now that he is gone.

    2 - It could be pure silliness. This occurred in the same era as early flight and early automotive manufacturing. We have all seen those compilation videos of early flight attempts when people built wacky flying-falling machines in their garage with nothing more than just a nifty "idea" devoid of any bonafide engineering. Tesla had the same focus on early electrical science and technologies, and for each clever good idea he had, he might have had another that was a dog.

    Were those who failed to fund him close minded fools or insightful sages?

    Nothing is stopping anyone from trying now. There are plenty of people with enough technology wealth to fund the experiment if it seemed worthy, but no one is volunteering. It is telling that a modern company like Tesla can honor him with an eponymous name, but not by funding projects not relevant to modern life, instead focusing on technologies that make sense for now, like electric vehicles.

    And, times have changed. Even if the idea was scientifically and technically meritorious, it might not be pragmatic or allowable today. Since then, we have developed a robust air travel industry, vital low earth orbit technologies, an electromagnetic spectrum filled with communications, and an overdue appreciation of the environmental hazards of our technologies. Tesla's invention would compete or interfere with them, so might not survive.