[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Tesla's Energy Transmission (Warning Long Post)
Although I have been a lurker on this thread for some time, I would like to
make a few comments on the issue. To preface, part of my studies have been
on the interaction of matter and energy, largly at the atomic and nuclear
level, but also at the molecular level. A few details bear consideration.
The coupling of a transmitter to a medium of transmission, particlarly in a
harmonic system, is a major regulator of the maximum amplitude; along with
loss (environmental coupling <partially dependent on the refractive index
ratio>)
Receiver coupling will determine the fraction of the harmonic energy that
can be extracted during a given cycle. A thought should be given to how you
would be able to draw the energy from the waveguide at a greater rate than
input, even for a short period of time.
Let us say for the sake of the discussion that you could draw the energy
from the waveguide at a rate substantially equivalent to the rate of input.
As for free energy, we won't go there.
Another consideration I would like to raise is the matter of the coupling of
significant environmental components to the waveguide; like human beings.
I don't believe the final assessment is in on the effects of long term
global VLF exposure. I think there may need to be restrictions until we are
fully aware of the consequences.
Bryan Kaufman
> Original Poster: NickandSim-at-aol-dot-com
>
> Hi Terry,
> I think you amy misunderstand my idea - I will explain
>
> << Hi Nick,
>
> Forgive my comments on this "old" subject ;-)
>
> At 01:24 PM 12/10/1999 -0500, you wrote:
> >Hi All,
> > I just thought I'd put in my 2 penorth' (3.29c) about how the
> tesla
> >energy transmission system was supposed to work.
> >There are many fundamental misunderstandings of this system widely
> >propogated. I have examined all of them and this is the only one that
> makes
> >sense to me.
> >
> >The key to understanding the tesla magnifier system is to realise that the
> >standard treatment of the electrical ground plane as something capable of
> >sinking/sourcing infinite charge simply does not apply to a system as large
> >as the Colorado Springs system.
>
> The Springs system worked at "about" 40kW. "Similar" power distribution
> ground systems "I" have worked with can "sink" (gulp) 250 Megawatts with
> ground effects at 100 yards away being zilch. Yep, that's here in dry
> sandy Colorado too... I think the "ground" can sink one "heck of a lot of
> juice".
>
> They ground systems you have worked with are, I presume, distributed ground
> systems which imediately makes them less likely to create a resonant sytem
> beacuse of the phase shift. They are also not tuned to the earth resonant
> frequency which means they not only do not achieve resonance but probably
> cancel out their own effects by destructive interference.
>
> I was under the impression the Colorado springs system was about 125kVA?
>
> >When the terminal of the Colorado Springs system was charged to 10MV the
> >ground below the transmitter became negative to the tune of 100 million
> >joules. This wave of negative charge was then conducted through the earth
> >until it bounced off the other side.
>
> 100 MegaJoules???? If I remember right, he used about say 30kV at 60 Hz.
> That would give a cap value of 1.85mF. Tesla's salt water caps fell far
> short of that... The 1899 Colorado Springs power plant was not in the 100
> megawatt class...
>
> I'm working from the reported terminal voltage and the estimated terminal
> capacitance - a 100pF capacitor at 10MV is 100MJ - the starting energy is not
> to critical - it could be much less and the system would still work.
>
> >It is this key point that explains the tesla system of wireless power
> >transmission: The wave is a wave of charge which is conducted through the
> >earth. It is quite correct to say that you cannot transmit power
> >electromagnetically at 5% loss around the globe - this is not an
> >electromagnetic system. This allows the very low losses that tesla
> claimed.
> >The proof of this system was the stepped resonant rise that tesla observed
> in
> >the spark output of his system - as the resonant wave within the earth was
> >added to on each return cycle the spark output grew until the arcs were 120
> >feet long. At this point level the wave was carrying enormous power - each
> >return cycle representing over 1 Giga Joule.
>
> Where is "it written" that Tesla got a 120 foot spark, and where "on Earth
> in 1899" did he find a Giga Joule????
>
> The arcs went from the top of his transmitter to ground - the tower was about
> 120 feet tall.
> The giga joule is the total energy stored in the resonant wave within the
> earth - on each cycle more power is added to the wave until the power
> dissipation in the earth is equal to the power input at which point the wave
> energy remains constant.
>
> >This would indicate that this
> >is about the energy that tesla could sustain the wave at with 125kVA input,
> >ie. that there was 125kVA being dissipated into the earth at 1GJ wave
> energy.
> > This would mean that the calculated loss is about 1.2%.
> >Tesla's published figure was 5% - It would be reasonable to assume that he
> >expected large losses in the recieving stations and that he was accounting
> >for the inefficiencies of his equipment - not the underlying loss within
> the
> >earth.
>
> One has to remember that the output "load" of a Tesla coil is basically the
> local capacitance of the surrounding objects with loss. This represents a
> very "local" effect. There is little that allows energy to travel outside
> this local area of a Tesla coil even if it is a "big one" like Tesla used.
> Tesla made one great "Tesla coil number uno". However, the world power
> transmission thing seems to have fallen to pieces. Sounded good but it has
> never been demonstrated, proven, worked, etc...
>
> I am not talking about a local capacitive effect - the simple fact of
> conduction - that if you shove a shedload of charge into a conductor it will
> try and equalise throughout it - means that the charge waves from the
> Colorado springs magnifier could propogate through the earth. The reason
> nobody has repeated these observations is that the magnifier has to be
> expressly designed to created these effects. It has to be tuned to the right
> frequency and have a very, very large Ctop.
>
>
> Sorry, but after 80+ years of playing with it, the results are still zero...
>
> It is easy to "write and say" things like "1 Giga Joule" of energy (even in
> Tesla's day). However, "Me thinks" I would notice it, if it was really
> true ;-))) Even a Giga Joule is not that much power by today's standards
> of power generation. Lasers and other "single shot" systems can easily
> reach that "standard". However, no known Tesla coil system comes within
> 0.5% of it....
>
> I'm not saying that the magnifier was pumping anything like 1GJ.
>
> >
> >Hope this clarifies things for some of you.
> >
> >BTW:Has anyone heard from a guy named F David Peat ?
>
> A web search only returned off-topic subjects for me...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Terry
>
>
> Regards
> Nick Field
>
>