Marconi, Tesla, power lines

[some comments as ib rwose thru.]

RQ>... Then talking about... DK> ... the first "radio" people..
RQ> DK> ...Now, THAT's interesting to me!  So Marconi hung around
RQ> DK> Tesla, eh?  All the histories I've read seem to make no
RQ> DK> mention of any connection between them.
	Not to any great extent.  When Marconi visited the US, he may well have
	visited Tesla for a day or so.  The tweo men (regardless of patnet
	priorities and court decisions) "invented" "Radio" indpendently.
	Marconi originated his sirst sucessful system befor leaving Italy, then
	improved it in the UK befer first coming to the US.  I suspect he read
	of Tesla's work, and how much info flowed back & forth & how is
	impossible to establish now.  IMO, Tesla "failed", badly, in not
	concentrating on "radio" and spending time on wireless power.

>...I recall Marconi claiming a "breakthrough" in his placing of a
>resonant circuit in the antenna.  Thanks for opening up how
>Tesla really showed that to him...
	That x presceded y dioes not mean that x showed y.  Indpendent invention
	is common.  It is quite clear, from the record, that Marconi did not
	fully understand radio (not surprising... as he was inventing it...).
	Neither did Tesla, when he started.  "Radio" is a complex enough
	enterprise that it is easy (ws easy, when the patents were new) for
	several to be needed.

>...Does this get off into the area of Tesla determining the
>resonant frequencies of the planet?  Does the 50/60 Hertz power
>frequencies figure into this?
	Not really.  Tesla may have found a resonance much lower, around 17 Hz,
	which others have found.  And its not a sharp resonance.

	When AC was started (pre tesla) all manner of frequencies were picked.
	He standardized on 60 Hz.  Too high a freq and the losses go up (as
	Tesla knew).  Too LOW and the lights flicker (and people pay good money
	for lights.)  Between core losses in transformers and keeping the lights
	from flickering "somewhere" around 50-60 Hz is nice.  If weight is
	no object, lower freqs COULD be made more efficient, for motor only use,
	so one sees 15/16/25Hz for motor loads, as railways.

	If Cost is less important than weight, trick materials mean higher
	frequencies, first the 400 Hz of aircraft power systems and now the
	Khz of switching power supplies...

RQ>... talking about Tesla's extra coil...

RQ> RQ>The third coil is not inductively coupled to the primary/
RQ> RQ>secondary...<it is an> uncoupled resonator which is base
RQ> RQ>fed by transmission line....<it> is allowed to resonate
RQ> RQ>freely, unrestricted by the inductive coupling between 
RQ> RQ>primary and secondary... I believe three coil designs are
RQ> RQ>possible that are as high as 95% efficient.
	I doubt thatefficiency figure.  More wire, more copper losses.  More
	voltage does NOT mean mor efficiency...

RQ> DK> ...Sure seems like that would have an effective use in
RQ> DK> radio transmitters.  Ever hear of anyone doing it there?
RQ> DK> They do work to achieve the highest energy transfer, but
RQ> DK> to my experience, only with a single primary and 
RQ> DK> secondary....
	Think of an inductively loaded antenna.  Same animal.

	(I know the orgnal discussers can't hear me.  Or maybe they can.
	anyway, interesting discussion...)