Re: Teslas wireless power

At 10:25 PM 7/26/96 -0600, you wrote:
>> Subject: Re: Teslas wireless power
>> >Subject: Teslas wireless power
>From hullr-at-whitlock-dot-comFri Jul 26 21:23:28 1996
>Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 17:06:49 -0700
>From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
>To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>Subject: Re: Teslas wireless power
>Tesla List wrote:
>> >From rwstephens-at-ptbo.igs-dot-netFri Jul 26 11:28:24 1996
>> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 02:16:25 -0500
>> From: "Robert W. Stephens" <rwstephens-at-ptbo.igs-dot-net>
>> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>> Subject: Re: Teslas wireless power
>> >>From Steve_Crawshaw_at_erith6-at-smtpgwy.supertension-dot-comWed Jul 24
21:53:05 1996
>> >Date: Wed, 24 Jul 96 13:00:53 GMT
>> >From: Steve_Crawshaw_at_erith6-at-smtpgwy.supertension-dot-com
>> >To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>> >Subject: Teslas wireless power
>> >     Hi all, this is aimed at Richard Hull, but open for discussion by
>> >     anyone, naturally.
>> >     What are your opinions as to this method of power transmission as
>> >     regards technical feasability?
>> >     Thanks
>> >     Steve Crawshaw
>> Steve,
>> Tesla's dream of wireless transmission of electrical power, if
>> implemented on a large scale would saturate the surface area of the
>> earth, and a zone above it extending about 7-10 miles with an alternating, RF
>> high voltage field gradient way above that normally produced by
>> nature and experienced by humans, animals and plantlife from natural sources.
>Well, we can't be absolutely sure of this due to not understanding 
>exactly what Tesla thought he knew about the method of transmission.  If 
>through the earth only, and not by classic RF, then the airwaves might 
>not have a microvolt in them.  Agreed, that if the system worked, the 
>ecological questions and problems might outway any real advantage to his 
>system.  But without proof of operation or knowledge of the method 
>envisioned by Tesla, we can't make blanket statements.
>For a long time, the Shumann Cavity Resonances were touted as Tesla's 
>method, but the Corums recent work now looks like this is out and true 
>ground transmission might be the method.  I must reference their talk at 
>the 1996 ITS  conference.  Again, I'm not big on wireless transmission of 
>power and think it a probable Tesla false vision.
>Big snip
>> On a small scale, a Tesla coil demonstration of wireless power is
>> educational, fun and relatively harmless.  On a larger scale it could be
>> disruptive to commerce and industry.  If you ever set up a wireless power
>> transmitting station like Wardencliffe as proposed by Tesla, I will
>> come and kick your ass!
>> Happy Coiling!, without the wireless power crap, rwstephens
>Tesla never finished his station.... I don't think we need worry about 
>one of us crankin' one up again.  Whose got the know how, much less the 
>Richard Hull, TCBOR

I believe it is unwise to make blanket statements about infeasibility
without first balancing economics and environmental considerations.  First,
Project ELF has been in operation for some time and no one has pointed too
any great environmental degradation.  Second, consider the benefits to the
environment, such as replacing petroleum drilling and production activities,
refining, automotive use with clean and quiet operating electric cars using
regenerative braking (no asbestos dust), no automotive pollutants.   Of
course "de gustibus non disputandem est"  (in matters of taste there is no
dispute).  To some, electric transmission towers are beautiful "eiffel
towers of industry".  My sister-in-law takes photographs of them on her
travels.  I think they, and even poles for electric and telephone
distribution are extremely unsightly.  There are hydroelectric project sites
in remote areas ( one in Alaska with a potential reservoir that could hold
80 years of storage) where very advantageous projects could be developed but
aren't because of the high costs of transmission.  In fact the total losses
of a wired system of transmission and distribution can equal 12% or more but
Tesla suggested that after sufficient power was put into his system to
correct for damping, the incremental losses would only be about 3%.  The
biggest advantage of course would be to merge the oil market  with the
electric power market and therefore free us from the Arab oil cartel.  I for
one, don't like the idea of the Arabs making the decisions for our economy
yet they call the shots for Louisiana and Texas.  In fact Tesla
thought he might be able to power aircraft with his system.
I think we should look more into wireless energy transmission and not 
concentrate totally on sparks
until we can fairly weigh the advantages and disadvantages of wireless
energy transmission.  At present, the electric power market is characterized
by monopoly.  The government is trying currently to change that but in its
efforts, so far, are such as may worsen the situation.  There are three ways
to obtain the advantages of competition in electric power markets.  One, is
efforts such as the government is taking, but without the big mistakes that
are in its current effort as set forth in Order 888 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.  Second, is to develop small scale generating units
that have economics better than the large scale coal fired units (about 500
mw) that currently give the best base load energy.  Third, is to be free of
transmission lines, by replacing them with a system of wireless energy
transmission, a la Tesla.  If amateur experimentation can carry it far
enough, it is possibe that government funding could fund a demonstration
model.  However the politics of this make this path very unlikely.  
Wallace Edward Brand