Re: Teslas wireless power
>Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 16:25:02 -0600
>From: Tesla List <tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com>
>Subject: Re: Teslas wireless power
>From webrand-at-dgs.dgsys-dot-comSun Jul 28 14:49:17 1996
>Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 11:11:43 -0400
>From: Wallace Edward Brand <webrand-at-dgs.dgsys-dot-com>
>Subject: Re: Teslas wireless power
[ large snip ]
>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
>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
Wallace and I have had this discussion over on the USA-TESLA list
which appears to have died for the summer.... no response from the
The concept of wireless power is OK if it can be controlled. And
there would only be as much power extractable from the system as
was put into the system. If the originators and legitimate users
of the power could not control where it goes and who takes it,
taking power could much more easily become a terrorist act, or
greedy industrialists could hog the power from others just like a
nasty land owner might hog all the water in a stream through his
property leaving none for his neighbor, or as a high-rise building
might block all the sunshine and all the view for another building.
The concept of sending/having power available anywhere must include
methods of **turning it off** where it doesn't belong, for both
safety and these 'political' reasons of which Wallace speaks. With
the Tesla approach one would be at risk of inadvertently becoming a
The other people who send the power through the ground- well this
is very interesting. They said their dropoff rate was linear
instead of squared with distance. This makes sense if their power
is directional and not isotropic. Incidentally, how do you send
radio waves or electric-field waves *through* a conductor? If it
is a good conductor it blocks the waves and if the conductor is a
poor conductor, then there will be losses in it, considerable
losses. There has to be more to it than that. It's too simple.
Electric currents set up in and kept in the ground itself will die
out. The only way to keep the energy going for any distance is if
there is an EM wave travelling above the ground in the air using
the ground as one side of a waveguide, or if there were layers of
relatively good conduting ground separated by a poorly conducting
layer. Then you have a waveguide suitable for EM transmission.
But not **inside** a conductor itself.
Fred W. Bach , Operations Group | Internet: music-at-triumf.ca
TRIUMF (TRI-University Meson Facility) | Voice: 604-222-1047 loc 6327/7333
4004 WESBROOK MALL, UBC CAMPUS | FAX: 604-222-1074
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., CANADA V6T 2A3
"Accuracy is important. Details can mean the difference between life & death."
These are my opinions, which should ONLY make you read, think, and question.
They do NOT necessarily reflect the views of my employer or fellow workers.
[ Let's make sure that this thread steers more towards the "how to do it", rather
than towards the "free energy" (no offense intended). -- Chip]