[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Wireless Energy Transmission
>
> Original Poster: "Mad Coiler" <tesla_coiler-at-hotmail-dot-com>
>
> >
> >If you want to move energy around, you need a way that doesn't spread
out:
> >for ElectroMagnetic energy, it is called either a conductor (a wire) or
a
> >waveguide, depending on the propagation means. Or, as is actually done,
you
> >move the energy in another form (i.e. chemical energy in the form of
> >oil/gas/coal).
> >
> >
>
> As far as I see it the inverse square law is one of the biggest
> disadvantages to wireless. And then the higher frequencies like microwave
> wich are more easy to confine into a 'beam' are more dangerous and cannot
be
> used for these applications.
High or low frequency makes no difference. It is the power density that is
the hazard. THere are some effects where some frequencies are absorbed
better than others, and, for long wavelengths (>5 or 6 m), the human body
doesn't make a very effective receiving antenna (the "capture area" is
small in antenna speak). It is much easier to make a high energy density
beam with microwaves. The tightness of the beam is determined by the size
of the transmitting antenna compared to the wavelength. "Focusing" TC
frequencies (100 kHz = 3 km wavelength) would require a truly gargantuan
antenna.
But what of Tesla's ideas? I am no expert on
> these ideas, so I wont go into great detail. Radio waves loose power by
the
> inv sq law, and maybe due to the fact that their real purpose is to cary
> information.
I don't know that em waves have a "purpose".. A much more metaphysical
question than I am prepared to answer (something along the lines of "why is
there light???")
But what if these waves were resonant? I.e. you can transmit on
> 5MHz or 5GHz here on earth, but is one better than the other? Are niether
> good? Wasnt Tesla going to use the earth as like an antenna...hard to
write
> in words.
You can propagate EM waves around the world fairly efficiently,particularly
at low frequencies, however, the receiver and transmitter efficiencies are
low (that huge antenna problem).
An EM wave travels around the earth 7 times a second - or there
> abouts(dont remember the exact number).
That's right... about 40,000 km around the earth, and EM propagates at
800,000 km/sec
Wasn't it Tesla's idea to use this
> 'natural' resonant by transmitting a 7Hz wave around the earth. The wave
> would continue to gain energy with time, not loose it. the way I
envisioned
> this : you have a transmitter which is one point on the side of the
globe.
<<snip>>>
Certainly, you can consider it as a huge resonator, but you still can't get
out more than you put in, and you're going to have signficant losses. And,
fine, once you get this huge amplitude standing wave, how will you take the
energy out just where you want it? By the way, you could use any multiple
of 7 Hz and it would work pretty much the same.
Here is another little problem: The earth isn't spherical (about 1 part in
300 shorter pole to pole than across equator), and, even bigger, the
propagation velocity isn't constant, depending on the dielectric/conductor
properties of the ionosphere and the surface. From such propagation speed
variations, we get useful things like "skip" on the shortwave bands, and so
forth. The variation at lower frequencies (<100 kHz) isn't as big, but it
is there. The practical effect is that it isn't possible to get a
"coincidence" at the antipodes. You could set up a huge phased array to
simulate this, but, ......