Re: Tesla's Wireless Power Transmission ==> was Re: Non-tech Qu

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: Tesla's Wireless Power Transmission ==> was Re: Non-tech Qu
• From: "Malcolm Watts" <malcolm.watts-at-wnp.ac.nz> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)
• Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 15:52:10 -0600
• Approved: twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net
• Delivered-To: fixup-tesla-at-pupman-dot-com-at-fixme

A couple of comments:

On 19 May 00, at 18:52, Tesla List wrote:

> Original Poster: "Dan Kunkel" <kunk77-at-juno-dot-com> 
> 
> Benkanosan,
> 
> You're right about the inverse square law (i = 1 / r * r ) aplying to
> Tesla Coils. The fact is, they due make lousy radio transmitters. But,
> fortunately that is not how Tesla envisioned them to operate. He wanted
> them to pump low frequency  current into the earth at the earth's natural
> resonance. To recieve your electrical service, you pound a ground rod in
> the ground and tune your "recieving coil" to the same freq. And viola,
> you have power. Many coilers have done this experiment and proved that it
> does work, even at RF currents.

But it is far from being efficient.
 
> Tesla also knew and proved that gas under low pressure (or "rarified gas"
> as he called it) was indeed very cunducting. In fact just as conducting
> as a wire (if not more efficient). That is why that neon sign
> transformers are current limited, a neon sign tube is an almost perfect
> dead short. So with this in mind, he wanted to excite the ionisphere (or
> the Schuman cavity as we know it today). The Schuman cavity has a natural
> and proven resonance.

Don't agree. Glowing gas is obviously dissipating energy. While the 
gas has a negative resistance characteristic, it still suffers a 
significant voltage drop so dissipates power unlike a wire whose 
resistance can be made arbitrarily low.  

Regards,
Malcolm

• Prev: Re: toroid
• Next: Re: model 1256 variac (28 amp)
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread