Re: Validating the "Tesla Effect" and retardation

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: Mddeming@xxxxxxx 

In a message dated 10/15/06 2:47:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
Original poster: "Gary Peterson" <g.peterson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


>Original poster: Ed Phillips <evp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Original poster: "Gary Peterson"

At the TMSC 2006 Conference on Nikola Tesla,
>>A diminutive incandescent lamp was connected to the secondary of a
>>Tesla receiving transformer to demonstrate the reception of
>>electrical energy propagated by conduction between the two ground
>>terminals and displacement current between the two elevated
>>terminals. . . . As for demonstrating . . . the transmission of
>>electrical energy between . . . a Tesla coil RF transmitter and
>>Tesla receiving transformer . . . this . . . [is] . . . easily
>>done. . . .  Why don't Ed, Matt and you all try it?

I, for one, have better ways to spend my meager resources.


>     I'm not enough of a mathematician to calculate the capacitive
> coupling but sure some others here are.  With that in hand it's
> easy enough to calculate the capacitive coupling between two tuned
> circuits. . . .

The scientific method requires that mathematical models be developed
in an attempt to describe and explain the "Tesla Effect" that has
been observed by a number of people on this list and elsewhere.

Actually, the scientific method requires only that repeatable 
results, significantly   inconsistent with existing theory, be 
demonstrated, and then duplicated by competent, disinterested parties.

>>>       There is no question that RF can illuminate lamps
>>>       at modest distances. . . . It is a deal more difficult to
>>> demonstrate, and may be
>>>       impossible, that any given demo is some
>>>       'special Tesla effect' distinct from usual RF.
>>>
>>>        dwp

>     Easy enough.  All you have to do to validate the "special Tesla
> effect" is transmit a watt of power a mile with 90% efficiency. . . .

I don't agree with you at all.  Validation of the Tesla Effect in my
mind will be accomplished when even the smallest amount of electrical
energy transmitted by a Tesla coil RF transmitter is detected using a
grounded Tesla receiving transformer while at the same time the
energy is undetectable using a radio antenna connected to a sensitive
radio receiver at the same location.

What you call validation, in a properly executed experiment is known 
as statistical noise. It will always be possible to find some Tesla 
coil that under a given set of circumstances is more sensitive than 
some radio. Tesla claimed a thousandfold improvement over "Hertzian 
waves. a 0.1% discrepancy would prove nothing, except, of course,  to 
one that Ed euphemistically calls a "fanatic".

The separation  between the TC transmitter site and the receiving
site has to be a multiple wavelength distance.

Did Tesla claim this was necessary?
The radio antenna
must NOT be grounded to the earth.

Says who?
Ideally it would be a vertical
1/2-wave dipole, perhaps incorporating loading coils, suspended in
free space from a helium balloon.

HuH ?  Ditto
The radio receiver would be a
small battery powered cross-band transposer, (??) say 137 kHz to 224
MHz.

Ditto
Alternatively the radio antenna could be a vertical 1/4-wave
base-loaded monopole positioned directly above an elevated, insulated
counterpoise.  A third option, and probably the easiest to construct,
would be a horizontal 1/2-wave dipole with loading coils.

Ditto

The Tesla receiving transformer could be passive and incorporate a
low aspect ratio helical resonator.  Alternatively, the receiver
could be an identical TC RF transmitter synchronized with the distant
energy source and having a phase shifting network so the phase
relationship between the two oscillators can be adjusted.

Nothing like stacking the deck in your favor.

>. . . Fanatics expect 99% but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
>Ed

The use of inflammatory terms such as "fanatics" does absolutely
nothing to advance this research, and, in fact, has a retarding
influence.  I sincerely wish you would cut it out.

Gary Peterson

No, it does nothing to advance this research, but it does put it in 
reasonable perspective. If it "retards" a few newbies from chasing 
shadows until after they get some experience and understanding, then 
the net effect will be positive.
Considering the appellations in many of the flames that Terry has 
"filtered out", "fanatic" is a VERY mild one.

Matt D.