Re: indication of good tuning (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:52:44 -0700
From: Ken or Doris Herrick <kchdlh@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: indication of good tuning (fwd)

Matthew (& all)-

Although I'm far from a qualified scientist I have some small 
understanding remaining from my B.S.E.E. of half a century ago.  I'd 
have to conclude that such wireless power transmission would be doomed 
to failure.  The Earth may well act as a transmission line (I'm not 
competent to form an opinion on that) but if so, it's surely a >>lossy<< 
transmission line--very lossy, indeed.  Any significant power attempted 
to be transmitted over any significant distance would be significantly 
dissipated therein.  (So how significant is that?  Anyone else?...)

Ken Herrick

Tesla list wrote:
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:55:01 -0500
> From: Matthew Boddicker <shmerpleton_town@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: indication of good tuning (fwd)
>
> This is Matthew Boddicker again.
>
> I was thinking, Maybe a large spark shows such a large output that 
> sparks are just expected. A lack of sparks, on the same line a 
> thought, would show a weak output.
>
> I guess it would help if I mention my ultimate goal. I am going to do 
> a large scale version of a recently completed research project. A 
> paper of the project is attached to this e-mail.
>
> I am trying to see if power transmission is effecient through the 
> earth or the air. I believe it is mentioned in the paper that I don't 
> know if my system used the air, the earth, or both to power the 
> flourescent lightbulb. The next project should find that out by 
> measuring the effeciency using the earth, and then the air.
>
> Feel free to make any comments on the paper. It probably needs to be 
> updated again to stay current with my facts. The only request I make 
> is if all information can be backed by a website, article, or book 
> that I can look at.
>
> Thank you all.
> Matthew Boddicker
[snipped]