Re: Inverse Square 'law' Re: About wireless energy transfer

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: Jim Lux <jimlux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

At 03:46 PM 2/10/2007, you wrote:
> Original poster: "Gerry  Reynolds" <gerryreynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> I've never thought of the inverse square law the way you describe 
> it.  It sounds like the only way to "not have an inverse square 
> relationship" is to have a beam that has absolutely NO DIVERGENCE 
> and physics would preclude this.   No matter how small the 
> divergence angle is, it will cause the cross sectional area of the 
> beam to be 4X larger at 2X the distance with respect to some other 
> point along the beam.
>
> Is this interpretation correct???

Yes.

But, it IS possible to come close.. if you are "close" relative to 
the "physical extent" (sort of like the magnetic field next to a 
wire... if you're 1 mm away, and the wire is 1m long, the difference 
between the 1/r and reality is so small, it's not worth worrying about.

As soon as things look "sphere like"  (that is, the relative 
distances to each part of the source don't change with 
distance)  you're in a 1/r^2 regime