[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 22:09:32 +0800
From: Peter Terren <pterren@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>

These guys had massive internet coverage.  They are hardly likely to take 
time out from press interviews to explain why their paper is crap.
Really you guys are going about things the wrong way if you want to deal 
with this to your advantage.
Make a setup that powers a laptop. Forget power radiation levels or 
efficiency.  Have a good clear well planned photo of it in action 
transmitting power through a wall and lighting up some LED's as well. Has to 
be simple and clear for Joe Public. Transmitter on one side, power pick up 
on the other.  Press releases say "Wireless power for laptop a reality". Say 
you have made the first commercial application of the papers remarkable 
discovery of WiTricity and that you are in commercial negotiations to rush 
this to the US market by November 2007 and World market by Christmas 2007. 
The internet will lap (pun intended) it up.
I have commitments and don't have a lot of experience with high power RF to 
make this work, but lots of you do.  Even a DRSSTC or VTTC could be modified 
to suit to give 20W over a few feet with a big enough collector.
They are not likely to argue that your setup is rubbish because it's based 
on theirs and you have it working. You can keep details scarce claiming 
commercial sensitivity.

We will all think you are an idiot too of course but will be secretly 
jealous of all the media coverage.


> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 04:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mike <megavolts61@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> I wrote to the MIT guys and asked them to explain to me why they thought
> they had something new going on.  I got no reply.
>  Mike
>      According to the Science weekly bulletin the stupid MIT article is
> being published in this week's (July 6) Science.  I hope a number of
> you
> will write carefully-prepared letters of protest to the editor as I
> intend to do after I receive the magazine, probably next Thursday.
> Points to make:
> 1. There's no new discovery of any kind here by other than the authors.
>  Their " remarkable discovery" that two coupled circuits tuned to the
> same frequency would exhibit enhanced coupling was demonstratedThe
> basic
> principle was used in public and well documented demonstrations by
> Nikola Tesla in the early 1890's and in high power demonstrations at
> Colorado Springs 1899-1900.  He was issued several patents
> demonstrating
> the principle clearly.  The remarkable discovery that two coupled
> circuits tuned to the same frequency would exhibit enhanced coupling
> was
> demonstrated in public by Oliver Lodge in 1889.
> 2. A thorough mathematic analysis of the coupling between tuned
> circuits
> was published by Paul Drude in the early 1900's.
> 3. The authors demonstration can be predicted by well-known expressions
> dating from this time, published in numerous text books and manuals and
> in wide useage by "radio engineers" by the early 1920's.
> 4. In spite of their use of the term "non-radiative" the actual power
> radiated in their experiments was at least 100 times (actually nearer
> 1000 I think but haven't done the calculations) larger than permitted
> by
> FCC regulations.
> 5. etc. etc.
> Ed
> ---------------------------------
> Building a website is a piece of cake.
> Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.