RE: Wireless power transmission (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:11:37 +0100
From: Colin Dancer <colind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: 'Tesla list' <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Wireless power transmission (fwd)

Dave,

I notice that you appear to have dropped this thread and moved on to another
area where us "engineers and scientists" have been ignoring key phenomenon.

Can I take this to mean that you now accept that you can't get plasma or
"longitudinal electrostatic waves" in the air?

If you don't accept this, then please explain how the incredibly weak forces
between the very low density of ions in free air can support waves despite
the damping and randomizing impacts from neutral molecules.  

Given that what you're suggesting is contrary to current established theory,
your explanation needs to be backed up with some hard facts rather than just
vague words and invented terms.  In particular I'd suggest your analysis
should include at least order of magnitude information on claimed:

* ion mass
* ion charge
* ion density
* distance moved by the ions
* frequency of the motion
* velocity of wave propagation

Ideally you would also do the relatively simple calculations to show that
these six pieces of information are at least broadly self-consistent under
application of the inverse square law and Newton's second law (unless you
are also claiming one of these is wrong?).  If you want to add extra weight
to your argument you might extend this analysis to include a numerical
justification for why the ion vibration will remain coherent despite thermal
motion and neutral collisions.

If you can't provide this information or if your response to this email is
that the mathematics for the above is beyond you, then you might just pause
to consider whether you really have any theory at all, or any basis for
claiming that modern scientists are blinkered and bigoted.  Maybe the
problem is that you haven't bothered to try and understand what they are
saying? 

Colin. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Dancer 
Sent: 21 June 2007 10:09
To: Tesla list
Subject: RE: Wireless power transmission (fwd)

Hi Dave,

Glad the description of beta was an aid.  I'll try and take your questions
one at a time, but would welcome peoples' views on whether we're drifting
too far from the list topic and should be taking this discussion off list.

>
> What it indicates to me is that magnetic fields play a role in the 
> field structure of ions.  It seems we could think of ions as beads 
> thrown loosely about.  The ion beta would be the tendency of the beads 
> to be strung together with lines of magnetic flux.  The ion beta could 
> then be an important factor in calculating acoustic waves, especially 
> if there is a magnetic flux path between a transmitter and receiver.

Beta is relevant to plasma waves, but the factors I've previously mentioned
still mean that at atmospheric pressure, even with strong magnetic fields
and ionization from a tesla coil, I still don't believe plasma waves occur
in free air.

> Another way to look at it might be that the most direct path for 
> acoustic transmission of power would not necessarily be a straight 
> line to the receiver.  It would be necessary to understand the magnetic
flux paths, particularly with a relatively weak ion field.

Static magnetic fields would indeed guide the propagation of plasma waves,
though you must remember that the field from a tesla coil is a) constantly
swapping direction b) loops back on itself to the coil rather than radiating
outwards (we only have magnetic dipoles not monopoles)

> You also brought up an interesting point with regard to the auroras.  
> The auroras occur in a relatively low atmospheric pressure over a 
> broad space. I would suspect the ion density in the auroras would be 
> far less than the ion densities near a Tesla coil, but I could be wrong.
We could use some hard data here.

I'd have to check up on the absolute densities, but the aurora are just the
end points of the journey of solar wind particles trapped in the earth's
magnetic field (mainly electrons are trapped). For most of their journey
they are outside the earth atmosphere, and it is in fact their very low
density which gives a relatively high beta even in the weak geomagnetic
field.  However, the point where you see aurora is in the very high
atmosphere, pretty much as soon as you have an appreciable density of
neutral gas molecules for the electrons to interact with.  Thus in aurora
the ion/neutral density is much much higher than near a Tesla coil.

> You mentioned the effect of neutral particles.  Are you saying that 
> even though ion densities may be greater near a Tesla coil the high 
> density of neutral particles causes greater inertial damping than in
rarefied atmosphere?

Exactly.  This is pretty much the key factor which ensures you're not going
to get any appreciable plasma waves in free air, and definitely not at
anything like the strengths required to transfer even the most minute amount
of power. Think of the difference between sound propagation in water (fairly
good due to low viscous losses) and treacle (terrible due to high viscous
losses).  

Normal air acts like "ultra-treacle" to plasma waves.

Colin.