Wireless Energy Transmission Follow-up (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:22:52 -0700
From: Gary Peterson <g.peterson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Ed Phillips <evp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: List moderator <mod1@xxxxxxxxxx>,
     Barton B. Anderson <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, pterren@xxxxxxxxxxxx,
     Chip Atkinson <chip@xxxxxxxxxx>, Gary Peterson <g.peterson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Wireless Energy Transmission Follow-up

Ed,

You wrote,
> . . . As I understand your experiment you compared the receiver response 
> to a short wire to that with a resonant circuit attached . . .

That's not an exact description of what I'm doing, which is 1) determining 
if a wireless connection can be established between a Tesla coil transmitter 
and a Tesla coil receiver over a distance exceeding a few wavelengths and if 
so, 2) is the energy propagated to some degree more or less by means other 
than "standard radio waves."

> . . . and that's not a valid measurement since in the case of the wire 
> alone there was probably a large impedance mismatch and signal loss while 
> the matching might be much better in the resonant case.

The reason for using the radio receiver alone with just an ordinary antenna, 
i.e., without the Tesla coil receiver existing as part of the receiver 
circuit, is to determine the "standard radio wave" output power in the form 
of radio space waves of the Tesla coil transmitter.

> The most valid comparison you could make . . . is to compare the absolute 
> power received by a receiver [with impedance matched to the antenna used]
> . . .

I recognize the problem with the radio antenna used earlier.  I now have a 
fairly good Tesla transmitter and receiver pair; the next step is to address 
the antenna problem.  Two different types of antenna will be tried, a 
vertical dipole with loading coils, balun and antenna preamp and a tuned 
loop antenna also with a preamp.  Whatever type of radio receiver antenna is 
used, it's important that it not be grounded.  Even the insulated 
counterpoise type of radio antenna may be unsuitable in this case.

> . . . under these two conditions:
>
> 1. When your Tesla coil is being driven with some specific power, and
>
> 2. When the same power is applied to an antenna with known radiation 
> properties and located at the same spot as the Tesla coil.

As for operating a radio transmitter, I'll probably use a waveform generator 
as a low power transmitter to tune up the dipole receive antenna.  The 
comparison being made is not between the two different types of wireless 
transmitter (Hertz and Tesla), but rather between the two different types of 
wireless receiver.  The principle differences being in the design of the 
launching and the receiving structures, and the waveform, sinusoidal or 
rectangular, used to excite the launching structure.

Regards,
Gary

----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Ed Phillips <evp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Tesla myths corrected - Best text? (fwd)
>
>>> None of this proves Tesla type non Hertzian transmission . . .
>
>> That's right.  The fact that the radio receiver alone was unable to
>> detect any "radio waves" at a distance of only 60 meters, means that much
>> more aggressive measures have to be taken in the construction of the
>> standard radio wave receiving antenna that is used to take the SSTC
>> transmitter "standard radio wave output" measurements.  Then the Tesla
>> coil RF energy transmission-reception test distance has to be extended
>> out to at least a few wavelengths and the whole set of measurements taken
>> again before anything close to a meaningful conclusion can be drawn.
>
> Gary Peterson
>
> This is the area I've been considering comments as I think the phenomena
> you've observed are related to instrumentation matters more than anything
> else.  As I understand your experiment you compared the receiver response
> to a short wire to that with a resonant circuit attached and that's not a
> valid measurement since in the case of the wire alone there was probably a
> large impedance mismatch and signal loss while the matching might be much
> better in the resonant case.  You do indeed need to standardize the
> antenna part.  Quantitative field strength measurement isn't a simple
> matter!
>
> The most valid comparison you could make, and one that will be exceedingly
> difficult, is to compare the absolute power received by a receiver [with
> impedance matched to the antenna used] under these two conditions:
>
> 1. When your Tesla coil is being driven with some specific power, and
>
> 2. When the same power is applied to an antenna with known radiation
> properties and located at the same spot as the Tesla coil.
>
> At least that method would eliminate receiver tuning and antenna matching
> as variables.
>
> Ed