Re: Tesla myths corrected - Best text? (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:26:44 -0600
From: Gary Peterson <g.peterson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Tesla myths corrected - Best text? (fwd)

>> "It is expected that when the fully developed system is in place it will 
>> be possible to extract exactly the amount of energy that is available 
>> from the generators minus the global transmission line losses, which 
>> should amount to about 75 kilowatts."

> Is this your figure or Tesla's?

The 75 kW is derived from Tesla's statement,

    "I have, in fact, worked out a plant of 10,000 horse-power which would 
operate with no bigger loss than 1 percent of the whole power applied; that 
is, with the exception of the frictional energy that is consumed in the 
rotation of the engines and the heating of the conductors, I would not lose 
more than 1 percent.  In other words, if I have a 10,000 horsepower plant, 
it would take only 100 horsepower to keep the earth vibrating so long as 
there is no energy taken out at any other place." -- Nikola Tesla, 1916

> I think [amount of power required to resonate the earth, i.e., the global 
> transmission line loss] is nearer 80 - 85kW myself.

Thanks, I can live with that.

Best regards,
Gary

Gary Peterson
Twenty First Century Books
P.O. Box 2001
Breckenridge, CO 80424-2001
g.peterson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 970-453-9293   Fax: 970-453-6692
www.teslaradio.com
www.teslabooks.com
www.teslascience.org


> From: Peter Terren <pterren@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Tesla myths corrected - Best text? (fwd)
>
>> "It is expected that when the fully developed system is in place it will 
>> be possible to extract exactly the amount of energy that is available 
>> from the generators minus the global transmission line losses, which 
>> should amount to about 75 kilowatts."
>
> You make me laugh.  Is this your figure or Tesla's?
> Consider
> 1 Just having a sphere charged to 1MV such as a large VDG generator takes
> the whole of the power generated by the VDG (otherwise the voltage would
> rise higher) This might already be many watts due to corona leakage and
> conduction down the supports.  Consider now 100MV.  This is the voltage of
> natural lightning (range 10 - 120MV) but the losses will go up more than
> exponentially. Consider the relativistic effects understood in recent 
> years
> which allow this voltage to jump many kilometers under the initiation of
> cosmic ray events.  Purely maintaining a terminal at 100MV is just not
> conceivable with current technology without creating kilometers long arcs
> that will short circuit the system until it recharges. Maintaining this at
> ground level let alone kilometers high without gigawatts of losses seems
> ludicrous.
> 2 That was DC.  Now consider 6Hz AC with the massive (kilometer scale
> inductor to resonate at 6kHz) rated for 100MV and consider the losses in 
> the
> magnetic field and in the capacitance to Earth.
> 3  Assuming that you could charge the non conductive "rareified 
> atmosphere"
> at 8km do you consider that there might be losses between the huge 
> capacitor
> plates (atmosphere vs Earth) resonating at 6Hz. Do you consider that there
> might be dielectic losses involving the atmosphere? What about simple 
> short
> circuits?  Sprites are electrical discharges that occur at low ionosphere
> level reach up to 90km
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_%28lightning%29
> These are happening spontaneously indicating that charge is accumulating 
> and
> discharging all the time at ionospheric level.
> At lower levels the pattern of discharge is "blue jets" and nearer ground
> level is natural lightning.
>
> So you have added these losses and come to 75kW? I think it is nearer 80 -
> 85kW myself.
>
> Peter