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

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:39:22 EDT
From: Mddeming@xxxxxxx
To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Tesla myths corrected - Best text? (fwd)

 
In a message dated 10/19/07 11:19:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007  17:06:31 -0700
From: Ed Phillips <evp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list  <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Tesla myths corrected - Best text?  (fwd)

So you have added these losses and come to 75 kW? I think it is  nearer 80 - 
85 kW myself.

Peter"

Try gigawatts  and you'll be closer when you work out the numbers for any 
imaginable inductor  Q and ignoring ground loss or shunt currents in the ionized 
channels due to  lightning bolts which come from above the "layer" and 
continue to the  ground.  Remember this "layer" covers the entire  earth!

Ed





Hi Ed,
 
    So, we have this giant capacitor (upper troposphere  to earth) being 
pumped with a gazillion watts of power and arcing  internally hundreds of times a 
second from dielectric punctures  (lightning). Sounds terribly inefficient and 
dangerous to me. When a big cap  goes bad and turns itself into a 
non-quenching spark gap, being inside the  dielectric is "not healthy for children and 
other living things." However,  such power-arcing on a global scale would 
convert significant amounts of N2 and  O2 to nitrous oxide, so at least we'd all die 
laughing.
    YOMV, but I, for one, am glad that Tesla never got  such a system 
working. 
 
Matt D.



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com