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

Re: Tesla's Wireless Power Transmission ==> was Re: Non-tech Qu

He wanted
> them to pump low frequency  current into the earth at the earth's natural
> resonance. To recieve your electrical service, you pound a ground rod in
> the ground and tune your "recieving coil" to the same freq. And viola,
> you have power. Many coilers have done this experiment and proved that it
> does work, even at RF currents.

	What they have proven is that high-Q coupled circuits can exchange
power at reasonable distances; has nothing to do with "pounding current
into the ground" per se.
> 
> Tesla also knew and proved that gas under low pressure (or "rarified gas"
> as he called it) was indeed very cunducting. In fact just as conducting
> as a wire (if not more efficient). That is why that neon sign
> transformers are current limited, a neon sign tube is an almost perfect
> dead short.

	Well, not quite.  The discharge has quite a high impedance, as evidence
by the high voltages used for longer tube lengths.

> 
> Of course the only way to get all the upper atmosphere to conduct is to
> excite it with lots of voltage and at RF (then and only then will it be a
> good conductor).  He saw this method of power distribution as much more
> efficient than the current 60 Hz power grid that was already adopted by
> the world (which he devoloped too!).

	Note that in this case he was talking about distribution without wires,
but definitely distribution with a conductor (the ionized layer).  

> To  get all the wonderful RF juice
> up in the air, he wanted to use either a long copper wire (or antenna)
> attached to a large balloon that would terminate in the ionisphere, OR
> "shine" a UV beam straight up into the atmosphere. 

	Where does he mention the "UV beam"?  

That would be a
> perfect conducting channel. 

	By no means!


The spark gap in a Tesla Coil uses this same
> "plasma channel" to send current through the air between the gaps.
> 
> So you see, the signal is tuned to natural resonances, it does not rely
> on EM radiation which IS hampered by the inverse square law.
> 
> Dan

	Sorry; the inverse square law applies equally to power transmission,
whether by radiation  or by conduction such as he envisaged.  If it
didn't, there would be more energy available at longer ranges than at
shorter ones.  Must be where the free energy idea came from!!!!!

	Many people seem to be confused about "the inverse square law". 
Zennek's remarks on ground waves has been quoted here as proof of "a 1/R
law", but that's not at all what he wrote.   He was talking about the
electric field (voltage) and showed that the voltage due to a ground
wave falls off as 1/R.  Since the available power varies as the square
of the available voltage, it falls off as 1/R^2. I'm sure the good
gentleman would be amused by some of these references.  He was a true
scholar a century ago and his writings are very explicit and easy to
read, as were those of many other pioneers including, as an outstanding
example, those of Tesla.  Clear expositions don't necessarily imply
correct ideas, however.

Ed