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

Re: Tesla's Energy Transmission (Warning Long Post)

Hi Nick,

Forgive my comments on this "old" subject ;-)

At 01:24 PM 12/10/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi All,
>         I just thought I'd put in my 2 penorth' (3.29c) about how the tesla 
>energy transmission system was supposed to work.
>There are many fundamental misunderstandings of this system widely 
>propogated.  I have examined all of them and this is the only one that makes 
>sense to me.
>
>The key to understanding the tesla magnifier system is to realise that the 
>standard  treatment of the electrical ground plane as something capable of 
>sinking/sourcing infinite charge simply does not apply to a system as large 
>as the Colorado Springs system.  

The Springs system worked at "about" 40kW.  "Similar" power distribution
ground systems "I" have worked with can "sink" (gulp) 250 Megawatts with
ground effects at 100 yards away being zilch.  Yep, that's here in dry
sandy Colorado too...  I think the "ground" can sink one "heck of a lot of
juice".

>When the terminal of the Colorado Springs system was charged to 10MV the 
>ground below the transmitter became negative to the tune of 100 million 
>joules. This wave of negative charge was then conducted through the earth 
>until it bounced off the other side.  

100 MegaJoules????  If I remember right, he used about say 30kV at 60 Hz.
That would give a cap value of 1.85mF.  Tesla's salt water caps fell far
short of that...  The 1899 Colorado Springs power plant was not in the 100
megawatt class...

>It is this key point that explains the tesla system of wireless power 
>transmission:  The wave is a wave of charge which is conducted through the 
>earth.  It is quite correct to say that you cannot transmit power 
>electromagnetically at 5% loss around the globe - this is not an 
>electromagnetic system.  This allows the very low losses that tesla claimed.  
>The proof of this system was the stepped resonant rise that tesla observed in 
>the spark output of his system - as the resonant wave within the earth was 
>added to on each return cycle the spark output grew until the arcs were 120 
>feet long.  At this point level the wave was carrying enormous power - each 
>return cycle representing over 1 Giga Joule.  

Where is "it written" that Tesla got a 120 foot spark, and where "on Earth
in 1899" did he find a Giga Joule????

>This would indicate that this 
>is about the energy that tesla could sustain the wave at with 125kVA input, 
>ie. that there was 125kVA being dissipated into the earth at 1GJ wave energy. 
> This would mean that the calculated loss is about 1.2%.
>Tesla's published figure was 5% - It would be reasonable to assume that he 
>expected large losses in the recieving stations and that he was accounting 
>for the inefficiencies of his equipment - not the underlying loss within the 
>earth.

One has to remember that the output "load" of a Tesla coil is basically the
local capacitance of the surrounding objects with loss.  This represents a
very "local" effect.  There is little that allows energy to travel outside
this local area of a Tesla coil even if it is a "big one" like Tesla used.
Tesla made one great "Tesla coil number uno".  However, the world power
transmission thing seems to have fallen to pieces.  Sounded good but it has
never been demonstrated, proven, worked, etc...  

Sorry, but after 80+ years of playing with it, the results are still zero...

It is easy to "write and say" things like "1 Giga Joule" of energy (even in
Tesla's day).  However, "Me thinks" I would notice it, if it was really
true ;-)))  Even a Giga Joule is not that much power by today's standards
of power generation.  Lasers and other "single shot" systems can easily
reach that "standard".  However, no known Tesla coil system comes within
0.5% of it....

>
>Hope this clarifies things for some of you.
>
>BTW:Has anyone heard from a guy named F David Peat ? 

A web search only returned off-topic subjects for me...

Cheers,

	Terry

>
>Regards
>Nick Field
>