Re: Tesla Coil RF Transmitter

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz" <acmdq@xxxxxxxxxx>

Tesla list wrote:
> Original poster: "Gary Peterson" <gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Interesting to see that some people was already at that time seing 
that something
was terribly wrong...

Tesla's analog is incorrect:

> ...
> Tesla
>     I will explain it by an analogue.
>     Suppose that the earth were an elastic bag filled with 
> water.  My transmitter is equivalent to a pump.  I put it on a 
> point of the globe, and work my little piston so as to create a 
> disturbance of that water.
> If the piston moves slowly, so that the time is long enough for the 
> disturbance to spread over the globe, then what will be the result 
> of my working this pump? The result will be that the bag will expand 
> and contract rhythmically with the motions of the piston, you 
> see.  So that, at any point of that bag, there will be a rhythmical 
> movement due to the pulsations of the pump.
>    That is only, however, when the period is long.  If I were to 
> work this pump very rapidly, then I would create impulses, and the 
> ripples would spread in circles over the surface of the globe.  The 
> globe will no longer expand and contract in its entirety, but it 
> will be subject to these outgoing, rippling waves.
>     Remember, now, that the water is incompressible, that the bag 
> is perfectly elastic, that there are no hysteretic losses in the 
> bag due to these expansions and contractions; and remember also, 
> that there is a vacuum, in infinite space, so that the energy 
> cannot be lost in waves of sound.  Then, if I put at a distant 
> point another little pump, and tune it to the rhythmical pulses of 
> the pump at the central plant, I will excite strong vibrations and 
> will recover power from them, sufficient to operate a 
> receiver.  But, if I have no pump there to receive these 
> oscillations, if there is nowhere a place where this elastic energy 
> is transferred into frictional energy (we always use in our devices 
> frictional energy --
> everything is lost through friction), then there is no loss, and if 
> I have a plant of 1,000 horsepower and I operate it to full 
> capacity, that plant does not take power, it runs idle, exactly as 
> the plant at Niagara.  If I do not put any motors or any lamps on 
> the circuit, the plant runs idle.  There is a 5,000 horsepower 
> turbine going, but no power is supplied to the turbine except such 
> power as is necessary to overcome the frictional losses.
>     Now the vast difference between the scheme of radio engineers 
> and my scheme is this.  If you generate electromagnetic waves with 
> a plant of 1,000 horsepower, you are using 1,000 horsepower right 
> along -- whether there is any receiving being done or not.  You 
> have to supply this 1,000 horsepower, exactly as you have to supply 
> coal to keep your stove going, or else no heat goes out.  That is 
> the vast difference.  In my case, I conserve the energy; in the 
> other case, the energy is all lost.

Tesla forgets that the "water" sent into the ground is charged, and so is
attracted back to the oppositely charged top terminal (and coil) of his
transmitter. It then does NOT spread through all the Earth, but stays
concentrated around the transmitter.

Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz