On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 5:59 PM jimlux <jimlux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 8/19/20 9:12 AM, David Thomson wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:56 PM jimlux <jimlux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> There's no getting around the inverse square law.
> > Fiber optic cables are an example of getting around the inverse square
> law.
> > Electric field transmission along ionized paths are an example of getting
> > around the inverse square law. Even electrical transmission over a copper
> > wire can get around the inverse square law.
>
> Yes - But most of the "wireless power transmission" schemes (and I
> include fibers and waveguide here) will be subject to inverse square in
> the far field.
>
Tesla was not talking about electromagnetic radio transmission, and he went
out of his way to state that he was working on a way to get around the
limitations of transverse radiation. You are agreeing that it is possible
to get around the inverse square law by using methods other than standard
radio transmission. That's great. That is what Tesla was saying.
All this nonsense about worldwide power transmission from radio waves is a
red herring. Tesla never said that could happen, and neither did he promote
the idea. For years, you and others keep throwing this red herring out
every time someone tries to replicate Tesla's work and develop his methods
for transmitting power using methods other than transverse radio wave
propagation.
> Are you just assuming that Greg's receiver is receiving pure, unrestrained
> > radio waves? Or has this been established?
>
> I would say actually that it's working in the near field, not a
> propagating wave.
>
However you wish to describe it, you are still agreeing that there are
non-radiative methods for transmitting power. Again, this is great!
> > It is very easy to get around the inverse square law when transmitting
> > along an ionized channel of air molecules. Have you never seen a plasma
> > globe?
>
> Lightning as well - but for power distribution? Plasma is a pretty
> lossy conductor.
>
The power distribution Tesla had in mind was power for radios and small
motors. I don't think Tesla ever got the idea that industrial scale power
transmission would replace the present wire grid. Tesla's thinking was
along the lines of low power lighting, small motors, and self-powered
communications devices for the average person. Tesla actually built a
working model of remote controlled submarine that was powered and
controlled through wireless power. Greg Leyh just built a working model of
a motorized bike that is powered by wireless power transmission. There are
ways to work around the inverse square law to broadcast power, and Tesla
was THE pioneer in this field. Right now, the biggest obstacle to
overcoming the limits of wireless power transmission are people who keep
throwing out the red herring of the inverse square law.
I hope the moderators can see this, and politely remind people who throw
out the inverse square law that wireless power transmission is about
finding alternative ways to get power to a remote location using
non-radiative, non-transverse-wave techniques.
As for your comment about plasmas, did you consider the difference between
hot plasmas and cold plasmas? A cold plasma exists where the hard matter of
protons and neutrons remain at room temperature, but the electrons get up
to 10,000 K and higher. However, the electrons can be so spaced out that
the high temperature does not affect the environment in an adverse way.
Cold plasmas are used in personal hygiene products, food processing, and in
many manufacturing processes. There are no laws of physics that prevent
plasmas from being useful and efficient means for transmitting power,
especially in a closed system. The surface of the Earth, as a whole, is a
closed system, and Tesla's intent was to harness this fact for his power
and signal distribution system.
We must not limit our minds to radiative photon propagation, and instead
think about other ways in which energy can be used. I do not know the
particulars of Greg's wireless bike. However, from what I know about radio
broadcasting, his bike cannot be operating on radio waves. If it was, then
people would have wireless powered skateboard parks near radio station
broadcast towers; others would be flying battery-less drones in the
vicinity of radio towers.
Try not to hijack this thread with "Tesla was wrong about wireless power
broadcasting due to the inverse square law." Tesla never said it was
possible to broadcast power using transverse radiation. He always pointed
out that it was impossible, and that Marconi and others would fail where he
would succeed (although Tesla clearly underestimated how willing people
would be to get power for their radios from a battery or wall outlet).
Nobody who is truly researching Nikola Tesla is suggesting that we use
transverse radiation to broadcast power. What we are trying to figure out
are ways to work around the inverse square law, such as the people who
invented fiber optics, those who experiment with cold plasmas, and those
who attempt to safely couple a power source with an appliance using
primarily the E field.
And keep an open mind that if power can be transmitted even a short
distance beyond the limits of the inverse square law, then the technology
can be improved to transmit the power even further.
David Thomson
_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla