Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Restart Thread as Wirelss Energy Transfer

Expand Messages
  • Don Gibbs
    Bert, What is your opinion on the wireless energy transfer paper? When I referenced it a few weeks ago, one list member whose opinion I respect, claimed it
    Message 1 of 10 , Jan 30, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Bert,
       
      What is your opinion on the wireless energy transfer paper?
       
      When I referenced it a few weeks ago, one list member  whose opinion I respect, claimed it should not have been published and that it just restated already known principles. However, I would like to hear other opinions.
       
      Please note, I'm not trying to stir up anything between members.  The paper referenced Tesla's work and the idea of wireless energy transfer was the reason I joined this group years ago.  It seems we rarely talk about anything Tesla anymore.
       
      Best Regards,
       
      Don Gibbs
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:55 PM
      Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Hydrogen discussion ends in

      Ed Phillips wrote:
      > Boy. I miss WEB (Brant) on
      > this list."
      >
      > Actually Brand. Wallace Edward Brand, a Washington, DC attorney and
      > fan of Tesla. He sent me a lot of useful literature on the subject,
      > including the complete transcript of the Supreme Court decision on Tesla
      > vs Marconi. For the record, it definitely showed that Tesla had
      > "anticipated" Marconi's "4 tuned circuits" patent but explicitly, in the
      > words of at least one of the Justices, did not make any decision as to
      > who was "the father of radio", as some have stated.
      >
      > I hope he's OK as he hasn't contributed anything here for some time.
      >
      > Ed

      Ed,

      I heard from Wallace in late November when the near-field wireless
      transmission paper initially came out ("Wireless Non-Radiative Energy
      Transfer" by Aristeidis Karalis, J.D.Joannopoulos, Marin Soljacic -
      http://arxiv. org/abs/physics/ 0611063).

      Wallace is still around and (as of mid-November) was OK. Apparently he's
      no longer posting to this list, but he may still be monitoring it...

      Bert
      --
      ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ***
      We specialize in UNIQUE items! Coins shrunk by huge
      magnetic fields, Lichtenberg Figures (our "Captured
      Lightning") and out of print technical Books. Visit
      Stoneridge Engineering at http://www.teslaman ia.com
      ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ***

    • Bert Hickman
      Hi Don, I think the authors have rediscovered near field (inductive) coupling between low loss resonant circuits that have been tuned to the same frequency.
      Message 2 of 10 , Jan 30, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Don,

        I think the authors have "rediscovered" near field (inductive) coupling
        between low loss resonant circuits that have been tuned to the same
        frequency. They clearly were familiar with prior work done over 100
        years ago by Tesla, and many subsequent radio pioneers since their first
        reference was to a Tesla patent. I suspect that the authors may have
        come from a Quantum Mechanics/solid state physics background, since the
        terminology they use is quite foreign to electrical engineering or RF
        engineering. I really don't think they were trying to intentionally
        obscure what is otherwise a very straightforward concept (i.e., the
        behavior of weakly coupled high-Q resonant systems), but I am truly
        amazed that the notoriety that the paper has generated. My initial
        comments (from 11/16) were:

        "I really don't see anything new here - it appears to be an application
        of weakly coupled high Q resonant systems. Similar efficient energy
        transfer occurs in Tesla Coils, but the coupling factor is normally
        significantly higher. However, an isolated high-Q resonator (Tesla Coil
        secondary) can easily be excited from a nearby transmitting coil since
        the "received" voltage or current becomes multiplied by the Q of the
        secondary (over a large number of cycles) and real power can be drawn.
        The Q of a well constructed TC secondary is often in the range of 200-250.

        However, the average power that can be drawn is still no larger than the
        amount "received". The authors suggest coupling the near field
        (sometimes called the induction field) - this can be either the Electric
        or Magnetic field. Both methods have been demonstrated to work at lower
        frequencies with nearby Tesla Coil resonators that are excited from a
        Tesla Coil operating at the same natural frequency.

        The authors propose using higher Q ceramic resonators with Q's
        approaching 10,000, but otherwise the principles are quire similar. As
        power is drawn from the resonating receiver, its Q will (necessarily)
        drop - there is no free lunch..."

        Bert
        --
        ***************************************************
        We specialize in UNIQUE items! Coins shrunk by huge
        magnetic fields, Lichtenberg Figures (our "Captured
        Lightning") and out of print technical Books. Visit
        Stoneridge Engineering at http://www.teslamania.com
        ***************************************************


        Don Gibbs wrote:

        > Bert,
        >
        > What is your opinion on the wireless energy transfer paper?
        >
        > When I referenced it a few weeks ago, one list member whose opinion I
        > respect, claimed it should not have been published and that it just
        > restated already known principles. However, I would like to hear other
        > opinions.
        >
        > Please note, I'm not trying to stir up anything between members. The
        > paper referenced Tesla's work and the idea of wireless energy transfer
        > was the reason I joined this group years ago. It seems we rarely talk
        > about anything Tesla anymore.
        >
        > Best Regards,
        >
        > Don Gibbs
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Bert Hickman <mailto:bert.hickman@...>
        > To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com <mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:55 PM
        > Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Hydrogen discussion ends in
        >
        > Ed Phillips wrote:
        > > Boy. I miss WEB (Brant) on
        > > this list."
        > >
        > > Actually Brand. Wallace Edward Brand, a Washington, DC attorney and
        > > fan of Tesla. He sent me a lot of useful literature on the subject,
        > > including the complete transcript of the Supreme Court decision
        > on Tesla
        > > vs Marconi. For the record, it definitely showed that Tesla had
        > > "anticipated" Marconi's "4 tuned circuits" patent but explicitly,
        > in the
        > > words of at least one of the Justices, did not make any decision
        > as to
        > > who was "the father of radio", as some have stated.
        > >
        > > I hope he's OK as he hasn't contributed anything here for some time.
        > >
        > > Ed
        >
        > Ed,
        >
        > I heard from Wallace in late November when the near-field wireless
        > transmission paper initially came out ("Wireless Non-Radiative Energy
        > Transfer" by Aristeidis Karalis, J.D.Joannopoulos, Marin Soljacic -
        > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0611063
        > <http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0611063>).
        >
        > Wallace is still around and (as of mid-November) was OK. Apparently
        > he's
        > no longer posting to this list, but he may still be monitoring it...
        >
        > Bert
        > --
        > ***************************************************
        > We specialize in UNIQUE items! Coins shrunk by huge
        > magnetic fields, Lichtenberg Figures (our "Captured
        > Lightning") and out of print technical Books. Visit
        > Stoneridge Engineering at http://www.teslamania.com
        > <http://www.teslamania.com>
        > ***************************************************
        >
      • Ed Phillips
        SEE TESLA-RELATED COMMENTS AT END. I VE COPIED THE ORIGINAL NOTES TO PUT MY REPLY IN CONTEXT Hi Don, I think the authors have rediscovered near field
        Message 3 of 10 , Jan 30, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          SEE TESLA-RELATED COMMENTS AT END. I'VE COPIED THE ORIGINAL NOTES TO
          PUT MY REPLY IN CONTEXT

          Hi Don,

          I think the authors have "rediscovered" near field (inductive) coupling
          between low loss resonant circuits that have been tuned to the same
          frequency. They clearly were familiar with prior work done over 100
          years ago by Tesla, and many subsequent radio pioneers since their first
          reference was to a Tesla patent. I suspect that the authors may have
          come from a Quantum Mechanics/solid state physics background, since the
          terminology they use is quite foreign to electrical engineering or RF
          engineering. I really don't think they were trying to intentionally
          obscure what is otherwise a very straightforward concept (i.e., the
          behavior of weakly coupled high-Q resonant systems), but I am truly
          amazed that the notoriety that the paper has generated. My initial
          comments (from 11/16) were:

          "I really don't see anything new here - it appears to be an application
          of weakly coupled high Q resonant systems. Similar efficient energy
          transfer occurs in Tesla Coils, but the coupling factor is normally
          significantly higher. However, an isolated high-Q resonator (Tesla Coil
          secondary) can easily be excited from a nearby transmitting coil since
          the "received" voltage or current becomes multiplied by the Q of the
          secondary (over a large number of cycles) and real power can be drawn.
          The Q of a well constructed TC secondary is often in the range of 200-250.

          However, the average power that can be drawn is still no larger than the
          amount "received". The authors suggest coupling the near field
          (sometimes called the induction field) - this can be either the Electric
          or Magnetic field. Both methods have been demonstrated to work at lower
          frequencies with nearby Tesla Coil resonators that are excited from a
          Tesla Coil operating at the same natural frequency.

          The authors propose using higher Q ceramic resonators with Q's
          approaching 10,000, but otherwise the principles are quire similar. As
          power is drawn from the resonating receiver, its Q will (necessarily)
          drop - there is no free lunch..."

          Bert
          --
          Don Gibbs wrote:>
          Bert,>

          > What is your opinion on the wireless energy transfer paper?
          >
          > When I referenced it a few weeks ago, one list member whose opinion I
          > respect, claimed it should not have been published and that it just
          > restated already known principles. However, I would like to hear other
          > opinions.
          >
          > Please note, I'm not trying to stir up anything between members. The
          > paper referenced Tesla's work and the idea of wireless energy transfer
          > was the reason I joined this group years ago. It seems we rarely talk
          > about anything Tesla anymore."

          Last part first. Controversy and discussion between members is the
          main reason most of us take part. I think I'm the one who originally
          objected to this paper - seem to remember I called it "trash" and I
          still feel that way. I wanted to see what Bert wrote before replying to
          your original question. With one important exception I completely agree
          with what Bert wrote. That exception is to his statement that they
          "were familiar with prior work done over 100 years ago by Tesla". I
          contend that they were not familiar with anything more than the title of
          the particular patent [1,119,732] they cite - I think they dragged it up
          with a literature search (maybe on Google as it's the first patent
          reference I found when I did the same). The reason is that this is the
          description of a TRANSMITTER [Wardenclyffe style] and covers only means
          of transmission. The use of a receiver, and in particular a resonant
          one, isn't discussed in the body or in any of the claims. Reasons for
          what I think - response from Bert or anyone else is solicited:

          IF they HAD been familiar with his work they would have realized that
          resonant transmitters and receivers were the essence of his proposed
          system. Nary a word nor hint of that in the paper.

          In particular, IF they had been familiar his patent 645,576 which
          describes a complete power transmission SYSTEM with resonant transmitter
          and receivers I think they would have mentioned it and changed some of
          the emphasis in their paper.

          IF they had ever read any descriptions of Tesla's work in New York or in
          Colorado Springs they would have been familiar with his experiments in
          which he placed a big primary coil around the lab and then picked up
          energy from it with RESONANT receiving circuits within the boundaries of
          the coil.

          IF they had read his Colorado Springs Notes they would have been aware
          that in addition to his experiments with coupling power within the
          confines of the primary he also placed resonant "receivers" at more
          remote locations well outside the primary and observed power received
          there.

          Finally, IF they had read CSN they would have noted the emphasis he
          placed on high-Q resonators (instead of Q he used the expression "Lp/R"
          which is exactly equivalent, p being the angular frequency) and his
          attempts to calculate the Q's he obtained.

          I am not as confident as Bert that they weren't "trying to
          intentionally obscure what is otherwise a very straightforward
          concept". Obscure it they really did so the only question is as to
          whether that was intentional and if it wasn't deliberate then I can only
          conclude that they were completely ignorant of all the knowledge of
          coupled resonant systems (electrical, mechanical, acousitical) which has
          been accumlated and widely published for over a century. If they'd
          picked up any electrical, radio, or even ham radio handbook they would
          find a good discussion of what they "discovered". They do indeed come
          from a different field but even so I can't understand their ignorance of
          principals taught in freshman physics classes (at least they were taught
          when I went to college in the early in1940's and I assume they still
          were when these guys went to school). I too am amazed by the
          "noteriety" their paper received in the popular press. I haven't seen a
          peep about it in any real technical journal, or at least in any of the
          engineering journals I receive.

          Your original interest is in Tesla's power transmission proposal and
          I have a few [controversial to some] comments on that which I'll send
          separately. Discussion of that is very appropriate here and has
          involved lots of "intense" correspondence in the past. There isn't even
          general agreement as to what his system really is/was or the results of
          the various experiments he performed. Lots of fertile groundfor
          interesting discussion here!

          Ed
        • Don Gibbs
          Ed and Bert, Thank you both for your informative response. It makes this study a lot clearer. Best Regards, Don Gibbs ... From: Ed Phillips To:
          Message 4 of 10 , Jan 30, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Ed and Bert,
             
            Thank you both for your informative response. It makes this study a lot clearer.
             
            Best Regards,
             
            Don Gibbs
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 4:37 PM
            Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Restart Thread as Wirelss Energy Transfer

            SEE TESLA-RELATED COMMENTS AT END. I'VE COPIED THE ORIGINAL NOTES TO
            PUT MY REPLY IN CONTEXT

            Hi Don,

            I think the authors have "rediscovered" near field (inductive) coupling
            between low loss resonant circuits that have been tuned to the same
            frequency. They clearly were familiar with prior work done over 100
            years ago by Tesla, and many subsequent radio pioneers since their first
            reference was to a Tesla patent. I suspect that the authors may have
            come from a Quantum Mechanics/solid state physics background, since the
            terminology they use is quite foreign to electrical engineering or RF
            engineering. I really don't think they were trying to intentionally
            obscure what is otherwise a very straightforward concept (i.e., the
            behavior of weakly coupled high-Q resonant systems), but I am truly
            amazed that the notoriety that the paper has generated. My initial
            comments (from 11/16) were:

            "I really don't see anything new here - it appears to be an application
            of weakly coupled high Q resonant systems. Similar efficient energy
            transfer occurs in Tesla Coils, but the coupling factor is normally
            significantly higher. However, an isolated high-Q resonator (Tesla Coil
            secondary) can easily be excited from a nearby transmitting coil since
            the "received" voltage or current becomes multiplied by the Q of the
            secondary (over a large number of cycles) and real power can be drawn.
            The Q of a well constructed TC secondary is often in the range of 200-250.

            However, the average power that can be drawn is still no larger than the
            amount "received". The authors suggest coupling the near field
            (sometimes called the induction field) - this can be either the Electric
            or Magnetic field. Both methods have been demonstrated to work at lower
            frequencies with nearby Tesla Coil resonators that are excited from a
            Tesla Coil operating at the same natural frequency.

            The authors propose using higher Q ceramic resonators with Q's
            approaching 10,000, but otherwise the principles are quire similar. As
            power is drawn from the resonating receiver, its Q will (necessarily)
            drop - there is no free lunch..."

            Bert
            --
            Don Gibbs wrote:>
            Bert,>

            > What is your opinion on the wireless energy transfer paper?
            >
            > When I referenced it a few weeks ago, one list member whose opinion I
            > respect, claimed it should not have been published and that it just
            > restated already known principles. However, I would like to hear other
            > opinions.
            >
            > Please note, I'm not trying to stir up anything between members. The
            > paper referenced Tesla's work and the idea of wireless energy transfer
            > was the reason I joined this group years ago. It seems we rarely talk
            > about anything Tesla anymore."

            Last part first. Controversy and discussion between members is the
            main reason most of us take part. I think I'm the one who originally
            objected to this paper - seem to remember I called it "trash" and I
            still feel that way. I wanted to see what Bert wrote before replying to
            your original question. With one important exception I completely agree
            with what Bert wrote. That exception is to his statement that they
            "were familiar with prior work done over 100 years ago by Tesla". I
            contend that they were not familiar with anything more than the title of
            the particular patent [1,119,732] they cite - I think they dragged it up
            with a literature search (maybe on Google as it's the first patent
            reference I found when I did the same). The reason is that this is the
            description of a TRANSMITTER [Wardenclyffe style] and covers only means
            of transmission. The use of a receiver, and in particular a resonant
            one, isn't discussed in the body or in any of the claims. Reasons for
            what I think - response from Bert or anyone else is solicited:

            IF they HAD been familiar with his work they would have realized that
            resonant transmitters and receivers were the essence of his proposed
            system. Nary a word nor hint of that in the paper.

            In particular, IF they had been familiar his patent 645,576 which
            describes a complete power transmission SYSTEM with resonant transmitter
            and receivers I think they would have mentioned it and changed some of
            the emphasis in their paper.

            IF they had ever read any descriptions of Tesla's work in New York or in
            Colorado Springs they would have been familiar with his experiments in
            which he placed a big primary coil around the lab and then picked up
            energy from it with RESONANT receiving circuits within the boundaries of
            the coil.

            IF they had read his Colorado Springs Notes they would have been aware
            that in addition to his experiments with coupling power within the
            confines of the primary he also placed resonant "receivers" at more
            remote locations well outside the primary and observed power received
            there.

            Finally, IF they had read CSN they would have noted the emphasis he
            placed on high-Q resonators (instead of Q he used the expression "Lp/R"
            which is exactly equivalent, p being the angular frequency) and his
            attempts to calculate the Q's he obtained.

            I am not as confident as Bert that they weren't "trying to
            intentionally obscure what is otherwise a very straightforward
            concept". Obscure it they really did so the only question is as to
            whether that was intentional and if it wasn't deliberate then I can only
            conclude that they were completely ignorant of all the knowledge of
            coupled resonant systems (electrical, mechanical, acousitical) which has
            been accumlated and widely published for over a century. If they'd
            picked up any electrical, radio, or even ham radio handbook they would
            find a good discussion of what they "discovered" . They do indeed come
            from a different field but even so I can't understand their ignorance of
            principals taught in freshman physics classes (at least they were taught
            when I went to college in the early in1940's and I assume they still
            were when these guys went to school). I too am amazed by the
            "noteriety" their paper received in the popular press. I haven't seen a
            peep about it in any real technical journal, or at least in any of the
            engineering journals I receive.

            Your original interest is in Tesla's power transmission proposal and
            I have a few [controversial to some] comments on that which I'll send
            separately. Discussion of that is very appropriate here and has
            involved lots of "intense" correspondence in the past. There isn't even
            general agreement as to what his system really is/was or the results of
            the various experiments he performed. Lots of fertile groundfor
            interesting discussion here!

            Ed

          • Paul
            In 1937 a treatise was written by Tesla called: The new art of projecting concentrated non-dispersive energy through the natural media. These quotes are from
            Message 5 of 10 , Jan 30, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              In 1937 a treatise was written by Tesla called: "The new art of projecting concentrated non-dispersive energy through the natural media."
              These quotes are from memory so please bear with me.
              "A particle can carry thousands of times more energy than a ray or beam of any kind." "The device will transmit energy with particles some the size of molecules, and some much larger pieces." The plan called for tungsten wire to be fed into an open ended vacuum chamber where pieces would be projected at 400,000 feet per second. Since they are projected by electrostatic repulsion they would carry a charge.
              Paul


              -----Original Message-----
              >From: Don Gibbs <dongibbs@...>
              >Sent: Jan 30, 2007 5:39 AM
              >To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
              >Subject: [usa-tesla] Restart Thread as Wirelss Energy Transfer
              >
              >Bert,
              >
              >What is your opinion on the wireless energy transfer paper?
              >
              >When I referenced it a few weeks ago, one list member whose opinion I respect, claimed it should not have been published and that it just restated already known principles. However, I would like to hear other opinions.
              >
              >Please note, I'm not trying to stir up anything between members. The paper referenced Tesla's work and the idea of wireless energy transfer was the reason I joined this group years ago. It seems we rarely talk about anything Tesla anymore.
              >
              >Best Regards,
              >
              >Don Gibbs
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: Bert Hickman
              > To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:55 PM
              > Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Hydrogen discussion ends in
              >
              >
              > Ed Phillips wrote:
              > > Boy. I miss WEB (Brant) on
              > > this list."
              > >
              > > Actually Brand. Wallace Edward Brand, a Washington, DC attorney and
              > > fan of Tesla. He sent me a lot of useful literature on the subject,
              > > including the complete transcript of the Supreme Court decision on Tesla
              > > vs Marconi. For the record, it definitely showed that Tesla had
              > > "anticipated" Marconi's "4 tuned circuits" patent but explicitly, in the
              > > words of at least one of the Justices, did not make any decision as to
              > > who was "the father of radio", as some have stated.
              > >
              > > I hope he's OK as he hasn't contributed anything here for some time.
              > >
              > > Ed
              >
              > Ed,
              >
              > I heard from Wallace in late November when the near-field wireless
              > transmission paper initially came out ("Wireless Non-Radiative Energy
              > Transfer" by Aristeidis Karalis, J.D.Joannopoulos, Marin Soljacic -
              > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0611063).
              >
              > Wallace is still around and (as of mid-November) was OK. Apparently he's
              > no longer posting to this list, but he may still be monitoring it...
              >
              > Bert
              > --
              > ***************************************************
              > We specialize in UNIQUE items! Coins shrunk by huge
              > magnetic fields, Lichtenberg Figures (our "Captured
              > Lightning") and out of print technical Books. Visit
              > Stoneridge Engineering at http://www.teslamania.com
              > ***************************************************
              >
              >
              >
            • Gavin Dingley
              Hi Don, Bert, Tesla ran a loop around his lab to inductively distribute power, but said that this method was inefficient. It is worth noting that the guy who
              Message 6 of 10 , Jan 31, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Don, Bert,
                Tesla ran a loop around his lab to inductively distribute power, but said that this method was inefficient. It is worth noting that the guy who has tried to rehash this age-old technology has a Yugoslavian name, suggesting he is probably more than just aware of Tesla's work. One thing is fore sure, I would not like to be around this thing with my keys in my pocket, or to be responsible for paying the electric bill, a resonate inductive field will induce current in any conductor in its vicinity, not just those tuned to the same frequency. Remember Tesla's experiment where he caused a piece of foil to explode when he placed it in the inductive field of what was effectively a the primary circuit of a tesla coil!
                 
                Gavin

                Bert Hickman <bert.hickman@...> wrote:
                Hi Don,

                I think the authors have "rediscovered" near field (inductive) coupling
                between low loss resonant circuits that have been tuned to the same
                frequency. They clearly were familiar with prior work done over 100
                years ago by Tesla, and many subsequent radio pioneers since their first
                reference was to a Tesla patent. I suspect that the authors may have
                come from a Quantum Mechanics/solid state physics background, since the
                terminology they use is quite foreign to electrical engineering or RF
                engineering. I really don't think they were trying to intentionally
                obscure what is otherwise a very straightforward concept (i.e., the
                behavior of weakly coupled high-Q resonant systems), but I am truly
                amazed that the notoriety that the paper has generated. My initial
                comments (from 11/16) were:

                "I really don't see anything new here - it appears to be an application
                of weakly coupled high Q resonant systems. Similar efficient energy
                transfer occurs in Tesla Coils, but the coupling factor is normally
                significantly higher. However, an isolated high-Q resonator (Tesla Coil
                secondary) can easily be excited from a nearby transmitting coil since
                the "received" voltage or current becomes multiplied by the Q of the
                secondary (over a large number of cycles) and real power can be drawn.
                The Q of a well constructed TC secondary is often in the range of 200-250.

                However, the average power that can be drawn is still no larger than the
                amount "received". The authors suggest coupling the near field
                (sometimes called the induction field) - this can be either the Electric
                or Magnetic field. Both methods have been demonstrated to work at lower
                frequencies with nearby Tesla Coil resonators that are excited from a
                Tesla Coil operating at the same natural frequency.

                The authors propose using higher Q ceramic resonators with Q's
                approaching 10,000, but otherwise the principles are quire similar. As
                power is drawn from the resonating receiver, its Q will (necessarily)
                drop - there is no free lunch..."

                Bert
                --
                ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ***
                We specialize in UNIQUE items! Coins shrunk by huge
                magnetic fields, Lichtenberg Figures (our "Captured
                Lightning") and out of print technical Books. Visit
                Stoneridge Engineering at http://www.teslaman ia.com
                ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ***

                Don Gibbs wrote:

                > Bert,
                >
                > What is your opinion on the wireless energy transfer paper?
                >
                > When I referenced it a few weeks ago, one list member whose opinion I
                > respect, claimed it should not have been published and that it just
                > restated already known principles. However, I would like to hear other
                > opinions.
                >
                > Please note, I'm not trying to stir up anything between members. The
                > paper referenced Tesla's work and the idea of wireless energy transfer
                > was the reason I joined this group years ago. It seems we rarely talk
                > about anything Tesla anymore.
                >
                > Best Regards,
                >
                > Don Gibbs
                >
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: Bert Hickman <mailto:bert.hickman@ aquila.net>
                > To: usa-tesla@yahoogrou ps.com <mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogrou ps.com>
                > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:55 PM
                > Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Hydrogen discussion ends in
                >
                > Ed Phillips wrote:
                > > Boy. I miss WEB (Brant) on
                > > this list."
                > >
                > > Actually Brand. Wallace Edward Brand, a Washington, DC attorney and
                > > fan of Tesla. He sent me a lot of useful literature on the subject,
                > > including the complete transcript of the Supreme Court decision
                > on Tesla
                > > vs Marconi. For the record, it definitely showed that Tesla had
                > > "anticipated" Marconi's "4 tuned circuits" patent but explicitly,
                > in the
                > > words of at least one of the Justices, did not make any decision
                > as to
                > > who was "the father of radio", as some have stated.
                > >
                > > I hope he's OK as he hasn't contributed anything here for some time.
                > >
                > > Ed
                >
                > Ed,
                >
                > I heard from Wallace in late November when the near-field wireless
                > transmission paper initially came out ("Wireless Non-Radiative Energy
                > Transfer" by Aristeidis Karalis, J.D.Joannopoulos, Marin Soljacic -
                > http://arxiv. org/abs/physics/ 0611063
                > <http://arxiv. org/abs/physics/ 0611063>).
                >
                > Wallace is still around and (as of mid-November) was OK. Apparently
                > he's
                > no longer posting to this list, but he may still be monitoring it...
                >
                > Bert
                > --
                > ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ***
                > We specialize in UNIQUE items! Coins shrunk by huge
                > magnetic fields, Lichtenberg Figures (our "Captured
                > Lightning") and out of print technical Books. Visit
                > Stoneridge Engineering at http://www.teslaman ia.com
                > <http://www.teslaman ia.com>
                > ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ***
                >



                Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
                with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.

              • lynn warriner
                I have read the paper indepth. This is outside my area of expertise. However, it appears to be a real paper with real theoretical merit. Should it have been
                Message 7 of 10 , Jan 31, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  I have read the paper indepth. This is outside my area
                  of expertise. However, it appears to be a real paper
                  with real theoretical merit.

                  "Should it have been published" is an argument of
                  little meaning ... it was published. The
                  editors/reviewers determined that it was significant
                  enough for there venue.

                  I am not familiar with any other papers in the arena.
                  However, I see the following valid points in this
                  paper. The are targeting specifically:
                  * mid-range systems
                  * Theoretical modes of operation
                  * Analysis of loss

                  They are not presenting an actual system or
                  realization of the theory. There work embodies
                  computer simulations. While they make suggestions for
                  possible applications ... no implimentation details or
                  plans are made.

                  On the technical side. They did mention how important
                  Q is to there systems behaviors. However, the only way
                  to extract power is to lower the Q. for example, the
                  consumption of energy can be made equivalent to a
                  resistance. The more power comsummed, the lower the
                  load resistance. Hence, the Q of the receiver will
                  suffer. This paper is directed toward specific
                  materials not to the elctronics behaviors.

                  I hope that this feedback helps.
                  Lynn


                  --- Don Gibbs <dongibbs@...> wrote:

                  > Bert,
                  >
                  > What is your opinion on the wireless energy transfer
                  > paper?
                  >
                  > When I referenced it a few weeks ago, one list
                  > member whose opinion I respect, claimed it should
                  > not have been published and that it just restated
                  > already known principles. However, I would like to
                  > hear other opinions.
                  >
                  > Please note, I'm not trying to stir up anything
                  > between members. The paper referenced Tesla's work
                  > and the idea of wireless energy transfer was the
                  > reason I joined this group years ago. It seems we
                  > rarely talk about anything Tesla anymore.
                  >
                  > Best Regards,
                  >
                  > Don Gibbs
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: Bert Hickman
                  > To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:55 PM
                  > Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Hydrogen discussion ends
                  > in
                  >
                  >
                  > Ed Phillips wrote:
                  > > Boy. I miss WEB (Brant) on
                  > > this list."
                  > >
                  > > Actually Brand. Wallace Edward Brand, a
                  > Washington, DC attorney and
                  > > fan of Tesla. He sent me a lot of useful
                  > literature on the subject,
                  > > including the complete transcript of the Supreme
                  > Court decision on Tesla
                  > > vs Marconi. For the record, it definitely showed
                  > that Tesla had
                  > > "anticipated" Marconi's "4 tuned circuits"
                  > patent but explicitly, in the
                  > > words of at least one of the Justices, did not
                  > make any decision as to
                  > > who was "the father of radio", as some have
                  > stated.
                  > >
                  > > I hope he's OK as he hasn't contributed anything
                  > here for some time.
                  > >
                  > > Ed
                  >
                  > Ed,
                  >
                  > I heard from Wallace in late November when the
                  > near-field wireless
                  > transmission paper initially came out ("Wireless
                  > Non-Radiative Energy
                  > Transfer" by Aristeidis Karalis, J.D.Joannopoulos,
                  > Marin Soljacic -
                  > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0611063).
                  >
                  > Wallace is still around and (as of mid-November)
                  > was OK. Apparently he's
                  > no longer posting to this list, but he may still
                  > be monitoring it...
                  >
                  > Bert
                  > --
                  >
                  > ***************************************************
                  > We specialize in UNIQUE items! Coins shrunk by
                  > huge
                  > magnetic fields, Lichtenberg Figures (our
                  > "Captured
                  > Lightning") and out of print technical Books.
                  > Visit
                  > Stoneridge Engineering at
                  > http://www.teslamania.com
                  >
                  > ***************************************************
                  >
                  >
                  >




                  ____________________________________________________________________________________
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
                  http://new.mail.yahoo.com
                • Ed Phillips
                  Ed and Bert, Thank you both for your informative response. It makes this study a lot clearer. Best Regards, Don Gibbs Glad you found it of interest. Now is
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jan 31, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Ed and Bert,

                    Thank you both for your informative response. It makes this study a lot
                    clearer.

                    Best Regards,

                    Don Gibbs"

                    Glad you found it of interest. Now is the time to really revive the
                    Tesla World Power discussions in which you are interested. I have
                    strong opinions but would like to see what others think first. I'd
                    suggest a study of his patent 645,576 if you aren't already familiar
                    with it. It describes in his [or at least his patent attorneys'] words
                    how the system is supposed to work and I'd be very interested in reading
                    your one paragraph summary of the basic principles.

                    Ed
                  • Ed Phillips
                    In 1937 a treatise was written by Tesla called: The new art of projecting concentrated non-dispersive energy through the natural media. These quotes are from
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jan 31, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In 1937 a treatise was written by Tesla called: "The new art of
                      projecting concentrated non-dispersive energy through the natural media."
                      These quotes are from memory so please bear with me.
                      "A particle can carry thousands of times more energy than a ray or beam
                      of any kind." "The device will transmit energy with particles some the
                      size of molecules, and some much larger pieces." The plan called for
                      tungsten wire to be fed into an open ended vacuum chamber where pieces
                      would be projected at 400,000 feet per second. Since they are projected
                      by electrostatic repulsion they would carry a charge.
                      Paul"

                      Interesting but NOT the "WORLD POWER SYSTEM". Did he do the
                      calculations to show the scheme would work?

                      Ed
                    • Paul
                      True it is not the wireless energy transfer system described at Wardencliff, however it is a form of wireless energy transfer so I though it might be fair
                      Message 10 of 10 , Jan 31, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        True it is not the wireless energy transfer system described at Wardencliff, however
                        it is a form of wireless energy transfer so I though it might be fair game.
                        Here is a quote.

                        "I was baffled in all my efforts to materially reduce dispersion and become fully convinced that this handicap could only be overcome by conveying the power through the medium of small particles projected at prodigious velocity, from the transmitter. Electrostatic repulsion was the only means to this end. Since the cross section of the carriers might be reduced to almost microscopic dimensions, an immense concentration of energy, irrespective of distance, could be attained."
                        Paul



                        In 1937 a treatise was written by Tesla called: "The new art of
                        projecting concentrated non-dispersive energy through the natural media."
                        These quotes are from memory so please bear with me.
                        "A particle can carry thousands of times more energy than a ray or beam
                        of any kind." "The device will transmit energy with particles some the
                        size of molecules, and some much larger pieces." The plan called for
                        tungsten wire to be fed into an open ended vacuum chamber where pieces
                        would be projected at 400,000 feet per second. Since they are projected
                        by electrostatic repulsion they would carry a charge.
                        Paul"

                        Interesting but NOT the "WORLD POWER SYSTEM". Did he do the
                        calculations to show the scheme would work?

                        Ed
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.