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

Re: [usa-tesla] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum

Expand Messages
  • Michael Riversong Education
    Oh, and make sure to purchase and view the 2009 ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference video by Gary Peterson. That s an essential resource for this discussion.
    Message 1 of 30 , May 3, 2010
      Oh, and make sure to purchase and view the 2009 ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference video by Gary Peterson.  That's an essential resource for this discussion.  Available from Tesla Tech www.teslatech.info


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Chris Swinson
      Sent: May 3, 2010 8:14 AM
      To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum

       

      

      Don, I pretty much agree with you I think,
       
      Tesla knew EM wasn't good for radio, so why would he use it for power transmission ? even in the CSN book he said something like generally the energy obtained is small, but that is when he talks about coils with a great magnifying factor to move great energy though the lamps and light them bright. This can easily be proven (even though it seems nobody will listen to it).  Even though my own tests were using the borderpoint between near & farfield area, calculations show only 1watt of energy being received, and yet, I can light 100watt lamps and even drive motors. Tesla knew fully well all this and even says so in CSN book. So IMHO anyone who thinks Tesla was using EM is a total moron.
       
      I do not like the idea about the almost majical method tesla was *maybe* using, but does not mean there wasn't something there which still is unknown today.  I dare say if someone spent long enough building and testing stuff of all kinds, eventually this lost information could be found again.. time will tell I guess.....
       
      Chris
       
      
      -- Michael Riversong
      Tesla Academy
      Cheyenne, Wyoming
      www.teslaacademy.info
      rivedu@...
    • McGalliard, Frederick B
      Mike. I am not sure what you think induction and resonance and RF transmission are, but Tesla, other than being a bit secretive about his work, seems to have
      Message 2 of 30 , May 3, 2010
        Mike. I am not sure what you think induction and  resonance and RF transmission are, but Tesla, other than being a bit secretive about his work, seems to have expected a resonant coupling between a very large coil and the ionosphere/ground. To transmit into that takes a good ground all right, and resonance at a suitable frequency, but there is little to indicate that he expected anything other than good solid electric theory (of the time) to be at work. Don't you think it is a bit contrived to translate his quite practical work on what might have been novel solutions to the world's growing problem of energy transmission into a near mystic discovery of things no one else can even reproduce? I expect even the big T himself would get a good laugh out of what some of us make of his ideas.
      • Michael Riversong Education
        Sorry if i gave you that impression. Some of Tesla s terminology as used in his patents is a bit different from the way those terms are used today. That s one
        Message 3 of 30 , May 3, 2010
          Sorry if i gave you that impression.

          Some of Tesla's terminology as used in his patents is a bit different from the way those terms are used today.  That's one of the reasons why i'm planning to devote some time to reading these.  It's not mystical at all.  It's just different from pure magnetic inductance because there seem to be a number of factors operating simultaneously.

          Please let me know what you think once you've read the patents.  It may take the combined expertise of several people to get at what is workable.

          Part of my point is, the Wardenclyffe system has been duplicated on a small scale, and thus we have a proof-of-concept.

          -----Original Message-----
          From: "McGalliard, Frederick B"
          Sent: May 3, 2010 2:41 PM
          To: "'usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com'"
          Subject: RE: [usa-tesla] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum

           

          Mike. I am not sure what you think induction and  resonance and RF transmission are, but Tesla, other than being a bit secretive about his work, seems to have expected a resonant coupling between a very large coil and the ionosphere/ground. To transmit into that takes a good ground all right, and resonance at a suitable frequency, but there is little to indicate that he expected anything other than good solid electric theory (of the time) to be at work. Don't you think it is a bit contrived to translate his quite practical work on what might have been novel solutions to the world's growing problem of energy transmission into a near mystic discovery of things no one else can even reproduce? I expect even the big T himself would get a good laugh out of what some of us make of his ideas.

          __._
          
          -- Michael Riversong
          Tesla Academy
          Cheyenne, Wyoming
          www.teslaacademy.info
          rivedu@...
        • Chris Swinson
          There is the electro-static side of things also which I never hear talked about much. you do not even need a receiver coil. was maybe not as good as a coil,
          Message 4 of 30 , May 3, 2010
            
            There is the electro-static side of things also which I never hear talked about much. you do not even need a receiver coil. was maybe not as good as a coil, but still managed 25watts out of 100watt coil and nothing "tuned" at all there. I am sure there are many ways to tap into the energy, but EM is only a small part of it. I only know of induction and what I call electro-static methods. Would be interesting if anyone found any other ways to tap into the energy without having to "tune" into the frequency.
             
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:05 PM
            Subject: RE: [usa-tesla] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum

            Sorry if i gave you that impression.

            Some of Tesla's terminology as used in his patents is a bit different from the way those terms are used today.  That's one of the reasons why i'm planning to devote some time to reading these.  It's not mystical at all.  It's just different from pure magnetic inductance because there seem to be a number of factors operating simultaneously.

            Please let me know what you think once you've read the patents.  It may take the combined expertise of several people to get at what is workable.

            Part of my point is, the Wardenclyffe system has been duplicated on a small scale, and thus we have a proof-of-concept.

            -----Original Message-----
            From: "McGalliard, Frederick B"
            Sent: May 3, 2010 2:41 PM
            To: "'usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com'"
            Subject: RE: [usa-tesla] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum

             

            Mike. I am not sure what you think induction and  resonance and RF transmission are, but Tesla, other than being a bit secretive about his work, seems to have expected a resonant coupling between a very large coil and the ionosphere/ground. To transmit into that takes a good ground all right, and resonance at a suitable frequency, but there is little to indicate that he expected anything other than good solid electric theory (of the time) to be at work. Don't you think it is a bit contrived to translate his quite practical work on what might have been novel solutions to the world's growing problem of energy transmission into a near mystic discovery of things no one else can even reproduce? I expect even the big T himself would get a good laugh out of what some of us make of his ideas.

            __._
            -- Michael Riversong
            Tesla Academy
            Cheyenne, Wyoming
            www.teslaacademy.info
            rivedu@...



            No virus found in this incoming message.
            Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
            Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2851 - Release Date: 05/03/10 07:27:00
          • Bert Hickman
            Chris, Michael, and all, Tesla s drawings and notes about Wardenclyffe seem to indicate that he intended to use capacitive coupling (via the electrical field
            Message 5 of 30 , May 4, 2010
              Chris, Michael, and all,

              Tesla's drawings and notes about Wardenclyffe seem to indicate that he
              intended to use capacitive coupling (via the electrical field between
              his massive topload and Earth) to excite the Earth's self-capacitance
              instead of radio ("Hertzian") waves or electromagnetic (transformer)
              coupling. By using other resonators, tuned to the transmitter's
              frequency, he believed that he could excite transfer and accumulate
              energy in receivers positioned anywhere else on Earth via capacitive
              coupling. His extensive grounding system was an attempt to get a "good
              grip" on the Earth so as to "shake" its electrical potential via the
              dipole formed between the massive topload of the Wardenclyffe
              transmitter and the Earth below. The transmission approach is sometimes
              interpreted by some as being via "longitudinal" waves, but the energy
              transfer method is simply electrical field lines, identical to those
              between the plates of capacitors.

              Although most folks are familiar with electromagnetic (transformer)
              coupling, substantial energy can be transferred electrostatically
              especially when using high voltages at high frequencies. One recent
              example is Greg Leyh's solid state twins powering a motorized chair via
              electrostatic coupling:

              http://www.youtube.com/user/BertHickman#p/c/5EC69D1EFA7AA499/34/QuAkdynoMuM

              Bert
              --
              ********************************************************************
              We specialize in UNIQUE items: coins shrunk by ultra-strong magnetic
              fields, Captured Lightning Lichtenberg figure sculptures, and scarce
              technical Books. Please visit us at http://www.capturedlightning.com
              ********************************************************************

              Chris Swinson wrote:
              >
              > There is the electro-static side of things also which I never hear
              > talked about much. you do not even need a receiver coil. was maybe not
              > as good as a coil, but still managed 25watts out of 100watt coil and
              > nothing "tuned" at all there. I am sure there are many ways to tap into
              > the energy, but EM is only a small part of it. I only know of induction
              > and what I call electro-static methods. Would be interesting if anyone
              > found any other ways to tap into the energy without having to "tune"
              > into the frequency.
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > *From:* Michael Riversong Education <mailto:rivedu@...>
              > *To:* usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com <mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com>
              > *Sent:* Monday, May 03, 2010 10:05 PM
              > *Subject:* RE: [usa-tesla] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum
              >
              > Sorry if i gave you that impression.
              >
              > Some of Tesla's terminology as used in his patents is a bit
              > different from the way those terms are used today. That's one of the
              > reasons why i'm planning to devote some time to reading these. It's
              > not mystical at all. It's just different from pure magnetic
              > inductance because there seem to be a number of factors operating
              > simultaneously.
              >
              > Please let me know what you think once you've read the patents. It
              > may take the combined expertise of several people to get at what is
              > workable.
              >
              > Part of my point is, the Wardenclyffe system has been duplicated on
              > a small scale, and thus we have a proof-of-concept.
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: "McGalliard, Frederick B"
              > Sent: May 3, 2010 2:41 PM
              > To: "'usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com'"
              > Subject: RE: [usa-tesla] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum
              >
              > Mike. I am not sure what you think induction and resonance and
              > RF transmission are, but Tesla, other than being a bit secretive
              > about his work, seems to have expected a resonant coupling
              > between a very large coil and the ionosphere/ground. To transmit
              > into that takes a good ground all right, and resonance at a
              > suitable frequency, but there is little to indicate that he
              > expected anything other than good solid electric theory (of the
              > time) to be at work. Don't you think it is a bit contrived to
              > translate his quite practical work on what might have been novel
              > solutions to the world's growing problem of energy transmission
              > into a near mystic discovery of things no one else can even
              > reproduce? I expect even the big T himself would get a good
              > laugh out of what some of us make of his ideas.
              >
              > __._
              >
              > -- Michael Riversong
              > Tesla Academy
              > Cheyenne, Wyoming
              > www.teslaacademy.info
              > rivedu@...
              >
              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              >
              >
              > No virus found in this incoming message.
              > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
              > Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2851 - Release Date:
              > 05/03/10 07:27:00
              >
              >
            • Chris Swinson
              Bert, Would seem to make the most sense to me! I think Tesla has a few ideas on the go. Though wasn t he trying to build his transmitters at high altitude to
              Message 6 of 30 , May 4, 2010
                Bert,

                Would seem to make the most sense to me! I think Tesla has a few ideas on
                the go. Though wasn't he trying to build his transmitters at high altitude
                to break down the upper atmosphere just to pure conduct the current at low
                air pressures ? I presume after him thinking about that, he then thought to
                use the earth as a conductor instead. damn, we really need a time machine
                to go back in time and ask him!

                I cant get the video link to work, says video not found. Though anyone can
                do this with a plasma globe and some tin foil. The tin foil can obtain
                enough energy to spark and burn though your fingers! can also power LED's
                etc too. Tesla coils work even better, though tin foil on its own does not
                work the same for some reason. Though you can hold a plasma ball near a
                tesla coil and watch it glow purple, get closer and a spark several inches
                long can jump from the glass to your hand. Its a shame there isn't a way to
                really focus all the energy into a single point (at least nothing I know of
                to do easily). Though a lot can be done just the same. Old news these days,
                but still interesting.

                Chris



                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Bert Hickman" <bert.hickman@...>
                To: <usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 3:29 PM
                Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum


                > Chris, Michael, and all,
                >
                > Tesla's drawings and notes about Wardenclyffe seem to indicate that he
                > intended to use capacitive coupling (via the electrical field between
                > his massive topload and Earth) to excite the Earth's self-capacitance
                > instead of radio ("Hertzian") waves or electromagnetic (transformer)
                > coupling. By using other resonators, tuned to the transmitter's
                > frequency, he believed that he could excite transfer and accumulate
                > energy in receivers positioned anywhere else on Earth via capacitive
                > coupling. His extensive grounding system was an attempt to get a "good
                > grip" on the Earth so as to "shake" its electrical potential via the
                > dipole formed between the massive topload of the Wardenclyffe
                > transmitter and the Earth below. The transmission approach is sometimes
                > interpreted by some as being via "longitudinal" waves, but the energy
                > transfer method is simply electrical field lines, identical to those
                > between the plates of capacitors.
                >
                > Although most folks are familiar with electromagnetic (transformer)
                > coupling, substantial energy can be transferred electrostatically
                > especially when using high voltages at high frequencies. One recent
                > example is Greg Leyh's solid state twins powering a motorized chair via
                > electrostatic coupling:
                >
                > http://www.youtube.com/user/BertHickman#p/c/5EC69D1EFA7AA499/34/QuAkdynoMuM
                >
                > Bert
                > --
                > ********************************************************************
                > We specialize in UNIQUE items: coins shrunk by ultra-strong magnetic
                > fields, Captured Lightning Lichtenberg figure sculptures, and scarce
                > technical Books. Please visit us at http://www.capturedlightning.com
                > ********************************************************************
                >
                > Chris Swinson wrote:
                >>
                >> There is the electro-static side of things also which I never hear
                >> talked about much. you do not even need a receiver coil. was maybe not
                >> as good as a coil, but still managed 25watts out of 100watt coil and
                >> nothing "tuned" at all there. I am sure there are many ways to tap into
                >> the energy, but EM is only a small part of it. I only know of induction
                >> and what I call electro-static methods. Would be interesting if anyone
                >> found any other ways to tap into the energy without having to "tune"
                >> into the frequency.
                >>
                >> ----- Original Message -----
                >> *From:* Michael Riversong Education <mailto:rivedu@...>
                >> *To:* usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com <mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com>
                >> *Sent:* Monday, May 03, 2010 10:05 PM
                >> *Subject:* RE: [usa-tesla] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum
                >>
                >> Sorry if i gave you that impression.
                >>
                >> Some of Tesla's terminology as used in his patents is a bit
                >> different from the way those terms are used today. That's one of the
                >> reasons why i'm planning to devote some time to reading these. It's
                >> not mystical at all. It's just different from pure magnetic
                >> inductance because there seem to be a number of factors operating
                >> simultaneously.
                >>
                >> Please let me know what you think once you've read the patents. It
                >> may take the combined expertise of several people to get at what is
                >> workable.
                >>
                >> Part of my point is, the Wardenclyffe system has been duplicated on
                >> a small scale, and thus we have a proof-of-concept.
                >>
                >> -----Original Message-----
                >> From: "McGalliard, Frederick B"
                >> Sent: May 3, 2010 2:41 PM
                >> To: "'usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com'"
                >> Subject: RE: [usa-tesla] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum
                >>
                >> Mike. I am not sure what you think induction and resonance and
                >> RF transmission are, but Tesla, other than being a bit secretive
                >> about his work, seems to have expected a resonant coupling
                >> between a very large coil and the ionosphere/ground. To transmit
                >> into that takes a good ground all right, and resonance at a
                >> suitable frequency, but there is little to indicate that he
                >> expected anything other than good solid electric theory (of the
                >> time) to be at work. Don't you think it is a bit contrived to
                >> translate his quite practical work on what might have been novel
                >> solutions to the world's growing problem of energy transmission
                >> into a near mystic discovery of things no one else can even
                >> reproduce? I expect even the big T himself would get a good
                >> laugh out of what some of us make of his ideas.
                >>
                >> __._
                >>
                >> -- Michael Riversong
                >> Tesla Academy
                >> Cheyenne, Wyoming
                >> www.teslaacademy.info
                >> rivedu@...
                >>
                >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                >>
                >>
                >> No virus found in this incoming message.
                >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                >> Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2851 - Release Date:
                >> 05/03/10 07:27:00
                >>
                >>
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >


                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                No virus found in this incoming message.
                Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2852 - Release Date: 05/03/10
                19:27:00
              • rivedu@earthlink.net
                Thank you very much for this explanation. It seems to be the direct opposite of inductance. ... From: Bert Hickman Reply-To:
                Message 7 of 30 , May 4, 2010
                  Thank you very much for this explanation. It seems to be the direct opposite of inductance.

                  ---- Original Message ----
                  From: "Bert Hickman" <bert.hickman@...>
                  Reply-To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: 05/04/10 7:29 AM
                  To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
                  Cc:
                  Sub: Re: [usa-tesla] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum
                  Chris, Michael, and all,

                  Tesla's drawings and notes about Wardenclyffe seem to indicate that he
                  intended to use capacitive coupling (via the electrical field between
                  his massive topload and Earth) to excite the Earth's self-capacitance
                  instead of radio ("Hertzian") waves or electromagnetic (transformer)
                  coupling. By using other resonators, tuned to the transmitter's
                  frequency, he believed that he could excite transfer and accumulate
                  energy in receivers positioned anywhere else on Earth via capacitive
                  coupling. His extensive grounding system was an attempt to get a "good
                  grip" on the Earth so as to "shake" its electrical potential via the
                  dipole formed between the massive topload of the Wardenclyffe
                  transmitter and the Earth below. The transmission approach is sometimes
                  interpreted by some as being via "longitudinal" waves, but the energy
                  transfer method is simply electrical field lines, identical to those
                  between the plates of capacitors.

                  Although most folks are familiar with electromagnetic (transformer)
                  coupling, substantial energy can be transferred electrostatically
                  especially when using high voltages at high frequencies. One recent
                  example is Greg Leyh's solid state twins powering a motorized chair via
                  electrostatic coupling:

                  http://www.youtube.com/user/BertHickman#p/c/5EC69D1EFA7AA499/34/QuAkdynoMuM

                  Bert
                  --
                  ********************************************************************
                  We specialize in UNIQUE items: coins shrunk by ultra-strong magnetic
                  fields, Captured Lightning Lichtenberg figure sculptures, and scarce
                  technical Books. Please visit us at http://www.capturedlightning.com
                  ********************************************************************

                  Chris Swinson wrote:
                  >
                  > There is the electro-static side of things also which I never hear
                  > talked about much. you do not even need a receiver coil. was maybe not
                  > as good as a coil, but still managed 25watts out of 100watt coil and
                  > nothing "tuned" at all there. I am sure there are many ways to tap into
                  > the energy, but EM is only a small part of it. I only know of induction
                  > and what I call electro-static methods. Would be interesting if anyone
                  > found any other ways to tap into the energy without having to "tune"
                  > into the frequency.
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > *From:* Michael Riversong Education <mailto:rivedu@...>
                  > *To:* usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com <mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com>
                  > *Sent:* Monday, May 03, 2010 10:05 PM
                  > *Subject:* RE: [usa-tesla] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum
                  >
                  > Sorry if i gave you that impression.
                  >
                  > Some of Tesla's terminology as used in his patents is a bit
                  > different from the way those terms are used today. That's one of the
                  > reasons why i'm planning to devote some time to reading these. It's
                  > not mystical at all. It's just different from pure magnetic
                  > inductance because there seem to be a number of factors operating
                  > simultaneously.
                  >
                  > Please let me know what you think once you've read the patents. It
                  > may take the combined expertise of several people to get at what is
                  > workable.
                  >
                  > Part of my point is, the Wardenclyffe system has been duplicated on
                  > a small scale, and thus we have a proof-of-concept.
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: "McGalliard, Frederick B"
                  > Sent: May 3, 2010 2:41 PM
                  > To: "'usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com'"
                  > Subject: RE: [usa-tesla] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum
                  >
                  > Mike. I am not sure what you think induction and resonance and
                  > RF transmission are, but Tesla, other than being a bit secretive
                  > about his work, seems to have expected a resonant coupling
                  > between a very large coil and the ionosphere/ground. To transmit
                  > into that takes a good ground all right, and resonance at a
                  > suitable frequency, but there is little to indicate that he
                  > expected anything other than good solid electric theory (of the
                  > time) to be at work. Don't you think it is a bit contrived to
                  > translate his quite practical work on what might have been novel
                  > solutions to the world's growing problem of energy transmission
                  > into a near mystic discovery of things no one else can even
                  > reproduce? I expect even the big T himself would get a good
                  > laugh out of what some of us make of his ideas.
                  >
                  > __._
                  >
                  > -- Michael Riversong
                  > Tesla Academy
                  > Cheyenne, Wyoming
                  > www.teslaacademy.info
                  > rivedu@...
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  >
                  >
                  > No virus found in this incoming message.
                  > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                  > Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2851 - Release Date:
                  > 05/03/10 07:27:00
                  >
                  >




                  ---- End Original Message ----
                • Bert Hickman
                  Hi All, Sorry for the bad YouTube link - here is the correct one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuAkdynoMuM You can see that his early wireless patents were
                  Message 8 of 30 , May 4, 2010
                    Hi All,

                    Sorry for the bad YouTube link - here is the correct one:

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuAkdynoMuM

                    You can see that his early wireless patents were an extension of his
                    earlier patent (US 000593138) that covered single-wire transmission with
                    a common ground return path:

                    Single-wire:
                    11/2/1887 http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000593138.pdf

                    Rarefied Gas:
                    03/20/1900 http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000645576.pdf
                    05/15/1900 http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000649621.pdf
                    11/05/1901 http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000685953.pdf

                    Tesla's systems further evolved to utilize resonant receiving systems to
                    initially provide more efficient selectivity/sensitivity for wireless
                    communication or wireless remote control, and then tuned receiving
                    resonators (1905 - with resonators tuned to the transmitter's operating
                    frequency), culminating in his high power magnifying transmitter (ala
                    Wardenclyffe):

                    11/05/1901 http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000685956.pdf
                    04/18/1905 http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf
                    12/01/1914 http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us001119732.pdf

                    Bert

                    Chris Swinson wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > Bert,
                    >
                    > Would seem to make the most sense to me! I think Tesla has a few ideas on
                    > the go. Though wasn't he trying to build his transmitters at high altitude
                    > to break down the upper atmosphere just to pure conduct the current at low
                    > air pressures ? I presume after him thinking about that, he then thought to
                    > use the earth as a conductor instead. damn, we really need a time machine
                    > to go back in time and ask him!
                    >
                    > I cant get the video link to work, says video not found. Though anyone can
                    > do this with a plasma globe and some tin foil. The tin foil can obtain
                    > enough energy to spark and burn though your fingers! can also power LED's
                    > etc too. Tesla coils work even better, though tin foil on its own does not
                    > work the same for some reason. Though you can hold a plasma ball near a
                    > tesla coil and watch it glow purple, get closer and a spark several inches
                    > long can jump from the glass to your hand. Its a shame there isn't a way to
                    > really focus all the energy into a single point (at least nothing I know of
                    > to do easily). Though a lot can be done just the same. Old news these days,
                    > but still interesting.
                    >
                    > Chris
                    >
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: "Bert Hickman" <bert.hickman@...
                    > <mailto:bert.hickman%40aquila.net>>
                    > To: <usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com <mailto:usa-tesla%40yahoogroups.com>>
                    > Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 3:29 PM
                    > Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum
                    >
                    > > Chris, Michael, and all,
                    > >
                    > > Tesla's drawings and notes about Wardenclyffe seem to indicate that he
                    > > intended to use capacitive coupling (via the electrical field between
                    > > his massive topload and Earth) to excite the Earth's self-capacitance
                    > > instead of radio ("Hertzian") waves or electromagnetic (transformer)
                    > > coupling. By using other resonators, tuned to the transmitter's
                    > > frequency, he believed that he could excite transfer and accumulate
                    > > energy in receivers positioned anywhere else on Earth via capacitive
                    > > coupling. His extensive grounding system was an attempt to get a "good
                    > > grip" on the Earth so as to "shake" its electrical potential via the
                    > > dipole formed between the massive topload of the Wardenclyffe
                    > > transmitter and the Earth below. The transmission approach is sometimes
                    > > interpreted by some as being via "longitudinal" waves, but the energy
                    > > transfer method is simply electrical field lines, identical to those
                    > > between the plates of capacitors.
                    > >
                    > > Although most folks are familiar with electromagnetic (transformer)
                    > > coupling, substantial energy can be transferred electrostatically
                    > > especially when using high voltages at high frequencies. One recent
                    > > example is Greg Leyh's solid state twins powering a motorized chair via
                    > > electrostatic coupling:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > http://www.youtube.com/user/BertHickman#p/c/5EC69D1EFA7AA499/34/QuAkdynoMuM
                    > <http://www.youtube.com/user/BertHickman#p/c/5EC69D1EFA7AA499/34/QuAkdynoMuM>
                    > >
                    > > Bert
                    > > --
                    > > ********************************************************************
                    > > We specialize in UNIQUE items: coins shrunk by ultra-strong magnetic
                    > > fields, Captured Lightning Lichtenberg figure sculptures, and scarce
                    > > technical Books. Please visit us at http://www.capturedlightning.com
                    > <http://www.capturedlightning.com>
                    > > ********************************************************************
                    > >
                    > > Chris Swinson wrote:
                    > >>
                    > >> There is the electro-static side of things also which I never hear
                    > >> talked about much. you do not even need a receiver coil. was maybe not
                    > >> as good as a coil, but still managed 25watts out of 100watt coil and
                    > >> nothing "tuned" at all there. I am sure there are many ways to tap into
                    > >> the energy, but EM is only a small part of it. I only know of induction
                    > >> and what I call electro-static methods. Would be interesting if anyone
                    > >> found any other ways to tap into the energy without having to "tune"
                    > >> into the frequency.
                    > >>
                    > >> ----- Original Message -----
                    > >> *From:* Michael Riversong Education <mailto:rivedu@...
                    > <mailto:rivedu%40earthlink.net>>
                    > >> *To:* usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com <mailto:usa-tesla%40yahoogroups.com>
                    > <mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com <mailto:usa-tesla%40yahoogroups.com>>
                    > >> *Sent:* Monday, May 03, 2010 10:05 PM
                    > >> *Subject:* RE: [usa-tesla] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum
                    > >>
                    > >> Sorry if i gave you that impression.
                    > >>
                    > >> Some of Tesla's terminology as used in his patents is a bit
                    > >> different from the way those terms are used today. That's one of the
                    > >> reasons why i'm planning to devote some time to reading these. It's
                    > >> not mystical at all. It's just different from pure magnetic
                    > >> inductance because there seem to be a number of factors operating
                    > >> simultaneously.
                    > >>
                    > >> Please let me know what you think once you've read the patents. It
                    > >> may take the combined expertise of several people to get at what is
                    > >> workable.
                    > >>
                    > >> Part of my point is, the Wardenclyffe system has been duplicated on
                    > >> a small scale, and thus we have a proof-of-concept.
                    > >>
                    > >> -----Original Message-----
                    > >> From: "McGalliard, Frederick B"
                    > >> Sent: May 3, 2010 2:41 PM
                    > >> To: "'usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
                    > <mailto:%27usa-tesla%40yahoogroups.com>'"
                    > >> Subject: RE: [usa-tesla] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum
                    > >>
                    > >> Mike. I am not sure what you think induction and resonance and
                    > >> RF transmission are, but Tesla, other than being a bit secretive
                    > >> about his work, seems to have expected a resonant coupling
                    > >> between a very large coil and the ionosphere/ground. To transmit
                    > >> into that takes a good ground all right, and resonance at a
                    > >> suitable frequency, but there is little to indicate that he
                    > >> expected anything other than good solid electric theory (of the
                    > >> time) to be at work. Don't you think it is a bit contrived to
                    > >> translate his quite practical work on what might have been novel
                    > >> solutions to the world's growing problem of energy transmission
                    > >> into a near mystic discovery of things no one else can even
                    > >> reproduce? I expect even the big T himself would get a good
                    > >> laugh out of what some of us make of his ideas.
                    > >>
                    > >> __._
                    > >>
                    > >> -- Michael Riversong
                    > >> Tesla Academy
                    > >> Cheyenne, Wyoming
                    > >> www.teslaacademy.info
                    > >> rivedu@... <mailto:rivedu%40earthlink.net>
                    > >>
                    > >> ----------------------------------------------------------
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >> No virus found in this incoming message.
                    > >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                    > >> Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2851 - Release Date:
                    > >> 05/03/10 07:27:00
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > ------------------------------------
                    > >
                    > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    > ----------------------------------------------------------
                    >
                    > No virus found in this incoming message.
                    > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                    > Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2852 - Release Date: 05/03/10
                    > 19:27:00
                    >
                    >
                  • dave pierson
                    ... Appears to be standard emag, well known microwave technique. Anybody want to stand in the 34KW beam? Anybody want to stand next to it, betting it won t
                    Message 9 of 30 , May 7, 2010
                      > >> I only had a quick look though it, but it annoys me when they jump
                      > >> from Tesla to MIT making it sound like they are the only ones who
                      > >> have done anything for the past 100 years. 60watts woopydoo, any
                      > >> idiot (including myself) could ramp much higher power levels than
                      > >> that.

                      > > It would be interesting to know the efficiency, range and
                      > > technology.

                      > >> I did 100watts like when I was about 18 years old, and yet all
                      > >> during this time, plus everyone else's efforts in fact, all goes
                      > >> ignored. oh well. NASA were pushing over 2miles in the mid 70's
                      > >> with 30KW was it?
                      > > It would be interesting to know the efficiency, range and
                      > > technology.

                      > its on youtube, just look for something like NASA power transmission
                      Appears to be standard emag, well known microwave technique.
                      Anybody want to stand in the 34KW beam?
                      Anybody want to stand next to it, betting it won't shift?
                      The '82%' efficiency appears to neglect transmitter 'mains to RF'
                      efficiencies...

                      ---
                      unrelated: working a crossword... 5 letters....inventor of Induction Motor...
                      I think i already had the TE...

                      best
                      New dwp: dave_p@...
                    • dave pierson
                      New dwp: dave_p@comcast.net ... This will come as a shock to those using EM for radio for the last 100ish years. ... Perhaps it might be demonstrated?
                      Message 10 of 30 , May 7, 2010
                        New dwp: dave_p@...

                        > Tesla knew EM wasn't good for radio, so why would he use it for power
                        > transmission?
                        This will come as a shock to those using EM for 'radio'
                        for the last 100ish years.

                        > even in the CSN book he said something like generally
                        > the energy obtained is small, but that is when he talks about coils
                        > with a great magnifying factor to move great energy though the lamps
                        > and light them bright. This can easily be proven (even though it seems
                        > nobody will listen to it).
                        Perhaps it might be demonstrated?

                        > Even though my own tests were using the borderpoint between near &
                        > farfield area, calculations show only 1 watt of energy being received,
                        If the lamp is incandescent, at full brilliance, its getting
                        100W. Perhaps the calculations might be examined?
                        How much power is being transmitted?

                        > and yet, I can light 100watt lamps and even drive motors.
                        > Tesla knew fully well all this and even says so in CSN book.
                        ...

                        > I do not like the idea about the almost majical method Tesla was
                        > *maybe* using, but does not mean there wasn't something there which
                        > still is unknown today. I dare say if someone spent long enough
                        > building and testing stuff of all kinds, eventually this lost
                        > information could be found again... time will tell I guess.....
                        Or, perhaps the alternate method does not exist?

                        ----------------------
                        Thought experiment:
                        Any largish city will have one or more 50KW AM transmitters.
                        Build choice of Tesla Receiver, tune up for their frequency
                        and drive out to antenna.

                        If in Eastern Maine, ponder NAA, with up to 2MW output...

                        best
                        dwp
                      • McGalliard, Frederick B
                        Dave. I thought the Klystrons are over 90% or about that??? They are pretty efficient.Never looked into phase locking them but I think it can be done. Though I
                        Message 11 of 30 , May 7, 2010
                          Dave. I thought the Klystrons are over 90% or about that??? They are pretty efficient.Never looked into phase locking them but I think it can be done. Though I think you can get up to the 10s of KW with just one tube. Fascinating devices these Klystrons. Tesla would have loved them. Simplicity itself. A resonant chamber, a powerful magnet, and an electron beam. Pure physics art.
                           
                          Oh, and the phase locked emitters they use in the surface conforming radars. Way cool. Same effect as a huge dish, but achieved on a flat surface (could be a rigid curved one as well) and pointed electronically.


                          From: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com [mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dave pierson
                          Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 4:55 AM
                          To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] [NASA] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum

                           


                          > >> I only had a quick look though it, but it annoys me when
                          they jump
                          > >> from Tesla to MIT making it sound like they are the
                          only ones who
                          > >> have done anything for the past 100 years.
                          60watts woopydoo, any
                          > >> idiot (including myself) could ramp much
                          higher power levels than
                          > >> that.

                          > > It would be
                          interesting to know the efficiency, range and
                          > >
                          technology.

                          > >> I did 100watts like when I was about 18 years
                          old, and yet all
                          > >> during this time, plus everyone else's efforts
                          in fact, all goes
                          > >> ignored. oh well. NASA were pushing over
                          2miles in the mid 70's
                          > >> with 30KW was it?
                          > > It would
                          be interesting to know the efficiency, range and
                          > >
                          technology.

                          > its on youtube, just look for something like NASA power
                          transmission
                          Appears to be standard emag, well known microwave technique.
                          Anybody want to stand in the 34KW beam?
                          Anybody want to stand next to it, betting it won't shift?
                          The '82%' efficiency appears to neglect transmitter 'mains to RF'
                          efficiencies. ..

                          ---
                          unrelated: working a crossword... 5 letters....inventor of Induction Motor...
                          I think i already had the TE...

                          best
                          New dwp: dave_p@comcast. net

                        • dave pierson
                          ... I took the 83(??)% cited in the clip as Tx antenna to load, and seems plausible for that. RF Source (Klystron, whatever) would be added loss . ... Not
                          Message 12 of 30 , May 7, 2010
                            > Dave. I thought the Klystrons are over 90% or about that???
                            I took the 83(??)% cited in the clip as Tx antenna to load,
                            and seems plausible for that. RF Source (Klystron, whatever)
                            would be 'added' 'loss'.

                            > They are pretty efficient.
                            Not a whizzy thereon. Casual glance seems to show 45%-70%,
                            not proposing to defend that at length, against deeper
                            research.

                            > Never looked into phase locking them but I think it
                            > can be done. Though I think you can get up to the 10s of KW with just
                            > one tube.
                            Indeed. However:
                            PEAK or CW?
                            AND
                            'tube' in this power regime can be 12"inches dia, 5' tall.


                            > Fascinating devices these Klystrons. Tesla would have loved
                            > them. Simplicity itself. A resonant chamber, a powerful magnet, and an
                            > electron beam. Pure physics art.

                            ...

                            > > >> I only had a quick look though it, but it annoys me when
                            >>>> they jump from Tesla to MIT making it sound like they are the only
                            >>>> ones who have done anything for the past 100 years. 60watts woopydoo,
                            >>>> any idiot (including myself) could ramp much higher power levels
                            >>>> than that.

                            > > > It would be interesting to know the efficiency, range and
                            > > > technology.
                            >
                            > > >> I did 100watts like when I was about 18 years old, and yet all
                            > > >> during this time, plus everyone else's efforts in fact, all goes
                            > > >> ignored. oh well. NASA were pushing over 2miles in the mid 70's
                            > > >> with 30KW was it?
                            > > > It would be interesting to know the efficiency, range and
                            > > > technology.
                            >
                            > > its on youtube, just look for something like NASA power transmission
                            > Appears to be standard emag, well known microwave technique.
                            > Anybody want to stand in the 34KW beam?
                            > Anybody want to stand next to it, betting it won't shift?
                            > The '82%' efficiency appears to neglect transmitter 'mains to RF'
                            > efficiencies...

                            best
                            New dwp: dave_p@...
                          • McGalliard, Frederick B
                            So your numbers suggest 0.7 (ROM) from wall to beam launching mechanism, then 0.8 from launch to plug on receiver side??? So ROM 56% wall to wall, as it were?
                            Message 13 of 30 , May 7, 2010
                              So your numbers suggest 0.7 (ROM) from wall to beam launching mechanism, then 0.8 from launch to plug on receiver side??? So ROM 56% wall to wall, as it were?
                              Klystrons should be rated CW I think. Thanks for looking this stuff up.


                              From: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com [mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dave pierson
                              Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 9:00 AM
                              To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] [NASA] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum

                               


                              > Dave. I thought the Klystrons are over 90% or about that???
                              I took the 83(??)% cited in the clip as Tx antenna to load,
                              and seems plausible for that. RF Source (Klystron, whatever)
                              would be 'added' 'loss'.

                              >
                              They are pretty efficient.
                              Not a whizzy thereon. Casual glance seems to show 45%-70%,
                              not proposing to defend that at length, against deeper
                              research.

                              > Never looked into phase locking them but I think
                              it
                              > can be done. Though I think you can get up to the 10s of KW with
                              just
                              > one tube.
                              Indeed. However:
                              PEAK or CW?
                              AND
                              'tube' in this power regime can be 12"inches dia, 5' tall.

                              > Fascinating devices
                              these Klystrons. Tesla would have loved
                              > them. Simplicity itself. A
                              resonant chamber, a powerful magnet, and an
                              > electron beam. Pure physics
                              art.

                              ...

                              > > >> I only had a quick look though it, but
                              it annoys me when
                              >>>> they jump from Tesla to MIT making it
                              sound like they are the only
                              >>>> ones who have done anything for
                              the past 100 years. 60watts woopydoo,
                              >>>> any idiot (including
                              myself) could ramp much higher power levels
                              >>>> than
                              that.

                              > > > It would be interesting to know the efficiency,
                              range and
                              > > > technology.
                              >
                              > > >> I did
                              100watts like when I was about 18 years old, and yet all
                              > > >>
                              during this time, plus everyone else's efforts in fact, all goes
                              > > >> ignored. oh well. NASA were pushing over 2miles in the mid 70's
                              > > >> with 30KW was it?
                              > > > It would be interesting to
                              know the efficiency, range and
                              > > > technology.
                              >
                              > > its on youtube, just look for something like NASA power
                              transmission
                              > Appears to be standard emag, well known microwave
                              technique.
                              > Anybody want to stand in the 34KW beam?
                              > Anybody want
                              to stand next to it, betting it won't shift?
                              > The '82%' efficiency
                              appears to neglect transmitter 'mains to RF'
                              >
                              efficiencies. ..

                              best
                              New dwp: dave_p@comcast. net

                            • vonu
                              Resonance in a device with sufficient Q is superior to phase locked loops.
                              Message 14 of 30 , May 7, 2010
                                Resonance in a device with sufficient Q is superior to phase locked loops.

                                --- In usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com, "McGalliard, Frederick B" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Dave. I thought the Klystrons are over 90% or about that??? They are pretty efficient.Never looked into phase locking them but I think it can be done. Though I think you can get up to the 10s of KW with just one tube. Fascinating devices these Klystrons. Tesla would have loved them. Simplicity itself. A resonant chamber, a powerful magnet, and an electron beam. Pure physics art.
                                >
                                > Oh, and the phase locked emitters they use in the surface conforming radars. Way cool. Same effect as a huge dish, but achieved on a flat surface (could be a rigid curved one as well) and pointed electronically.
                                >
                                > ________________________________
                                > From: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com [mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dave pierson
                                > Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 4:55 AM
                                > To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
                                > Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] [NASA] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > > >> I only had a quick look though it, but it annoys me when they jump
                                > > >> from Tesla to MIT making it sound like they are the only ones who
                                > > >> have done anything for the past 100 years. 60watts woopydoo, any
                                > > >> idiot (including myself) could ramp much higher power levels than
                                > > >> that.
                                >
                                > > > It would be interesting to know the efficiency, range and
                                > > > technology.
                                >
                                > > >> I did 100watts like when I was about 18 years old, and yet all
                                > > >> during this time, plus everyone else's efforts in fact, all goes
                                > > >> ignored. oh well. NASA were pushing over 2miles in the mid 70's
                                > > >> with 30KW was it?
                                > > > It would be interesting to know the efficiency, range and
                                > > > technology.
                                >
                                > > its on youtube, just look for something like NASA power transmission
                                > Appears to be standard emag, well known microwave technique.
                                > Anybody want to stand in the 34KW beam?
                                > Anybody want to stand next to it, betting it won't shift?
                                > The '82%' efficiency appears to neglect transmitter 'mains to RF'
                                > efficiencies...
                                >
                                > ---
                                > unrelated: working a crossword... 5 letters....inventor of Induction Motor...
                                > I think i already had the TE...
                                >
                                > best
                                > New dwp: dave_p@...<mailto:dave_p%40comcast.net>
                                >
                              • McGalliard, Frederick B
                                Resonance in a device with sufficient Q is superior to phase locked loops. ???. There is a definite limit to the energy density for a tube. Above that
                                Message 15 of 30 , May 7, 2010
                                  "Resonance in a device with sufficient Q is superior to phase locked loops."
                                   
                                  ???. There is a definite limit to the energy density for a tube. Above that density there is no way to keep the tube from melting.
                                  Above that power level you need to combine sources. If they are not phase locked, you get nasty little beats. But it is phase locked antennas that are the real fun thing. I just love the idea of a big flat solid block wall sending a beam to some distant location with the ability to sweep it in milliseconds, to adjust for air turbulence, motion, etc.

                                • vonu
                                  Harmonics are caused by low Q. Antennas cannot be phase locked, they are not active devices. They can be phased, but not phase locked.
                                  Message 16 of 30 , May 7, 2010
                                    Harmonics are caused by low Q.
                                    Antennas cannot be phase locked, they are not active devices.
                                    They can be phased, but not phase locked.

                                    --- In usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com, "McGalliard, Frederick B" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > "Resonance in a device with sufficient Q is superior to phase locked loops."
                                    >
                                    > ???. There is a definite limit to the energy density for a tube. Above that density there is no way to keep the tube from melting.
                                    > Above that power level you need to combine sources. If they are not phase locked, you get nasty little beats. But it is phase locked antennas that are the real fun thing. I just love the idea of a big flat solid block wall sending a beam to some distant location with the ability to sweep it in milliseconds, to adjust for air turbulence, motion, etc.
                                    >
                                  • McGalliard, Frederick B
                                    The largest radar I know of is a phased array missile defense radar the size of a drive in movie screen. I thought both transmission and reception were done
                                    Message 17 of 30 , May 7, 2010
                                      The largest radar I know of is a phased array missile defense radar the size of a drive in movie screen. I thought both transmission and reception were done with the same array by the same method. The active antenna phase shift is kind of tricky electronics, but it is an established technology. I admit to only vaguely following the physics of the process and the phase shift technology.
                                      By the way Harmonics are not caused by low Q, they are caused by nonlinear conduction characteristics. Things like diodes, for example, make harmonics, while simple resistors do not. A nice pure sine wave has no harmonics. You have to distort the signal to get them. Now that is stuff I am familiar with. Fourier series, waveform analysis, and spectrum analyzers.
                                      Now I have to admit to very little experience with other than the phased array antenna Boeing built years ago. Do you actually know more about this than I do, (My ignorance occasionally brings up an area where I thought I knew what I do not) or are you just unfamiliar with the phased array technology???
                                       


                                      From: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com [mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of vonu
                                      Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 10:14 AM
                                      To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: [usa-tesla] Re: [NASA] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum

                                       

                                      Harmonics are caused by low Q.
                                      Antennas cannot be phase locked, they are not active devices.
                                      They can be phased, but not phase locked.

                                      --- In usa-tesla@yahoogrou ps.com, "McGalliard, Frederick B" <frederick.b. mcgalliard@ ...> wrote:

                                      >
                                      > "Resonance in a device with sufficient Q is superior to
                                      phase locked loops."
                                      >
                                      > ???. There is a definite limit to the
                                      energy density for a tube. Above that density there is no way to keep the tube from melting.
                                      > Above that power level you need to combine sources. If
                                      they are not phase locked, you get nasty little beats. But it is phase locked antennas that are the real fun thing. I just love the idea of a big flat solid block wall sending a beam to some distant location with the ability to sweep it in milliseconds, to adjust for air turbulence, motion, etc.
                                      >

                                    • vonu
                                      Resistors can be non-linear at radio frequencies when they are linear at DC. I spent a decade as a broadcast engineer and two-way radio technician. Directional
                                      Message 18 of 30 , May 7, 2010
                                        Resistors can be non-linear at radio frequencies when they are linear at DC.
                                        I spent a decade as a broadcast engineer and two-way radio technician. Directional AM stations use phased arrays, and FM antennas with gain are phased arrays.
                                        Square waves and triangle waves can be nice and pure as sine waves, but their only difference from a sine wave is their harmonic content.
                                        The higher the Q of a resonant circuit, the lower the harmonic content will be. Back in the days of crystal-controlled oscillators and multiplier circuits, the impurity of crystal oscillation was taken advantage of by tuning subsequent circuits resonant to harmonics.

                                        --- In usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com, "McGalliard, Frederick B" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > The largest radar I know of is a phased array missile defense radar the size of a drive in movie screen. I thought both transmission and reception were done with the same array by the same method. The active antenna phase shift is kind of tricky electronics, but it is an established technology. I admit to only vaguely following the physics of the process and the phase shift technology.
                                        > By the way Harmonics are not caused by low Q, they are caused by nonlinear conduction characteristics. Things like diodes, for example, make harmonics, while simple resistors do not. A nice pure sine wave has no harmonics. You have to distort the signal to get them. Now that is stuff I am familiar with. Fourier series, waveform analysis, and spectrum analyzers.
                                        > Now I have to admit to very little experience with other than the phased array antenna Boeing built years ago. Do you actually know more about this than I do, (My ignorance occasionally brings up an area where I thought I knew what I do not) or are you just unfamiliar with the phased array technology???
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > ________________________________
                                        > From: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com [mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of vonu
                                        > Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 10:14 AM
                                        > To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
                                        > Subject: [usa-tesla] Re: [NASA] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Harmonics are caused by low Q.
                                        > Antennas cannot be phase locked, they are not active devices.
                                        > They can be phased, but not phase locked.
                                        >
                                        > --- In usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com<mailto:usa-tesla%40yahoogroups.com>, "McGalliard, Frederick B" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@> wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > "Resonance in a device with sufficient Q is superior to phase locked loops."
                                        > >
                                        > > ???. There is a definite limit to the energy density for a tube. Above that density there is no way to keep the tube from melting.
                                        > > Above that power level you need to combine sources. If they are not phase locked, you get nasty little beats. But it is phase locked antennas that are the real fun thing. I just love the idea of a big flat solid block wall sending a beam to some distant location with the ability to sweep it in milliseconds, to adjust for air turbulence, motion, etc.
                                        > >
                                        >
                                      • McGalliard, Frederick B
                                        A brief and easy (with good visuals) description of the antenna. Usually this stuff is done for beam forming in radars and the like, and is done at microwave
                                        Message 19 of 30 , May 7, 2010
                                          A brief and easy (with good visuals) description of the antenna. Usually this stuff is done for beam forming in radars and the like, and is done at microwave frequencies.
                                           
                                          And here is the Wiki article. A great picture of the Pave Paws array. I think that is the one I recall.
                                           
                                          Right on the resistors. Because at microwave frequencies they are inductors, antennas, and capacitors. Still, if you want to mix signals you would normally use a diode I think.
                                          Well, actually I guess you could describe any multiple element antenna as a phased array. The term is usually reserved for antenna where the phase angle is steered electronically so the formed beam can be directed very rapidly without mechanical motion.
                                          You are of course correct that a highly tuned circuit, which cannot have signal distorting properties which would interfere with the gain, is less distorting, but a low gain circuit is not necessarily distorting (and high in harmonics). I loved the math of the Fourier series. For any repetitive wave form, as your example of the triangle wave, one can compose the wave from a number of pure sine waves of different intensity. To see that, in such lovely detail, in both the math and the signal analyzer is very cool.
                                           
                                           


                                          From: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com [mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of vonu
                                          Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 10:56 AM
                                          To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
                                          Subject: [usa-tesla] Re: [NASA] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum

                                           

                                          Resistors can be non-linear at radio frequencies when they are linear at DC.
                                          I spent a decade as a broadcast engineer and two-way radio technician. Directional AM stations use phased arrays, and FM antennas with gain are phased arrays.
                                          Square waves and triangle waves can be nice and pure as sine waves, but their only difference from a sine wave is their harmonic content.
                                          The higher the Q of a resonant circuit, the lower the harmonic content will be. Back in the days of crystal-controlled oscillators and multiplier circuits, the impurity of crystal oscillation was taken advantage of by tuning subsequent circuits resonant to harmonics.

                                          --- In usa-tesla@yahoogrou ps.com, "McGalliard, Frederick B" <frederick.b. mcgalliard@ ...> wrote:

                                          >
                                          > The largest radar I know of is a phased array missile
                                          defense radar the size of a drive in movie screen. I thought both transmission and reception were done with the same array by the same method. The active antenna phase shift is kind of tricky electronics, but it is an established technology. I admit to only vaguely following the physics of the process and the phase shift technology.
                                          > By the way Harmonics are not caused by low Q,
                                          they are caused by nonlinear conduction characteristics. Things like diodes, for example, make harmonics, while simple resistors do not. A nice pure sine wave has no harmonics. You have to distort the signal to get them. Now that is stuff I am familiar with. Fourier series, waveform analysis, and spectrum analyzers.
                                          > Now I have to admit to very little experience with other than
                                          the phased array antenna Boeing built years ago. Do you actually know more about this than I do, (My ignorance occasionally brings up an area where I thought I knew what I do not) or are you just unfamiliar with the phased array technology?? ?
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          ____________ _________ _________ __
                                          > From:
                                          href="mailto:usa-tesla%40yahoogroups.com">usa-tesla@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of vonu
                                          > Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 10:14 AM
                                          > To:
                                          href="mailto:usa-tesla%40yahoogroups.com">usa-tesla@yahoogrou ps.com
                                          >
                                          Subject: [usa-tesla] Re: [NASA] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Harmonics are caused by low Q.
                                          > Antennas cannot be
                                          phase locked, they are not active devices.
                                          > They can be phased, but not
                                          phase locked.
                                          >
                                          > --- In
                                          href="mailto:usa-tesla%40yahoogroups.com">usa-tesla@yahoogrou ps.com<mailto:usa- tesla%40yahoogro ups.com>, "McGalliard, Frederick B" <frederick.b. mcgalliard@ > wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > "Resonance in a device with sufficient Q is
                                          superior to phase locked loops."
                                          > >
                                          > > ???. There is a
                                          definite limit to the energy density for a tube. Above that density there is no way to keep the tube from melting.
                                          > > Above that power level you need
                                          to combine sources. If they are not phase locked, you get nasty little beats. But it is phase locked antennas that are the real fun thing. I just love the idea of a big flat solid block wall sending a beam to some distant location with the ability to sweep it in milliseconds, to adjust for air turbulence, motion, etc.
                                          > >
                                          >

                                        • vonu
                                          The complexity of building a triangle or square wave by adding sine waves would exceed the ease of using any of the standard circuits to produce one. Microwave
                                          Message 20 of 30 , May 7, 2010
                                            The complexity of building a triangle or square wave by adding sine waves would exceed the ease of using any of the standard circuits to produce one. Microwave mixing is frequently accomplished in cavity, which obviates the linearity concerns, much as high Q does for copper circuits. Q is not about gain, but quality.

                                            --- In usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com, "McGalliard, Frederick B" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > A brief and easy (with good visuals) description of the antenna. Usually this stuff is done for beam forming in radars and the like, and is done at microwave frequencies.
                                            > http://www.radartutorial.eu/06.antennas/an14.en.html
                                            >
                                            > And here is the Wiki article. A great picture of the Pave Paws array. I think that is the one I recall.
                                            > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array
                                            >
                                            > Right on the resistors. Because at microwave frequencies they are inductors, antennas, and capacitors. Still, if you want to mix signals you would normally use a diode I think.
                                            > Well, actually I guess you could describe any multiple element antenna as a phased array. The term is usually reserved for antenna where the phase angle is steered electronically so the formed beam can be directed very rapidly without mechanical motion.
                                            > You are of course correct that a highly tuned circuit, which cannot have signal distorting properties which would interfere with the gain, is less distorting, but a low gain circuit is not necessarily distorting (and high in harmonics). I loved the math of the Fourier series. For any repetitive wave form, as your example of the triangle wave, one can compose the wave from a number of pure sine waves of different intensity. To see that, in such lovely detail, in both the math and the signal analyzer is very cool.
                                            >
                                            > <http://www.radartutorial.eu/06.antennas/an14.en.html>
                                            >
                                            > ________________________________
                                            > From: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com [mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of vonu
                                            > Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 10:56 AM
                                            > To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com
                                            > Subject: [usa-tesla] Re: [NASA] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Resistors can be non-linear at radio frequencies when they are linear at DC.
                                            > I spent a decade as a broadcast engineer and two-way radio technician. Directional AM stations use phased arrays, and FM antennas with gain are phased arrays.
                                            > Square waves and triangle waves can be nice and pure as sine waves, but their only difference from a sine wave is their harmonic content.
                                            > The higher the Q of a resonant circuit, the lower the harmonic content will be. Back in the days of crystal-controlled oscillators and multiplier circuits, the impurity of crystal oscillation was taken advantage of by tuning subsequent circuits resonant to harmonics.
                                            >
                                            > --- In usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com<mailto:usa-tesla%40yahoogroups.com>, "McGalliard, Frederick B" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@> wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > > The largest radar I know of is a phased array missile defense radar the size of a drive in movie screen. I thought both transmission and reception were done with the same array by the same method. The active antenna phase shift is kind of tricky electronics, but it is an established technology. I admit to only vaguely following the physics of the process and the phase shift technology.
                                            > > By the way Harmonics are not caused by low Q, they are caused by nonlinear conduction characteristics. Things like diodes, for example, make harmonics, while simple resistors do not. A nice pure sine wave has no harmonics. You have to distort the signal to get them. Now that is stuff I am familiar with. Fourier series, waveform analysis, and spectrum analyzers.
                                            > > Now I have to admit to very little experience with other than the phased array antenna Boeing built years ago. Do you actually know more about this than I do, (My ignorance occasionally brings up an area where I thought I knew what I do not) or are you just unfamiliar with the phased array technology???
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > ________________________________
                                            > > From: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com<mailto:usa-tesla%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com<mailto:usa-tesla%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of vonu
                                            > > Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 10:14 AM
                                            > > To: usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com<mailto:usa-tesla%40yahoogroups.com>
                                            > > Subject: [usa-tesla] Re: [NASA] Wireless Power/IEEE Spectrum
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > Harmonics are caused by low Q.
                                            > > Antennas cannot be phase locked, they are not active devices.
                                            > > They can be phased, but not phase locked.
                                            > >
                                            > > --- In usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com<mailto:usa-tesla%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:usa-tesla%40yahoogroups.com>, "McGalliard, Frederick B" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@> wrote:
                                            > > >
                                            > > > "Resonance in a device with sufficient Q is superior to phase locked loops."
                                            > > >
                                            > > > ???. There is a definite limit to the energy density for a tube. Above that density there is no way to keep the tube from melting.
                                            > > > Above that power level you need to combine sources. If they are not phase locked, you get nasty little beats. But it is phase locked antennas that are the real fun thing. I just love the idea of a big flat solid block wall sending a beam to some distant location with the ability to sweep it in milliseconds, to adjust for air turbulence, motion, etc.
                                            > > >
                                            > >
                                            >
                                          • dave pierson
                                            [Drifting OT, shall end this here 8) ] New dwp: dave_p@comcast.net ... This? http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/an-fps-118.htm Visited the Maine
                                            Message 21 of 30 , May 8, 2010
                                              [Drifting OT, shall end this here 8)>>]

                                              New dwp: dave_p@...

                                              ----- "Frederick B McGalliard" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@...> wrote:

                                              > The largest radar I know of is a phased array missile defense radar
                                              > the size of a drive in movie screen.
                                              This?

                                              http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/an-fps-118.htm

                                              Visited the Maine site once, on an IEEE tour. I'd have
                                              said larger than a movie screen. 8)>> Image at bottom.

                                              I used keywords
                                              Maine OTHB RADAR

                                              on an image search. Others will suggest themselves..

                                              > I thought both transmission and reception were done with the same array
                                              This instance uses separate Tx (near Cutler, ME) and Rx (near Moscow,
                                              ME). (Yes. REALLY.) steerable beam, 2ish to 30ish MHz (Its been a
                                              while, cf the web page...) Can 'see' to Europe. US analog to the
                                              'Russian Woodpecker'.

                                              > by the same method. The active antenna phase shift is kind of tricky
                                              > electronics, but it is an established technology. I admit to only vaguely
                                              > following the physics of the process and the phase shift technology.

                                              > By the way Harmonics are not caused by low Q, they are caused by
                                              > nonlinear conduction characteristics. Things like diodes, for example,
                                              > make harmonics, while simple resistors do not. A nice pure sine wave
                                              > has no harmonics.
                                              Just so.
                                              best
                                              dwp
                                            • EVP
                                              Some pf the over-the-horizon radars have used phase [steered] antennas several miles in dimension. The largest radar I know of is a phased array missile
                                              Message 22 of 30 , May 9, 2010
                                                Some pf the over-the-horizon radars have used phase [steered] antennas several miles in dimension. 

                                                The largest radar I know of is a phased array missile defense radar the size of a drive in movie screen. I thought both transmission and reception were done with the same array by the same method. The active antenna phase shift is kind of tricky electronics, but it is an established technology. I admit to only vaguely following the physics of the process and the phase shift technology.
                                                By the way Harmonics are not caused by low Q, they are caused by nonlinear conduction characteristics. Things like diodes, for example, make harmonics, while simple resistors do not. A nice pure sine wave has no harmonics. You have to distort the signal to get them. Now that is stuff I am familiar with. Fourier series, waveform analysis, and spectrum analyzers.
                                                Now I have to admit to very little experience with other than the phased array antenna Boeing built years ago. Do you actually know more about this than I do, (My ignorance occasionally brings up an area where I thought I knew what I do not) or are you just unfamiliar with the phased array technology?? ?


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