It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Commercially available wireless electricity is here ...

page: 2
77
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Anything can be metered on most accords. How would you meter this? The receiver. How hard is that?

And if you can't meter it, you make a general tax on all.

That's not an excuse enough to say his technology was stopped.

No business in their right mind wants to limit technology. There is application for money in all things. There's no rule that says an oil company can't switch to make hydrogen if it was profitable.




posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I'm a little confused G, so far as I can tell this technology is not related to Tesla's who as I understand it did not work with electromagnetic fields.

Am I mistaken on this point?



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


The Tesla coil utilizes resonance of tuned primary and secondary coils which are not intimately coupled. I wonder what they're trying to say here. The best I can make from the descriptions and other sources on the subject is that they are trying to minimize radiative losses to maximize transmission efficiency.

Without radiative losses, you aren't actually transmitting any energy unless a tuned circuit is there to utilize it. This makes sense in that the energy in spacetime is recovered as the field collapses back on the inductor.

There doesn't seem to be any fundamental deviation from Tesla's work.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Yes. Indeed.

What we have here is the event of micro technology meeting macro designing.

There's no conspiracy. Tesla's work simply wasn't worth it at his scale and demands. A massive tower to the sky that he designed for wireless electricity is now nothing more than a wall hung frame.

It's just like the old computers. The same, done smaller.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Oh ok, thanks for the explanation.

Btw, I wasn't suggesting that there was a conspiracy, I just thought that there was something in that this company was the first to present a commercial application of this technology.


A better late than never kinda thing.


[edit on 1 Jul 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
No business in their right mind wants to limit technology. There is application for money in all things. There's no rule that says an oil company can't switch to make hydrogen if it was profitable.


I think they'll limit it until they find a path to profit for something new, continuing with older technology that guarantees a revenue stream. Next they'll invest a great deal of resouces in development. Once they have that investment at stake, they'll tend to push it through regardless of other concerns that get raised. Repeat.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Well in any case, Tesla might be a home brand name soon with the car company and this.

Oh wait....

fallout.neoseeker.com...

lol


reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


Oh yes, I know.

But all companies are wise enough to know that research into those would be even more profitable if they are sold at the same time as the original product.

Oil has its place beyond cars. so they could produce both.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by Gorman91]

[edit on 1-7-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


Sharks navigate by detecting electromagnetic current. Think ley-lines.

They theorize that a hammerhead's head is shaped in such a way that it can straddle lines for easy navigation.

Those are some very good questions, though.
The potential drawbacks are substantial.



[edit on 1-7-2009 by JayinAR]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


"Magnetic fields interact very weakly with biological organisms—people and animals—and are scientifically regarded to be safe."

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

If they say so.
However, I know that birds also navigate by SEEING North. I just hope that the frequencies output aren't great enough to affect the Planet's natural tone, if you will.

There could be serious consequences, it seems.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Strictsum
 


"Tesla could have achieved this 100 years ago if he would have been allowed. I guess they have figured out how to "put a meter on it". "

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

That is exactly what they did!
Tesla's ideas were to draw charged particles from the flexing of the Magnetosphere beneath cosmic radiation. In essence harnessing free energy.
With this tech they are charging you for the electricity and forcing you to synchronize with their source.






posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


Excellent point ...

I imagine their response would be along the lines that the magnetic field doesn't spread beyond the range of the device. But who knows what the cumulative effects would be on a big scale.

I'm trying to find their scientific papers but the two sources on their website require subscription.


I'll keep looking, should I find them I hope some of our technologically savvy members can make some sense of it.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Tesla actually demonstrated this technology on a massive scale.

He was able to build a tower that would literally suck free energy out of the air (and produce lightning, btw) and with it he could plug a lightbulb directly into the ground anywhere near his home in Colorado. He lived on like 15 acres or something and he could just walk into the field and have light.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


There is nothing profitable about pulling energy out of thin air.

And yeah, his technology was buried.

His NAME is all BUT buried... and he was easily the most influential electrical engineer in history.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Ok, here's a link to one of their papers:

Efficient wireless non-radiative mid-range energy transfer

And here's the other:

Wireless Power Transfer via Strongly Coupled
Magnetic Resonances


[edit on 1 Jul 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Exactly.
And the example of the wireless router is a good one, I'd think.
I mean, from where I sit I can piggyback no less than 50 stations.
Eventually everything will be covered.

Same concept.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
This isn't news. I've got an electric toothbrush that already uses this technology. And any time you use any sort of transformer, you're using that same technology.

Ordinarily the transformer's two coils are in the same unit. Wires from the secondary coil are plugged into whatever device is being charged. With the toothbrush, the secondary coil are inside the unit. That's all.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by chiron613
 


Apparently that is not correct.

It seems that the the leap from 'close range' to 'medium range' is not as simple as that.
And from what is being reported, this company is the first to achieve it at a commercial level.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


That's where the user tax comes in.

Is there any profit in holding water when it's available from the sky? Yes.

User tax + convenience.

Again, I cannot understand people who say free energy can't be profitable.

That's why we have user taxes, pay by the hour, etc etc, whatever.

Anything can be profited.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Well yeah, I see your point.
However, I don't think that the user tax could be anything on par with what we are paying for energy now.
Especially considering they don't really have to do ANYTHING to get it.

It is cheap as heck.

At least with oil there is a limited supply and you actually have to work to get it.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Where does one go to learn more about Nikola Tesla?



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join