Wireless Electricity Transmission To Be Exhibited On 21 October At Digital Energy Festival

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The topic of this thread is using microwaves to transmit energy, though an insulating air medium.

The topic of that Tesla patent is nothing like that. The patent says: "causing thereby a propagation or flow of electrical energy, by conduction, through the earth and the air Strata,..."

Microwaves don't work that way, by conduction. You can send them fairly close to the ground where air is an insulator, not a conductor. The microwaves only have to be elevated high enough to avoid being blocked by the curvature of the earth. Tesla's patent is talking about using conductive layers of the atmosphere which don't occur anywhere near the ground:

"2. The method hereinbefore described of transmitting electrical energy, which consists in producing at a generating-station a very high electrical pressure, conducting the current caused thereby to earth and to a terminal at an elevation at which the atmosphere serves as a conductor therefor, and collecting the current by a second elevated terminal at a distance from the first."

Can't you see the microwave technology is completely different from that? I bolded the part talking about "elevation at which the atmosphere serves as a conductor" which is very high, I don't know if Tesla even knew how high that altitude is, but microwave energy transmission doesn't require any such altitude. This technology by EMROD is not anything like what's described in that patent, which requires high altitudes, which the EMROD technology does not.

The beauty of the Tesla systems is that they can work with any wave propagation. If you truly understood this you wouldn't be wandering around trying to argue with folks. This isn't a traditional inductive system.

Go ahead and tell me why they need to use a columnated laser, and what frequency they are most likely to use. Then tell me it has nothing to do with what's described in the patent.

"I don't think Tesla really understood radio waves or other forms of electromagnetic energy like this EMROD technology uses."

Or, maybe you don't.

originally posted by: AstroDog
The beauty of the Tesla systems is that they can work with any wave propagation. If you truly understood this you wouldn't be wandering around trying to argue with folks. This isn't a traditional inductive system.

Go ahead and tell me why they need to use a columnated laser, and what frequency they are most likely to use. Then tell me it has nothing to do with what's described in the patent.

They, who, EMROD? I haven't seen any detailed specs, so I've only formed a basic understanding from reading some articles and listening to interviews, but the lasers are for alignment and safety. If the laser is interrupted, the power is shut down to avoid cooking people or animals in the microwaves like you would cook a turkey in your microwave oven at home. The power in the EMROD system is actually transmitted by microwaves, not by lasers.

emrod.energy...

Low power laser safety curtain ensures that the transmission beam immediately shuts down before any transient object (such as a bird or helicopter) can reach the main beam ensuring it never touches anything except clean air.

For transmitting power, Emrod uses frequencies in the ISM band, not lasers:

Emrod uses beams in the ISM (Industrial, Scientific, and Medical) band with frequencies commonly used in WiFi, Bluetooth, and RfID

I don't buy all their claims for efficiency etc but the fundamental principles are sound and not based on Teslas patent or ideas. EMROD tech doesn't need any balloons like we see in in Tesla's patent to get to conductive layers of the atmosphere. The balloons are shown as objects "D" and "D' " in the Tesla patent you posted, here:

"I don't think Tesla really understood radio waves or other forms of electromagnetic energy like this EMROD technology uses."

Or, maybe you don't.

In 1873 Maxwell published "A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism"
In 1893 Heaviside published "Electromagnetic Theory", with a more advanced interpretation of Maxwell's equations.
One of the things Heaviside showed is that in free air (such as wireless technology uses), electromagnetic waves can't behave like sound waves.
That is, electromagnetic waves are always transverse, in free air (or vacuum).
But Tesla didn't believe Heaviside and had numerous misconceptions as a result, believing that electromagnetic waves can behave like sound waves in free air, which he called "non-Hertzian waves". Modern scientific consensus is there is no such thing as Non-Hertzian waves, which is why I say Tesla didn't really understand wireless since he based his ideas partly on that. Tesla also had misconceptions about the conductivity of the ground. These misconceptions combined with his confirmation bias led to his great failure at Wardenclyffe and his subsequent mental breakdown, as explained here (which is the story that doesn't get promoted as much as some myths about Tesla and what he knew):

Tesla’s folly – why Wardenclyffe didn’t work

Tesla imagined flipping conventional radio on its head – the signal would be transmitted through the Earth, and the electrical energy would return via current in the air. Based on his experiments with Geissler tubes, Tesla found that thinner air was more conducive to certain forms of high frequency ionization. Tesla therefore proposed using high altitude balloons to reach into the thiner atmosphere (contrary to popular opinion, Tesla did not know about the ionosphere). Later he switched from balloons to towers.

That relates to the patent you posted, which has drawings of balloons to reach the altitudes necessary Tesla thought to reach the heights where the atmosphere would be conductive, but Tesla didn't even know about the ionosphere, or how high it really was.

The third workaround which Tesla had was his idea to produce longitudinal electromagnetic waves, which he called “electromagnetic thrusts” having a “non-Hertzian” character. Tesla adamantly believed that just like sound waves, electromagnetic waves should come in two varieties – longitudinal and transverse. ..

Around 1900 there were in Britain a small circle of “Maxwellians” who were undertaking the mathematical analysis necessary to connect Maxwell’s equations to the experimental findings of Hertz regarding electromagnetic waves. These physicists included Oliver Lodge, Oliver Heaviside, and George F. FitzGerald. Using Maxwell’s equations they proved, among other things, that all electromagnetic waves are transverse and that light is an electromagnetic wave. Although Tesla kept abreast of the work of the Maxwellians and was very adept at mathematics, he had little patience for theoretical analysis of Maxwell’s equations. Likely Tesla saw the work of the Maxwellians as more of an ‘ivory tower’ pursuit and not very practical. Tesla made it very clear he thought that the Maxwellian’s central results were wrong...

But Heaviside and the others weren't wrong, it was Tesla who was wrong to not believe their work, is the scientific consensus today:

Despite the scientific consensus today that all electromagnetic waves are transverse, many people still cling to Tesla’s notion that other forms of “non-Hertzian” electromagnetic waves exist.

The only valid mathematics I've ever seen for anything resembling Tesla's non-Hertian electromagnetic waves is not in free air ( or vacuum), but in a wave guide, or an enclosure of some sort that contains and channels the electromagnetic waves. But out in the open air, Heaviside was right and Tesla was wrong, Tesla's "non-Hertzian waves" don't exist.

Maxwell's theory and Heaviside's refinement have held up remarkably well over the years, and are still considered reasonably accurate except when quantum effects become important, which generally they aren't with wireless power transmission.

a reply to: AstroDog

Go ahead and tell me why they need to use a columnated laser, and what frequency they are most likely to use.

"Columnated?"
You mean collimated? I don't know if the laser will be collimated, not much reason to do so since it is used as part of an emergency cutoff system. It has nothing to do with the transmission of power.

The microwave transmission will be in the ISM band. They aren't very specific about it but it's likely in the low Ghz range in order to reduce problems with weather.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

They, who, EMROD? I haven't seen any detailed specs, so I've only formed a basic understanding from reading some articles and listening to interviews, but the lasers are for alignment and safety. If the laser is interrupted, the power is shut down to avoid cooking people or animals in the microwaves like you would cook a turkey in your microwave oven at home. The power in the EMROD system is actually transmitted by microwaves, not by lasers.

You clearly don't understand the Tesla systems most likely at work here. You don't seem to understand why the frequency or namely the energy state of the beam or medium matters, how it sheathes the transmission and what happens when it is interrupted, or the phase modulation of the transmission used in the Tesla systems. If you look through the Tesla wireless patents you can easily put together the first part, the second part you'll have to gather on your own through building and testing, Dollard will give you a massive step up in this regard. While yes Tesla was "a victim of his own poetry", he was in fact effectively correct when speaking of the manner in which his machines operated and what they did. The problem is nobody, even him, could explain why.

originally posted by: AstroDog
If you look through the Tesla wireless patents you can easily put together the first part

Are you saying you posted the wrong patent for this thread? Obviously you did since the patent you posted shows balloons as part of the mechanism and the EMROD technology uses no such balloons. Why not post the right patent? Then we can see if that matches EMROD technology (though I doubt Tesla's patents cover what EMROD is doing, but I'll read it if you post it, maybe you'll surprise me).

While yes Tesla was "a victim of his own poetry", he was in fact effectively correct when speaking of the manner in which his machines operated and what they did. The problem is nobody, even him, could explain why.

This isn't really about what I know or don't know, or what you know or don't know as you seem to think or want to steer this thread. Tesla's principles and misunderstandings are well documented and known to contradict modern scientific consensus, so it's not really about what you or I know, that's just the fact. Here's someone who can explain, using Tesla's own drawing, how Tesla expected his wireless system at Wardenclyffe to work, and why it failed, partly because he refused to believe Heaviside that longitudinal electromagnetic waves don't exist. His machine depended on them, and he shows an analogy to a water pump for how his machine operates, seen here in the left pane of this capture from the video below:


Water can operate that way, electromagnetic waves can't, and that's at least part of the reason why Tesla didn't get the results he expected, because he believed in non-existent longitudinal electromagnetic waves which we know don't exist, per scientific consensus. This video explains it reasonably well:

Making Wireless Energy For The Entire Planet—Nikola Tesla's Wardenclyffe Tower

originally posted by: AstroDog
Dollard will give you a massive step up in this regard.

Are you talking about this Dollard, who sounds completely insane and says there's nothing inside the sun, it's hollow? I must say the planets do a pretty good job orbiting the sun as if it had a considerable amount of mass inside, I don't see how that would happen if the sun was hollow. And that's just the tip of his nonsense iceberg.

Eric Dollard "NO Nuclear Fusion Burning In The Sun." The Sun Is Just A Hollow Lens.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Tesla compartmentalized his patents, as most people do with the intention of claiming operative discovery or invention over individual aspects of complex machines or systems. The one I posted is foundational, there are others which are parallel elaborations. To understand conceptually there's very little mental assembly required, though yes some of it needs to be thrown out but it's in the weeds topically. I will clarify that if you understand Tesla's transmission systems it's clear the potential and intentions in regard to the Wardenclyffe tower were multifaceted and multipatterned.

I actually fully clarified all of this in one of my first posts in very easy to understand terms, namely how it's very likely related based on quotes from their site along with the ways in which I know is most efficient and thus financially viable to consumers. I will reiterate I could be wrong, I don't know exactly what they are doing, but if I am then they are not doing it the best way per Tesla's systems or have found a better way building on the same principles they claim. They are using more than a few alternative terms for known mechanisms and characteristics. However by and large I thought better of it since you seem to think it's easier to dismiss anything outside your own sphere of immediate comprehension. Since you seem to like Heaviside, you could say I am being intentionally wooden-headed, maybe you've read some of his books and would then understand the reference in that regard. This might seem scathing and aloof simply because I don't feel sorry for you, but I don't feel sorry for you because you're not stupid. If you are inclined to actually figure this stuff out instead of just wading through selective errs then the wisdom is out there to be cultivated and the understanding is fulfilling.

While I don't subscribe to all of Dollard's notions— nor Tesla's, or Einstein's, or anyone else's for that matter— his laboratory works on the aforementioned Tesla systems are extraordinary. Pray tell if there's someone whose entire explanation and implications regarding energy, matter, and the cosmos which you unilaterally identify with. I bet there isn't one, if there were their work would be complete, uniformly undeniable, and we would have a perfect LET, GR, or even theory of the Spaghetti Monster if it were so. There would be no room for fanciful speculations to ridicule piecemeal. How would we project our distractive tendencies on others then, and lo how boring to avert tangled debate!

As an engineer Tesla was a genius, his hard "physicist" abilities fell short. That's not to say he was infallible in the former regard, but to his credit and as imperfect in all manners as Tesla was (and to quote Heaviside again), "Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?". What this company is most likely doing is not traditional or alternately extraordinary, it is now well understood today mechanically and theoretically. The truly mystifying thing is the at large inability to learn and use scientific and mathematical analogues beyond what is regurgitated for those who want easy answers and comfortably unifiable implications from numbers and words on paper or moving pictures. If you experiment with these devices you will be able to see it for yourself. Yes you will be turning materials into trash more often than not going off the simple patents, yes it takes a long time, yes it can be dangerous.

Yes, I have built variations of the Tesla wireless systems and can say these things with honest conviction. It is remarkably efficient and does not work how you appear to think it should, but does work as Tesla alluded. You are lost in the weeds, as he was lost in explanation and extrapolation at the time. No I will not show you how, and I will not whisper further explanations like a child hoping to be taken seriously when the answers and workable diagrams are plainly now out there. If that is your preference regarding these systems then you're going to have to read Steinmetz, Heaviside, Tesla, Faraday, and Thompson, though I suggest Aristotle or Vinci would probably be the most pertinent places to start for you if you really want to understand anything at all. If you do then please don't think it needed to inform me men do not in fact have more teeth than women whether born to be slaves or not, or that there is not liquid water on the moon reflecting light toward Earth and simple wooden screw rotor helicopters are disastrously inefficient.

It's very easy to sit there and claim such-and-such is flawed, scientifically assailed, failed, until someone serves you the real answers tied up in a bow from another angle. My take on this is the actually scathing part for which I'll admit apology, and it's that your ignorance effects you greatly and me very little. My failure is in not having the gumption to meld a decided and easily distracted mind simply for the sake of the truth, and I fully yield that. I'd much rather discuss these things orally, perhaps over a beer, and without the hurdles of predisposed notions of how to throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to electrical theory. Either way this conversation has become more egotistical than I would have ever preferred and we're likely to simply part here with being the minds we respectively deserve in any case, hopefully while the world suffers our mutual argumentative sourness largely unnoticed.

originally posted by: AstroDog
While I don't subscribe to all of Dollard's notions— nor Tesla's, or Einstein's, or anyone else's for that matter— his laboratory works on the aforementioned Tesla systems are extraordinary. Pray tell if there's someone whose entire explanation and implications regarding energy, matter, and the cosmos which you unilaterally identify with.

Let's start with Isaac Newton. Einstein was well aware that for centuries, astronomers and other scientists had made observations that were consistent with Newton's model of how nature works. While some try to claim Einstein proved Newton wrong, that's not really what happened. Einstein's model in the limited case as he put it, converged observationally with Newton's model and they predicted the same results.

Continuing that train of thought, let's say Einstein's model, like Newton's model, is somehow incomplete. Whoever comes up with the next best model is likewise going to have to explain why observations seemed so consistent with Newton's and Einstein's models, and again the new model will still have to make predictions that match the same observations that the previous models matched.

So when we look at Newton's model of how planets orbit the sun, it still matches observation extremely well, and I don't see how any future more advanced model can escape from that. Yet Dollard's claim of the hollow sun is a pretty direct contradiction to Newton's model that the sun is not hollow, but has a lot of mass inside. That's just the most obvious example where anybody should be able to see Dollard is wrong, but he continues to say many other things in that video which contradict centuries of observations. That doesn't mean he's never said anything that's right but he's a very good example of an unreliable source. Every single thing he says you have to constantly be questioning, is he saying something that matches observation, or something that doesn't match observation? If he's not capable of telling if something matches observation or not, that's what makes him an unreliable source.

That's actually the ultimate yardstick for the credibility of any model or claim, "does it match observation and experiment?"
So if you're observing planets orbiting the sun, and comparing that to Newton's model, the answer is for the most part, yes, the model matches observation (except for slight deviations like the precession of Mercury). That doesn't mean Newtons model is the ultimate model, obviously it's not because it can't predict what happens at the LHC or with GPS like Einstein's model can, but neither of those examples show Newton's model doesn't work pretty well for planetary orbits.

So, in regard to "explanation and implications regarding energy, matter, and the cosmos", what I'm looking for is:
"What are our best observations, and what are the best models which are most consistent with those observations?" Dollard doesn't seem capable of making those judgements at a very fundamental level.

Who does? The popular saying is that "scientists don't trust other scientists, they trust science". But how does that make sense, since science is done by other scientists who they just said they don't trust? What it means is, they don't trust any one scientist, instead they trust the scientific method where other scientists take a scientist's claims, test them, and either replicate the claims, or not replicate the claims. And that is how scientific consensus is achieved, which we may not have for everything (no quantum theory of gravity), but we do have it for electromagnetism, with regard to the non-existence of the "non-Hertzian waves" or longitudinal electromagnetic waves Tesla was trying to use, but failed because they don't exist.