Nikolai Tesla's wireless powerplant

[abskebabs]

Hi again everybody, I just heard about an idea that Nikolai Tesla had back in 1891 for a wireles powerplant. I have also heard that work related to this was also done by a mathematician called Schumann in the forties, hence the name Schumann cavity. I was just wondering if anybody knows about this idea and whether you would consider it at all feasible? Also I am not sure how such a device could actually work so I would be very grateful if anybody could offer an explanation. Thanks a lot:-) .

[deltanova]

Nikolai Tesla transmitted electricity wirelessly over a couple of kilometers(forget exactly how far) lighting a number of fluroesent tubes,

and only loosing 5% of the energy transmitted.

[abskebabs]

Nikolai Tesla transmitted electricity wirelessly over a couple of kilometers(forget exactly how far) lighting a number of fluroesent tubes' date='

and only loosing 5% of the energy transmitted.[/quote']

 

What?! I thought it was just something he patented, but never carried out. If he had a way of wirelessly transmitting power back then that was 95% efficient then why the hell are not using it now?!

[gcol]

From my dabbling into Tesla, I see that his patents and work was much censored for military and commercial reasons. Thereis even rumoured to be a connection between Tesla and The Philadelphia experiment. For those who like conspiracy theories, Tesla is worth a look. Tesla and censorship as search terms get some hits.

[bascule]

Nikola Tesla spent his entire life working on wireless power, and eventually went broke in the process. It wasn't just a one off idea, it was his lifelong obsession (after having been successful with AC) which he spent untold amounts of money investigating (much of which wasn't his own. He duped J.P. Morgan into funding what Tesla claimed to be a worldwide radio transmitter which was, in fact, a transmission system for wireless power)

 

His big problem was he liked to dream more than to calculations, and while he was able to transmit a fairly decent amount (200W, iirc) of power across the room, he failed to take into account the inverse square law and that what works for sending electricity across the room does not work for the entire earth.

 

We can send power wirelessly nowadays, using large microwave antenna arrays. Sadly the magnetron didn't see common use until Tesla was old and decrepit.

[[Tycho?]]

Nikolai Tesla transmitted electricity wirelessly over a couple of kilometers(forget exactly how far) lighting a number of fluroesent tubes' date='

and only loosing 5% of the energy transmitted.[/quote']

 

I rather doubt it. The only way to do something like that is to use a narrow beam of radio waves or microwaves so they can be captured by an antenna or dish on the receiving end. I dont see how he could get it to be 95% efficient over any big distance.

 

For some reason Tesla is the focus of so many crazy stories. They say he contacted aliens, caused the Tungeska(sp?) event, invented all manner of crazy deviced like this wireless powerplant and free energy devices. Most is just BS.

[abskebabs]

We can send power wirelessly nowadays, using large microwave antenna arrays. Sadly the magnetron didn't see common use until Tesla was old and decrepit.

 

The energy would be transferred, I think by coupling through the ionosphere[more specifically the Schumann cavity] using electrified gases[at least thats what it says on the following website about Project Tesla, which is ongoing today I think].

 

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9654/tesla/projecttesla.html

 

Another website that gives a lot of information about this:

 

http://www.skepticfiles.org/mys4/prjtesla.htm

 

I don't know if the methods they are talking about would work or whether this could become feasible; which is precisely why I am asking you now to tell me what you think.

[5614]

Not everything on the Internet is true.

 

A geocities site and something called skepticfiles are hardly the most reliable sources for scientific information.

[abskebabs]

Not everything on the Internet is true.

 

A geocities site and something called skepticfiles are hardly the most reliable sources for scientific information.

Yeah I guess this could be a load of bullplop...[sigh]

I think I'll have a read through it though before I make a judgement on it.

[Dieter S.]

Nicola Tesla was a man able to manipulate Gravity.

 

Over his lifetime Tesla learned how to utalise and manipulate Gravity to do whatever he wanted. In his early days he used gravity in his water wheels and then came up with en exceptional pump which has to be seen to be belived. His ability to understand electrogravational force allowed him to make many of the electrical devices we use today. In 1903 Tesla wanted to give Westinghouse Free Electricity and all Westinghouse could say is "what am I going to do with that I can't charge any body for it".

 

The potential diference from a hight of 6 meters to ground if done harmonicly is aproximately 1,000,000 volts and 1100 amps at close to electrostatic frenqencys and with the right inverter also built by Tesla you could power a city.

 

But how would they control you if everything is free.

[5614]

Manipulate gravity? I can manipulate gravity in that I have a gravitational field around me, but I can't in other way manipulate gravity, unless you count me placing a really massive mass somewhere and that "manipulating" gravity. In fact that doesn't just apply to me, it also applies to you, and other humans and that includes Tesla.

 

Tesla cannot control or manipulate gravity without using a large mass to make a gravitational field and he, nor we, can create energy (incl. electrical energy) for free. It is impossible. From a theoretical and a practical point of view.

 

Dieter S.'s post is a good example of what abskebabs said in post #9

[bascule]

I don't know if the methods they are talking about would work or whether this could become feasible; which is precisely why I am asking you now to tell me what you think.

 

Again, I think Tesla spent too much time dreaming and too little time calculating. What he was attempting is not feasible due to the inverse square law (i.e. it becomes exponentially more difficult to send electricity through the air as the distance increases)

 

The solution is to turn the electricity into high-energy photons and beam the energy that way, but the device Tesla needed to do that, the magnetron, was just starting to become successful in the application of RADAR around the time of Tesla's death.

[Dieter S.]

Yes it is not hard to minipulate gravity. if you do not belive me then think on this.

 

The earth we live on has a gravitational field with a field strength 1g. Now we wish to reproduce the effects of gravity artificilly in the lab. But to do this we first have to be able to find a theory free envrionment or at least free of any theorys developed since 1915 if you can do this then you have half a chance.

 

Now once we have a theory free enviroment we can go to work on the truth or facts, in this case these facts are;

 

1; we live on a planet that has a gravity value of 1g.

2; this planet has mass, but what properties does this mass have, is it not magnetic!

3; the planet is moving around on its axis, one revolution every 24 hours.

" it Spins"

 

Now, with out going further we can already come up with a simple mathamatical equasion to help us scale down the mass by increasing the velocity and of course the equasion is E=M V2 which is Einstein's original works not C2 as told to us today.

 

So if we now substitute the known figures into the equasion we get

 

the Energy required = the Magnetic Mass of the planet, multiplied by its spinning velocity squared.

 

so E = _____ kg * 1 revolution/24hrs squared

 

therefore if we wish to reduce the magnetic mass to 1kg then the rate or spin must increase proportunatly. all of this information we new before we left high school.

 

As to Tesla well remember all you need to get electricity is a coil moving past a magnet or a magnet moving past a coil and by simple induction you will get electricity. this is also governed by the size of the coil, and in Tesla's case these coils were as large as a house.

 

motors a scaled down version of the planet and his coil.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Are you suggesting that you can create a gravitational field with a spinning object, or can I just not understand what you're saying at all?

[X facter]

and of course the equasion is E=M V2 which is Einstein's original works not C2 as told to us today.

 

That isn't even close to being right. You are thinking of the kinetic energy formula, which is KE = (1/2)mv^2. This has nothing to do with Einstein's E = mc^2, which describes the conversion of mass to energy.

[bascule]

Are you suggesting that you can create a gravitational field with a spinning object, or can I just not understand what you're saying at all?

 

Not that it has anything to do with the blather above, but this article implied just that:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=19556

 

Just as a moving electrical charge creates a magnetic field, so a moving mass generates a gravitomagnetic field. According to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the effect is virtually negligible. However, Martin Tajmar, ARC Seibersdorf Research GmbH, Austria; Clovis de Matos, ESA-HQ, Paris; and colleagues have measured the effect in a laboratory.

 

Their experiment involves a ring of superconducting material rotating up to 6 500 times a minute. Superconductors are special materials that lose all electrical resistance at a certain temperature. Spinning superconductors produce a weak magnetic field, the so-called London moment. The new experiment tests a conjecture by Tajmar and de Matos that explains the difference between high-precision mass measurements of Cooper-pairs (the current carriers in superconductors) and their prediction via quantum theory. They have discovered that this anomaly could be explained by the appearance of a gravitomagnetic field in the spinning superconductor

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Oh, I hadn't remembered that, thanks.

[Dieter S.]

Einstein's E = mc^2, which describes the conversion of mass to energy.

 

 

and in maths, as long as we have any 2 values we can find the third.

 

so since we have the magnetic mass of the planet and we have its velocity ( revs. per day). we therefore can determin how much energy is being used.

 

so now we know the value of E and we have the value of m, that will give us the rate of V or C which ever you prefer.

 

and if you do not belive then look at the latest news on superconducters

[5614]

so since we have the magnetic mass of the planet and we have its velocity ( revs. per day). we therefore can determin how much energy is being used.

 

So what equation are you using? E=mc²? For magnetic mass and the velocity of the Earth? Err, no, this equation is supposed to be used for the rest mass and c² where c is the speed of light (and a constant - ie. you can't change the c² part, it is constant and if you change it then the equation wont work, unless you play with units, but that is not the point). You can't just plug in any mass (it must be the rest mass) and you can't replace c² with some velocity (v) or even v².

 

Maybe you are using the equation E = ½mv² but that is kinetic energy, not what you want, I don't think.

[Dieter S.]

ok so we have people that do not wish to try someone elses understanding of Einsteinian physics afterall who said the popular view was right,

 

back in the day when the controlling factions said the earth was flat, any one who said it was round was stoned to death untill some fool sailor not scientist proved diferently.

 

if you do not wish to do the maths then get a donut shaped ferrite magnet mount it on a non ferrious shaft conected to a motor to make it spin and watch as it looses weight (creats its own gravitational force )

 

remember the smaller ahe mass the faster it has to spin

 

Try it, what have you got to loose.

[5614]

I don't have the facilities to measure such a small mass change.

 

And I'm not saying you're wrong because you are going against the popular view... I am saying you're wrong because you're taking an equation and replacing the constant with a variable and you are freely exchanging rest mass with magnetic mass. I'm not saying the equation won't work, I'm saying that you can't do that.

 

The smaller mass will spin faster, but that is because of Newton's (simplified) F=ma, a constant force acts on the magnet so reducing its mass will obviously increase its acceleration.

[abskebabs]

Ermm.. sorry if this sounds stupid but what do you mean by magnetic mass? I don't think I've ever come across this term before.

[X facter]

back in the day when the controlling factions said the earth was flat, any one who said it was round was stoned to death untill some fool sailor not scientist proved diferently.

 

That was simply illogical thinking further corrupted by religion. Sailors had little use of either the former or latter, and noticed ships getting smaller, etc. This also has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

 

Maybe you are using the equation E = ½mv² but that is kinetic energy' date=' not what you want, I don't think.[/quote']

 

That's what I was saying.

[Sisyphus]

Actually, the Earth was widely known to be round for thousands of years before Columbus (which is what I assume Dieter is referring to). It's nearly exact size was also known, but for some reason Columbus thought it was much smaller than any mathematician could have told him, and so thought he was in India when he showed up in the Bahamas. It's off-topic, I realize, but this whole topic is pretty silly, so I don't feel too bad about it.

[[Tycho?]]

ok so we have people that do not wish to try someone elses understanding of Einsteinian physics afterall who said the popular view was right' date='

 

back in the day when the controlling factions said the earth was flat, any one who said it was round was stoned to death untill some fool sailor not scientist proved diferently.

 

if you do not wish to do the maths then get a donut shaped ferrite magnet mount it on a non ferrious shaft conected to a motor to make it spin and watch as it looses weight (creats its own gravitational force )

 

remember the smaller ahe mass the faster it has to spin

 

Try it, what have you got to loose.[/quote']

 

We are not going with what is popular, we are going with what has been proven to be correct countless times over the past century, and with what all our current technology is built on.