Notices
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Tesla tower

  1. #1 Tesla tower 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    7
    I have been doing a lot of research into this and it seems to me that the genius of Nikola Tesla was attempting to create a huge tesla coil in the form of a tesla tower. All the descriptions of this support my theory perfectly and giving the properties of the tesla coil to be able to transmit electrical currents wirelessly one of this size and magnitude could power electrical devices for quite a distance. I would like to know if anyone agrees with me?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    I'm no expert but I think the electricity would diffuse too much for the tower to be efficient.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    7
    In 1899 at Colorado Springs Nikola Tesla transmitted 100 million volts of high-frequency electric power wirelessly over a distance of 26 miles at which he lit up a bank of 200 light bulbs and ran one electric motor! With this souped up version of his Tesla coil, Tesla claimed that only 5% of the transmitted energy was lost in the process. So imagine if you will a tesla coil of the magnitude he was trying to build the amount of safe cheap energy this would produce. Then ask yourself was it stopped purely because there wont be enough profit for anyone?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Disagree wholeheartedly. Too much real physics gets in the way. I've researched Tesla's power broadcast ideas before. If you want to power a watch a few dozen feet away it might work. Beyond that, not so much.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    7
    Fluorescent tubes burn filaments (cathodes) to create an electrical flow that sets their internal phosphorus coatings aglow. Using a Tesla coil, high voltage AC can light up glass-enclosed vacuum bulbs coolly without any gases inside them at all! Any number of cold light bulbs can be lit using only one Tesla coil, and since there is nothing inside them to burn out, they can last indefinitely. It seems like a low cost form of street lighting, doesn't it? imagine if the lighting in the street was this type of lighting they could be powered wirelessly from a great distance away without having to even lay down wires and at extremely low cost.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    7
    In my opinion the reason why nobody has done this before is pure and simple the government simply wouldnt allow it when there is too much profit in simply running ac current through wires. For this exact reason we are being held back from advancing ourselves as a species every possible invention that would make our lives so much easier will be quashed by either the government or the companies that it would put out of business.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Free energy
    In 1899 at Colorado Springs Nikola Tesla transmitted 100 million volts of high-frequency electric power wirelessly over a distance of 26 miles at which he lit up a bank of 200 light bulbs and ran one electric motor! With this souped up version of his Tesla coil, Tesla claimed that only 5% of the transmitted energy was lost in the process. So imagine if you will a tesla coil of the magnitude he was trying to build the amount of safe cheap energy this would produce. Then ask yourself was it stopped purely because there wont be enough profit for anyone?
    So you say. Show me some evidence. I've looked for it, and AFAIK, there is nothing but a vague anecdote.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    Disagree wholeheartedly. Too much real physics gets in the way. I've researched Tesla's power broadcast ideas before. If you want to power a watch a few dozen feet away it might work. Beyond that, not so much.
    Why then is a tesla coil able to power light bulbs and an electric motor from 26 miles away?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Please read this again:

    "So you say. Show me some evidence. I've looked for it, and AFAIK, there is nothing but a vague anecdote."

    Wayne
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    7
    U.S. Patent 1,119,732
    U.S. Patent 649,621
    U.S. Patent 685,957
    U.S. Patent 685,958
    Plus the tesla tower would have worked using the Disturbed charge of ground and air method which if you read up on describes exactly what tesla was trying to build. Because electrical energy can be transmitted through the atmosphere and the earth the great Tesla tried to provide that to us through his tower.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Patents do NOT have to work to be patented. I'm asking for some evidence of your assertion that:

    "In 1899 at Colorado Springs Nikola Tesla transmitted 100 million volts of high-frequency electric power wirelessly over a distance of 26 miles at which he lit up a bank of 200 light bulbs and ran one electric motor! "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    7
    Why are you getting so hung up on that exact thing? Is it because it is the only thing that i cant genuinely prove and you are trying to discredit the rest of the science? Read the rest of what i wrote and you'll realise the science behind it is sound and entirely possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    Patents do NOT have to work to be patented.
    US law requires inventions to actually work in order to receive a patent. If an invention doesn't work, it gets rejected (or at least, it should). That being said, it's possible that someone could con the patent office and get a patent on an invention that doesn't work, if the invention at least sounded plausible and the applicant was willing to lie.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    Patents do NOT have to work to be patented.
    US law requires inventions to actually work in order to receive a patent. If an invention doesn't work, it gets rejected (or at least, it should).
    Wrong, all that is required is that it is a unique idea...look up the number of perpetual motion machine patents that exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Free energy
    Why are you getting so hung up on that exact thing? Is it because it is the only thing that i cant genuinely prove and you are trying to discredit the rest of the science? Read the rest of what i wrote and you'll realise the science behind it is sound and entirely possible.
    Because you have yet to provide the most minute iota of evidence that the event that YOU are so hung up on ever happened.

    It's the keystone to your assertions, and there is no documentation anywhere that it ever actually happened.

    So shut me up.

    Show me the evidence.

    Time to move this to Pseudoscience unless you provide some.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    Wrong, all that is required is that it is a unique idea...look up the number of perpetual motion machine patents that exist.
    No, you are the one who is wrong. Title 35 United States Code section 101 states that an invention is entitled to a patent if it is "useful." The courts and the US Patent Office have always interpreted this to mean that the invention must actually work. Patent applications for perpetual motion machines are summarily rejected as non-working, and so not conforming to 35 USC S. 101.

    Edit: Assuming the patent examiner is doing their job properly. As I mentioned above, it's always possible that something could slip through.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    Time to move this to Pseudoscience unless you provide some.
    Agreed. I am close to pulling the trigger on this one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •