Thread: Nikolas Tesla... The man who tried to give us free energy?

I heard about this Tesla guy.

Apparently he was a bit of a nut who intended to find cheap or free ways of supplying energy to people.

Ofcourse the energy companies or big bussiness men who stood to lose from his inventions brought up the patents so they could never be implimented.

I don't know how true any of that is which is why I have strated this post... I'd like to know more about tesla and his inventions as well as who owns the patents now and were they ever implimanted?

Tesla is apparently the architypal mad scientist... he seems like an important character. Please all Tesla fans and critics, help me learn more about Tesla and his inventions/discoveries.

Thanks.

Tesla and Edison were competing for their inventions of AC and DC electricity. Tesla was the AC dude and America went with his idea while Europe went with DC.

"As a result of the "War of Currents," Edison and Westinghouse went nearly bankrupt. Edison had lost control of his company to J. P. Morgan and Morgan was refusing to loan more money to Westinghouse due to the financial strain of the Tesla AC patents (at that point Westinghouse had paid out an estimated $200,000 in licenses and royalties to Tesla, Brown, and Peck). In 1897 Westinghouse explained his financial difficulties to Tesla in stark terms, saying that if things continue the way they were he would no longer be in control of Westinghouse Electric and Tesla would have to "deal with the bankers" to try to collect future royalties. Westinghouse convinced Tesla to release his company from the licensing agreement over Tesla's AC patents in exchange for Westinghouse Electric purchasing the patents for a lump sum payment of $216,000;^[9 this provided Westinghouse a break from what, due to alternating current's rapid gain in popularity, had turned out to be an overly generous $2.50 per AC horsepower royalty.<sup>"


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...iSS_AVDoFsA9Ug


Tesla was trying to make a device that transmitted electricity through the air which never worked.

He died broke in New York.</sup>

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Tesla and Edison were competing for their inventions of AC and DC electricity. Tesla was the AC dude and America went with his idea while Europe went with DC.

<sup>Tesla was trying to make a device that transmitted electricity through the air which never worked.

He died broke in New York.</sup>

Ok thanks for this. I find some of it hard to follow.

Tesla had around 300 hundred patents and he died broke? Surely many of his discoeries have earnt a lot of people a lot of money?

I did here something about him having funding pulled on an experiement once it was discovered he was intending to invent something that harnesses free or very cheap energy, is that the case?

Let me get this straight... westinghouse funded tesla? so why did he go bankrupt when tesla did so well with A.C.

J P morgan refused to invest in westinghouse and tesla becuase tesla kicked his man edisons butt in the AC DC war?

Something doesn't seem quite right...

Who ended up owning all the patents? J P morgan and the bankers?

Originally Posted by question for you

Something doesn't seem quite right...

Yes, because just about everything you said was not very accurate. Fix the accuracy, and it all should make sense.
Tesla has become something like 'cult fandom' these days. You've been reading claims on the internet... haven't you?

Tesla was a genius...but went a little nuts toward the end. The man did marry a pigeon. (yes...a bird)

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by question for you

Something doesn't seem quite right...

Yes, because just about everything you said was not very accurate. Fix the accuracy, and it all should make sense.
Tesla has become something like 'cult fandom' these days. You've been reading claims on the internet... haven't you?

The big picture of Teslas life in my mind contains inaccuracies and huge missing parts. It will take some time and effort to fill the voids.

what does fandom mean?

Nope I havent seen any claims online... read the wiki page supplied in this thread though. I heard it on the grapevine.

I admit I might have once read some claims possibly... I can't remember. There no smoke without fire? What were the potential significances of tesla's inventions? What was the tesla coil? didn't that harness energy?

I havent read a lot about it at all... one doesn't know where to turn for the truth. So one turns to ones peers on the science forum.

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

Tesla was a genius...but went a little nuts toward the end. The man did marry a pigeon. (yes...a bird)

He loved that one pidgeon as a man loves his wife, it was special, it was different, it was his companion and probably considered a gift from God. Eccentric but rather lovely.

Most people go a little nuts towards the end.

Now that you mention it Neverfly there is a lot of stuff online...

Tesla's Free Energy Inventions Supressed - The Green Optimistic

Nikola Tesla

http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/VladimirUtkin.pdf

Anything that includes "free energy" in the title can be ignored as junk by definition.

Originally Posted by question for you

The big picture of Teslas life in my mind contains inaccuracies and huge missing parts. It will take some time and effort to fill the voids.

what does fandom mean?

Nope I havent seen any claims online... read the wiki page supplied in this thread though. I heard it on the grapevine.

I admit I might have once read some claims possibly... I can't remember. There no smoke without fire? What were the potential significances of tesla's inventions? What was the tesla coil? didn't that harness energy?

Most of what is online about Tesla is unsubstantiated crap. This thread is an unfortunate case in point.

Europe did not choose DC. Today, the entire world runs off of AC. DC is used for short distances, although research may finally give us long-distance DC distribution of industrial amounts of power.

This nonsense about Westinghouse and an agreement for "$2.50 per horsepower" is also complete nonsense (Margaret Cheney, damn you!). Think about it: A horsepower is a unit of power. Power is the rate of energy consumption (or delivery). Charging by the horsepower is as nonsensical as paying you for each mile per hour you drive. What does that even mean? What could it mean? The person who made up that factoid was clearly ignorant, and those who continue to cite it just reveal their own ignorance.

Tesla's dream of "free" energy was just that -- a dream. He simply pushed the problem upstream. Someone still has to generate the power that would be transmitted wirelessly using Tesla's alleged solution. The "free" part only applies to the end consumer, not the producer. This criticism was brought up by many while Tesla was touting his "magnifying transmitter." His response was to handwave about geothermal energy. However, the energy flux is far too low to supply our needs. So Tesla's "solution" is not practical at all, for quite fundamental reasons. Yet his fans live on, citing vague conspiracies involving utilities, ossified and envious scientists, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and some guy named Fred to explain why Tesla's technology has been suppressed.

And 300 patents? You must understand that something like 99% of patents never even earn enough to pay for the cost of getting the patent. Patents do not guarantee income; they just confer a legal monopoly for a limited time. The latter does not imply profit.

If you are sincerely interested in what Tesla actually did, study his patents yourself (they're all online, for free). Find a copy of his "Colorado Springs Notes" (his lab notebook from 1899-1900). You'll see firsthand how many mistakes he made (including simple arithmetic errors), contrary to the claims of his fanboys. He was a brilliant engineer, a second-rate scientist, and a bit of a nutjob, particularly later in life. Eccentricity does not a genius make.

Originally Posted by Strange

Anything that includes "free energy" in the title can be ignored as junk by definition.

Please explain.

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Strange

Anything that includes "free energy" in the title can be ignored as junk by definition.

Please explain.

Succinctly, it's because TANSTAAFL.

Originally Posted by tk421

Most of what is online about Tesla is unsubstantiated crap. This thread is an unfortunate case in point..

Can you substantiate that please?

No seriously thank you for your post. I should try to look up his patents, are they really understandable to a layman?

I gather so far that 'free' electric energy can only be acheived with some imput being magnified. Is that right?

Why is there such a cult following of Tesla with so many rumours about suppresion of patents etc?

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Strange

Anything that includes "free energy" in the title can be ignored as junk by definition.

Please explain.

Succinctly, it's because TANSTAAFL.

Thats not always true is it. I've had the odd free lunch myself.

Ofcourse we should have mastered free energy by now... such as dig it out of the ground or grow it in trees or collect kinetic energy with turbines... Oh, we already have free energy. So why does it cost so much?

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Strange

Anything that includes "free energy" in the title can be ignored as junk by definition.

Please explain.

OK. It was a little bit of an exaggeration. If the article was about getting "free" energy by building you own wind turbine or that "free energy is bunk" then it might be reasonable.

But most people use "free energy" to mean magic. Something like having an electric motor drive a generator where you use some of the output to drive the motor and the rest to power your home. I hope you can see why that doesn't work. Oddly the cranks advocating these things do not power their homes with them, set up companies and become billionaires. All they do is sell the idea to gullible fools for a few dollars.

Originally Posted by question for you

Oh, we already have free energy. So why does it cost so much?

Because it costs money to build and maintain wind turbines, solar cells or hydroelectric systems. It costs money to distribute power. It costs money to employ people. And of course, the government taxes it.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Strange

Anything that includes "free energy" in the title can be ignored as junk by definition.

Please explain.

OK. It was a little bit of an exaggeration. If the article was about getting "free" energy by building you own wind turbine or that "free energy is bunk" then it might be reasonable.

But most people use "free energy" to mean magic. Something like having an electric motor drive a generator where you use some of the output to drive the motor and the rest to power your home. I hope you can see why that doesn't work. Oddly the cranks advocating these things do not power their homes with them, set up companies and become billionaires. All they do is sell the idea to gullible fools for a few dollars.

I dont know about that, 'free energy' is just energy which doesn't cost anything. Sure theres some initial costs but it pays itself off and becomes a 'free' supply.

I'm not really sure what examples you're refering to of these cranks and there ideas.

What about Tesla and his ideas for generating or magnifying energy?

Originally Posted by question for you

I dont know about that, 'free energy' is just energy which doesn't cost anything. Sure theres some initial costs but it pays itself off and becomes a 'free' supply.

I'm not really sure what examples you're refering to of these cranks and there ideas.

Google "free energy" and you will find a frightening number of crackpots. That is what most people mean by the term.

Originally Posted by question for you

What about Tesla and his ideas for generating or magnifying energy?

What about them? What do you think his ideas were?

That's why I posted what I did. There's so much that has been attributed to Tesla (but incorrectly) that I am not about to try to guess what you are thinking. So just tell me.

Originally Posted by question for you

Why is there such a cult following of Tesla with so many rumours about suppresion of patents etc?

S.G. and I were discussing a similar topic recently and I think this one is worthy of its own thread.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by question for you

What about Tesla and his ideas for generating or magnifying energy?

What about them? What do you think his ideas were?

That's why I posted what I did. There's so much that has been attributed to Tesla (but incorrectly) that I am not about to try to guess what you are thinking. So just tell me.

I'm interested in learning more about teslas work, partly to find out if this 'free energy' stuff is bonafide. I know very little about it, I was hoping to learn more here.

In post 8 this was among the links:
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/VladimirUtkin.pdf

This seems to be about generating 'free' electricity. What do you make of it?

Originally Posted by Strange

Google "free energy" and you will find a frightening number of crackpots. That is what most people mean by the term.

The internet and google isn't most people.

I bet most people associate 'free' with costless. Or abundant.

Not many people conjure an image of this previously imprisond energy bound in material bondage being liberated and set free to go about it's bussiness.

Originally Posted by question for you

In post 8 this was among the links:
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/VladimirUtkin.pdf

This seems to be about generating 'free' electricity. What do you make of it?

Good grief. What is wrong with you. Page 1: a motor connected to a generator ... I must be bloody psychic.

Why not email the author and ask him if he is powering his own home with this crap? Why not ask him why his is not the billionaire owner of a power company? He is not; he is just a deluded saddo posting crap on the web.

+1

Everyone will use free-energy to power his home first. :P

Else, it is a scam

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by question for you

In post 8 this was among the links:
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/VladimirUtkin.pdf

This seems to be about generating 'free' electricity. What do you make of it?

Good grief. What is wrong with you. Page 1: a motor connected to a generator ... I must be bloody psychic.

Why not email the author and ask him if he is powering his own home with this crap? Why not ask him why his is not the billionaire owner of a power company? He is not; he is just a deluded saddo posting crap on the web.

But how am I supposed to distinguish between this author and you?

He put a lot more effort into it. Personally I don't like his red font.

Originally Posted by question for you

But how am I supposed to distinguish between this author and you?

The laws of thermodynamics. Also known as TANSTAAFL. If anyone claims to have a source of "free energy" (i.e. a system that provides more energy than is put into it (*)) then they are either lying, a crook, or insane.

(*) Note that the more general class of "energy that is freely available" such as wind turbines, hydroelectric, solar etc. all have an input source of energy such as wind, water, sun, etc.

Personally I don't like his red font.

Another warning sign. Does he also say there is a conspiracy to suppress these ideas?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by question for you

But how am I supposed to distinguish between this author and you?

The laws of thermodynamics. Also known as TANSTAAFL. If anyone claims to have a source of "free energy" (i.e. a system that provides more energy than is put into it (*)) then they are either lying, a crook, or insane.

(*) Note that the more general class of "energy that is freely available" such as wind turbines, hydroelectric, solar etc. all have an input source of energy such as wind, water, sun, etc.

Personally I don't like his red font.

Another warning sign. Does he also say there is a conspiracy to suppress these ideas?

Yes and the input energy is free. Hence free energy.

If some kind of coil takes electricity from the atmosphere or earth, freely, then that is also 'free' energy.

I didnt notice anything about conspiracy, but what if there was a conspiracy? thats not a reason to dismiss somebody. You either understand the physics or you don't, I assumed you did as you had such strong opinions on the author.

Simply put, you cannot get more energy out of a system than has been put into the system.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Simply put, you cannot get more energy out of a system than has been put into the system.

Ofcourse not.

The important thing is that somethings are a source of energy which is free to us. Like the moons pull creating the tides which creates the winds etc.

If you put a days work energy into building a windmill, and it works well for a long time, then that system might give you more energy than it cost you. The loss of energy in the wind current has cost the end user of the turbine nothing. It's free energy isn't it...

Originally Posted by question for you

The important thing is that somethings are a source of energy which is free to us. Like the moons pull creating the tides which creates the winds etc.

(Apart from the costs of extracting and distributing the energy.)

But where is the wind, water, waves, tide, sun, etc that is powering that crackpot's systems? He is claiming to get energy from nowhere. CRANK. Just ask him how he is using this "free energy".

Well I suppose that depends how far you take it - there is always a consequence to any action.

For instance, the loss of energy in the wind current could have a detrimental effect on the environment. Or the use of wave power might change water currents and cause different types of erosion of the coastline. Or if we exploit the Earths magnetic field we might run the risk of changing it, and losing its protection against cosmic rays...

Originally Posted by question for you

You either understand the physics or you don't

This is all the physics you need. The four laws of thermodynamics:

• Zeroth law of thermodynamics: If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they must be in thermal equilibrium with each other. This law helps define the notion of temperature.
• First law of thermodynamics: Heat and work are forms of energy transfer. Energy is invariably conserved but the internal energy of a closed system changes as heat and work are transferred in or out of it. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.
• Second law of thermodynamics: The entropy of any isolated system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases. Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy of the system—in a process known as "thermalization". Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.
• Third law of thermodynamics: The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches zero. The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero, and in all cases is determined only by the number of different ground states it has. Specifically, the entropy of a pure crystalline substance at absolute zero temperature is zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by question for you

You either understand the physics or you don't

This is all the physics you need. The four laws of thermodynamics:

• Zeroth law of thermodynamics: If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they must be in thermal equilibrium with each other. This law helps define the notion of temperature.
• First law of thermodynamics: Heat and work are forms of energy transfer. Energy is invariably conserved but the internal energy of a closed system changes as heat and work are transferred in or out of it. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.
• Second law of thermodynamics: The entropy of any isolated system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases. Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy of the system—in a process known as "thermalization". Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.
• Third law of thermodynamics: The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches zero. The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero, and in all cases is determined only by the number of different ground states it has. Specifically, the entropy of a pure crystalline substance at absolute zero temperature is zero.

But what does this all mean?

I don't know what that 'crank' was saying, I couldn't understand it. Whats all this about systems and closed systems? and what are perpetual motion machines of the first and second kind?

Originally Posted by question for you

I don't know what that 'crank' was saying, I couldn't understand it. Whats all this about systems and closed systems? and what are perpetual motion machines of the first and second kind?

A perpetual motion machine of the first kind out-and-out violates conservation of energy.

One of the second kind might (seem to) conserve energy, but is still disallowed by the laws of thermo. Example: If one object gets colder while another gets hotter, then energy might seem to be conserved. But the temperature difference can be used to run an engine, from which energy may be derived. That, too, is disallowed.

"Free energy" cranks -- both self-deluded and those who are fraudsters -- depend on violating one or more laws of thermodynamics. It's often a waste of time pinpointing precisely where the violation occurs; it is sufficient to know that no violation is possible. That's why science is so powerful.

Originally Posted by question for you

But what does this all mean?

Sorry, should have provided the soure: Laws of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you don't understand that basic level of physics, all you can do is trust the people who do.

This is a great site on perpetual motion machines: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

Tesla Memorial Society of New York

TESLA FORUM - LINKS

the second link is a local, to me near Perth Aus, a mate is a member and has built his own coil.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by question for you

I don't know what that 'crank' was saying, I couldn't understand it. Whats all this about systems and closed systems? and what are perpetual motion machines of the first and second kind?

A perpetual motion machine of the first kind out-and-out violates conservation of energy.

One of the second kind might (seem to) conserve energy, but is still disallowed by the laws of thermo. Example: If one object gets colder while another gets hotter, then energy might seem to be conserved. But the temperature difference can be used to run an engine, from which energy may be derived. That, too, is disallowed.

"Free energy" cranks -- both self-deluded and those who are fraudsters -- depend on violating one or more laws of thermodynamics. It's often a waste of time pinpointing precisely where the violation occurs; it is sufficient to know that no violation is possible. That's why science is so powerful.

I never realised there was this whole 'free energy crank' thing going on.

Who started all this thermodynamics talk and in what way does it relate?

Originally Posted by question for you

I never realised there was this whole 'free energy crank' thing going on.

It's one of the most popular pseudoscience activities. You must be one of the very few humans who haven't come across it. Just google a bit and you'll encounter an endless stream of folks claiming to have devised some new way of generating free energy (water into oil! clever arrangement of magnets and coils releases the cyclonic energy of atoms! Etc.)

Who started all this thermodynamics talk and in what way does it relate?

If you're asking who established the scientific foundations of thermodynamics, it would be folks like Sadi Carnot, Ludwig Boltzmann, and J. Willard Gibbs. Later, Emmy Noether proved a theorem that described a deep connection between the symmetries in physical laws at the (sub)atomic level and their macroscopic behaviors. In her First Theorem, she showed why energy conservation was a direct consequence of these symmetries. In short, she showed that any approach aimed at constructing a perpetual motion of the first kind would fail. It's not just that inventors haven't been clever enough; no amount of cleverness will ever suffice. TANSTAAFL.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by question for you

I never realised there was this whole 'free energy crank' thing going on.

It's one of the most popular pseudoscience activities. You must be one of the very few humans who haven't come across it. Just google a bit and you'll encounter an endless stream of folks claiming to have devised some new way of generating free energy (water into oil! clever arrangement of magnets and coils releases the cyclonic energy of atoms! Etc.)

Who started all this thermodynamics talk and in what way does it relate?

If you're asking who established the scientific foundations of thermodynamics, it would be folks like Sadi Carnot, Ludwig Boltzmann, and J. Willard Gibbs. Later, Emmy Noether proved a theorem that described a deep connection between the symmetries in physical laws at the (sub)atomic level and their macroscopic behaviors. In her First Theorem, she showed why energy conservation was a direct consequence of these symmetries. In short, she showed that any approach aimed at constructing a perpetual motion of the first kind would fail. It's not just that inventors haven't been clever enough; no amount of cleverness will ever suffice. TANSTAAFL.

No I just meant in this thread but thanks for giving us some names to look into.

Seriously i'd never heard of it this 'free energy' pseudoscience... I'm sure much of it is people who mean well.

At least we have ways of getting cheap energy that costs us fairly little.

Originally Posted by question for you

No I just meant in this thread but thanks for giving us some names to look into.

Thermodynamics will naturally arise in any scientific discussion concerning free energy claims.

Seriously i'd never heard of it this 'free energy' spuedoscience... I'm sure much of it is people who mean well.

Much of it is by scammers. Maybe they start of meaning well, but after they've been at it for some time, they must know that their stuff doesn't work. A great many of these free energy folks only mean well for themselves. Scam artists abound. Some want to make a quick buck; others are in it for their ego. Others are just honestly deluded. I have no idea what the percentages are for each category.

At least we have ways of getting cheap energy that costs us fairly little.

Depending on what you mean by that statement, one could put oil in that category. It's allowed humans to expend energy at a prodigious rate. It's why those in developed nations have the equivalent of hundreds of slaves tending to them 24/7. I'm not saying that this is good or bad; I'm simply pointing out one way to look at per capita energy consumption.

At least we have ways of getting cheap energy that costs us fairly little.

we will when we get fusion up and running in about 20 years.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by question for you

I dont know about that, 'free energy' is just energy which doesn't cost anything. Sure theres some initial costs but it pays itself off and becomes a 'free' supply.

I'm not really sure what examples you're refering to of these cranks and there ideas.

Google "free energy" and you will find a frightening number of crackpots. That is what most people mean by the term.

That's true, but when we ask how much (free) energy hits the earth, the number is actually very encouraging.

Energy
Solar energy striking Earth today; 2,875,065,413,219 (MWh)

I believe Tesla wanted to find a way to collect that energy and convert it to electric energy. In principle this is not difficult, but in practice it becomes quite expensive on a large scale.

But as I understand it, the princple is the same as that for a crystal radio, which converts radiowaves into electric energy.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

^{Tesla was trying to make a device that transmitted electricity through the air which never worked.}

No he didn't it was invented by then long ago. Or what did you think 'light' was? Or how a radio works, or a cellphone or, you name it.

Em waves free available for any receiver. A radio doesn,t need a battery for this. It only needs a battery to amplify the signal to a speaker but the signal itself is em/mechanical energy. From the receiver point of view it,s therefor free - energy upto where it,s amplified (using a battery or other seperate energy supply).

The idea Tesla had was to use resonance for amplifying the radiosignal/mechanical energy.
Something inside a radio vibrates to the em energy. Thus a transition from em to mechanical energy (Tesla was a mechanical engineer) is not necessary.

So imagine a waterpump that,s also a radio receiver of some type (to be invented), somewhere in a desert, using this vibration for mechanical energy. The pump is the receiver and vice versa. Somewhere at a distance (distance matters for this) it has a transmitter of some type (to be invented) correspondiing in frequency.

Resonance would amplify the mechanical energy (pump) and em energy (transmitter) to where the pump starts to pump water all working in the resonance frequency.
The resonance signal connects both directions so the transmitter would use more fuell trying to ecqal up with the pump and the resonation. Offcourse it needed a transmitter and receiver of a special type to make this resonance happen but that,s what he was looking for as an inventor.
It,s not free energy from a transmitter point of view and he wasn,t specifically thinking of natural sources for em energy. But for the pump and who uses it it,s all free available.

That type of freedom was not an amusing idea for electricity companies offcourse. He was ridiculed for that according to his fans.

Interesting in this context is the debate between an electricity company and Mr Searl.
Searl is not the egg man but the Seg-man. He was accused of stealing energy by and from the local electricity network and with some evidence I suppose.
But Searl works in the footsteps of Tesla or claims he does so from that perspective, if he succeeded (making his claim rightfull) it,s possible that the seg funktioned as such a pump in the desert. He would (unintentionally) have succeeded in making a device with free access to the local electricity network. Hence making him a rightfull successor in the same line of work.

Originally Posted by Write4U

But as I understand it, the princple is the same as that for a crystal radio, which converts radiowaves into electric energy.

The crystal radio is just a radio; nothing particularly special about it. It captures and converts a percentage of the incoming EM wave's energy. That principle was hardly novel with Tesla. Hertz beat him to it by about a decade.

The fundamental problem with Tesla's proposal is that you need an impractically powerful transmitter (or set of them) to generate a sufficiently powerful EM field "everywhere" (wherever consumers consume). The infrastructure capex cost (to say nothing of opex) would ironically make Edison's DC distribution system look like a paragon of practicality in comparison.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

... . Or if we exploit the Earths magnetic field we might run the risk of changing it, and losing its protection against cosmic rays...

OK speedfreak, now , I'm officially confused.
I had thought that it was the heliosphere that protected us from cosmic rays, and the magnetosphere that protected us from the sun's rays/particles

I musta missed something important?
if so
What?

That type of freedom was not an amusing idea for electricity companies offcourse.

i would think they'd love the idea of getting rid of all their transmission lines. they cost money for their upkeep. the biggest problem, and the thing that would upset most people, would be the wideband radio noise such a system would make. there is talk of getting a Wardenclyffe tower replica up and running. it wouldn't be allowed.

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

... . Or if we exploit the Earths magnetic field we might run the risk of changing it, and losing its protection against cosmic rays...

OK speedfreak, now , I'm officially confused.
I had thought that it was the heliosphere that protected us from cosmic rays, and the magnetosphere that protected us from the sun's rays/particles

I musta missed something important?
if so
What?

No, you are quite right, I should have said radiation from the Sun, rather than cosmic rays.

I wanted to do a standing sculpture of tesla--the (mad? as in obsessed?) genious with lightning dancing from his fingertips
I could see it so clearly, but I ain't a very good salesman

Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan

That type of freedom was not an amusing idea for electricity companies offcourse.

i would think they'd love the idea of getting rid of all their transmission lines. they cost money for their upkeep. the biggest problem, and the thing that would upset most people, would be the wideband radio noise such a system would make. there is talk of getting a Wardenclyffe tower replica up and running. it wouldn't be allowed.

That isn't the biggest issue. There is a cost for everything, and it is not always money. Transmitting power across the air would be very expensive in power loss due to the nature of air. You have water vapour, dust and other contaminates that would drain away your power. You would be limited to line of sight for high power transmission, if you didn't limit yourself you would incur more losses from the wave bouncing through the atmosphere and off ground objects. These bounces could actually cancel out the power in some places and make them stronger in others, just like waves on a pond.

To give you an idea about loss in a situation like this think about typical Radar installations, which are some of the most high power microwave devices we produce. It takes almost 10 times the power to produce the microwave signal. There is loss with all antennas no matter how they are constructed, you will never reach 100% of the power generated being transmitted. Alot of that power is lost to heat.

Let's assume that we are shooting a straight line of sight since that will require less energy than covering 360 degrees, and lets also assume you have the reciever and transmitter antennas lined up precisely. You will still lose power, by the signal being absorbed by water vapour, dust and contaminates as well as loss through the signal spreading out with distance.

In 2008 20 watts was beamed from a mountain top in Hawaii to a receiver 148km away. Only a small fraction of the power that was transmitted was received and this was a lined up link with special antennas. Similier tests done by NASA in the 1970's transmitted 30kw 1 mile at only 84% efficiency. That efficiency would drop as distance increased. Compare this to typical power line efficiency of 93% over thousands of miles.

So power can be transmitted point to point in line of sight, but only with losses. If you attempt to transmit that power in 360 degrees with 10 degrees of elevation you will require significantly more power to achieve the same received power at the 1 mile mark. A high percentage of your power will be received by nothing and instead continue on past the 1 mile boundary getting more and more diffuse as it goes. Think of a light bulb in a field vs. a spotlight.

Tesla's dream of broadcasting power from a central location to the masses over the air is not possible. The signal becomes too weak with distance and requires too much power input to make it cost effective. Add in the amount of radio wave radiation that would be needed to be transmitted to make all these remote devices work and you really have no need for the device since you would be cooked alive before you could even turn on the TV. The average household in the US uses about 11,000 kWh a month or about 15kW an hour. That is a lot of radiation being sent, it makes your cell phone or overhead power lines look like peanuts.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Write4U

But as I understand it, the princple is the same as that for a crystal radio, which converts radiowaves into electric energy.

The crystal radio is just a radio; nothing particularly special about it. It captures and converts a percentage of the incoming EM wave's energy. That principle was hardly novel with Tesla. Hertz beat him to it by about a decade.

The fundamental problem with Tesla's proposal is that you need an impractically powerful transmitter (or set of them) to generate a sufficiently powerful EM field "everywhere" (wherever consumers consume). The infrastructure capex cost (to say nothing of opex) would ironically make Edison's DC distribution system look like a paragon of practicality in comparison.

I am not sure about Tesla's proposals, but i read somewhere that the sun is a transmitter of EM waves and the problem lies in the construction of a receiving and conversion system.
The fact that the sun is generating the transmissions is what makes it so attractive. It is a constant source of free energy (night or day) for billions of years. The fact that we need a magnetic field to protect us from harm speaks of the emormous potential usable energy.

And the sound from a crystal radio is from an electrical charge.

Power from radio waves -- hooking up a meter to measure the voltage and current

http://scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/r...ade_radio.html

The sun gives us it's energy for free but it will cost a lots to harness it. The costs in $ for launching and constructing a space energy collector are staggering.

Originally Posted by Darkhorse

The sun gives us it's energy for free but it will cost a lots to harness it. The costs in $ for launching and constructing a space energy collector are staggering.

You don't need to go into space. All we need is build antennas tuned to existing EM wavelenghts at sealevel. I can see fractal antennas at nano scale, by the billions. An efficient conversion sytem to electricity depends only on the amount we can harvest locally.

As i understand it, one of the major obstacles is the resistance from power companies. The grid loses an enormous amount of "free energy". Just stand under a high voltage tower with a fluorescent tube. It will light up only from the ambient energy.
If small localized energy harvesters are sold and installed in the backyard, it will allow the free use of energy transmitted by power companies. They have threatened to sue for energy theft.

Just a little tid-bit I picked up along the way..........

Standing under power lines is not free energy you are becoming part of the circuit and inducing a loss on the line. If you use that loss to power something you are stealing the power since you will be increasing the loss on the line. People are in jail over this because the power company can detect the loss of power at the receiving station. Power will drop from the normal value to a lower value. The amount is equal to what you are getting for "free". This is the same (though not as effective) as being hard wired in to the power grid.Hook up a hundred crystal radios in an open field (not under power lines) and tell me the voltage and amperage they produce. It will be negligible.

Originally Posted by Darkhorse

Standing under power lines is not free energy you are becoming part of the circuit and inducing a loss on the line. If you use that loss to power something you are stealing the power since you will be increasing the loss on the line. People are in jail over this because the power company can detect the loss of power at the receiving station. Power will drop from the normal value to a lower value. The amount is equal to what you are getting for "free". This is the same (though not as effective) as being hard wired in to the power grid.Hook up a hundred crystal radios in an open field (not under power lines) and tell me the voltage and amperage they produce. It will be negligible.

I understand what you are saying. But aren't solar panels antennas and conversion units? With the advent of nano technology, a whole new frontier has been broached. We can build stuff molecule by molecule. We can "tune in" at the nano level. The possibilities and implications are literally limitless.

And what if those high power lines run through your property?...........

As i understand it, one of the major obstacles is the resistance from power companies.

why? they would get money for the rental of the distribution network. they are also investing in solar, solar thermal and wind. solar advancements with the use of nano technology will be the future. no matter what power source we have in the future the leading power companies we have today will be selling it.

Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan

As i understand it, one of the major obstacles is the resistance from power companies.

why? they would get money for the rental of the distribution network. they are also investing in solar, solar thermal and wind. solar advancements with the use of nano technology will be the future. no matter what power source we have in the future the leading power companies we have today will be selling it.

Not if you can power your house cheaply from individual power generators.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Strange

Anything that includes "free energy" in the title can be ignored as junk by definition.

Please explain.

Succinctly, it's because TANSTAAFL.

Hi!
Youre quoting Heinlein, if my memory isnt failing me!?

Originally Posted by Write4U

Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan

As i understand it, one of the major obstacles is the resistance from power companies.

why? they would get money for the rental of the distribution network. they are also investing in solar, solar thermal and wind. solar advancements with the use of nano technology will be the future. no matter what power source we have in the future the leading power companies we have today will be selling it.

Not if you can power your house cheaply from individual power generators.

Who will build these generators? Nano anything is not something you can build yourself.

If the power lines run across your land you would be breaking 2 laws, 1 stealing power from the company, 2 breaking the easement rights that you have agreed to when you bought your land or when the power lines were put in.

Originally Posted by Write4U

Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan

As i understand it, one of the major obstacles is the resistance from power companies.

why? they would get money for the rental of the distribution network. they are also investing in solar, solar thermal and wind. solar advancements with the use of nano technology will be the future. no matter what power source we have in the future the leading power companies we have today will be selling it.

Not if you can power your house cheaply from individual power generators.

If you could power your house from individual power generators, the power companies wouldn't have much say in the matter. Your conspiracy theory breaks down.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Strange

Anything that includes "free energy" in the title can be ignored as junk by definition.

Please explain.

Succinctly, it's because TANSTAAFL.

Hi!
Youre quoting Heinlein, if my memory isnt failing me!?

the moon is a harsh mistress
?

Not if you can power your house cheaply from individual power generators.

in australia you can do that now. solar panels, an inverter and batteries. costs quite a bit to power an average home and you'll probably still need a genny for winter in the southern areas. you can also get "feed-in" rebates if you connect to the grid and supply power. BP was/is a big manufacturer of solar panels.

Originally Posted by Write4U

I am not sure about Tesla's proposals, but i read somewhere that the sun is a transmitter of EM waves and the problem lies in the construction of a receiving and conversion system.

Of course the sun is a "transmitter of EM waves." So is a flashlight. The sun, in case you haven't noticed, gives off a lot of light. Light is an EM wave.

The fact that the sun is generating the transmissions is what makes it so attractive. It is a constant source of free energy (night or day) for billions of years. The fact that we need a magnetic field to protect us from harm speaks of the emormous potential usable energy.

So what? You seem to think that you have come across some profound insight. The mere existence of a source of power 93M miles away does not make it free. Witness all the efforts to develop solar power (what you cumbersomely refer to as a "receiving and conversion system"). All of it costs something. And so far, that something is high enough that solar power remains a minority choice.

And the sound from a crystal radio is from an electrical charge.

That's a gross oversimplification, and hardly relevant to the discussion. More precisely, sound comes from the transduction of electrical energy into acoustic energy. The earphone, in other words, is responsible for the sound coming out.

Modulation of a carrier wave is responsible for the sound being imposed on an EM wave.

And again, you seem to place too much significance on qualitative arguments, and not nearly enough on quantitative analysis. Of course we can get a crystal radio to capture and convert some fraction of the energy it receives. But the amount is so small that we are never going to use a crystal radio as the basis for transmitting energy.

You need to study up on the subject if you are truly interested in it. Right now, you are basing your assertions and beliefs on a very shaky foundation. Numbers matter. A lot.

As my advisor was fond of saying, "The devil's in the details."

in australia you can do that now. solar panels, an inverter and batteries. costs quite a bit to power an average home and you'll probably still need a genny for winter in the southern areas. you can also get "feed-in" rebates if you connect to the grid and supply power. BP was/is a big manufacturer of solar panels.

Depends what you think "quite a bit" means. One of my relatives (in the building trade) got hold of a $50000 system for about $24000 (can't remember why it was going cheap). This powers their home entirely and they get a fair bit back from FIT - especially in the between season periods where they use neither heating nor cooling. They're inland so they get plenty of frosty winter nights as well as weeks of blistering summer heat.

Personally, I'd think even the $50000 was a reasonable price for 25+ years of power for an extravagantly equipped home, these are not frugal people (the reason they looked for solar was their $2000!! quarterly bill) - with a net income from selling to the grid into the bargain. For $24000 it's an absolute winner, you'd be mad to turn it down even if you had to borrow the lot.

For non-extravagant people like me, our less than $3000 (net cash after rebates) solar system doesn't provide all our power use, but it's returning about 23% per annum from the FIT which makes it far and away the best investment option for anyone with less than $10000 to spare - even with a lot of money invested, this would still be the most outstanding item in your portfolio.

Depends what you think "quite a bit" means.

$24 000

but it is a good investment and without batteries worthwhile. batteries are the killer.

Yes they are. But you only need them if you're trying to live entirely off grid.

Even then you'd have to weigh up the relative benefits of doing without heating/cooling by redesigning and retrofitting your house to reduce the demand for air conditioning as well as putting refrigerators and freezers on timers so they don't cycle on during hours of darkness as against the cost of batteries to cope with the demand as is.

Personally I'd like to see some domestic scale storage in the next ten years or so. Mainly to have an optional system for switching over on high fire danger days so you still have power from your solar when they turn off the grid in your area - and in bad circumstances, overnight power. I'm now living further out from the city, not in a bush type suburb, but one that's close enough to some wildlife corridor style plantings that the power supply being turned off for the region on high wind/high heat days will be a possibility.

Most households use power that we don't even realize we use. For example, electronics that are off but can be turned on with a remote, transformers for devices like cordless phones, clock radios or iPod docking stations. Devices like these use power all the time and become a real concern when dealing with solar power and batteries where every watt counts.Batteries are the killer but a solution may exist in batteries that are less standard than your average deep cycle one found at your local marine store. Battery types like nickel-iron that are useless for light weight applications can be used for off the grid applications. Often they offer better long term reliability than more advanced batteries (at the cost of a lower energy density) Wikipedia has a good starting page on rechargeable batteries that sums up the major types with power costs, life span, and power density. Rechargeable battery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by adelady

Yes they are. But you only need them if you're trying to live entirely off grid.

A grid connected system simply shifts the storage problem to the electric utility company, who will be forced to maintain extra generating capacity without a corresponding increase in sales. They will also be required to make any necessary accommodations for the grid instability caused by intermittent renewable supplies.

Out of sight, out of mind. We can always pass laws to force the utilities to buy our excess power generated on off-peak hours, and to run their plants in a less efficient and economical manner. Nobody will shed any tears for the mean old electric utility companies.

We can always pass laws to force the utilities to buy our excess power generated on off-peak hours, and to run their plants in a less efficient and economical manner.

Well, that doesn't apply to solar.

Domestic solar's biggest advantage over all other power generation is that it produces most at the time of highest demand. Both on a daily cycle and on a seasonal cycle. Wind can certainly produce more overnight during least demand hours, but the buffering and storing technologies are getting better all the time. There's no reason to stay with the limited technology we have now, as we've been staying with the limitations of the burn-stuff technology and having to sell the "baseload" power that's not needed, ever -because the technology won't let you shut down or even slow down much - by promoting large storage water heaters for domestic purposes and even more pointless extravagance in hotel air conditioning and other wasteful industrial applications.

South Australia had/has the "peakiest" power demand in the world. With a bit of rooftop solar and several windfarms we haven't had to purchase those top dollar kWh that made things so tough - mainly because of the blackouts when we couldn't get enough power at those times (because the rest of the SE of Australia tends to have heatwaves at the same time we do so they're pretty well flat out like a lizard drinking - nothing to spare for over the border).

Resonance inductive coupling on wkipedia look it up.It pertains to tesla.They have done experiments today with resonance inductive coupling.

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Strange

Anything that includes "free energy" in the title can be ignored as junk by definition.

Please explain.

Succinctly, it's because TANSTAAFL.

Hi!
Youre quoting Heinlein, if my memory isnt failing me!?

the moon is a harsh mistress
?

I don't know heinlein...

But I didn't grasp the stuff about TANSTAAFL...

The moon does indeed supply us with energy which is as good as free to us and free can be. So too ofcourse does the sun...

I'm sure TANSTAAFL can be appliied to some systems... but on the surface it appears to be about as misleading as the title 'The conservation of energy'...

All in all... energy might never be destroyed. But energy that is accessible to us can be and is destroyed continuosly.

I wonder if some people are indiferent to the exploitation of resources because they have this notion that 'energy is always conserved'...?

We can get a free lunch...
We can destroy energy (accessible energy)...

TANSTAAFL... in itself reeks of pseudoscience to me. Something that i'm sure has a meaning and an application and yet misleads those who do not go into the fine details of it.

There is such a thing as a free lunch... I have experienced it. I have also gathered data from other people who have evidence of free lunches. It's science fact... TISATAAFL, oh yes there is.

Anyway, glad to see discussions about economic power sources... cheers.

Originally Posted by lightspeed

Resonance inductive coupling on wkipedia look it up.It pertains to tesla.They have done experiments today with resonance inductive coupling.

Thanks Lightspeed... will do that.

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Strange

Anything that includes "free energy" in the title can be ignored as junk by definition.

Please explain.

Succinctly, it's because TANSTAAFL.

Hi!Youre quoting Heinlein, if my memory isnt failing me!?

the moon is a harsh mistress?

I don't know heinlein...But I didn't grasp the stuff about TANSTAAFL...The moon does indeed supply us with energy which is as good as free to us and free can be. So too ofcourse does the sun...I'm sure TANSTAAFL can be appliied to some systems... but on the surface it appears to be about as misleading as the title 'The conservation of energy'...All in all... energy might never be destroyed. But energy that is accessible to us can be and is destroyed continuosly.I wonder if some people are indiferent to the exploitation of resources because they have this notion that 'energy is always conserved'...?We can get a free lunch...We can destroy energy (accessible energy)...TANSTAAFL... in itself reeks of pseudoscience to me. Something that i'm sure has a meaning and an application and yet misleads those who do not go into the fine details of it.There is such a thing as a free lunch... I have experienced it. I have also gathered data from other people who have evidence of free lunches. It's science fact... TISATAAFL, oh yes there is.Anyway, glad to see discussions about economic power sources... cheers.

"Notion that energy is always conserved?" That is not a "notion" that is a law of the universe. If you believe otherwise post the math on this site to prove you are right.

Originally Posted by question for you

TANSTAAFL... in itself reeks of pseudoscience to me.

That would be a sign that you need additional education, or that you are suffering from bias. The laws of thermodynamics are well established, have been tested over and over, and Noether's theorem explains why we observe the TANSTAAFL principle.

That's as scientific as it gets.

Something that i'm sure has a meaning and an application and yet misleads those who do not go into the fine details of it.

How does it mislead? Is it simply that you are disappointed that science won't give you what you want? That's not misleading. Science is quite direct.

There is such a thing as a free lunch... I have experienced it. I have also gathered data from other people who have evidence of free lunches. It's science fact... TISATAAFL, oh yes there is.

Not when it comes to the laws of thermo, no. TANSTAAFL. Sorry, but reality trumps fantasy.

Originally Posted by lightspeed

Resonance inductive coupling on wkipedia look it up.It pertains to tesla.They have done experiments today with resonance inductive coupling.

Resonant coupling is very old. It also doesn't solve the hard problem. Resonant or non-resonant, we can't convey industrial amounts of electrical power efficiently over metro-scale distances. And even if we could, it still wouldn't be free.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by lightspeed

Resonance inductive coupling on wkipedia look it up.It pertains to tesla.They have done experiments today with resonance inductive coupling.

Resonant coupling is very old. It also doesn't solve the hard problem. Resonant or non-resonant, we can't convey industrial amounts of electrical power efficiently over metro-scale distances. And even if we could, it still wouldn't be free.

It would be better than solar panels though.

You realize that this is dependent on the near field, not the far field right? In the wikipedia article you reference it even states that the pieces of equipment are placed within a 1/4 wavelength of each other, at that point just run a 6 foot extension cord.

This effect still doesn't make the power magically appear, you need a power source hooked up to your "transmitter". Where is that power going to come from?

Originally Posted by Darkhorse

You realize that this is dependent on the near field, not the far field right? In the wikipedia article you reference it even states that the pieces of equipment are placed within a 1/4 wavelength of each other, at that point just run a 6 foot extension cord.

This effect still doesn't make the power magically appear, you need a power source hooked up to your "transmitter". Where is that power going to come from?

Take a look at the tesla coils for dummies artical on the pesn websight.

Publishing something on the web does not make it true no matter how much you wish it was.

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by lightspeed

Resonance inductive coupling on wkipedia look it up.It pertains to tesla.They have done experiments today with resonance inductive coupling.

Thanks Lightspeed... will do that.

Read the article on next big future websight Metamaterial shells should wirelessly transmit power and enable deeper transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain.

Tesla had two ideas. One was single wire and other was no wire at all. But even with no wire he used the capacity of the earth instead of a wire to generate these lightnings. The voltage he first generates is relative to earth (with an earth electrode) the receiver side is connected to earth also with similar electrode. That makes the voltage also related to the receiver. Hence the lightning occurs at some point. The longer the distance the more voltage it would need. Skip the earth electrodes for one of two sides this won,t work. That makes no wire debatable. Just as some elctric systems in Australie (long trajektories) use a single wire plus earthing instead of two wires. Basically these are still two wire systems even with one wire. Hence earthing takes the place for one wire. What Tesla searched for was to get rid of the other wire also. No wires but technically still single wire because earthing funktions as a wire.

Basically his single wire idea and no wire experiments are onto the same because of this. More elegant to me then is the single wire idea that wouldn,t need earth electrodes but use
a single wire instead of earthing combined with a radiosignal (or in this case maybe better referred to as induction).