[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Tesla myths corrected - Best text? (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:57:52 -0600
From: Gary Peterson <g.peterson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Tesla myths corrected - Best text? (fwd)
>> I have had the need on several occasions now to correct myths about Tesla
>> but lack the knowledge base. . . . Things like "Lit up 200 light globes
>> at 40 miles." Hard to conceive doing this even with a wire.
The original account appeared in J.J. O'Neill's Tesla biography PRODIGAL
GENIUS and is generally accepted as being apocryphal.
"As a result of this most unfortunate design, technical details are
lacking concerning the principal discoveries made at Colorado Springs. By
piecing together the fragmentary material published in a number of
publications, however, it appears evident that Tesla, in addition to
experiments with his gigantic current movements, as a means of establishing
world-wide broadcasts and making a number of detectors for such use, tested
his power transmission system at a distance of twenty-six miles from his
laboratory and was able to light two hundred incandescent lamps, of the
Edison type, with electrical energy extracted from the earth while his
oscillator was operating. These lamps consumed about fifty watts each; and
if two hundred were used in the test bank, the energy consumed would be
10,000 watts, or approximately thirteen horsepower."
> I don't believe he ever once gives a solid number for the distance from
> the lab that he was able to light even a single bulb.
Here is a distance statement on the wireless transmission of electrical
energy in general by means other than electromagnetic radiation or "radio
waves" as defined in the narrowest sense of the term. . . .
Counsel
Referring to the different instrumentalities described as being used by
you for supplying sustained electrical oscillations to an antenna of high
capacity and tuned to the frequency of the current impressed, for the
transmission of energy without wires, what, if any, difference in principle
was involved in the transmitting of such energy to a distant telephone, for
instance, or for signaling, as compared with such transmission to any other
form of translating device, such for instance, as a lamp?
Tesla
There is no difference whatever that I can see in the principle.
Counsel
Was there any difference in the equipment employed for these two
purposes?
Tesla
Absolutely none that I can see.
Counsel
Would there be any difference in the principle or in the
instrumentalities used if such work is carried on with a single-wire
circuit?
Tesla
Not to my knowledge. . . .
Counsel
What was the distance of the receiver from the sending station in the
Colorado test?
Tesla
Well, these distances were small, for the reason that they were merely
intended to give me quantitative data.
Counsel
Could you give the number of miles, approximately?
Tesla
Oh, 10 miles or so.
[Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents and Their Application to
Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony and Transmission of Power, Leland I.
Anderson, Editor, Twenty First Century Books, 1992, pp. 171-173.
>> . . . would require very thick wire to get 0.25 ohms per mile. . . .
The higher the voltage that is used in sending energy over a conventional
electrical power transmission line, the greater is its efficiency. This is
due to the relationship between voltage and current as they relate to power
dissipation. For example, to power a hypothetical 100-watt load, the
current can be one ampere at 100 volts, 10 amperes at 10 volts or 100
amperes at 1 volt, or any number of similar combinations. Ordinary
conductors have a finite resistance. The voltage drop (E) across any
resistance (R) is given by Ohm's law, E = I/R. For any given load, with a
constant transmission-line resistance, by lowering the current (I) that
flows through the transmission line, the voltage drop or transmission-line
loss is reduced
The above statements about transmission-line loss appear true in regards to
the plasma transmission line that runs between the two elevated terminals as
well. Tesla designed his transmitter with the expressed purpose of
developing the greatest possible potential on the elevated terminal in order
to minimize the loss due to the plasma transmission-line resistance
". . . by such means as have been described practically any potential
that is desired may be obtained, the currents through the air strata may be
rendered very small, whereby the loss in the transmission may be reduced.
[SYSTEM OF TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY, Sept. 2, 1897, U.S. Patent No.
645,576, Mar. 20, 1900]
A little while back Bill Beaty explained why a plasma transmission could
operate with minimal losses.
'The influence of resistance on transmission line efficiency depends
upon the impedance of the source and the load. For example, if a power
supply puts out one watt, but puts it out at one volt and one amp, then the
output impedance of the source is one ohm (R = E/I). The transmission line
had better have much less resistance than one ohm (say 0.1 ohm or smaller)
otherwise a significant portion of the transmitted energy will go into
heating of the wire. In other words, the one-volt, one-amp source thinks
the division between conductor and insulator is centered at the value of one
ohm. A 100-ohm leakage path is nearly an insulator, since it dissipates
only 1% of the output wattage. Now suppose the power supply puts out one
watt at one kilovolt and one milliamp. In that case the source impedance is
one megaohm, and the connecting wires had better be 100K or less in
resistance. In this case a 10K resistor is a conductor of negligible
resistance, and a one-megaohm leakage path will eat up half of the power
supply's output.
'Applying this relationship to an atmospheric conduction wireless energy
transmission system, if the transmitter puts out one megawatt at one
megavolt and one amp, then 100K is a fairly good conductor, and insulators
have to measure 10 megaohms or better. In this case, if you could create a
vertical plasma transmission line, and if the plasma filament measured 10
kilo-ohms, it would only consume 1% of the transmitter's power output. If
the potential of transmitter's elevated terminal is raised to 100 megavolts
at 10 mA (this is still 1 megawatt), then the supply impedance is 10,000
megaohms, and the plasma transmission line will act as a negligible series
resistance even if its resistance is 100 megaohms.'
Furthermore, according to Tesla, the resistance of the earth as an
electrical conductor is negligible due to the immense size of its cross
section, and relative shortness as compared to its diameter.
"A [conducting] sphere of the size of a little marble offers a greater
impediment to the passage of a current than the whole earth. . . . This is
not merely a theory, but a truth established in numerous and carefully
conducted experiments." ["The Future of the Wireless Art," Wireless
Telegraphy & Telephony, Walter W. Massie & Charles R. Underhill, 1908, pp.
67-71]
"You must first understand certain things. Consider, for instance, the
term "resistance." When you think of resistance you imagine, naturally,
that you have a long, thin conductor; but remember that while resistance is
directly proportionate to length, it is inversely proportionate to the
section. It is a quality that depends on a ratio. If you take a small
sphere of the same size of a pea, and compare its length with its section,
you would find a certain resistance. Now you extend this pea to the size of
the earth, and what is going to happen?
"While the length increases, say a thousand times or a million times,
the section increases with the square of the linear dimensions, so that the
bigger this thing is the less resistance it has. Indeed, if the earth were
as big as the sun we would still be better off than we are; we could readily
telephone from one end of the sun to the other by the system, and the larger
the planet the better it would be. . . . The resistance is only at the point
where you get into the earth with your current. The rest is nothing."
[Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents and Their Application to
Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony and Transmission of Power, pp. 134-135]
The point-to-point resistance between antipodes of the whole earth seems to
be very low. It can be analytically shown that the probable whole earth
resistance is less than 1 ohm. ["Spherical Transmission Lines and Global
Propagation, An Analysis of Tesla's Experimentally Determined Propagation
Model," K. L. Corum, J. F. Corum, Ph.D., and J. F. X. Daum, Ph.D. 1996, pp.
3-5].
That the earth itself does in fact possess a very low resistance is
supported by the existence of "monopole with earth return" mode High Voltage
Direct Current electrical power transmission systems.
>> I have had the need on several occasions now to correct myths about
>> Tesla. . . . Does anyone recommend a book that will have this sort of
>> information. . . . Can anyone help direct me?
See http://www.tfcbooks.com/teslafaq/q&a_042.htm for a list of references
including:
1) MY INVENTIONS : THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF NIKOLA TESLA, Nikola Tesla; Ben
Johnston, Editor
2) THE PROBLEM OF INCREASING HUMAN ENERGY, Nikola Tesla; Robert Underwood
Johnson, Editor
3) INVENTIONS, RESEARCHES AND WRITINGS OF NIKOLA TESLA, Nikola Tesla; Thomas
Commerford Martin, Editor
4) NIKOLA TESLA ON HIS WORK WITH ALTERNATING CURRENTS AND THEIR APPLICATION
TO WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY, TELEPHONY, AND TRANSMISSION OF POWER, Tesla Presents
Series Part 1, Nikola Tesla; Leland I. Anderson, Editor
5) NIKOLA TESLA: LECTURE BEFORE THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, APRIL 6,
1897, Tesla Presents Series Part 2, Nikola Tesla; Leland I. Anderson, Editor
6) HIGH FREQUENCY OSCILLATORS FOR ELECTRO-THERAPEUTIC AND OTHER PURPOSES,
Nikola Tesla
7) NIKOLA TESLA: GUIDED WEAPONS & COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY, Tesla Presents Series
Part 3, Nikola Tesla, et al; Leland I. Anderson, Editor
8) NIKOLA TESLA'S TELEFORCE & TELEGEODYNAMICS PROPOSALS, Limited Edition,
Tesla Presents Series Part 4, Nikola Tesla; Leland I. Anderson, Editor
9) NIKOLA TESLA - COLORADO SPRINGS NOTES, 1899-1900, Nikola Tesla;
Commentary by Aleksandar Marincic
10) DR. NIKOLA TESLA: I. ENGLISH / SERBO-CROATIAN DIARY COMPARISONS, II.
SERBO-CROATIAN DIARY COMMENTARY, III. TESLA / SCHERFF COLORADO SPRINGS
CORRESPONDENCE, John T. Ratzlaff & Fred A. Jost
11) DR. NIKOLA TESLA - COMPLETE PATENTS, Nikola Tesla; Compiled by John T.
Ratzlaff
12) DR. NIKOLA TESLA - SELECTED PATENT WRAPPERS, Nikola Tesla; Compiled by
John T. Ratzlaff
Regards,
Gary
> Subject: Re: Tesla myths corrected - Best text? (fwd)
>
> Try reading Tesla's Colorado Springs Lab Notes. If I remember correctly
> he only states that mathematically he should have been able to light as
> many as 200 bulbs and I don't believe he ever once gives a solid number
> for the distance from the lab that he was able to light even a single
> bulb. There are however several photos showing it happening if there is
> any doubt about even the principles involved. Someone on the list has
> pulled this off (I can't remember who...Richard Quick, maybe) and reported
> distances of a quarter mile with a small coil. I agree though,there is a
> lot of crap put out there and between the free energy loons and the media
> it's hard to believe anything. I personally don't think that Tesla was a
> deliberate liar (maybe misguided in a couple of things) so I would only
> consider his word to be the truth in this case. Wyatt
>
>> Subject: Re: Tesla myths corrected - Best text?
>>
>> I have had the need on several occasions now to correct myths about Tesla
>> but lack the knowledge base. Does anyone recommend a book that will have
>> this sort of information.
>>
>> Things like "Lit up 200 light globes at 40 miles." Hard to conceive
>> doing this even with a wire. Think about it in terms of wire resistance
>> for DC particularly if only conventional mains voltages. Suppose light
>> globes are 100V 50W then 200 x 50W = 1kW. At 100V this is 10A. Even 10
>> ohms will be a major problem and would require very thick wire to get
>> 0.25 ohms per mile. 2 Two strands of 0 SWG = 9mm thick would do this.
>> And this is just one way. It assumes a very good earth is available at
>> both ends. Use one strand of 9mm and you will light up the globes at 1/4
>> current and perhaps 1/10 brightness.
>>
>> At current copper prices that is something like $14,000. Not counting
>> supports etc. Using low frequency AC allows voltage step up then the
>> supports become important and you need to run transformers at either end.
>> And using high frequency or even Tesla output is out of the question due
>> to corona, capacitative and inductance issues.
>>
>> To do that as a wireless setup even with a mile high transmitter and
>> receiver and resonant setup would seem far fetched to get that sort of
>> performance
>>
>> I understand that this was press hyperbole that has grown by word of
>> mouth. I recall someone stating that the original experiment was that he
>> lit up some globes just outside the lab earthed to a pipe. I don't have
>> the background for that.
>>
>> Similarly, Tunguska explosions, death rays, resonant vibrations and 100MV
>> sparks are all ludicrous.
>>
>> Can anyone help direct me?
>>
>> Peter