Re: Tesla myths corrected - Best text? (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:40:30 -0600
From: Gary Peterson <g.peterson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Tesla myths corrected - Best text? (fwd)

>    How is it known that this was not 'radio waves'?

Because the "radio wave" receiver alone was unable to detect the transmitted 
energy.

>    How much power was received?

Just enough to operate the radio receiver's front-end and subsequently be 
amplified to show up as S5 on its signal strength meter.


> From: Dave Pierson <davep@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Tesla myths corrected - Best text? (fwd)
>
>>Subject: Re: Tesla myths corrected - Best text? (fwd)
>>
>>> "In God we [trust]. . . . all others must bring data."
>>
>>     In regards to Tesla's assertion that the connection between a Tesla 
>> coil RF transmitter and a Tesla coil RF receiver is NOT by means of 
>> "radio waves," it turns out that TESLA WAS RIGHT.  The historical record 
>> shows that wireless transmission that did not involve far-field 
>> electromagnetic radiation was achieved in 1899 over a distance of 16.1 
>> kilometers (10 miles).  Based upon the 100 kHz operating frequency that 
>> Tesla is known to have used at Colorado Springs (CSN, Sept. 7, 1899), 
>> this works out to a distance of approximately 5 1/3 wavelengths and thus 
>> fairly deep into the far-field zone.
>
>    How is it known that this was not 'radio waves'?
>    How much power was received?
>
>     best
>      dwp