Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Could Nikola Tesla's Wardenclyffe Tower Have Worked?

dryriver writes: For those who are unfamiliar with the story, from 1901-1902, inventor Nikola Tesla had a 187-foot-tall experimental wireless electricity transmission tower called the "Wardenclyffe Tower" built in Shoreham, New York. Tesla believed that it was possible to generate electrical power on a large scale in one part of the world and transmit that electrical power to electrical receivers in far away parts of the world wirelessly, using parts of Earth's atmosphere as the conducting medium. Tesla had huge problems getting the project financed -- powerful banker J.P. Morgan didn't play along and U.S. President Woodrow Wilson didn't help a pleading Tesla either. An excerpt from a Wardenclyffe documentary shows the tower finally being dynamited and sold for scrap in 1917. The Wardenclyffe Tower never reached operational status; wireless electrical transmission between continents never happened; Tesla became an emotionally broken man who died regretting that he did not manage to finish his life's work; and to this day nobody knows exactly how the Wardenclyffe Tower was supposed to function technically. To the question: Do you believe that Tesla's dream of electrical devices anywhere in the world essentially being able to draw electrical power from the sky with a relatively simple antenna could have worked, had he gotten the necessary funding to complete his experiments?

194 of 365 comments (clear)

  1. Believe? by NEDHead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is believe? Either the math / physics works or it doesn't. Science is not an opinion based enterprise

    1. Re:Believe? by Spazmania · · Score: 5, Insightful

      EM radiation from the wireless source drops off according to the inverse square law. This has been figured out in the time since Tesla. So no, Tesla's tower could never have worked. Beyond a short distance (like the inches between an RFID card and its reader) power transmission is not feasible because of, you know, physics.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    2. Re: Believe? by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

      Your wrong.

      Itâ(TM)s not observable leaving it in a quantum state of neither working more not working.
      Thatâ(TM)s just science. Or science adjacent.

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    3. Re:Believe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Blasphemy! We true believers at the first church of Nikola Tesla (not to be confused with those splitters at the united church of Nikola Tesla) know that physics does not apply here.

    4. Re:Believe? by twms2h · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is believe? Either the math / physics works or it doesn't. Science is not an opinion based enterprise

      It's about a belief whether there might any physical principle for wirelessly transmitting electricity that Tesla knew about back then and we don't nowadays.

      It might be possible, but I believe it unlikely.

    5. Re:Believe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By your reasoning, if I hold a large metal block and connect one part to mains electricity, I will be safe. Because the electricity spreads out in all directions.

      I think you missed the part about the upper atmosphere being a conductor. If it is sufficiently conductive, Tesla was right. If it is not conductive enough, Tesla is wrong.

    6. Re:Believe? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes but then these journalists wouldn't have been able to get their clickbait article featured on Slashdot.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:Believe? by JBMcB · · Score: 2, Informative

      By your reasoning, if I hold a large metal block and connect one part to mains electricity, I will be safe.

      Radio waves traveling through the air work differently than electricity moving through a conductor, to the point where RF engineering is a specialized field within electrical engineering.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    8. Re:Believe? by doom · · Score: 4, Informative

      EM radiation from the wireless source drops off according to the inverse square law.

      Yeah, those newfangled "lasers" will never work.

    9. Re: Believe? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Correct, just conventional energy; the magical "energy fields" which "psychics" and newage "healers" bang on about aren't limited by the laws of physics. Magic never is.

    10. Re:Believe? by vanzilar · · Score: 1

      EM radiation from the wireless source drops off according to the inverse square law.

      Yeah, those newfangled "lasers" will never work.

      You stole my thunder.

        Dropping off as r^2 doesn't matter so much if the light waves are manipulated to act more like particles.

      And to add more thunder... scientists ARE WORKING ON BEAMING ENERGY like Telsa described. (It's common knowledge) so yes it could have worked... Would he have succeeded?.... Cannot say if he could have succeeded, but he had the brains and drive so it would have been difficult but definitely possible for Tesla to do this!

    11. Re:Believe? by hey! · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is another thing to consider, an uncertainty which inventors often forget: economics. If you take all the inventions ever made and discard the ones that simply wouldn't work, the successful ones would still be a tiny fraction of what's left.

      Tesla's scheme seems to have been to use the entire Earth/atmosphere's electromagetic field as a kind of filter/transmission medium to transfer power from something like a gigantic Tesla coil. Leaving aside the inefficiency of passing a massive white noise signal through a bandpass filter, and assuming the transmission was effective as Tesla believed it would be, you still wouldn't be able to meter or regulate the power usage. Literally anyone with an antenna could use it.

      I'm not sure whether the arguments for the system's physical infeasibility based on what is now known about *conventional* radio transmission really apply to what Tesla had in mind, which appears to be forcing the entire Earth's EM field to resonate on a global scale. Presumably it would take some time and a huge amount of energy to get to the point where someone on a distant continent could extract power.

      Tesla was inventing by the seat of his pants; he has a basic engineering education and immense ingenuity, but he didn't have the theoretical foundation to judge the feasibility of his scheme; to some degree that knowledge didn't even exist yet, in fact some of it may still not exist. He was making an unjustifi8able leap of imagination from his lab near-field power transmission experiments, which he could see worked with his own eyes, to a global scale. Some elements of his scheme were pure wishful thinking, e.g. creating an ionized path from the ground to the stratosphere and losslessly transmitting power over it.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:Believe? by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      It is the opposite: either the experiment/observation works or it doesn't. If the result doesn't matches what physics has predicted, the physics needs to be changed.

      I think the most educated belief is that the Wardenclyffe tower wouldn't have worked, that Tesla's ideas weren't completely crackpot but he was off by several orders of magnitude. But the experiment never happened so we can't know for sure, there is still an tiny chance that it would have worked and that our physics are wrong. Don't count on it though, we know much more now that during Tesla's time and we have pretty solid evidence against his ideas.

    13. Re: Believe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I see you have no clue what the word socialism actually means.

    14. Re:Believe? by Sique · · Score: 1
      In the 1960ies, you cound find lots of descriptions and building schemes of radio receivers powered by the local radio station's emissions. According to your reasoning, they could never have worked.

      But as they worked, there must be something wrong with your reasoning.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    15. Re:Believe? by GrpA · · Score: 1

      The problem is that no one really understands what Tesla was trying to do. A lot of radio engineers say that there would have been a loss of signal with distance that would limit the available power that could be transmitted, even assuming lossless conditions.

      Imagine a light bulb at the other end of the room and you have a light meter. The further you get away from the light bulb, the lower the light level that falls on the meter and the reading goes down.... Distance is the problem.

      Now fill the room with mirrors, wall, floor and ceiling, that are nearly perfectly reflective. Turn the light on. Now the light is going to be present wherever you are in the room, because the reflection is offsetting the losses of light to the wall, and you can, theoretically, collect the same amount of light wherever you are in the room.

      I believe this was the principle Tesla was working on. He believed he had worked out a way for the power to be reflected around within the air so that, whever you were, you could effectively receive power from all directions even with a single transmitter like in the above example. How much would have been lost to absorption? Who knows. But Tesla was a long way ahead of others, not only in terms of theory, but in practical ways as well. If he felt it would have worked, it probably would have worked.

      There might have been other problems that developed from it, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have worked.

      Even today, there's much about what Tesla was doing that we don't understand. It's very difficult to evaluate his ideas and concepts by standards that may not necessarily apply to him.

      --
      Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
    16. Re:Believe? by epine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You stole my thunder.

      Word to the wise: he also stole your lightening, which is a fine mode of atmospheric power transmission if you can buffer the surge.

    17. Re: Believe? by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      So all I'd need would be a couple of hundred million anttenae and I could be posting here powered by the last remaining AM station!

    18. Re:Believe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Having studied everything I can find about Tesla's notions behind Wardenclyffe, I could summarize my understanding of it as follows:

      1) Tesla was fascinated by resonance wherein small impulses of energy are trapped losslessly in a mechanism, and are aggregated into large stores of said energy - a well-known example of this is case of the "galloping gertie" bridge.

      2) Tesla postulated that earth's atmosphere presents an electro-magnetic structure (or mechanism) which would have a resonance condition into which power could be pumped by EM transmissions at that resonant frequency.

      3) Similar apparatus could be configured to extract the EM power stored resonantly in the atmosphere.

      4) Hence the promise of wireless power distribution.

      My take on the whole thing is that he was likely over-optimistic in his ability to fathom and harness a system as vast as earth's atmosphere (Ham radio guys could probably tell him a thing or two). Then again this may be a case where you never really know until you try. What Tesla got wrong was that there is no way in such a system to extract payments from users, hence his capitalist backers bailed out before Tesla could demonstrate the soundness of his conjectures.

      BTW, yes I am a physicist.

    19. Re:Believe? by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      If an invention doesn't work how can it be an invention? If you mean something invented that is not useful or economic, that's another matter.

    20. Re: Believe? by KerryBoehm · · Score: 1

      Best comment thus far today!

    21. Re:Believe? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Science is not an opinion based enterprise
      I know that, and you know that, and 'N' Slashdotters know that, but there are 'N' other people in the world that don't understand that, and since they don't understand that, it's almost impossible to get them to understand that, they think science is some sort of conspiracy that makes things up just to push an agenda. Find a way to get through to 100% of those kinds of people and you'll probably win a Nobel Prize, or be elected King of the World, or at least secure your place in the history books.

    22. Re:Believe? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      What is believe? Either the math / physics works or it doesn't. Science is not an opinion based enterprise.

      Perhaps, the questioner is asking /. to double check Tesla's math -- super solid idea. Let's do Einstein next.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    23. Re:Believe? by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      Not to dampen your enthusiasm, but there are numerous radio transmitters around the world operating with powers on one megawatt or more on frequencies as low as 24Khz. Not to mention millions of kilometers of power transmission lines unintentionally radiating at bit of RF energy at 50 or 60Hz. You're welcome to string an antenna and try to make use of the "free energy". I suspect if you work at it, you might be able to extract enough energy to operate a simple amplifier. Maybe even enough to dimly light an LED. Not enough, I think, to power your computer, your TV, your microwave, or your electric car unless perhaps you live next door to the transmitter's antenna farm.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    24. Re: Believe? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Even if you tight-beamed a high-energy RF carrier from point-to-point, inverse square law still applies, and by the way RF amplifiers are incredibly inefficient so you waste more power as dissipated heat than you send to the antenna. Then there's the problem of what happens to anything that gets in the way of that beam. If you're really talking about 'broadcast' power then there's documentable public health concerns because the terawatts of RF power at whatever frequency you'd have to use would sooner or later cause problems for biological organisms, and meanwhile 'physics works' so you'd lose so much of that power that the inefficiency would make it impractical.

      The mere fact that anyone even considers whether such a thing would work troubles me. There's just no way unless physicists (likely quantum physicists) make some breakthrough discovery of a totally different kind of 'energy' for which the conventional laws of physics don't apply.

    25. Re:Believe? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Lots of ways. An invention can be something that *would* work, if you had something that doesn't exist yet like materials with properties unlike any existing one, or motors that are lighter and more powerful than anything available. An invention may be impossible to build, like Tesla's idea of a transit system consisting of a world girdling wall built on top of scaffolding that would get knocked own, leaving the wall suspended in the air. It is conceivable that a science fiction civilization could build such a thing.

      But mostly inventions fail because they're not economical. Not enough people want them at the price, or they don't work as well as existing inventions.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    26. Re:Believe? by j-beda · · Score: 5, Informative

      By your reasoning, if I hold a large metal block and connect one part to mains electricity, I will be safe.

      Radio waves traveling through the air work differently than electricity moving through a conductor, to the point where RF engineering is a specialized field within electrical engineering.

      one relies on Maxwell's equations and the other...

      One relies on Maxwell's equations with permiability and permitivity appropriate for a metalic concuctor, and the other relies on Maxwell's equations with permiability and permitivity appropriate for the gasses in the atmosphere. The different parameters give different behaviours.

    27. Re: Believe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hint: socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production. That implies that at least some production is going on.

      "From each according to his ability" = you work in the capacity as far as you are able.

      You may argue that no one will have incentive to work if what they produce is being taken away, but that is what is currently happening under capitalism: your boss and the government take the majority of value from what you produce. Yet you still keep showing up at that job.

    28. Re:Believe? by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lasers are coherent and tightly focused beams of light. The Wardenclyffe Tower was an omni-directional transmitter. Both continue to obey the inverse square law. The existence of lasers in no way counter the GP's point that Tesla's tower could not possibly work.

    29. Re: Believe? by sandwall · · Score: 1

      Nailed it. My understanding is that he wanted to activate the magnetosphere, as you stated. Whether or not this would work is questionable -- you would need a lot of resources and an altruistic spirit, extracting wealth from free energy wouldn't be easy. It would also face a powerful opposition of entrenched interests.

    30. Re:Believe? by thrich81 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you are trying to imply that lasers don't exhibit the inverse square law in the relation of area power density with distance you are wrong. Lasers do propagate power via the inverse square law once you get past near field effects (same as any antenna), that's why laser beamwidths are spec'ed in milliradians, the angular extent of the beam. Constant angular extent = inverse square law power density. The reason lasers get a reputation for tight power propagation is because they can be produced with very small beamwidths to begin with. That all applies to propagation in a vacuum or a medium which doesn't interact with the laser light, but once you get into mediums which actually interact with the light (to attempt some sort of self-focusing) you start to deal with scattering and losses to heating the medium, too; one reason why the megawatt laser weapons envisioned in the past haven't been fielded.

    31. Re:Believe? by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Fair points.

    32. Re:Believe? by thrich81 · · Score: 1

      P.S. If you weren't trying to imply that lasers don't exhibit the inverse square law then I apologize for pedantically pointing it out.

    33. Re:Believe? by Big+Bipper · · Score: 1

      It is to the global warming crowd, although some may be having doubts this winter.

      --
      You live and learn, or you don't learn much.
    34. Re: Believe? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what your objection is to virtual particles, but your belief that the big bang somehow implies "free energy" just demonstrates that you know very little about physics.

    35. Re:Believe? by geggam · · Score: 1

      Do some antenna work. I have been "bitten" more than 1 time from metal in the sky collecting juice

    36. Re: Believe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Modern science can be just as silly. Physicists use 'virtual particles' to balance many of their equations.
      > They also believe that 'free energy' into our universe is possible exactly one time (Big Bang).

      It's quite possible the net energy of the universe is zero:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

      Likewise, virtual particles cancel out. No extra energy is required for them to exist.

    37. Re:Believe? by StormReaver · · Score: 3, Informative

      What is believe? Either the math / physics works or it doesn't. Science is not an opinion based enterprise[.]

      I think you're missing the real question in your quest to be snarky. The real question isn't whether the physics work or not; that's like saying that time travel either works or it doesn't, but without any evidence either way. Of course that's the case. Just like explosions can be controlled to propel large, heavy objects into space.

      The real question is whether Tesla understood physics at a level sufficiently advanced to make wireless, intercontinental electrical transmission work. If so, then he would have expanded our knowledge of physics.

      That presumes that such a feat is already allowed by physics, but the mechanism for doing so needs to be discovered by humans. To me, it seems at least plausible. After all, we watch wireless transmission of electricity over multi-mile distances all the time, and we know how it works. Tesla believed that he understood how to manipulate that same energy over vastly greater distances.

    38. Re: Believe? by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No socialist ever said otherwise. The socialist contention is that overall we work less for the same things if we don't have rich dudes skimming off a heap of the productive effort so they can have a solid gold toilet seat and play golf all day.

      The dudes with the solid gold toilet seats greatly appreciate your ignorance. At least in the abstract sense.

    39. Re:Believe? by Njovich · · Score: 1

      That is total BS. You are confusing religion with science. Science is about competing believes, not about there being one fact to rule them all.

    40. Re: Believe? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Yeah sure just use enough fairy dust and unicorn farts. Who cares if it's 1% efficiency or less it works right? Never mind how much power you're throwing away. Troll harder you're not laughing enough.

    41. Re: Believe? by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's very possible to tap into the magnetosphere. The varying layers all have interesting phototropic controls as the earth spins on its axis. It's somewhat static, but changes as we go through the day (add in slight lunar-effect changes, too).

      Screw it up, just a bit--- and neutralize it in some way, and watch the atmosphere become damaged beyond your wildest imagination. If you thought Climate Change was fun, strap on.

      Gravity keeps the atmosphere and weather somewhat intact against the 1000miles/hr rotation of the earth, but we're also very happy with the shielding the magnetosphere provides, layer densities (so yeah, we can breathe), and the insulations it provides from solar winds.

      There is a huge iron core inside the earth that moves around, which is why the north magnetic pole is moving. It plays a huge part in how the Van Allen Belt and the magnetosphere keep this planet's life intact. Muck with this at our peril.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    42. Re:Believe? by sjames · · Score: 1

      There are significant caveats to the inverse square law when the energy source isn't an omnidirectional point source (isotropic).

      For example, given a parabolic antenna you have to use a virtual point source that is far behind the antenna and much stronger when you use the inverse square law. In the special case of a perfectly columnated laser (good luck!) or a perfect wave guide (also good luck!) inverse square is irrelevant (but attenuation through an imperfect vacuum still applies).

      Tesla intended to use the Earth itself as a wave guide, so he wasn't just out of his mind. In fact, he did manage to transmit a significant amount of power 10 miles in Colorado.

      All of that being said, I suspect that the radiative losses would still be too high and the problems with unintentional receivers would be too obnoxious (and dangerous) for it to have actually worked. in the general case.

    43. Re:Believe? by jythie · · Score: 1

      Tesla believed there was some way to use 'charge' ionosphere like a giant capacitor, thus bypassing the inverse square law. He was wrong, but that was the idea.

    44. Re:Believe? by sjames · · Score: 1

      IIRC, Tesla intended to use the Earth itself as well as possibly the ionosphere as elements of the antenna, so the effective antenna wouldn't have been omni directional.

      He was on the right track, but I don't think it would have been directional enough.

    45. Re:Believe? by jythie · · Score: 2

      If I recall correctly, the reason his backers bailed was he told them he was building one type of device but was actually constructing another. One of his recurring issues was he kinda scammed his supporters under the idea that when his genius idea worked they wouldn't care, with the problem that many of his ideas did not actually work.

    46. Re:Believe? by jythie · · Score: 1

      Another problem is Tesla was not always honest about what his ideas actually were. He had a bit of P. T. Barnum to him, hyping and overstating ideas in the hope of getting sponsors and investors to fund his work, so he can be a little hard sometimes to figure out what even he thought various devices would be capable of.. or even how much of his own hype he believed after a while.

    47. Re: Believe? by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      'Virtual particle' implies mathematical errors rather than concrete phenomena.

      Um, no. The various forces describes by virtual particles are not measurement errors; they are quite real.

      As far as I can tell from the literature, they do not appear to exist in a physical sense, only on paper (otherwise they would just be called 'particles' lol).

      They haven't been observed "in a physical sense". This may be a valid objection insofar as virtual particles may not "exist" in the same sense as real particles, but the effects which we ascribe to them certainly do exist. Whatever the underlying reality may be, thinking of them as virtual particles is useful until we have some better model to explain it (or until we do observe them). Just like Newtonian physics was useful before we understood relativity and quantum physics (and continues to be useful in many everyday situations, despite the fact that it's "wrong").

      And is it not the conventional understanding of the Big Bang that an extremely large amount of energy entered into our universe at one specific point in time? Does that not fit the definition of 'free energy'?

      No. The big bang describes the beginning of our universe. Energy couldn't very well enter a universe which didn't exist.

      Are 'Big Bangs' consistent with the second law of thermodynamics?

      Universal laws such as the laws of thermodynamics are properties of our universe. It's nonsensical to talk about something being consistent with laws which only formed after it occurred.

    48. Re:Believe? by meglon · · Score: 1

      If an invention doesn't work for it's intended purpose, you've still at least invented a different shape for a paperweight.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    49. Re:Believe? by Ozoner · · Score: 1

      The directional radiation you mentioned still obeys the Inverse Square Law.

      Antenna Gain means that the radiation in a given direction is increased, but then the radiation in that direction still falls off as Inverse Squared.

    50. Re:Believe? by meglon · · Score: 1

      Let's do Einstein next.

      Go wild, knock yourself out. 100+ years of people doing just that without issues gives me pretty good confidence that he was right.... and my GPS unit concurs.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    51. Re:Believe? by magarity · · Score: 2

      What Tesla got wrong was that there is no way in such a system to extract payments from users, hence his capitalist backers bailed out before Tesla could demonstrate the soundness of his conjectures.

      Mandatory subscriptions. Works for the BBC.

    52. Re:Believe? by XO · · Score: 1

      I think there's some belief involved here, because we don't really know whatever the hell it was that Tesla was up to at the time. We don't have enough information, I don't think, about what went on in his head, what he was ultimately doing, to know if he had some theory in his brain that we haven't even come close to rediscovering, or not.

      It seems clear that if we had a way to do this already, if we could prove out that this was possible, using the knowledge that we have right now, then we would already be doing it, if the technological progress wasn't out of our reach.

      I think this kind of hints at an underlying question -- do you believe that Tesla knew what he was doing, and that he may well have had some idea that we haven't even yet thought of, that might've worked?

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    53. Re: Believe? by Reiyuki · · Score: 1

      Um, no. The various forces describes by virtual particles are not measurement errors; they are quite real.

      I was talking about the existence of the particles themselves, not the forces incurred by them. My point is that the particles only exist in the realm of mathematics, as a crutch to bridge two systems. This implies that something is missing.

      No. The big bang describes the beginning of our universe. Energy couldn't very well enter a universe which didn't exist.

      N-dimensional multiverse models actually do allow for 'energy' (technically it would be called potential/polarization) to exist outside an encapsulation of 4D space. But alas this is well beyond the realm of testability/falsifyability.

      Universal laws such as the laws of thermodynamics are properties of our universe. It's nonsensical to talk about something being consistent with laws which only formed after it occurred.

      It's equally possible that the laws governing the universe existed well before the universe itself. Again, this is beyond the realm of testability.

      "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

    54. Re:Believe? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      ... asking /. to double check Tesla's math -- super solid idea.
      Let's do Einstein next.

      Go wild, knock yourself out. ...

      I was being *super* sarcastic -- (falsely) equating the collective mental prowess of /. with Tesla's and Einstein's.
      I thought it would be obvious; sorry I wasn't more clear. :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    55. Re: Believe? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      And the socialist reality is you end up with no one producing anything

      Funny how multiple countries survived multiple decades without producing anything. They must have had some secret magic...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    56. Re:Believe? by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      This is only true for great enough distances. But we're not talking about infinite distances, we're talking about just the size of the earth. It wouldn't shock me if there's an antenna that could do that. Unless it literally shocked me.

      For example, radiation emitted from a plane does not fall off, but is directional. (This is true for infinite planes, or until you get far enough away you can see the boundary of the plane, then it starts acting as a point source again.)

    57. Re:Believe? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      EM radiation from the wireless source drops off according to the inverse square law.

      No.

      Tesla's concept was that the radiation is confined in the waveguide defined by the space between the ionosphere and the Earth's surface. So, it would drop off as 1/r (at least, up to the point where it's gone halfway around the Earth, at which point it increases).

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    58. Re: Believe? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Those are the Communists. To be fair, they didn't claim there was a free lunch either, but they obviously have other issues.

    59. Re:Believe? by meglon · · Score: 1

      Ahhh... sarcasm sometimes doesn't quite take to the written word up to our expectations. A lesson i've learned many times over myself.

      Normally i would have thought sarcasm first, but pretty much ANY thread with anything about electricity or gravity brings out the nutcase electric universe bullshitters, and they seem to actually think that 100+ years of corroboration and subsequent usable technologies are actually a sign Einstein was completely wrong.... no sarcasm and no hyperbole there.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    60. Re: Believe? by sjames · · Score: 1

      You mean other than a paycheck, right?

      Those seem to be good enough for the rank and file here in the U.S.A.

    61. Re:Believe? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Lots of things "work" on paper (math/physics) but making the leap to "really works in real life as a practical functioning object" is the hard part. Too bad Tesla ran out of money before he could test it.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    62. Re: Believe? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      I don't know anyone who worships Nicola Tesla.
      However, he did invent a lot of useful stuff so it's hard to call him a failure.
      - AC motor / generator
      - AC power distribution system
      - fluorescent lights
      - radio (Marconi just stole Tesla's patents)
      - remote transmission of voice, pictures, data (i.e. smartphone) ... and a bunch more stuff

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    63. Re: Believe? by Reiyuki · · Score: 2

      You're right about that. I don't think most physicists even stop to understand the concepts behind the math and terms they are using. They indeed appear valid and accurate, but I think many may be relying on false assumptions about the nature of reality.

      As a semi-recent example, the Ptolemaic model of astronomy was extremely accurate and made many valid predictions, despite it operating from a completely false set of assumptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Anyway, from my understanding, a virtual particle is one that possesses zero mass that is used as a bridge to convey energy (dielectric and magnetic) across space. And since E=MC^2, a particle that contains energy without possessing mass should not be possible.

      Now there are other eloquent models that eliminate the need for these contradictory particles while still being compatible with modern science, but they are generally less complete than the current system, so they are still shrugged away.

      Since this is a Tesla thread, I thought he would be able to weigh in on this: "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

      I hope this not all come across as rude, I am thoroughly enjoying our chat. Very stimulating. :-)

    64. Re: Believe? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Maybe not worship him as some type of God, but their are occult practitioners in Belgrade using his ashes as a ritual component.

    65. Re: Believe? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Even then, virtual particles aren't true "free energy". There is the theory of "vacuum collapse", which might happen if one started harvesting these particles. Hawking radiation is another form of virtual particle, but it slowly removes energy from insider the event horizon of a black hole.

    66. Re: Believe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is a "what if" so just bear with me for a sec.

      If the energy is free from something like a dyson sphere then who cares if the efficiency is 1%? It's still tons of free power.

      You can already buy a cordless extension cord at thinkgeek...yeah they waste power and probably fry your sack but it works.

    67. Re:Believe? by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      Yes and No? I believe that "Short" antennae tend to have very high impedance output. Lot's of voltage, miniscule amperage -- lots of bite, but not much power. Which is why we're here to talk about the shocks.

      Now if you were to aim a resonant receiving directional antenna into the beam of a high powered directional antenna from a few tens of meters away, I wouldn't be surprised that you could transmit a respectable amount of power. But If you just want to send power a short distance, why not just string a wire?

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    68. Re: Believe? by Reiyuki · · Score: 1
      Yes I agree, a side-effect of the current model is that it does not really allow for energy synthesis (except maybe interdimensional or perhaps by exploiting relativity?) But other models may indeed allow for energy synthesis/destruction.

      You may not be aware that the original Maxwell Quaternions possess a magnitude quantity that is actually lost when it is reduced to vector algebra.

      This magnitude quantity (the "A field", as opposed to the "B magnetic field") can indeed lead to a non-zero energy balance when applied in certain electrical configurations.

    69. Re: Believe? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Please, if you can think of any, name a nation that approaches pure socialism without suffering economic collapse within a decade. There have been a few very small nations that survived some time with foreign sponsorship.

    70. Re:Believe? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      If I may? Laser coherence is bounded by various factors. It is not, in an ideal model, bounded by the classic inverse square law, the simple and observable fact that they are pointed in _one_ direction rather than all directions affects the distribution profoundly. One of the limiting factors is _diffraction_, limited by the size of the laser's lens and the diamater of the collimating chamber. Please, review "single slit diffraction" to understand that the collimation of a laser is limited by its diameter.

    71. Re: Believe? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      My country survived several decades, but how is your question in any way related to the claim of "no one producing anything" which I was responding to? That's a wildly different claim from yours.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    72. Re: Believe? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Here you go, this should keep you amused for a while: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trol...

    73. Re:Believe? by jythie · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but in THIS case he was telling the person paying for the tower that he was going to provide trans-atlantic radio communication. The 'businesses were against him' was retconned in decades later.

    74. Re: Believe? by Reiyuki · · Score: 1
      The math works out quite well, but the fundamental contradictions suggests that something is very likely wrong and/or missing.

      Things like massless virtual particles that are used as mathematical bridges to balance equations, even though they cannot actually exist in reality (due to E=MC^2).

      There have been many past examples where the mathematics and predictions were extremely accurate despite the fundamental assumptions being wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      But no, you won't, because you can't do the math. It bothers you that others understand something that you can't, so you sneer at their conclusions as being obviously wrong.

      I'd be glad to discuss the subject as deeply as you wish. Be careful not to fall into your own fallacy.

    75. Re: Believe? by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      Stronger governments can take the life out of weaker governments, whether they lean more towards socialism or more towards capitalism, doesn't really seem to matter.

    76. Re: Believe? by Reiyuki · · Score: 2

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

      It's an interesting idea, and certainly possible. I love exploring and testing possible alternative models.

      I think my gripe is in the difference between a particle that was physically discovered, and a particle that was invented in order to balance an equation.

      There is a similar problem with 'dark matter'.

    77. Re: Believe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Nordic model is highly capitalistic and privatized in terms of the economy. Socialism is pretty much the exact opposite. The USSR, Mao's China, Chavez's/Maduro's Venezuela are all perfect examples of socialist economic policy.

    78. Re:Believe? by srmalloy · · Score: 1

      If I'm remembering correctly, the issue that caused Westinghouse to pull out was that he asked Tesla how he would be able to charge the recipients of his broadcast power for their usage, and Tesla admitted that there would be no way to do so. With no prospect of profit from the endeavour, Westinghouse pulled his funding.

    79. Re:Believe? by sjames · · Score: 1

      A bank of lights. These or similar. The picture is from a test at 100 feet. The longer distance is reported but not photographed.

    80. Re:Believe? by thrich81 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, at a workplace I was in we used beam expanders just after the laser output optic which made the beam wider in the near field but tightened up the far field divergence of the beam for better performance at distance. And we used astigmatic lenses to circularize the elliptical beams from diode lasers. We used beam profilers to see how the beam was shaped at various distances -- once it got away from the near field it looked like a constant angular divergence to me. If people are interpreting "inverse square law" as isotropic spreading of radiation from a source (like a star or ideal light bulb) then a laser isn't that, but if "inverse square law" is interpreted to mean "twice the distance = one quarter the power density" then that's how the lasers I've worked with seem to behave, and as I read the theory that's pretty close to the mathematical description of a gaussian laser beam in the far field.

    81. Re:Believe? by Reiyuki · · Score: 1

      As with most religions, most followers of Tesla never actually read the books.

    82. Re:Believe? by default+luser · · Score: 1

      The BBC fee works because they have guys driving around with Ariel detection vans. If they didn't, most people wouldn't pay.

      Are you planning on going to war with China to enforce your fee collection there, and every other country? Because you already know how much they respect Copyrights.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    83. Re:Believe? by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      As a practical matter, lasers also drop off by the inverse square law. They may be focused tight cones of light, but they are still cones.

    84. Re: Believe? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1, Troll

      Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for foodstuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism.

      That is from Time's 1939 Man of the Year for Hitler. Compare that to the current "socialist" mantra of the Democrat party: ownership of companies, restriction on profits, nationalization of industries, wealth taxes. The Democrat party is literally the party of Nazism, and Hitler's platform is enshrined in their own platform, just with different names.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    85. Re: Believe? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      I must note that you have not named the country, which is what I'd asked for. This makes your own claim much more difficult to assess.

      There is also a noticeable difference between "survival" and "having economic collapse". I'd agree that "producing nothing" is an overstatement of what happens in a socialist society. But the loss of the ability to produce basic necessities of civilization, especially food, has been consistent for nations that become completely socialist. Can you think or especially name any counterexamples where the nation's economy was not completely reliant on foreign aid?

    86. Re: Believe? by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is from Time's 1939 Man of the Year [time.com] for Hitler. Compare that to the current "socialist" mantra of the Democrat party: ownership of companies, restriction on profits, nationalization of industries, wealth taxes. The Democrat party is literally the party of Nazism, and Hitler's platform is enshrined in their own platform, just with different names.

      *blink*

      I'm not sure if you are misusing the word "literally" or you just have no clue what the Nazi party stood for. The main thing the Nazis were known for is blaming immigrants for the country's problems and then using that as an excuse to try to eradicate the Jewish people. If any party is even approaching being literal Nazis, well let's just say that there's only one party in the United States whose leader has ever suggested that illegal immigrants are the cause of our crime problems and that we should ban people from entering this country based on their religion, and it ain't the Democrats.

      But ignoring the Elephant in the room, the biggest thing you're completely missing is any sense of nuance. You talk about socialism and capitalism as though it's an either-or situation. That couldn't be farther from the truth. No economic system in its purest form works, period. All economically viable countries involve a combination of economic systems. They combine some aspects of socialism (e.g. public healthcare, public schools, public roads and freeways, etc.) with some aspects of capitalism (publicly and privately owned businesses in competition with one another, wealth accumulation, etc.). Government inherently is a balancing act between those two forces. Any government that goes too far in either direction will fail. Every. Single. Time.

      Anybody saying that socialism is bad or equating it with Nazism or claiming that it can't work is wrong — not just subjectively wrong, but objectively, provably wrong. Every country requires some amount of socialism, because capitalism run amok results in erosion of the middle class and eventual devolution to a servant class and an aristocrat class. Similarly, every country requires some amount of capitalism, because socialism run amok results in no incentives to innovate, create, or improve the state of the world.

      Take the arts, for example. There are two things that increase artistic output: Providing funds to pay artists enough money that they can create without having to "sell out" (this is socialism) and providing laws that guarantee that artists' creations cannot be freely copied without their permission (this is capitalism). The two exist in balance.

      Or take our system of roads. Businesses and individuals alike depend on these roads. They are, by nature, socialist. However, there is a secondary capitalistic aspect to them in that taxes are charged based on road use to prevent the tragedy of the commons. So although the benefit is provided to all, those who benefit more also pay more.

      Compare that to the current "socialist" mantra of the Democrat party: ownership of companies, restriction on profits, nationalization of industries, wealth taxes

      In order:

      Nobody is proposing that the government take over businesses en masse. At times, governments do have to buy out companies for various reasons, usually involving keeping them in business. What's wrong with that?

      Nobody is proposing restriction on profits by businesses. The Democrats do, however, want companies to pay their fair share of taxes on those profits. What's wrong with that?

      Nationalization of industries: See above.

      Finally, what's your objection to wealth taxes? There are people who earn hundreds of millions of dollars per year or more. Surely two or three million is enough. It has been proven time and time again that the joy derived from making more money does not continue to increase much at all after your needs are met. Yet many people earn far more than is necessary to m

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    87. Re: Believe? by Z80a · · Score: 2

      The problem is that capitalism is the thing we found to keep a much worse and horrible system out, the monarchy.
      There is an horrible tendency on people to want a king, and many to be kings, so capitalism (when working), lies to everyone, telling em they can be kings, but thanks to competition, none ends being, well until someone literally buys the right of being the king.
      But when you try to replace capitalism with socialism, the system gets immediately corrupted both by those that want a king and those that want to be kings, and you end up with a monarchy because socialism has ZERO resistance to it.
      So if you want to replace capitalism, find something that is as good as it or maybe even better at stopping the kings from rising, otherwise you're just opening the pandora box.

    88. Re:Believe? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Not the place for this argument, which you cannot possibly win. For every monk who contributed to early science, there were two actual scientists prosecuted. The net total is negative, even if you can find some positive contributions.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    89. Re: Believe? by sjames · · Score: 1

      I must say, it would be nice if people who didn't earn the money would quit taking if from the people who did and buying yachts that resemble an ocean liner, building asbestos ridden fire traps, pet food delivery dot bombs, and gold toilet seats.

      All for such brilliant business leadership as destroying HP, Bell Labs, SGI, Radio Shack, Sears, etc and crashing the world economy.

    90. Re: Believe? by sjames · · Score: 1

      You're confusing the political and economic systems. Beyond that, capitalism is well on it's way to becoming feudalism. And feudalism tends to have a king. That's why we have companies that are too big to fail and "afluenza".

    91. Re:Believe? by beheaderaswp · · Score: 1

      My take on the whole thing is that he was likely over-optimistic in his ability to fathom and harness a system as vast as earth's atmosphere (Ham radio guys could probably tell him a thing or two). Then again this may be a case where you never really know until you try. What Tesla got wrong was that there is no way in such a system to extract payments from users, hence his capitalist backers bailed out before Tesla could demonstrate the soundness of his conjectures.

      BTW, yes I am a physicist.

      Well I'm a ham radio guy... and a systems engineer.

      Tesla would not have created any "exotic" form of energy from that tower- just EM. And we know now that the propagation of radio waves happen in different layers of the ionosphere- not the magnetosphere. Aside from the drastic loss at distance, which would make the system useless, even if you found a way to transmit that energy without loss you would never be able to predict where it would become available. Propagation is always shifting and dependent on what the RF frequency is and what part of the 11 year sunspot cycle we are in.

      In fact I'm not aware of any RF emissions which interact with the magnetosphere outside of warping of an antenna pattern (the shape of the EM field created by an antenna) when a signal goes through the magnetosphere. But considering amateur experiments with earth-moon-earth communications there does't seem to be a measurable impact which can be measured. No special preparations were made for that during the Apollo missions either- except to have some kind of matching polarization (circular).

      We also do not see any effects in amateur satellite communications.

      There's also lightning. There can be lightning 1800 miles away. I can hear it on my equipment. But it never arrives at a destructive (or useful) level. Which would be an argument against some special property of the magnetosphere to transmit end user available power. The only time we see a strong EM field from lightning interact with our equipment is when an EM field collapses from a close strike which overwhelms our ability to shunt it to ground. In those cases our equipment is destroyed. But it's a local occurrence. Lightning strikes in Illinois do not cause problems in Michigan. Lightning strikes 300 meters away are dangerous.

      Then... there is aurora propagation. When charged particles from the solar wind dip down into the upper layers of the atmosphere creating ionization. Even in that case the losses involved are staggering.

      So in this person's opinion... Tesla was wrong and would never have achieved much beyond a pretty impressive spark gap transmitter.

      Note: I am not a physicist.

      --
      Another consultant who stuck it out.

      "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    92. Re: Believe? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      It's funny because the only reason that the government in the US has that much power over the citizenry is because of two court decisions, the Slaughterhouse case and Wickard v Filburn. The first of which was a direct repudiation of the meaning of the 14th amendment, and the latter a decsion of socialist economic policies regarding production of goods forced by threat of court packing. Wait, no, three decisions. Eldred v Ashcroft is responsible as well.

    93. Re: Believe? by SuperDre · · Score: 1

      He meant inventor ofcourse.. But the reason he didn't get any support was due to the oilcompanies who pressured his investor into backing out. If his invention would work it would have put the oilcompanies out of business, and even then it was a billion dollar business. That's not something they would have let happen, also let's not forget who are the money behind the president back then (and still for a good part are today and always have been), so no suprise the president would not give him any help.

    94. Re:Believe? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      The natural world is full of wonders. There is more between the heavens and the earth than we can imagine in our wildest dream, and the unbelievable damage that religion and mysticism have done to the human race in distracting us away from those wonders into make-believe fantasy bullshit will one day be remembered as the highest crime against humanity.

      Yes

      Part of it is not wait for refutation to stop believing in something, but wait for evidence to start believing in something. Otherwise the make-believe fantasy bullshit would never be refuted and hence one would never stop believing in it.

      and may well have discovered something that

      If we don't know this something - the only logical position is that for all practical purposes it does not exist. Yes , it could exist- same as God could exist. But these statements only serve to take us away from real stuff that is not make-believe fantasy bullshit.

      In other words, your statement is non-falsifiable like most make-believe fantasy bullshit.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    95. Re:Believe? by SuperDre · · Score: 1

      oh you mean the laws of physics which are written by man, and are still subject to change once we figure stuff out we didn't know up until we figured them out. There's still a lot of mystery behind how nature actually works, and Tesla studies a lot of things that we still don't know how it works. You don't know what he thought up, how he was planning to use his tower, so all you can think of is about the conventional ways we know today, but Tesla had a lot of knowledge he never shared and scientists are still trying to figure stuff out which is to believed that Tesla already knew about.

    96. Re:Believe? by Tom · · Score: 1

      So much nonsense in so few words. :-)

      Making up something is not the same as formulating a hypothesis. There is actually a rigorous process to doing the later, including such things as testability and research into existing theories in the same area.

      And keeping your eyes and mind open for the undiscovered is not the same as "oh, maybe god exists". Sure, maybe he does. Or maybe Atlantis is actually a space station in orbit around Pluto. Possibility and probability and plausibility are different concepts and you freely mix them all. Also, maybe he's a she? And why is your god true, but the other 5000 or so that humans believe or once believed in not? If you attribute equal probability to wireless energy transfer and the existence of god, you must be logically consistent and also apply equal probability to all the available gods.

      If you use your brain, the sheer nonsense becomes quite apparent. And that's why I call it make-believe fantasy bullshit, because as soon as you don't stop thinking at the first intersection, it all falls apart.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    97. Re: Believe? by lurcher · · Score: 1

      "#3 I don't think Tesla had much to say about the "secrets of the universe" but yes, it is interesting."

      If you read some of his writings, he had a lot to say on many things. Most of them come over as the words of a crazy man,

    98. Re: Believe? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Your hypothesis is non-falsifiable. Just like most God theories.

      And no-one said it has "equal probability".

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    99. Re: Believe? by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      Except that you end up with the guys in office running the show and funnelling money to them selves.

      Read about the wealth of the members of the Chinese Communist party:
      https://www.google.com/search?...

      This page claims Lenin and Putin were/are worth 70 billion:
      https://www.idolnetworth.com/v...
      https://www.idolnetworth.com/v...

      Stalin at 16 million:
      https://www.idolnetworth.com/j...

      Hugo Chavez who started the problems in Venezuela; 1 billion:
      https://www.idolnetworth.com/h...

      So instead of having a system where anybody who is worthwhile can make themselves wealthy by creating a company that makes or does something that millions of people want, you have a few dozen politicians who get to the top of the government, and if they're ruthless enough, they get to be super wealthy even if they don't make anybody's life better. But at least they profess they want to help the little guy while they impoverish him so we can feel good because they said nice words instead of protecting the freedoms that have lifted 90% of the world's population out of poverty.

    100. Re: Believe? by LaminatorX · · Score: 1

      Much of Europe would be surprised to hear that their Democratic Socialism is leading them to Communism or Authoritarianism.

      Really, Authoritarianism, whether in Capitalist or Communist drag, is the real bad -ism. That's the difference in practice between Socialism in Venezuela and Socialism in places like Sweden.

      (The fact that we don't try to subvert Sweden's political system to benefit our oil companies every ten years or so is part of how that shakes out as well.)

      Even highly commercial places like Germany and the UK Socialize essential things like public health and education. Even here in the US, Socialist policies like the New Deal, Rural Electrification, public Fire Departments, the Interstate Highway System, Social Security, the Army Corps of Engineers, Medicare, and so on have been (even when imperfect) great successes and enablers of overall economic prosperity.

    101. Re:Believe? by magarity · · Score: 1

      The BBC fee works because they have guys driving around with Ariel detection vans. If they didn't, most people wouldn't pay..

      Well obviously it would have to be a case of everyone subscribes whether they want to or not and whether they used it or not. Like your local public library. The part I don't get is how is the power plant supposed to figure out how much load is needed in the system if the electricity just flies off into the air with no hard way to tell if it's being used. I think there would be nonstop brownouts.

    102. Re: Believe? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Socialism IS an economic model; it IS either-or with capitalism. That's why the Nordic model is actually a capitalist economy with a strong social safety net. A socialist economy CANNOT exist with capitalism, they are at odds with each other. And socialist countries always end up in ruthless dictatorships - it is almost required to make it work with human nature.

      As far a wealth tax, why stop at $2 million? Surely $200K is plenty, most people live with less than that. But is that still too high? Worldwide it is. Why not take everything from anyone and redistribute so it is equal? You don't NEED a home, an apartment works fine... My issue is how does the limit get set, and does it apply to everyone? Because as we see around the world and even in the US, those that get to set the limits/laws are conspicuously exempted from the laws. All animals are equal except some are more equal than others...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    103. Re: Believe? by sjames · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the unelected billionaires impoverishing people who happen to need medications they have an exclusive on (for example).

      Personally I prefer a hybrid system that includes a market economy, free enterprise, and democratic elections. But it's really amuseing how I make a neutral and factual statement about socialists and I get a group of rabid capitalists dog piling on it with a need to tell me everything wrong with socialism. None of whom seem to recognize that very similar bad things happen right here in the U.S.A.

    104. Re:Believe? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      What about the followers of the First United Church of Nikola Tesla?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    105. Re:Believe? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard of radio? Did you know wireless chargers for cellphones are a thing? Have you ever noticed that when you press the unlock button on your key fob, there's no lightning or ozone smell?

      Even back in the old days of spark gap transmitters, lightning didn't actually jump to the radios in people's homes,

    106. Re: Believe? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Karl said outright that about 10% would have to be 'reeducated or eliminated'. The murder is right there, from the start.

      The only reason Marx didn't personally kill anyone is he was drunk and powerless.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    107. Re: Believe? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Socialism IS an economic model; it IS either-or with capitalism. That's why the Nordic model is actually a capitalist economy with a strong social safety net.

      That's simply false, and provably so. You can blend socialism to any degree with capitalism, from 0% to 100%. You do this by socializing any subset of the total industries out there, from 0% to 100%, according to some set of rules. For example, in the United States, we have socialist electrical power distribution, fire protection, police protection, education, roads, public libraries, military, prisons (mostly), etc.

      A socialist economy CANNOT exist with capitalism, they are at odds with each other. And socialist countries always end up in ruthless dictatorships - it is almost required to make it work with human nature.

      You are simply incorrect, and objectively so. This isn't a matter of opinion at all. You are simply wrong. Socialism isn't just an economic system. It is also a political system that implements aspects of that economic system. All functioning governments employ a blend of socialism and capitalism, taking the best parts of both approaches and applying them when appropriate. For example, road construction is paid for by the government (socialism), but taxed according to use (capitalism), and contracted out to companies that do the actual use for a profit (capitalism). That's an example of socialism and capitalism coexisting even in a single, narrow industry.

      The only way you can possibly conclude that the two economic theories cannot coexist is if you arbitrarily redefine socialism as describing only a purely 100% socialist economy/government. Obviously a 100% socialist economy, by definition, contains no capitalism, so you are technically correct — the best kind of correct — but only because you have arbitrarily redefined "socialism" in a ridiculously narrow way to suit your political agenda, rather than actually using the word in the way that everyone else on the planet uses it.

      Approximately no one on Earth wants a purely socialist economy or a purely capitalist economy, including Democrat and Republican politicians. Any implication to the contrary is disingenuous to the point of being a bald-faced lie. Where the two parties disagree is in where the balancing point should be set. Democrats tend to think we should have more socialism, and Republicans tend to think we should have less.

      But more importantly, using the unavoidable failure of pure socialism as a means to scare people into avoiding even tiny steps in that direction is a clear example of a slippery slope fallacy, which makes you look like you don't have any idea what you're talking about, at least among educated people. Please stop making arguments that can only sway the uneducated, and start making arguments that actually show that you're thinking about the problems that we're facing as a society and looking for other ways to solve them besides those based on socialism.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    108. Re:Believe? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It's happened. From memory. 1970s. 100,000W radio transmitter was installed next to EEs house. He heard the broadcasts on all equipment with a speaker.

      He complained to uncle charlie. Nobody would do anything. So he built two 99 foot antenna towers on the corners of his property, setup some loops of wire and went to work selling power back to the utility.

      He was reducing the radio stations reach by a significant %. They sued. He won. Ultimately they paid him what he asked for the property. Hope he used ghost pepper lube.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    109. Re:Believe? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      In the US, you have the legal right to receive RF. But it might be dangerous and uneconomical.

      Radar detector laws are usually based on windshield obstruction.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    110. Re: Believe? by Minion+of+Eris · · Score: 1

      let's see..... (I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "pure" socialism, so I'll just go with very Socialist) Most of the Nordic countries Sweden, the Netherlands, etc., or a close neighbour to you, Canada. Yeah, we fall off the wagon and elect a Conservative every once in a while, but we more than survived Trudeau the First and his Socialist decades.

      --
      Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say.
    111. Re:Believe? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      That's him over there.

    112. Re:Believe? by sjames · · Score: 1

      The inverse square thing applies to omnidirectional point sources. The wireless chargers are very short range for efficiency and to avoid those other obnoxious and potentially dangerous effects from unintentional recievers that I mentioned elsewhere. Not because there would be lightning bolts zinging around the room.

    113. Re:Believe? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Yes, but while the power output of the transmitter was in the 10's of kilowatts, only microwatts were picked up by the receiver's antenna.

    114. Re:Believe? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      The BBC fee works because they have guys driving around with Ariel detection vans.

      My dad used to drive one of those vans. It was all bullshit.
      They actually operated by bribing people to snitch on their neighbours.

    115. Re: Believe? by Reiyuki · · Score: 1

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8

      Wow, I'm surprised to see modern physicists incorporating aether-like properties to space. It's quite the 'Teslian' shift.

    116. Re: Believe? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Like me, the next time someone "forgets" about the other Holocaust casualties, politely remind them about the 14million blacks, the gypsies, and the gays. We can never forget.

      That's kind of a misleading statement. Jews were the largest group, followed by Soviet civilians, then Soviet POWs, then Poles, then Serbs, but those other four groups at least arguably weren't genocide, because they were rounded up and targeted as part of stealing the land that they owned, rather than because of their race/religion/ethnicity specifically.

      The three groups you mentioned were, but they made up a very small percentage of the total. There's only record of one person of African descent being a victim of the holocaust, and only 20 imprisoned. Romani holocaust victims numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Homosexual victims numbered only a few thousand (estimated 5-15K).

      So it's not that we forget the other victims so much as that it is a whole lot easier to describe the holocaust generically as an attempt to exterminate a race than add a footnote that says "along with a few other minority populations that each made up a tiny fraction of a percent of the population". It waters down the message without adding anything meaningful to the overall point, which is that discriminating against people based on race or religion is bad, and that the Nazis took that horror to a whole new level.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    117. Re: Believe? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Your hypothesis is non-falsifiable. Just like most God theories.

      Build a tower, try what Tesla described. Does it work? No? Tweak it around this way and that. Does it work or show any signs of anything maybe working? No? Ok, Tesla was wrong. Next theory please.

      What's so hard about that?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    118. Re: Believe? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      What's so hard about that?

      Nothing hard about that. All problems have simple and wrong solutions - so is yours. What is difficult, voire impossible, is not be an idiot and still call your original hypothesis falsifiable :

      ... Tesla .... and may well have discovered something that

      It won't prove that Tesla had discovered anything like what you hypothesized he did. It might make the doer of the work you suggest discover "something". But it would never tell us whether Tesla had "discovered something that ...".

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    119. Re: Believe? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      BTW nor will it tell us whether Tesla had NOT "discovered something that ...".

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    120. Re:Believe? by Sique · · Score: 1
      Still, you are confusing the power of the electromagnetic field with the energy transferred. That's the main reason why using the emissions of the local radio station to power anything is illegal now and considering energy theft.

      If there is nothing surrounding the radio station and the receiver, then 100% of the power emitted would be transferred to the receiver. But in reality, we have lots of inductive materials in the environment (even wet soil), and each of it acts as a little antenna and uses up some of the emitted energy to get warmer, especially if you are using a variable electromagnetic field like the one created by alternating current. That's why power lines always come in threes: The three phases are shifted 120 to each other, and in summa, the fields they create nearly cancel out each other, thus the loss due to inadvertently inducing currents in random conductive objects around the power line is reduced to about 3%.

      With Tesla's scheme, you can't use three phases, as you don't have three different parallel conductive layers. Thus you would either have lots of parasitic inductivities along the way eating up your efficiency, or you have to use direct current to wirelessly transmit power from one point to another -- which means that you actually have a large stream of charged particles moving from point A to point B.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    121. Re: Believe? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Tesla doesn't state "maybe there is something that does something". He's quite a bit more specific than that. Hence you can test it.

      Falsifiability in the strictest sense - no. You can always claim that something was missed and if only one more change were made...

      But in the practical sense, once you've tried everything within the description left by Tesla, maybe there is something else out there, but it's not what he described.

      And yes, it may well be that we discover something different. When you have an old treasure map and there's no island where the map says, but there is an island a few miles to the East - it could be the same island (and the map is slightly off) or it could be an entirely different island and the map is completely wrong. But if it has the treasure mentioned, the chances just shifted dramatically (I'm sure you know about conditional probability). So if you discover the effect described by Tesla in reasonable proximity to his specifications, chances are considerable that you didn't by accident discover a completely unrelated effect.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    122. Re: Believe? by thePicket · · Score: 1

      Poles and Russians (among other ethnic groups) were considered "under-people" and Nazis planned for at least partial extermination of them. The remainder was supposed to serve as slaves/cheap labour. So yes, in these cases the killing was at least to some extent ideologically, racially motivated too.

    123. Re: Believe? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Wow, mental retardation doesn't come much worse than yours! I said YOUR hypothesis , which I quoted twice, is non-falsifiable, not Tesla's.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    124. Re: Believe? by Tom · · Score: 1

      I didn't state any hypothesis. I simply said that maybe Tesla was on to something. If you call that a hypothesis, your standards should make an IPO to beat the Boring Company out of business.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    125. Re:Believe? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Right. There's a company in Texas that has finished its tests with a small-scale prototype of a rebuild of Tesla's Tower, using modern physics. They're now building a much larger version of that so we can presume that the smaller one work well enough.

      It's a partnership between the local University (Baylor IIRC) and several former Air Force brass. You can probably Google their website where they go over the physics.

      There's a story that when Tesla died some military people showed up to his Warehouse in Manhattan, and seized all of its contents, without due process. Not sure that it's ever been proven, but there's also not a museum full of all his artifacts.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    126. Re: Believe? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      I said "In other words, your statement is non-falsifiable like most make-believe fantasy bullshit."

      You said : "Making up something is not the same as formulating a hypothesis" - while using the word hypothesis for the first time in this exhibition-thread of your mental retardation.

      Since then, I have been using the word in the hope of getting through to your ill brain.

      I simply said that maybe Tesla was on to something.

      Which is non-falsifiable. Almost as useless, as harmful, as provable, as falsifiable and as idiotic as statements like "maybe there is a God".

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    127. Re: Believe? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Contrary to you, I'm not here to discuss my penis size, but was under the impression we are talking about Tesla instead. I'm not in a mood to discuss semantical details of Internet comments. If you want exact, academic phrases, quality-controlled and double-checked, you'll have to pay my usual daily rate. On /. my opinions are for free, but if you break them with nitpicking, you get to keep both parts.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    128. Re:Believe? by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      What is believe? Either the math / physics works or it doesn't. Science is not an opinion based enterprise

      What do scientists do when the math/physics doesn't work? They adjust the model in the *belief* that the adjustment will correct the error -- until the adjusted model is tested, it is still just a *belief*. You can't know if the adjusted model is going to work until you test it, but you have to convince your peers that the adjusted model is worth testing. That's where opinion enters into your scientific enterprise. You have to get the people that control the funding to *believe* that your new model is worth testing. A really smart guy wrote a book about this process. Please check it out.

      *Belief* is an inextricable part of the scientific enterprise. NB: The difference between a scientific enterprise and a non-scientific enterprise lies in what you do after nature says your model is wrong. A scientist shrugs and finds a new model, everybody else cries "heresy!" to defend their continued belief in the old model.

    129. Re: Believe? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      I am sure you did your best given your mental limitations, but still made a broken point. Think twice before calling something "so much nonsense ..." in the future - some people on the internet other than you are not retards.

      If you can think, of course.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    130. Re: Believe? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      oh no. what follows is four thousand word argument over a subject that has nothing to do with Tesla...

    131. Re: Believe? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      The mere name "socialist" in the political party should not define a state as socialist, I think, any more than the "Democratic party" makes the USA a democracy. The USA is a republic. The Wikipedia analysis is not too bad, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., and draws a clear distinction between the "Marxist-Leninist" states and the multi-party states where there is a party with the word "Socialist" in it. I would look for the vesting of all power in the state, a state that at least has some appearance of election by the citizens, even where the election is mandated and corrupt.

    132. Re: Believe? by Tom · · Score: 1

      The quality of this exchange has been on a constant downward spiral. I'll bail before it hits the ground. You can consider yourself the winner if you need such.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    133. Re: Believe? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      This exchange has been underground, and digging for a while. Ever since you didn't understand after my 3 repetitions that falsifiability of statements is lacking on YOUR part rather than Tesla's.

      But I am sure you have your burdens to carry.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    134. Re: Believe? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      True enough. The difference is that it was the stated aim of the Nazi government to wipe out the Jews around the world, whereas wiping out large numbers of Poles and Russians was more a side effect of wanting their territory coupled with racism that made them not see the conquered people as fully human. Both behaviors were malicious, and both were racist; one was just more overtly so. :-)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  2. Better question by OffTheLip · · Score: 2

    Could Elon Musk monetize it?

    1. Re:Better question by doom · · Score: 1

      Could Elon Musk monetize it?

      Well "yes", but that's a different question from "would it work?"

  3. Of course it would have worked by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Funny

    This I Tesla you are talking about, who would have willed it's function into being, then left scientists decades to explain why it actually worked.

    What a shame he was never give more backing to come up with some more amazing things...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Of course it would have worked by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I think mods thought he was kidding. It turns out he is just very dumb. Most Tesla zealots are.

    2. Re:Of course it would have worked by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      No, it was correctly modded funny. Almost all my posts exist in a quantum state between funny and insightful, the actual result not observable until moderation occurs.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Of course it would have worked by shanen · · Score: 1

      Well said, and even worth emulating. I'd go farther and wish I sometimes got mod points to help release Shrodinger's Cats.

      However, I think the comment about trolls with funny mod points was also insightful, except for the peculiar link to karma. Also, the moderation system remains pretty much broken these years. (MEPR is my favored solution approach, but Slashdot lacks resources to do more than barely survive.)

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  4. This company does! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://vizivtechnologies.com

  5. Where's the news? by ebcdic · · Score: 1

    A link to a year-old documentary doesn't make this news, or stuff that matters. You've been used by a fanatic.

  6. The Truth About the Mysterious ‘Tesla Tower& by t00le · · Score: 5, Informative

    We may find out soon enough since Viziv Technologies has built a Wardenclyffe Tower in Texas and is actively working on the project.

    -----

    The Truth About the Mysterious ‘Tesla Tower’ in Texas

    Viziv Technologies, the party responsible for the construction of the tower in Milford, has similar goals. If their experiments with the tower are successful, this would mean they can safely and wirelessly transmit energy between any two points on the globe. Their aim is to utilize the Zenneck surface wave, an electromagnetic wave that uses the surface of the earth as a guide, enabling it to carry signals and electricity over long distances. (Electromagnetic waves are results of vibrations between electric fields and magnetic fields.)

    The Zenneck surface wave is named after Jonathan Zenneck, a physicist and electrical engineer. He was among the pioneers that studied electromagnetic waves. Zenneck surface waves have not yet been experimentally observed, and Viziv is unique in that its technology only uses these surface waves, as opposed radiated waves.

    https://texashillcountry.com/m...

    --
    When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail
  7. No. by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    By this time, most of the geeks here have made a Jacob's Ladder device.

    These transmit power in exactly the same fashion as Tesla's machine, and have the same limitations; the electrostatic transmission effect falls off after a few feet.

    It would have looked cool, until someone pulled funding, which is pretty much what happened.

    Running one of these was also a choice between running this, or using Radio; these devices broadcast noise over every radio band, so we wouldn't be using radio or TV either.

    So; No, it never worked, and never will work.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  8. Wireless Transmission of Power's Time has Come by roccomaglio · · Score: 1

    With 5G phone, cable, and Internet will be delivered wirelessly, the last wire to the house is electrical. The power companies are going to have to pay the full cost of maintaining the last mile of wires to the house. This cost has always been split across the different providers. Power bills are going to increase and the companies are going to need to figure out ways of limiting expenses. Wirelessly providing energy is going to be looked at again. We may see a distributed generation of power or some kind of wireless transmission of power.

    1. Re:Wireless Transmission of Power's Time has Come by tsa · · Score: 2

      Many houses will in the very near future generate their own electricity.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    2. Re:Wireless Transmission of Power's Time has Come by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Wireless power on the last mile is extremely unlikely.

      How would a power provider know you switched on the fridge? Ah ... you sent a signal via internet? Wireless, too I guess?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Wireless Transmission of Power's Time has Come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How would a power provider know you switched on the fridge?

      This is technologically feasible for the same reason the power doesn't just drop off to nothing following the inverse square law as everyone missing the actual experience with RF here suggests: there is a counter-inductive effect coupling transmitters with receivers - the signal strength isn't lost just because it "misses" the antenna if it were just following a straight line as the simplified equations suggest, a receiver distorts the profile of the waveform spatially in a manner which allows it to grab more of the energy. When the waveguide becomes the surface of the Earth and the ionosphere you can pinpoint the geospatial position of every receiver along with how much they are receiving so long as you have at least 4 transmitters and enough computing power to do the math in real time.

  9. Probably Not - Tesla Never Demo'd technology by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty skeptical of whether or not the tower would have worked.

    Tesla was able to demonstrate three phase AC quite inexpensively and showed how it could be effectively scaled up (which lead George Westinghouse to basically bet the farm on Tesla). Along with that, the math behind it could be easily followed and demonstrated significant improvements over DC and single phase AC.

    Wardenclyffe seemed to be a black hole for money with no real demonstrations coming from it - just a lot of hand waving by Tesla saying "trust me".

  10. Freakout by JBMcB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People freak out about a few mW of RF being pushed though cell phones. Can you imagine the freakout if someone said they were going to build giant towers pushing millions of watts of low-frequency RF blasting out in all directions?

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Freakout by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      People freak out about a few mW of RF being pushed though cell phones.

      Or a few mW of coherent light being pushed through their cornea...

    2. Re:Freakout by Lije+Baley · · Score: 2

      It's worse than that. Some of them live in cities teeming with RF going every which way through their house and yet in the utility business the regulators have to carve out special rules so that irrational folks can have meters with no radios. If somebody really has "RF sensitivity" they should be moving out of the city.

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    3. Re:Freakout by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      uh, that actually would fry your retina. stare into a 5 mW laser and let us know if I'm wrong.

    4. Re:Freakout by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      People freak out about a few mW of RF being pushed though cell phones.

      They are going to freak out when they find out their local TV transmitter puts out 7 orders of magnitude more power

  11. Belief doesn't matter - Physics do by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 3, Funny

    As others have indicated, we don't know how the device was supposed to work. It's possible Tesla had a new theory (or, as postulated on Ancient Aliens, received from beyond this planet or realm). But, baring the existence of such a theory, current EM physics would seem to say "No".

    1. Re:Belief doesn't matter - Physics do by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      As others have indicated, we don't know how the device was supposed to work.

      Of course we do. We can see it's construction. It was an high powered omni directional transmission tower. Based on how much of it he built there's only a few variables that are still in play, all of them obeying laws of physics which have been characterised since and would have meant the tower he build would not have worked beyond a very short distance.

  12. Re:Believe? Glad it didn't. by DCFusor · · Score: 1

    If it had been workable, we'd be living in what amounts to a microwave oven (only one with longer wavelengths). Think of the people who think non ionizing radiation gives them cancer as is!

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  13. Tesla Effect by tsa · · Score: 1

    This is posted just a few hours after I finished Tesla Effect, the Tex Murphy adventure from 2014.

    Coincidence?

    --

    -- Cheers!

  14. We will soon find out by sirsky · · Score: 2

    Since they're actually doing this for reals in Texas, we will soon find out: https://texashillcountry.com/m...

  15. Yes, solar by mlheur · · Score: 2

    "Do you believe that Tesla's dream of electrical devices anywhere in the world essentially being able to draw electrical power from the sky"

  16. Re: The Truth About the Mysterious ‘Tesla To by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's been more than a few people looking into Zenneck waves. It doesn't change anything as far as power transmission is concerned since it's still limited by the inverse square law. It's a promising concept for communication, which is why people are interested in it, but the idea that it could be a useful method for power transmission is just a pipe dream.

  17. evidence by Tom · · Score: 1

    It's not a question of belief, but of weighing the evidence.

    Unlike millions of other "visionaries" and tinkerers and "inventors", Tesla delivered on most of his visions, even the outragous ones. From everything we know about him and his work, it stands to reason that his unrealised inventions were at least on the level of DaVinci - you know, DaVincis helicopters or tanks would not have worked in the exact way he scribbled them, but he got the basic principles right and with a few adaptations...

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:evidence by epine · · Score: 1

      ... but he got the basic principles right and with a few adaptations ...

      Some of Srinivasa Ramanujan's beautiful conjectures were mangled in transmission from Mahalakshmi of Namakkal and were neither true, nor salvageable.

      Perhaps he misspelled her name on the Ouija board one night and dialed a wrong number (it's awfully easy to do, even for a genius of his magnitude).

      As smart as Telsa was, I don't think he was immune to dropping a stitch, either.

    2. Re:evidence by Tom · · Score: 1

      I see that you don't understand probabilistic approaches. Maybe stick to Ouija boards.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  18. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So if someone can say why, in your mind - does that make them a Tesla fanboy? Because that seems like a really scientific conclusion.

    It has something to do with history and line incompatibility and stuff etc, but you know those Edison groupies prefer to reduce it to US VS THEM. Which is obviously a much more rigorous & scientific approach.

  19. Tesla Earth Maser by ka9dgx · · Score: 5, Informative

    I believe (as I said back in 2014) that Tesla's plan was to modulate the conductivity of the ionosphere, effectively turning it into a MASER, and thus capturing a great deal of the energy imparted by the solar wind and making it available for use.

    At the time, it would have seemed unlimited, but long ago I did the math, and if I recall correctly, it would be about 1 Terawatt of power, which is about 8% of our current worldwide power demand.

    So, yes... I think it would have worked, but we would have outgrown it quickly enough.

    1. Re:Tesla Earth Maser by del_diablo · · Score: 1

      So basically if you where to build 2 towers or dedicate a landscape to it, you could harvest 1TW directly from the atmosphere?
      That do sound pretty great. Why not just build the tower, some receivers, and put some wires from these towers to sell?

    2. Re:Tesla Earth Maser by ka9dgx · · Score: 1

      I doubt you could extract it all at one place, you'd have to spread the load out a bit.

  20. we know very well how E&M works on classical s by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    we DO know how it was supposed to work, you receive remote power on every radio receiver you've ever used including "wifi"... but, at distance it isn't much given normal antenna's radiation pattern.

    so yeah, you can send power remotely. you could use focused microwave beam and even send power from solar cell satellite to collector on earth. we know how to do it, there is no mystery, there is no secret.

  21. Tesla's cat by duplicitious · · Score: 1

    The question asked is an example of Schrodinger's Cat. Tesla's experiment both works and doesn't work at the same time.

  22. Inverse Square Law. That killed it. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    Tesla's idea was to radiate electricity from the tower using spherical wave front. The power density of the wave front degrades by the inverse square law. Double the distance, one quarter will be the energy density. There is no escaping from this. So it would not have worked.

    Pencils of microwaves to transmit energy? Might work, but difficult to get it approved and built. Birds flying through the invisible beam will be cooked instantly.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Inverse Square Law. That killed it. by etudiant · · Score: 1

      .It seems unlikely that Tesla would have been able to persuade anyone to help finance the venture unless he had a significant idea that at least neutralized some of the obvious objections.
      Tesla was not stupid, but rather a truly ingenious engineer, nicely illustrated by his development of 3 phase power. Ingenuity matters in these circumstances, The H bomb development stayed blocked for years, despite diligent effort, until Stanislaw Ulam conceived of the idea of radiation compression.

      There is a piece in a Tesla biography which quotes him saying that he understood the energy flows involved from observing thunderstorms moving across the landscape while on vacation in the Rockies. It suggests he had an 'eureka' moment

  23. The Point by JBMcB · · Score: 1

    I think that was the OPs point. Though, the OP is making a false comparison - a cell phone antenna is an omnidirectional radiator. A proper comparison would be with a MASER run through a waveguide, which a cell phone is most certainly not.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  24. Tesla didn't have a viable plan by jhecht · · Score: 1

    Tesla did not have a viable plan. In Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age, W. Bernard Carlson explains that Tesla's plan was to transmit radio waves through the air and use them to draw electrical current through the ground to complete the circuit. Tesla had similar problems with other inventions of his later years; the physics didn't work. His early work on electricity was brilliant, and he was a visionary about the potential of radio signal transmission, but in his later years he fell behind the cutting edge of technology. The same happened to many other brilliant inventors.

  25. Assumptuous and arrogant by Excelcia · · Score: 5, Informative

    Your comment starts at assumptuous and arrogant and then moves to being just plain wrong.

    Assumption:

    EM radiation

    You are just assuming he meant by EM radiation. Given his actual patents this is likely not the intended medium of transmission. Tesla's patent 645,576drops off according to the inverse square law

    Tesla, as much of a "mad genius" as he may have been, was still a genius. I credit his intelligence more, I think, than yours. Even if the inverse square property wasn't known (more later) already, this would have been pretty obvious to him anyway. He had been electric field Geissler tube light induction for at least a decade prior to his tower proposal. I'm pretty sure that he figured out that the light dimmed and went out as per the square of the distance involved.

    Just plain wrong:

    This has been figured out in the time since Tesla.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Maxwell's_equations

    Now, that being said, what about the actual question asked in the article. Could the towers have worked? Once electricity ionizes the channel, the air resistance is really quite low. If he could have figured out a way to ionize a channel high enough from multiple towers, it's actually conceivable it could work. No one, and I really mean no one at all, has done as much experimentation with the conduction of ultra-high voltage electricity as Tesla did. He knew what it took to create a path between two points. He knew the effect of distance. And he thought he could do it. I credit his knowledge and experience then more than any armchair (read Slashdot) critic today. Also remember this is before powered flight of any sort, so no one cared about what was going on in the sky. Using a tower to open an electrical path into the upper atmosphere wouldn't have been a hazard to anything. I suspect what he was going for was a sort of huge scale porcupine effect. Each tower creating a channel up into the sky up to an altitude where there is already sufficient ionization that the electricity could then be conducted laterally. The whole reason why the post I responded to wasn't alone in just assuming that Tesla must have been (errantly) trying for radio or electric field transfer is that the sheer scale of using "lightning" towers to transmit power directly up into the sky on that kind of scale is, well, at the mad genius level of unprecedented scale. The effects it would have on the RF spectrum, air navigation, electronic devices... renders it into a modern catastrophe more than a workable power transmission system. But back then none of that existed. The sky was just a huge open opportunity for him. He certainly thought big.

    1. Re:Assumptuous and arrogant by Excelcia · · Score: 1

      Sorry, a bit of a mis-edit there after I linked in the patent, but I think you get the idea.

    2. Re:Assumptuous and arrogant by Excelcia · · Score: 2

      What are you saying exactly? Which field do you believe he was going to leverage if not EM?

      And another one who doesn't actually read the patent, my whole (admitedly partially bungled) post, or even do a basic google search on what Tesla was proposing. You're not alone though. Everyone nowadays just hears "wireless electrical transmission" and simply assumes this has just gotta mean by an electric field (a la mutual inductance) or by an electromagnetic field (a la radio).

      To answer your question: Which field did he propose? No field!. At least, no more so by a field than electrons moving through a wire are using a "field" to directly conduct electricity. Patent 645,576 (I'm not going to link it again here since you didn't bother to click on it to read it before) describes a "System of Transmission of Electrical Energy" directly through the air. Or, since when you hear the word "transmission" you understand "radio transmission", how about if we use rename his patent "System of Conduction of Electrical Energy". He was going to transmit... err... conduct it directly through the air. Like a thunderstorm does. Like a (wait for it) "tesla coil" does. By arcing it up into the sky.

      Tesla knew that rarefying air made it far more able to conduct electricity, and he knew that the atmosphere thinned as you proceeded up. So, he reasoned, if you broke down the ionization barrier from the surface and arced the electricity far enough up, that once up there it would continue to conduct fairly easily laterally. Tesla proposes in this patent to use giant transformers to force "electrical impulses of sufficiently-high electromotive force to render elevated air strata conducting, causing, thereby current impulses to pass, by conduction, through the air strata". He knew the voltages would be massive - he thought 20-50 megavolts. Where he got those numbers we don't know. But what we do know is that Tesla did more experimentation on what voltages at what frequencies it takes to arc electricity over large distances than anyone then or since.

    3. Re:Assumptuous and arrogant by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      So he was going to arc electricity significant distances, with the advantage they (the thought) he knew the right radio frequencies to help induce ionization, so the voltage to get the plasma path rolling was not absurdly too high.

      And this is supposed to be better than using high voltage over copper or aluminum wires?

      I think the answer is no, it would not work. I can see why Tesla believed this idea had nice scaling properties when moving very large amounts of power. In particular the plasma path will become much less lossy the more power it moves, and it looks even more promising if it arcs through the thin upper atmosphere.

      The fundamental problem is there are so many things that can go wrong, such that you simply blast immense amounts of energy into space and little to none is recoverable.

    4. Re:Assumptuous and arrogant by beheaderaswp · · Score: 1

      What are you saying exactly? Which field do you believe he was going to leverage if not EM?

      And another one who doesn't actually read the patent, my whole (admitedly partially bungled) post, or even do a basic google search on what Tesla was proposing. You're not alone though. Everyone nowadays just hears "wireless electrical transmission" and simply assumes this has just gotta mean by an electric field (a la mutual inductance) or by an electromagnetic field (a la radio).

      To answer your question: Which field did he propose? No field!. At least, no more so by a field than electrons moving through a wire are using a "field" to directly conduct electricity. Patent 645,576 (I'm not going to link it again here since you didn't bother to click on it to read it before) describes a "System of Transmission of Electrical Energy" directly through the air. Or, since when you hear the word "transmission" you understand "radio transmission", how about if we use rename his patent "System of Conduction of Electrical Energy". He was going to transmit... err... conduct it directly through the air. Like a thunderstorm does. Like a (wait for it) "tesla coil" does. By arcing it up into the sky.

      Tesla knew that rarefying air made it far more able to conduct electricity, and he knew that the atmosphere thinned as you proceeded up. So, he reasoned, if you broke down the ionization barrier from the surface and arced the electricity far enough up, that once up there it would continue to conduct fairly easily laterally. Tesla proposes in this patent to use giant transformers to force "electrical impulses of sufficiently-high electromotive force to render elevated air strata conducting, causing, thereby current impulses to pass, by conduction, through the air strata". He knew the voltages would be massive - he thought 20-50 megavolts. Where he got those numbers we don't know. But what we do know is that Tesla did more experimentation on what voltages at what frequencies it takes to arc electricity over large distances than anyone then or since.

      Ok... so not EM....

      Ah yes.... the skies of the world eternally lit by thousands of arcs creating massive amounts of ozone, with no controlled way to actually deliver the arc since it could arc to anything which was a better path, or randomly to ground. Radio service permanently made useless by brilliant arcs blasting EM. Electronics randomly blown whenever the arc comes close to to the earth.

      Tesla was brilliant. But he had this one wrong.

      How the hell do you control the arc when every wet tree along the route is a better path? How can you predetermine a path through the atmosphere when we can't even predict when or where lightning will hit?

      What I'm saying was advanced electrical theory in Tesla's time- but it beyond basic stuff now.

      How can you possibly believe this utter bullshit.

      --
      Another consultant who stuck it out.

      "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
  26. Easy answer by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

    No. His concept was wrong, although he couldn't have known that at the time. He didn't even believe in "hertzian waves" (AKA radio). His vision was to drive the earth into resonance, like a big Tesla coil. Disspative sources unknown to him would have required an inconceivable amount of power, most of which would have been wasted or caused the earth to heat up to get any consequential power back out of it. You could make a communication system with it, but vastly, vastly less efficient than radio (check out what it takes to talk to submarines through VLF).

  27. And Tesla's Mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have Lots of Tesla's patents I mean lots. This leads me the think he knew what he was doing. I will give him between 70 t0 80 %. chance of being able to do it. As to his mistake. He should have redone his contract with Westinghouse. NO money until Westinghouse started to make money.

  28. It looks like a gargantuan bug zapper. by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

    He may have been lucky that he never got it fired up.

  29. Re:The Prince of the Power of the Air by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    Sounds like your god is a total dick of a shitlord troll that should be shunned and avoided at all costs.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  30. It's a Rorschach Question by Ken+McE · · Score: 1

    We know that it is physically possible to transmit power through the Earth or through the air. That part's not in question. The question is if he could have done it with this equipment, and if it would have been useful. We know that his understanding of physics was a little off from that of the men around him. Usually this indicates a nutter who will potter about harmlessly with free energy machines in their shed. Tesla repeatedly came out with things that worked, so in his case his different understanding bumps him into the category of "genius", not "nutter". Things often look clear, simple, and obvious after a genius has passed by that were completely invisible before.

    What was he doing up there? I don't think we quite know. Was he going to resonate the Earth? The Ionosphere? Ionize something? Quick fry passing seagulls? Use microwaves, or radio waves, or VLF, or those crazy ground hugging waves that I don't know anything about? He had a gift for taking ordinary everyday processes and tweaking them into something new, different, and beautiful. Was this one of those things? Or was this just his biggest failure all lined up and ready to happen?

    I think how you answer this question reflects mostly on how much you respect the memory of a great man. It might have caught fire, exploded, fallen over and sunk to its doom deep in the Earths molten core the first time he turned in on, I don't know. I do know I will choose to respect someone one was greater than I am, regardless of whether we understand what he was doing here.

    I say it would have worked.

  31. Triumph or folly? by az-saguaro · · Score: 2

    There is an intrigue here that goes beyond the mere physics and engineering of it all. This is really about triumphs and folly.

    1 - It could be brilliant. This could be the engineering equivalent of Fermat's Last Theorem. A brilliant mathematician has a clever insight to answer an interesting problem, writes the notes on a napkin so the story goes, and then the idea is lost. It turns out though that the math problem is not so innocent or trivial, but no one after Fermat can come up with a suitable proof. Perhaps Tesla's experiment was the real deal, but we cannot know now that he is gone.

    2 - It could be pure silliness. This occurred in the same era as early flight and early automotive manufacturing. We have all seen those compilation videos of early flight attempts when people built wacky flying-falling machines in their garage with nothing more than just a nifty "idea" devoid of any bonafide engineering. Tesla had the same focus on early electrical science and technologies, and for each clever good idea he had, he might have had another that was a dog.

    Were those who failed to fund him close minded fools or insightful sages?

    Nothing is stopping anyone from trying now. There are plenty of people with enough technology wealth to fund the experiment if it seemed worthy, but no one is volunteering. It is telling that a modern company like Tesla can honor him with an eponymous name, but not by funding projects not relevant to modern life, instead focusing on technologies that make sense for now, like electric vehicles.

    And, times have changed. Even if the idea was scientifically and technically meritorious, it might not be pragmatic or allowable today. Since then, we have developed a robust air travel industry, vital low earth orbit technologies, an electromagnetic spectrum filled with communications, and an overdue appreciation of the environmental hazards of our technologies. Tesla's invention would compete or interfere with them, so might not survive.

  32. Sue George! by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    It would have worked it wasn't for the anti-cellphone/WiFi activists threatening to sue Westinghouse for causing all of their health and sex life problems.

  33. No.. It wasn't going to work.. by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Tesla's scheme wasn't going to work. The amount of energy he could transfer over any reasonable distance was exceedingly small and took HUGE amounts of input power.

    However, in Tesla's day this wasn't as clearly understood as it is now. I don't blame Tesla for trying, but he really did go nuts about it and blew all his money chasing a pipe dream. Shame how he ended up destitute and bankrupt.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  34. Re:No. by thsths · · Score: 1

    And yet he was right. AC long distances lines work with very basic technology.

    DC long distance transmission lines have some advantages, but the technology is much more complicated and still much more expensive. There are a few around, but usually they are a last resort - only used when AC is not possible.

  35. Very carefully. by Reiyuki · · Score: 1

    Yes it is possible, but only through the original Steinmetz/Heaviside mathematics. Quaternions posess a magnitude quantity that is not conveyed in the Lorentz vector simplifications. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  36. No. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    No. Simple answer. There's no mystery over what he intended - every electronics enthusiast who has done anything with high voltage knows the basic circuits involved, including the resonant transformer. They are described in detail in some of his many patents, and it's obvious what he was trying to do: Generate a very high AC voltage tuned to the resonant frequency of the LC circuit formed by the ground and the atmosphere, so that it might be extracted at a distant point using another tuned resonant circuit in the form of a very high voltage, low-current source suitable for operating a gas discharge lamp.

    It's an interesting idea. And it works, at laboratory scales. But the power requirements defy comprehension - he would have to electrify such a vast area, with every tree and lamppost drawing power, that it would require a government-bankrupting megaproject. The voltage gradients near the transmitter would be so high as to pose a serious danger of starting fires. The equipment would need continuous adjustment for atmospheric conditions, and sometimes wouldn't work at all. At most it could be used to light up a few bulbs near to the transmitter, which is exactly what Tesla was able to achieve. He was limited to working with the theories of his time, for all his genius, and with a more modern understanding of the electromagnetic properties of the atmosphere we can easily see that the idea is fundamentally flawed.

  37. Which of course boils down to... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    In Soviet America, Lightning strikes Sky.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  38. No, it couldn't have worked. by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    He was insane. In the tube era the requirements for power were enormous and could not have been supplied over the air by his facility. And considering that the transmitted power would have decreased by the cube of the distance you certainly could not get significant power to another continent. Besides, very little of the power would have been intercepted in any case. Most would have been totally wasted. Financially and technically it was a project for a deluded mind - more the product of obsessive compulsion than genius.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
  39. Greed fueling progress by visionbeyond · · Score: 1

    It's a sad reality, but more often than not, it's simply not enough to have a great idea. In order to see a vision realized it often takes money and resources and this particular project required quite a bit and was developed and presented to the investors as something entirely different. As I understood things, once they caught wind of the true nature of the project and that it could potentially supply free power to everyone, they immediately shut it down - since that was in direct conflict to their goals. Whether or not all of this is true and correct, I would guess like anything else there are elements that have been distorted, points left out and some truths to it all. The government may know the answer however, as they swooped in and grabbed all his documents once he died, and I'm certain that if he financially was unable to build his dream, that at the very least he would have had the plans to build it all worked out on paper. So there may be hope that eventually his work comes to light and perhaps his vision can be built and realized, although those that have the information are probably more likely to use it for financial gain or power and control.