Claims without evidence and off topic answers

[F6FLT]

YES - Excess Energy can, and HAS ALREADY, been achieved!

Holcomb Energy Systems Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/holcombenergysystems
...

All the information on the Holcomb system comes from Holcomb alone, judge and jury.

I therefore find it hard to understand the point of advertising their ads and parroting what they say when no third party has duplicated their equipment, equipment whose alleged principle is false, let's remember, since a spin has never provided more energy than is applied to it.
And the clichés about a green world that they trot out around the presentations of their machine are also a bad sign of possible manipulation, which does not encourage trust.

I don't know yet what will come of this, but what is certain is that to assert today from Holcomb that free energy exists is an pure leap of faith.

[F6FLT]

In this patent https://patents.google.com/patent/US787412A/en Tesla proposes to transmit energy at a distance through the earth.

The principle:
Tesla represents the earth as a perfect conductor serving as a reservoir of electrical charges. The idea is to "shake" the earth's electrons around the device by a back-and-forth effect of the electrons between the earth and a capacitor, thanks to a very high voltage resonant device with a terminal capacitor at the top. The action on the earth electrons is not only through the earth connection, but through the remote influence of the capacitor.
A wave will propagate through the earth from this agitation. Precautions are taken to avoid hertzian waves. The resonance frequency is chosen to obtain a standing wave through the earth, that is to say that the earth diameter must be an odd multiple of the quarter wave.
The looping of this wave towards his device, in order to obtain a stationary wave, is supposed to be done at the surface of the earth, at the extravagant speed of 471240 km/s, estimated value for which he gives no explanation, not more than on the lowest usable frequency, for him 6 Hz thus not odd multiple of the earth diameter but equivalent to a half-wave around the earth at the speed he provided.
A tuned receiver, somewhere on earth, would thus recover a part of the emitted energy, differently and more or less efficiently depending on whether it would be an integral part of a node of the standing wave system or whether it would only take a sample of it.

Analysis:
The earth is an enormous reservoir of charges. But the back and forth of charges between the earth and the capacitor does not involve more charges than the capacitor can hold. So there is a huge imbalance between the amount of charges in the earth, and the amount of charges in the capacity. Only a very small amount of earth charges will be affected, which the very high voltages used cannot compensate.
This quantity of oscillating charges will represent a current through the earth. The fact that the earth is seen as a capacitance does not cancel out its electrical resistance, so huge losses are to be expected, which will dissipate the energy over short distances compared to the diameter of the earth. Let's not even talk about the skin effect.
The looping of the wave by its propagation on the surface of the earth is also doubtful, the electrons on the surface of the earth being also subject to resistance. On the other hand, it is surprising that the wavelength chosen by Tesla depends only on the diameter of the earth, while to be stationary while being looped, it is an even multiple of the diameter + half-circumference that should be chosen, taking into account the speed of propagation in each mode.

Effects in real life:
At short distance, it is sure that the device works. A current in the earth can be intercepted with a resonant system in the same way as it is produced. This resonant system will be all the more efficient as there will be a near field coupling between the two terminal capacitances, the transmitter and the receiver.
The device agitates the earth charges only on a very limited area around the system foot. At long distances the ohmic losses dissipate the current and therefore the movement of the charges. To move charges further, a much higher tower would be needed, influencing more distant charges. At distances of tens or hundreds of times the height of the resonant system, the coupling will be drastically reduced, no efficient transmission of energy is possible, especially around the earth, unless you have a tower of non-negligible height compared to the dimensions of the earth, that is to say thousands of km high.

Artifacts:
I see at least two, the Hertzian waves and the issue of power lines feeding the device.
A Tesla coil is a very bad radio antenna, but nevertheless it is one. It radiates electromagnetic waves. When the powers involved are enormous, which is the case, it is impossible to eliminate them totally and low energy signals can be transmitted at great distance.
Finally, it is certain that, without extreme precaution, a non-negligible part of the oscillating electrical energy is re-injected into the electrical lines feeding such a system, either directly through the components of the device by capacitive or inductive effect, or by bad filtering, or by the coupling of these lines with the resonant system. This system influencing the earth charges around it, also influences those of the electric lines around it, and even better because allowing a better coupling.  These long lines then act as transmission lines with respect to the earth (common mode), being able to propagate the oscillating current to tens of Km and radiate it in hertzian.

This explains all the facts around the principle. It is understandable that the oscillating energy of such systems can be recovered at short distance, detected at longer distance, but unable to transmit significant energy at very long distance, hence the failure of Tesla to demonstrate his system. It was an unconvincing draft of his future patent 1 119 732 not more convincing.

[Hakasays]

F6, thank you for your thorough response.

But the back and forth of charges between the earth and the capacitor does not involve more charges than the capacitor can hold. So there is a huge imbalance between the amount of charges in the earth, and the amount of charges in the capacity. Only a very small amount of earth charges will be affected, which the very high voltages used cannot compensate.

Since we're dealing with displacement current, I think current would be a better metric to focus on.
Voltages at the topload will largely be dependent on the combined system impedance (which is primarily determined by the ground impedance).

Examples:
1000 ampere of displacement current into the ground requires 50kv volts at 50 ohms impedance, but this only requires 1kv with 1 ohms impedance.

For a large setup like Wardenclyffe where 0.1 ohms ground impedance is likely, 500kilo-amps of ground currents might result at only 50kv.
But whether such large currents can be picked up at terrestrial distances remains to be seen.

This quantity of oscillating charges will represent a current through the earth. The fact that the earth is seen as a capacitance does not cancel out its electrical resistance, so huge losses are to be expected, which will dissipate the energy over short distances compared to the diameter of the earth. Let's not even talk about the skin effect.

Direct current resistance doesn't quite apply since we're dealing with alternating currents and impulses.  Conduction current vs displacement current, and a body that is a poor with conduction current tends to perform good with displacement current.

For example, 1/4in bar of of HDPE will have horrible conduction resistance (in the gigaohms), but it is nearly lossless and transparent to RF displacement currents, especially below 1Mc.

But you're quite correct F6 that there are many loss factors at play when dealing with such a large and complex body as the Earth.
* dielectric loss tangents of crust, mantle, etc and every element contained within (which also vary based on frequency)
* impedance and refractive boundaries
* large unpredictable combinations of materials

It may prove that efficient transmission can only happen effectively where the telluric medium is homogeneous (ie: ocean-to-ocean, or within a specific geologic strata)

The principle:
Tesla represents the earth as a perfect conductor serving as a reservoir of electrical charges. The idea is to "shake" the earth's electrons around the device by a back-and-forth effect of the electrons between the earth and a capacitor, thanks to a very high voltage resonant device with a terminal capacitor at the top. The action on the earth electrons is not only through the earth connection, but through the remote influence of the capacitor.
A wave will propagate through the earth from this agitation. Precautions are taken to avoid hertzian waves. The resonance frequency is chosen to obtain a standing wave through the earth, that is to say that the earth diameter must be an odd multiple of the quarter wave.

The terms and terminology have evolved and solidified quite a bit since Tesla's day, and you'll see similar unique vocabulary used by other EE's of that era.  There are of course still losses but they are different from transverse radiation losses.

The simplest modern analogy I would use is to say that in Tesla's system, the Earth is apparently treated as a dielectric rather than a conductor.

The looping of this wave towards his device, in order to obtain a stationary wave, is supposed to be done at the surface of the earth, at the extravagant speed of 471240 km/s, estimated value for which he gives no explanation, not more than on the lowest usable frequency, for him 6 Hz thus not odd multiple of the earth diameter but equivalent to a half-wave around the earth at the speed he provided.
A tuned receiver, somewhere on earth, would thus recover a part of the emitted energy, differently and more or less efficiently depending on whether it would be an integral part of a node of the standing wave system or whether it would only take a sample of it.

We could assume that Tesla's measured propagation velocity was an artifact of the way that it was measured.
That would explain why Charles Wheatstone arrived at a nearly identical velocity of ~463000 km/s, and why many 'speed of light' experiments done today have similar PI/2*C signal anomalies in them. 

Artifacts:
I see at least two, the Hertzian waves and the issue of power lines feeding the device.
A Tesla coil is a very bad radio antenna, but nevertheless it is one. It radiates electromagnetic waves.  When the powers involved are enormous, which is the case, it is impossible to eliminate them totally and low energy signals can be transmitted at great distance.
Finally, it is certain that, without extreme precaution, a non-negligible part of the oscillating electrical energy is re-injected into the electrical lines feeding such a system, either directly through the components of the device by capacitive or inductive effect, or by bad filtering, or by the coupling of these lines with the resonant system. This system influencing the earth charges around it, also influences those of the electric lines around it, and even better because allowing a better coupling.  These long lines then act as transmission lines with respect to the earth (common mode), being able to propagate the oscillating current to tens of Km and radiate it in hertzian.

Indeed, it is a very complex system with many modes+possibilities.  There's even unknown components/modes like Zenneck waves, and even the possibility that the nearby terrain itself might even become a herzian radiator against the ionosphere when peak ground currents exceed 1,000 amperes.

There have been so few faithful replications and experiments since Tesla's day that I don't think we can make any definitive conclusions as to the result of Tesla's experiments a century ago, or what might be possible by exploring this field more thoroughly.

There's a good chance our team will fail to reproduce the telluric results of Tesla, which is fine because at least we'll know we made a very rigorous and faithful attempt.

[F6FLT]

@Hack

All I see from you is speculation.

Did Tesla power stations thousands of miles away?
Never

What are the facts?
None, except for short distance transmissions.

So there is nothing to discuss, short range transmissions are part of the commonplace and everything is conventional.

[Hakasays]

@Hack

All I see from you is speculation.

We are both speculating.
Much of the details of Tesla's experiments are 100+yrs old, and we don't know what was lost in the trunkloads of notes+papers confiscated after his death in 1943.

Much like 'Tesla's 'X-ray tubes', the only way we can conclusively say what is and isn't possible is with faithful investigation and experiment.

And unfortunately, because of the nature of displacement currents and impedance, Tesla's telluric work appears to require a very intense ground that is beyond the reach of many/most amateur experimenters and HAMs.
Our small team is progressing as best we can, balanced against work and school and other active projects.   Your advice and tips/tricks are always appreciated as well.

[F6FLT]

This thread is not for discussion, see the first post of this thread for explanation :
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4375.msg101664#msg101664

There are enough useless threads to discuss elsewhere about these FE claims that never worked and will never work for the same reasons they never worked.

You can post a link to where you discuss the claim.

[Sm0ky2]

As no answer was given, I am copying Sm0ky2's posts from the "Archimedes' screw applied to electricity" thread here and have removed them from there.

The answer wasn't meant to be given, but rather realized.
as the answer was evident in the analogy you used as a rebuttal.

There is always a magnetic field present.
Wether we are looking at/for it or not.

Place a sensitive compass next to a whimshurst machine
(this is a more complex version of your two metal strips, invented by James wimshurst in 1877)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimshurst_machine

And for the record, if i am expected to write you a college paper for everything i post,
I'll go back to overunity.com
Thank you for allowing me to join your group,
but that's not really my cup of tea, everyone takes their own path of education.
i cannot take you along my path, i can only share the pieces that will help you along yours:

Let me ask:

Does the claim that that the e field is equal to the b field times the speed of light require evidence, in order to be used in a discussion? Or do we just blindly implement it in our own personal equations, then ignore it when it suits our perception of knowledge?

Or do we point out all the places you in other threads where you have already proven this for me. PRIOR to censoring my posts?


One example of how to calculate this:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Electromagnetic-model-of-oblique-elliptical-coil_fig1_230988739

This is a paper where it is implemented in particle accelerators: (maintaining a planar coil structure, along the Archimedean hypotenuse:
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.871052?journalCode=php

Here is a physic's demonstration:
https://youtu.be/vWeaZAfCxFQ

Here is an explanation for children:
https://homework.study.com/explanation/1-draw-the-coil-of-wire-at-an-angle-to-a-magnetic-field-2-draw-and-label-a-vector-that-you-can-use-to-keep-track-of-the-direction-of-the-coil-the-most-convenient-vector-is-one-perpendicular-to-t.html

you can derive the field again using the intensity of the electric field:
= (c/u0)B^2 <1.571(radians)

or you can build 2 coils and observe the differences yourself.

[F6FLT]

...
Let me ask:

Does the claim that that the e field is equal to the b field times the speed of light require evidence, in order to be used in a discussion?
...

Of course, because you are talking about an oversimplification that makes no sense without context, and is even false as you have presented it.

This relationship is only true
- for an electromagnetic wave
- for the amplitude of fields, but these fields are vectors, the relation is false for vectors.

So it is not the fields E and B that are related by c, but only their amplitude, and only in one particular case.

In the same way, it is not enough to refer to links as if they support what you say. You have to express yourself in what and why they would be relevant, and to prove what.

[F6FLT]

"Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KW charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd plate?"

This question comes up regularly in the signature of a contributor here, and as it makes absolutely no sense, it's a bit of a pain. "1KW" is a power, not a charge.
Or maybe that question was just surreal humor? but I'm going to assume it's serious.

If you ask it more intelligently, for example by specifying that 1KW is the power used to charge a capacitor, or that 1KV is what you should read, the charging voltage, then you can answer it: the system is closed, it remains electrically neutral, so there's no interaction with the outside, the environment won't do anything to the second plate.

If we ask the question more intelligently, but with another option, for example specifying that it's not 1KW but 1C of electrical charge that we've placed on one plate while the other was unconnected, we can also answer it: the number of charges on the second plate won't change, only its potential. The capacitor will be seen globally as a 1C charge that will cause a redistribution of charges in the environment, and the potentials of each plate will depend on their mutual capacitance AND the capacitance of each in relation to the environment. It's as if we had 3 capacitors. That's easy to calculate too.