Talk:Wireless power transfer

‹See TfM›

Electrostatic

If it's a "rapidly alternating" field, it's not "electrostatic". But it's a direct quote, so what can you do? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

AC electrostatic fields? It remains an electrostatic field no matter how fast it's varying. But more clearly, "Electrostatics" is a field of science involving e-fields, charge, forces. It's analogous to Newtonian Statics. Neither one is required to be "static." Instead, they only apply to situations where "dynamics" phenomena are insignificant, or are being ignored. If neither EM waves nor magnetic fields are significant, then a system is "electrostatic," even if it's AC. Or for example, if you're looking only at the e-fields and attraction/repulsion forces of a radio antenna, then you're doing "Electrostatics."128.95.172.173 (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Material needs to be put back in

Material needs to be put back in ...

"Revision as of 09:28, 5 January 2011 Wtshymanski" ... has a strong anti-Tesla POV in editing.

... needs to be put into the Electrical conduction section. --J. D. Redding 16:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC) <years later> In this article, we should talk about methods that work. Poor doomed Tesla has a whole article on his World Wireless system and a lengthy biography as well. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC) ...and again, this article should stick to methods that work, not dead-ends that couldn't work. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Electric energy transfer

This section is very poorly put together and is almost useless without simple field line diagrams. Also please don't just rip unedited from Steinmetz... simplify first.

Get on it!!!!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.236.53 (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2011‎ (UTC)

This section did seem to read oddly textbook when i saw it, figures. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Narrower beams.

Article wrote: Because of the "thinned array curse," it is not possible to make a narrower beam by combining the beams of several smaller satellites.

Phase coherent sources on the baseline of a set of larger antenna array (satellite) sources, produce narrower beams. And sources spaced sufficiently Nyquist dense to the broadcast wavelength, would produce an ideal narrow beam, with a larger array of satellites. Phase array radars use this method. What you mean to say is that, "Combining several satellites into a larger array with phase coherency, will produce a narrower beam, but the more that the synthetic aperture array is thinned below a Nyquist Source Spacing Wavelength Criterion, will cause the beam pattern to be spread about the ideal narrow beam far-field pattern, in a reduced resolution." 76.93.48.186 (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Heard Iceland wants to use wireless power transmission ?

Heard nation of Iceland.Wants to use Wireless power transmission to sell power to Europe! From its Geo GThermal producing power plants? Any info on this idea? That of Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) idea of sending eleltric power wirelessly? Thanks!SPQRANDRE (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Wireless Power Transfer by Magnetic Resonant Coupling

Two type of wireless power exist: Far-field, and Near-Field. This article ignores a category suggested by this section title, and is years behind industrial innovations in the same.

WiTricity <--- a Wikipedia article

WiTricity is resonant coupling for power transfer --near-field coupling NOT far-field coupling. WiTricity was branded by Marin Soljacic from MIT.

Resonant inductive coupling <---wikipedia article

“Resonant energy transfer is the operating principle behind proposed short range wireless electricity systems such as WiTricity and systems that have already been deployed, such as passive RFID tags and contactless smart cards.”

The Wikipedia.org articles WiTricity and Resonant inductive coupling[oops] are not even in the 'See Also' section.

What is the blind-spot about in this confused article?

Not to mention that Intel Corp. did a road show with demonstrations of a few dozen watts of power transfered several feet at 75% efficiency.

And a cell phone company, TDK, already has a wireless power charger designed for production, with improvements already slated. Another company has a wireless power charger pad to park an electric car over for wireless charging.

As an enthusiast, I'm compiling a time-line as I can (not complete by any means)...

• http://portal.groupkos.com/index.php?title=Near_Field_Resonance_Time-line

Consider that while the press realizes and reports MIT's and Intel's work, et al, as the magnetic equivalent of Tesla's resonant voltage technology, that the academic cloud has yet to precipitate much outside the home camp... perhaps only due to the newness of it all. Yet, when industry forges ahead at the lead from MIT, is that not sufficient citation? Are the scientific papers supporting the patents by Soljacic not sufficient citation?

The missing term here is resonant coupling. Electrodynamic induction is not proper terminology for the same. Why? Because the resonant one-loop coil that transmits (often surrounded by a field-shaping passive coil) makes no broadcast RF signal while self-resonant. Therefore...

How can one claim dynamic-induction when there is no RF field to create induction?

I hope to track this article and the cultural interplay of old-school meeting new-school... because to date, very few can disconnect Marin Soljacic's work on first exposure as more than an inductive trick.

Think coupled NMR coils, built to cohere to a self-magnetic-resonance at the same frequency, with field drop-off between them mapping the Coulomb field energy gradient (exponentially dimenishing with distance). There is no emitted RF signature from a self-resonant magnetic loop.

Links about magnetic resonant coupling (not to be dismissed as inductive coupling)

Facebook

WiTricity Corporation

• https://www.facebook.com/WiTricity

Youtube (for pity sakes)

WiTricity technology (The Economist)

* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbCUMhkEhTo

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drbzm-GumK4 <-- excellent demonstration

Wireless Charging for Consumer Electronics and Military Applications

• http://www.wirelesspowerplanet.com/news/wireless-charging-and-transmission-for-consumer-electronics-vehicles-industrial-markets-and-military-applications/

Instructables.com has at least one proper builder-project

(also with term confusion --because they may have read this article!)

Remember that like this Wikipedia article seems to portray by omission AND mis-labeling, that there is a general mis-conception that inductive coupling is the principle involved with magnetic resonant coupling.

Check out this gap between coils...

• http://portal.groupkos.com/index.php?title=File:IntelWirelessDevice_0382.JPG

DonEMitchell (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Re-edited DonEMitchell (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Re-edited -moved to the bottom, sorry DonEMitchell (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Re-edited -my bad. Inductive Wireless Coupling is in the 'See Also.'

Contactless vs. Wireless

This article covers all types of contactless charging, including the future potential for wireless charging. Given this topical breadth, I renamed the article accordingly.

Contactless charging includes all types of systems, from inductive charging, with which a device must be placed very near or on top of the charger, to wireless charging, with which a device could be freely transported around a house while charging—a technology that is still in very earky developlemt.

Primarily, though, the previous article title was confusing to the 90% of people who don't understand electrical engineering, and were led by it to believe there is a technology available to them that allows the freedom to carry their mobile phones around the house while charging.InternetMeme (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. We're not here to right wrongs. The relevant question is what the title normally is in the literature. So far as I can tell, it's simply 'wireless power' nearly always.Teapeat (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Wireless Is Not Necessarily 'Contactless'

The disturbed charge of ground and air method employs ground terminal electrodes that are in physical contact with the earth; it is not contactless and yet it is wireless.  Furthermore, the energy transmission mode is not by means of electromagnetic induction nor by electromagnetic radiation, rather by electric current flowing through natural conductors and displacement current.  The name of the article should be changed back to "Wireless energy transfer" or changed to "Wireless power or wireless energy transmission." -- GPeterson (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering title changes

. . . If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. . . .

[If] no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub. (This paragraph was adopted to stop move warring. It is an adaptation of the wording in the Manual of Style, which is based on the Arbitration Committee's decision in the Jguk case.)

Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia. . . .

While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.

-- GPeterson (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Contactless energy transfer → Wireless power – Wikipedia requires we use the most common name for the title. The most common name is 'wireless power', so we should use that. Even the use of the word 'energy' is bad because electricity is really mostly to do with power, not energy, because electric circuits are largely incapable of storing energy (although batteries can, they really store power, in the form of energy). But that doesn't matter much, the most common name for this is 'wireless power'.Teapeat (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support, as I believe "wireless power" is the more common term (and, for me, more immediately meaningful). 213.246.91.158 (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Wireless power, more common term; current title is not acceptable. --J. D. Redding 16:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Proposed title would be more common and understandable. --Steve (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Terrestrial single-conductor surface wave transmission line

How this type of power transfer in microwave frequency range through a single conductor comes under the article titled 'Wireless power'?

R!j!n (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, if it has a wire, it's not wireless and doesn't belong here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Citation 106 was not correct.

I found the correct date and pages for this citation. Here is a link to the actual article: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/njp.32101050973336?urlappend=%3Bseq=836

I have corrected the citation. Thanks,

MMcGehee (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Scalar Electromagnetics

Google video search (Tesla Konstantin Meyl transmission of energy)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuJPz88jUbM "Meyl shows Tesla longitudinal waves for wireless energy transmission"

The result that I watched illustrated that there was a distinct difference between the Tesla coil transmission of energy when in one mode (Hertzian wave mode) where the signal strength was very weak and could easily be blocked by a person's hand versus a stronger signal (longitudinal wave mode) that could not be blocked by a person's hand.

Physicist Meyl said that he had demonstrated this at a number of lectures at universities to both students and professors.

Meyl also claimed that the wave of the stronger transmission was not Hertzian, but was longitudinal. The fringe science of scalar electromagnetics subject is usually not found here on Wikipedia. A search a year or two ago produced no Google search results from the Wikipedia web pages for stuff relating to scalar electromagnetics at all.

The Tesla coil experimenters demonstrating the phenomenon could claim now that the pervading Higgs field of local space time is being disturbed by the oscillating Tesla coil to permit a more distant than usual coupling or induction in a receiving resonant Tesla coil device.

Other persons have claimed to have produced low powered public address systems whose wireless remote units were able to drive speakers at substantial distances from the transmitters. Google (Patrick Flanagan Tesla)

Meyl also claimed that he confirmed claims of others that the longitudinal wave traveled at a FTL speed of about 1.5 c (where c = the speed of light in free space).

Google (Donald Lee Smith free energy)

A now deceased petroleum mining engineer named Donald Lee Smith produced a number of so called free energy devices. He had an unfettered access to books on electrodynamics dating back to the 1800s, and so did not dismiss out of hand any of the original theories therein posited in the older texts. In one or more presentations Smith says that for quite a number of years that he had never heard of Tesla's experimentation in the field of energy.

Among the numerous working device prototypes where Smith supposedly demonstrated over unity results was a 4 Tesla coil apparatus where a resonant circuit powered a low loss Tesla coil transmitter that induced "identical" / multiplied energy output in resonant receiver Tesla coils that were within 5 centimeters or so away. For the greatest energy transfer to the 3 receiver Tesla coils, each had a tuning capacitor for adjusting the receiver coils to be as close in resonant frequency as possible to the transmitter.

Google (Donald Smith inventors weekend 2001)

The point in the particular video that features explanation of the operation of the Tesla coil resonant network transmitter is at about 5 minutes 27 seconds... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVd3AKbLnM&feature=youtu.be&t=5m27s

The video lacks any live demonstration of the particular Tesla coil energy transmission and multiplication device.

The correspondence with the mechanism demonstrated by Meyl is that the Don Smith unit could well have had more receiving coils at even greater distance apart to have received the transmitter's energy. Meyl's unit demonstrate that the units do not work with the 1/ (d squared) transmission reduction by the simple and practical fact that Meyl's input energy was the small output of a signal generator, etc, not any multi-kilowatt RF amplifier set up.

Could any of this information in any published papers be cited in the current article so that either FTL or longitudinal or scalar electromagnetics could be mentioned? Oldspammer (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead

The lead not very clear:
"Wireless power or wireless energy transmission is the transmission of electrical energy from a power source to an electrical load without man-made conductors. Wireless transmission is useful in cases where interconnecting wires are inconvenient, hazardous, or impossible. The problem of wireless power transmission differs from that of wireless telecommunications, such as radio. In the latter, the proportion of energy received becomes critical only if it is too low for the signal to be distinguished from the background noise. With wireless power, efficiency is the more significant parameter. A large part of the energy sent out by the generating plant must arrive at the receiver or receivers to make the system economical.

The most common form of wireless power transmission is carried out using direct induction followed by resonant magnetic induction. Other methods under consideration are electromagnetic radiation in the form of microwaves or lasers and electrical conduction through natural media. It's way too complicated. There is nothing wrong with using big or complex words. It has to be understandable though.--Wyn.junior (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Way too much Tesla

All of these additions seem to be a rehash of off topic material that the primary author, GLPeterson, seems to be shunting around Wikipedia, trying to find a home for it, re: at Wardenclyffe Tower and World Wireless System. I have noted the problems with this material before at Talk:Wardenclyffe Tower#"World Wireless System", "Variant receiver", "Particle beam invention" and some at Talk:World Wireless System#Capacity of Earth but the highlights of the problem here (as noted by others) is that this is way off topic for this article giving way too much WP:UNDUE to a Tesla historical dead end instead of covering the topic. There is also allot of opinion (more like wholesale POVPUSHes by "Tesla" authors such as Corum) being stated in Wikipedia's voice as fact, counter to WP:YESPOV. Articles and books on this topic[1][2][3][4] note Tesla as a short and unsuccessful footnote in Wireless power, not the "go to" authority on the topic. A side problem, which may take us to a Noticeboard, maybe WP:NORN, is the fact that the editor is heavily excerpting and relying on/promoting/pushing publications from his own websites, tfcbooks.com and TESLARADIO.COM, which is getting to the point of violating WP:NOTMIRROR. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The text of the section seems to be trying to conceal the fact that most of the claims for this type of transmission were made by one man, Tesla, 115 years ago. The citations of Tesla's work often omit Tesla's name and the date to conceal the lack of other sources, and several of the citations don't have any scientific facts but are just Tesla's promotional speeches. This is rampant WP:UNDUE weight to a technological dead end, and clearly WP:POVPUSHing by Tesla enthusiasts. As WP editors, you should know better. You need to understand and respect WP's standards for WP:VERIFIABILITY. --Chetvorno^TALK 15:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have note the noted "concealing", pushing, rewording sections about specific "old" Tesla ideas into "some guy some time", and what seem to be bad faith edits/accusations of DAMAGING[5] by GLPeterson. I also note the editors silence on this talk page. This falls into WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, GLPeterson, rather than just reverting let's discuss this here. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My feeling is this section, Electrical Conduction, is conflating two different technologies:

• Resonant electromagnetic energy transfer - The various varieties of this are already discussed in the section Electrodynamic induction method and Resonant inductive coupling. Tesla's experiments used this, and perhaps he should be credited as inventor, but it doesn't involve conduction through the atmosphere or the other technologies which this section is about. The only non-Tesla sources in this section Wei, Leyh, and Kurs describe varieties of resonant energy transfer; they have nothing to do with atmospheric conduction. These are near field techniques, and cannot be used for long-distance power transfer as Tesla envisioned; the longest distance achieved in the sources, at low efficiency, was 20 meters, and more typical distances are 2 meters.
• Tesla's atmospheric conduction ideas - This is supposed to be what this section is about: "disturbed charge of ground and air method" and "...electrical conduction and the flow of current through the upper atmospheric strata.... by the creation of capacitively coupled discharge plasma through the process of atmospheric ionization" and "terrestrial single-conductor surface wave or surface plasmon mode". The only sources supporting that RF energy can be transported in this way are Tesla's from 114 years ago. I don't see any hard evidence that Tesla accomplished any of this - his demonstrations of electric power transfer are accounted for by resonance, or perhaps ordinary radio waves - and no sources are given that any of this has been used for power transfer since. But the article describes them as if they are proven technologies. It should be rewritten to indicate their speculative and unproven nature.

--Chetvorno^TALK 18:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. These sections need to be written using an independent secondary source. Chetvorno changes should be instituted along those lines. I have been rewriting Wardenclyffe Tower (sorry, its on a notepad right now) and have a few points. Per W. Bernard Carlson‎ Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age, and other source I have chased down, Tesla pursued:

• a plan of wireless lighting - he was trying to develop a way to light gas-discharge lamps locally and develop that into something he could market. It worked, sorta, in the pics you see him holding a lit lamp in front of a curtain--> the curtain is hiding a big ass coil that had to be very close to the lamp to get it to work. He seems to have given up on the idea.
• a plan of resonating the entire interior of the Earth. Pump it up with AC, create standing waves of power, tap it anywhere, modulate it through tuned circuits to also send messages.
• a secondary plan (a return circuit?) (that he seemed to be building into Wardenclyffe Tower - hole in the top of the thing with ultraviolet lights mounted in it to ionize the air over it) to conduct electricity to a layer in the atmosphere that he was pretty sure was there. Per [6] "Tesla's other widely-publicized proposal was based on a (wild) idea, first put forward by Mahlon Loomis, that a portion of the atmosphere could be employed as a naturally occurring transmission line. Like Loomis, Tesla was under the mistaken impression that an upper layer of the sky was usable as an electrical conductor to replace terrestrial power lines. The main difference between Loomis and Tesla was the former also thought that upper atmosphere could be treated like a battery that would provide unlimited amounts of electrical power. Tesla added the idea that, like a Geissler tube, the rarified air in the upper atmosphere would glow, providing outdoor nighttime illumination."

Tesla does not seem to have gotten any of this to work, but he was a true believer. He thought if he got the patents and built the prototype his backers would give him all the time in the world to get it to work, because he was sure it would work.

Side note. Teals was not trying to use "radio" so we may want to avoid calling it "Radio Frequency" (RF). He did not believe in that Hertzian crap and would be offended if anyone suggested he did. He believed (up to 1919) in his "True Wireless" system described above (see [7] and Carlson) So "rewritten to indicate their speculative and unproven nature" and truncating it down to a small part of the article (this is just a footnote in history) is the way to go per RS out there---> unless there are more reliable sources out there. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds about right; a WP:NPOV view would describe it as a footnote in history. The info on Tesla is interesting; I'm glad someone is trying to get some accuracy into the Tesla articles. I don't know much about Tesla, but I know when an article is inadequately sourced. Some other issues:

• What do you think should be done with the material on resonant power transfer? Considering its modern importance in RFID, smartcards and powering mobile devices, I think it should be expanded and have a dedicated section, instead of being lumped in with induction in the Electrodynamic induction method section.
• Ironically, I think Tesla is not acknowledged enough in this article for his role in (short range) resonant power transfer, and his promotion of the idea of wireless power generally. Although his long range power transmission ideas were horse manure, his groundbreaking short range experiments founded the field, AFAIK.
• The only piece of experimental evidence for Tesla's long distance transmission of power is his putative experiment in 1900 lighting 200 light bulbs at a distance of 23 miles, mentioned in the timeline. This article says it is probably a myth. Although Tesla kept meticulous lab notes of the period it is not mentioned, and there is no independent confirmation. Do you have any info about it?
• I came across the article Kurt Van Voorhees, "Worldwide Wireless Power Prospects" in Thomas Valone, Ed. (2002) Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy, p. 147. Although the rest of the book is pseudoscientific crap, this article seems to be a reasonably sober engineering assessment of the prospect of Tesla-type power transmission, published in Proc. of Int'l Energy Conversion Engineering Conference. Although of course it doesn't support Tesla's atmospheric conduction ideas, it examines the possibility of transmitting power by exciting resonant frequencies (Schumann resonances) of the Earth-ionosphere waveguide cavity by ELF waves using a Tesla-type transmitter. He concludes it is infeasable (but "promising"). Has a lot of detailed engineering data about Tesla's Wardenclyffe experiments.

--Chetvorno^TALK 06:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think a more realistic section covering RFID, smartcards and powering mobile devices would be an improvement. Tesla does have a place in the article and the current material should (maybe be deleted?) and replaced with something the general public can understand referenced to reliable source, instead of the bafflegab that makes up those sections right now. Any claim such as "23 miles" that can not be reliably referenced should be removed. We need to avoid (remove) all the material that is "Tesla said this - totally unrelated research describes that - therefore we are implying Tesla is correct by putting the two together" .... that stuff is WP:SYNTH. Proc. of Int'l Energy Conversion Engineering Conference would be good in its own section describing it. I would go ahead with edits like you mentioned since there is apparent 100% consensus on this page. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm Responding to WP:ELECTRONICS RfC. It looks like we have a WP:SUMMARY here and the problem is that some of the summaries are too long. The most obvious improvement is to remove the subsections from Wireless_power#Electrical_Conduction. Other long sections with a {{Main}} can also be trimmed. ~KvnG 13:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

How do you feel about the issue of sources? What's happening here is that Fountains of Bryn Mawr and I have been in an edit conflict with an editor GLPeterson. He has been reverting our efforts to rewrite the section Electrical Conduction but despite our invitations refuses to discuss it. Our feeling is that this section, which is about Tesla's 114 year old "atmospheric conduction" ideas, in essence has no credible RSs. There is no evidence that this type of power transmission has ever been demonstrated, or that it is the subject of current research. The only non-Tesla sources Wei, Leyh, and Kurs have nothing to do with "atmospheric" or "earth" transmission but are about power transfer by Resonant inductive coupling between tuned circuits, which is already covered in the Electrodynamic induction method section. This mechanism also accounts for Tesla's results. The section was written by GLPeterson as if these are proven, contemporary technologies for power transmission. We believe the NPOV is to rewrite it as a small historical section describing Tesla's ideas as a technology that didn't pan out. --Chetvorno^TALK 15:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, been busy at work. I'm just trying to find sources, read up on Tesla's World Wireless ideas, before starting on the section. The info you gave above is great. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem, been reading myself. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion on this issue? --Chetvorno^TALK 02:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

On closer look, Electrical Conduction does not appear to summarize World Wireless System; I have made adjustments. I still think a lot of the Tesla-specific speculative, theoretical and historical material can and should be moved to World Wireless System. Where available, secondary sources and information gleaned from them can replace information from primary sources. ~KvnG 13:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. We're planning to rewrite the section eliminating all reference to long-distance and noninductive power transmission, or possibly delete the section and move any reference to Tesla up to the Electromagnetic induction section above, since there is no RS that he did anything but short-range inductive power transfer. I'm just researching sources now. How does that sound? --Chetvorno^TALK 15:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I think the World Wireless System article is even worse than this one, and an enormous amount of speculative, pseudoscientific stuff added by the Tesla cult needs to be edited out of that article. I might tackle that one next. --Chetvorno^TALK 15:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

For controversial changes, I think paced incremental edits are a better way to proceed than a rewrite. ~KvnG 16:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Since there are few, or no reliable secondary sources meeting WP:RS in the section "Electrical Conduction" I see no way to judge a "controversial change". Replacing it wholesale with a section at least referenced to secondary sources is not out of the question, unless a whole lot of references to reliable secondary sources show up real soon. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, take a look at the non-Tesla sources, ~KvnG. They don't say they refer to Tesla's system. --Chetvorno^TALK 01:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Another problematic section is the Timeline of wireless power. In addition to overemphasizing all things Tesla, it contains a great deal of trivial and/or spam entries, which drown out the important milestones. Following a suggestion of Fountains of Bryn Mawr I propose that the content in the Timeline be pruned to only relevant material and combined with the sourced content from the Electrical Conduction section into a normal "History" section. This is the appropriate place for the Tesla material, as virtually every text and engineering article on wireless power regards it as only of historical interest. Thoughts? Opinions? Objections? --Chetvorno^TALK 20:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Was talked about elsewhere but, yes, support the proposed changes by Chetvorno. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Not quite finished with the History section; will be adding additional info and citations. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Its a little WP:REFBLOAT-y but probably unavoidable at this stage. The gist I get reading through Carlson (at least his take on the whole matter) is that "Tesla believed" more than "Tesla claimed" i.e. he knew what he was looking for before he started out his experiments ---> stationary waves in an electrical Earth that he could amplify through resonance. So when he lit a bulb at one close distance he was sure it was his discovered stationary waves that were doing it, and therefore it would work at any distance according to the theory he had formulated. Its a take on the whole deal, may even be true. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd guess you're right about him, but that's a bad flaw in a scientist or engineer. Go ahead and edit the section if you want. On the issue of refs, I'm sure sooner or later the Teslaphiles will attack this section. They'll cut down the references. The WP:REFBLOAT essay is just that, not a policy. I don't really see the problem with a lot of citations as long as they are not being used to distort the truth, make a WP:FRINGE theory seem mainstream, which these are not. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll leave well enough alone, may do some additions later. I am finding that the antidote to myth is detail, so the refs don't bother me for one, you tack is probably the best. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Electrical Conduction removal

I am planning to remove the section "Electrical Conduction" with reference in talk for now on the grounds it is un-encyclopedic. This actually has to be a "thing" to be in Wikipedia. This does not reference a "thing" but instead a Nikola Tesla theory (which most main stream sources point to being bunk). Most of the references in this section point to Tesla primary theoretical sources or evaluations by "Tesla authors" of those sources but offer no real information that this was or is viable. There are NO main stream sources pointing out this is a "thing". Most of the section is written in the incorrect tone, per: WP:YESPOV, of stating (Tesla's) opinions as facts and stating seriously contested assertions (by Tesla's) as facts. The editor adding this material is citing collected publications on his own websites, including his own writings, as sources. This falls down to basic WP:V at this point unless "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." can be cited. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree absolutely with the above on the removal of the existing section. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, it was a semi-legitimate system in the days before radio was invented. There's an experiment where they stick spikes in the ground, and were able to send information a fair distance (tens or hundreds of feet). I don't think it had anything to do with Tesla. I saw it demoed on one of those science documentaries (I think it was Shock and Awe: The Story of Electricity).GliderMaven (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Wireless Power, 2008 Entry No. 3

"Efficient Wireless Transmission of Power Using Resonators with Coupled Electric Fields" by G. E. Leyh and M. D. Kennan, Nevada Lightning Laboratory, explores the use of a capacitive path between the top-loads of two grounded resonance transformers tuned to the same frequency as a means for transmitting electrical energy. "Figure 3 shows the Simplorer circuit model used for this evaluation, including the RF source, primary and secondary transmitting coils, lumped element components representing the mutual inductance and capacitance, primary and secondary receiving coils, and the resistive test load."  This diagram is identical to Tesla's circuit for the wireless transmission of electrical energy using the electrical conduction method.

Excerpts
"Tesla’s system [Tesla, Nikola, APPARATUS FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY, U.S. Patent No. 649,621, May 15, 1900] minimizes radiated fields and instead relies upon actual conduction, replacing the transmission line with two non-wire conductors.  In this case one conductor is the Earth, and the other appears to be either a capacitive path or a direct ionized path to the ionosphere according to different descriptions of the system."

"Of the designs mentioned above, the approach outlined in this paper is perhaps most similar to Tesla’s system, since it does not rely upon far-field or radiated power, or magnetic coupling."

"The transfer of energy in this approach occurs primarily through the electric fields between the receiver and transmitter."

"We tested two extreme cases of grounding technique, one case where both transformers shared a long, single wire to Earth ground, and another case where each secondary had independent connections to ground, located 51 meters apart.  Both cases demonstrated nearly equal levels of coupling, with the independent grounding arrangement delivering about 2% less total output to R_load than the shared arrangement."

Conclusion
The Leyh-Kennan paper cited in the 2008 entry has everything to do with the electrical conduction method.  The transfer of energy is due to electrostatic resonant coupling, that is to say, displacement current by means of capacitive coupling between the two high potential elevated terminals and conventional current between the ground terminal electrodes associated with the two 1/4 wavelength helical resonator structures.

Respectfully and sincerely,
Gary Peterson, GPeterson (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we do not interpret scientific papers and draw "conclusions", such as one method is equivalent to another (see WP:PSTS). I have reworded the entry accordingly. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above. GPeterson, I respect Tesla's achievements, and they should be acknowledged in this article. And I think the Leyh paper has a place in this article. But I feel it is essential to distinguish what Tesla did from what he didn't do (or can't be confirmed to have done), and the limited nature of what he did. Both Tesla's documented demonstrations and the Leyh experiments worked by resonant coupled electric or magnetic fields, not conduction. These "near fields" cannot be used to transmit power long distances. However Tesla claimed in his patent to have another method, by which he could transmit power long distances, which involved ionic conduction through the atmosphere: "flow of electrical energy, by conduction, through the earth and the air". There seems to be no evidence that he or anyone else got this to work. The Leyh paper supports these points:

• Tesla's patent claimed "Tesla’s system... relies upon actual conduction... In this case one conductor is the Earth, and the other appears to be either a capacitive path or a direct ionized path to the ionosphere according to different descriptions of the system." But if it used a "capacitive path" it wouldn't be "conduction" as stated in the patent. Note the paper gives no sources besides Tesla's patent that this was ever actually accomplished or any scientific opinion that it is feasible.

• The Leyh experiments did not work by Tesla's "conduction" method but by resonant coupling: "This paper explores the potential of using coupled electric fields between two tuned resonant transformers as a means for transmitting considerable power (>500W) over laboratory-scale distances (5 to 20m)"   "However this approach differs significantly from Tesla’s patented system in two important ways: A) There is no ionized path between the devices,..."

• "The approach outlined in this paper... does not rely upon far-field or radiated power..." So therefore Leyh's experiments, and Tesla's if they were similar, rely on near-field coupling and cannot be used for long distance transmission.

• Leyh used a metal "curtain" shield to confirm the power transfer was not caused by current through the atmosphere: "Upon craning the curtain into position between the two coils, the received power dropped from 520 watts to 28 watts. After removing the curtain once again the received power returned to 520 watts, confirming that the electric field is in fact the principal source of coupling between the two coils." So in spite of the common ground, there was no "circuit" between the transmitter and receiver; "conduction" didn't play a part.

• Your conclusion is correct that the Leyh experiments are due to electrostatic resonant coupling but this doesn't have anything to do with Tesla's "disturbed charge of ground and air" ideas. Displacement current is not the same as conduction current or ionization, it is not a current at all, but merely a changing electric field. Both Tesla's and Leyh's demonstrations come under the heading of ordinary resonant power transfer and have nothing to do with Tesla's patent claim of "...a propagation or flow of electrical energy, by conduction, through the earth and the air strata...".

--Chetvorno^TALK 20:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Chris (User:Chetvorno),

Tesla wrote about instances in which the connection between the two elevated terminals is, in part, by electrostatic induction or capacitive coupling.

In some cases when small amounts of energy are required the high elevation of the terminals, and more particularly of the receiving – terminal D, may not be necessary, since, especially when the frequency of the currents is very high, a sufficient amount of energy may be collected at that terminal by electrostatic induction from the upper air strata, which are rendered conducting by the active terminal of the transmitter or through which the currents from the same are conveyed. —- SYSTEM OF TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY, Sept. 2, 1897, U.S. Patent No. 645,576, Mar. 20, 1900.

This means a wholly conductive path between the transmitting and the receiving stations is not an absolute requirement.  A portion the transmitter’s energy can be collected at the receiver by electrostatic induction alone.  This also suggests that a flow of energy may occur between two high-altitude ionized regions by means of electrostatic induction, that is to say, by so-called displacement current.  Once the initial station-to-upper-atmosphere connections are established by the means of displacement current followed by electrical conduction through the subsequent vertical ionized paths, each high-altitude ionized region grows in size in the direction of its counterpart with the passage of time.

I have likewise observed that this region of decidedly-noticeable influence continuously enlarges as time goes on, and the discharge is allowed to pass not unlike a conflagration which slowly spreads, this being possibly due to the gradual electrification or ionization of the air or to the formation of less insulating gaseous compounds. —- SYSTEM OF TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY, Sept. 2, 1897, U.S. Patent No. 645,576, Mar. 20, 1900.

Keep in mind also that a highly ionized path between the elevated terminal of the Tesla coil resonance transformer transmitter to the upper atmospheric strata may never be established, with the coupling being by electrostatic induction alone.

The earth is 4,000 miles radius.  Around this conducting earth is an atmosphere.  The earth is a conductor; the atmosphere above is a conductor, only there is a little stratum between the conducting atmosphere and the conducting earth which is insulating. . . . Now, you realize right away that if you set up differences of potential at one point, say, you will create in the media corresponding fluctuations of potential. But, since the distance from the earth's surface to the conducting atmosphere is minute, as compared with the distance of the receiver at 4,000 miles, say, you can readily see that the energy cannot travel along this curve and get there, but will be immediately transformed into conduction currents, and these currents will travel like currents over a wire with a return.  The energy will be recovered in the circuit, not by a beam that passes along this curve and is reflected and absorbed, . . . but it will travel by conduction and will be recovered in this way. -— Cooper, Drury W., internal document of the law firm Kerr, Page & Cooper, New York City, 1916.

You wrote:

> Tesla's patent claimed "Tesla’s system... relies upon actual conduction... In this case one conductor is the Earth, and the other appears to be either a capacitive path or a direct ionized path to the ionosphere according to different descriptions of the system." But if it used a "capacitive path" it wouldn't be "conduction" as stated in the patent.

In writing, "Tesla’s system . . . relies upon actual conduction. . . . In this case one conductor is the Earth, and the other appears to be either a capacitive path or a direct ionized path to the ionosphere according to different descriptions of the system" we learn that Greg has generalized the term "conduction" to include the passage of electrical energy by displacement current through that portion of the Figure 3. circuit labeled "C_coupled."

> Note the paper gives no sources besides Tesla's patent that this was ever actually accomplished or any scientific opinion that it is feasible.

You fail to recognize that Greg himself reports this accomplishment, reproduction of Tesla’s system for the transmission of electrical energy without wires, which relies upon actual conduction (Greg's words) one conductor being the earth and the other the capacitive path between the two elevated terminals.

"the independent grounding arrangement [delivered] about 2% less total output to R_load than the shared arrangement."

Its being the first properly published report of empirical research into the Tesla wireless system and the study's successful outcome is why the paper is such a significant breakthrough.

> "The approach outlined in this paper... does not rely upon far-field or radiated power..." So therefore Leyh's experiments, and Tesla's if they were similar, rely on near-field coupling and cannot be used for long distance transmission.

Yes, Greg reported two differences between his approach and Tesla's.

A) There is no ionized path between the devices

Greg acknowledges that a "capacitive path" between the two elevated terminals is within the scope of Tesla's invention, as explained above, so difference "A" is not relevant to this discussion; Greg's setup and Tesla's setup are the same.  Greg's Tesla coil transmitter and his Tesla coil receiver were not spread farther apart because of the space limitation inside of the building in which the experiments were conducted.

B) The receiver performs a synchronous detection of the received energy in order to optimize conversion efficiency.

This is simply a means by which the alternating-current output of a Tesla coil receiving transformer may be changed to direct current; it too is not relevant to this discussion.

About Greg's use of the term "far-field or radiated power," while the configuration of the electromagnetic field associated with an ordinary radio antenna changes as it moves out of the near-field zone, as described by presently accepted antenna and propagation theory, the configuration of the electric field disturbance associated with a Tesla coil transmitter remains essentially unchanged as it moves out beyond the near-field zone, through the electromagnetic radiation far-field zone, all the way to the grounded, synchronized Tesla coil receiver.  Strictly speaking and convention aside, the Tesla wireless system cannot be described as a far-field system.  Also, in this case, "far-field" and "radiated" appear to be used as synonymous terms.

> Leyh used a metal "curtain" shield to confirm the power transfer was not caused by current through the atmosphere: "Upon craning the curtain into position between the two coils, the received power dropped from 520 watts to 28 watts. After removing the curtain once again the received power returned to 520 watts, confirming that the electric field is in fact the principal source of coupling between the two coils."

Greg wrote, "The transfer of energy in this approach occurs primarily through the electric fields between the receiver and transmitter."  That is to say, primarily by capacitive coupling and displacement current with slight magnetic field coupling.  Furthermore, Greg describes coupling by conduction through Earth between the two ground terminal electrodes.

> . . . So in spite of the common ground, there was no "circuit" between the transmitter and receiver; "conduction" didn't play a part.

First, there are two independent ground terminal electrodes; second, there are two paths over which the current passes, Earth and region above it. Break either of these connections and the circuit changes from "closed" to "open."  You know, like an on-off switch?

> . . . Both Tesla's and Leyh's demonstrations come under the heading of ordinary resonant power transfer and have nothing to do with Tesla's patent claim of ". . . a propagation or flow of electrical energy, by conduction, through the earth and the air strata. . . ."

Resonant power transfer is by definition electrodynamic induction, the wireless transmission of electrical energy between the two coils of a resonance transformer.  The predominant mode of energy transfer in Greg's demonstration cannot be resonant power transfer because he has provided empirical evidence the magnetic field coupling is not of sufficient strength to account for all of the power dissipated in R_load.

Regards,
Gary, GPeterson (talk) 06:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

These lengthy, confused efforts to reinterpret the Leyh paper to conflate two processes which are distinguished in the paper, atmospheric conduction and power transfer through coupled electric fields, are SYNTH and not relevant to WP per ASSERT and YESPOV. Again, displacement current is not "conduction", it is a changing electric field, see the article. If Tesla's power transmission took place by "coupled electric fields",  a "capacitive path",   "electrostatic induction", as Leyh's did, then it is ordinary electrostatic resonant power transfer and belongs in the Electrostatic induction method section and does not merit its own section. Note the section we are considering eliminating is titled "Electric Conduction".

Cheers, --Chetvorno^TALK 16:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@ GPeterson. Your comparison of primary sourced Tesla material to primary sourced Greg Leyh/Mike Kennan material may be totally right or totally wrong. The problem is Wikipedia is not the place to publish your views/comparisons of primary sources. So your on the wrong track from the start. Also the Greg Leyh/Mike Kennan system is not the Tesla system. Tesla claimed his system worked primarily by ground conduction at any distance around the world. We have Chapter 13 and 14 of Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age By W. Bernard Carlson covering this. This world wide stationary wave system may have been a figment of Tesla's imagination. That is not what Greg Leyh/Mike Kennan came up with. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Electrical Conduction

See also: World Wireless System

U.S. patent 649,621, APPARATUS FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY, May 15, 1900.
   An electrical oscillator configured for wireless transmission is shown on the left.  The identically tuned resonant receiving transformer is to the right.

This wireless method, by means of concatenated tuned circuits, was proposed as early as 1904.  It depends upon resonant inductive coupling, the electrical conductivity of earth,. capacitive coupling, and, in a special case, the electrical conductivity of plasma.  Energy transmission is achieved by charging and discharging the air terminal electrode of a grounded resonance transformer electrical oscillator transmitter, generating an alternating electric field.  This electric field can couple with a similarly designed grounded resonance transformer electrical energy receiver tuned to the same frequency.  Electrical energy is transferred between the transmitter and receiver by electrical conduction between the ground terminal electrodes when this coupling is established.  In this way electric lamps can be lit and electric motors turned at mid-range distances. The transmitted energy can be detected at greater distances.  This form of wireless transmission, in which alternating current electricity passes through the earth with an equivalent electrical displacement through the air above it, was demonstrated in 2008 over distances up to 12 meters, achieving power transmission efficiencies superior to the resonant electrical induction method.

The electrical energy passes through the earth, and through the lower portion of Earth's atmosphere.  Terrestrial current flow is induced by capacitive coupling in this region.  With sufficient transmitter power output, according to theory, electrical conduction and the flow of current through the upper atmospheric strata starting at a barometric pressure of approximately 130 millimeters of mercury or 7.9 miles (12.7 km) is made possible by the creation of capacitively coupled discharge plasma through the process of atmospheric ionization.

Theory further states that the periodic charging and discharging the resonance transformer transmitter's air terminal electrode periodically alters Earth's electrostatic charge  This redistribution of charge results in the passage of electric current through the ground along with an accompanying guided surface wave.  With sufficient transmitter power output, the electrostatic potential is disturbed over Earth's entire surface.  Upon reaching the earth antipode relative to the resonance transformer transmitter, reflection of the guided surface wave takes place.  This results in the establishment of a terrestrial standing wave pattern across Earth's surface.  The fundamental earth resonance frequency is approximately 11.78 Hz.  A higher harmonic of this fundamental frequency is used.

"The frequency should be smaller than twenty thousand per second, though shorter waves might be practicable"

The electrical conduction method is real, as demonstrated by Leyh and Kennan in 2008.  They achieve wireless power transmission by coupled electric fields between two top-loaded 1/4 wavelength helical resonators with a ground return circuit, exactly the same as Tesla’s original 1900 concept.
GPeterson (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It is already covered in the Electrostatic induction method and History section. Leyh and Kennan are cited. Did you read it? In electronics this is called "capacitive coupling", you are the only one who calls it "the electrical conduction method". As it says in the paper itself, and Fountains of Bryn Mawr and I told you above, Leyh's experiments are different from Tesla's unsuccessful long distance power transmission ideas. And it doesn't have anything to do with "...electrical energy... [passing] ...through the troposphere and stratosphere" and the other unsourced, WP:FRINGE, WP:OR material you have been trying to reinsert into the article.--Chetvorno^TALK 16:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Burks,

Pardon me sir but you are mistaken in your belief that Leyh and Kennan are using resonant inductive coupling vis á vis their coupling of two top loaded 1/4 wavelength helical resonators by means of "electric fields.".  This being said, electrodynamic induction is, indeed, used to couple electrical energy from the primary inductor to the grounded helical resonator of their Tesla coil wireless power transmitter and from the helical resonator to the secondary inductor of their grounded Tesla coil wireless power receiving transformer.

Sincerely,
Gary Peterson, GPeterson (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you're finally talking rather than just reverting GPeterson. If you'll remember, we invited you several times to participate when we were doing the rewrite. I left a friendly invitation on your personal page. All you did was repeatedly revert other editor's attempts to improve the article. But what does your above comment have to do with "...electrical energy... [passing] ...through the troposphere and stratosphere", and "...energy transmission... achieved by... periodically altering Earth's electrostatic charge" and the other unsourced WP:FRINGE theories that you are trying to WP:PUSH back into this article against consensus? --Chetvorno^TALK 22:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

So you now acknowledge that you are making a mistake in asserting that with the Leyh-Kennan wireless apparatus, energy is transferred between the two resonators by resonant inductive coupling?
GPeterson (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe we already had this discussion. See re: Timeline of Wireless Power, 2008 Entry No. 3 and Chris (User:Chetvorno) above. Did you want to talk about the article? --Chetvorno^TALK 23:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you now acknowledge that you are making a mistake in asserting that with the Leyh-Kennan wireless apparatus, energy is transferred between the two resonators by resonant inductive coupling? Yes or no.
GPeterson (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@GPeterson, here is the first hurdle. Please supply the reliable secondary source that brings together Leyh-Kennan's wireless apparatus and the work of Nikola Tesla. We can all read it and take it from there. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

Would an explicit statement from Mr. Leyh tying his wireless demonstration apparatus together with Tesla's wireless work of 1900 satisfy you?

Sincerely,
Gary Peterson, GPeterson (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is " Leyh, G. E.; Kennan, M. D. (September 28, 2008). "Efficient wireless transmission of power using resonators with coupled electric fields". NAPS 2008 40th North American Power Symposium, Calgary, September 28-30 2008. Inst. of Electrical and Electronic Engineers" is a primary source. So, no, it would not "satisfy" Wikipedia per WP:PSTS. You need to show (several?) secondary sources citing that work or reaching the same conclusions. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem, the statement is not from the cited paper.  Also, as you know, a primary source is not prohibited.  Furthermore, its not Wikipedia that I have to convince, it's you my friend.  So, I ask you once again, will an explicit statement from Mr. Leyh tying his wireless transmission-reception demonstration apparatus together with Tesla's wireless work of 1900 satisfy you?
GPeterson (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok?, the statement is from where? Is it published? Is it peer reviewed? Is Leyh a noted historian re:Tesla? "a primary source is not prohibited" is a misreading of WP:PST ---> Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. And..errr, yes you do have to convince Wikipedia, as in this project has consensus guidelines, not to mention content policy that we haven't even met yet. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

In answering my question with the question "ok?" does this indicate your willingness to read Mr. Leyh's statement?

Sincerely,
Gary Peterson, GPeterson (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You can post or link anything you want in talk. If it meets Wikipedia's requirements re: a reliable, published source it can be weighed accordingly (and not just by me). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

It appears our indirect "first hurtle" approach vis á vis the Leyh-Kennan wireless transmission-reception apparatus and Tesla's work, and the matter for which consensus is actually being sought is no good.  Thanks anyway for the suggestion.

Sincerely
Gary Peterson, GPeterson (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, there is nothing in the Leyh-Kennan paper that supports Tesla's power transmission ideas. The paper says "...this approach differs significantly from Tesla's patented system in two important ways: A. There is no ionized path between the devices...". Tesla's patent specifically says his proposed system works by "...a propagation or flow of electrical energy, by conduction, through the air strata...". Ionization. As stated in the paper, the Leyh experiments transferred power by electric fields, ordinary resonant capacitive coupling; they used a metal "curtain" between the terminals to rule out ionization. --Chetvorno^TALK 13:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The Leyh-Kennan wireless transmission-reception demonstration apparatus, schematically represented in Figure 3 of Efficient Wireless Transmission of Power Using Resonators with Coupled Electric Fields is identical in all of its essential elements to the electrical circuit schematically represented in SYSTEM OF TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY, Sept. 2, 1897, U.S. Patent No. 645,576, Mar. 20, 1900 and APPARATUS FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY, Sept. 2, 1897, U.S. Patent No. 649,621, May 15, 1900.  These elements are the two resonance transformers, the two air terminal electrodes, the two ground terminal electrodes, interconnecting conductors, and the terrestrial ground plane.  In validating their model of electrical energy flowing from the grounded resonant transformer transmitter through an ambient electric field to the grounded resonant transformer receiver and then back to the transmitter through Earth, they also validate the short-range functionality of the original Tesla invention.

References

A question for proponents of Tesla's system

This is a question for the editor(s) who have repeatedly inserted possibly WP:OR and WP:FRINGE material about Nikola Tesla.

Describe, briefly and using standard scientific terminology, the mechanism by which energy emitted from a transmitter using Tesla's technology is transferred to a receiver, making reference to the means by which the energy is carried, the medium through which it travels, and the cause of any losses or gains of energy during the process.

It should be possible to answer this question in a few sentences. Roches (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That would be fascinating. I've never understood how an arc struck from the top of the Wardenclyffe tower was supposed to know that it has to go up into the stratosphere, find some ionized layer, and then travel hundreds of miles to come down at a tower in Butte Montana, when every picture of a Tesla coil I've ever seen has arcs snapping at the ground around the base of the coil. If Tesla couldn't plausibly explain how it worked to his backers (when his financing depended on it!), then none of the ..."enthusiasts" since are likely able, either. We'll never get an explanation because it can't be done. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If "resonance" is such a cure-all, why are crystal sets so hard to hear? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. BTW, it is not "editors" who have been inserting this material, it is one editor GLPeterson, who has for years WP:OWNed the Tesla section, tenaciously reverting anyone who tries to correct his unsourced WP:FRINGE, WP:OR theories. He has an ANI complaint] and Fringe Theories Noticeboard complaint against him for his disruptive editing and Tesla WP:PUSHing. I recently (12/8) replaced his Tesla section with a properly sourced History section and since then he has been repeatedly reinserting his fantasies into the article. I think it is time for some sanctions against GLPeterson. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that editor should be sanctioned. (I didn't name them to discourage possible non-replies such as "this is a personal attack.") There are legitimate scientific explanations for Tesla's work, and the disruptive edits are unfair to readers and editors who are trying to get it right. It's all the more frustrating because the unacceptable content is scattered throughout the article and can't be separated from the legitimate content. If this is has gone on for years, it's time for it to stop. Roches (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I brought an ANI edit warring complaint against GLPeterson, for his actions on this article, if anyone would like to comment. That of course includes you, GLPeterson. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

...aaand he got a 48 hour block. --Chetvorno^TALK 03:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Some edits to the section involving Tesla

There is a well-written explanation of some of Tesla's early experiments using modern terminology, particularly the one where Tesla lit gas discharge tubes by holding them in an LC circuit. I added a restatement of the meaning of the inverse-fifth-power dependence of the near-field effect on distance, saying that doubling the distance reduces the transmission by a factor of 32.

I also added some discussion of Tesla's wireless transmission proposal that is a paraphrase of the cited patent. Tesla describes the need for conductors at high altitudes to act as receivers, a detail which I have never seen in proponents' descriptions. The comparison to the plasma globe at this point is also mine, as I think this is what Tesla had in mind, and the plasma globe works on the same principle. This explanation, particularly the latter part, might be WP:SYNTH, but my goal in including it was to attempt to describe the method and its limitations without using the extensive WP:OR arguments that have been put forth before. Roches (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks okay. My idea was that, since we already have plenty of articles about Tesla's scheme ( World Wireless System, Wardenclyffe Tower, Magnifying transmitter and a section of Tesla coil) and since Tesla didn't accomplish long-distance power transmission anyway, it's probably best not to say too much about it in this article. In other words, this article is about real wireless power. But your additions look appropriate to me. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a nice boil-down of this topic in a review of "Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age"/W. Bernard Carlson by ERIC P. WENAAS over at the IEEE [8] Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Please use recent sources to explain electromagnetism

I have made another WP:BOLD removal of content supported by a single author, Charles Proteus Steinmetz, who wrote in the 1920s. If Steinmetz performed some important experiments, they can be briefly summarized, but theoretical explanations cannot be based on obsolete scientific ideas.

Please use only sources that rely on the Standard Model for explanations of electromagnetism. The Standard Model article is fairly technical; electromagnetism is a bit more accessible. But both articles describe the scientific consensus, meaning a body of knowledge that is well supported by research and which explains all the phenomena that are currently well understood.

History of electromagnetic theory describes historical approaches to explaining electromagnetism. These are interesting for historical context. But the results of any experiment, no matter when it was performed, can be explained using the current model of electromagnetism. (Historical models might say how a researcher working in the 1920s or 1900s thought their experiment worked, but they can only be used if the experiment is also interpreted using current theories.)

That doesn't mean that the Standard Model is true or complete; the article explains what's wrong with it, which is a subject of current research. But this article has to rely on reliable, up-to-date sources. It has to be written using the knowledge that would be contained in a modern college-level physics textbook, or for that matter in Wikipedia itself. It's perfectly acceptable to use simplified versions of modern theories to explain phenomena for a broad audience, but it's not acceptable to use obsolete theories even if they seem simpler than modern ones. Roches (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

That's another section that was written by GLPeterson. --Chetvorno^TALK 12:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought as much, but as before I don't want to say anything that could be misinterpreted as a personal attack. I'm certain you and the other responsible editors wouldn't have attributed content to a single 90-year-old source. GLPeterson's additions do not cite reliable sources because the sources are so out of date. This justifies removing the content, even if there is a lot of it.

I removed the technical flag as a bold edit, as I don't think the article really is too technical, and GLPeterson used the "too technical" flag to justify a revert. It was inserted in April 2014 without a discussion on the talk page. Roches (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

People were baffled by GLPeterson's verbose 19th century gobbledygook. I've been working on a rewrite that is in line with modern wireless power texts like Agbinya and Shinohara, but I have a number of other commitments. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't like GLPeterson's use of the "too technical" flag to justify re-adding that verbose 19th century gobbledygook. I'll try to watch this page, and if you do happen to get a chance to update the article, please leave a message on my talk page and I'll be around to support your edits. (The same applies for anyone else who wants to bring this in line with current knowledge.)

Since the issue with this article is the idea that someone working 110 years ago got it all right, I'd like to share this bit I found in one of Tesla's patents:

"...assuming the now generally accepted theories of scientists to be correct, the effects thus produced are attributable to molecular bombardment, condenser action, and electric or etheric disturbances." (US Patent 454622, page 2; Nikola Tesla, 1891)

The context is a carbon disk inside an evacuated glass globe being made to incandesce by applying a high-voltage current. One of Einstein's annus mirabilis papers specifically addressed the photoelectric effect. Roches (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow. "...etheric disturbances." Tesla was ahead of his time, but he certainly couldn't be considered an authority on wireless power by modern standards.

My feeling is the removal of the tag is perfectly justified. The existing article could use a rewrite but is not "too technical"; this is a technical subject and requires a certain amount of technical engineering content. I agree with your essay above. If readers were confused by the technical content, they were more confused by the archaic 19th century language that was stuck in to try to "explain" it. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I second these changes, seem very good. I came across a similar citation style in History of electromagnetic theory put in by another "Tesla warrior". That article is still a mess with large parts cited to a 1918 source, or older. Moving into the modern era is a good idea. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

In conformance with the views of Roches and Fountains of Bryn Mawr above, I propose to rewrite a good deal of the body of the article to add more technical material, organize it better, bring the article up to date with modern wireless engineering using modern terminology, and source it properly. Is that okay with everybody? --Chetvorno^TALK 09:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. That would be much appreciated. Roches (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Sounds good, a flow from WP:OBVIOUS in the lead and maybe an overview (tending towards "where am I going to see this now?") to technical in the body would work. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to WP:Writing better articles, that's great! Yes, it's going to be hard to get from the overview to the technical stuff. Wireless power is really a bunch of different technologies (with different terminology) whose only link is through the complicated electromagnetic field (freq. of the waves or near/far region of the field) --Chetvorno^TALK 20:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The very incomplete rough draft I was working on is here: User:Chetvorno/work7 (I know; it's too technical). Any comments, suggestions or criticism would be welcome. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. The previous issues of contention are not addressed.--GPeterson (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

While the recent modifications by User:Chetvorno and User:Roches have some merit, the previous issues of contention are still to be addressed.--GPeterson (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What issues are those? --Chetvorno^TALK 22:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of the “Electrical conduction” method section (a.k.a. the disturbed charge of ground and air method) and placement under “Near-field or non-radiative techniques.”--GPeterson (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

(I should note that I did not see this article until the issues arose on the admin board.) Some of the issues described above seem to be about an experiment that was presented at a conference in 2008, which is not a sufficiently reliable source to support a major claim. Since only published material can be used on Wikipedia, only the written abstract for the presentation could be used, and that is not sufficient to support several paragraphs of text. Personal communications, whether verbal or written, cannot be used here either.

Conference presentations are like letters or communications to peer-reviewed journals; they are usually followed by a full article, if the experimental work 'pans out'. But even an article in a peer-reviewed journal is still a primary source and might violate Wikipedia's original research policy. Only when there are secondary scientific sources, such as review articles and textbooks, can we really be sure that material is not original research.

Wikipedia's policies about original research are strict, but clearly defined. GLPeterson, if you want to add content to the article, please discuss it here first, and please provide any other sources you may have. These will need to be published and verifiable. The content will also need to use standard, modern scientific terminology. The use of obsolete terms like "Hertzian wave" and "transient" made the disputed content very hard to understand. It will also need to be consistent with current scientific understanding. That doesn't mean there aren't errors in our model, and it doesn't mean there won't be major advances in the future, but we do know where we were wrong in the past.

Please understand that it may be possible that the content cannot be adapted to meet Wikipedia's criteria for original research and verifiability. I am willing to offer advice and others likely are as well, provided of course that you assume good faith and work collaboratively. But it may be the case that you will have to find another place to post some, most, or all of the content about Tesla's theories. If we cannot come to an agreement here in the talk page, it may become necessary for the administrators to make a decision. Roches (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Roches. I'll cooperate if you will.--GPeterson (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I in general agree with Roches. See WP:Righting great wrongs, GLPeterson. --Chetvorno^TALK 03:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

GLPeterson, Talk page comments are added at the bottom of the discussion. When you interleave your comments with others it destroys the order of entries. See WP:TALKPAGE for help. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

One small suggestion. The lead is a little WP:JARGON for a nonspecialist reader re: "from a power source to an electrical load". One source talks about "device" (but its about use in devices). Maybe something like "from a power source to its ultimate use". The term "electrical load", if it needs to be introduced, could be put in the LEAD second paragraph or in the Overview. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

How is that? BTW, do you have a wide (HD) monitor? If so, I wonder if you could look at the page and tell me how it looks on a wide screen. I only have an old 4:3 aspect ratio monitor. Does the table render ok? Thanks. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead looks good. Article layout looks good on a wide screen. I think guidelines recommend pages work at 1024 across pixels, although I can't seem to find that value in a guideline, maybe they dropped it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes to summary table

GLPeterson, you need to source your work, particularly if you revert sourced material. Where are you getting these dB figures from? The table is just a qualitative summary of the differences between the various technologies for nontechnical people. Microwave or laser beams have a small angular spread and have to be precisely aimed at the receiver, so these are characterized as "high" directivity, while inductive or capacitive coupling is more tolerant of angular alignment of the coils or capacitor plates, so these are "low" directivity. The precise decibel power loss due to directivity depends on the angle, the separation, what type of antennas are used or the size and shape of the coils or capacitive areas, so I don't see that it makes sense to give a figure. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I can only echo Chetvorno's concerns. 54 dBi is a completely meaningless number for microwave power transfer; it makes no sense at all. Where is the reference for any of this?GliderMaven (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Reintroduction of unsourced pseudoscientific content

I am concerned that the latest edits by GLPeterson appear to be a reintroduction of the same unsourced pseudoscientific content which was recently removed from the article and was repeatedly reinserted against consensus. My concerns:

• His addition of "surface plasmon waves" or "bound-mode electromagnetic surface waves" in the Overview section and the new section Bound-mode electromagnetic surface wave is an expanded repetition of material from his old pseudoscientific "Electrical Conduction" section which was removed. The sources he gives, Corum, White, Polman, and Greffet, are all WP:PRIMARY SOURCES and none refers to wireless power except Corum, a well known "alternative" energy writer. As far as I can tell, no mainstream secondary wireless power WP:RS source mentions the use of this technology for transmitting power.
• In the Tesla's experiments section he has reintroduced the disturbed charge of ground and air method from the old "Electrical conduction" section, with the same inadequate sources.
• In the "Directivity" column of the table in the "Overview" section, he has replaced the previous sourced content with cryptic unsourced decibel figures, refused to explain where they come from, and reverted efforts to restore the sourced content.
• In the Introduction and elsewhere he has changed the definition of wireless power to break out the "magnetodynamic" rotating magnet method as a separate method. Apparently he doesn't understand that rotating coupled magnets transfer power by electromagnetic fields, as other wireless power techniques do.
• GLPeterson is still refusing to give edit comments or explain his edits on this Talk page.

--Chetvorno^TALK 21:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted changes to the article because there was no obvious improvement and allot of jargon/double speak was re-introduced. If there is such a thing as "Bound-mode electromagnetic surface wave" power transmission it should have several main stream sources supporting it at that name (and that would not be Corum). Please re-add material judiciously if it meets Wikipedia's referencing and encyclopedic writing requirements. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... two of us raised concerns 3 minutes apart. The next step is to cover the rational for recent additions in this talk per WP:BRD. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

GLPeterson, since these changes are controversial, let's discuss them here rather than just reverting, which can get us blocked for edit-warring. --Chetvorno^TALK 03:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)