100W Wireless and Single-Wire Power Transmission

[NickZ]

  It didn't. But, I wont' bore you with the details.  I can see that I'm wasting my breath, on you.
  Believe what you will...

[allcanadian]

@NickZ

It didn't. But, I wont' bore you with the details.  I can see that I'm wasting my breath, on you.
  Believe what you will...

Why would you think you would bore me with details?, the devil is always in the details Nick. I'm pretty easy to understand, I'm willing to hear what anyone has to say but that does not mean I'm willing to believe anything anyone has to say unless they have a credible argument to back it up. This is not for their benefit but mine so I can keep an open mind and learn new things. So if you have a believable argument to my question I would like to hear it.


AC

[spg]

Hi, NickZ

  But, if L3 receives more energy than was provided to L1.  How can you tell? It looks like L3 in not lighting the 100w bulb to anywhere close to the same lumin levels as a normal 100w bulb connected to the grid. What is the input voltage/wattage?
  I always found lousy conduction through the air from a normal Tesla coil, to anything further than a few feet away.
Not very efficient as far as use able light is concerned, either.

   I also don't see the connection between these table top types of Tesla coils trying to light a nearby bulb, as compared to what Tesla was trying to do.  As a light bulb lit by wireless only a few feet away from its source, is not the same as powering the world by wireless,  through the earth's ground conduction.

  Here is my latest video. On lighting a 100w bulb, through just a Kacher circuit.  It was what I can do, so far.
But, the Kacher's output is not meant for that. It's meant to provide the 2000+ voltage impulse to the induction circuit for heterodyning both circuits towards producing a self runner.  I'm not there yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpS7noQZ7DQ

I've looked at your videos and I'm impressed with the device and your research in this area.

My research direction is to start from the basic elements  with the aim of understanding of the principles of work elements and their mutual interaction. At the same time I try to examine the validity of some established interpretations.

The presented scheme (3CT) talk about my experience regarding these experiments and on my intuition and the direction in which I want to continue to explore.
http://www.spigellab.com/2016/05/27/basic-teslas-experiments-part-1-100w-wireless-transmission-without-ground-connection/

Based on experience with these experiments find that there is a possibility that a portion of the energy coming from the outside. This can happen under the right conditions that have to establish exactly.
I'm currently working on a new device with which to prove it.

Tesla did not immediately began to build a system for wireless transmission of energy, but for many years explored near field effects. This knowledge enabled him to further research for the world's energy transmission, as well as some new areas - to the evident from his statements.

Some of Tesla's patents for wireless transmission of energy are known. However it is not known know-how and experience that is necessary to adjust such devices to give desired results. I think that's the most important Tesla's secret.

I agree with you - if someone makes a self running device then the whole story about the wireless transmission is not required.

Regarding the measurement of power - just now finishing a video:
Basic Tesla's Experiments (Part 4) - Measuring Power Consumption (300W motor and Wireless Power)

You can check it out at:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCop2ybGsiTYo1iyttgjNo8g

Thanks,
Spigel

[NickZ]

  SPG:
  Thanks for your comments. I hope that you have some success in what you are trying to do. 
  I see no free energy in wireless, or single wire replications, as yet.  Nor are they even comparable to the output of a wired connection.  All I've seen are guys lighting up a bulb a couple feet away.  And talking about Tesla... but not showing what Tesla had in mind. Nor have I ever seen anything other than that, to prove the point.  I'm still waiting...

  allcanadian:  I've already explain to you what I see.  No light, and no heat coming from the Sun to the Earth.
Sunlight is produced on planets with an atmosphere, only, like the Earth. Nothing to do with dust, but with photospheres, instead.
  And, there is no "traveling" of light, such as the "speed" of light.  Light does not travel in space from point A to point B. Nor from a Sun to it's planets.  Although there is nothing traveling, but light "polarizes" at the speed science has called the speed of  light", instead, with out any movement of anything, like electrons, photon, or anything else. Yet, what lights this planet is the produced Earthlight, on the side facing the Sun.
   What is your proof to the contrary... like prove that there is any light or any heat outside of this planet's master vortex, which extends to just past the moons orbit.  And that both light and heat are coming to Earth from the Sun, and lighting it and keeping it warm, as is being claimed.  NASA knows now, that is not the case.
  All false errors, still being taught as fact.  On purpose. 

[allcanadian]

@NickZ

Although there is nothing traveling, but light "polarizes" at the speed science has called the speed of  light", instead, with out any movement of anything, like electrons, photon, or anything else

Here is an interesting video--http://www.wimp.com/the-camera-that-can-capture-light-at-one-trillion-frames-per-second/


The boys at MIT built a camera that captures 1 Trillion frames per second which amounts to 20 seconds of video per nanosecond. You can literally see light travelling in super slow motion... pretty cool stuff.




The fact remains, if change at point A (the Sun) appears at point B (the Earth) then any credible theory must explain how the change occurred at point B (the Earth). You say light polarizes with out any movement of anything, nothing travelling, if nothing moved then how could anything be polarized?. It would seem you have already proven something does move when you used the term "polarized" which is an action. Something was polarized which polarized something else this change moving sequentially through a space over a distance.


Which leaves us with a question, if light is a polarization of something and not something tangible physically moving something is still moving through the space which is Energy.  We already know this because light is defined as an Electromagnetic wave covering a narrow region of the EM spectrum. So yes light does travel because the EM energy which polarized the space through which it traveled also polarized the matter it struck when it ceased travelling. What many find very confusing is the concept of Energy however it is actually quite easy to understand.


Think of it this way, the Sun jiggles a bunch of particles on the Sun at a frequency of X, this jiggling creates Electro-Magnetic waves at frequency X which travel through space to Earth causing matter to also jiggle at frequency X. The jiggling is Energy and when things jiggle at a frequency of X we see this as light. The jiggling at frequency X is light and it is not so much something as a condition of something which is of course matter.


AC