Amazing Tesla experiments! Totally new science

[mnementh]

Thanks for the discussion guys. I do see the malleable tape vibrating, but if it vibrates back and forth how would it be attracted in one particular direction? Interesting nonetheless.

Edit: To be clear, Tesla's magnifying transmitter was not intended to transmit wirelessly. Instead, he would use the Earth as his single wire conductor and have another Tesla receiver placed anywhere on Earth that would pick up this current being sent through the Earth, and in that sense it was "wireless". No wires connecting the two transceivers, just the Earth acting as a conductor in between them.

No, the earth was the return path. His vision for "universal energy" treated the atmosphere of the planet as a dielectric in a huge network of capacitive-coupling towers like the one at his lab in Wardenclyffe. He himself used the phrase "wireless transmission of power".

mnem
 

[joeqsmith]

Hi all,

Please check out this amazing work done on this site: http://www.am-innovations.com/category/experiments/experiments-single-wire-currents/

Check the video that is about half way done, around the 30 minute mark are some very unusual and amazing effects that can't be explained with our regular understanding of electronics and physics. Anyone want to try this out themselves or should we just dismiss it as impossible since we already know everything?

I have a friend who built up their own one-wire experiment and a few of us played with it.  It's been a while but a few things I remember noticing was the efficiency was pretty high.  Distance seemed to have little effect.  We played with a meter to maybe 30 meters.  Having the transmitter inside of a screen room with the receiver on the outside had little to no effect.   Looping the wire back on itself had a dramatic effect on the signal. 

This is a fun little experiment if you have never done it.  I certainly wouldn't suggest it's impossible nor anything new.

[Deco56]

It's been a while but a few things I remember noticing was the efficiency was pretty high.  Distance seemed to have little effect.  We played with a meter to maybe 30 meters.

You mean for wireless lighting?

Having the transmitter inside of a screen room with the receiver on the outside had little to no effect.

Can you explain this further please? By screen room do you mean a sort of Faraday cage?

I certainly wouldn't suggest it's impossible nor anything new.

Nor did I claim it was impossible and not new in a sense that Tesla did these experiments before. Do you have any videos that you could reference that show this type of experiment - even if it's not your own?

No, the earth was the return path. His vision for "universal energy" treated the atmosphere of the planet as a dielectric in a huge network of capacitive-coupling towers like the one at his lab in Wardenclyffe. He himself used the phrase "wireless transmission of power".

Not correct based on my understanding. The earth acted as the single conductor and he does not mention the atmosphere acting as a dielectric to form a capacitative coupling effect. He used the word "wireless" because in a sense there was no wire that was acting as the transmission medium,  instead it was the Earth.

[joeqsmith]

It's been a while but a few things I remember noticing was the efficiency was pretty high.  Distance seemed to have little effect.  We played with a meter to maybe 30 meters.

You mean for wireless lighting?

I am not sure what you are asking.  The system used a single conductor and was not wireless.   I want to say we were seeing above 80% efficiency with the whole system. 

Having the transmitter inside of a screen room with the receiver on the outside had little to no effect.

Can you explain this further please? By screen room do you mean a sort of Faraday cage?

It was a small Lindgren screen room.  See the following:
http://www.ets-lindgren.com/products/shielding/rf-shielded-enclosures/11003/1100303

I certainly wouldn't suggest it's impossible nor anything new.

Nor did I claim it was impossible and not new in a sense that Tesla did these experiments before. Do you have any videos that you could reference that show this type of experiment - even if it's not your own?

We didn't make any sort of video for it but really, it wasn't much to build.  It was fairly scaled down.  Something akin to a school science project.   I have seen a video demonstrating it, maybe by an amateur radio group.  I don't remember them measuring the efficiency but they ran a fan and it seems like a few other loads.   I remember some of the video was a bit sketchy but after playing with the small model don't doubt what they had shown.    I'm sure there are a few videos out there and some decent papers if you Google it.    It pretty old. 

I've never came up with a use for it, nor have I attempted to run the experiment again after that.   

I wouldn't call it "Totally new science" as it's nothing new.  I also wouldn't say it's dodgy. 

[ChristofferB]

It's funny how you all claim to be scientific and objective and then don't even try the experiments out yourselves or do any sort of investigation. The effects shown at the 30 minute mark of the video I referenced is very similar to the effects shown in this video as well: https://youtu.be/3uXL4_Yas2k

At the 22 minute mark.

That's two separate and independent experimenters showing similar effects but let's just dismiss that right? We already know everything about electronics and electricity right guys? Talk about being humble 

So two different experimenters with similar effects shown in both....let me guess must have been some excellent CGI effects?

Why not just say you are lazy and a bunch of know it alls? Wouldn't that be easier than calling bullshit on an experiment you have never done?

No one is claiming free energy here, it's just an anomalous effect shown (same effect) in each video. I thought the scientifically minded would be interested in replicating this? Whats with the prejudice guys?

There is a HUGE amount of research published every day of the year, too much for any one person to absorb, much of which is really really strange, foreign and interesting. A BIG part of reviewing others scientific observations is fairly quickly assessing whether any experiment/result is likely to be genuine. And right there, if it feels janky, it's probably janky isn't a bad philosophy.

This is not to bash amateur / independent research but when an experimental setup looks like kinda like a movie prop, with more care given to aesthetics than functionality, and the author don't format their findings how science is conventionally communicated, it is asking too much of the reader to assume they'll catch on.

If there is no abstract, ie. 15 lines describing what was done and what the result was completely to the point, no matter how real the science may be, it will smell fishy.

And for experimental setups: The more amazing the physics that is demonstrated, the better/more measuring or detecting equipment is required to rule out other sources for the results or errors.
Most lab equipment one would ever want for this is dirt cheap 2nd hand on ebay. If I wanted to convince an audience of something amazing I'd discovered I would make absolutely sure my instrumentation was of a standard where no doubt could be cast on it.

 

[Deco56]

It was a small Lindgren screen room.  See the following:
http://www.ets-lindgren.com/products/shielding/rf-shielded-enclosures/11003/1100303

So to be clear, you had one set of transceivers in the room and the other set outside and the effect diminished to a negligible level?

Tesla had a very interesting quote with an experiment he did using what is effectively a Faraday cage. in his article "EXPERIMENTS WITH ALTERNATE CURRENTS OF HIGH POTENTIAL AND HIGH FREQUENCY" he states the following:

"I have here a short and wide tube which is exhausted to a high degree and covered with a substantial coating of bronze, the coating allowing barely the light to shine through.  A metallic clasp, with a hook for suspending the tube, is fastened around the middle portion of the latter, the clasp being in contact with the bronze coating.  I now want to light the gas inside by suspending the tube on a wire connected to the coil.  Any one who would try the experiment for the first time, not having any previous experience, would probably take care to be quite alone when making the trial, for fear that he might become the joke of his assistants.  Still, the bulb lights in spite of the metal coating, and the light can be distinctly perceived through the latter.  A long tube covered with aluminium bronze lights when held in one hand—the other touching the terminal of the coil—quite powerfully.  It might be objected that the coatings are not sufficiently conducting; still, even if they were highly resistant, they ought to screen the gas.  They certainly screen it perfectly in a condition of rest, but not by far perfectly when the charge is surging in the coating.  But the loss of energy which occurs within the tube, notwithstanding the screen, is occasioned principally by the presence of the gas.  Were we to take a large hollow metallic sphere and fill it with a perfect incompressible fluid dielectric, there would be no loss inside of the sphere, and consequently the inside might be considered as perfectly screened, though the potential be very rapidly alternating.  Even were the sphere filled with oil, the loss would be incomparably smaller than when the fluid is replaced by a gas, for in the latter case the force produces displacements; that means impact and collisions in the inside."

Fascinating?


I have not seen many videos with the single wire system and would love to learn more about it if you have any references other than videos.

As far as presentation, yes we would all love formal documents with an abstract and all that. However, not having that alone isn't a basis for dismissal. 

[joeqsmith]

It was a small Lindgren screen room.  See the following:
http://www.ets-lindgren.com/products/shielding/rf-shielded-enclosures/11003/1100303

So to be clear, you had one set of transceivers in the room and the other set outside and the effect diminished to a negligible level?

....

I have not seen many videos with the single wire system and would love to learn more about it if you have any references other than videos.

As far as presentation, yes we would all love formal documents with an abstract and all that. However, not having that alone isn't a basis for dismissal.

We had the transmitter inside the screen room with the wire going outside to the receiver.    This had minimal effect on the signal.   

While I don't have any Tesla coils laying around, I do have several ignition coil packs laying around for the bikes.   I would imagine a couple of these, the HP signal generator and some foil would be enough to see the effects.
....
Just tried it.   Not optimized.  Just driving the coil directly with a sine.  Maybe 5 meters  apart,  11.8mW input and getting about 4.079mW out.   I'm sure I could push enough power into one of these coils to turn a small motor on the output. 

The patents for it are on-line for free.  I doubt anyone would dispute that you can't transfer power this way.  I just can't think of why you would.  Even if I remember right and we were closer to 80%, I could double the copper and do a much better job.

Again, it's really no big deal and hardly worth the effort to make a video of it.   

I'm not sure if they ever fixed the problems when displaying pictures.  This is the transmitter.  Coil, some wire, foil and tape.  I'm sure someone is thinking that idiot is going to damage all of their test equipment with that high voltage.  Before you chime in with your dumb comment,   the output signal is too low to detect it with my hand.    I bet even a UNI-T meter would survive being hooked to it.     

....
Also, just to head off another question.  I used the Fluke meters to measure the power in and out.  The drive frequency is well within what these meters can read. 

[joeqsmith]

The ignition coils are designed for 12V.   Shown is the receiver with a small automotive incandescent lamp.   White wire is the reference to the transmitter coil.   

When my friend ran this experiment, he had made a couple of small Tesla coils.  I remember the usable frequency range being fairly narrow.  These coils allow for a much broader range.   

Again, no magic and nothing totally new.  We haven't created some over unity contraption by invoking Tesla's name.  It's not dodgy and it's a simple enough experiment for the beginner to try using some common parts from the automotive store or local scrap heap.   

[Deco56]

I would be interested to see a full picture of the set up along with a schematic. The point of his system wasn't to get free energy, just a world system for the transmission of power. The fact that you had the receiver in a Faraday cage and no attenuation is very interesting because it rules out power transfer by RF, induction or capacitative coupling.

I'm still unsure about the attractive force of the light bulb and metal tape. Some have suggested explanations, but I dont see it being due to capacitative coupling and if it really vibrates back and forth due to HF AC then why would the attraction be unidirectional?

Also notice in the Tesla quote I mentioned above he referenced doing  the experiment alone since he was afraid of ridicule. It's my understanding from reading the quote something unique happened that allowed the signal to pass through even with a metal coating acting as a Faraday cage. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[joeqsmith]

I would be interested to see a full picture of the set up along with a schematic. The point of his system wasn't to get free energy, just a world system for the transmission of power. The fact that you had the receiver in a Faraday cage and no attenuation is very interesting because it rules out power transfer by RF, induction or capacitative coupling.

I'm still unsure about the attractive force of the light bulb and metal tape. Some have suggested explanations, but I dont see it being due to capacitative coupling and if it really vibrates back and forth due to HF AC then why would the attraction be unidirectional?

Also notice in the Tesla quote I mentioned above he referenced doing  the experiment alone since he was afraid of ridicule. It's my understanding from reading the quote something unique happened that allowed the signal to pass through even with a metal coating acting as a Faraday cage. Please correct me if I am wrong.

As you can see from the pictures, there's not a lot to it.  Two transformers back to back, basically directly coupled on one leg with the two plates on the other.   Of course these transformers are designed for operation well above 60Hz.   

In order to light the small bulb, we need more than 10mW.  In this case I need to drive the primary hard enough to overcome the losses of the system.   At these levels, the foil on the receiver will have a fair bit of voltage relative to say your body which is also surrounded by the same atmosphere and I'm guessing with even more surface area.   Touch the foil and you may feel it.  Shown is a typical Phillips LED household lamp.  My body touching one leg, the other touching the foil.   Note, if just the lamp is touching the foil, it will not light.   We need two coupling networks. 

All of Tesla's patents, including several on this subject are available for free on-line.  I suggest reading them all, starting with the oldest and working your way through them as it provides some level of context.    I've attached 645,576 which discusses how the atmosphere conducts under the electrical stresses and extends far beyond what is discernible with the eye.

Again,  there's no need for trick light bulbs and other parlor tricks.  There's no magic.

[Cyberdragon]

Yep, there's not much to it, it really is that simple.



https://teslaresearch.jimdofree.com/electric-lighting/

[joeqsmith]

Yep, there's not much to it, it really is that simple.
....

https://teslaresearch.jimdofree.com/electric-lighting/

I spent some time going over much of their website and enjoyed the read.   The patents are pretty dry.     

Spoke with my friend who had ran this experiment and they thought it had reached 88% efficiency.  Much better than the 30% I am seeing with the ignition coils and sheets of foil.   They remembered the shape of the spheres having to do with the efficiency.   

We never tried to use anything other than the wire to reference the two coils. 

[Deco56]

 Who said it was magic?

No comment on the Tesla quote?

"I have here a short and wide tube which is exhausted to a high degree and covered with a substantial coating of bronze, the coating allowing barely the light to shine through.  A metallic clasp, with a hook for suspending the tube, is fastened around the middle portion of the latter, the clasp being in contact with the bronze coating.  I now want to light the gas inside by suspending the tube on a wire connected to the coil.  Any one who would try the experiment for the first time, not having any previous experience, would probably take care to be quite alone when making the trial, for fear that he might become the joke of his assistants.  Still, the bulb lights in spite of the metal coating, and the light can be distinctly perceived through the latter.  A long tube covered with aluminium bronze lights when held in one hand—the other touching the terminal of the coil—quite powerfully.  It might be objected that the coatings are not sufficiently conducting; still, even if they were highly resistant, they ought to screen the gas.  They certainly screen it perfectly in a condition of rest, but not by far perfectly when the charge is surging in the coating.  But the loss of energy which occurs within the tube, notwithstanding the screen, is occasioned principally by the presence of the gas.  Were we to take a large hollow metallic sphere and fill it with a perfect incompressible fluid dielectric, there would be no loss inside of the sphere, and consequently the inside might be considered as perfectly screened, though the potential be very rapidly alternating.  Even were the sphere filled with oil, the loss would be incomparably smaller than when the fluid is replaced by a gas, for in the latter case the force produces displacements; that means impact and collisions in the inside."

Everyone claiming to explain away the magic, and again I am claiming no magic here, but let's please not pretend like we already know everything in this universe. If that was the case, science would be dead and our lives would be boring.


Edit: and again I ask, can someone provide me textbook references or engineering references that talk about single wire currents? Just as a theoretical study, not for any specific application

[Deco56]

@joeqsmith to be clear, your schematic does not really use a single wire current as the load is being powered from a secondary winding of a transformer, so not quite as Tesla's patent or the experiments show

[Cyberdragon]

@joeqsmith to be clear, your schematic does not really use a single wire current as the load is being powered from a secondary winding of a transformer, so not quite as Tesla's patent or the experiments show

Yes and no. In the Tesla schematics the return capacitor is implied or shown by only one plate (or wire loop). Both are capacitively coupled, just having two metal plates is being more blunt. It depends on what you're powering with the output whether you need the second transformer on the receiving end (most of Tesla's stuff were HF discharge lamps, but sometimes incandesants as well, in this case there was often a transformer, sometimes with one coil inside the bulb itself).

[joeqsmith]

@joeqsmith to be clear, your schematic does not really use a single wire current as the load is being powered from a secondary winding of a transformer, so not quite as Tesla's patent or the experiments show

You asked for a schematic:

I would be interested to see a full picture of the set up along with a schematic.

and I provided it.

I take it you are not a EE and your background doesn't require you to do any research.  First, Tesla held many patents, not just one.   I attempted to make it easy by attaching two patents in my previous post.  I have now removed the second.

Using transformers to match the source to the load is nothing new.   Tesla knew it.  The second patent showed different methods of impedance matching.   If you had taken the time to read and understand that patent you would not make such an ignorant statement.   

At the receiving-station a transformer of similar construction
is employed; but in this case the coil A', of relatively-thin
wire, constitutes the primary and the coil C', of thick wire
or cable, the secondary of the transformer. In the circuit of
the latter are included lamps L, motors M, or other devices
for utilizing the current. The elevated terminal D' is
connected with the center of the coil A', and the other terminal
of said coil is connected to earth and preferably, also, to
the coil C' for the reasons above stated.

See the attached image that goes with the above text.

Again, there is nothing new going on and no magic is involved.   I would imagine if you are having trouble reading the patents, attempting to read most higher level books will pose a problem for you as well.   You could try conducting some experiments on your own but I would caution you that I have seen many people draw wrong conclusions based on bad measurements and test setups. 

[Deco56]

Still no one yet to comment on the Tesla quote I mentioned twice. I actually do have degrees in both Physics and Engineering, but I always appreciate a good ad hominem attack.


You are quite right, he had many fantastic patents, however, you are referring to two different processes. One is to use a transformer to couple the single wire current to a load using two wires, and the other is running the load directly on the single wire which is shown in the Electric Lighting patent referenced above.

To be clear, the elevated top load in the Tesla Magnifying Transmitter is used as a virtual ground, and although it has a capacitative effect, it's main purpose is to act as a virtual ground, not to capacitatively couple to anything. If you think about it, capacitative coupling only works over small ranges so that would not fit into the worldwide transmission system Tesla designed.

[joeqsmith]

Still no one yet to comment on the Tesla quote I mentioned twice. I actually do have degrees in both Physics and Engineering, but I always appreciate a good ad hominem attack.

You are quite right, he had many fantastic patents, however, you are referring to two different processes. One is to use a transformer to couple the single wire current to a load using two wires, and the other is running the load directly on the single wire which is shown in the Electric Lighting patent referenced above.

I am only providing you with one of the patents that I had based my comments on.  In the case of the output matching,  to me that's hardly worth discussing.   The same for using the wire or the earth for the conductor, to me makes little difference.   
   

To be clear, the elevated top load in the Tesla Magnifying Transmitter is used as a virtual ground, and although it has a capacitative effect, it's main purpose is to act as a virtual ground, not to capacitatively couple to anything. If you think about it, capacitative coupling only works over small ranges so that would not fit into the worldwide transmission system Tesla designed.

That is correct.  As he describes, he want's the majority to conduct through the ground.    When we talk about a single wire system, we are talking about the transmitter to the receiver, not the coupling in the receiver to the load.   Again to me, earth ground or wire, no difference.    The idea of using the self capacitance to act as the virtual ground is the key point.  This is why the screen room had no effect.   It's also why I am able to run at 10mW levels.  There's no lightning bolts or smell of ozone.   

All pretty basic stuff.  No magic.  Nothing new.    I didn't go to the link you provided so maybe I am missing something.   I just saw all the Tesla bashing and the instant dismissal of what was being presented and figured I would inject a few comments.   

[Deco56]

I personally can never understand the Tesla bashing. Comment on his eccentric personality sure, but do not question his scientific prowess.

I appreciate any feedback given, I am not here trying to argue, name call or claim any magic. However, there are quite a few points still left undiscussed:

1. Tesla's quote of a unique experiment he tried that he implied would be a silly experiment to try in normal circumstances, but that produced strange results. The quote is a big ambiguous as to the methods, but the effect referenced is unusual.

2. The videos I referenced show another interesting effect of an attractive force that is produced between a light being driven on the single wire (not coupled into by a transformer) and a piece of metallic tape. Still haven't heard an explanation to this effect that makes sense. Capacitative coupling would be weak at those centimeter distances and wouldn't explain the unidirectional force if was a high frequency effect. Maybe I am wrong there, if someone wants to claim there is high capacitance there please explain.

[joeqsmith]

Provide a timestamp to the that part of the video you are referring to.   

In my demo, imagine shrinking the receiver's foil down to something very small.  By itself, it would have little self capacitance and the system would not work very well.   Now imagine making a second larger plate and connecting the two together with some series resistance.   You could then measure some potential across each as the larger plate would be providing the majority of the virtual ground as you say.     

To demonstrate this,  the center of the Phillips LED house light is contacting the aluminum foil.  The glass bulb part is just laying on top of the PCB which has much more surface area than the foil.  There are no electrical connections to the PCB. The difference is enough to get the LEDs to glow.  Of course the secondary coil is still able to light the small automotive lamp as well.  It should be clear from my previous picture where my hand made contact with the bulbs second conductor and the bulb was much brighter that the same would happen if I were to allow the bulb to make a DC connection to both plates.   

I want to be clear that while I measured 30ish% efficiency, this experiment alone give you some idea that my plates don't have near enough self capacitance.   It really wasn't my goal to try an optimize the setup.   That's what my friend was attempting to do when they reached 88%. 

It should have been clear to Tesla early on that trying to overcome the losses of the earth were a problem.  From reading his patents and other bits he published, I can just imagine him in this vicious cycle, of more voltage until bang!!!!  Then higher tower and more voltage... Until, Bang!...  More money.... Bigger transformers, more engines... better ground....    As an investor, I wouldn't have let it continue.  It worked well enough to patent and secure investments. 

He brought a lot to the table but I don't share his vision of using the earth as a conductor on a large scale.     

[IanB]

Edit: and again I ask, can someone provide me textbook references or engineering references that talk about single wire currents? Just as a theoretical study, not for any specific application

So electronics is not my field, but I feel compelled to think that any textbook on RF engineering would address this question. If you take any standard FM radio receiver, the telescopic antenna is a "single wire" that conducts the current from the received radio signal into the receiver.

Everything else is a matter of scale, geometry and power levels.

[joeqsmith]

When I was in my teens, I had a friend who was also playing with radio.  We strung up a wire antenna over their house.  His room was on the top floor.   We turned on the radio to try out the new antenna and lit the bulbs in the upstairs.     In this case we were using maybe 100W, maybe 4 meters away.  Even then with no education I could see how bad the losses were through free space.

Your FM radio does a bit of work to amplify the tiny signals it receives .... It requires a battery to boost the signal high enough to drive a speaker that you can hear. 

That said, again, as many children do, I had constructed a simple crystal radio.   I had a long wire antenna that I would use with it.   We had a small AM station just down the road from our house putting out 1KW.   The antenna was maybe a mile away.   Even at that short distance, it was enough to drive a speaker but that was about the extent of it.   The goal would have been not only to provide enough power to run the radio, but power your lights as well, all the while pumping water for the livestock...
 
Sure today we can use very high gain antennas and even microwaves to help out but flipping the problem and using the earth to send the signal was far more effective.  Just not as effective as some copper wire...

I had read a pretty good physics books from one of the universities that may be of help.  If you have ever bought a book, you know the prices are up there.  This one is available for free.   I'll see if I can find it again and post a link. 


*****
Obviously, depending on your ability to read which appears to be a lost art now, and your attention span which also seems to be in short supply anymore, and your area of interest, you may find the book enlightening.   Personally, I found it to be a good read.

https://www.slideshare.net/lmcl92/128728926-electricityandmagnetismberkeleyphysicscoursepurcell

[Deco56]

 Timestamps are 30 minute mark and 22 minute mark of both videos I have referenced earlier. Please check out that and tell me what you think, I don't usually see light and metallic tape interacting like that.

And still no comment on the Tesla quote. Or textbook references to single wire currencts and powering loads off of them. Also, an antenna does have current in it but that current is being transformed into electromagnetic radiation and heat and is also reflecting on the open end so this is not meant for maximum power transfer. Different situations .

[Cyberdragon]

A discharge bulb coated in metal will light due to the skin effect of the RF energizing the whole surface, and the fact that the sheild was connected to the source of RF (not grounded or left floating) in both cases causing it to be fully energized. The same effect would occur if you wrapped a flourescent tube in foil and exited it externally by touching an HF source.

EDIT: Yes, of course skin effect still applies to one-wire systems. There is still a flow of AC which will induce magnetic feilds. This occurs in any conductor (to varying degrees), and plasma is a conductor, which generates a magnetic feild which pushes the current to the ouside of the tube where there is now a convenient conductor which in turn creates an electric field which excits the plasma.

If I had a guess (might be totally wrong) but the plasma in the coated/covered tube might look more toroidal down the length.

[alsetalokin4017]

This?