Bullshit: Texzon Wireless Power

[ogden]

Alright. Sorry for being a bit triggered. However, your stance came across very aggressive. Hence, I wont be backing down on whatever I said.

It tells a lot, especially knowing that it was you who started profanity and insults. Whatever. Please keep further communication professional no matter how aggravating are questions, assertions or conclusions. If someone do not believe in what you say - better provide additional information to convince nonbelievers rather than just become triggered teenage keyboard warrior yourself.

Thank you, I received PM. Will check your paper. Why don't you share it with everyone here - after all it is public and there's nothing that would fall into nondisclosure category.

[ebastler]

Will check your paper. Why don't you share it with everyone here - after all it is public and there's nothing that would fall into nondisclosure category.

I had been wondering the same thing -- but I can see that Saisharma might not want his forum name linked to his real name in a permanent, public post.

Please keep further communication professional no matter how aggravating are questions, assertions or conclusions.

Please keep your questioning professoinal too. No need for "Spanish inquisition" style interrogations. 

[SaiSharma]

Sent email to your queries.
Thanks.

[SaiSharma]

I had been wondering the same thing -- but I can see that Saisharma might not want his forum name linked to his real name in a permanent, public post.

Well, its a 4-5 years of work in progress. Over the years some reviewers and folks at conference in the past called me names. Downright rude and down right unprofessional
e.g.
1. Crack,
2. Tesla-cult in the academia,
3. capacitive power transfer being packaged as guided mode power etc.
4. Are you trying to disprove a 2 century old Faraday shielding? I am surprised you have a college education at your disposal.
and on and on.

[Cyberdragon]

HMM...I WONDER WHY...

I wonder if it's because you have yet to produce real concrete data that shows it's not only functional but...wait for it...PRACTICAL.

[ogden]

I wonder if it's because you have yet to produce real concrete data that shows it's not only functional but...wait for it...PRACTICAL.

Many who follow this thread perhaps remember that I insistently asked for real experiment info/data that would confirm efficiency figure stated by SaiSharma. Claim was that everything is in the paper which can be obtained (only) on request. I got The Paper. Guess what - did I see scientifically sound proof of SaiSharma's claims? Obviously I can't tell unless paper is made public at least for readers of this thread.

[EEVblog]

I had been wondering the same thing -- but I can see that Saisharma might not want his forum name linked to his real name in a permanent, public post.

Well, its a 4-5 years of work in progress. Over the years some reviewers and folks at conference in the past called me names. Downright rude and down right unprofessional
e.g.
1. Crack,
2. Tesla-cult in the academia,
3. capacitive power transfer being packaged as guided mode power etc.
4. Are you trying to disprove a 2 century old Faraday shielding? I am surprised you have a college education at your disposal.
and on and on.

Engineers are incredibly easy to shut up, they deal in facts, just show them concrete data and it's done.

If you don't have concrete data to show your device works and/or is practical, then it's not unexpected for people to call you things when you work in this sort of field. Because there are countless crackpots and tesla-nuts out there, the internet is filled with them, and many startup companies have stolen a lot of peoples money. People have good reasons to be very skeptical.

[SaiSharma]

HMM...I WONDER WHY...

I wonder if it's because you have yet to produce real concrete data that shows it's not only functional but...wait for it...PRACTICAL.

I admit, back then I didnt have a concrete theory and simulation model to rely upon.
Please check ur PM.

[SaiSharma]

I had been wondering the same thing -- but I can see that Saisharma might not want his forum name linked to his real name in a permanent, public post.

Well, its a 4-5 years of work in progress. Over the years some reviewers and folks at conference in the past called me names. Downright rude and down right unprofessional
e.g.
1. Crack,
2. Tesla-cult in the academia,
3. capacitive power transfer being packaged as guided mode power etc.
4. Are you trying to disprove a 2 century old Faraday shielding? I am surprised you have a college education at your disposal.
and on and on.

Engineers are incredibly easy to shut up, they deal in facts, just show them concrete data and it's done.

If you don't have concrete data to show your device works and/or is practical, then it's not unexpected for people to call you things when you work in this sort of field. Because there are countless crackpots and tesla-nuts out there, the internet is filled with them, and many startup companies have stolen a lot of peoples money. People have good reasons to be very skeptical.

That was years ago, when I was what you call a N00B.
In certain ways am still learning. Thats what researchers are supposed to do, i.e. Keep learning.

[SaiSharma]

I wonder if it's because you have yet to produce real concrete data that shows it's not only functional but...wait for it...PRACTICAL.

Many who follow this thread perhaps remember that I insistently asked for real experiment info/data that would confirm efficiency figure stated by SaiSharma. Claim was that everything is in the paper which can be obtained (only) on request. I got The Paper. Guess what - did I see scientifically sound proof of SaiSharma's claims? Obviously I can't tell unless paper is made public at least for readers of this thread.

Lets do one thing, next time you have a business trip to Korea. Let me know, I will take you to my facility, and we can do all the testing as per your standards?
Hope that would work for you.

[EEVblog]

Many who follow this thread perhaps remember that I insistently asked for real experiment info/data that would confirm efficiency figure stated by SaiSharma. Claim was that everything is in the paper which can be obtained (only) on request. I got The Paper. Guess what - did I see scientifically sound proof of SaiSharma's claims? Obviously I can't tell unless paper is made public at least for readers of this thread.

Lets do one thing, next time you have a business trip to Korea. Let me know, I will take you to my facility, and we can do all the testing as per your standards?
Hope that would work for you.

That's what all the people working on this sort of stuff say. I got offered US$20k and a trip to Canada to "verify" some crackpots invention.
Bottom line is, if you are inviting people to do the testing and verification for you then you are doing it wrong. You make the claims, you get to prove it. No one is going to waste their time doing any verification for you.
It's pretty trivial these days to make Youtube videos demonstrating your claims. If you have a prototype that demonstrates your claims, show it working.
NOTE: I have not been following this thread, so I don't know what's been presented so far, but it sounds like no one here is convinced so far.

[EEVblog]

Question:

Viziv Technologies has a portfolio of over 60 U.S. and international granted patents. Additional patent applications are in development and more are expected.
100+ Unique U.S. patents filed.
760+ Pending patent filings (U.S. and International).
65+ Patents granted (U.S. and International).

That's hundreds of thousands of dollars minimum in patent drafting costs alone, millions of dollars if done by a proper patent attorney. So where is your funding coming from?
And it's strange that with 65 US patents granted I can't find a single one under Viziv Technologies

[ogden]

Lets do one thing, next time you have a business trip to Korea. Let me know, I will take you to my facility, and we can do all the testing as per your standards?

If my presence in your facility is only way for you to do proper measurements, then you are out of luck. Are you going to show your paper to others or not? At least pictures of setup or some demo video?

It's pretty trivial these days to make Youtube videos demonstrating your claims. If you have a prototype that demonstrates your claims, show it working.

There are some Youtube videos BTW. Only tiny detail - author shall "release" them in public.

[ogden]

And it's strange that with 65 US patents granted I can't find a single one under Viziv Technologies

Smart move actually. Patents will not be auctioned when project fails.
Look what happened to Ring Power Multiplier by Texzon and project web page http://www.powermultiplier.com/
When money income of Viziv Technologies will dry out, most likely same scientists will start next energy-related venture investment project.

[Cyberdragon]

He showed me a paper demonstrating wave power over METAL SURFACES. Not "OMG it will circle the earth!" power.

[SaiSharma]

He showed me a paper demonstrating wave power over METAL SURFACES. Not "OMG it will circle the earth!" power.

I never claimed earth! Its not possible, E-field modes would simply sink into earth because of Lossy nature!

[bd139]

Question:

Viziv Technologies has a portfolio of over 60 U.S. and international granted patents. Additional patent applications are in development and more are expected.
100+ Unique U.S. patents filed.
760+ Pending patent filings (U.S. and International).
65+ Patents granted (U.S. and International).

That's hundreds of thousands of dollars minimum in patent drafting costs alone, millions of dollars if done by a proper patent attorney. So where is your funding coming from?
And it's strange that with 65 US patents granted I can't find a single one under Viziv Technologies

Back in the late 00's I worked for a hooky as hell tech startup. Someone just turned up with a suitcase of £50 notes one day and said "here you go". Lots of people will just throw money at ideas and eventually one of them will stick and make them a return. We didn't even pitch to this guy. We bought some MacBooks, nice Aeron chairs and ate at Moro three days a week at lunch times. Good times. We were comfortable and ate like kings.

At least they spent it on patents 

[ogden]

Lets do one thing, next time you have a business trip to Korea. Let me know, I will take you to my facility, and we can do all the testing as per your standards?

If my presence in your facility is only way for you to do proper measurements, then you are out of luck. Are you going to show your paper to others or not? At least pictures of setup or some demo video?

Update: I did not get proof of power efficiency in private email conversation. Still nonbeliever. When seeing scope screen I pointed out that SaiSharma does not measure AC RMS voltage and current properly guess what happened? 

[wbeaty]

Extraordinary ideas require extraordinary proof.

Um...  the original quote speaks of extraordinary evidence.  "Proof" is for mathematicians; in physics any idea, sane or weird, just requires good solid supporting evidence, not exotic and special "extraordinary" evidence.

Here's a bit of Trivia:  M. Truzzi, one of the co-founders of CSICOP, was the author of the above quote, but later expressed regrets.   He discovered it to be a recipe for bias.   Why?  "Extraordinary-ness" is totally subjective!   Everyone has a different threshold.  I see a worse problem: to disbelieve anything, just reject all confirming evidence, saying "Nope, evidence still not extraordinary!"    Instead why don't we all just use a level playing field: treat all ideas the same, always with the same high evidential requirements.  Don't try to make bias normal and acceptable. "When a man finds a conclusion agreeable, he accepts it without argument, but when he finds it disagreeable, he will bring against it all the forces of logic and reason." -Thucydides.   Poor Dr. Truzzi.  He could never take back the meme he'd unwittingly released.

This is not bias. That's a junk straw man you threw together to discredit my idea.

So,  you can read my mind and tell me what I think?   But your telepathy powers didn't work this time.  I actually was just honestly describing the decades-old history of that quote, as I remember it.   (If you're not personally familiar with such history, therefore I have to be lying?  Making s**t up?  Sheesh!)

For years the 'Extraordinary Evidence' quote was widely attributed to Carl Sagan.  But back in early internet days, folks on the Skeptic groups tracked down a much earlier instance coming from the late Marcello Truzzi (discussed online in late 1990s.  IIRC might have happened on sci.skeptic usenet, or on JREF skeptic forum.)  There was also some material directly from Truzzi himself, him specifically bemoaning the word "extraordinary."  I haven't found his original article unfortunately.  Truzzi expressed regrets in creating the quote, and thus introducing unscientific material into basic reasoning.  (He seems to assume that, if he hadn't coined the phrase, Sagan wouldn't have spread it all over, and today it wouldn't be a Skeptic Trope.  So Truzzi took the blame.)   

Again:  our judgement of a claim's "extraordinary-ness" is necessarily subjective.   The bias needn't be automatic, if the term "extraordinary" is taken to mean "good solid evidence" rather than some sort of "special" evidence.  Yet the situation too easily becomes "I hate this weird idea/claim/etc., and I can easily make it look bad, by labeling it as being 'extraordinary,' which in addition, magically makes it immune to normal evidencial requirements."

The phrase "we need good solid evidence, not 'extraordinary' evidence" was not my own, although I've been trying to spread it online over the last decades.  It was coined because demanding proof is wrong.  "Proof" doesn't apply to science, only Falsification/disproof.  And of course "extraordinary" needs to be stricken entirely, and replaced with something far less subjective.   The 'solid' evidence phrase may have originated in one of the old articles by Truzzi, or more likely came from the online skeptics/believers groups arguing about the flaw built into the Extraordinary Evidence quote.   

Either way, when I see someone try to use Truzzi's misguided quote, I pounce on that s**t.

Again:  the concept "extraordinary" is an embarrassment, and has no place in tightly reasoned argument.    We need good solid evidence for everything in science, including both the obvious scammers with the magical horse pooping out the dollar coins, and also the unquestioned (but occasionally erroneous) material appearing in every reputable technical text.

It's a very RP Feynman philosophy: question everything, never entirely trust textbooks or the pronouncements of experts; instead track down solid evidence behind them.  Attack your own position!  Don't limit your critical attitude to enemies' assertions, or to the weird stuff alone.

[wbeaty]

Err you're missing the point by a mile. Centralisation, which this entirely relies on as the power source has to be concentrated on the transmitter logically, brings no benefit at all whatsoever.

WHAAAT?   What centralization?  Criticizing a system you haven't researched?  Tesla's 1890s plan (and Viziv's apparent continuation) involves a vast array of multiple transmitters covering the planet, each using cavity-resonance to violate inverse-square falloff.   Tesla's original proposal was to have hundreds (perhaps even tens of thousands) of transmitters, little remote dynamos run by hydro systems unreachable by power lines.   Each transmitter blankets the planet with standing waves, employing the physics of driven-cavities, and so reception is roughly independent of distance.  Together they lock to each other, to excite a single standing wave "wireless grid."   But to get past the barrier of human nature, that same old irrational disbelief, instead Tesla built one giant prototype tower.   (That, as well needing to demonstrate worldwide comms and driving headphones worldwide, before amplifiers existed.   And also to broadcast significant power to Paris, for an upcoming worlds fair demonstration.)

In other words, Tesla's (and Viziv's) system won't work  (and it perhaps becomes idiotic,) if:

• They're limited to using one/few transmitters
• Inverse-square dominates, and each receiver must be within KMs of a transmitter.   

The whole point of this wireless power scheme was to tap nearly all significant energy sources worldwide, where each small transmitter independently blankets the entire planet (driving a cavity-mode: think microwave-oven chamber.  Not an inverse-square falloff,) and also, having thousands if not tens of thousands of transmitters online.  The global standing-wave becomes like a "water resevoir," an elevated pond, and would be filled using multiple small "water pumps."  The 'giant towers' form of the device is not the intended system.  Giant towers are either an initial prototype test- bed also including extreme high power, or they're a specifically impressive publicity-hype advertising system for producing easily-verified effects such as lighting tiny bulbs 1000KM distant, where any smaller transmitter would incapable, and where even fairly small numbers of KW towers would be far beyond their initial funding.  In the end, there might be a giant tower at Hoover dam etc., but that contribution might be minimal compared to the immense number of smaller ones.

Or put simply: what was Nikola Tesla's dream?  What is Viziv actually pursuing?   It was vehicles, flying and rolling and seagoing, all running without fuel tanks.  Wireless electrical service both in cities and remote homes.  Wireless navigation by standing-wave patterns.  Hugo Gernsback's "togas, food-pills and personal helicopters," or at least giant flying machines with onboard tennis courts and swimming pools.  All driven by one gigantic array of small transmitters running in phase-lock to a Schumann resonance line.  Viziv is building the initial pieces.   But for those who judge this "extraordinary" claim without bothering to first study its origins ...they'll only encounter Tesla's giant rotting tower torn down in Long Island, and Viziv's single huge experimental testbed device in Texas.

The centralization demonstrated by these giant towers is not the goal.

[wbeaty]

Engineers are incredibly easy to shut up, they deal in facts, just show them concrete data and it's done.

...unless it involves teh Dodgy.   Tesla stuff or similar.   Or just a new breakthrough which demonstrates a major flaw in our previous understanding. 

Really, would you ever trust "concrete data" if it encourages magical speaker cables that only cost $200/foot?   If it closely resembles a known scam, then we dare not trust any supporting data.  If 3rd party's testing didn't falsify the claim, then they're obviously promoters of that piece of probable woo.   If they appear to be independent third-parties, well, maybe they're actually socks, and secretly part of a scam.   If enough money was involved, then even people from known reputable test-labs aren't above corruption.   See the problem?

So instead, to make a good judgement, we have to produce the concrete data ourselves.   Perform replications in our own garage.   But what if our evidence supports the weird claim, then will anyone else ever take us seriously?  From outside, it looks like we've inexplicably turned into Believers.   We might be fooling ourselves, or just honestly mistaken.  Or the least probable: the weird discovery turns out to be legit, and the entire community was wrong about it.  Its promoters were right all along, those $200/ft speaker cables are worth the price, and were never Dodgy to begin with.  Heh.

The solution from science: wide replication, taking place over time (sometimes up to a couple of decades!)   For really major breakthroughs, a single paper usually won't convince the community.   If the breakthrough exposes a long-running community-wide error, then even a fair number of replications won't change opinions. (Examples: quasicrystals, jumping genes, ulcer bacteria.)   In that case "Planck's Other Law" has to kick in:  some scientists never accept a really new idea, but rather die of old age, and are replaced by their students who grew up already familiar with it.  Planck shortened this to:  science only progresses funeral by funeral.

Liquid-fueled rockets were once regarded as revolting Flash-Gordon crap, and nobody could get funding for research (unless like Caltech they quietly pretented they were "jets.")    I'm convinced that all the apparent Tesla-garbage is in much the same situation as those scientifically disgusting 1920s spaceships from the afternoon-movie serials, a bunch of ignorant Buck-rodger fantasy, so stupid thinking they can "fly to outer space" with rocket-tubes shooting fire out the back!!!   But then I'm extremely biased, having built a flyback Tesla Coil as a kid in 1973, burning tiny holes in fingertips, and over time became only more corrupted!

[EEVblog]

WHAAAT?   What centralization?  Criticizing a system you haven't researched?  Tesla's 1890s plan (and Viziv's apparent continuation) involves a vast array of multiple transmitters covering the planet, each using cavity-resonance to violate inverse-square falloff.   
Tesla's original proposal was to have hundreds (perhaps even tens of thousands) of transmitters, little remote dynamos run by hydro systems unreachable by power lines.   Each transmitter blankets the planet with standing waves, employing the physics of driven-cavities, and so reception is roughly independent of distance. 

What is the cavity standing wave dielectric loss of the earth?

[wbeaty]

What is the cavity standing wave dielectric loss of the earth?

Down below 20KHz?   Rule of thumb: the system-Q for the Earth's lowest resonance is commonly quoted as 8-10.   So, any ~11Hz pulse will pass around the Earth over 8 times times before decreasing to 66%.  (Imagine passing an AC pulse ten times across an entire a continent-wide power grid, with losses only 33%.)

The Corums (the Tesla-phile engineers behind the Viziv tower) published an engineering analysis in the early 1990s that showed that Tesla's system would still work, even with a Q that low.    Their main point:  when the system is in operation, the Earth's losses, (the low Q,) represents a constant loss independent of throughput, basically a resistor parallel to the power supply.   For a large system, the loss would be ?tens? of megawatts.   But if we keep the operating voltage always the same, then these Earth-losses remain constant, no matter how much wattage is being drawn by the distant receivers.   Just make sure to sell gigawatt-rates of energy to customers, if your grid losses are constant megawatts.   

The losses are analogous to corona-leakage from a power grid the size of a continent.   Even with the conventional 60Hz power grid, if nearly everyone stopped using it, the efficiency would plummet to near zero, with megawatts of net corona-loss relative to such reduced throughput wattage.     (Also remember, the Tesla system isn't made of thin wires.  It's planes.   The analog to "cable resistance" apparently is insignificant, when compared to that parallel leakage in the air between the high voltage and ground.   But I think this fact is taken from theory only, and has never been verified empirically.   Better make sure your receiver acts like a lossless sky-coupling capacitor, not like a giant neon lamp!)

But in the mean time, there was a 1990s Sutton/Spaniol paper from NASA where they built an unusual exotic antenna, and measured Q-values in Shumann-lines with values of many hundreds.  Not ten!   The greater VLF research community has never accepted this.  These results are still maverick/fringe, and like the Corum papers, banished to Tesla conference publications.

Sutton/Spaniol explained the problem: conventional Schumann resonance Q-measurements require long integration times, and unexpectedly, the Earth's sharp resonant lines are not stable in frequency, but wander around over a scale of many seconds.   If your measurement-window is on a scale of minutes (in order to pull the natural signal out of the extreme thunderstorm VLF static,) then a wandering-yet-high-Q resonance will be measured as an artifact: a broader low-Q resonance.   And also, with minutes of integration time it becomes impossible to even detect such wandering behavior.   Sutton/Spaniol's weird neg-resistance neg-inductor antenna-driver was actively altering the space impedance, essentially amplifying the signal as fields, just outside the antenna-coil.  An artificial superconductor loop.   They obtained relatively huge signals, performed FFT on them, and saw extremely narrow Shumann spikes going way up into the KHz.   But it was just two NASA guys with weird results, versus an entire radio-research community, where the two guys say it's been done wrong for decades.   I bet their paper is PDF somewhere, with their graphs of VLF spectra above 100Hz, so-called "Black Hole Antenna."  (Ripe for hobbyist replications!  But probably not if you live in normal em-noisy neighborhoods.)

Note that if Earth's system-Q really was more like 800 rather than 8,  then any VLF pulse actually passes around the planet many hundreds of times before significant attenuation.   (If Sutton/Spaniol aren't fools, then that would mean that Tesla's claim of insignificant losses might have been genuine after all.   Yet that part wasn't even necessary to his success.)

FYI, the Q of a microwave oven chamber is more like 10,000 - 50,000.    If the box was made of parallel front-surf mirrors w/99.99% reflection, you could see way deep into the "infinite tunnel," tens of thousands of distant copies before the "tunnel" looked too dark.   In a box, you'd see miles of 3D space, with a billion copies of any emitter, all shining upon you.  So, a Tesla-style worldwide power-broadcast system may rival the efficiency of a wired grid thousands of miles wide, but its no match for the incredible efficiency of your kitchen's nook-ular dinner-cooker box!    Now we just gotta get rid of that hot magnetron.  Replace it with nice cold mosfet blocks.  (We had one of those in our lab last year: a 300watt plasma lamp, with a pair of 2.5GHz, 150watt "microwave oven" mosfet drivers.)

[wbeaty]

Looks like it's running at 1710KHz.   

https://www.google.com/maps/place/32%C2%B009'24.0%22N+96%C2%B056'22.0%22W/@32.1527028,-96.9413238,1530m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d32.1566667!4d-96.9394444

This was passed along:

The FCC application, search https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/GenericSearch.cfm
try entering"viziv."    Transmitter callsign WN9XDJ  1.4KW18 kHz   Expires April 2019

"Purpose Of Operation:
"The purpose of the test will be to confirm effective launching of a Zenneck surface wave and to
"measure its propagation and attenuation characteristics on a global scale.

[StillTrying]

How well did the testing go.