Free Worldwide Energy - Nichola Tesla

  • Thread starter onycho
  • Start date
  • #1
Nikola Tesla was an unrecognized genius before his time. He believed that the Earth itself could conduct energy around the world and be tapped for free anywhere. Doesn't it seem ironic that such a device existed back in the early 1900's. Tesla had the right idea but the Government could not find a way to place a meter on free energy. It seems such a shame that we cannot work for mans benefit instead of a monetary benefit of a few people and governments.

"Tesla believed this to be a simple procedure, and later confirmed through experimentation, that the Earth conducts electricity naturally, much like a metal ball. Tesla hypothesized that Earth could be charged from a single location and energy could be safely extracted from any other point on the globe's surface.

The Earth could be pumped with electricity and anyone on its surface could remove it by simply placing a wire into the ground. This energy could be withdrawn in unlimited amounts for unlimited uses, free for all the world's people!"


http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9654/tesla/projecttesla.html

Resonator Fields and Transmission Line Modes.

When he (Tesla) speaks of tuning his apparatus until Hertzian radiations have been eliminated, he is referring to using ELF vibrations: "...the Hertzian effect has gradually been reduced through the lowering of frequency."3

"...the energy received does not diminish with the square of the distance, as it should, since the Hertzian radiation propagates in a hemisphere."3

He apparently detected resonator or standing wave modes: " ... my discovery of the wonderful law governing the movement of electricity through the globe... the projection of the wavelengths (measured along the surface) on the Earth's diameter or axis of symmetry... are all equal."3

"We are living on a conducting globe surrounded by a thin layer of insulating air, above which is a rarefied and conducting atmosphere... The Hertz waves represent energy which is radiated and unrecoverable. The current energy, on the other hand, is preserved and can be recovered, theoretically at least, in its entirety."4

As Dr. Corum points out, "The last sentence seems to indicate that Tesla's Colorado Springs experiments could be properly interpreted as characteristic of a wave-guide probe in a cavity resonator."5 This was in fact what led Dr. Tesla to report a measurement which to this day is not understood and has led many to erroneously assume that he was dealing with faster than light velocities.
 

Attachments

  • teslaportrait1904.jpg
    teslaportrait1904.jpg
    16.6 KB · Views: 506

Answers and Replies

  • #2
enigma
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,757
17
Originally posted by onycho

The Earth could be pumped with electricity and anyone on its surface could remove it by simply placing a wire into the ground. This energy could be withdrawn in unlimited amounts for unlimited uses, free for all the world's people!"

And whan, pray tell, would be used as ground if the ground was charged?

TANSTAAFL
 
  • #3
russ_watters
Mentor
21,937
8,973
Tesla was a genius, but today is unfortunately remembered in more in mythology than in history.
 
  • #4


Originally posted by enigma

And whan, pray tell, would be used as ground if the ground was charged?

I am in no way an expert on Nikola Tesla and his theories but apparently the Earth below our feet would be charged while he states that we are surrounded by a thin layer of insulating air which would prevent humans from receiving the electrical contact.

According to Tesla, you would have to put a conducting wire "down" into the ground in order to utilize the preserved and non-diminishing electrical charge.

But you will have to do a great deal of reading to understand exactly what Tesla was talking about as only now are people beginning to understand his genius concepts. It is true that the petrochemical industry and oil producing countries have a great deal to loose from 'free energy to the world.'
 
  • #5
Apparently some studies indicate that there is a highly conductive D" layer in the Earth deep outer mantle.

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v366/n6454/abs/366453a0.html

Nature 366, 453 - 455 (1993); doi:10.1038/366453a0
Electrical conductivity of the Earth's lower mantle

T. J. Shankland, J. Peyronneau & J.-P. Poirier

THE electrical conductivity of the Earth's lower mantle constrains both the propagation to the surface of geomagnetic disturbances in the core and the nature of core–mantle coupling. Extrapolations of laboratory measurements on materials representative of the lower mantle agree weakly1,2 or not at all3,4 with recent geophysical models5–8 of lower-mantle electrical conductivity based on variations of magnetic and electrical fields measured at the Earth's surface. Here we report d.c. conductivity measurements on samples with compositions approximating that of the lower mantle, at pressures of 1.2 to 40 GPa and temperatures in the range 20 to 400 °C. Our results agree with some of those obtained previously1,2. But in contrast to this previous work, we extrapolate the results to lower-mantle conditions by adopting a functional form for the conductivity that incorporates the effect of pressure as well as temperature. The resulting estimates of conductivity are in agreement with the geophysical determinations5–8. We find that, because of a very weak dependence on temperature, pressure and composition, the conductivity is likely to vary by no more than about a factor of five across the entire lower mantle, reaching a maximum value of only 3–10 S m-1. Lateral temperature variations as large as a few hundred degrees will therefore be hard to detect geophysically, and the compositionally distinct D" layer at the base of the lower mantle remains the only possible location for a highly conducting layer.
 
  • #6
Another article from NATURE indicates electrical conductivity at lowr mantle conditions.

Electrical conductivity of silicate perovskite at lower-mantle conditions

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v395/n6701/abs/395493a0_fs.html

TOMOO KATSURA1, KIMINORI SATO* & EIJI ITO1

1 Institute for Study of the Earth's Interior, Okayama University, Misasa, Tottori-ken 682-0193, Japan
* Present address: National Institute for Research in Inorganic Materials, Tsukuba, Japan

Geophysical models of the electrical conductivity of the Earth's mantle based on the observed variations of electric and magnetic fields at the surface of the Earth yield estimates of about 1 S m-1 for the conductivity of the uppermost lower mantle,. But laboratory conductivity measurements on silicate perovskite (thought to be the dominant constituent of the lower mantle) at high pressures have given conflicting estimates of mantle conductivity, ranging from less than 10-5 up to 1 S m-1 (refs 3–6). Here we present measurements of the electrical conductivity of perovskite in a multi-anvil press at conditions appropriate for the uppermost lower mantle (pressures up to 23 GPa and temperatures up to 2,000 K). We find that the geophysical estimate of lower-mantle electrical conductivity can be well explained by the conductivity of the perovskite component of a low-oxygen-fugacity mantle composed of pyrolite (the assemblage of mineral phases thought to broadly represent that of the Earth's mantle), assuming a standard geotherm. Our results also indicate that the temperature dependence of perovskite conductivity at lower-mantle temperatures and pressures is significantly larger than shown previously; extrapolations of low-temperature conductivity measurements to the higher temperatures of the lower mantle should therefore be treated with caution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
enigma
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,757
17


Originally posted by onycho

I am in no way an expert on Nikola Tesla and his theories but apparently the Earth below our feet would be charged while he states that we are surrounded by a thin layer of insulating air which would prevent humans from receiving the electrical contact.

Power is generated by using the potential difference between what is supplied (generated) and ground. If you charge up the Earth itself, you still need some neutral (or at least different) level of charge to draw any current from it.
 
  • #8


Originally posted by enigma

Power is generated by using the potential difference between what is supplied (generated) and ground. If you charge up the Earth itself, you still need some neutral (or at least different) level of charge to draw any current from it.

This discipline is not my area of expertise.
It seems that presently available electrical conductors and materials used to draw the stored charge for use above the ground should be readily available if Tesla's premise proved correct.
It seems that there has been some recent studies of lower mantle conductivity as previously described.

"We find that the geophysical estimate of lower-mantle electrical conductivity can be well explained by the conductivity of the perovskite component of a low-oxygen-fugacity mantle composed of pyrolite (the assemblage of mineral phases thought to broadly represent that of the Earth's mantle), assuming a standard geotherm."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/conins.html#c1
 
  • #9
Integral
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,253
63
Do these schemes include the actual GENERATION of the power or only the distribution. It is pretty easy to transmit power, every radio station does it. We could conceivably transmit power to every household in the world. Unfortunately this type of distribution is very inefficient and even worse there is no way to BILL for use. It is great for the consumer but it would sux to be the supplier. Who do you know that is willing to provide a very expensive service for free?
 
  • #10
Andy
69
11
I would do it if i could afford it!

Tesla has to be my favourite physicist/mad scientist.
 
  • #11
TESLA TODAY

Nikolas Tesla the man who makes most everything we do today functional is forgotten.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9654/tesla/hacker.html

Edison, who wasn't near the inventor Tesla was, but who was a better businessman, is well remembered as is his General Electric. Still, let me list a few of Tesla's works just so you'll understand how bright he was. He invented the AC motor and transformer. (Think of every motor in your house.) He invented 3-phase electricity and popularized alternating current, the electrical distribution system used all over the world. He invented the Tesla Coil, which makes the high voltage that drives the picture tube in your computer's CRT. He is now credited with inventing modern radio as well; the Supreme Court overturned Marconi's patent in 1943 in favor of Tesla.
Tesla, in short, invented much of the equipment that gets power to your home every day from miles away, and many that use that power inside your home. His inventions made George Westinghouse (Westinghouse Corp.) a wealthy man. Finally, the unit of magnetic flux in the metric system is the "Tesla".

Tesla got to thinking about resonance on a large scale. He'd already pioneered the electrical distribution system we use today, and that's not small thinking; when you think of Tesla, think big. He thought, let's say I send an electrical charge into the ground. What happens to it? Well, the ground is an excellent conductor of electricity.

For a few moments, there in Colorado Springs, he achieved something never before done. He had used the entire planet as a conductor, and sent a pulse through it. In that one moment in the summer of 1899, he made electrical history. That's right, in 1899 - darn near a hundred years ago. Well, you may say to yourself, that's a nice story, and I'm sure George Lucas could make a hell of a move about it, special effects and all. But it's not relevant today. Or isn't it? Hang on to your hat.

The SDI and the Tesla Coil

Last month we talked about an amazing hack that Nikola Tesla did - bouncing an electrical wave through the planet, in 1899, and setting the world's record for manmade lightning.

We've always assumed the ground is an electrical sinkhole. So, with our three-pin plugs we ground everything - the two flat pins in your wall go to electricity (hot and neutral); the third, round pin, goes straight to ground. That third pin is usually hooked with a thick wire to a cold water pipe, which grounds it effectively.

Tesla proved that you can give that ground a terrific charge, millions of volts of high frequency electricity. (Tesla ran his large coil at 33 Khz). Remember, the lightning surging off his Coil was coming from the wave bouncing back and forth in the planet below. In short, he was modifying the ground's electrical potential, changing it from an electrical sinkhole to an electrical source.


How much do we owe this genius today? Mad man, I don't think so....
 
  • #12
pallidin
2,209
2
I agree with Integral. This scheme involves no more than a power distribution network, and a very poor one at that.
To "charge" the Earth with any measurably useful non-local extracting force would require a placement of an earth-charging generation device likely to boggle the imagination, and likely far surpassing any ability we have.
Furthermore, what would be the point?
A considerable amount of energy would be required to charge the earth, for one, and the Earth's exceptionally poor conductivity would create current losses far exceeding the rationality of efficient distribution.
In my opinion, the idea is dead from the start.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Originally posted by pallidin

I agree with Integral. This scheme involves no more than a power distribution network, and a very poor one at that.
To "charge" the Earth with any measurably useful non-local extracting force would require a placement of an earth-charging generation device likely to boggle the imagination, and likely far surpassing any ability we have.

A considerable amount of energy would be required to charge the earth, for one, and the Earth's exceptionally poor conductivity would create current losses far exceeding the rationality of efficient distribution.


Actually the Earth's mantle is constantly being electrically charged by many external forces such as the grounding by Earth's electric users, and many natural forces that have been going on since the formation of this planet such as solar flares. Electricity is constantly being released from the Earth by the action of thousands of hourly lightning events around the world sending the Earth's charge into the atmosphere.

Furthermore, what would be the point?

The point? If some construct could be devised to draw the Earth's electric charge from the mantle, how would governments and corporations charge for everyone's access to free unlimited energy sources. The nature of lightning seems to be doing a very efficient job many times a minute around the globe.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...eve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9603726&dopt=Abstract

Electrical conductivity of olivine, wadsleyite, and ringwoodite under upper-mantle conditions

Xu Y, Poe BT, Shankland TJ, Rubie DC.

Bayerisches Geoinstitut, Universitat Bayreuth, D-95440 Bayreuth, Germany.

Geophysical models show that electrical conductivity in Earth's mantle rises about two orders of magnitude through the transition zone in the depth range 410 to 660 kilometers. Impedance measurements obtained on Mg1.8Fe0.2SiO4 olivine, wadsleyite, and ringwoodite at up to 20 gigapascals and 1400 degreesC show that the electrical conductivities of wadsleyite and ringwoodite are similar and are almost two orders of magnitude higher than that of olivine. A conductivity-depth profile to 660 kilometers, based on these laboratory data, shows a conductivity increase of almost two orders of magnitude across the 410-kilometer discontinuity; such a profile favors a two-layer model for the upper mantle. Activation enthalpies of 1.2 to 1.7 electron volts permit appreciable lateral variations of conductivity with lateral temperature variations.

In my opinion, the idea is dead from the start.

Interestingly that is exactly what many physicists said when Boehr came up with a concept known as QM.
 
  • #14
enigma
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,757
17
Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by pallidin


A considerable amount of energy would be required to charge the earth, for one, and the Earth's exceptionally poor conductivity would create current losses far exceeding the rationality of efficient distribution.


Actually the Earth's mantle is constantly being electrically charged by many external forces such as the grounding by Earth's electric users, and many natural forces that have been going on since the formation of this planet such as solar flares. Electricity is constantly being released from the Earth by the action of thousands of hourly lightning events around the world sending the Earth's charge into the atmosphere.

But that sort of charging is disorganized. You can't draw power from the ground after a lightning strike.

Furthermore, what would be the point?

The point? If some construct could be devised to draw the Earth's electric charge from the mantle, how would governments and corporations charge for everyone's access to free unlimited energy sources. The nature of lightning seems to be doing a very efficient job many times a minute around the globe.

Have you been listening?

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

TANSTAAFL

Charging the Earth may provide free power for the end users, but it A) Will most certainly NOT be free for the people who do the charging, and B) Would be horribly inefficient due to the resistivity of earth.

Why would a company spend their money to charge the Earth so other people can feed off of it for free? Why would they use the Earth when power lines provide orders of magnitude lower resistance and power losses are proportional to resistance?

In my opinion, the idea is dead from the start.

Interestingly that is exactly what many physicists said when Boehr came up with a concept known as QM. [/B]

That doesn't mean that every idea which is dead from the start is revolutionary. The vast majority are merely dead from the start.
 
  • #15
russ_watters
Mentor
21,937
8,973
Originally posted by onycho
The nature of lightning seems to be doing a very efficient job many times a minute around the globe.
Lightning produces a relatively insignificant amount of electricity. Even if it could be reliably harnessed, it wouldn't do much to help the world energy situation.
 
  • #16
Originally posted by enigma

But that sort of charging is disorganized. You can't draw power from the ground after a lightning strike. Have you been listening? There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

After a lightning strike? How do you come to the conclusion that any electrical current charge is disorganized or organized with the Earth being a capacitor? The Earth having about two orders of magnitude through the transition zone in the depth range 410 to 660 kilome which is propelling a current of quantized electrical charges, electrons, through a load. The heavier this load, i.e. the lower the electrical resistance the more current would be drawn from any point on the earth. Actually there is such a thing as a free lunch when it comes to the irreducible complexity you get for free in your own cellular existence as an organism.

Charging the Earth may provide free power for the end users, but it A) Will most certainly NOT be free for the people who do the charging, and B) Would be horribly inefficient due to the resistivity of earth.

Maybe someday, the world's ever increasing need for electricity in all nations (rich and poor) will result in an altruistic consortium of nations using natures own (Energy Towers) physics to supply an endless supply to the betterment of mankind. Albeit the world has never demonstrated any altruistic proclivity toward their fellowman in history.

Apparently Nikola Tesla had no trouble passing a significant electrical potential through the Earth's resistance in the early 1900s. With enough money and the advancement of technology, even the Earth's resistivity should eventually be overcome.

Why would a company spend their money to charge the Earth so other people can feed off of it for free? Why would they use the Earth when power lines provide orders of magnitude lower resistance and power losses are proportional to resistance?

When in the course of advanced technology, power lines provide a lower order of electrical potential than an Earth mantle with significantly reduced resistance, then mankind might see its way to feeding and supplying power to the entire earth.

But not in our days......

That doesn't mean that every idea which is dead from the start is revolutionary. The vast majority are merely dead from the start.

I have learned to NEVER say the words; always, forever or never when it comes to the potentials in the mind of man.
 
  • #17
Originally posted by russ_watters

Lightning produces a relatively insignificant amount of electricity. Even if it could be reliably harnessed, it wouldn't do much to help the world energy situation.

Lightning creates a potential difference of 2x107 to 108 volts between the ground and the bottom of the cloud, the ground being at a higher potential. The resultant electric field is in the upward direction and has a value of 104 volts/meter to 3x104 volts/meter. The average charge released per flash is about 20 coulomb. Hence, about 1000 to 2000 storms are required to occur (and they do occur) per day to maintain the energy balance in the atmosphere.

So this amount of electricity is insignificant?

I never implied that lightning be bound into something like a superconductor, simply the prelightning state of the Earth's potential be harnessed long before it dissipates in lightning bolts.
 
  • #18
russ_watters
Mentor
21,937
8,973
http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/tesla-lightning.htm [Broken] is an interesting site - coincidentally about tesla and harnessing lightning power. A key quote:
The average lightning bolt contains a billion volts at 3,000 amps, or 3 billion kilowatts of power, enough energy to run a major city for months. The United States gets hit with 4,000 lightning bolts a day.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume the raw data is accurate. But there is a problem with his conclusion: he doesn't know the difference between power and energy (kW vs kWh). 3 billion kW is indeed a lot of power: a typical nuclear reactor produces about 2 billion kW. But a lightning strike only lasts about a milisecond. So 4,000 in one day will only give you 138,900 kWh or a continuous output of 5,780 kW (please check my math).

So even if you could harness EVERY lightning strike in the US, you'd only get a total of 1/300,0000 th of the power of a single reactor (in the US we have about 300 of them). Trivial.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
Originally posted by russ_watters

http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/tesla-lightning.htm [Broken] is an interesting site -

coincidentally about tesla and harnessing lightning power. A key quote: I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume the raw data is accurate. But there is a problem with his conclusion: he doesn't know the difference between power and energy (kW vs kWh). 3 billion kW is indeed a lot of power: a typical nuclear reactor produces about 2 billion kW. But a lightning strike only lasts about a milisecond. So 4,000 in one day will only give you 138,900 kWh or a continuous output of 5,780 kW (please check my math). So even if you could harness EVERY lightning strike in the US, you'd only get a total of 1/300,0000 th of the power of a single reactor (in the US we have about 300 of them). Trivial.


Please understand that harnessing lightning is not what I am asserting.

According to current stats, over 10 million bolts of lightning occur each day in the world. That’s 100 zaps per second or every 40 seconds 3 billion kW X 4000 which you say is very trivial when you are looking at a millisecond output per strike.

But if you were somehow able to harness Earth's electrical power source prior to those 10 million lightning strikes/day on a continuous basis, how would those 300 +/- reactor's power rank?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
russ_watters
Mentor
21,937
8,973
Originally posted by onycho
According to current stats, over 10 million bolts of lightning occur each day in the world. That’s 100 zaps per second or every 40 seconds 3 billion kW X 4000 which you say is very trivial when you are looking at a millisecond output per strike.

But if you were somehow able to harness Earth's electrical power source prior to those 10 million lightning strikes/day on a continuous basis, how would those 300 +/- reactor's power rank?
Well, the multiplication is pretty simple - assuming we can harness every single one of those lightning strikes or the energy before the strike (and assuming your 10 million is accurate - it sounds high, but I'll let it go). (10,000,000/4,000)* (1/300,0000) = 1/120th of one reactor.
 
  • #21
Originally posted by russ_watters
Well, the multiplication is pretty simple - assuming we can harness every single one of those lightning strikes or the energy before the strike (and assuming your 10 million is accurate - it sounds high, but I'll let it go). (10,000,000/4,000)* (1/300,0000) = 1/120th of one reactor.

Several other sites give even higher lightning strikes per minute around the globe. These issues all seem to suggest that a storage device is needed for the prelightning power which can then be slowly transformed and distributed. Perhaps the new superconductors being developed can make a magnetic energy storage device capable of handling the job (SMES).

http://www.harc.edu/harc/Content/About/Capabilities/ShowCapability.aspx/304

The design and use of low temperature and high temperature superconducting materials to store energy can greatly enhance power utilization. HARC has worked with corporate partners in the design, construction and testing of various energy storage devices. For example, HARC assembled a six-coil array micro-SMES (superconducting magnetic energy storage) unit as part of a state contract to demonstrate the commercial feasibility of micro-SMES technology.

Using electric power from steady storage superconducting materials do not seem that far fetched.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
Andy
69
11
Lets not take anything away from Tesla here, he was doing stuff 100 years ago that even modern day physicists don't understand. The fact is he was a Genius just because of the fact the he was thinking and trying to implement such revolutionary ideas at the time. Its easy to look back at it now and point out why it won't work, but 100 years ago would you have been able to do that?
 
  • #23
pallidin
2,209
2
Originally posted by Andy
Lets not take anything away from Tesla here, he was doing stuff 100 years ago that even modern day physicists don't understand.

O.K. fair enough. So, what is an actual example of what Tesla did that we do not understand?
 
  • #24
Originally posted by pallidin

O.K. fair enough. So, what is an actual example of what Tesla did that we do not understand?

"Nikola Tesla was the first electrical engineer to harness the awesome power of nature at Niagara Falls. In 1910 he tried to take harnessing the power of nature one step further. He designed a system to harness the power of lightning. J. P. Morgan shut him down."

Because of J.P. Morgan, no one knows whether this genius could actually harness the power in a lightning bolt and actually use the Earth as a massive superconductor to store that power in the mantle of the earth. Mr. Morgan was not interested in being altruistic during a time in American history when money was (not electrical) power.

Work is being done now that gives evidence (as stated in previous posts) that the ground below our feet has the possibility and capacity to not only store but also distribute usuable AC or DC electrical power even with resistivity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
pallidin
2,209
2
Am I wrong, or was my question not answered?
Again, what experiments of Tesla are not understood by today's physicist's?
Cite the specific experiment(s) carried out by Tesla that are not solved.
Point blank. What's your answer?
 
  • #26
russ_watters
Mentor
21,937
8,973
Originally posted by pallidin
O.K. fair enough. So, what is an actual example of what Tesla did that we do not understand?
A valid question.

Like I said before, the myth has unfortunately outgrown the man. The myth diminishes his status as a great scientist and needs to be gotten away from. As any great scientist would, Tesla would likely despise the conspiracy theory that has grown around his accomplishments.
Several other sites give even higher lightning strikes per minute around the globe. These issues all seem to suggest that a storage device is needed for the prelightning power which can then be slowly transformed and distributed. Perhaps the new superconductors being developed can make a magnetic energy storage device capable of handling the job (SMES).
The math is pretty easy on this - even if half the numbers I listed are off by an order of magnitude apiece (not likely), lightning doesn't have a significant fraction of our energy needs. Period. Enough with the smokescreens - the data speaks for itself.
 
  • #27
Originally posted by russ_watters
A valid question.

Like I said before, the myth has unfortunately outgrown the man. The myth diminishes his status as a great scientist and needs to be gotten away from. As any great scientist would, Tesla would likely despise the conspiracy theory that has grown around his accomplishments. The math is pretty easy on this - even if half the numbers I listed are off by an order of magnitude apiece (not likely), lightning doesn't have a significant fraction of our energy needs. Period. Enough with the smokescreens - the data speaks for itself.

Let's take a fresh look at the mW comparisons (smoke screen included) again based on the fact that all potential electrical power on the Earth and atmosphere could be drained into and stored in massive superconductors which would release the power as needed across the global grid.

based on the Earth's more or less:

10,000,000 lightning strikes/day
100 lightning strikes/40 seconds
3 billion kW every 40 second

3,000,000,000 kW divided by 1000 = 3,000,000 mW each 40 seconds
2,600 X 40 = 86,400 seconds/day

2,600 X 3,000,000 mW = 7,000,000,000 mW/day

7,000,000,000 mW/day divided by 2000 mW/day (nuclear reactors)= 3,500,000 reactors.

Even if every nuclear reactor produced 2,000 mW power per day, there would have to be 3,500,000 nuclear reactors in the world to equal the same power output.

I don't believe that all the nuclear plants, coal and gas electrical plants can produce anywhere near the Earth's constantly restoring electrical power.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/JasminMarin.shtml

Unfortunately, there are significant problems with nuclear power plants:

Mining and purifying uranium has not, historically, been a very clean process.

Improperly functioning nuclear power plants can create big problems. The Chernobyl disaster is a good recent example. Chernobyl was poorly designed and improperly operated, but it dramatically shows the worst-case scenario. Chernobyl scattered tons of radioactive dust into the atmosphere.

Spent fuel from nuclear power plants is toxic for centuries, and, as yet, there is no safe, permanent storage facility for it.

Transporting nuclear fuel to and from plants poses some risk, although to date, the safety record in the United States has been good.

These problems have largely derailed the creation of new nuclear power plants in the United States. Society seems to have decided that the risks outweigh the rewards.

The math speaks for itself
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
Originally posted by pallidin
Am I wrong, or was my question not answered?
Again, what experiments of Tesla are not understood by today's physicist's?
Cite the specific experiment(s) carried out by Tesla that are not solved.
Point blank. What's your answer?

Tesla theory not yet proved...

http://www.itsf.org/resources/factsheet.php?fsID=45 [Broken]

Title Neutrino-Resonance - Collecting "Free Energy" by resonative interaction with faster-than-light scalar electromagnetic waves

Source Prof. Dr. Meyl, Konstantin, ""Neutrinopower" ", I don't know exactly, perhaps "INDEL GmbH Verlagsabteilung Villingen Schwenningen",First Ed. , ( Should have been first publicated in July 2000, but not yet seen the book in Store ) Page Nr. Don't know now.

Context The existence of neutrinos is experimantally proven by the Kamiokande detector in Japan, and it is also proven that at night the ratio of neutrinos is about half the size of the day ratio, what leaves place to speculate about the destination of the other half. The book of Prof. Dr Konstantin Meyl tries to theoretically specify the nature and behaviour of neutrinos and to define, under whitch circumstances neutrinos interact with matter, what may be the most reasonable explanation of the lack of neutrinos at night. The theory presented can explain, in whith way matter can be "materialized" from literally nothing, leads to all new and more simple explanations for all modern sciences and has one advantage to all science fiction theories: The predicted effects have already been shown to exist in experiments based on the work of Nicola Tesla. The value of a space propulsion that materializes its fuel while flying is the key to effective and "low-cost" space flight. The Payloadfactor could be 90 or more, and with some of the effects, also described in this theory, the interplantar or even intersolar spaceflight-times could be reduced by 70% to 80%. One problem of all these here presented "future space propulsion systems" is that today, the need of energie exceeds the output by far. If one could build a resonator or some kind of device to slow down neutrinos to under-light-speed or even to zero, the effect could be self-stabilizing, like the solar neutrino-materialization or the materialization in the earth-center. No need of energy at all. Some results of experiments, that were not understood but worked, were Over Unity-Machines, often missinterpreted as "perpetuum mobile" by their inventors, because they didn't know, why their devices reacted like they did, and as the scientific proove with a theoretical background is the only way to get heard by someone, these machines were not accepted, though their principle of working was never understood. This theory now has a mathematically and physically plausible backg! round, based on facts and not disprovable by any "up to date" theory. It expands the physical understanding of our world to the base of a "world formula", describing the behaviour of matter and radiation and the overpass from one to another in clear and theoretically not disprovable terms.

Description The only experiment existing at the moment to prove the theory, is a tesla-experiment-rebuilt, consisting of two teslacoils. The exact electrotechnical behaviour of the Experiment is not know to me, but can be asked at www.k-meyl.de,[/URL] the result in fact is, that the enery-output exceeds the input by about 50% and that the sending coils "is aware" if the receiving coil is "on", meaning in resonance, or not, showing the resonance effect, never seen before when working with electromagnetic radiation. [/quote]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
russ_watters
Mentor
21,937
8,973
Originally posted by onycho
Let's take a fresh look at the mW comparisons (smoke screen included) again based on the fact that all potential electrical power on the Earth and atmosphere could be drained into and stored in massive superconductors which would release the power as needed across the global grid.

based on the Earth's more or less:

10,000,000 lightning strikes/day
100 lightning strikes/40 seconds
3 billion kW every 40 second

3,000,000,000 kW divided by 1000 = 3,000,000 mW each 40 seconds
2,600 X 40 = 86,400 seconds/day

2,600 X 3,000,000 mW = 7,000,000,000 mW/day

7,000,000,000 mW/day divided by 2000 mW/day (nuclear reactors)= 3,500,000 reactors.

Even if every nuclear reactor produced 2,000 mW power per day, there would have to be 3,500,000 nuclear reactors in the world to equal the same power output.

The math speaks for itself
Your math is pretty much completly wrong. But hey, that's cool - my math had errors too(corrected below). Your first and most important mistake is just like the link I posted, you don't account for the length/duration of a lightning strike.

Your second mistake is (like the page linked, and related to the first mistake), you make no distinction between a megawatt and a megawatt-hour. The output of a reactor is a continuous 2,000 megawatts, whereas a lightning strike's output only lasts 1/3,600,000th of an hour (the time unit for energy).

Third, 10,000,000 strikes a day is ~115 per second or 4630 per 40 seconds, not 100 per 40 seconds. There is no need for that to be in the calculation though.
(smoke screen included)
The entire first half of your calculation looks like a smoke screen. Was your calculation meant as a joke? A troll?

In any case, I'll redo my earlier calculaton using all of the lightning strikes in the world (not just the US), and show my work for clarity (and it would appear - to correct two errors):

Given:
10,000,000 strikes per day
3 billion kW per strike
1 milisecond per strike

10,000,000(strikes per day) / 24(hours per day) = 416,667 strikes per hour

3,000,000,000(kW per strike) * 1/1000(sec per strike) / 3600 (sec per hour) / 1000kW/mW = .833mW-hour per strike

416,667 strikes per hour * .833mW-hour per strike = 347,000 mW
or 173 reactors

The math in my first problem used that value of 4,000 per day for the US, and there were indeed two math errors (I divided by 24 and by 1000 one too many times in the ealier calculation - that's why its good to show your work instead of doing it all in your head). So:

4,000(per day) / 24(hr per day) * .833(mW-h per strike) = 138.8mW
or 1/14th of one reactor.

Thats a lot bigger than I got before, but still pretty trivial.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Lets Forget About Lightning Strikes

Originally posted by Russ-Waters

Your math is pretty much completely wrong. But hey, that's cool - my math had errors too(corrected below). Your first and most important mistake is just like the link I posted, you don't account for the length/duration of a lightning strike.

I think that we should forget about lightning strikes. Lightning was used only as a foundation for illustrating the enormous amount of electricity present around our planet at anyone time.

Many experimenters have shown that clear, calm air carries an electrical current which, it turns out is the return path for the electrical display we know as lightning.

The output of a reactor is a continuous 2,000 megawatts, whereas a lightning strike's output only lasts 1/3,600,000th of an hour (the time unit for energy).

The fact is that the world's electrical field is not believed to be evenly spread across the planet. Lightning also is known to produce Nitrous Oxide which diminishes the Ozone layer needed to protect humans from ultraviolet light exposure.

Atmospheric electricity is like a massive photographic flash. An electrical charge is built up, a switch is closed, and electrons barge across a gas, ionizing it and producing light. But a flash is a complete circuit. In the case of the Earth, the atmosphere completes the circuit.

If the electrons in the world's atmosphere could be soaked up and stored in giant superconductors prior to completing the circuit, we would not be measuring individual bolts of lightning at .833mW-hour per strike but a continuous collection system for the Earth and its electrical power for storage and later directed for use in a world power grid.

Technology for collecting and storage of such huge amounts of power are not available as yet but Nikola Tesla did think it possible.
 
  • #31
Andy
69
11
I am really not sure about anything to do with Tesla or any of his experiments, i am only going by what i have read from different sources on the net.

O.K. fair enough. So, what is an actual example of what Tesla did that we do not understand?

What about his experimentation with particle beams? How many modern physicists understand that? I am talking about what conspircay theorists think caused the tunguska explosion, at least i think that was a particle beam.
 
  • #32
Originally posted by Andy

What about his experimentation with particle beams? How many modern physicists understand that? I am talking about what conspircay theorists think caused the tunguska explosion, at least i think that was a particle beam.

Those conspiracy theorists don't have the evidence found at the Tungaska explosion site. Where would a particle beam come from and what kind of extra-terristrial send such a beam into a mostly uninhabited site in Russia?

What was the explosion?

Because the meteorite did not strike the ground or make a crater, early researchers thought the object might be a weak, icy fragment of a comet, which vaporized explosively in the air, and left no residue on the ground. However, modern planetary scientists have much better tools for understanding meteorite explosion in the atmosphere. As a meteorite slams into the atmosphere at speeds around 12 to 20 km/sec or more, it experiences a strong mechanical shock, like a diver bellyflopping into water. This can break apart stones of a certain size range, which explode instead of hitting the ground. Some of them drop brick-sized fragments on the ground, but others, such as the one that hit Siberia, may produce primarily a fireball and cloud of fine dust and tiny fragments. In 1993 researchers Chris Chyba, Paul Thomas, and Kevin Zahnle studied the Siberian explosion and concluded it was of this type -- a stone meteorite that exploded in the atmosphere. This conclusion was supported when Russian researchers found tiny stoney particles embedded in the trees at the collision site, matching the composition of common stone meteorites. The original asteroid fragment may have been roughly 50-60 meters (50-60 yards) in diameter.
 
  • #33
Andy
69
11
Ok, that's cool/

But, Tesla had planned on testing his particle beam on that same nite, and he had targeted the North Pole which was where a friend of his was at the time, on an expedition i think. But when his friend reported back to him saying he had seen no signs of the test Tesla assumed it hadnt worked. He later read about the explosion in Tunguska and realized that Tunguska lie in the path of the test if the test had overshot, that's what i read anyway. And the last i heard the evidence supporting the meteorite explosion was abit sketchy, but i take your word for it.

Anyways i want to believe that Tesla did it.
 
  • #34
russ_watters
Mentor
21,937
8,973
Originally posted by Andy
But, Tesla had planned on testing his particle beam on that same nite, and he had targeted the North Pole which was where a friend of his was at the time, on an expedition i think. But when his friend reported back to him saying he had seen no signs of the test Tesla assumed it hadnt worked. He later read about the explosion in Tunguska and realized that Tunguska lie in the path of the test if the test had overshot, that's what i read anyway. And the last i heard the evidence supporting the meteorite explosion was abit sketchy, but i take your word for it.

Anyways i want to believe that Tesla did it.
I've heard pretty much the same story and yeah - it would be cool if it were true.
 
  • #35
On a N. Carolina 'locally' produced PBS tv program ( seen in southern Va-summer 1969?) a couple of old retired white haired guys (in their 70's) were 'profiled'-very odd and memorable program-who maintained the 'secret files' of Tesla were confiscated by the FBI, and the typical 'free energy' conspiracy of the oil/electrical companies--they never let on where they lived, or who exactly they were (and they weren't "moonshiners"!!), intelligent, well spoken fellows, 'clean-cut' guys, yet i can't remember exactly their professions.....

and it seems to have been part of a four part series on 'wild inventors/eccentrics', which i made the effort to see, but visitors were about and so it goes...

but the gist of their story concentrated on the placement of metal rods in the Earth in some kind of 'aligment' over/across a 'large' distance, which was all based on an experiment by Tesla and his 'financers' in the western states in the mid '30s.....they said Tesla had 'permission' from Roosevelt or Federal and state governments-something about Rural Electric Commission and using basically 'government power lines'....

all a major endeavor to test his 'theory'..... and the results were that when they 'tied in ' to the power grid they caused a 4 or 5 state power failure--and it was common knowledge-"read all about it" stuff in the newspapers....

for what it's worth, there was nothing about lightning involved in their telling of the story or in what they said they believed they would be able to do. It had something to do with the 'electricity' in the Earth itself and using the existingpower grid-and that the 'experiment' worked too well and "blew out the lights" in an area covering a number of states.....


Is this "Telsa experiment" all a "myth"?


(btw those "special effects" in Frankenstein are Tesla's invention-and i remember it being demonstrated on Johnny Carson show-Carson himself 'conducting' 40,000 volts! (or some such -as long as it flows, no problem....how'd they do that, out of a few 220's?
 

Suggested for: Free Worldwide Energy - Nichola Tesla

Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
939
Replies
25
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
51
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
404
Replies
3
Views
411
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Top