Talk:Wireless power transfer/Archive 5

Proposal to revise paragraph five of Tesla's experiments
"Although Tesla claimed his ideas were proven, he had a history of failing to confirm his ideas by experiment . . ."

Hawkins makes no mention of any failure on the part of Tesla to perform experiments.
 * Yes he does. "During the last six years he [Tesla] has made so many startling announcements and has performed so few of his promises that he is getting to be like the man who called "Wolf! wolf! until no one listened to him. Mr. Tesla has failed so often before that there is no call to believe these things until he does them."  --Hawkins, p. 105
 * Chetvorno TALK 22:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

'''Carlson writes only of Tesla’s not having demonstrated a completed system of global wireless telecommunications based upon the earth resonance principle while working at the Colorado Springs Experimental Station. Please note that the Wardenclyffe facility was intended for this very purpose.'''


 * , that was Carlson's whole point, which you seem to have missed. Tesla contracted with Wall Street bankers to build a full-scale wireless power plant, Wardenclyffe, based on an untried principle which he had never tested. It failed to work, ruined Tesla financially and  he had a nervous breakdown. Carlson says that Tesla's fatal flaw was that he believed he could design a new invention "in his head", and build a finished product without verifying by experiment that it would work. -- Chetvorno TALK 09:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

". . . and there seems to be no evidence that he ever transmitted significant power beyond the short-range demonstrations above . . ."

According to Milan Ćirić of the Nikola Tesla Museum, Tesla lit a 10-watt incandescent lamp at a distance of 1,938 feet while at Colorado Springs.

""During his eight month stay at Colorado Springs Tesla carried out a series of experiments with his spark-discharge oscillator. . . . In September 1899 he succeeded in lighting a lamp of approximately 10 W "placed far out into the field," the exact distance from the ground plate being indicated in the Colorado Springs Notes, in the introductory comment for that month."

"Sept. 9. Experiments to be made with st. waves. Exact distance measured to point from ground plate 1938 ft."" '''


 * This is not "long distance power transmission"; as shown by the graph below it is "near field".   Also as mentioned below, with the input power to the huge oscillator 150,000 W, this represents a transmission efficiency of 0.0067%.  Hardly practical wireless power transmission.   -- Chetvorno TALK 22:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"The only report of long-distance transmission by Tesla is a claim, not found in reliable sources, that in 1899 he wirelessly lit 200 light bulbs at a distance of 26 miles."

"There is no independent confirmation of this putative demonstration;"

Tesla did not mention it,

"and it does not appear in his meticulous laboratory notes."

"It originated in 1944 from Tesla's first biographer, John J. O'Neill,"

"who said he pieced it together from "fragmentary material... in a number of publications"."

The only known report of the long-distance transmission and reception of electrical energy by Tesla himself is a statement made to attorney Drury W. Cooper in 1916 that in 1899 he collected quantitative transmission-reception data at a distance of about 10 miles.


 * The "quantitative transmission-reception data" was taken with a bolometer, a sensitive detector used in radio receivers of the time which is designed to detect power at nanowatt or picowatt levels. In other words, this was just a demonstration of radio communication, not wireless power transmission. It is not very notable, as at this time Marconi was transmitting 60 miles.  What is being missed here is that some technologies, such as Tesla's and Marconi's omnidirectional radio transmitters, can transmit tiny amounts of power, enough for communication, without being able to focus enough power on a distant receiver for practical wireless power transmission. -- Chetvorno TALK 23:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

There are four reports by others of Tesla having achieved long-distance wireless power transfer.

The first is the wireless operation of lamps and electric motors at a distance of 15 miles.

The second is the wireless transfer of "power enough to light a lamp at 30 km [19 miles].


 * A mention in a nontechnical article, an obituary for Tesla, 42 years after the fact. -- Chetvorno TALK 23:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

'''The third is an assertion by Tesla biographer John J. O'Neill, said to be pieced together from "fragmentary material . . . in a number of publications," that in 1899 Tesla lit 200 incandescent lamps at a distance of 26 miles. There is no independent confirmation of this demonstration. Tesla did not mention it, and it does not appear in his Colorado laboratory notes.'''>

The fourth is the wireless transfer of sufficient power to light an incandescent lamp of approximately 10 W at a distance of 1938 feet from the magnifying transmitter's ground plate to the point of reception.


 * This is not "long-distance wireless power transfer". As the graph you yourself inserted below shows, it is "near-field radiative" transfer, by radio  waves.   The power transmitted falls with the inverse square of the distance.  At a distance of several miles the power received from Tesla's huge 150,000 watt transmitter would be down to microwatts. "Long distance"?   -- Chetvorno TALK 19:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"In the 110 years since Tesla's experiments, efforts using similar equipment have failed to achieve long distance power transmission, . . ."

'''Over one-hundred and fifteen years have passed since his original work and there is no documentation of the Tesla wireless system apparatus ever having been replicated, other than by Leyh and Kennan,. . .'''


 * A completely false statement. Where does it say this in the source?
 * The Leyh-Kennan paper explicitly says their experiment, which only transmitted power 60 feet, differs from Tesla's apparatus, which Tesla wrote in his patent works by conduction through the atmosphere; ionization.     "... this approach differs significantly from Tesla’s patented system in two important ways: A) There is no ionized path between the devices...".
 * On the other hand, the Leyh-Kennan paper says nothing about any other efforts to replicate Tesla's apparatus. In fact, according to Coe, Lee et al, and Cheney,  there have been other efforts to replicate Tesla's putative wireless power transmission system, which have all failed.  For example, in 1970 Robert K. Golka built a replica of Tesla's huge Colorado Springs magnifying transmitter in a shed at Wendover Air Force Base, Utah, using Tesla's lab notes archived at the Tesla Museum in Beograd, Serbia. (Golka, p.47-49), (Lawren, p.64)   It generated 12 million volts but was unable to transmit wireless power.
 * -- Chetvorno TALK 22:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

. . . and no published reports exist of any attempt to achieve long distance wireless energy transmission by this means.


 * Not only do none of the 4 sources you cited support this statement, 3 of them say that attempts have been made to achieve long distance energy transmission by Tesla's methods and have failed:
 * "Tesla theorized that with his system of power transmission a very simple installation would be required to extract usable amounts of electrical power anywhere on earth. Of course, Tesla was never able to prove this theory or demonstrate it and neither has anyone else." (Coe, p.112)
 * "Contemporary electrical engineers Robert Golka and Will Mische have attempted to replicate Tesla's Colorado Springs work in separate experimental efforts. While high-power transmitters of similar components were constructed, they did not demonstrate wireless electrical power transmission." (Cheney, p.92)
 * [On Tesla's reported lighting of 200 light bulbs wirelessly at a distance of 26 miles] "He may or may not have; but it's almost certainly a myth.  ...nobody has ever been able to duplicate it, despite many attempts..." (Dunning)
 * -- Chetvorno TALK 22:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

". . . and the scientific consensus is his World Wireless system would not have worked."

A number of individuals have expressed the opinion that Tesla wireless system technology would not have worked.

Others believe the propagation mode described by Tesla is valid, that his wireless telecommunications system plan would have succeeded, and that wireless power transfer, while perhaps inefficient, is physically possible.


 * None of the above sources say that practical wireless power transmission is possible by Tesla's method. -- Chetvorno <i style="color:purple; font-size:smaller;">TALK</i> 22:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a quote lifted out of context. Papadopoulos said in the same interview: "His major defect was that he was dreaming but he was doing very few calculations on paper. Because on paper he could have realized that because the dimensions of the wave guide, are so enormous, you can transmit power, but not very much power. You can transfer power to hear the radio, or for television, or for a telephone. But once you want to start turning on lights in which you really need high currents, the power gets diluted because the space is very large. It's a standard defect of dreamers, geniuses, not like Einstein, the other type of geniuses, the inventors, who visualize things, but have difficulty putting numbers [on paper]. And actually, I think that was his downfall." -- Chetvorno <i style="color:purple; font-size:smaller;">TALK</i> 22:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Another quote taken out of context. Cooke goes on to say. "Broad area, distributed, wireless electromagnetic power at levels used by a modern home [what Tesla claimed he could do] will not happen." -- Chetvorno <i style="color:purple; font-size:smaller;">TALK</i> 16:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"Tesla's world power transmission scheme remains today what it was in Tesla's time, a fascinating dream."

Modern demonstrations have validated the basic concept of Tesla's wireless energy transmission scheme over greater than mid-range distances


 * Wrong; this statement is contradicted by the source given:
 * There is nothing in the Leyh-Kennan paper that says they achieved "greater than mid-range distances". Mid-range wireless power transmission distance is defined as between 1 and 10 times the size of the transmitter.  The transmitter coil was about 6 feet (2 meters) high.  The power throughput (Table 3) was only 16.5% at 6 meters (3 times the size of transmitter) and dropped to almost nothing, 1.58% at 10 meters (5 times size of transmitter). These are typical mid-range distances achieved by capacitive coupling.
 * Leyh and Kennan explicitly say their experiment does not use the same "atmospheric conduction" method as Tesla claimed   "...this approach differs significantly from Tesla’s patented system in two important ways: A) There is no ionized path between the devices..."
 * Even at the short distances they used, there was no sign that Tesla's "ground currents" could transfer significant amounts of power.   The Leyh-Kennan paper distinguished three methods of power transmission in their experiment:  "(1) Magnetic coupling between the two secondary cores, (2) Electric coupling between the two top electrodes, (3) Coupling through shared ground current paths". They found that "...transfer of energy in this approach occurs primarily through the electric fields between the receiver and transmitter.", not ground currents: "The conclusion from this experiment was that shared ground current paths provide negligible amounts of coupling..."
 * -- Chetvorno <i style="color:purple; font-size:smaller;">TALK</i> 22:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

and mathematical analysis suggest the feasibility of long distance wireless telecommunications by its means.


 * , You seem to be pushing this section again re: trying to prove your thesis that Tesla's system would have worked in (some way). Again - Wikipedia is not the place to push a thesis or argue a point (see WP:SOAPBOX). This article has been edited over the last year to focus it encyclopedia wise. ""Wireless power transfer" is a collective term that refers to a number of different technologies for transmitting energy by means of electromagnetic fields" gives us an article that is a WP:SUMMARY. As such the history section should also be a summary. The summary here from the more reliable sources here is, (unless I am reading it wrong) "Tesla tried to develop lighting systems based on Resonant inductive coupling and went on to develop a system of long range (global) power transmission based on a fantasy in his mind derived from his misunderstanding of the physical properties involved". Esoteric speculation that "well.... if he fired it up he might have gotten this kind of squeak" is ok for your websites and message boards on Tesla but not ok for Wikipedia. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * (temporarily computerless, using cell) l agree.  Another tedious, confused effort in a long campaign by GLPeterson to push his fringe views into the article against consensus. Many, many errors in the incoherent mass of text he seems to be presenting as evidence: quotes taken out of context, low power radio communication experiments misconstrued as wireless power,  Tesla's short-range inductive coupling experiments presented as evidence of some revolutionary long-range transmission method, and of course inadequate sourcing.  Don't know if its worth refuting them individually.   None of this comes anywhere near challenging anything in the article.-- Chetvorno <i style="color:purple; font-size:smaller;">TALK</i> 17:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Physical properties
The ["Tesla's experiments" History section] summary from the more reliable sources here is, (unless I am reading it wrong) "Tesla tried to develop lighting systems based on Resonant inductive coupling and went on to develop a system of long range (global) power transmission based on a fantasy in his mind derived from his misunderstanding of the physical properties involved".

To what "physical properties" do you refer?

GLPeterson (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Electromagnetism for starters, Tesla misunderstood it at the basic level and did not accept even the theory well through 1919 (see "Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age", by W. Bernard Carlson, pages 127-128, "Nikola Tesla:  The  Guy  Who  DIDN'T  "Invent  Radio"", Thomas H. White). Tesla based his ideas on his theory that electromagnetism was actually well understood 19th century conduction and that he could use ground currents and return currents (Carlson 209-210) combined with the idea that he could use (bogus) 19th ether theory to transmit globally without loss (Carlson 274). This is "misunderstanding of the physical properties involved". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

GLPeterson (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

A kind of squeak
Esoteric speculation that "well.... if he fired it up he might have gotten this kind of squeak" is ok for your websites and message boards on Tesla but not ok for Wikipedia.

According to Milan Ćirić of the Nikola Tesla Museum, Tesla lit a 10-watt incandescent lamp at a distance of 1,938 feet while at Colorado Springs.

""During his eight month stay at Colorado Springs Tesla carried out a series of experiments with his spark-discharge oscillator. . . . In September 1899 he succeeded in lighting a lamp of approximately 10 W "placed far out into the field," the exact distance from the ground plate being indicated in the Colorado Springs Notes, in the introductory comment for that month.""

""Sept. 9. Experiments to be made with st. waves. Exact distance measured to point from ground plate 1938 ft." '''"

The powering of a 10 watt incandescent lamp wirelessly at a distance of 1938 feet from the C/S magnifying transmitter is much more than a "kind of squeak."

GLPeterson (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * When the goal was global transmission of wireless power, lighting a 10 watt bulb at 1938 feet is a squeak, and its a squeak that Tesla miss-interpreted. As one reviewer of Carlson put it "(Tesla) had extraordinary imaginative prowess and developed detailed mental images of his inventions. His problems mainly stemmed from committing to them even when the physical world did not yield the right results - most expensively in his effort to develop wireless power transmission while others were forging ahead with radio for communication.." Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That's right. Powering of a 10 W lamp with Tesla's 150,000 W magnifying transmitter is a transmission efficiency of only 0.0067%. 99.99% of the power was wasted.  Yup, just a squeak. -- Chetvorno <i style="color:purple; font-size:smaller;">TALK</i> 21:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

'''Thank you for your valuable input to this discussion. Here are Tesla's own words bearing upon the subject:'''

GLPeterson (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Complete nonsense, as the Shinohara, Coe, Tomar, and Papadopoulos refs in the article already point out.  Most of the turgid Tesla quotes above are irrelevant. But the last paragraph above is illuminating, because it illustrates in Tesla's own words exactly where he went wrong.  Stuck in outdated 19th century models, Tesla believed that energy could be transmitted wirelessly without "diminution" with distance.  Maxwell's equations, which he rejected, shows that in both near and far field transmission power declines with distance. -- Chetvorno <i style="color:purple; font-size:smaller;">TALK</i> 22:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If there was no "diminution of the effect with distance", why was Tesla's huge 150,000 watt Colorado Springs transmitter only able to light a puny 10 watt bulb at 1,938 feet, as you relate above? Tesla should have been able to transmit up to 150,000 watts to any point on earth. -- Chetvorno <i style="color:purple; font-size:smaller;">TALK</i> 08:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Experiments misconstrued?
Low power radio communication experiments misconstrued as wireless power. ..


 * So if there is no difference between radio transmission and wireless power, why should Tesla get any credit? Early radio pioneers such as Oliver Lodge, Jagadish Chandra Bose and Guglielmo Marconi were transmitting "wireless power" (radio waves) earlier and further than Tesla. -- Chetvorno <i style="color:purple; font-size:smaller;">TALK</i> 20:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

GLPeterson (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The Experiment presented as evidence.
Tesla's short-range inductive coupling experiments presented as evidence of some revolutionary long-range transmission method. ..





According to Milan Ćirić of the Nikola Tesla Museum, Tesla lit a 10-watt incandescent lamp at a distance of 1,938 feet while at Colorado Springs.

""During his eight month stay at Colorado Springs Tesla carried out a series of experiments with his spark-discharge oscillator. . . . In September 1899 he succeeded in lighting a lamp of approximately 10 W "placed far out into the field," the exact distance from the ground plate being indicated in the Colorado Springs Notes, in the introductory comment for that month."

"Sept. 9. Experiments to be made with st. waves. Exact distance measured to point from ground plate 1938 ft.""

'''The propagation distance of 1938 feet excludes the possibility of the observed effect being the result of energy transmission by resonant inductive coupling. With the magnifying transmitter being 51 feet in diameter, the cited range places the Tesla coil receiver 38 times that distance away, exceeding the definition of mid-range power transfer by nearly a factor of four.'''

'''Let's look at Tesla's results in another way. The operating frequency was 129.5 kHz giving a wavelength of about 2317 meters or 7602 feet. The distance from the transmitter's ground plate was 1938 feet, placing it just over one-quarter wavelength away. With its extreme outer limit being 0.159 wavelength, this places the Tesla coil receiver well beyond the reactive near-field region. Given this historical fact, the 10-watt lamp could not have been illuminated by means of resonant inductive coupling.'''



GLPeterson (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Again you seem to be trying to prove a point via your interpretation of primary sources. We have been here before. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

'''Pardon me, but these are verifiable secondary sources. Furthermore, this is a Talk page, not an article, so even the abundant use of primary sources to help prove a point would be perfectly acceptable.'''

GLPeterson (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TALK it is actually not acceptable re: "it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements", so continuing to post your views based on primary sources is contrary to that guideline. Per "secondary?", the last ten sources have been Nikola Tesla, Nikola Tesla, Nikola Tesla, Nikola Tesla testimony transcript, Nikola Tesla testimony transcript, Nikola Tesla testimony transcript, Nikola Tesla, and Nikola Tesla. That's all solidly primary sourced. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. The given source is Tesla's Colorado Springs lab notes, edited by Marinčić; a primary source. Even if it wasn't, GLPeterson, it is nowhere near evidence that Tesla could transmit power long distances:
 * In the experiment a 10 W lamp is lit at a distance of 1,938 feet using Tesla's huge 150,000 W magnifying transmitter. This is a transmission efficiency of 10/150,000 = 0.0067%; that is, 99.993% of the energy was wasted.  This is not practical wireless power transfer in any sense of the term.
 * At a frequency of 130 kHz the transmission distance of 1,938 ft is about 1/4 wavelength, as you say. You're right, this is too far for much power to be transmitted by inductive coupling.  If you look at the above graph you included, you will see that the receiver is in the "near-field radiative" region.   This means the power was mostly transmitted by radio waves.  Radiated power falls with the inverse square of the distance.  If the receiver had been 4 times as far away, only 7,700 feet, the received power would have been one sixteenth, or 625 milliwatts, for a transmission efficiency of 0.0004%. How is this practical "long range wireless power transfer" as you claim?
 * Where is the evidence that Tesla had some revolutionary new power transmission method? There is no evidence of Tesla's "ground currents"; it is all adequately explained by radio waves. The coil functioned as a loop antenna.
 * If such tiny power transfers are considered to be "wireless power", as you seem to be arguing, then why should Tesla even be mentioned? Radio pioneers such as Hertz, Oliver Lodge, Jagadish Chandra Bose, Ferdinand Braun, and particularly Guglielmo Marconi were transmitting radio waves ("wireless power") before Tesla. At the same time as Tesla was transmitting 1,938 feet, Marconi was "transmitting wireless power" across the Atlantic ocean, a distance of 2,200 miles.  Of course the power was so low that it could only be received by sensitive detectors like coherers.  The same would be true of Tesla's transmissions at that distance. Such infinitesimal amounts of power have only one use; radio communication.
 * -- Chetvorno <i style="color:purple; font-size:smaller;">TALK</i> 21:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed all reported Tesla experiments fit in the usual Maxwell frame, no needs for scalar or longitudinal waves or any other magic interpretation. Besides, the intermediate range (Fraunhofer region) leads to possible complex interference due to ground and atmospheric conduction and to possible local amplifications or damping as well as time varying effects (such as fading), all well known by engineers.--Henri BONDAR (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Article needs cleanup to remove fringe content
I think this article needs cleanup again, as it periodically does, to remove fringe and WP:OR material. All of it was added by a single editor, GLPeterson, without support of any other editor, against the objections of Fountains of Bryn Mawr and myself.


 * The bloated Tesla's experiments section needs to be cleaned of inadequately sourced WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT content that has built up since the last rewrite.  I enthusiastically support Fountains of Bryn Mawr's reversions of recent additions of inadequately sourced fringe material.  There is additional fringe that needs to be removed, such as the statement that there is "empirical scientific evidence" that Tesla transmitted power long-range (contradicted by 9 sources and supported only by Tesla's 110 year old statements and the Anderson hagiography),  and the WP:UNDUE WEIGHT inclusion of inadequately sourced rumors and myths that he ran lights and motors at distances of 15 & 19 miles, etc.  According to the 9 reliable sources in the article,  Tesla discovered short range resonant inductive coupling, but did not achieve long range wireless power transmission, and the section needs to be rewritten to put his limited contributions in perspective.


 * The section Atmospheric plasma channel coupling describes a mostly experimental technique using lasers to create a plasma channel through the air to guide an electric arc. There was much argument on the Talk page over whether this should be included. As was noted at the time, this topic has little justification to be included within the scope of this article; (1) it is already adequately covered in other articles, such as Electrolaser, Directed-energy weapon, and Plasma channel, (2) it is not referred to as "wireless power" in sources, and not found in any mainstream texts on the subject, (3) it is not used to transmit power to electrical loads, but only in machining surfaces and as a directed energy weapon.  I am on the fence regarding whether this section should be deleted; I certainly wouldn't object.   But I feel strongly that if it is kept, it should be rewritten to remove the implication that it is used to transport power to electrical loads, and it should be moved out of the "Near field" section.  As it does not transmit power by either near-field or far-field electromagnetic waves but by ionization, it should be given a separate section outside the Near-field and Far-field sections, or possibly in the Laser section.


 * I think the section structure of the article should be reverted to its original form:
 * Near-field (nonradiative) techniques
 * Inductive coupling
 * Capacitive coupling
 * Magnetodynamic coupling
 * Far-field (radiative) techniques
 * Microwaves
 * Lasers
 * This division echoes the division of the field found in most textbooks and reliable sources, such as Sun, Shinohara, and Valtchev.
 * The present structure is:
 * Nonradiative techniques
 * Near-field
 * Inductive (magnetic) coupling
 * Capacitive coupling
 * Electrical conduction
 * Atmospheric plasma channel coupling
 * Magnetodynamic coupling
 * Far-field (radiative) techniques
 * Microwaves
 * Lasers
 * It was changed to this structure by a single editor without consensus in order to shoehorn in the Electrical conduction section, which he has repeatedly inserted in the past as a place for his fringe WP:OR theories about Tesla. This is unsourced; no reliable sources mention a technique or category of wireless power called "Electrical conduction" or "Atmospheric plasma channel coupling".

-- Chetvorno <i style="color:purple; font-size:smaller;">TALK</i> 22:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with reorganization. Re Tesla: This is an article about existing techniques that use real physics. We have now bloated out to seven paragraphs (half the History section!) devoted to a Tesla dead end experiment that used junk physics. Tesla deserves maybe a one or two paragraph mention for historical context but half his theory was a fanciful version of Mahlon Loomis (who should also be mentioned). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with reorganization. As per comment in the previous paragraph. Purgy (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Disagree with reorganization. The organization is fine just the way it is. The term "near field" has to do with an alternating electromagnetic field produced by an antenna. A permanent magnet is not an antenna, so Magnetodynamic coupling is not near field. About, "if [Atmospheric plasma channel coupling] is kept . . . it should be moved out of the "Near field" section. . . . it should be given a separate section outside the Near-field and Far-field sections. . . ." The Atmospheric plasma channel coupling section is already outside of the Near-field and Far-field sections so a reorganization is not necessary. GLPeterson (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up the fringe views from the article per consensus above (no opinion/change in heading reorganization). Also trimmed out claims of "who did what with a light-bulb" since it is esoteric as pointed out by and too much for a short history and is covered in other Tesla articles. Trimmed down redundant wording, much of this has it's own article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Disagree with "cleanup". That Tesla performed empirical scientific research into long range wireless transmission at Colorado Springs is properly supported by many reliable secondary and tertiary sources. No "cleanup" is required. GLPeterson (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * A second bulleted item expressing disagreement by the same author on some subject does not look appropriate to me, even when the referred word has changed from reorganisation to cleanup. Purgy (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"Reorganisation" vs. "Cleanup"
I consider the article as improved with the last edits by Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Even when the structure is, argueably, mostly contained (no reorganisation?), the content has -to my opinion at least- gained much in readability, and lost much of distracting "fascinated dreaming". Thank you. Purgy (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to revise paragraph six of Tesla's experiments
In order to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic of Tesla's wireless system, (a neutral point of view) I propose the following rewrite of paragraph six of Tesla's experiments. GLPeterson (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

"Years after Tesla's original research into World Wireless system technology, experimental replications using similar equipment have achieved long range nonradiative wireless energy transmission.    Nevertheless, there is a lack of scientific consensus as to whether the World Wireless system would have worked.  Some believe Tesla's wireless system would not have worked.        Others believe Tesla's wireless system apparatus is viable, the propagation mode he described is valid,  his claim to have measured a terrestrial pulse that rebounded off the antipode of the earth is valid, that his calculated earth resonance frequency is essentially correct, that the wireless telecommunications component of the World Wireless plan could have succeeded, and, while the global transmission of electrical energy at industrial power levels would not be practicable, that long range nonradiative wireless power transfer is physically possible. Tesla's scheme remains today what it was in his time, a fascinating dream."

References:


 * In the first place, none of the reliable sources above say Tesla used "long-range nonradiative wireless power transmission", some new "propagation mode" such as "terrestrial waves"; all the reliable engineering sources discuss whether Tesla transmitted power by plain old radio waves. The point made by these sources, which you seem to have missed, is that unfocused omnidirectional radio transmissions such as Tesla's are useless for long-distance power transmission.  Low power radio waves such as used for communication are not "wireless power"; if they were we could forget Tesla; Oliver Lodge and Guglielmo Marconi were transmitting earlier and further than him.  You need a high gain antenna to transmit wireless power long distances, which Tesla never hit on.


 * The only sources you give to support your "alternative" views don't even come close to meeting WP standards: a book by a fringe author (Seifer) which also promotes ESP and psychic healing, a primary source paper that doesn't even mention Tesla (Corum), some patents, which are not reliable sources (see WP:PATENTS) (Corum, Tesla), a paper "published" in an unrefereed junk science journal by the Tesla Society (Marinčić), and minor quotes from mainstream authors twisted out of context (Papadopoulos, Wearing). Here are my comments on the sources:


 * (1) Where do Layh and Kennan say that "Replications of Tesla's experiments using similar equipment have achieved long range nonradiative wireless energy transmission"? This paper has already been discussed on this page. Their short range experiment only demonstrated power transmission by capacitive coupling.  They explicitly said they didn't use Tesla's methods, and in fact they looked for and didn't find any significant power transfer by Tesla's "ground currents".


 * 2) This primary source discusses surface waves and never mentions Tesla.


 * (3) Not accessible. Even if it supported your statement it is a  primary source that would have to be backed up by secondary sources to be included.


 * (4),(5) Patents are not reliable sources, see WP:PATENTS. The patent office does no feasibility checking.


 * (6) Tomar: "[Tesla] tried to broadcast approximately 300 kW power via 150 kHz radio wave. Unfortunately, he failed because of diffusion of the wireless power, which depends on the frequency of operation and the size of the transmitting antenna. (...) The true history of WPT started with the use of microwaves..."


 * (7) Shinohara: "Unfortunately [Tesla's] experiment failed because the transmitted power was diffused in all directions using 150 kHz radio waves, whose wavelength was 21 km."


 * (9) Coe says explicitly that Tesla's system didn't work: "Tesla theorized that with his system a very simple installation could extract electrical power in useful amounts anywhere on earth. Of course Tesla was never able to prove this theory or demonstrate it and neither has anyone else"


 * (10) Cooke says wireless transmission is possible, but he is referring to radio waves, not "nonradiative" power, and not to Tesla's methods. His next sentence was: "Broad area, distributed, wireless electromagnetic power at levels used by a modern home [what Tesla claimed he could do] will not happen."


 * (11) Curty says that wireless power was impossible using the long wavelength equipment that Tesla was using: "The work of Tesla was based on very long wavelengths and thus the concept of radio wave focusing couldn't be used."


 * (12) Belohlavek: "Today [Tesla's] pioneering ideas in wave propagation are fundamental to all radio communication, but were impossible for transmitting large amounts of power"


 * (13) Marc Seifer is a fringe author with no physics or electronics experience and his book also espouses ESP, parapsychology, ether theory, longitudinal electromagnetic waves, the third eye, faster than light particles, and other topics far outside the realm of mainstream science.


 * (14) A quote taken out of context. Papadopoulos said in the same interview: "[Tesla's] major defect was that he was dreaming but he was doing very few calculations on paper. Because on paper he could have realized that because the dimensions of the wave guide, are so enormous, you can transmit power, but not very much power. You can transfer power to hear the radio, or for television, or for a telephone. But once you want to start turning on lights in which you really need high currents, the power gets diluted because the space is very large. It's a standard defect of dreamers, geniuses, not like Einstein, the other type of geniuses, the inventors, who visualize things, but have difficulty putting numbers [on paper]. And actually, I think that was his downfall."


 * (15) An article published in The Tesla Journal, an open access (i.e. unrefereed, junk science) publication by The Tesla Society. Even if you trust Marinčić, the phrase: "there is a truth in Tesla's statements about specific behavior of low frequency..." does not mean he believes that "the propagation mode Tesla described is valid" for power transmission.


 * (16) Tesla's 110 year old patent is nowhere near a reliable source that he actually "...measured a terrestrial pulse to have rebounded off the antipodes."


 * (17) Seifer again. See re: (13)


 * (18) Whether Tesla's system could be used for broadcasting information is not under discussion, this article is about wireless power.
 * -- Chetvorno <i style="color:purple; font-size:smaller;">TALK</i> 15:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Introduction: The Existing Sentence
"In the years since Tesla's experiments, efforts using similar equipment have failed to achieve long distance power transmission . . . <ref name='Coe'>

'Tesla’s approach was to employ a radial cylindrical radio surface wave [Barlow, H., J. Brown, Radio Surface Waves, Oxford University Press, London, 1962.] while at the same time suppressing space wave electromagnetic radiation.

' I am not producing radiation in my system; I am suppressing electromagnetic [space] waves. But, on the other hand, my apparatus can be used effectively with electromagnetic [space] waves. The apparatus has nothing to do with this new method except that it is the only means to practice it. So that in my system, you should free yourself of the idea that there is radiation, that energy is radiated. It is not radiated; it is conserved. ' [Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents and Their Application to Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony, and Transmission of Power, Leland I. Anderson, editor, Sun Publishing Company, 1992, p. 133.)]

'Tesla's claim that his system is different from Hertz‘s is based on the fact that at low frequencies, and with small antenna in terms of wavelength, radiation of Hertzian type electromagnetic wave is small. Tesla's waves, if we are allowed to use such a name, are in fact surface waves in modern terminology. . . . In 'pure Hertzian' wave (in Tesla's terminology) there is no induced current in the Earth, except on reflection region which is not essential for the discussion. In contrast to the latter, guided surface. . . waves do not exist without current in the Earth crust. Having this in mind, we can conclude that there is a truth in Tesla's statements about specific behavior of low frequency, guided to the Earth waves.' [Marinčić, Aleksandar, “Research of Nikola Tesla in Long Island Laboratory,” Energy and Development at the International Scientific Conference in Honor of the 130th Anniversary of the Birth of Nikola Tesla, reprinted in The Tesla Journal, Numbers 6 & 7, Tesla Memorial Society, 1990, pp. 25-28.]'"

Removed "Cheney, Margaret; Uth, Robert; Glenn, Jim (1999). Tesla, Master of Lightning. Barnes & Noble Publishing. pp. 90–92. ISBN 158663187X."
I Removed ""

'''Bob Golka's efforts were directed toward excitation of the fundamental Schumann resonance mode of approximately 7.83 Hz. He had an arrangement with a West Coast Schumann resonance monitoring station to evaluate the ELF output performance of his apparatus. (Of course Tesla himself was not trying to excite a Schumann resonance mode.) Bob never made any attempt to demonstrate wireless electrical power transfer using a tuned Tesla coil receiver as specified by Tesla's wireless system patents. Will Mische's contribution to the Saint Cloud, Minnesota "People's Power Project" was construction of the Tesla coil receiver in Belgrade, Minnesota on the farm of Virgil Fuchs. The Tesla coil magnifying transmitter to be built in Timmons, Ontario, Canada never became operational. Will confirmed this to me personally some time ago.'''

"The People’s Power Project was set up to try and carry out this Tesla experiment which was going to be a test of Nikola Tesla’s ideas of sending electricity through the earth without the use of wires. . . . The experiment is going to go from Timmons, Ontario in Canada, where they have a radio station there, which was going to provide much of the juice, and it’s going to send electricity to be picked up in Belgrade, Minnesota on the farm of Virgil Fuchs, who’s been one of the militant anti-powerline people. And the People’s Power Project is pushing that. . . . Nobody knows if it’s going to work or not. But, you know, we figure what the heck, we can try it.  If it works, great.  There might be some side effects to it.  I mean it’s hard to say, you know, these things have to be experimented with.  But it’s kind of an outgrowth of people wanting to see what other ways electricity could be sent, without the use of powerlines, which is, of course, a major point and struggle in western central Minnesota.

EN: How soon will this be tested or operational?

DO: Well, it’ll be tested first time sometime this spring. The Canadian people have been a little bit slow and a little bit behind. Here Minnesota’s been ready for quite a while, but... So I don’t know exactly when it’s going to be tried, but...

EN: I see. Is this something that originated from the urban area, and then arrangements were made with Mr. Fuchs?

DO: Well, it happened when Will Mische of St. Cloud had read something in the paper about the Russians supposedly doing it. That was last February, in 1977. So he went to one of the meetings. The powerline people were in their meeting, and he talked to them. He also talked to some co-op people here in the Twin Cities, and they said, “Why not?” Virgil put up some land to try it—-virtually right under where the powerline is going to cross his farm. So Will Mische has been the one who’s been basically doing much of the work now on that, and he’s one of the other Urban Support people who did a lot of the physical labor, too, last summer.

EN: What role did the opponents out in the area have in the project?

DO: Well, I wasn’t there a lot, wasn’t around last summer, so I don’t know exactly. I mean I’m sure they helped some in construction and all that, and people have certainly been interested in it. It’s taken so long. It was supposed to have been tested way last summer, but people have kind of, I don’t know, put it aside for a while or forgotten about it. But, you know, it’s done here in Minnesota, and it’s just sitting there waiting to be tried."

GLPeterson (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Any private communication you claim to have had is not a WP:reliable source. Cheney's book, one of the most respected biographies of Tesla, is. -- Chetvorno <i style="color:purple; font-size:smaller;">TALK</i> 05:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The author of the critical sentence in the Cheney-Uth book did not write, 'While high-power transmitters of comparable components were constructed, they tried and failed to demonstrate wireless electrical power transmission.' He wrote, "While high-power transmitters of comparable components were constructed,  they did not  demonstrate wireless electrical power transmission."

GLPeterson (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Dunning, Brian (15 January 2013). "Did Tesla plan to transmit power world-wide through the sky?". The Cult of Nikola Tesla. Skeptoid.com.


'''Wireless energy transmission by means of a Schumann resonance propagation mode was never part of Tesla's plan. Saying, "no attempts to test it have ever worked" is meaningless within the context of the subject sentence. It does not support the assertion of no successful demonstration of long range non-radiative wireless power transfer ever having taken place.'''

'''Natural lightning excites the Schumann resonance modes. They are observed at the lowest few resonance frequencies (about 8 Hertz and multiples of that). Their measured Q's on the order of 5 to 10 suggest the electrical disturbances produced by lightning make a few circuits of the Earth before damping out and create a fairly definite terrestrial standing wave of a few cycles duration. What is wanted for wireless power transfer is for the electrical load connected to the receiver to draw power from the transmitter via the standing wave. When the load is switched on the transmitter should "feel" the load, as it would in a closed circuit, and respond by providing more power via the standing wave. According to estimates this would require an Earth-ionosphere cavity Q on the order of ~106 or 107 at the lowest Schumann resonance frequencies. (Cavity Q is defined here as the ratio of the electric field energy stored in the Earth-ionosphere cavity per cycle of the oscillation to the average power input to the cavity from the transmitter.) This estimate of the required Q is based on the requirement that the current induced in the input impedance of the receiver should reciprocally induce power in the output impedance of the transmitter similar to the power that was transmitted initially. This is a way of expressing the coupling between the transmitter and receiver required for the transmitter to "feel" the load on the receiver. The estimated Q is the value that produces an electric field in the cavity strong enough to induce the required current in the input impedance of the receiver. Schumann electrical oscillations do not allow efficient transfer of power from the transmitter to the receiver over long distances. The concept of transferring power with small losses in this manner will not work because the standing wave would occur in the Earth-ionosphere cavity, which is too lossy, i.e., the Q is too small to enable a standing wave of sufficient amplitude to be generated. For the transmitter to feed power to the receiver as efficiently as it would in a closed low-loss circuit, power transferred to the receiver should be able to transfer power of the same order of magnitude reciprocally to the transmitter. This is a necessary condition for the transmitter to “feel” the load connected to the receiver, and to supply power to it via the standing wave. To do this, the required Q of the Earth-ionosphere cavity is on the order of 106 or so at the lowest Earth-ionosphere cavity Schumann resonant frequency of about 8 Hz, according to estimates, whereas measurements based on the spectrum of natural electrical radio noise yield a Q of only about 5 to 10.''' [

Another conceptual difficulty with wireless power transfer by means of standing waves in the Schumann cavity is that at the very low frequencies Tesla employed (1-50 kHz) earth-ionosphere waveguide excitation, now well understood, would seem to be impossible with the either the Colorado Springs or the Long Island apparatus (at least with the apparatus visible in photographs of these facilities). ["Spherical Transmission Lines and Global Propagation, An Analysis of Tesla's Experimentally Determined Propagation Model," K. L. Corum, J. F. Corum, Ph.D., and J. F. X. Daum, Ph.D. 1996, p. 10.]

Furthermore, the operating frequency of ~25 kHz specified by Tesla is far above the highest easily observable Schumann resonance mode (the 9th overtone) that exists at approximately 66.4 Hz. Tesla's selection of 25 kHz is wholly inconsistent with the operation of a system that is based upon the excitation of a Schumann resonance mode.

GLPeterson (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

. . . and scientific consensus is the World Wireless system would not have worked.<ref name="Coe">

"' I am not producing radiation in my system; I am suppressing electromagnetic [space] waves. ' [Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents and Their Application to Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony, and Transmission of Power, Leland I. Anderson, editor, Sun Publishing Company, 1992, p. 133.)]

'Tesla's claim that his system is different from Hertz‘s is based on the fact that at low frequencies, and with small antenna in terms of wavelength, radiation of Hertzian type electromagnetic wave is small. Tesla's waves, if we are allowed to use such a name, are in fact surface waves in modern terminology. [Marinčić, Aleksandar, “Research of Nikola Tesla in Long Island Laboratory,” Energy and Development at the International Scientific Conference in Honor of the 130th Anniversary of the Birth of Nikola Tesla, reprinted in The Tesla Journal, Numbers 6 & 7, Tesla Memorial Society, 1990, pp. 25-28.]" <ref name="Tomar">

"' I am not producing radiation in my system; I am suppressing electromagnetic [space] waves. ' [Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents and Their Application to Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony, and Transmission of Power, Leland I. Anderson, editor, Sun Publishing Company, 1992, p. 133.)]

'Tesla's claim that his system is different from Hertz‘s is based on the fact that at low frequencies, and with small antenna in terms of wavelength, radiation of Hertzian type electromagnetic wave is small. Tesla's waves, if we are allowed to use such a name, are in fact surface waves in modern terminology. [Marinčić, Aleksandar, “Research of Nikola Tesla in Long Island Laboratory,” Energy and Development at the International Scientific Conference in Honor of the 130th Anniversary of the Birth of Nikola Tesla, reprinted in The Tesla Journal, Numbers 6 & 7, Tesla Memorial Society, 1990, pp. 25-28.]" <ref name="Wheeler">

"Wheeler was persuaded by a 1935 written statement from Kenneth A. Norton in which he asserts an error in sign in Arnold Sommerfeld’s 1909 paper “Über die Ausbreitung der Wellen in der Drahtlosen Telegraphie,” Annalen der Physik, vol. 28, 1909, pp. 665-695, and a seminal experiment that was conducted in 1936 by C.R. Burrows of Bell Labs that had justified Norton’s flawed analysis. These resulted in a conviction on the part of the electrical engineering community as to the non-existence of the Zenneck surface wave. The confusion was only resolved analytically in 2004 by Professor R.E. Collin who stated, “There is no sign error . . . The famous ‘sign error’ is a myth.' [”Collin, R.E., “Hertzian Dipole Radiating Over a Lossy Earth or Sea: Some Early and Late 20th Century Controversies,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, vol. 46, No. 2, April 2004, pp. 64-79.]

' I am not producing radiation in my system; I am suppressing electromagnetic [space] waves. ' [Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents and Their Application to Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony, and Transmission of Power, Leland I. Anderson, editor, Sun Publishing Company, 1992, p. 133.)]

'Tesla's claim that his system is different from Hertz‘s is based on the fact that at low frequencies, and with small antenna in terms of wavelength, radiation of Hertzian type electromagnetic wave is small. Tesla's waves, if we are allowed to use such a name, are in fact surface waves in modern terminology. [Marinčić, Aleksandar, “Research of Nikola Tesla in Long Island Laboratory,” Energy and Development at the International Scientific Conference in Honor of the 130th Anniversary of the Birth of Nikola Tesla, reprinted in The Tesla Journal, Numbers 6 & 7, Tesla Memorial Society, 1990, pp. 25-28.]" <ref name="Belohlavek">

"Numerical analysis based upon Earth resistivity measurements show the net resistance between antipodes to be less than one ohm. ['Nikola Tesla and the Diameter of the Earth: A Discussion of One of the Many Modes of Operation of the Wardenclyffe Tower,' K. L. Corum and J. F. Corum, Ph.D. 1996] As to atmospheric conductivity, at an elevation of 50 km or 31 miles it is 'practically perfect'.

'If you go high enough, the conductivity is so great that horizontally there is no more chance for voltage variations. The air, for the scale of times that we are talking about, becomes effectively a conductor. This occurs at a height in the neighborhood of 50 kilometers. This is not as high as what is called the 'ionosphere,' in which there are very large numbers of ions produced by photoelectricity from the sun. Nevertheless, for our discussions of atmospheric electricity, the air becomes sufficiently conductive at about 50 kilometers that we can imagine that there is practically a perfect conducting surface at this height, from which the currents come down.' [Feynman, R. P., R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, 1964, Vol. 2, chapter 9; p. 629.]

' I am not producing radiation in my system; I am suppressing electromagnetic [space] waves. ' [Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents and Their Application to Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony, and Transmission of Power, Leland I. Anderson, editor, Sun Publishing Company, 1992, p. 133.)]

'Tesla's claim that his system is different from Hertz‘s is based on the fact that at low frequencies, and with small antenna in terms of wavelength, radiation of Hertzian type electromagnetic wave is small. Tesla's waves, if we are allowed to use such a name, are in fact surface waves in modern terminology. [Marinčić, Aleksandar, “Research of Nikola Tesla in Long Island Laboratory,” Energy and Development at the International Scientific Conference in Honor of the 130th Anniversary of the Birth of Nikola Tesla, reprinted in The Tesla Journal, Numbers 6 & 7, Tesla Memorial Society, 1990, pp. 25-28.]" <ref name="Papadopoulos"> "'Tesla understood. . . we have the ground which is a conductor, and above that we have another conductor at about 80 kilometers and if you send radio waves of low frequency they get combined in that channel and they can propagate, and this is called the earth ionospheric wave guide. . . . And he said, since I have this wave guide, I can repeat what I am doing in the laboratory. . . . [T]he dimensions of the wave guide are so enormous, you can transmit power, but not very much power. You can transfer power to hear the radio, or for television, or for a telephone. But once you want to start turning on lights in which you really need high currents, the power gets diluted because the space is very large.

'There are two ways of propagating. . . . by bouncing between the earth and the ionosphere [or] you forget the ionosphere and the current is carried only by the earth. . . . The problem with both modes in terms of really sending a lot of energy, is they attenuate a lot. . . . Earth and the ionosphere. . . are poor conductors. So what happens is a lot of energy goes into heating the ground or heating the ionosphere.

' (Tesla's) idea of propagation is perfectly valid. Tesla's intuition was absolutely unbelievable. Because we had problems really persuading people about this concept in the 70s. And Tesla, without knowledge of satellites or solar UV radiation, all those things, he could really visualize the correct mode of propagation. '"

"Numerical analysis based upon Earth resistivity measurements show the net resistance between antipodes to be less than one ohm. ['Nikola Tesla and the Diameter of the Earth: A Discussion of One of the Many Modes of Operation of the Wardenclyffe Tower,' K. L. Corum and J. F. Corum, Ph.D. 1996] As to atmospheric conductivity, at an elevation of 50 km or 31 miles it is 'practically perfect'.

'If you go high enough, the conductivity is so great that horizontally there is no more chance for voltage variations. The air, for the scale of times that we are talking about, becomes effectively a conductor. This occurs at a height in the neighborhood of 50 kilometers. This is not as high as what is called the 'ionosphere,' in which there are very large numbers of ions produced by photoelectricity from the sun. Nevertheless, for our discussions of atmospheric electricity, the air becomes sufficiently conductive at about 50 kilometers that we can imagine that there is practically a perfect conducting surface at this height, from which the currents come down.' [Feynman, R. P., R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, 1964, Vol. 2, chapter 9; p. 629.]

Tesla’s approach was to employ a radial cylindrical radio surface wave [] while at the same time suppressing space wave electromagnetic radiation.

' I am not producing radiation in my system; I am suppressing electromagnetic [space] waves. ' [Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents and Their Application to Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony, and Transmission of Power, Leland I. Anderson, editor, Sun Publishing Company, 1992, p. 133.)]

'Tesla's claim that his system is different from Hertz‘s is based on the fact that at low frequencies, and with small antenna in terms of wavelength, radiation of Hertzian type electromagnetic wave is small. Tesla's waves, if we are allowed to use such a name, are in fact surface waves in modern terminology. [Marinčić, Aleksandar, “Research of Nikola Tesla in Long Island Laboratory,” Energy and Development at the International Scientific Conference in Honor of the 130th Anniversary of the Birth of Nikola Tesla, reprinted in The Tesla Journal, Numbers 6 & 7, Tesla Memorial Society, 1990, pp. 25-28.]

The radial cylindrical radio surface wave or Zenneck surface wave exists as an exact solution to Maxwell's equations. It is supported by a planar or spherical interface between two homogeneous media having different dielectric constants. [Barlow, H., J. Brown, Radio Surface Waves, Oxford University Press, London, 1962.], [Hendry, Janice, “Surface Waves: What are they? Why are they interesting?,” Roke Manor Research Ltd., 2009.] In the case of terrestrial wireless power transfer, the upper medium is the insulating atmosphere and the lower medium is the earth below it, comprising a lossy spherical conducting transmission line. [Corum, K. L. and J. F. Corum, U.S. Patent Pending US20140252886 A1, 'Excitation and use of guided surface wave modes on lossy media.', [Corum, K. L. and J. F. Corum, U.S. Patent Pending US20160072300 A1, 'Excitation and use of guided surface wave modes on lossy media.'

About attenuation, the Zenneck surface wave field strength falls off exponentially at a rate of e-αd/&radic;d in the direction of propagation along the interface, where α is a frequency-dependent attenuation constant. [Goubau, G., “Über die Zennecksche Bodenwelle,” (On the Zenneck Surface Wave), Zeitschrift für Angewandte Physik, Vol. 3, 1951, Nrs. 3/4, pp. 103-107.] As the wavelength becomes greater the propagation attenuation decreases and the fields extend out over a greater distance. The field intensity of the bound wave is at a maximum at the earth-atmosphere surface. A pure Zenneck wave has no space wave component; the portion of field energy present in the upper half space or dielectric is evanescent."

GLPeterson (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * There is such a thing as TL;DR. This is standard a GLPeterson PUSH attempt in spades --- combining sources that say "well, Tesla could have been attempting this" with an unrelated source that says "Well, this exist here" to imply "Tesla knew about this, designed for it, and would have employed it if nasty old JP Morgan hadn't pulled his funds". Combining unrelated sources (and even some primary sources) to reach a conclusion has been discussed before. If we follow a reliable secondary source we do not get the story GLPeterson is pushing at all.......Carlson, W. Bernard (2013). Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age. Princeton University Press. pp. 294, 301. ISBN 1400846552..... what we get is a description of a massive case of Confirmation bias on Tesla's part and a system that would never work. Going against that basic take on Tesla's work is a real tough sell, needing several counter sources at that same RS level. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of sentence one, paragraph six of Tesla's experiments
In order to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic of Tesla's wireless system, i.e., to maintain a neutral point of view, a proposal is made to rewrite sentence one, paragraph six of Tesla's experiments as follows.

"Years after Tesla's original research into World Wireless system technology,<ref name='Corum-TEXZON'>Corum, K.L. and J.F. Corum, “Bell Labs and the ‘Crucial’ 1936 Seneca Lake Experiment,” TEXZON Technologies, LLC. (Published in Nikola Tesla’s Electricity Unplugged as “Bell Labs and the Radio Surface Wave Propagation Experiment,” Thomas Valone, Ed., Adventures Unlimited Press, 2016.)

'In this article we recount the story of one of the least cited but broadly influential physics experiments conducted during the 20th century: Charles Burrows’ key 1936 experiment to delineate between Sommerfeld’s 1909 theory and Weyl’s 1919 theory of radiowave propagation. Burrows (Bell Labs) used a simple vertical doublet antenna disposed over a deep freshwater lake at a frequency of 150 MHz. Burrows (and others) declared that the ‘crucial’ experiment vindicated Weyl’s theory over Sommerfeld’s, and Kenneth Norton (FCC) used it to justify the famous “Sommerfeld sign error” myth that held sway in wave propagation theory for almost 70 years.

Tesla had served two years (1892-1894) as Vice-President of the AIEE and his published lectures had introduced Zenneck to RF technology 15 years earlier [H. Pratt, “Nikola Tesla,” Proceedings of the IRE, 44, No. 9, September 1956, pp. 1106-1108.]. The two became warmhearted friends. (This was just prior to Zenneck’s being detained at an Ellis Island facility (and later at Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia) as a prisoner of war during WWI.) A year later, in 1916, Tesla, whose propagation experiments appeared to contradict the Hertz wave theory, confided to his own attorney,'''

Note, for instance, the mathematical treatise of Sommerfeld, [40,43] who shows that my theory is correct, that I was right in my explanations of the phenomena, and that the profession was completely mislead. [Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents and Their Application to Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony, and Transmission of Power, Leland I. Anderson, editor, Sun Publishing Company, 1992, p. 75.]

And,

The effect at a distance is due to the current energy that flows through the surface layers of the earth. That has already been mathematically shown, really, by Sommerfeld. [40] He agrees on this theory; but as far as I am concerned, that is positively demonstrated. [Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents and Their Application to Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony, and Transmission of Power, Leland I. Anderson, editor, Sun Publishing Company, 1992, p. 133.]

[Be aware that Tesla is speaking of the electrodynamic propagating currents associated with what we now call surface waves, not the simple ohmic diffusion (J. A. Stratton, Electromagnetic Theory, McGraw-hill, 1941, pp. 278-279) ground current mechanism proposed by Karl Steinheil (1801-1870) or James Bowman Lindsay (1799-1862) in the mid-19th century.]

Finally, note that the Norton field strength over water varies inversely with distance as 1/r, whereas the Zenneck surface-guided field strength varies as e-αd/√d, where α depends on the medium’s conductivity. As demonstrated in Figures D.1 and D.2 one may, at will, swap back and forth between Burrows’ lower curve and upper curve!

James Wait, whose judgement we all deeply respect, asserted in a number of places that Burrows’ 1936 experiments justified 20th century conventional radiowave propagation thought. Burrows, himself, concluded the Bell Labs investigation with these carefully crafted words,

these tests prove conclusively that simple antennas do not generate a surface wave and that this time-honored concept must be given up

A century of wave propagation theory notwithstanding, the experimental evidence would now appear to challenge that assertion.' experimental replications using similar equipment have achieved the long range nonradiative wireless transmission of electrical energy.<ref name='Leyh-Kennan_2008'>

'Wireless transmission of power through coupled electric fields [with earth return] is practical and easily demonstrated at high power levels over laboratory-scale distances.

We are currently developing several other proof-of-concept receiver coils, including the self-motive prototype shown in Figure 7. . . . The unit can move about in the area near the coils, powered completely by the electric fields. The metal wheels conduct the secondary RF ground currents to the concrete.

Tesla’s original patent [U.S. Patent No. 649,621, APPARATUS FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY, May 15, 1900] resembles a far-field approach, given the large intended distance between stations compared to the station size. However, Tesla’s system minimizes radiated fields and instead relies upon actual conduction, replacing the transmission line with two non-wire conductors. In this case one conductor is the Earth, and the other appears to be either a capacitive path or a direct ionized path to the ionosphere according to different descriptions of the system.

Of the designs mentioned above, the approach outlined in this paper is perhaps most similar to Tesla’s system [U.S. Patent No. 649,621, APPARATUS FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY, May 15, 1900], since it does not rely upon far-field or radiated power, or magnetic coupling. However this approach differs significantly from Tesla’s patented system [APPARATUS FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY] in two important ways: A) There is no ionized path between the devices, and B) The receiver performs a synchronous detection of the received energy in order to optimize conversion efficiency. The transfer of energy in this approach occurs primarily through the electric fields between the receiver and transmitter.'

The approach outlined in the Leyh-Kennan paper depends upon electrical conduction through the earth as set forth in U.S. Patent No. 649,621, APPARATUS FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY, May 15, 1900. It differs from the system described in APPARATUS FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY only in that, A) there is no highly ionized path between the Tesla coil transmitter and receiver, and B) the receiver performs a synchronous detection of the transmitted energy. Tesla’s patents, ART OF TRANSMITTING ELECTRICAL ENERGY THROUGH THE NATURAL MEDIUMS, May 16, 1900, U.S. Patent No. 787,412, Apr. 18, 1905 and ART OF TRANSMITTING ELECTRICAL ENERGY THROUGH THE NATURAL MEDIUMS, Apr. 17, 1906, Canadian Patent No. 142,352, Aug. 13, 1912 do describe a means by which Tesla's wireless system can be operated without the necessity of a highly ionized path between the two devices (as well as a means for synchronous detection of the transmitted energy).

As for wireless system performance, the Lightning Foundry Twin Coil Prototype used by Leyh and Kennan in their tests has helical resonator transmitting coil and receiving coil diameters of less than 0.57 meters. The resonator spacing for the tests, that is the transmission-reception distance, was 12 meters. This equates to a transmitting coil spacing-to-diameter ratio of more than 21:1. Mid-range coupling is between one and ten times the diameter of the transmitting coil. The Lightning Foundry Twin Coil Prototype coupling is greater than 21 times the diameter of the transmitting coil, more than twice the maximum possible mid-range coupling distance. (Typically, an inductive coupled system can transmit roughly the diameter of the transmitter. [Baarman, David W.; Schwannecke, Joshua (December 2009). 'White paper: Understanding Wireless Power' (PDF). Fulton Innovation. pp. 2, 4.]) <ref name='Corum_US20140252886_A1'>Corum, K. L. and J. F. Corum, U.S. Patent Pending US20140252886 A1, 'Excitation and use of guided surface wave modes on lossy media.'

<ref name='Corum_US20160072300_Al'>Corum, K. L. and J. F. Corum, U.S. Patent Pending US20160072300 A1, 'Excitation and use of guided surface wave modes on lossy media.'

Nevertheless, there is a lack of scientific consensus as to whether the World Wireless system would have worked. Some believe Tesla's wireless system would not have worked as he claimed and that the distance effects are attributable to electromagnetic radiation.<ref name='Wheeler'>

Wheeler had been persuaded by a 1935 written statement from Kenneth A. Norton in which he asserts an error in sign in Arnold Sommerfeld’s 1909 paper “Über die Ausbreitung der Wellen in der Drahtlosen Telegraphie,” Annalen der Physik, vol. 28, 1909, pp. 665-695, and a seminal experiment that was conducted in 1936 by C.R. Burrows of Bell Labs that had justified Norton’s flawed analysis. These resulted in a conviction on the part of the electrical engineering community as to the non-existence of the Zenneck surface wave. This confusion was only resolved analytically in 2004 by Professor R.E. Collin who stated, “There is no sign error. . . The famous ‘sign error’ is a myth.' [”Collin, R.E., “Hertzian Dipole Radiating Over a Lossy Earth or Sea: Some Early and Late 20th Century Controversies,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, vol. 46, No. 2, April 2004, pp. 64-79.]

Tesla’s approach was to employ the radial cylindrical surface wave or radial form of Zenneck wave [Barlow, H., J. Brown, Radio Surface Waves, Oxford University Press, London, 1962.] while at the same time suppressing space wave electromagnetic radiation.

' I am not producing radiation in my system; I am suppressing electromagnetic [space] waves. But, on the other hand, my apparatus can be used effectively with electromagnetic [space] waves. The apparatus has nothing to do with this new method except that it is the only means to practice it. So that in my system, you should free yourself of the idea that there is radiation, that energy is radiated. It is not radiated; it is conserved. ' [Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents and Their Application to Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony, and Transmission of Power, Leland I. Anderson, editor, Sun Publishing Company, 1992, p. 133.)]

'Tesla's claim that his system is different from Hertz‘s is based on the fact that at low frequencies, and with small antenna in terms of wavelength, radiation of Hertzian type electromagnetic wave is small. Tesla's waves, if we are allowed to use such a name, are in fact surface waves in modern terminology. . . . In 'pure Hertzian' wave (in Tesla's terminology) there is no induced current in the Earth, except on reflection region which is not essential for the discussion. In contrast to the latter, guided surface. . . waves do not exist without current in the Earth crust. Having this in mind, we can conclude that there is a truth in Tesla's statements about specific behavior of low frequency, guided to the Earth waves.' [Marinčić, Aleksandar, “Research of Nikola Tesla in Long Island Laboratory,” Energy and Development at the International Scientific Conference in Honor of the 130th Anniversary of the Birth of Nikola Tesla, The Tesla Journal, Numbers 6 & 7, Tesla Memorial Society, 1990, pp. 25-28.]     Others believe the guided radio surface wave propagation mode (the radial cylindrical surface wave or radial form of Zenneck wave) that Tesla described is valid, <ref name='Papadopoulos'> 'There are two ways of propagating. . . . [by] the earth and the ionosphere [or] you forget the ionosphere and the current is carried only by the earth. . . . (Tesla's) idea of propagation is perfectly valid. Tesla's intuition was absolutely unbelievable. . . . And Tesla, without knowledge of satellites or solar UV radiation, all those things, he could really visualize the correct mode of propagation.'

Numerical analysis based upon Earth resistivity measurements show the net resistance between antipodes to be less than one ohm. ['Nikola Tesla and the Diameter of the Earth: A Discussion of One of the Many Modes of Operation of the Wardenclyffe Tower,' K. L. Corum and J. F. Corum, Ph.D. 1996] As to atmospheric conductivity, at an elevation of 50 km or 31 miles it is 'practically perfect'.

'If you go high enough, the conductivity is so great that horizontally there is no more chance for voltage variations. The air, for the scale of times that we are talking about, becomes effectively a conductor. This occurs at a height in the neighborhood of 50 kilometers. This is not as high as what is called the 'ionosphere,' in which there are very large numbers of ions produced by photoelectricity from the sun. Nevertheless, for our discussions of atmospheric electricity, the air becomes sufficiently conductive at about 50 kilometers that we can imagine that there is practically a perfect conducting surface at this height, from which the currents come down.' [Feynman, R. P., R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, 1964, Vol. 2, chapter 9; p. 629.]

'I am not producing radiation in my system; I am suppressing electromagnetic [space] waves. ' [Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents and Their Application to Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony, and Transmission of Power, Leland I. Anderson, editor, Sun Publishing Company, 1992, p. 133.)]

Tesla’s approach was to employ a radial cylindrical radio surface wave [] while at the same time suppressing space wave electromagnetic radiation. The radial cylindrical radio surface wave or Zenneck surface wave exists as an exact solution to Maxwell's equations. It is supported by a planar or spherical interface between two homogeneous media having different dielectric constants. [Barlow, H., J. Brown, Radio Surface Waves, Oxford University Press, London, 1962.], [Hendry, Janice, “Surface Waves: What are they? Why are they interesting?,” Roke Manor Research Ltd., 2009.] In the case of terrestrial wireless power transfer, the upper medium is the insulating atmosphere and the lower medium is the earth below it, comprising a lossy spherical conducting transmission line. [Corum, K. L. and J. F. Corum, U.S. Patent Pending US20140252886 A1, 'Excitation and use of guided surface wave modes on lossy media.', [Corum, K. L. and J. F. Corum, U.S. Patent Pending US20160072300 A1, 'Excitation and use of guided surface wave modes on lossy media.'

About attenuation, the Zenneck surface wave field strength falls off exponentially at a rate of e-αd/&radic;d in the direction of propagation along the interface, where α is a frequency-dependent attenuation constant. [Goubau, G., “Über die Zennecksche Bodenwelle,” (On the Zenneck Surface Wave), Zeitschrift für Angewandte Physik, Vol. 3, 1951, Nrs. 3/4, pp. 103-107.] As the wavelength becomes greater the propagation attenuation decreases and the fields extend out over a greater distance. The field intensity of the bound wave is at a maximum at the earth-atmosphere surface. A pure Zenneck wave has no space wave component; the portion of field energy present in the upper half space or dielectric is evanescent.

In 1907 Jonathan Zenneck described an electromagnetic wave that travels over a flat surface bounding two homogeneous media of different conductivity and dielectric constants. [J. Zenneck,”Über die Fortpflanzung ebener elektromag netischer Wellen längs einer ebenen Leiterfläche und ihre Beziehung zur drahtlose n Telegraphie” (“On the propagation of plane electromagnetic waves along a planar conductor surface and its relation to wireless telegraphy”), Ann. Physik [4] 23, 846 (1907).]  The Zenneck wave has a phase velocity greater than that of light and its field strength falls off exponentially at a rate of e-αd/√d in the direction of propagation along the interface, where α is a frequency-dependent attenuation constant. As the wavelength is increased the propagation attenuation decreases and the fields extend over a greater distance. The field intensity of the wave is at a maximum at the bounding surface, has a small attenuation in the direction along the interface, and high attenuation with height above the surface. [Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents and Their Application to Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony, and Transmission of Power, Leland I. Anderson, editor, Sun Publishing Company, 1992, p. 133n.]

In 1909 Sommerfeld performed a theoretical analysis of the propagation of radio waves around the earth, solving for the problem of a vertical dipole over a finitely conducting homogeneous ground. He divided the expression for the resulting field into 'space wave' and 'surface wave' components. The surface wave part had nearly identical properties to the unique plane surface wave solution to Maxwell’s equations that had been identified by Zenneck two years previously. The field amplitudes varied inversely as the square root of the horizontal distance from the source and decayed exponentially with height above the interface. [Sommerfeld, Arnold N., 'Uber die Ausbreitung der Wellen in der drahtlosen Telegraphie,' Annalen der Physik, March 16, 1909 (Vol. 28, No. 4), pp. 665-736.] [Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents and Their Application to Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony, and Transmission of Power, Leland I. Anderson, editor, Sun Publishing Company, 1992, p. 75n.]

'From my circuit you can get either electromagnetic waves, 90 percent of electromagnetic waves if you like, and 10 percent in the current energy that passes through the earth. Or, you can reverse the process and get 10 percent of the energy in electromagnetic waves and 90 percent in energy of the current that passes through the earth. . . . This view, by the way, is now confirmed. Note, for instance, the mathematical treatise of Sommerfeld, who shows that my theory is correct, that I was right in my explanations of the phenomena.' [Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents and Their Application to Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony, and Transmission of Power, Leland I. Anderson, editor, Sun Publishing Company, 1992, p. 75.] that the broadcasting and wireless telecommunications component of the World Wireless plan might have succeeded, and while the global transmission of electrical energy at industrial power levels is not practicable, that long range nonradiative wireless power transfer is physically possible." GLPeterson (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

References:


 * Again this is really looking at the hole, not the doughnut.
 * The Hole - surface waves, that Tesla knew nothing about, could transmit energy some distance.
 * The Doughnut - Tesla designed his system to use non-existent Earth conduction, not surface waves, based on his miss-understanding of physics.
 * Putting up a claim that Tesla's system would have worked in some minor fashion while playing down the fact that he was way off in his physics to the point of his system never working the way he claimed is PUSHing forward a POV well stated on the contributors own personal websites. Wikipedia is not the place to push forward or promote favorite theories on Tesla (how many times have we said that?). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed; another installment in a long campaign by this editor to introduce fringe WP:OR material from his website into the article.  The first sentence: "...experimental replications [of Tesla's experiments] using similar equipment have achieved the long range nonradiative wireless transmission of electrical energy." is not supported by any of the 4 sources given: the Layh paper was about a short-range experiment and doesn't say anything about long range transmission; the 3 Corum sources do not even mention Tesla at all, and two are patents, which are not considered reliable sources (see WP:PATENTS).  The sentence is already contradicted by the sources Dunning and Tesla's biographer Cheney, who says: "There is no evidence of this claim [[of Tesla transmitting power long distances], and his results have not been duplicated since".  She also says Golka and Mische both constructed equipment similar to Tesla's but did not transmit wireless power.   The sentence "...there is a lack of scientific consensus as to whether the World Wireless system would have worked..." is contradicted by seven reliable engineering sources in the article - Shinohara, Tomar, Wheeler, Curty, Cooke,  Papadopoulos, Coe - and Tesla's two biographers - Cheney and Carlson - who all say Tesla failed to transmit wireless power.


 * Plus this huge pile of WP:SYNTHESIS is a long way from establishing that Tesla used surface waves. The mainstream sources above say he used radio waves, and don't mention any new "nonradiative" "propagation modes" like surface waves or "Zenneck waves" .  GLPeterson's arguments depend on: a book by a fringe psychologist with no physics experience which also advocates ESP, psychic healing, and Cosmic Conciousness (Seifer),  a paper published in The Tesla Journal, an unrefereed "alternative" junk science magazine by The Tesla Society (Marinčić), and the papers by the Corums which don't even mention Tesla.  Even if they did WP:primary sources like research papers have to be backed up by secondary sources (WP:PSTS).   Seriously?  GLPeterson's proposed wording gives a WP:FALSEBALANCE between these flaky sources and the 9 mainstream reliable sources  above.  Articles "...should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review." (WP:PARITY).  As Jimbo Wales said: "If you can prove a theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof."(WP:WEIGHT)


 * Even if Tesla transmitted surface waves, what relevance does all this have to the article? The consensus of sources given above is that whatever "propagation mode" Tesla used, he did not transmit wireless power long distances, and neither has anyone else using Tesla's methods, so this proposed wording is not notable and gives WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to Tesla.   This article is about wireless power, not radio propagation modes. -- Chetvorno <i style="color:purple; font-size:smaller;">TALK</i> 19:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Promotional edits/Off topic primary sourced claims
Reverted this re-addition of material. Tried to cleanup material added by GLPeterson but found a paragraph that buries the lead, i.e. going off topic on Tesla's "Wireless power" system (topic of this article) to put forward speculation about whether there would be some radio "squeak". Also seemed to be a series of unexplained and poorly written "fan augments"? "Arnold Sommerfeld"? Sentences that were statements about the possibility of long distance power transmission (TEXZON, Nevada Lightning Lab), that were speculation via WP:OR examination of primary sources (research papers and patent submissions) on the general topic that were in no way reliable sources on the history of Tesla's proposed system (several do not mention Tesla at all). Again: Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses and Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advocacy of your own scientific views. Please do not try to shoehorn idea's/original research into this article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Reliable secondary and tertiary source supported on topic edits
The above arguments make absolutely no sense. All of the recent improvements to the article have been made in order to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable secondary and tertiary sources on and related to the topic of Tesla's wireless system for the transmission and reception of electrical energy, i.e., to maintain a neutral point of view. The improvements are all supported by reliable sources. GLPeterson (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you have already been made aware that failing to get the point, whether feigned or real, has consequences. Keeping that in mind I will explain this one more time. When you show some experiments exist via citing primary sourced research papers and patents (material that is not about the history of Tesla's system) and put it in a section about the history of Tesla's system (Re:TEXZON, Nevada Lightning Lab here) then the "significant view" you are putting forward is "yours" - you are claiming "this is relevant to Nikola Tesla". That is strictly against Wikipedia policy. You have to cite reliable sources (someone else) that state "this is relevant to Nikola Tesla" and "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." You should also not remove material (Carlson) that is referenced to a reliable secondary source (and in fact directly quotes the source) unless you have a very good reason. Reverting the edit again, it is up to you to fulfill WP:BURDEN on it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD revert this revision of "Tesla's experiments" to the last seamingly stable edit. Editor adding the edits really seems to be making BOLD edits while ignoring this talk page so we can begin discussion form this version:
 * TEXZON, Nevada Lightning Lab original research re-inserted without comment
 * Off topic primary sourced claims and speculation expanded without comment re: Wardenclyffe could have achieved radio signalling via "Sommerfeld-Zenneck waves" (the topic here is the history of Tesla's Wireless Power system, not whether it could have achieved radio signaling via a means he knew nothing about)
 * "It is speculated the Colorado Springs and Wardenclyffe facilities produced the Sommerfeld-Zenneck wave" is actually Tesla speculating after the fact
 * "It is also speculated that the Sommerfeld-Zenneck wave does not exist, and that Tesla's idea of wireless global transmission of electrical energy, from a physics standpoint, would not have functioned as he claimed, the output of the Tesla coil magnifying transmitter instead being electromagnetic radiation in the form of radio space waves." (In the second half of that sentence the sourced material is not about Sommerfeld-Zenneck waves)
 * "While Tesla's own description of his creative process is entirely consistent with the scientific method" (original research assessing Tesla's own statements)


 * Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Once again, these improvements to the article are being made in order to represent fairly, proportionately and without bias all of the significant views that have been published by reliable secondary and tertiary sources on and related to the topic of Tesla's wireless system for the transmission and reception of electrical energy using reliable secondary and tertiary sources.
 * The recent experimental efforts by TEXZON and Nevada Lightning Lab are not original research, rather follow-up replications of Tesla's original research, ca. 1891-1904;
 * About Wardenclyffe and the Sommerfeld-Zenneck wave, the topic is the history of Tesla's experiments, including his system for the wireless transmission of electrical energy using the electromagnetic surface wave described by Zenneck and Sommerfeld, and theorized by Tesla. The material is on topic and supported by reliable secondary sources.
 * The statement "It is speculated the Colorado Springs and Wardenclyffe facilities produced the Sommerfeld-Zenneck wave" is supported by the work of contemporary authors writing about their analysis and replication of Tesla's original research in the area of wireless energy transmission, and about the 20th century controversy over the very existence of the Sommerfeld-Zenneck wave itself;
 * The statement, "It is also speculated that the Sommerfeld-Zenneck wave does not exist, and that Tesla's idea of wireless global transmission of electrical energy, from a physics standpoint, would not have functioned as he claimed, the output of the Tesla coil magnifying transmitter instead being electromagnetic radiation in the form of radio space waves." is based upon multiple secondary sources of questionable reliability asserting the output of Tesla wireless system transmitters is radio space waves, when rigorous replications of Tesla's original research demonstrate it to be the Sommerfeld-Zenneck wave;
 * The statement, "While Tesla's own description of his creative process is entirely consistent with the scientific method" is supported by a reliable secondary source.

GLPeterson (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a history section in "Wireless power transfer" so the only "significant views" here should be reliable histories on Nikola Tesla's Wireless power system, not research papers that do not mention Tesla, patents, or speculation on whether Tesla could have conducted radio signalling via Sommerfeld-Zenneck waves (this is not an article about radio signaling).
 * Re:TEXZON - don't know if you are feigning ignorance or continually failing to get the point but using a primary source research paper is original research, it does not refer to whether one paper followed another.
 * Tesla did not theorize Sommerfeld-Zenneck waves, its just speculation after his ground conducting system failed, and its signal transmission, not Power Transmission <--- the topic of this article.
 * "It is speculated the Colorado Springs and Wardenclyffe facilities produced the Sommerfeld-Zenneck wave" DITO - off topic and no reliable secondary source (in fact its Tesla)
 * "Sommerfeld-Zenneck wave does not exist" DITO - off topic and this is not how Tesla theorized his system would work. The rest of that sentence is sources responding to how Tesla claimed it worked--> ground conduction.
 * "While Tesla's own description of his creative process is entirely consistent with the scientific method" is supported by a reliable secondary source." A transcript of testimony by Tesla is a primary source. To be reliable it has to be a reliable third-party author (and historian) with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In this case we have first party Tesla.
 * In general, this is not the article for after the fact theorizing on Tesla and Sommerfeld-Zenneck waves, in fact Wikipedia itself may not be the forum for these theories, you should maybe try another project? (think you have been told that before). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I have posted messages at WT:WikiProject Energy and WT:WikiProject_Physics to invite more community participation. GLPeterson (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Invited as community member and not as an expert for special solutions of the Maxwell Equations, I report that I perceive appeals to "fascinating dreams" neither as encyclopedic, nor as neutral point of view. Furthermore, I am not willing to indulge in repetitive, bolded, fattened, point size varying, underlined, lengthy and imho refuted(imagine bold) arguments, which try to induce(sic!) fringe points of view on a rather esoteric topic (lighting 10W bulbs at a distance of 600m).


 * I rather support the next paragraph, cleaning the article from fringe views. E&OE Purgy (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I agree that "fascinating dream" is neither encyclopedic nor neutral, and apologize for my above use of big and bold. GLPeterson (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr and Purgy that GLPeterson's fringe theories are not supported by reliable sources and do not belong in the article. -- Chetvorno <i style="color:purple; font-size:smaller;">TALK</i> 08:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Tesla's empirical research between 1897 and 1899 in New York City and at Colorado Springs is not the fringe theory of anyone. The improvements to the article represent fairly, proportionately, and without bias, significant views that have been published by reliable secondary and tertiary sources on and related to the topic of Tesla's wireless system for the transmission and reception of electrical energy. GLPeterson (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, you have made the "fairly, proportionately, and without bias" claim five time on this talk page and it has been debunked four times. Continued WP:ICANTHEARYOU is getting us no where. I suggest another tack. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Chiming in just to supply possibly necessary bureaucratic support: I consider GLPeterson's contributions as valueable in se, but they are neither "significant", nor "fairly", nor "proportionatly", and in no case "unbiasedly" presented views on the relevant general topic of this article. Furthermore, these views appear to me as over-elaborate, over-detailed views on not even a fringe theory, but on experimental efforts, which did not find sufficient support then, and are still not resumed nowadays, possibly suiting in a monography on N. Tesla.


 * The efforts invested by GLPeterson appear admirable, but here at a wrong place to me. -Purgy (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)