User:Abhinavkumar00

Name : ABHINAV KUMAR Date of birt :07 october 1997 birth place: khagaria(BIHAR) Nationality:INDIAN Religion:HINDU Current city:PATNA

Father's name-Mr. Mukesh kumar Mother's name: Mrs.NITU Singh Brother's name:Shubham kumar

        ABOUT THE ENERGY TRANSFER 

== Electrostatic ==If it's a "rapidly alternating" field, it's not "electrostatic". But it's a direct quote, so what can you do? -- Wtshymanski (talk ) 21:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC): AC electrostatic fields? It remains an electrostatic field no matter how fast it's varying. But more clearly, "Electrostatics" is a field of science involving e-fields, charge, forces. It's analogous to Newtonian Statics. Neither one is required to be "static." Instead, they only apply to situations where "dynamics" phenomena are insignificant, or are being ignored. If neither EM waves nor magnetic fields are significant, then a system is "electrostatic," even if it's AC. Or for example, if you're looking only at the e-fields and attraction/repulsion forces of a radio antenna, then you're doing "Electrostatics." 128.95.172.173 (talk ) 01:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)== Material needs to be put back in ==Material needs to be put back in ... " Revision as of 09:28, 5 January 2011 Wtshymanski " ... has a strong anti-Tesla POV in editing. ... needs to be put into the Electrical conduction section. -- J. D. Redding 16:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)== Electric energy transfer ==This section is very poorly put together and is almost useless without simple field line diagrams. Also please don't just rip unedited from Steinmetz... simplify first.Get on it!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.236.53 (talk ) 20:14, 17 February 2011‎ (UTC) :This section did seem to read oddly textbook when i saw it, figures. Darryl from Mars (talk ) 00:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)== Narrower beams. ==Article wrote:Because of the "thinned array curse," it is not possible to make a narrower beam by combining the beams of several smaller satellites.Phase coherent sources on the baseline of a set of larger antenna array (satellite) sources, produce narrower beams. And sources spaced sufficiently Nyquist dense to the broadcast wavelength, would produce an ideal narrow beam, with a larger array of satellites. Phase array radars use this method. What you mean to say is that, "Combining several satellites into a larger array with phase coherency, will produce a narrower beam, but the more that the synthetic aperture array is thinned below a Nyquist Source Spacing Wavelength Criterion, will cause the beam pattern to be spread about the ideal narrow beam far-field pattern, in a reduced resolution." 76.93.48.186 (talk ) 19:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_Array_Radar== Heard Iceland wants to use wireless power transmission ? ==Heard nation of Iceland.Wants to use Wireless power transmission to sell power to Europe! From its Geo GThermal producing power plants? Any info on this idea? That of Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) idea of sending eleltric power wirelessly? Thanks! SPQRANDRE (talk ) 21:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)==Wireless Power Transfer by Magnetic Resonant Coupling==Two type of wireless power exist: Far-field, and Near-Field. This article ignores a category suggested by this section title, and is years behind industrial innovations in the same. WiTricity <--- a Wikipedia articleWiTricity is resonant coupling for power transfer -- near-field coupling NOT far-field coupling. WiTricity was branded by Marin Soljacic from MIT. Resonant inductive coupling <---wikipedia article: &ldquo; Resonant energy transfer is the operating principle behind proposed short range wireless electricity systems such as WiTricity and systems that have already been deployed, such as passive RFID tags and contactless smart cards. &rdquo; The Wikipedia.org articles WiTricity and Resonant inductive coupling [oops] are not even in the 'See Also' section.What is the blind-spot about in this confused article? Not to mention that Intel Corp. did a road show with demonstrations of a few dozen watts of power transfered several feet at 75% efficiency. And a cell phone company, TDK, already has a wireless power charger designed for production, with improvements already slated. Another company has a wireless power charger pad to park an electric car over for wireless charging.As an enthusiast, I'm compiling a time-line as I can (not complete by any means)...* http://portal.groupkos.com/index.php?title=Near_Field_Resonance_Time-lineConsider that while the press realizes and reports MIT's and Intel's work, et al, as the magnetic equivalent of Tesla's resonant voltage technology, that the academic cloud has yet to precipitate much outside the home camp... perhaps only due to the newness of it all. Yet, when industry forges ahead at the lead from MIT, is that not sufficient citation? Are the scientific papers supporting the patents by Soljacic not sufficient citation?The missing term here is resonant coupling.  Electrodynamic induction  is not proper terminology for the same. Why? Because the resonant one-loop coil that transmits (often surrounded by a field-shaping passive coil) makes no broadcast RF signal while self-resonant. Therefore... ' How can one claim dynamic-induction when there is no RF field to create induction? ' I hope to track this article and the cultural interplay of old-school meeting new-school... because to date, very few can disconnect Marin Soljacic's work on first exposure as more than an inductive trick. Think coupled NMR coils, built to cohere to a self-magnetic-resonance at the same frequency, with field drop-off between them mapping the Coulomb field energy gradient (exponentially dimenishing with distance). There is no emitted RF signature from a self-resonant magnetic loop. Links about magnetic resonant coupling (not to be dismissed as inductive coupling);Facebook: WiTricity Corporation::* https://www.facebook.com/WiTricity ;Youtube (for pity sakes):  WiTricity technology (The Economist) :: * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbCUMhkEhTo :* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drbzm-GumK4 <-- excellent demonstration ;Wireless Charging for Consumer Electronics and Military Applications;* http://www.wirelesspowerplanet.com/news/wireless-charging-and-transmission-for-consumer-electronics-vehicles-industrial-markets-and-military-applications/;Instructables.com has at least one proper builder-project  : (also with term confusion --because they may have read this article!) Remember that like this Wikipedia article seems to portray by omission AND mis-labeling, that there is a general mis-conception that inductive coupling is the principle involved with magnetic resonant coupling.Check out this gap between coils...* http://portal.groupkos.com/index.php?title=File:IntelWirelessDevice_0382.JPG DonEMitchell (talk ) 17:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Re-edited DonEMitchell (talk ) 12:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)  Re-edited -moved to the bottom, sorry DonEMitchell (talk ) 13:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)   Re-edited -my bad. Inductive Wireless Coupling is in the 'See Also.'== Contactless vs. Wireless ==This article covers all types of contactless charging, including the future potential for wireless charging. Given this topical breadth, I renamed the article accordingly.Contactless charging includes all types of systems, from inductive charging, with which a device must be placed very near or on top of the charger, to wireless charging, with which a device could be freely transported around a house while charging—a technology that is still in very earky developlemt.Primarily, though, the previous article title was confusing to the 90% of people who don't understand electrical engineering, and were led by it to believe there is a technology available to them that allows the freedom to carry their mobile phones around the house while charging. InternetMeme (talk ) 04:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC):That's irrelevant. We're not here to right wrongs. The relevant question is what the title normally is in the literature. So far as I can tell, it's simply 'wireless power' nearly always. Teapeat (talk ) 19:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)== Wireless Is Not Necessarily 'Contactless' == '''The disturbed charge of ground and air method employs ground terminal electrodes that are in physical contact with the earth; it is not contactless and yet it is wireless.& nbsp; Furthermore, the energy transmission mode is not by means of electromagnetic induction nor by electromagnetic radiation, rather by electric current flowing through natural conductors and displacement current. & nbsp; The name of the article should be changed back to "Wireless energy transfer" or changed to "Wireless power or wireless energy transmission." --  GPeterson (talk ) 16:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)=== Considering title changes === . . . If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. . . .''' [If] no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub. Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia. . . .While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.-- GPeterson (talk ) 16:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)== Requested move == :'' The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. ''' Please do not modify it. ''' Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. '' The result of the move request was: Page moved. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  11:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Contactless energy transfer → Wireless power – Wikipedia requires we use the most common name for the title. The most common name is 'wireless power', so we should use that. Even the use of the word 'energy' is bad because electricity is really mostly to do with power, not energy, because electric circuits are largely incapable of storing energy (although batteries can, they really store power, in the form of energy). But that doesn't matter much, the most common name for this is 'wireless power'. Teapeat (talk ) 20:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)* Support, as I believe "wireless power" is the more common term (and, for me, more immediately meaningful). 213.246.91.158 (talk ) 09:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)* Support - Wireless power, more common term; current title is not acceptable. -- J. D. Redding 16:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)* Support - Proposed title would be more common and understandable. -- Steve (talk ) 14:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC): '' The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. ''' Please do not modify it. ''' Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. ==Terrestrial single-conductor surface wave transmission line==How this type of power transfer in microwave frequency range through a single conductor comes under the article titled 'Wireless power'?R!j!n (talk ) 12:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC):Agreed, if it has a wire, it's not wireless and doesn't belong here. -- Wtshymanski (talk ) 14:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)