It is not possible to transmit electricity wirelessly as Nikola Tesla planned

March 2, 2020, 12:04 am

Agree9 Disagree17


The debate "It is not possible to transmit electricity wirelessly as Nikola Tesla planned" was started by diecinueve on March 2, 2020, 12:04 am. 9 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 17 people are on the disagree side. People are starting to choose their side. It looks like most people are against to this statement.

diecinueve posted 2 arguments, Allirix posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Allirix posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.

diecinueve, Allirix, Nemiroff and 6 visitors agree.
coree10, Joelm and 15 visitors disagree.

this topic shouldnt exist. if u think it is possible then make an scientific experiment to prove it

1 month ago
replied to...

I don't know if I understood this well.
When a charged particle moves a planck length, it generates a variation of the electromagnetic field that travels through space, that variation is a photon.
Then when a charged particle moves, it generates a wave of variation of the electromagnetic field whose frequency is the number of times the particle moves a planck length per unit of time, that is, the amount of photons it emits per unit of weather.
I know that the energy of a photon depends on its frequency. Frequency = cycles / time, so what is the frequency of a photon if each photon is a cycle of the wave?

1 month ago
replied to...

>"the particles are the ripple" --

The particle is a property of the field, and so is a ripple. A particle isn't the ripple. A ripple is a field update propagated through the universe. The centre doesn't shoot the update signal out like a bullet, but the update signal originates from the centre and propagates out from it in all directions as its field realigns to its new centre.

>"your not discussing the main character"

You're right that according to the all-fields perspective classical particles map to regions in fields, and an electron is actually a universe-wide set of fields. So it can be argued that classical particles are nominal constructs that refer to region's of fields, and they don't actually exist in the natural world.

But this is a controversial matter in ontology because what does exist has the essence of a particle.

We don't say that a pile of sticks or grid don't exist in nature. As labels for multiple sticks or squares their existence is also nominal. It's their constituents that 'actually exist' in nature.

But then even sticks and squares have constituents so do they also not exist? Everything in the natural world is a result of underlying phenomena, so that definition of existence, in saying macroscopic phenomenon don't exist, isn't useful. Otherwise nothing but vibrating strings exist. And even they probably have underlying phenomena.

So just because we understand the underlying properties of a particle better doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We can just call classical particles the properties of fields up to a certain point. Particles are not balls with strict borders, but the model helps people intuit how forces drop off suddenly after specific points, even if it may cause misconceptions elsewhere.

1 month, 1 week ago

i am very curious about the original question of wireless electrical power transfer as it could put us on the path to starting a dyson swarm.

1 month, 1 week ago
replied to...

i think what your talking about is quantum field theory, although you seem to be focusing on the particle rather then the field.

if im correct, and this is 2nd hand knowledge, the particles do not create the ripples. the particles are the ripple. your theory is correct but your not discussing the main character.

1 month, 1 week ago
replied to...

It's a bit more complicated than that, but given certain constants a 100Hz electromagnetic wave can emit 100 photons every second.

What we call a photon is technically the energy resulting from a charged particle's EM field realigning to its new position as it moves 1 Planck length across space (the smallest possible size something can move). So if the particle is vibrating at 100 Planck lengths a second then it's emitting 100 photons a second.

You can imagine the electromagnetic field of a charged particle as concentric contours that centre at the particle and go out to infinity. Circles within circles centring in at the charged particle. Each concentric circle moving outward represents a field intensity reduction (field intensity is measured in Newtons per charge).

If you move the charged particle up, it takes time for the contours to know their centre has moved. The inner most circle moves first, then the second inner circle, then the third, and so on. A photon is the circles updating themselves a single moment in response to a new centre. They update themselves outward at the speed on light.

If the particle was vibrating at 100Hz then a nearby particle would feel a rise and drop in field intensity 100 times a second as the contours move backwards and forwards past it.

1 month, 1 week ago
replied to...

I was referring to transmitting electricity as with the Wardenclyffe tower, but since i see that you know a lot about that, could you answer me a question?
Is each photon a cycle of an electromagnetic wave or does a single photon have several cycles? that is, does a 100Hz electromagnetic wave emit 100 photons every second or does each photon have a frequency of 100Hz?

1 month, 1 week ago

This depends on what you mean.

It's not possible to transmit electricity wirelessly the way Tesla's intended with his Wardenclyffe Tower, but, it is possible to transmit electricity wirelessly. That's arguably how modern wireless communications work, even if the energy is packaged into a photon for most of the journey, there's technically an AC electron flow caused by the process, even if it'll never be used in an energy network.

But it uses the same principle that generates energy from a rotating turbine in a coal fire power plant, just power is lost under the inverse squared laws so it's horrific at transmitting anything but information.

It's all about tapping into the universe's electromagnetic field, which is one of the most profound concepts in the study of electricity. So I'm gonna have some fun trying to explain it.

The EM field is like a fluid stretched out across the universe. This fluid is everywhere. Ripples in this fluid are created by moving charged particles. What I love is even vibrating ions in your blood create ripples that are eventually felt by the plasma in distant stars.

The ripples take time to reach the stars though, but they travel at the speed of light because the ripples are literally photons. That's what a photon is, a ripple caused by a moving charged particle. We interpret the ripples from electrons jumping between energy states of atoms as colour.

Using radio as an example of wireless energy transmission, we emit an EM field at say 88MHz with an audio signal of 0-44kHz added. 88MHz is used as a "carrier" because there's no natural phenomena that'll create noise at this frequency and it has enough energy to transmit reasonably far. (the ripple technically propagates out forever, but the ripple needs to have more energy than background radiation to not get drowned out.)

The charged particles in the receiver antenna pick up every EM disturbance, but a brilliant mathematical operation called a Fourier Transform let's us filter out everything but the 44kHz bandwidth around the 88MHz, then another operation called demodulation brings the signal back to 0-44kHz. The resulting signal is a weak AC signal that has been wirelessly transmitted by a ripple in the EM field. So wireless power transmission is possible!! It just doesn't transmit power well so we use it to transmit information.

1 month, 1 week ago
Discuss "It is not possible to transmit electricity wirelessly as Nikola Tesla planned" science technology
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.