Not man mad only half was so doesn't really count when we can make sun's put them somewhere then orbit a planet around that's sun and absorb that energy then that ours
I find this video very interesting. The distance the power was transmitted over was a fairly short distance with a little less than 90% of the power being converted to DC current. Over the distance of Geo sync orbit to the ground 22,500 miles I think beam divergence would be a problem. The beam may spread out over a wide area to large for practical collection. Just a thought.
phased array can help with beam steering. fundamental limit (assuming 100% converter and transceiver efficiency) is attenuation at increasingly longer distances.
In 1914 Marconi has succeeded in lighting an electric lamp by electricity through the agency of wireless at a distance of six miles. A bulb was attached to a receiver connected with an aerial receiving wire. The transmitter was linked up with a 100-horsepower apparatus, and as soon as the power was applied the lamp lighted and remained lighted so long as the power was kept on.
Prince Alex Yonwuren kind of, he didn't use lasers but a giant tesla coil which he believed he could use to direct a beam of energy to a receiver that people keep calling "death ray". He also made a system that could transmit energy through the ground but it wasn't as efficient as he wanted it to be.
The problem I heard about was that anything that acted like an antenna in range of his transmitter would sometimes arc with electricity. Anything with a fork pattern - fences, trees, cows' horns. Not kidding.
Let it be clear. The 83.5% is the the efficiency of the rectina devices, rather than the precentage of the induced power to that of the microwave transmitter. Notice that the power of the transmitter is 500,000 W, the power of the lamps is 2x300= 600 W. Thus, only about 1/1,000 of the energy was "harnessed."
Basically the narrator lies at the beginning when he says that "34,000W was safely transmitted 1.54km with an efficiency of greater than 82%." Later he says, "Of the calibrated RF flux density THAT FELL ON the 24 square meter rectenna array on June 5th, 1975, 82.5% was collected and converted to direct current output." This means that ONLY THE RECTENNAs were 82.5% efficient - not the whole system. From the facts he presented, you can work out that the overall system had an efficiency of no more than 6.12% - and probably much less. He says that they used 1/3rd of the array's power to light up 17 pairs of 300W lamps (but he doesn't say that the lamps actually received 300W each). So we can estimate the power converted to DC at 17*2*300*3 = 30600W. He said they used a 500000W Transmitter . Dividing 30600 by 500000 gives you an overall efficiency of 6.12%. But I doubt that the lamps were really receiving 300W each as they looked kind of dim in the video. As far as "safely transmitted" goes, it was probably safe only because security guards were there to make sure that no one was anywhere near the 500,000W transmitter, which was generating a "head exploding" level of RF power output. Would anyone care to calculate the likely efficiency using Frii's equation..?
A 500kW transmitter with a diameter of 26m is just short of 1kW per square metre (530m^2 dish area). A 36l microwave oven outputting 1kW has dimensions of roughly 30cm x 30cm x 40cm, with a cross-section of 0,3m x 0,3m = ~0,09m^2. That's 11kW per square metre. Call the transmitter 10 times weaker than a microwave. Also, a microwave typically has concentrated zones, not a nice laminar density of power. I don't quite think the power output would be "head exploding", but I get the concern, and I'd be inclined to dial it back a bit. Edit: It does seem like the dish must've focused the RF power at least a little at that distance instead of focusing to infinity, otherwise your transmitted power over the 24m^2 area of the receiver array is only 22,6kW.
The best idea is a satellite that could "beam" power back to plants on the surface. Clean, renewable energy that so long as the sun is shinning you'd never be out of energy.
On the small scale, you'd probably be best off with lasers and a high-efficiency solar panel (tuned for your laser's wavelength). If you want better efficiency, you'd be looking at this sort of setup, probably using a single transmit and a single receive antenna with a dish on both sides. The matching circuits are relatively standard, and you'd be looking into low-voltage rectifier diodes for the receive side, and a higher voltage drive side with decent MOSFETs. Why not give it a go?
Let it be clear. The 83.5% is the efficiency of the rectina device, rather than the precentage of the induced power to that of the microwave transmitter. Notice that the power of the transmitter is 500,000 W, the power of the lamps is 2x300= 600 W. Thus, only about 1/1,000 of the energy was "harnessed."
Nikola Tesla figured that he could transmit power without wires for free.He was financed by JP Morgan. When Morgan heard that teslas goal was to have electricity that was free, he pulled the plug
@@polized123 This is complete nonsense, until your death Tesla thought he could extract free energy, which is not free but according to him is in the ether around us, it was only necessary to create a device that could extract it and he worked on one , but after death overtakes him, everything is classified, and we will hardly ever find out what he was working on.
Nobody mention the name Tesla whatever you do because for some reason he doesn't count even though he did this a hundred times better a hundred years ago
@@billlyons7024 Bullshit, Tesla failed to complete their first tower due to funding being suspended, I wonder how you know it was ineffective without even testing it, don't spread false stuff.
The real record for the wireless transmission of electrical energy is a deeply guarded military industrial secret.
how could you possibly know this
And Tesla memos.
Stolen secrets
Yea and it's called a tesla coil
Actually the longest power transmission that was turned into electric energy was the energy of the sun being transformed by photovoltaic panels
Yea but at 30% efficiency
@@warrensanders751 meaning like laser beams focus light we can use sun as a base and refine the method to make it 100%
@@Slade951 or use reactor artificial suns yippee
Not man mad only half was so doesn't really count when we can make sun's put them somewhere then orbit a planet around that's sun and absorb that energy then that ours
@@Dr.LethalContact What a twisted outlook
I find this video very interesting. The distance the power was transmitted over was a fairly short distance with a little less than 90% of the power being converted to DC current. Over the distance of Geo sync orbit to the ground 22,500 miles I think beam divergence would be a problem. The beam may spread out over a wide area to large for practical collection. Just a thought.
phased array can help with beam steering. fundamental limit (assuming 100% converter and transceiver efficiency) is attenuation at increasingly longer distances.
In 1914 Marconi has succeeded in lighting an electric lamp by electricity through the agency of wireless at a distance of six miles. A bulb was attached to a receiver connected with an aerial receiving wire. The transmitter was linked up with a 100-horsepower apparatus, and as soon as the power was applied the lamp lighted and remained lighted so long as the power was kept on.
this was a Tesla patent
Was Tesla not going to do this way back 100 years before this?
Prince Alex Yonwuren kind of, he didn't use lasers but a giant tesla coil which he believed he could use to direct a beam of energy to a receiver that people keep calling "death ray". He also made a system that could transmit energy through the ground but it wasn't as efficient as he wanted it to be.
The problem I heard about was that anything that acted like an antenna in range of his transmitter would sometimes arc with electricity. Anything with a fork pattern - fences, trees, cows' horns. Not kidding.
@@acorgiwithacrown467 this test uses microwaves not a laser
@@doggonemess1 and efficieny
@@zahariburgess3660 Right - if you blast energy in all directions, most of it just gets wasted.
Let it be clear. The 83.5% is the the efficiency of the rectina devices, rather than the precentage of the induced power to that of the microwave transmitter. Notice that the power of the transmitter is 500,000 W, the power of the lamps is 2x300= 600 W. Thus, only about 1/1,000 of the energy was "harnessed."
Where did Rest of Power Vanish ?
@@MysticSage-hg3jh To the rest of area other than the target/receiver.
Basically the narrator lies at the beginning when he says that "34,000W was safely transmitted 1.54km with an efficiency of greater than 82%." Later he says, "Of the calibrated RF flux density THAT FELL ON the 24 square meter rectenna array on June 5th, 1975, 82.5% was collected and converted to direct current output." This means that ONLY THE RECTENNAs were 82.5% efficient - not the whole system.
From the facts he presented, you can work out that the overall system had an efficiency of no more than 6.12% - and probably much less. He says that they used 1/3rd of the array's power to light up 17 pairs of 300W lamps (but he doesn't say that the lamps actually received 300W each). So we can estimate the power converted to DC at 17*2*300*3 = 30600W. He said they used a 500000W Transmitter
. Dividing 30600 by 500000 gives you an overall efficiency of 6.12%. But I doubt that the lamps were really receiving 300W each as they looked kind of dim in the video.
As far as "safely transmitted" goes, it was probably safe only because security guards were there to make sure that no one was anywhere near the 500,000W transmitter, which was generating a "head exploding" level of RF power output.
Would anyone care to calculate the likely efficiency using Frii's equation..?
Wireless power is just never goint to work.
I very much agree - beyond a few inches it doesn't makes sense in practice due to dismal efficiencies that are unavoidable due to the laws of physics.
A 500kW transmitter with a diameter of 26m is just short of 1kW per square metre (530m^2 dish area). A 36l microwave oven outputting 1kW has dimensions of roughly 30cm x 30cm x 40cm, with a cross-section of 0,3m x 0,3m = ~0,09m^2. That's 11kW per square metre. Call the transmitter 10 times weaker than a microwave.
Also, a microwave typically has concentrated zones, not a nice laminar density of power. I don't quite think the power output would be "head exploding", but I get the concern, and I'd be inclined to dial it back a bit.
Edit: It does seem like the dish must've focused the RF power at least a little at that distance instead of focusing to infinity, otherwise your transmitted power over the 24m^2 area of the receiver array is only 22,6kW.
3
Sir Tesla wireless transmission
Use DC pulse ..long or short pulse depending on materials or use AM to prevent death and use DC as defensive weapon against large number of invader
The best idea is a satellite that could "beam" power back to plants on the surface. Clean, renewable energy that so long as the sun is shinning you'd never be out of energy.
true! we getting energy from millions of miles away from the sun and all we need is a good solar panel! It also helps us make vitamin D!
Hey dude are you still alive ? Because this idea was ahead of it's time damnn
They are trying this one out, you're a genius ahha
This is a Future energy 👌👌👌
But could it be used for long distance (laser) to say recharge a battery powered engine, in space or say the dark side of the moon maybe?
attenuation increases with distance (longer distance more loss), so depends on how efficient you want the power transfer to be
Dark side of the moon 😆 The sun still shines there though.
we'll need about 239,000 miles of electrical cord to do that efficiently..
Is this from a documentary? Do you know what it's from and how I can watch the whole thing?
This is the future. Deep space travel is real!!!
How to make this in small scale for project
On the small scale, you'd probably be best off with lasers and a high-efficiency solar panel (tuned for your laser's wavelength).
If you want better efficiency, you'd be looking at this sort of setup, probably using a single transmit and a single receive antenna with a dish on both sides. The matching circuits are relatively standard, and you'd be looking into low-voltage rectifier diodes for the receive side, and a higher voltage drive side with decent MOSFETs. Why not give it a go?
Old stone but Goldstone Tesla wasn’t using microwave tramissiins though
use ABB HVDC tech to send intergalactic power at high efficiency!
I remember seeing the array.
nikola tesla
34Kw sent 1.5km at about 82 percent efficacy, receiving would be about 27.8Kw
Let it be clear. The 83.5% is the efficiency of the rectina device, rather than the precentage of the induced power to that of the microwave transmitter. Notice that the power of the transmitter is 500,000 W, the power of the lamps is 2x300= 600 W. Thus, only about 1/1,000 of the energy was "harnessed."
Tesla meets close encounters
I want to learn this concept is there any course available
dismantle your microwave oven, the secrets lie in those machines..
The vinci discoverd this
N.Tesla and the future that he levaea us with much workers boys and girls, that are doing a future to all
wow!
I wonder how "safe" it'd be pointing directly at a person 20ft away...
ooops
The real wireless power transmission record is in Tesla's memos
Nikola Tesla figured that he could transmit power without wires for free.He was financed by JP Morgan. When Morgan heard that teslas goal was to have electricity that was free, he pulled the plug
Nope nikola os aware that free energy is impossible
Dont Insult Tesla's Intelligence. With your Ignorance.
The electricity was never going to be free, this is just a way to transmit it to people's houses (which doesn't work and is extremely dangerous).
@@polized123 This is complete nonsense, until your death Tesla thought he could extract free energy, which is not free but according to him is in the ether around us, it was only necessary to create a device that could extract it and he worked on one , but after death overtakes him, everything is classified, and we will hardly ever find out what he was working on.
@@billlyons7024 Actually, his idea was safe, but yes, this video is completely crazy.
Well done, but no more voices now.
Nobody mention the name Tesla whatever you do because for some reason he doesn't count even though he did this a hundred times better a hundred years ago
No, he didn't. It was much worse, which is why he abandoned the idea.
@@billlyons7024 Bullshit, Tesla failed to complete their first tower due to funding being suspended, I wonder how you know it was ineffective without even testing it, don't spread false stuff.
T 0:11
Tesla invented that yet they don't give him credit
Lol 82% efficiency, 1.5km, 3.4kW? That’s embarrassing. That is what’s called a failed experiment.
🙅🙅🙅🙅🙅🙅
This technology is rubbish.