quote:

ORIGINAL: CrazyCats

Tesla was broke well before he ever started on the global energy/communication antenna. He was financially backed by Westinghouse. Unfortunately, the combination of smear campaign and back room deals from Edison Labs kept the vastly superior wireless electric technology suppressed for just a little under a century. MIT is just now starting to work with some of Tesla's simpler designs. (That nifty charging mat for cell phones and other tech toys? That's an MIT redesign of Tesla's work with more modern materials.)

These devices use electromagnetic induction. The phone etc, still need as reciever installed on it to work. The problem with electromagnetic induction is simple to illustrate. Take a very powerful maget like neodymium magnet. Against a piece of metal that little magnet can maybe pick up 10lbs of metal, but six inches away, it can't muster a paper clip. In order to transmitt power with electrical induction over a vast distance, you would have to generate a magnetic field of epic proportions, in which case most of the power you generate would be lost.



The trouble with mad scientists is that they usually don't do what they do for money, so it can be rather had to monetize their inventions. That was what Westinghouse faced. If he did manage to finish it, which he was very close to doing when they pulled the plug, they would have only received high brand recognition from basically inventing wireless internet/global power delivery. They would not have been able to really charge for its use the way Edison was able to charge for the use of his tech. Business doesn't always run on what is actually superior technology, or what would be best for the world. Business runs to gain money. The problem with Tesla wasn't his technology, it was his business model. Which really sucks, because we would have been far more advanced today if the better technology won out.


True, they don't do what they do for money. However, I just don't buy it. I think Westinghouse pulled the plug because he just couldn't do it. The reason for this is simple. In nearly 100 years, how come nobody else has done it? In the modern age, we could digitally modulate and encrypt the energy waves, we could very well just charge for it. Now this would make it a viable option, while saving power companies fortunes in transmission costs. So, thats strike one. For decades hundreds if not thousands of people, including some physicists and engineers, have been trying to complete tesla's work and failed. That's strike two. Everyone who claims it to be true has never provided a viable demonstration to prove it. That's strike three. As an electrical engineer, I believe that wireless power transmission will one day exist. However, Tesla's theories on it are dead in my mind. In nearly 100 years, we would have seen his idea come to fruition. I tried to toy with some of his theories and I think he was just lacking some quantum knowledge of energy to be capable of transmitting it safely. If we get to the point of wireless energy transmission (without the use of a "death ray"), it will have been after immense research and expense in getting the system to work.


As far as wireless energy transmission, there are a few other alternatives to microwave beams and radio waves, which would have a pretty large downside of becoming deathrays, as well as the minor issues of signal degradation, interference, and redistribution. We could easily take a page from Tesla and piggy back the power on electromagnetic sphere covering Earth. Unfortunately, there could be some unforeseeable consequences with this idea, since the only tests run on the effects were done about a century ago, and science was a little less rigorous at the time.

Space Solar power has potential. Fortunately, it's problems are solvable, and it has far less limitations as far as energy harvesting is concerned. The sun's light is far weaker here on Earth's surface than in space. We have an atmosphere and the aforementioned electromagnetic shell protecting us from really high powered, wide spectrum light. The reason earth based solar arrays are so expensive is simply because of the number of them needed to collect anything useful. A good analogy would be two rain buckets. The one in the desert would have to be very large and very efficient, while the one in a rain forest could very nearly have a hole in it while still being sufficient.


Very true, that's why satellites need somewhat small solar arrays to power them. But, the GaAs solar cells used in space based solar really operate with same light spectrum as we see here on earth. It isn't the spectrum in space that is so appealing, it is the intesity of the light itself.

However, the cost here on earth is not just related to the lack of light intesity. It is more closely linked to the inefficiency of the solar panels themselves. The average solar panel is only able to convert roughly 14-18% of the light energy that strikes it into electricity. The average home has enough roof space available that if the panels operated at 26-32% efficiency and cost the same, no one would really even bother with the utility company because we would be at near parity in cost to the utilities with ample available power.


To be fair though, it would either have to be pretty far from Earth, or really sturdy, because the amount of floating junk around our planet would decimate current photo-voltaic arrays. Even distance from Earth would not truly solve that issue as micro-asteroids can do levels of projectile damage that would make tanks envious. The ones on the ISS and other space stations are hardy but they need constant repair. (Though I may be wrong there, it has been a while since I have heard anything about solar arrays on the ISS.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

Interestingly many in the tin-foil hatted brigade claimed that a US microwave weapon caused the earthquake in Haiti last year, including one Hugo Chavez who claimed it would be used to destroy Iran!!