This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I am concerned that the latest edits by GLPeterson appear to be a reintroduction of the same unsourced pseudoscientific content which was recently removed from the article and was repeatedly reinserted against consensus. My concerns:
-- Chetvorno TALK 21:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Suggest merging Wireless power with Inductive charging. While wireless charging is a broader topic. Inductive charging is definitely a sub category. 96.25.199.187 ( talk) 09:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Reverted recent confused changes to section titles [1] because
I feel the article's section structure is important, and any changes greater than addition of individual new sections should be discussed on this page. -- Chetvorno TALK 15:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Found this in an old version of the article.
Should be included in the article. Daytonian Historian ( talk) 04:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Daytonian Historian that wireless power transfer by electrical conduction through an atmospheric ionized beam should be restored to the article. Here's a reliable source supporting the idea's feasibility:
"Laser 'Lightning rods' channel electricity through thin air," 19 August 2014, by Pavel Polynkin
http://uanews.org/story/laser-lightning-rods-channel-electricity-through-thin-air
"By zapping the air with a pair of powerful laser bursts, researchers at the University of Arizona have created highly focused pathways that can channel electricity through the atmosphere. The new technique can potentially direct an electrical discharge up to 10 meters (33 feet) away or more, shattering previous distance records for transmitting electricity through air. . . ."
And, there are other reliable sources as well. . . . -- Best regards, G. Peterson, GPeterson ( talk) 14:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I envision there being no problem. . . .
At this time my proposal is simply to add a new section titled "Ionized beam coupling" under a proposed "Non-radiative techniques" heading; the Table of Contents eventually ends up looking something like this:
3 Non-radiative techniques
3.1 Near-field inductive coupling
3.1.1 Resonant inductive coupling
3.1.2 Resonant capacitive coupling
3.2 Surface wave transmission line coupling [wireless transmission across planar conducting surface]
3.3 Ionized beam coupling [wireless transmission by electrical conduction through plasma]
3.4 Magnetodynamic coupling
3.5 Acoustic coupling
4 Far-field radiative coupling techniques
4.1 Microwaves
4.2 Lasers .
Some additional ionized beam coupling sources are:
"Laser-assisted guiding of electric discharges around objects" Clerici, Matteo, Yi Hu, Philippe Lassonde, Carles Milián, Arnaud Couairon, Demetrios N. Christodoulides, Zhigang Chen, Luca Razzari, François Vidal, François Légaré, Daniele Faccio, Roberto Morandotti American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2015. http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400111 "Electric breakdown in air occurs for electric fields exceeding 34 kV/cm and results in a large current surge that propagates along unpredictable trajectories. Guiding such currents across specific paths in a controllable manner could allow protection against lightning strikes and high-voltage capacitor discharges. Such capabilities can be used for delivering charge to specific targets, for electronic jamming, or for applications associated with electric welding and machining. We show that judiciously shaped laser radiation can be effectively used to manipulate the discharge along a complex path and to produce electric discharges that unfold along a predefined trajectory. Remarkably, such laser-induced arcing can even circumvent an object that completely occludes the line of sight."
"A Survey of Laser Lightning Rod Techniques" Arnold A. Barnes, Jr. and Robert 0. Berthel Atmospheric Sciences Division, Geophysics Directorate, Phillips Laboratory (AFSC), Hanscom AFB, MA 01731 https://ia600303.us.archive.org/19/items/nasa_techdoc_19910023331/19910023331.pdf The concept of using a laser: to create an ionized path in the atmosphere to act as a lightning rod is not new. Over the past four decades since the invention of the laser, there have been many documented investigations into the ionization of atmospheric gasses with an eye towards creating a laser lightning rod (LLR). Initial experimental attempts using lasers operating in the IR were not successful. Although some ionization was attained, it was found that the laser beam was self-quenching so that distances of only tens of meters were obtained in the atmosphere near sea level.
"Laser Type Ultra-violet Radiation Feasibility for Lightning and Atmospheric Propagation Studies" J. R. Stahmann Lightning and Transients Research Inst., St. Paul, MN, Oct. 1964 The feasibility of a laser type ultra-violet source as a possible substitute for the continuously supported wire antenna, used for artificial atmospheric propagation studies and to trigger lightning for natural lightning channel studies, is considered. The energy required to produce an electron plasma or even a molecular plasma is quite high. A powerful laser beam would provide an intense concentration of energy. However, it is difficult if not impossible to produce lasers with wavelengths below the 1000 A required to ionize air molecules. Laboratory experiments were limited to the use cf a 14 kilowatt carbon arc as a source in the far ultra-violet. No long spark diversion similar to that found with a jet plasma (10 to 108 ions/cc) was observed with the carbon arc source. Methods of selective ionization to distribute the ions over the beam with just the density required for the conductivity of a jet plasma include possible rocket distribution of combustible particles to be ignited by a conventional laser beam for distances of several miles to produce islands of plasma which possibly could allow a discharge to propagate.
The Hettinger patent can be included to provide historical context. GPeterson ( talk) 18:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Pardon me, you are mistaken. "Laser 'Lightning rods' channel electricity through thin air," 19 August 2014, by Pavel Polynkin is not a scientific research paper. It is a news story.
Described in a paper published in The Optical Society’s new open-access journal Optica, the current system may have near-term, lifesaving applications in areas such as the remote detonation of land mines, the researchers speculate. The laser system could easily pinpoint an active land mine and then carry an electric pulse strong enough to safely discharge harmful explosives from afar.
Sounds like wireless energy transmission to me.
It upsets me when you behave this way. . . . GPeterson ( talk) 23:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the "primary source" assertion. No matter, how about this as a verifiable secondary source?
LIPC weapon combines lasers and lightning, proves soldiers are a bunch of nerds
by Terrence O'Brien, June 27th 2012
www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/06/6-26-2012lipc.jpgThe problem with laser weapons is this -- they need a lot, a lot of power. Seriously. Some of those big, plane-mounted prototypes choke down enough juice to power a whole city. Not so with the Laser-Induced Plasma Channel weapon being developed by researchers at Picatinny Arsenal. While still using plenty of electricity, this more moderately specced laser is just powerful enough to strip electrons off the air molecules around it generating a thin filament of plasma. Its not the high-intensity laser pulse that does the damage, though. Instead, the channel of plasma is used as a conduit for a high-voltage blast of electricity. That laser-assisted bolt of lightning could disable vehicles, people and even IEDs. There are plenty of obstacles, including making the weapon rugged enough for battlefield use and reliable enough to keep the plasma channel from leading the blast of electricity back into the laser and damaging it. Now, if only we could find the video that still above was taken from.
Source: www.engadget.com/2012/06/27/lipc-weapon-combines-lasers-and-lightning-proves-soldiers-are-a/
Tags: army laser
laser induced plasma channel
laser-induced plasma channel
laser-inducedplasmachannel
laserinducedplasmachannel
lasers licp lightning
I disagree with the assertion about the "subject." The article's subject is the transmission of electrical energy from a power source to an electrical load without wires. An electrical load is an electrical component or portion of a circuit that consumes electric power. This is set in set in a conjugate relationship the power source, such as a battery or generator, which produces the power. It is true that in electric power circuits, examples of loads are appliances and lights. Nevertheless, the term can also refer to the power consumed by an electric circuit, which, in the case of a defensive electromagnetic weapon for example may include a land mine.
GPeterson ( talk) 22:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment.
GPeterson ( talk) 20:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for consenting to the inclusion of "laser induced plasma channel" in the article.
The laser plasma channel technique . . . is not "coupling" . . .
Pardon me Sir, you are mistaken. Coupling, in the present context, is the transfer of electrical energy from one circuit segment to another. For example, electrical energy can be transferred from a power source to an electrical load by means of conductive coupling. The laser induced plasma channel technique depends upon electrical conduction through plasma created by the ionization of air. This means the transfer of electrical energy from a power source to an electrical load using the laser induced plasma channel technique is "coupling." In fact, energy transfer from a transmitter to a receiver by means of far-field electromagnetic radiation is also "coupling" as defined by this encyclopedia (see Coupling (electronics)).
[The laser plasma channel technique] does depend on radiation, so it does not belong in a "Non radiative coupling" section.
While it is true that a laser is used to thermally ionize the air, creating a conducting channel, the actual transfer of electrical energy is by electrical conduction through plasma. Electrical conduction is neither a near-field nor a far-field phenomenon. It is the bound-mode propagation of electromagnetic field energy guided by an electrical transmission-line.
There is already a "Lasers" section, . . . [laser induced plasma channel] belongs there.
As for its placement in the "Lasers" section under "Far-field or radiative techniques," the laser induced plasma channel technique is neither far-field nor is it radiative, as explained above. Neither is it near-field. It is the propagation of electromagnetic field energy guided by a transmission-line. With all of this in mind, do you consent to my creation of a new section under the "Near-field or non-radiative techniques" heading titled "Electrical conduction" and my placement of "Laser induced plasma channel" therein?
GPeterson ( talk) 22:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
This is the proposed section rearrangement. It addresses many of the organizational issues that have been raised.
3 Non-radiative techniques
3.1 Near-field electromagnetic induction
3.1.1 Resonant magnetic coupling
3.1.2 Resonant capacitive coupling
3.2 Electrical conduction
3.3.1 Plasma beam coupling [wireless transmission by electrical conduction through plasma]
3.2.2 Surface wave transmission line coupling [wireless transmission across planar conducting surface]
3.3 Magnetodynamic coupling
4 Far-field radiative techniques
4.1 Microwaves
4.2 Lasers .
In response to my comment that electrical conduction is neither a near-field nor a far-field phenomenon you wrote:
Then why should it be put in the "Near field or nonradiative" section?
"Electrical conduction" will not be placed in a "Near field or nonradiative" section. The "Near field or nonradiative" heading will be changed to "Non-radiative techniques." Under that will be placed the "Electrical conduction" sub-section in which will be placed "Plasma beam coupling" (wireless transmission by electrical conduction through plasma).
Even if the actual transfer of energy is by conduction, the laser beam that creates the plasma channel is a "far field" electromagnetic wave, and it's range is limited by the same inverse square law as all the other beam technologies in the "Far field" section. The section can explain that the power transfer does not drop with distance like other beam technologies.
Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.
Besides, we already have a "Lasers" section. Putting "Laser induced plasma channel" somewhere else is going to be confusing to readers.
A hypothetical person being 'confused' is no justification for placement of the electrical-conduction-method "Plasma beam coupling" technique under the wrong section heading. I'm mindful of a fellow editor's admonition that Wikipedia is a reference work and does not dumb down. To do so is to enter on to a slippery slope that, even if inadvertently, can lead to the introduction of inaccuracies or worse, the alteration of facts.
In the context of electrical engineering and particularly the context of this article, "coupling" means inductive or capacitive coupling, not conduction. Would a person say "I coupled my extension cord to the wall socket"? "Connected" is the word.
It would be correct to say, "The electrical energy coming from one of the building's exterior wall outlets is being coupled to the distant circular saw through the hard-wire extension cord."
This entire article has carefully been written to use the word "coupling" for near-field induction effects, so that beginning readers can understand the correct usage. Placing a technology that doesn't have those limitations in the "Near field" section is going to destroy that work and confuse readers. . . .
Once again, a hypothetical person being 'confused' is no justification for placement of the "Plasma beam coupling" technique in the wrong section, nor is it an excuse for the introduction of inaccuracies.
Remember, Wikipedia is a reference work and does not dumb down.
It would make half the "Field regions" section erroneous. "Laser induced plasma channel" is not limited to the near field.
I'm sorry the structure of the rewritten article is based upon multiple faulty premises. This particular one is a matter of global consistency. Electronic coupling is clearly defined. As Editors we should not modify well-established definitions to make them conform with our personal beliefs vis-à-vis the content of an article.
I'm willing to help you straighten things out, if you'll let me. Please consider allowing me to resume full and unimpeded participation in the development of Wireless power. We are close to having an encyclopedic article deserving of a B-Class or perhaps a GA-Class energy article rating, rather than the Category:C-Class rating that it presently holds.
Most sincerely,
G. L. Peterson
GPeterson (
talk) 04:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reference work per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference (per
WP:NOTTEXTBOOK). A
reference work is a
book or
periodical (or
its electronic equivalent) to which one can refer for confirmed facts. [Farlex.
"The Free Dictionary by Farlex". Retrieved 2 May 2012. {{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)] Reference works include
dictionaries,
thesauruses,
encyclopedias,
almanacs,
bibliographies, and
catalogs (e.g. catalogs of libraries, museums or the works of individual artists). [The University of Santo Tomas Miguel de Benavides Library.
"The Reference Materials". Retrieved 3 May 2012.] Wikipedia is a reference work.
There is no support in mainstream WP:RSs for an "Electrical conduction" section.
Here is reliable source justification (per WP:RS) for inclusion of "Electrical conduction" and "Plasma beam coupling" in Wireless energy transmission:
ref name="Giulietti" Giulietti, Antonio; Ledingham, Kenneth (2010). Progress in Ultrafast Intense Laser Science, Vol. 5. Springer Science and Business Media. pp. 111–114. ISBN 3642038603. ref name="Rakov" Rakov, Vladimir A.; Uman, Martin A. (2003). Lightning: Physics and Effects. Cambridge Univ. Press. pp. 296–298. ISBN 0521035414. ref name="Franklin" Franklin, Steve (2015). Non-Lethal Weapon Handbook. Digital Services. pp. 161–162. ref name="WiseGeek" "Electrolaser". WiseGeek website. Conjecture Corp. 2015. Retrieved October 25, 2015. ref name="Kaneshiro" Kaneshiro, Jason (June 21, 2012). "Picatinny engineers set phasers to 'fry'". News Archives. US Army official website www.mil.gov. Retrieved October 25, 2015. ref name="Lawrence" Lawrence, Jonathan R.; Waugh, D. (2014). Laser Surface Engineering: Processes and Applications. Elsevier. pp. 456–460. ISBN 1782420797. ref name="Forestier" Forestier, B.; Houard1, A.; Revel, I.; et al. (2012). "Triggering, guiding and deviation of long air spark discharges with femtosecond laser filament". AIP Advances. 2. American Institute of Physics: 012151. doi: 10.1063/1.3690961. Retrieved October 25, 2015.{{ cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|first3=
( help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list ( link) ref name="Clerici" Clerici; et al. (June 19, 2015). "Laser-assisted guiding of electrical discharges around objects" (PDF). Science Advances. Amer. Assoc. for the Advancement of Science. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1400111. Retrieved October 25, 2015.{{ cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|last1=
( help)
GPeterson ( talk) 14:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
All that has to show up is a source on using these things in "wireless power" and we are golden . . .
Wireless energy transmission technology can be intended either for wireiess power or wireless telecommunications. When a source states the technology is used for detonating unexploded ordinance, it becomes clear the author is not writing about its use for telecommunications.
Shooting lightning bolts down laser beams is just what a device being developed at the Picatinny Arsenal military research facility in New Jersey is designed to do. . . . When [the lightning] hits its target – an enemy vehicle, person or unexploded ordnance, for example – the current will flow through the target as it follows the path of least resistance to the ground, potentially disabling the vehicle or person and detonating the ordnance. The lightning will also deviate from the channel when it gets close to the target and finds a lower-resistance path to the ground." [1]
- ^ Kaneshiro, Jason (June 21, 2012). "Picatinny engineers set phasers to 'fry'". news Archives. US Army official website www.mil.gov. Retrieved October 25, 2015.
. . . could even be an edit noting its a new process being explored.
Done.
GPeterson ( talk) 02:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I have started to bring large contributions to a field I know quite well and teach but these contributions were deleted. To be honest I am a bit disappointed as my personal(patented and long published)work is also presently being used with unappropriated explanations, links and comments. I admit that a lot of references were missing in my recent contribution but if others didn't add them, I planned to do it soon. The main ideas that are missing according to me (and were deleted)are:
In the whole near-field section: - The simplest form of coupling for near and far field (in both cases electric and magnetic) is to consider two distant dipoles. For near-field not only longitudinal coupling is allowed but it also gives a coupling coefficient twice larger at the same distance. The longitudinal/transverse separation arises from general theoretical considerations. The transverse field is associated to wave propagation whereas the longitudinal one is associated to the Coulomb's force and can be shown to propagate instantaneously (however energy always propagates at the speed of light due to the transverse aspect of it, see for instance the QED book written by the Nobel Prize Claude Cohen Tannoudjy). A way to describe simply the situation is to consider the direction of the Energy flow and to compare it to the dipoles orientation.
- Another missing concept is the coupling coefficient importance (the represented situations only involved the perfect case k=1). If getting into details is not possible here, a small sentence such as "ideal coupling case" could be used. I also added an important explanation for the importance of Quality factors in general (for both magnetic and electric couplings) showing that they do not modify the link itself (that is described in both cases by a coupling matrix involving self and mutual coefficients), that section was also inappropriately deleted.
In the capacitive coupling section:
- Tranverse and longitudinal are indeed the right expressions to be used. - Same for the picture used for illustration in the k=1 case. - The "said" unipolar configuration is extracted from patents (mine and many others) with a very indirect reference made to Markus instead of the original sources (this is OK Markus article is fine).
- I also tried to remove health issues arguments that reminded me the times where Edison electrocuted elephants in public to show that Tesla's alternating currents were dangerous. I think this page is not the appropriate place for discussing such polemic content.
- In near-field non radiating situation, the use of words such as emitters, receivers should be removed and replaced by generators and loads (or primary and secondary coils for instance). The idea of evanescent field is also inadequate in situations where there is little power radiated away and only multi-poles field exist, unless you think that the Coulomb's field is an evanescent one !
In the rest of the page: - It will be better according to me to introduce resonant induction coupling without referring to the special MIT design that add air transformers only for impedance tuning reasons (an usual transformer could be used instead). A basic schematic only representing two serial LC circuits coupled via their mutual inductance would be a lot better. More generally, the difference between non resonant and resonant coupling is only a question of technology, as explained before the wireless link itself is unchanged (see what was deleted for more explanations). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henri BONDAR ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
In the non-radiative near-field section, I have planned to add soon some brief considerations concerning coupling coefficients and also to explain simply how resonance associated to large Q-factors improves the performances without modifying the link itself (the coupling coefficient depends only on geometric consideration or equivalently on self and mutal inductance or capacitance). I also think that the resonant induction could be introduced in a simpler manner (two distant coils in series with two capacitors), as it is used in most applications (Witricity uses a special patented design involving air transformers on both sides mainly for impedance adaptation reasons that can be presented as a sub-case). The same general schematic is used in many recent papers for coupled capacitors (whatever the physical implementation), the coupling coefficient "k" is figured between the two capacitors instead of between the two coils. By the way, the transverse capacitive configuration (not known as such), was introduced for power transfer by a New-Zealand guy a long time ago, but most recent articles do not even mention his name, can you help to clear that point. Finally they have been recently a few proposal based on radiative near-field techniques in the GHz frame (using for instance the phase conjugation technique to focus energy on loads), I think they deserve a section in the Wireless power page. Finally, I think that the best presentation should not separate induction and resonant induction, or the same classification should be applied to capacitive and resonant capacitive. A section Radiating near-field could be added instead, leading to a more satisfying classification of devices according to frequencies and sizes :
Besides, I am thinking on a Galilean Electromagnetism page
Draft:Galilean_electromagnetism that could be used for an elegant introduction for Quasi-Electrostatics and Quasi-Magnetostatics, your contributions will be appreciated.
Henri BONDAR (
talk)
I am still not comfortable with the use of unipolar/dipolar terms. In the electrical networks frame all components are dipoles, right ? Why not use instead the idea of symetrical/asymetrical dipoles ? Henri BONDAR ( talk)
As explained in the current page, power transfer(for both types) depends on the square or the field level, the surface of the facing dipoles and frequency. At large frequencies, the requested field levels are usually quite low. This explains why capacitive systems can now match inductive ones (An old electrostatic influence machine rotating at 50tr/s (50 Hz) was able to deliver 1W of power at best, the same machine if allowed to run at 5Mhz, will produce around 100kW). In present technologies, the limit is not the field level but the dissipation involved in large reactive power elements, then mostly in coils. For instance, Furukawa in Japan succeeded to transfer 1kW with a transverse capacitive arrangement with voltages not exceeding 600Vpp (then equivalent to 220V RMS) because they are working at large frequencies and also use quite large electrodes. On the other side, it is false to believe that coupled coils do not involve large voltages. Here also it depends on the configuration, small section coils with large turn number working at quite low frequencies may involve hundreds of kV, note that a capacitive coupling term is difficult to avoid in such cases (as demonstrated by Nevada lab experiments on Tesla coils). Most inductive systems used in WPT power applications (for instance for the wireless charge of electric cars) involve tens of kV. So I suggest that health issues considerations should be treated accordingly. To avoid to attract dogmatism and polemics in this technical page, the best way according to me is to provide a link to an appropriate page (if existing). -- Henri BONDAR ( talk) 10:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Existing:
Wireless
power transfer (WPT)
[1] or wireless
energy transmission is the transmission of
electrical power from a
power source to a consuming device without using discrete manmade
conductors.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
Proposed:
Wireless
power transfer (WPT)
[1] or wireless
energy transmission is the transmission of
electrical energy
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] from a
power source to an
electrical load or consuming
device without the use of discrete man-made
conductors.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
GLPeterson ( talk) 16:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The term " load" is a more general term than is " device." Consider, for example, the case of a high power satellite microwave beam energy transmission system feeding an electrical power transmission and distribution grid, which is not a "consuming device." The term is not truly jargon and is required in order for the article to be comprehensive. If a hypothetical reader is confused by or unsure of the meaning of the term " load," such a person can easily receive immediate clarification simply by clicking on the word.
Back on 25 October 2015 ( [2]) I added the words "or electric, magnetic or electromagnetic field energy" and "or an electrical load" without taking anything away. My revision was promptly undone an editor who said, "This is not supported by sources." Generally, I try to minimize the use of citations in an article's introduction (see WP:LEADCITE). There is no need for citations there unless statements are made that are not made again in the body of the article and it's generally good practice to summarize in the introduction without references and then go into detail in the body of the article with appropriate sources. However, in this case the citations seem to be required in order to justify the revisions. GLPeterson ( talk) 21:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
This article makes several citations to Nikola Tesla's writing hosted at tfcbooks.com. As a result, we have language such as "magnetic and capacitive induction coupling techniques" instead of "inductive and capacitive coupling"; "resonant electrostatic... coupling" instead of ,"resonant capacitive coupling"; "resonant magnetic inductive coupling" instead of "resonant inductive coupling"; "electrical condenser" instead of "capacitor"; "uppermost on Tesla's mind" instead of "Tesla's priority". We really should be using current secondary sources and nomenclature that is in use today. Thus I've marked the article with a primary sources tag.- Mr X 14:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The Lightning Foundry is a project to build two 10-story (108-foot) high Tesla Coils that can generate arcs 260 feet in length. A fully functional 1:12 scale Lightning Foundry prototype is use to study the interactions between two matched [Tesla] coils. : The two identical 1:12 prototype coils were made by first winding a length of secondary wire onto a cardboard tube. The cardboard tube with the winding was then inserted into a corrugated plastic pipe and potted into place. Once the potting had set, the cardboard tube was removed, leaving the winding exposed inside of the pipe. The Lsec and Fo of the windings did not measurably change after potting. The 9-foot high twin coils show a strong tendency to wirelessly couple electrical energy over large distances. This ability is described in detail in a paper on wireless power transfer at the 2008 North American Power Symposium.
"Efficient Wireless Transmission of Power Using Resonators with Coupled Electric Fields," by G. E. Leyh and M. D. Kennan, Nevada Lightning Laboratory, http://lod.org/misc/Leyh/Papers/NAPS2008Final.pdf
“Tesla’s original patent [N. Tesla, "Apparatus for Transmission of Electrical Energy," U.S. Patent 649 621, 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.”
As it is described by U.S. Patent No. 649,621, APPARATUS FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY, May 15, 1900, the Tesla wireless system relies upon electrical conduction, using two "non-wire" conductors. One conductor is Earth, and the other involves a capacitive or ionized path between the two air terminal electrodes.
“Of the designs mentioned above, the approach outlined in this paper is perhaps most similar to Tesla’s system, since it does not rely upon far-field or radiated power, or magnetic coupling. However this approach differs significantly from Tesla’s patented system 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.”
In the exact same manner as the Tesla wireless system, set forth in APPARATUS FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY, the approach outlined in the Leyh-Kennan paper depends upon electrical conduction through the earth. It differs from the Tesla system as 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 in order to optimize down-conversion efficiency. 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 the Tesla wireless system can be operated without the necessity of an ionized path between the two devices, and also a means for synchronous detection of the transmitted energy.
"A curious thing happened recently that you might find interesting. We accidentally burned a grounding lead attached across the primary of one of the prototype twin coils, while running the 120L50k coil across the lab. The interesting part is that the twin coil responsible for this misdeed was completely disconnected from any source of power. I'd always thought capacitive coupling such as in Tesla's wireless scheme to be a very weak effect, at best. However, faced with a burned grounding lead we set out to determine exactly how such amounts of power could be coupled across the room. We are now completely convinced that the power flowed through the ambient electric fields and returned through Earth, similar to Tesla’s original concept from 1900. Placing electric field shielding between the coils stopped 95% of the power flow."
Mike Kennan driving his 'Tesla Roadster', Published on Oct 30, 2011, Mike Kennan driving his 'Tesla Roadster,' powered completely from the ambient fields produced by the Lightning Foundry 1:12 scale prototype coils. Note the sparking to the concrete, forming the return path. Video by Josh Bailey.
"Mid-range [coupling] is defined as somewhere between one and ten times the diameter of the transmitting coil." "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.] "Strongly coupled magnetic resonance can work over the mid-range distance, defined as several times the resonator size." Agbinya (2012) Wireless Power Transfer, p. 40.]
Lightning Foundry Twin Coil Prototype dimensions:
Overall height = 2.74 meters
Resonator (transmitting coil) height = 2.44 meters
Resonator (transmitting coil) diameter < 0.57 meters
Resonator spacing (transmission-reception distance) = 12 meters
Resonator spacing-to-diameter ratio > 21:1
"Mid-range [coupling] is defined as somewhere 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.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
GLPeterson ( talk) 15:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
This seems to be a series of primary sources. The Leyh-Kennan paper is a WP:PRIMARY source.
Wikipedia guidelines about sourcing apply only to articles, not article talk pages.
The cited paper [2] published in the NAPS 2008 40th North American Power Symposium proceedings is a secondary source, forming an analysis of Tesla's original research, referencing [3] [4] [5] and [6].
In addition to showing that the apparatus used by Leyh and Kennan in their replication of Tesla's original research is capable of wireless power transfer over greater than mid-range distances, there is a second point being made. It is shown that, in the exact same manner as the Tesla wireless system set forth in APPARATUS FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY, the performance of their apparatus depends upon electrical conduction through the earth; the electrical energy flows through the earth between the Tesla coil transmitter and Tesla coil receiver ground-terminal electrodes.
In the system devised by me a connection to earth, either directly or through a condenser is essential. The receiver, in the first case, {the Hertz wave system] is affected only by rays transmitted through the air, conduction being excluded; in the latter instance [the Tesla wireless system] there is no appreciable radiation and the receiver is energized through the earth while an equivalent electric displacement occurs in the atmosphere. [7]
GLPeterson ( talk) 18:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I am concerned that the latest edits by GLPeterson appear to be a reintroduction of the same unsourced pseudoscientific content which was recently removed from the article and was repeatedly reinserted against consensus. My concerns:
-- Chetvorno TALK 21:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Suggest merging Wireless power with Inductive charging. While wireless charging is a broader topic. Inductive charging is definitely a sub category. 96.25.199.187 ( talk) 09:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Reverted recent confused changes to section titles [1] because
I feel the article's section structure is important, and any changes greater than addition of individual new sections should be discussed on this page. -- Chetvorno TALK 15:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Found this in an old version of the article.
Should be included in the article. Daytonian Historian ( talk) 04:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Daytonian Historian that wireless power transfer by electrical conduction through an atmospheric ionized beam should be restored to the article. Here's a reliable source supporting the idea's feasibility:
"Laser 'Lightning rods' channel electricity through thin air," 19 August 2014, by Pavel Polynkin
http://uanews.org/story/laser-lightning-rods-channel-electricity-through-thin-air
"By zapping the air with a pair of powerful laser bursts, researchers at the University of Arizona have created highly focused pathways that can channel electricity through the atmosphere. The new technique can potentially direct an electrical discharge up to 10 meters (33 feet) away or more, shattering previous distance records for transmitting electricity through air. . . ."
And, there are other reliable sources as well. . . . -- Best regards, G. Peterson, GPeterson ( talk) 14:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I envision there being no problem. . . .
At this time my proposal is simply to add a new section titled "Ionized beam coupling" under a proposed "Non-radiative techniques" heading; the Table of Contents eventually ends up looking something like this:
3 Non-radiative techniques
3.1 Near-field inductive coupling
3.1.1 Resonant inductive coupling
3.1.2 Resonant capacitive coupling
3.2 Surface wave transmission line coupling [wireless transmission across planar conducting surface]
3.3 Ionized beam coupling [wireless transmission by electrical conduction through plasma]
3.4 Magnetodynamic coupling
3.5 Acoustic coupling
4 Far-field radiative coupling techniques
4.1 Microwaves
4.2 Lasers .
Some additional ionized beam coupling sources are:
"Laser-assisted guiding of electric discharges around objects" Clerici, Matteo, Yi Hu, Philippe Lassonde, Carles Milián, Arnaud Couairon, Demetrios N. Christodoulides, Zhigang Chen, Luca Razzari, François Vidal, François Légaré, Daniele Faccio, Roberto Morandotti American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2015. http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400111 "Electric breakdown in air occurs for electric fields exceeding 34 kV/cm and results in a large current surge that propagates along unpredictable trajectories. Guiding such currents across specific paths in a controllable manner could allow protection against lightning strikes and high-voltage capacitor discharges. Such capabilities can be used for delivering charge to specific targets, for electronic jamming, or for applications associated with electric welding and machining. We show that judiciously shaped laser radiation can be effectively used to manipulate the discharge along a complex path and to produce electric discharges that unfold along a predefined trajectory. Remarkably, such laser-induced arcing can even circumvent an object that completely occludes the line of sight."
"A Survey of Laser Lightning Rod Techniques" Arnold A. Barnes, Jr. and Robert 0. Berthel Atmospheric Sciences Division, Geophysics Directorate, Phillips Laboratory (AFSC), Hanscom AFB, MA 01731 https://ia600303.us.archive.org/19/items/nasa_techdoc_19910023331/19910023331.pdf The concept of using a laser: to create an ionized path in the atmosphere to act as a lightning rod is not new. Over the past four decades since the invention of the laser, there have been many documented investigations into the ionization of atmospheric gasses with an eye towards creating a laser lightning rod (LLR). Initial experimental attempts using lasers operating in the IR were not successful. Although some ionization was attained, it was found that the laser beam was self-quenching so that distances of only tens of meters were obtained in the atmosphere near sea level.
"Laser Type Ultra-violet Radiation Feasibility for Lightning and Atmospheric Propagation Studies" J. R. Stahmann Lightning and Transients Research Inst., St. Paul, MN, Oct. 1964 The feasibility of a laser type ultra-violet source as a possible substitute for the continuously supported wire antenna, used for artificial atmospheric propagation studies and to trigger lightning for natural lightning channel studies, is considered. The energy required to produce an electron plasma or even a molecular plasma is quite high. A powerful laser beam would provide an intense concentration of energy. However, it is difficult if not impossible to produce lasers with wavelengths below the 1000 A required to ionize air molecules. Laboratory experiments were limited to the use cf a 14 kilowatt carbon arc as a source in the far ultra-violet. No long spark diversion similar to that found with a jet plasma (10 to 108 ions/cc) was observed with the carbon arc source. Methods of selective ionization to distribute the ions over the beam with just the density required for the conductivity of a jet plasma include possible rocket distribution of combustible particles to be ignited by a conventional laser beam for distances of several miles to produce islands of plasma which possibly could allow a discharge to propagate.
The Hettinger patent can be included to provide historical context. GPeterson ( talk) 18:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Pardon me, you are mistaken. "Laser 'Lightning rods' channel electricity through thin air," 19 August 2014, by Pavel Polynkin is not a scientific research paper. It is a news story.
Described in a paper published in The Optical Society’s new open-access journal Optica, the current system may have near-term, lifesaving applications in areas such as the remote detonation of land mines, the researchers speculate. The laser system could easily pinpoint an active land mine and then carry an electric pulse strong enough to safely discharge harmful explosives from afar.
Sounds like wireless energy transmission to me.
It upsets me when you behave this way. . . . GPeterson ( talk) 23:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the "primary source" assertion. No matter, how about this as a verifiable secondary source?
LIPC weapon combines lasers and lightning, proves soldiers are a bunch of nerds
by Terrence O'Brien, June 27th 2012
www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/06/6-26-2012lipc.jpgThe problem with laser weapons is this -- they need a lot, a lot of power. Seriously. Some of those big, plane-mounted prototypes choke down enough juice to power a whole city. Not so with the Laser-Induced Plasma Channel weapon being developed by researchers at Picatinny Arsenal. While still using plenty of electricity, this more moderately specced laser is just powerful enough to strip electrons off the air molecules around it generating a thin filament of plasma. Its not the high-intensity laser pulse that does the damage, though. Instead, the channel of plasma is used as a conduit for a high-voltage blast of electricity. That laser-assisted bolt of lightning could disable vehicles, people and even IEDs. There are plenty of obstacles, including making the weapon rugged enough for battlefield use and reliable enough to keep the plasma channel from leading the blast of electricity back into the laser and damaging it. Now, if only we could find the video that still above was taken from.
Source: www.engadget.com/2012/06/27/lipc-weapon-combines-lasers-and-lightning-proves-soldiers-are-a/
Tags: army laser
laser induced plasma channel
laser-induced plasma channel
laser-inducedplasmachannel
laserinducedplasmachannel
lasers licp lightning
I disagree with the assertion about the "subject." The article's subject is the transmission of electrical energy from a power source to an electrical load without wires. An electrical load is an electrical component or portion of a circuit that consumes electric power. This is set in set in a conjugate relationship the power source, such as a battery or generator, which produces the power. It is true that in electric power circuits, examples of loads are appliances and lights. Nevertheless, the term can also refer to the power consumed by an electric circuit, which, in the case of a defensive electromagnetic weapon for example may include a land mine.
GPeterson ( talk) 22:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment.
GPeterson ( talk) 20:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for consenting to the inclusion of "laser induced plasma channel" in the article.
The laser plasma channel technique . . . is not "coupling" . . .
Pardon me Sir, you are mistaken. Coupling, in the present context, is the transfer of electrical energy from one circuit segment to another. For example, electrical energy can be transferred from a power source to an electrical load by means of conductive coupling. The laser induced plasma channel technique depends upon electrical conduction through plasma created by the ionization of air. This means the transfer of electrical energy from a power source to an electrical load using the laser induced plasma channel technique is "coupling." In fact, energy transfer from a transmitter to a receiver by means of far-field electromagnetic radiation is also "coupling" as defined by this encyclopedia (see Coupling (electronics)).
[The laser plasma channel technique] does depend on radiation, so it does not belong in a "Non radiative coupling" section.
While it is true that a laser is used to thermally ionize the air, creating a conducting channel, the actual transfer of electrical energy is by electrical conduction through plasma. Electrical conduction is neither a near-field nor a far-field phenomenon. It is the bound-mode propagation of electromagnetic field energy guided by an electrical transmission-line.
There is already a "Lasers" section, . . . [laser induced plasma channel] belongs there.
As for its placement in the "Lasers" section under "Far-field or radiative techniques," the laser induced plasma channel technique is neither far-field nor is it radiative, as explained above. Neither is it near-field. It is the propagation of electromagnetic field energy guided by a transmission-line. With all of this in mind, do you consent to my creation of a new section under the "Near-field or non-radiative techniques" heading titled "Electrical conduction" and my placement of "Laser induced plasma channel" therein?
GPeterson ( talk) 22:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
This is the proposed section rearrangement. It addresses many of the organizational issues that have been raised.
3 Non-radiative techniques
3.1 Near-field electromagnetic induction
3.1.1 Resonant magnetic coupling
3.1.2 Resonant capacitive coupling
3.2 Electrical conduction
3.3.1 Plasma beam coupling [wireless transmission by electrical conduction through plasma]
3.2.2 Surface wave transmission line coupling [wireless transmission across planar conducting surface]
3.3 Magnetodynamic coupling
4 Far-field radiative techniques
4.1 Microwaves
4.2 Lasers .
In response to my comment that electrical conduction is neither a near-field nor a far-field phenomenon you wrote:
Then why should it be put in the "Near field or nonradiative" section?
"Electrical conduction" will not be placed in a "Near field or nonradiative" section. The "Near field or nonradiative" heading will be changed to "Non-radiative techniques." Under that will be placed the "Electrical conduction" sub-section in which will be placed "Plasma beam coupling" (wireless transmission by electrical conduction through plasma).
Even if the actual transfer of energy is by conduction, the laser beam that creates the plasma channel is a "far field" electromagnetic wave, and it's range is limited by the same inverse square law as all the other beam technologies in the "Far field" section. The section can explain that the power transfer does not drop with distance like other beam technologies.
Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.
Besides, we already have a "Lasers" section. Putting "Laser induced plasma channel" somewhere else is going to be confusing to readers.
A hypothetical person being 'confused' is no justification for placement of the electrical-conduction-method "Plasma beam coupling" technique under the wrong section heading. I'm mindful of a fellow editor's admonition that Wikipedia is a reference work and does not dumb down. To do so is to enter on to a slippery slope that, even if inadvertently, can lead to the introduction of inaccuracies or worse, the alteration of facts.
In the context of electrical engineering and particularly the context of this article, "coupling" means inductive or capacitive coupling, not conduction. Would a person say "I coupled my extension cord to the wall socket"? "Connected" is the word.
It would be correct to say, "The electrical energy coming from one of the building's exterior wall outlets is being coupled to the distant circular saw through the hard-wire extension cord."
This entire article has carefully been written to use the word "coupling" for near-field induction effects, so that beginning readers can understand the correct usage. Placing a technology that doesn't have those limitations in the "Near field" section is going to destroy that work and confuse readers. . . .
Once again, a hypothetical person being 'confused' is no justification for placement of the "Plasma beam coupling" technique in the wrong section, nor is it an excuse for the introduction of inaccuracies.
Remember, Wikipedia is a reference work and does not dumb down.
It would make half the "Field regions" section erroneous. "Laser induced plasma channel" is not limited to the near field.
I'm sorry the structure of the rewritten article is based upon multiple faulty premises. This particular one is a matter of global consistency. Electronic coupling is clearly defined. As Editors we should not modify well-established definitions to make them conform with our personal beliefs vis-à-vis the content of an article.
I'm willing to help you straighten things out, if you'll let me. Please consider allowing me to resume full and unimpeded participation in the development of Wireless power. We are close to having an encyclopedic article deserving of a B-Class or perhaps a GA-Class energy article rating, rather than the Category:C-Class rating that it presently holds.
Most sincerely,
G. L. Peterson
GPeterson (
talk) 04:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reference work per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference (per
WP:NOTTEXTBOOK). A
reference work is a
book or
periodical (or
its electronic equivalent) to which one can refer for confirmed facts. [Farlex.
"The Free Dictionary by Farlex". Retrieved 2 May 2012. {{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)] Reference works include
dictionaries,
thesauruses,
encyclopedias,
almanacs,
bibliographies, and
catalogs (e.g. catalogs of libraries, museums or the works of individual artists). [The University of Santo Tomas Miguel de Benavides Library.
"The Reference Materials". Retrieved 3 May 2012.] Wikipedia is a reference work.
There is no support in mainstream WP:RSs for an "Electrical conduction" section.
Here is reliable source justification (per WP:RS) for inclusion of "Electrical conduction" and "Plasma beam coupling" in Wireless energy transmission:
ref name="Giulietti" Giulietti, Antonio; Ledingham, Kenneth (2010). Progress in Ultrafast Intense Laser Science, Vol. 5. Springer Science and Business Media. pp. 111–114. ISBN 3642038603. ref name="Rakov" Rakov, Vladimir A.; Uman, Martin A. (2003). Lightning: Physics and Effects. Cambridge Univ. Press. pp. 296–298. ISBN 0521035414. ref name="Franklin" Franklin, Steve (2015). Non-Lethal Weapon Handbook. Digital Services. pp. 161–162. ref name="WiseGeek" "Electrolaser". WiseGeek website. Conjecture Corp. 2015. Retrieved October 25, 2015. ref name="Kaneshiro" Kaneshiro, Jason (June 21, 2012). "Picatinny engineers set phasers to 'fry'". News Archives. US Army official website www.mil.gov. Retrieved October 25, 2015. ref name="Lawrence" Lawrence, Jonathan R.; Waugh, D. (2014). Laser Surface Engineering: Processes and Applications. Elsevier. pp. 456–460. ISBN 1782420797. ref name="Forestier" Forestier, B.; Houard1, A.; Revel, I.; et al. (2012). "Triggering, guiding and deviation of long air spark discharges with femtosecond laser filament". AIP Advances. 2. American Institute of Physics: 012151. doi: 10.1063/1.3690961. Retrieved October 25, 2015.{{ cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|first3=
( help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list ( link) ref name="Clerici" Clerici; et al. (June 19, 2015). "Laser-assisted guiding of electrical discharges around objects" (PDF). Science Advances. Amer. Assoc. for the Advancement of Science. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1400111. Retrieved October 25, 2015.{{ cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|last1=
( help)
GPeterson ( talk) 14:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
All that has to show up is a source on using these things in "wireless power" and we are golden . . .
Wireless energy transmission technology can be intended either for wireiess power or wireless telecommunications. When a source states the technology is used for detonating unexploded ordinance, it becomes clear the author is not writing about its use for telecommunications.
Shooting lightning bolts down laser beams is just what a device being developed at the Picatinny Arsenal military research facility in New Jersey is designed to do. . . . When [the lightning] hits its target – an enemy vehicle, person or unexploded ordnance, for example – the current will flow through the target as it follows the path of least resistance to the ground, potentially disabling the vehicle or person and detonating the ordnance. The lightning will also deviate from the channel when it gets close to the target and finds a lower-resistance path to the ground." [1]
- ^ Kaneshiro, Jason (June 21, 2012). "Picatinny engineers set phasers to 'fry'". news Archives. US Army official website www.mil.gov. Retrieved October 25, 2015.
. . . could even be an edit noting its a new process being explored.
Done.
GPeterson ( talk) 02:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I have started to bring large contributions to a field I know quite well and teach but these contributions were deleted. To be honest I am a bit disappointed as my personal(patented and long published)work is also presently being used with unappropriated explanations, links and comments. I admit that a lot of references were missing in my recent contribution but if others didn't add them, I planned to do it soon. The main ideas that are missing according to me (and were deleted)are:
In the whole near-field section: - The simplest form of coupling for near and far field (in both cases electric and magnetic) is to consider two distant dipoles. For near-field not only longitudinal coupling is allowed but it also gives a coupling coefficient twice larger at the same distance. The longitudinal/transverse separation arises from general theoretical considerations. The transverse field is associated to wave propagation whereas the longitudinal one is associated to the Coulomb's force and can be shown to propagate instantaneously (however energy always propagates at the speed of light due to the transverse aspect of it, see for instance the QED book written by the Nobel Prize Claude Cohen Tannoudjy). A way to describe simply the situation is to consider the direction of the Energy flow and to compare it to the dipoles orientation.
- Another missing concept is the coupling coefficient importance (the represented situations only involved the perfect case k=1). If getting into details is not possible here, a small sentence such as "ideal coupling case" could be used. I also added an important explanation for the importance of Quality factors in general (for both magnetic and electric couplings) showing that they do not modify the link itself (that is described in both cases by a coupling matrix involving self and mutual coefficients), that section was also inappropriately deleted.
In the capacitive coupling section:
- Tranverse and longitudinal are indeed the right expressions to be used. - Same for the picture used for illustration in the k=1 case. - The "said" unipolar configuration is extracted from patents (mine and many others) with a very indirect reference made to Markus instead of the original sources (this is OK Markus article is fine).
- I also tried to remove health issues arguments that reminded me the times where Edison electrocuted elephants in public to show that Tesla's alternating currents were dangerous. I think this page is not the appropriate place for discussing such polemic content.
- In near-field non radiating situation, the use of words such as emitters, receivers should be removed and replaced by generators and loads (or primary and secondary coils for instance). The idea of evanescent field is also inadequate in situations where there is little power radiated away and only multi-poles field exist, unless you think that the Coulomb's field is an evanescent one !
In the rest of the page: - It will be better according to me to introduce resonant induction coupling without referring to the special MIT design that add air transformers only for impedance tuning reasons (an usual transformer could be used instead). A basic schematic only representing two serial LC circuits coupled via their mutual inductance would be a lot better. More generally, the difference between non resonant and resonant coupling is only a question of technology, as explained before the wireless link itself is unchanged (see what was deleted for more explanations). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henri BONDAR ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
In the non-radiative near-field section, I have planned to add soon some brief considerations concerning coupling coefficients and also to explain simply how resonance associated to large Q-factors improves the performances without modifying the link itself (the coupling coefficient depends only on geometric consideration or equivalently on self and mutal inductance or capacitance). I also think that the resonant induction could be introduced in a simpler manner (two distant coils in series with two capacitors), as it is used in most applications (Witricity uses a special patented design involving air transformers on both sides mainly for impedance adaptation reasons that can be presented as a sub-case). The same general schematic is used in many recent papers for coupled capacitors (whatever the physical implementation), the coupling coefficient "k" is figured between the two capacitors instead of between the two coils. By the way, the transverse capacitive configuration (not known as such), was introduced for power transfer by a New-Zealand guy a long time ago, but most recent articles do not even mention his name, can you help to clear that point. Finally they have been recently a few proposal based on radiative near-field techniques in the GHz frame (using for instance the phase conjugation technique to focus energy on loads), I think they deserve a section in the Wireless power page. Finally, I think that the best presentation should not separate induction and resonant induction, or the same classification should be applied to capacitive and resonant capacitive. A section Radiating near-field could be added instead, leading to a more satisfying classification of devices according to frequencies and sizes :
Besides, I am thinking on a Galilean Electromagnetism page
Draft:Galilean_electromagnetism that could be used for an elegant introduction for Quasi-Electrostatics and Quasi-Magnetostatics, your contributions will be appreciated.
Henri BONDAR (
talk)
I am still not comfortable with the use of unipolar/dipolar terms. In the electrical networks frame all components are dipoles, right ? Why not use instead the idea of symetrical/asymetrical dipoles ? Henri BONDAR ( talk)
As explained in the current page, power transfer(for both types) depends on the square or the field level, the surface of the facing dipoles and frequency. At large frequencies, the requested field levels are usually quite low. This explains why capacitive systems can now match inductive ones (An old electrostatic influence machine rotating at 50tr/s (50 Hz) was able to deliver 1W of power at best, the same machine if allowed to run at 5Mhz, will produce around 100kW). In present technologies, the limit is not the field level but the dissipation involved in large reactive power elements, then mostly in coils. For instance, Furukawa in Japan succeeded to transfer 1kW with a transverse capacitive arrangement with voltages not exceeding 600Vpp (then equivalent to 220V RMS) because they are working at large frequencies and also use quite large electrodes. On the other side, it is false to believe that coupled coils do not involve large voltages. Here also it depends on the configuration, small section coils with large turn number working at quite low frequencies may involve hundreds of kV, note that a capacitive coupling term is difficult to avoid in such cases (as demonstrated by Nevada lab experiments on Tesla coils). Most inductive systems used in WPT power applications (for instance for the wireless charge of electric cars) involve tens of kV. So I suggest that health issues considerations should be treated accordingly. To avoid to attract dogmatism and polemics in this technical page, the best way according to me is to provide a link to an appropriate page (if existing). -- Henri BONDAR ( talk) 10:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Existing:
Wireless
power transfer (WPT)
[1] or wireless
energy transmission is the transmission of
electrical power from a
power source to a consuming device without using discrete manmade
conductors.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
Proposed:
Wireless
power transfer (WPT)
[1] or wireless
energy transmission is the transmission of
electrical energy
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] from a
power source to an
electrical load or consuming
device without the use of discrete man-made
conductors.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
GLPeterson ( talk) 16:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The term " load" is a more general term than is " device." Consider, for example, the case of a high power satellite microwave beam energy transmission system feeding an electrical power transmission and distribution grid, which is not a "consuming device." The term is not truly jargon and is required in order for the article to be comprehensive. If a hypothetical reader is confused by or unsure of the meaning of the term " load," such a person can easily receive immediate clarification simply by clicking on the word.
Back on 25 October 2015 ( [2]) I added the words "or electric, magnetic or electromagnetic field energy" and "or an electrical load" without taking anything away. My revision was promptly undone an editor who said, "This is not supported by sources." Generally, I try to minimize the use of citations in an article's introduction (see WP:LEADCITE). There is no need for citations there unless statements are made that are not made again in the body of the article and it's generally good practice to summarize in the introduction without references and then go into detail in the body of the article with appropriate sources. However, in this case the citations seem to be required in order to justify the revisions. GLPeterson ( talk) 21:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
This article makes several citations to Nikola Tesla's writing hosted at tfcbooks.com. As a result, we have language such as "magnetic and capacitive induction coupling techniques" instead of "inductive and capacitive coupling"; "resonant electrostatic... coupling" instead of ,"resonant capacitive coupling"; "resonant magnetic inductive coupling" instead of "resonant inductive coupling"; "electrical condenser" instead of "capacitor"; "uppermost on Tesla's mind" instead of "Tesla's priority". We really should be using current secondary sources and nomenclature that is in use today. Thus I've marked the article with a primary sources tag.- Mr X 14:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The Lightning Foundry is a project to build two 10-story (108-foot) high Tesla Coils that can generate arcs 260 feet in length. A fully functional 1:12 scale Lightning Foundry prototype is use to study the interactions between two matched [Tesla] coils. : The two identical 1:12 prototype coils were made by first winding a length of secondary wire onto a cardboard tube. The cardboard tube with the winding was then inserted into a corrugated plastic pipe and potted into place. Once the potting had set, the cardboard tube was removed, leaving the winding exposed inside of the pipe. The Lsec and Fo of the windings did not measurably change after potting. The 9-foot high twin coils show a strong tendency to wirelessly couple electrical energy over large distances. This ability is described in detail in a paper on wireless power transfer at the 2008 North American Power Symposium.
"Efficient Wireless Transmission of Power Using Resonators with Coupled Electric Fields," by G. E. Leyh and M. D. Kennan, Nevada Lightning Laboratory, http://lod.org/misc/Leyh/Papers/NAPS2008Final.pdf
“Tesla’s original patent [N. Tesla, "Apparatus for Transmission of Electrical Energy," U.S. Patent 649 621, 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.”
As it is described by U.S. Patent No. 649,621, APPARATUS FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY, May 15, 1900, the Tesla wireless system relies upon electrical conduction, using two "non-wire" conductors. One conductor is Earth, and the other involves a capacitive or ionized path between the two air terminal electrodes.
“Of the designs mentioned above, the approach outlined in this paper is perhaps most similar to Tesla’s system, since it does not rely upon far-field or radiated power, or magnetic coupling. However this approach differs significantly from Tesla’s patented system 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.”
In the exact same manner as the Tesla wireless system, set forth in APPARATUS FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY, the approach outlined in the Leyh-Kennan paper depends upon electrical conduction through the earth. It differs from the Tesla system as 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 in order to optimize down-conversion efficiency. 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 the Tesla wireless system can be operated without the necessity of an ionized path between the two devices, and also a means for synchronous detection of the transmitted energy.
"A curious thing happened recently that you might find interesting. We accidentally burned a grounding lead attached across the primary of one of the prototype twin coils, while running the 120L50k coil across the lab. The interesting part is that the twin coil responsible for this misdeed was completely disconnected from any source of power. I'd always thought capacitive coupling such as in Tesla's wireless scheme to be a very weak effect, at best. However, faced with a burned grounding lead we set out to determine exactly how such amounts of power could be coupled across the room. We are now completely convinced that the power flowed through the ambient electric fields and returned through Earth, similar to Tesla’s original concept from 1900. Placing electric field shielding between the coils stopped 95% of the power flow."
Mike Kennan driving his 'Tesla Roadster', Published on Oct 30, 2011, Mike Kennan driving his 'Tesla Roadster,' powered completely from the ambient fields produced by the Lightning Foundry 1:12 scale prototype coils. Note the sparking to the concrete, forming the return path. Video by Josh Bailey.
"Mid-range [coupling] is defined as somewhere between one and ten times the diameter of the transmitting coil." "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.] "Strongly coupled magnetic resonance can work over the mid-range distance, defined as several times the resonator size." Agbinya (2012) Wireless Power Transfer, p. 40.]
Lightning Foundry Twin Coil Prototype dimensions:
Overall height = 2.74 meters
Resonator (transmitting coil) height = 2.44 meters
Resonator (transmitting coil) diameter < 0.57 meters
Resonator spacing (transmission-reception distance) = 12 meters
Resonator spacing-to-diameter ratio > 21:1
"Mid-range [coupling] is defined as somewhere 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.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
GLPeterson ( talk) 15:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
This seems to be a series of primary sources. The Leyh-Kennan paper is a WP:PRIMARY source.
Wikipedia guidelines about sourcing apply only to articles, not article talk pages.
The cited paper [2] published in the NAPS 2008 40th North American Power Symposium proceedings is a secondary source, forming an analysis of Tesla's original research, referencing [3] [4] [5] and [6].
In addition to showing that the apparatus used by Leyh and Kennan in their replication of Tesla's original research is capable of wireless power transfer over greater than mid-range distances, there is a second point being made. It is shown that, in the exact same manner as the Tesla wireless system set forth in APPARATUS FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY, the performance of their apparatus depends upon electrical conduction through the earth; the electrical energy flows through the earth between the Tesla coil transmitter and Tesla coil receiver ground-terminal electrodes.
In the system devised by me a connection to earth, either directly or through a condenser is essential. The receiver, in the first case, {the Hertz wave system] is affected only by rays transmitted through the air, conduction being excluded; in the latter instance [the Tesla wireless system] there is no appreciable radiation and the receiver is energized through the earth while an equivalent electric displacement occurs in the atmosphere. [7]
GLPeterson ( talk) 18:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)