Talk:Wireless power transfer/Archive 3

See also: World Wireless System

This wireless method, by means of concatenated tuned circuits, was proposed as early as 1904.^[1][2]  It depends upon resonant inductive coupling, the electrical conductivity of earth,.^[3] capacitive coupling,^[4][5][6][7] and, in a special case, the electrical conductivity of plasma.  Energy transmission is achieved by charging and discharging the air terminal electrode of a grounded resonance transformer electrical oscillator transmitter, generating an alternating electric field.  This electric field can couple with a similarly designed grounded resonance transformer electrical energy receiver tuned to the same frequency.  Electrical energy is transferred between the transmitter and receiver by electrical conduction between the ground terminal electrodes when this coupling is established.^[8]  In this way electric lamps can be lit and electric motors turned at mid-range distances.^[9] The transmitted energy can be detected at greater distances.^[10]  This form of wireless transmission, in which alternating current electricity passes through the earth with an equivalent electrical displacement through the air above it, was demonstrated in 2008 over distances up to 12 meters,^[9][11] achieving power transmission efficiencies superior to the resonant electrical induction method.^[12]

The electrical energy passes through the earth, and through the lower portion of Earth's atmosphere.  Terrestrial current flow is induced by capacitive coupling in this region.  With sufficient transmitter power output, according to theory, electrical conduction and the flow of current through the upper atmospheric strata starting at a barometric pressure of approximately 130 millimeters of mercury or 7.9 miles (12.7 km) is made possible by the creation of capacitively coupled discharge plasma through the process of atmospheric ionization.^[13][2][14]

Theory further states that the periodic charging and discharging the resonance transformer transmitter's air terminal electrode periodically alters Earth's electrostatic charge^[15]  This redistribution of charge results in the passage of electric current through the ground along with an accompanying guided surface wave.^[16]  With sufficient transmitter power output, the electrostatic potential is disturbed over Earth's entire surface.^[17][18]  Upon reaching the earth antipode relative to the resonance transformer transmitter, reflection of the guided surface wave takes place.  This results in the establishment of a terrestrial standing wave pattern across Earth's surface.  The fundamental earth resonance frequency is approximately 11.78 Hz.^[19]  A higher harmonic of this fundamental frequency is used.^[3]

"The frequency should be smaller than twenty thousand per second, though shorter waves might be practicable"^[17]

The electrical conduction method is real, as demonstrated by Leyh and Kennan in 2008.  They achieve wireless power transmission by coupled electric fields between two top-loaded 1/4 wavelength helical resonators with a ground return circuit, exactly the same as Tesla’s original 1900 concept.
GPeterson (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It is already covered in the Electrostatic induction method and History section. Leyh and Kennan are cited. Did you read it? In electronics this is called "capacitive coupling", you are the only one who calls it "the electrical conduction method". As it says in the paper itself, and Fountains of Bryn Mawr and I told you above, Leyh's experiments are different from Tesla's unsuccessful long distance power transmission ideas. And it doesn't have anything to do with "...electrical energy... [passing] ...through the troposphere and stratosphere" and the other unsourced, WP:FRINGE, WP:OR material you have been trying to reinsert into the article.--Chetvorno^TALK 16:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Burks,

Pardon me sir but you are mistaken in your belief that Leyh and Kennan are using resonant inductive coupling vis á vis their coupling of two top loaded 1/4 wavelength helical resonators by means of "electric fields.".^[9]  This being said, electrodynamic induction is, indeed, used to couple electrical energy from the primary inductor to the grounded helical resonator of their Tesla coil wireless power transmitter and from the helical resonator to the secondary inductor of their grounded Tesla coil wireless power receiving transformer.

Sincerely,
Gary Peterson, GPeterson (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you're finally talking rather than just reverting GPeterson. If you'll remember, we invited you several times to participate when we were doing the rewrite. I left a friendly invitation on your personal page. All you did was repeatedly revert other editor's attempts to improve the article. But what does your above comment have to do with "...electrical energy... [passing] ...through the troposphere and stratosphere", and "...energy transmission... achieved by... periodically altering Earth's electrostatic charge" and the other unsourced WP:FRINGE theories that you are trying to WP:PUSH back into this article against consensus? --Chetvorno^TALK 22:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

So you now acknowledge that you are making a mistake in asserting that with the Leyh-Kennan wireless apparatus, energy is transferred between the two resonators by resonant inductive coupling?
GPeterson (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe we already had this discussion. See re: Timeline of Wireless Power, 2008 Entry No. 3 and Chris (User:Chetvorno) above. Did you want to talk about the article? --Chetvorno^TALK 23:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you now acknowledge that you are making a mistake in asserting that with the Leyh-Kennan wireless apparatus, energy is transferred between the two resonators by resonant inductive coupling? Yes or no.
GPeterson (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@GPeterson, here is the first hurdle. Please supply the reliable secondary source that brings together Leyh-Kennan's wireless apparatus and the work of Nikola Tesla. We can all read it and take it from there. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

Would an explicit statement from Mr. Leyh tying his wireless demonstration apparatus together with Tesla's wireless work of 1900 satisfy you?

Sincerely,
Gary Peterson, GPeterson (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is " Leyh, G. E.; Kennan, M. D. (September 28, 2008). "Efficient wireless transmission of power using resonators with coupled electric fields". NAPS 2008 40th North American Power Symposium, Calgary, September 28-30 2008. Inst. of Electrical and Electronic Engineers" is a primary source. So, no, it would not "satisfy" Wikipedia per WP:PSTS. You need to show (several?) secondary sources citing that work or reaching the same conclusions. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem, the statement is not from the cited paper.  Also, as you know, a primary source is not prohibited.  Furthermore, its not Wikipedia that I have to convince, it's you my friend.  So, I ask you once again, will an explicit statement from Mr. Leyh tying his wireless transmission-reception demonstration apparatus together with Tesla's wireless work of 1900 satisfy you?
GPeterson (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok?, the statement is from where? Is it published? Is it peer reviewed? Is Leyh a noted historian re:Tesla? "a primary source is not prohibited" is a misreading of WP:PST ---> Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. And..errr, yes you do have to convince Wikipedia, as in this project has consensus guidelines, not to mention content policy that we haven't even met yet. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

In answering my question with the question "ok?" does this indicate your willingness to read Mr. Leyh's statement?

Sincerely,
Gary Peterson, GPeterson (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You can post or link anything you want in talk. If it meets Wikipedia's requirements re: a reliable, published source it can be weighed accordingly (and not just by me). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

It appears our indirect "first hurtle" approach vis á vis the Leyh-Kennan wireless transmission-reception apparatus and Tesla's work, and the matter for which consensus is actually being sought is no good.  Thanks anyway for the suggestion.

Sincerely
Gary Peterson, GPeterson (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, there is nothing in the Leyh-Kennan paper that supports Tesla's power transmission ideas. The paper says "...this approach differs significantly from Tesla's patented system in two important ways: A. There is no ionized path between the devices...". Tesla's patent specifically says his proposed system works by "...a propagation or flow of electrical energy, by conduction, through the air strata...". Ionization. As stated in the paper, the Leyh experiments transferred power by electric fields, ordinary resonant capacitive coupling; they used a metal "curtain" between the terminals to rule out ionization. --Chetvorno^TALK 13:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The Leyh-Kennan wireless transmission-reception demonstration apparatus, schematically represented in Figure 3 of Efficient Wireless Transmission of Power Using Resonators with Coupled Electric Fields is identical in all of its essential elements to the electrical circuit schematically represented in SYSTEM OF TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY, Sept. 2, 1897, U.S. Patent No. 645,576, Mar. 20, 1900 and APPARATUS FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY, Sept. 2, 1897, U.S. Patent No. 649,621, May 15, 1900.  These elements are the two resonance transformers, the two air terminal electrodes, the two ground terminal electrodes, interconnecting conductors, and the terrestrial ground plane.  In validating their model of electrical energy flowing from the grounded resonant transformer transmitter through an ambient electric field to the grounded resonant transformer receiver and then back to the transmitter through Earth, they also validate the short-range functionality of the original Tesla invention.

I have made another WP:BOLD removal of content supported by a single author, Charles Proteus Steinmetz, who wrote in the 1920s. If Steinmetz performed some important experiments, they can be briefly summarized, but theoretical explanations cannot be based on obsolete scientific ideas.

Please use only sources that rely on the Standard Model for explanations of electromagnetism. The Standard Model article is fairly technical; electromagnetism is a bit more accessible. But both articles describe the scientific consensus, meaning a body of knowledge that is well supported by research and which explains all the phenomena that are currently well understood.

History of electromagnetic theory describes historical approaches to explaining electromagnetism. These are interesting for historical context. But the results of any experiment, no matter when it was performed, can be explained using the current model of electromagnetism. (Historical models might say how a researcher working in the 1920s or 1900s thought their experiment worked, but they can only be used if the experiment is also interpreted using current theories.)

That doesn't mean that the Standard Model is true or complete; the article explains what's wrong with it, which is a subject of current research. But this article has to rely on reliable, up-to-date sources. It has to be written using the knowledge that would be contained in a modern college-level physics textbook, or for that matter in Wikipedia itself. It's perfectly acceptable to use simplified versions of modern theories to explain phenomena for a broad audience, but it's not acceptable to use obsolete theories even if they seem simpler than modern ones. Roches (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

That's another section that was written by GLPeterson. --Chetvorno^TALK 12:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought as much, but as before I don't want to say anything that could be misinterpreted as a personal attack. I'm certain you and the other responsible editors wouldn't have attributed content to a single 90-year-old source. GLPeterson's additions do not cite reliable sources because the sources are so out of date. This justifies removing the content, even if there is a lot of it.

I removed the technical flag as a bold edit, as I don't think the article really is too technical, and GLPeterson used the "too technical" flag to justify a revert. It was inserted in April 2014 without a discussion on the talk page. Roches (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

People were baffled by GLPeterson's verbose 19th century gobbledygook. I've been working on a rewrite that is in line with modern wireless power texts like Agbinya and Shinohara, but I have a number of other commitments. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't like GLPeterson's use of the "too technical" flag to justify re-adding that verbose 19th century gobbledygook. I'll try to watch this page, and if you do happen to get a chance to update the article, please leave a message on my talk page and I'll be around to support your edits. (The same applies for anyone else who wants to bring this in line with current knowledge.)

Since the issue with this article is the idea that someone working 110 years ago got it all right, I'd like to share this bit I found in one of Tesla's patents:

"...assuming the now generally accepted theories of scientists to be correct, the effects thus produced are attributable to molecular bombardment, condenser action, and electric or etheric disturbances." (US Patent 454622, page 2; Nikola Tesla, 1891)

The context is a carbon disk inside an evacuated glass globe being made to incandesce by applying a high-voltage current. One of Einstein's annus mirabilis papers specifically addressed the photoelectric effect. Roches (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow. "...etheric disturbances." Tesla was ahead of his time, but he certainly couldn't be considered an authority on wireless power by modern standards.

My feeling is the removal of the tag is perfectly justified. The existing article could use a rewrite but is not "too technical"; this is a technical subject and requires a certain amount of technical engineering content. I agree with your essay above. If readers were confused by the technical content, they were more confused by the archaic 19th century language that was stuck in to try to "explain" it. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I second these changes, seem very good. I came across a similar citation style in History of electromagnetic theory put in by another "Tesla warrior". That article is still a mess with large parts cited to a 1918 source, or older. Moving into the modern era is a good idea. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In conformance with the views of Roches and Fountains of Bryn Mawr above, I propose to rewrite a good deal of the body of the article to add more technical material, organize it better, bring the article up to date with modern wireless engineering using modern terminology, and source it properly. Is that okay with everybody? --Chetvorno^TALK 09:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. That would be much appreciated. Roches (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Sounds good, a flow from WP:OBVIOUS in the lead and maybe an overview (tending towards "where am I going to see this now?") to technical in the body would work. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to WP:Writing better articles, that's great! Yes, it's going to be hard to get from the overview to the technical stuff. Wireless power is really a bunch of different technologies (with different terminology) whose only link is through the complicated electromagnetic field (freq. of the waves or near/far region of the field) --Chetvorno^TALK 20:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The very incomplete rough draft I was working on is here: User:Chetvorno/work7 (I know; it's too technical). Any comments, suggestions or criticism would be welcome. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. The previous issues of contention are not addressed.--GPeterson (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

While the recent modifications by User:Chetvorno and User:Roches have some merit, the previous issues of contention are still to be addressed.--GPeterson (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What issues are those? --Chetvorno^TALK 22:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of the “Electrical conduction” method section (a.k.a. the disturbed charge of ground and air method) and placement under “Near-field or non-radiative techniques.”--GPeterson (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

(I should note that I did not see this article until the issues arose on the admin board.) Some of the issues described above seem to be about an experiment that was presented at a conference in 2008, which is not a sufficiently reliable source to support a major claim. Since only published material can be used on Wikipedia, only the written abstract for the presentation could be used, and that is not sufficient to support several paragraphs of text. Personal communications, whether verbal or written, cannot be used here either.

Conference presentations are like letters or communications to peer-reviewed journals; they are usually followed by a full article, if the experimental work 'pans out'. But even an article in a peer-reviewed journal is still a primary source and might violate Wikipedia's original research policy. Only when there are secondary scientific sources, such as review articles and textbooks, can we really be sure that material is not original research.

Wikipedia's policies about original research are strict, but clearly defined. GLPeterson, if you want to add content to the article, please discuss it here first, and please provide any other sources you may have. These will need to be published and verifiable. The content will also need to use standard, modern scientific terminology. The use of obsolete terms like "Hertzian wave" and "transient" made the disputed content very hard to understand. It will also need to be consistent with current scientific understanding. That doesn't mean there aren't errors in our model, and it doesn't mean there won't be major advances in the future, but we do know where we were wrong in the past.

Please understand that it may be possible that the content cannot be adapted to meet Wikipedia's criteria for original research and verifiability. I am willing to offer advice and others likely are as well, provided of course that you assume good faith and work collaboratively. But it may be the case that you will have to find another place to post some, most, or all of the content about Tesla's theories. If we cannot come to an agreement here in the talk page, it may become necessary for the administrators to make a decision. Roches (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Roches. I'll cooperate if you will.--GPeterson (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I in general agree with Roches. See WP:Righting great wrongs, GLPeterson. --Chetvorno^TALK 03:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

GLPeterson, Talk page comments are added at the bottom of the discussion. When you interleave your comments with others it destroys the order of entries. See WP:TALKPAGE for help. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

One small suggestion. The lead is a little WP:JARGON for a nonspecialist reader re: "from a power source to an electrical load". One source talks about "device" (but its about use in devices). Maybe something like "from a power source to its ultimate use". The term "electrical load", if it needs to be introduced, could be put in the LEAD second paragraph or in the Overview. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

How is that? BTW, do you have a wide (HD) monitor? If so, I wonder if you could look at the page and tell me how it looks on a wide screen. I only have an old 4:3 aspect ratio monitor. Does the table render ok? Thanks. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead looks good. Article layout looks good on a wide screen. I think guidelines recommend pages work at 1024 across pixels, although I can't seem to find that value in a guideline, maybe they dropped it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

GLPeterson, you need to source your work, particularly if you revert sourced material. Where are you getting these dB figures from? The table is just a qualitative summary of the differences between the various technologies for nontechnical people. Microwave or laser beams have a small angular spread and have to be precisely aimed at the receiver, so these are characterized as "high" directivity, while inductive or capacitive coupling is more tolerant of angular alignment of the coils or capacitor plates, so these are "low" directivity. The precise decibel power loss due to directivity depends on the angle, the separation, what type of antennas are used or the size and shape of the coils or capacitive areas, so I don't see that it makes sense to give a figure. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I can only echo Chetvorno's concerns. 54 dBi is a completely meaningless number for microwave power transfer; it makes no sense at all. Where is the reference for any of this?GliderMaven (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

All of these additions seem to be a rehash of off topic material that the primary author, GLPeterson, seems to be shunting around Wikipedia, trying to find a home for it, re: at Wardenclyffe Tower and World Wireless System. I have noted the problems with this material before at Talk:Wardenclyffe Tower#"World Wireless System", "Variant receiver", "Particle beam invention" and some at Talk:World Wireless System#Capacity of Earth but the highlights of the problem here (as noted by others) is that this is way off topic for this article giving way too much WP:UNDUE to a Tesla historical dead end instead of covering the topic. There is also allot of opinion (more like wholesale POVPUSHes by "Tesla" authors such as Corum) being stated in Wikipedia's voice as fact, counter to WP:YESPOV. Articles and books on this topic note Tesla as a short and unsuccessful footnote in Wireless power, not the "go to" authority on the topic. A side problem, which may take us to a Noticeboard, maybe WP:NORN, is the fact that the editor is heavily excerpting and relying on/promoting/pushing publications from his own websites, tfcbooks.com and TESLARADIO.COM, which is getting to the point of violating WP:NOTMIRROR. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The text of the section seems to be trying to conceal the fact that most of the claims for this type of transmission were made by one man, Tesla, 115 years ago. The citations of Tesla's work often omit Tesla's name and the date to conceal the lack of other sources, and several of the citations don't have any scientific facts but are just Tesla's promotional speeches. This is rampant WP:UNDUE weight to a technological dead end, and clearly WP:POVPUSHing by Tesla enthusiasts. As WP editors, you should know better. You need to understand and respect WP's standards for WP:VERIFIABILITY. --Chetvorno^TALK 15:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have note the noted "concealing", pushing, rewording sections about specific "old" Tesla ideas into "some guy some time", and what seem to be bad faith edits/accusations of DAMAGING by GLPeterson. I also note the editors silence on this talk page. This falls into WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, GLPeterson, rather than just reverting let's discuss this here. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My feeling is this section, Electrical Conduction, is conflating two different technologies:

• Resonant electromagnetic energy transfer - The various varieties of this are already discussed in the section Electrodynamic induction method and Resonant inductive coupling. Tesla's experiments used this, and perhaps he should be credited as inventor, but it doesn't involve conduction through the atmosphere or the other technologies which this section is about. The only non-Tesla sources in this section Wei, Leyh, and Kurs describe varieties of resonant energy transfer; they have nothing to do with atmospheric conduction. These are near field techniques, and cannot be used for long-distance power transfer as Tesla envisioned; the longest distance achieved in the sources, at low efficiency, was 20 meters, and more typical distances are 2 meters.
• Tesla's atmospheric conduction ideas - This is supposed to be what this section is about: "disturbed charge of ground and air method" and "...electrical conduction and the flow of current through the upper atmospheric strata.... by the creation of capacitively coupled discharge plasma through the process of atmospheric ionization" and "terrestrial single-conductor surface wave or surface plasmon mode". The only sources supporting that RF energy can be transported in this way are Tesla's from 114 years ago. I don't see any hard evidence that Tesla accomplished any of this - his demonstrations of electric power transfer are accounted for by resonance, or perhaps ordinary radio waves - and no sources are given that any of this has been used for power transfer since. But the article describes them as if they are proven technologies. It should be rewritten to indicate their speculative and unproven nature.

--Chetvorno^TALK 18:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. These sections need to be written using an independent secondary source. Chetvorno changes should be instituted along those lines. I have been rewriting Wardenclyffe Tower (sorry, its on a notepad right now) and have a few points. Per W. Bernard Carlson‎ Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age, and other source I have chased down, Tesla pursued:

• a plan of wireless lighting - he was trying to develop a way to light gas-discharge lamps locally and develop that into something he could market. It worked, sorta, in the pics you see him holding a lit lamp in front of a curtain--> the curtain is hiding a big ass coil that had to be very close to the lamp to get it to work. He seems to have given up on the idea.
• a plan of resonating the entire interior of the Earth. Pump it up with AC, create standing waves of power, tap it anywhere, modulate it through tuned circuits to also send messages.
• a secondary plan (a return circuit?) (that he seemed to be building into Wardenclyffe Tower - hole in the top of the thing with ultraviolet lights mounted in it to ionize the air over it) to conduct electricity to a layer in the atmosphere that he was pretty sure was there. Per "Tesla's other widely-publicized proposal was based on a (wild) idea, first put forward by Mahlon Loomis, that a portion of the atmosphere could be employed as a naturally occurring transmission line. Like Loomis, Tesla was under the mistaken impression that an upper layer of the sky was usable as an electrical conductor to replace terrestrial power lines. The main difference between Loomis and Tesla was the former also thought that upper atmosphere could be treated like a battery that would provide unlimited amounts of electrical power. Tesla added the idea that, like a Geissler tube, the rarified air in the upper atmosphere would glow, providing outdoor nighttime illumination."

Tesla does not seem to have gotten any of this to work, but he was a true believer. He thought if he got the patents and built the prototype his backers would give him all the time in the world to get it to work, because he was sure it would work.

Side note. Teals was not trying to use "radio" so we may want to avoid calling it "Radio Frequency" (RF). He did not believe in that Hertzian crap and would be offended if anyone suggested he did. He believed (up to 1919) in his "True Wireless" system described above (see and Carlson) So "rewritten to indicate their speculative and unproven nature" and truncating it down to a small part of the article (this is just a footnote in history) is the way to go per RS out there---> unless there are more reliable sources out there. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds about right; a WP:NPOV view would describe it as a footnote in history. The info on Tesla is interesting; I'm glad someone is trying to get some accuracy into the Tesla articles. I don't know much about Tesla, but I know when an article is inadequately sourced. Some other issues:

• What do you think should be done with the material on resonant power transfer? Considering its modern importance in RFID, smartcards and powering mobile devices, I think it should be expanded and have a dedicated section, instead of being lumped in with induction in the Electrodynamic induction method section.
• Ironically, I think Tesla is not acknowledged enough in this article for his role in (short range) resonant power transfer, and his promotion of the idea of wireless power generally. Although his long range power transmission ideas were horse manure, his groundbreaking short range experiments founded the field, AFAIK.
• The only piece of experimental evidence for Tesla's long distance transmission of power is his putative experiment in 1900 lighting 200 light bulbs at a distance of 23 miles, mentioned in the timeline. This article says it is probably a myth. Although Tesla kept meticulous lab notes of the period it is not mentioned, and there is no independent confirmation. Do you have any info about it?
• I came across the article Kurt Van Voorhees, "Worldwide Wireless Power Prospects" in Thomas Valone, Ed. (2002) Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy, p. 147. Although the rest of the book is pseudoscientific crap, this article seems to be a reasonably sober engineering assessment of the prospect of Tesla-type power transmission, published in Proc. of Int'l Energy Conversion Engineering Conference. Although of course it doesn't support Tesla's atmospheric conduction ideas, it examines the possibility of transmitting power by exciting resonant frequencies (Schumann resonances) of the Earth-ionosphere waveguide cavity by ELF waves using a Tesla-type transmitter. He concludes it is infeasable (but "promising"). Has a lot of detailed engineering data about Tesla's Wardenclyffe experiments.

--Chetvorno^TALK 06:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think a more realistic section covering RFID, smartcards and powering mobile devices would be an improvement. Tesla does have a place in the article and the current material should (maybe be deleted?) and replaced with something the general public can understand referenced to reliable source, instead of the bafflegab that makes up those sections right now. Any claim such as "23 miles" that can not be reliably referenced should be removed. We need to avoid (remove) all the material that is "Tesla said this - totally unrelated research describes that - therefore we are implying Tesla is correct by putting the two together" .... that stuff is WP:SYNTH. Proc. of Int'l Energy Conversion Engineering Conference would be good in its own section describing it. I would go ahead with edits like you mentioned since there is apparent 100% consensus on this page. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm Responding to WP:ELECTRONICS RfC. It looks like we have a WP:SUMMARY here and the problem is that some of the summaries are too long. The most obvious improvement is to remove the subsections from Wireless_power#Electrical_Conduction. Other long sections with a {{Main}} can also be trimmed. ~KvnG 13:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

How do you feel about the issue of sources? What's happening here is that Fountains of Bryn Mawr and I have been in an edit conflict with an editor GLPeterson. He has been reverting our efforts to rewrite the section Electrical Conduction but despite our invitations refuses to discuss it. Our feeling is that this section, which is about Tesla's 114 year old "atmospheric conduction" ideas, in essence has no credible RSs. There is no evidence that this type of power transmission has ever been demonstrated, or that it is the subject of current research. The only non-Tesla sources Wei, Leyh, and Kurs have nothing to do with "atmospheric" or "earth" transmission but are about power transfer by Resonant inductive coupling between tuned circuits, which is already covered in the Electrodynamic induction method section. This mechanism also accounts for Tesla's results. The section was written by GLPeterson as if these are proven, contemporary technologies for power transmission. We believe the NPOV is to rewrite it as a small historical section describing Tesla's ideas as a technology that didn't pan out. --Chetvorno^TALK 15:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, been busy at work. I'm just trying to find sources, read up on Tesla's World Wireless ideas, before starting on the section. The info you gave above is great. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem, been reading myself. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion on this issue? --Chetvorno^TALK 02:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

On closer look, Electrical Conduction does not appear to summarize World Wireless System; I have made adjustments. I still think a lot of the Tesla-specific speculative, theoretical and historical material can and should be moved to World Wireless System. Where available, secondary sources and information gleaned from them can replace information from primary sources. ~KvnG 13:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. We're planning to rewrite the section eliminating all reference to long-distance and noninductive power transmission, or possibly delete the section and move any reference to Tesla up to the Electromagnetic induction section above, since there is no RS that he did anything but short-range inductive power transfer. I'm just researching sources now. How does that sound? --Chetvorno^TALK 15:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I think the World Wireless System article is even worse than this one, and an enormous amount of speculative, pseudoscientific stuff added by the Tesla cult needs to be edited out of that article. I might tackle that one next. --Chetvorno^TALK 15:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

For controversial changes, I think paced incremental edits are a better way to proceed than a rewrite. ~KvnG 16:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Since there are few, or no reliable secondary sources meeting WP:RS in the section "Electrical Conduction" I see no way to judge a "controversial change". Replacing it wholesale with a section at least referenced to secondary sources is not out of the question, unless a whole lot of references to reliable secondary sources show up real soon. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, take a look at the non-Tesla sources, ~KvnG. They don't say they refer to Tesla's system. --Chetvorno^TALK 01:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Another problematic section is the Timeline of wireless power. In addition to overemphasizing all things Tesla, it contains a great deal of trivial and/or spam entries, which drown out the important milestones. Following a suggestion of Fountains of Bryn Mawr I propose that the content in the Timeline be pruned to only relevant material and combined with the sourced content from the Electrical Conduction section into a normal "History" section. This is the appropriate place for the Tesla material, as virtually every text and engineering article on wireless power regards it as only of historical interest. Thoughts? Opinions? Objections? --Chetvorno^TALK 20:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Was talked about elsewhere but, yes, support the proposed changes by Chetvorno. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Not quite finished with the History section; will be adding additional info and citations. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Its a little WP:REFBLOAT-y but probably unavoidable at this stage. The gist I get reading through Carlson (at least his take on the whole matter) is that "Tesla believed" more than "Tesla claimed" i.e. he knew what he was looking for before he started out his experiments ---> stationary waves in an electrical Earth that he could amplify through resonance. So when he lit a bulb at one close distance he was sure it was his discovered stationary waves that were doing it, and therefore it would work at any distance according to the theory he had formulated. Its a take on the whole deal, may even be true. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd guess you're right about him, but that's a bad flaw in a scientist or engineer. Go ahead and edit the section if you want. On the issue of refs, I'm sure sooner or later the Teslaphiles will attack this section. They'll cut down the references. The WP:REFBLOAT essay is just that, not a policy. I don't really see the problem with a lot of citations as long as they are not being used to distort the truth, make a WP:FRINGE theory seem mainstream, which these are not. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll leave well enough alone, may do some additions later. I am finding that the antidote to myth is detail, so the refs don't bother me for one, you tack is probably the best. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not so easily dismiss what is proposed by Tucker, et al. in regard to controlling field orders for long distance wireless transmission. User:Cartheur (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I read the Tucker paper. It's an interesting paper, although the resonant coupling he is investigating has been pretty thoroughly explored by other researchers and is established as a near-field effect which cannot transmit power long distances. From the introduction: "The purpose of the research described in this paper is to investigate efficient medium-range power delivery..." If you will look in the article, you will find that "medium-range" means up to 10 times the diameter of the coupling device. In other words, if the power is transmitted by a 6 foot tall coil, the transmission range is of the order of 60 feet. Tesla claimed his World Wireless System could transmit power hundreds of miles. Although the paper is written in a confusing style, I don't see that it even "hypothetically supports the possibility" of his long distance power transmission, as you claim.

However, even if it did, this is a WP:PRIMARY source. As Fountains of Bryn Mawr said, Wikipedia requires any conclusions from primary sources to be backed up by a secondary source: from WP:PSTS "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Wikipedia cannot break news of unconfirmed discoveries or speculate on future breakthroughs, see WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. When a significant number of reliable secondary engineering sources like textbooks and survey papers say Tesla's power transmission ideas are possible, then we can put it in the article. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)