Talk:Wireless power transfer/Archive 5

"Although Tesla claimed his ideas were proven, he had a history of failing to confirm his ideas by experiment . . ."^[1][2]

Hawkins makes no mention of any failure on the part of Tesla to perform experiments.

Yes he does. "During the last six years he [Tesla] has made so many startling announcements and has performed so few of his promises that he is getting to be like the man who called "Wolf! wolf! until no one listened to him. Mr. Tesla has failed so often before that there is no call to believe these things until he does them." --Hawkins, p. 105

Chetvorno^TALK 22:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Carlson writes only of Tesla’s not having demonstrated a completed system of global wireless telecommunications based upon the earth resonance principle while working at the Colorado Springs Experimental Station.  Please note that the Wardenclyffe facility was intended for this very purpose.

@GLPeterson:, that was Carlson's whole point, which you seem to have missed. Tesla contracted with Wall Street bankers to build a full-scale wireless power plant, Wardenclyffe, based on an untried principle which he had never tested. It failed to work, ruined Tesla financially and he had a nervous breakdown. Carlson says that Tesla's fatal flaw was that he believed he could design a new invention "in his head", and build a finished product without verifying by experiment that it would work. --Chetvorno^TALK 09:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

". . . and there seems to be no evidence that he ever transmitted significant power beyond the short-range demonstrations above . . ."^{[1] [2][3][4][5][6][7] [8] [9]}

According to Milan Ćirić of the Nikola Tesla Museum, Tesla lit a 10-watt incandescent lamp at a distance of 1,938 feet while at Colorado Springs.^[1]

"During his eight month stay at Colorado Springs Tesla carried out a series of experiments with his spark-discharge oscillator. . . . In September 1899 he succeeded in lighting a lamp of approximately 10 W "placed far out into the field," the exact distance from the ground plate being indicated in the Colorado Springs Notes, in the introductory comment for that month." "Sept. 9. Experiments to be made with st. waves.  Exact distance measured to point from ground plate 1938 ft."^[1]

This is not "long distance power transmission"; as shown by the graph below it is "near field". Also as mentioned below, with the input power to the huge oscillator 150,000 W, this represents a transmission efficiency of 0.0067%. Hardly practical wireless power transmission. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"The only report of long-distance transmission by Tesla is a claim, not found in reliable sources, that in 1899 he wirelessly lit 200 light bulbs at a distance of 26 miles (42 km)."^[1][2]

"There is no independent confirmation of this putative demonstration;"^[1][2][3]

Tesla did not mention it,^[1]

"and it does not appear in his meticulous laboratory notes."^[1][2]

"It originated in 1944 from Tesla's first biographer, John J. O'Neill,"^[1]

"who said he pieced it together from "fragmentary material... in a number of publications"."^[1]

The only known report of the long-distance transmission and reception of electrical energy by Tesla himself is a statement made to attorney Drury W. Cooper in 1916 that in 1899 he collected quantitative transmission-reception data at a distance of about 10 miles (16 km).^[1]

@GLPeterson: The "quantitative transmission-reception data" was taken with a bolometer, a sensitive detector used in radio receivers of the time which is designed to detect power at nanowatt or picowatt levels. In other words, this was just a demonstration of radio communication, not wireless power transmission. It is not very notable, as at this time Marconi was transmitting 60 miles. What is being missed here is that some technologies, such as Tesla's and Marconi's omnidirectional radio transmitters, can transmit tiny amounts of power, enough for communication, without being able to focus enough power on a distant receiver for practical wireless power transmission. --Chetvorno^TALK 23:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

There are four reports by others of Tesla having achieved long-distance wireless power transfer.

The first is the wireless operation of lamps and electric motors at a distance of 15 miles (24 km).^[1]

The second is the wireless transfer of "power enough to light a lamp at 30 km [19 miles].^[1]

A mention in a nontechnical article, an obituary for Tesla, 42 years after the fact. --Chetvorno^TALK 23:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The third is an assertion by Tesla biographer John J. O'Neill,^[1] said to be pieced together from "fragmentary material . . . in a number of publications,"^[2] that in 1899 Tesla lit 200 incandescent lamps at a distance of 26 miles (42 km).^[3][4][1]  There is no independent confirmation of this demonstration.^[3][4][1][5]  Tesla did not mention it,^[3] and it does not appear in his Colorado laboratory notes.>^[5][6]

The fourth is the wireless transfer of sufficient power to light an incandescent lamp of approximately 10 W at a distance of 1,938 feet (591 m) from the magnifying transmitter's ground plate to the point of reception.^[1]

@GLPeterson: This is not "long-distance wireless power transfer". As the graph you yourself inserted below shows, it is "near-field radiative" transfer, by radio waves. The power transmitted falls with the inverse square of the distance. At a distance of several miles the power received from Tesla's huge 150,000 watt transmitter would be down to microwatts. "Long distance"? --Chetvorno^TALK 19:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"In the 110 years since Tesla's experiments, efforts using similar equipment have failed to achieve long distance power transmission, . . ."^[1][2][3][4]

Over one-hundred and fifteen years have passed since his original work and there is no documentation of the Tesla wireless system apparatus ever having been replicated, other than by Leyh and Kennan, . . .^[1]

A completely false statement. Where does it say this in the source?

• The Leyh-Kennan paper explicitly says their experiment, which only transmitted power 60 feet, differs from Tesla's apparatus, which Tesla wrote in his patent works by conduction through the atmosphere; ionization. "... this approach differs significantly from Tesla’s patented system in two important ways: A) There is no ionized path between the devices...".
• On the other hand, the Leyh-Kennan paper says nothing about any other efforts to replicate Tesla's apparatus. In fact, according to Coe, Lee et al, and Cheney, there have been other efforts to replicate Tesla's putative wireless power transmission system, which have all failed. For example, in 1970 Robert K. Golka built a replica of Tesla's huge Colorado Springs magnifying transmitter in a shed at Wendover Air Force Base, Utah, using Tesla's lab notes archived at the Tesla Museum in Beograd, Serbia. (Golka, p.47-49), (Lawren, p.64) It generated 12 million volts but was unable to transmit wireless power.

--Chetvorno^TALK 22:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

. . . and no published reports exist of any attempt to achieve long distance wireless energy transmission by this means.^[2][3][4][5]

@GLPeterson: Not only do none of the 4 sources you cited support this statement, 3 of them say that attempts have been made to achieve long distance energy transmission by Tesla's methods and have failed:

• "Tesla theorized that with his system of power transmission a very simple installation would be required to extract usable amounts of electrical power anywhere on earth. Of course, Tesla was never able to prove this theory or demonstrate it and neither has anyone else." (Coe, p.112)
• "Contemporary electrical engineers Robert Golka and Will Mische have attempted to replicate Tesla's Colorado Springs work in separate experimental efforts. While high-power transmitters of similar components were constructed, they did not demonstrate wireless electrical power transmission." (Cheney, p.92)
• [On Tesla's reported lighting of 200 light bulbs wirelessly at a distance of 26 miles] "He may or may not have; but it's almost certainly a myth. ...nobody has ever been able to duplicate it, despite many attempts..." (Dunning)

--Chetvorno^TALK 22:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

". . . and the scientific consensus is his World Wireless system would not have worked." ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]}

A number of individuals have expressed the opinion that Tesla wireless system technology would not have worked. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}

Others believe the propagation mode described by Tesla is valid, that his wireless telecommunications system plan would have succeeded, and that wireless power transfer, while perhaps inefficient, is physically possible. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}

None of the above sources say that practical wireless power transmission is possible by Tesla's method. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"Tesla's idea of propagation is perfectly valid."^[1]

This is a quote lifted out of context. Papadopoulos said in the same interview: "His major defect was that he was dreaming but he was doing very few calculations on paper. Because on paper he could have realized that because the dimensions of the wave guide, are so enormous, you can transmit power, but not very much power. You can transfer power to hear the radio, or for television, or for a telephone. But once you want to start turning on lights in which you really need high currents, the power gets diluted because the space is very large. It's a standard defect of dreamers, geniuses, not like Einstein, the other type of geniuses, the inventors, who visualize things, but have difficulty putting numbers [on paper]. And actually, I think that was his downfall." --Chetvorno^TALK 22:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"Today, Tesla’s exact plan for the site remains a mystery even as scientists agree on the impracticality of his overall vision.  The tower could have succeeded in broadcasting information, but not power."^[1]

[Tesla's] proposed system was . . . inefficient. . . .^[1]

Wave transfer of information functions well with tiny energy levels of even micro-watts.  But a typical light bulb of 100 Watts needs 100 million times greater energy transfer.  This is physically possible, but there are side effects when that much energy is going in all directions.^[1]

Another quote taken out of context. Cooke goes on to say. "Broad area, distributed, wireless electromagnetic power at levels used by a modern home [what Tesla claimed he could do] will not happen." --Chetvorno^TALK 16:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"Because the dimensions of the earth ionospheric wave guide, are so enormous, you can transmit power, but not very much power.^[1]

"Tesla's world power transmission scheme remains today what it was in Tesla's time, a fascinating dream."^{[1] [2]}

Modern demonstrations have validated the basic concept of Tesla's wireless energy transmission scheme over greater than mid-range distances^[1]

Wrong; this statement is contradicted by the source given:

• There is nothing in the Leyh-Kennan paper that says they achieved "greater than mid-range distances". Mid-range wireless power transmission distance is defined as between 1 and 10 times the size of the transmitter. The transmitter coil was about 6 feet (2 meters) high. The power throughput (Table 3) was only 16.5% at 6 meters (3 times the size of transmitter) and dropped to almost nothing, 1.58% at 10 meters (5 times size of transmitter). These are typical mid-range distances achieved by capacitive coupling.
• Leyh and Kennan explicitly say their experiment does not use the same "atmospheric conduction" method as Tesla claimed "...this approach differs significantly from Tesla’s patented system in two important ways: A) There is no ionized path between the devices..."
• Even at the short distances they used, there was no sign that Tesla's "ground currents" could transfer significant amounts of power. The Leyh-Kennan paper distinguished three methods of power transmission in their experiment: "(1) Magnetic coupling between the two secondary cores, (2) Electric coupling between the two top electrodes, (3) Coupling through shared ground current paths". They found that "...transfer of energy in this approach occurs primarily through the electric fields between the receiver and transmitter.", not ground currents: "The conclusion from this experiment was that shared ground current paths provide negligible amounts of coupling..."

--Chetvorno^TALK 22:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

and mathematical analysis suggest the feasibility of long distance wireless telecommunications by its means.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

@GLPeterson:, You seem to be pushing this section again re: trying to prove your thesis that Tesla's system would have worked in (some way). Again - Wikipedia is not the place to push a thesis or argue a point (see WP:SOAPBOX). This article has been edited over the last year to focus it encyclopedia wise. ""Wireless power transfer" is a collective term that refers to a number of different technologies for transmitting energy by means of electromagnetic fields" gives us an article that is a WP:SUMMARY. As such the history section should also be a summary. The summary here from the more reliable sources here is, (unless I am reading it wrong) "Tesla tried to develop lighting systems based on Resonant inductive coupling and went on to develop a system of long range (global) power transmission based on a fantasy in his mind derived from his misunderstanding of the physical properties involved". Esoteric speculation that "well.... if he fired it up he might have gotten this kind of squeak" is ok for your websites and message boards on Tesla but not ok for Wikipedia. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

(temporarily computerless, using cell) l agree. Another tedious, confused effort in a long campaign by GLPeterson to push his fringe views into the article against consensus. Many, many errors in the incoherent mass of text he seems to be presenting as evidence: quotes taken out of context, low power radio communication experiments misconstrued as wireless power, Tesla's short-range inductive coupling experiments presented as evidence of some revolutionary long-range transmission method, and of course inadequate sourcing. Don't know if its worth refuting them individually. None of this comes anywhere near challenging anything in the article.--Chetvorno^TALK 17:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The ["Tesla's experiments" History section] summary from the more reliable sources here is, (unless I am reading it wrong) "Tesla tried to develop lighting systems based on Resonant inductive coupling and went on to develop a system of long range (global) power transmission based on a fantasy in his mind derived from his misunderstanding of the physical properties involved". 

Esoteric speculation that "well.... if he fired it up he might have gotten this kind of squeak" is ok for your websites and message boards on Tesla but not ok for Wikipedia.

Low power radio communication experiments misconstrued as wireless power . . . 

The Experiment presented as evidence.

Tesla's short-range inductive coupling experiments presented as evidence of some revolutionary long-range transmission method . . . 

According to Milan Ćirić of the Nikola Tesla Museum, Tesla lit a 10-watt incandescent lamp at a distance of 1,938 feet while at Colorado Springs.

"During his eight month stay at Colorado Springs Tesla carried out a series of experiments with his spark-discharge oscillator. . . . In September 1899 he succeeded in lighting a lamp of approximately 10 W "placed far out into the field," the exact distance from the ground plate being indicated in the Colorado Springs Notes, in the introductory comment for that month."^[1] "Sept. 9. Experiments to be made with st. waves.  Exact distance measured to point from ground plate 1938 ft."^[2]

The propagation distance of 1938 feet excludes the possibility of the observed effect being the result of energy transmission by resonant inductive coupling.  With the magnifying transmitter being 51 feet in diameter, the cited range places the Tesla coil receiver 38 times that distance away, exceeding the definition of mid-range power transfer by nearly a factor of four.

Let's look at Tesla's results in another way.  The operating frequency was 129.5 kHz giving a wavelength of about 2317 meters or 7602 feet.  The distance from the transmitter's ground plate was 1938 feet, placing it just over one-quarter wavelength away.  With its extreme outer limit being 0.159 wavelength, this places the Tesla coil receiver well beyond the reactive near-field region.  Given this historical fact, the 10-watt lamp could not have been illuminated by means of resonant inductive coupling.

1. [1]

   Tesla, Nikola; Marinčić, Aleksandar; Popović, Vojin; Ćirić], Milan (2008). From Colorado Springs to Long Island : research notes : Colorado Springs 1899-1900, New York 1900-1901. Beograd: Nikola Tesla Museum. p. 449. ISBN 9788681243442.
2. [2]

   Tesla, Nikola; Marinčić, Aleksandar (1977). Nikola Tesla  Colorado Springs Notes  1899-1900. Beograd, Yugoslavia: The Nikola Tesla Museum. p. 169.

GLPeterson (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Again you seem to be trying to prove a point via your interpretation of primary sources. We have been here before. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me, but these are verifiable secondary sources.  Furthermore, this is a Talk page, not an article, so even the abundant use of primary sources to help prove a point would be perfectly acceptable.

GLPeterson (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK it is actually not acceptable re: "it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements", so continuing to post your views based on primary sources is contrary to that guideline. Per "secondary?", the last ten sources have been Nikola Tesla, Nikola Tesla, Nikola Tesla, Nikola Tesla testimony transcript, Nikola Tesla testimony transcript, Nikola Tesla testimony transcript, Nikola Tesla, and Nikola Tesla. That's all solidly primary sourced. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The given source is Tesla's Colorado Springs lab notes, edited by Marinčić; a primary source. Even if it wasn't, GLPeterson, it is nowhere near evidence that Tesla could transmit power long distances:

• In the experiment a 10 W lamp is lit at a distance of 1,938 feet using Tesla's huge 150,000 W magnifying transmitter. This is a transmission efficiency of 10/150,000 = 0.0067%; that is, 99.993% of the energy was wasted. This is not practical wireless power transfer in any sense of the term.
• At a frequency of 130 kHz the transmission distance of 1,938 ft is about 1/4 wavelength, as you say. You're right, this is too far for much power to be transmitted by inductive coupling. If you look at the above graph you included, you will see that the receiver is in the "near-field radiative" region. This means the power was mostly transmitted by radio waves. Radiated power falls with the inverse square of the distance. If the receiver had been 4 times as far away, only 7,700 feet, the received power would have been one sixteenth, or 625 milliwatts, for a transmission efficiency of 0.0004%. How is this practical "long range wireless power transfer" as you claim?
• Where is the evidence that Tesla had some revolutionary new power transmission method? There is no evidence of Tesla's "ground currents"; it is all adequately explained by radio waves. The coil functioned as a loop antenna.
• If such tiny power transfers are considered to be "wireless power", as you seem to be arguing, then why should Tesla even be mentioned? Radio pioneers such as Hertz, Oliver Lodge, Jagadish Chandra Bose, Ferdinand Braun, and particularly Guglielmo Marconi were transmitting radio waves ("wireless power") before Tesla. At the same time as Tesla was transmitting 1,938 feet, Marconi was "transmitting wireless power" across the Atlantic ocean, a distance of 2,200 miles. Of course the power was so low that it could only be received by sensitive detectors like coherers. The same would be true of Tesla's transmissions at that distance. Such infinitesimal amounts of power have only one use; radio communication.

--Chetvorno^TALK 21:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed all reported Tesla experiments fit in the usual Maxwell frame, no needs for scalar or longitudinal waves or any other magic interpretation. Besides, the intermediate range (Fraunhofer region) leads to possible complex interference due to ground and atmospheric conduction and to possible local amplifications or damping as well as time varying effects (such as fading), all well known by engineers.--Henri BONDAR (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this article needs cleanup again, as it periodically does, to remove fringe and WP:OR material. All of it was added by a single editor, GLPeterson, without support of any other editor, against the objections of Fountains of Bryn Mawr and myself.

• The bloated Tesla's experiments section needs to be cleaned of inadequately sourced WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT content that has built up since the last rewrite. I enthusiastically support Fountains of Bryn Mawr's reversions of recent additions of inadequately sourced fringe material. There is additional fringe that needs to be removed, such as the statement that there is "empirical scientific evidence" that Tesla transmitted power long-range (contradicted by 9 sources and supported only by Tesla's 110 year old statements and the Anderson hagiography), and the WP:UNDUE WEIGHT inclusion of inadequately sourced rumors and myths that he ran lights and motors at distances of 15 & 19 miles, etc. According to the 9 reliable sources in the article, Tesla discovered short range resonant inductive coupling, but did not achieve long range wireless power transmission, and the section needs to be rewritten to put his limited contributions in perspective.

• The section Atmospheric plasma channel coupling describes a mostly experimental technique using lasers to create a plasma channel through the air to guide an electric arc. There was much argument on the Talk page over whether this should be included. As was noted at the time, this topic has little justification to be included within the scope of this article; (1) it is already adequately covered in other articles, such as Electrolaser, Directed-energy weapon, and Plasma channel, (2) it is not referred to as "wireless power" in sources, and not found in any mainstream texts on the subject, (3) it is not used to transmit power to electrical loads, but only in machining surfaces and as a directed energy weapon. I am on the fence regarding whether this section should be deleted; I certainly wouldn't object. But I feel strongly that if it is kept, it should be rewritten to remove the implication that it is used to transport power to electrical loads, and it should be moved out of the "Near field" section. As it does not transmit power by either near-field or far-field electromagnetic waves but by ionization, it should be given a separate section outside the Near-field and Far-field sections, or possibly in the Laser section.

• I think the section structure of the article should be reverted to its original form:

Near-field (nonradiative) techniques

Inductive coupling

Capacitive coupling

Magnetodynamic coupling

Far-field (radiative) techniques

Microwaves

Lasers

This division echoes the division of the field found in most textbooks and reliable sources, such as Sun, Shinohara, and Valtchev.

The present structure is:

Nonradiative techniques

Near-field

Inductive (magnetic) coupling

Capacitive coupling

Electrical conduction

Atmospheric plasma channel coupling

Magnetodynamic coupling

Far-field (radiative) techniques

Microwaves

Lasers

It was changed to this structure by a single editor without consensus in order to shoehorn in the Electrical conduction section, which he has repeatedly inserted in the past as a place for his fringe WP:OR theories about Tesla. This is unsourced; no reliable sources mention a technique or category of wireless power called "Electrical conduction" or "Atmospheric plasma channel coupling".

--Chetvorno^TALK 22:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with reorganization. Re Tesla: This is an article about existing techniques that use real physics. We have now bloated out to seven paragraphs (half the History section!) devoted to a Tesla dead end experiment that used junk physics. Tesla deserves maybe a one or two paragraph mention for historical context but half his theory was a fanciful version of Mahlon Loomis (who should also be mentioned). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with reorganization. As per comment in the previous paragraph. Purgy (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree with reorganization. The organization is fine just the way it is. The term "near field" has to do with an alternating electromagnetic field produced by an antenna. A permanent magnet is not an antenna, so Magnetodynamic coupling is not near field. About, "if [Atmospheric plasma channel coupling] is kept . . . it should be moved out of the "Near field" section. . . . it should be given a separate section outside the Near-field and Far-field sections. . . ." The Atmospheric plasma channel coupling section is already outside of the Near-field and Far-field sections so a reorganization is not necessary. GLPeterson (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Cleaned up the fringe views from the article per consensus above (no opinion/change in heading reorganization). Also trimmed out claims of "who did what with a light-bulb" since it is esoteric as pointed out by Purgy Purgatorio and too much for a short history and is covered in other Tesla articles. Trimmed down redundant wording, much of this has it's own article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree with "cleanup". That Tesla performed empirical scientific research into long range wireless transmission at Colorado Springs is properly supported by many reliable secondary and tertiary sources. No "cleanup" is required. GLPeterson (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

A second bulleted item expressing disagreement by the same author on some subject does not look appropriate to me, even when the referred word has changed from reorganisation to cleanup. Purgy (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I consider the article as improved with the last edits by Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Even when the structure is, argueably, mostly contained (no reorganisation?), the content has -to my opinion at least- gained much in readability, and lost much of distracting "fascinated dreaming". Thank you. Purgy (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

In order to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic of Tesla's wireless system, (a neutral point of view) I propose the following rewrite of paragraph six of Tesla's experiments. GLPeterson (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Years after Tesla's original research into World Wireless system technology, experimental replications using similar equipment have achieved long range nonradiative wireless energy transmission.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}  Nevertheless, there is a lack of scientific consensus as to whether the World Wireless system would have worked.  Some believe Tesla's wireless system would not have worked.^{[6][7][8][9][10][11][12]}  Others believe Tesla's wireless system apparatus is viable,^[13] the propagation mode he described is valid,^[14][15] his claim to have measured a terrestrial pulse that rebounded off the antipode of the earth is valid,^[16] that his calculated earth resonance frequency is essentially correct,^[17] that the wireless telecommunications component of the World Wireless plan could have succeeded,^[18] and, while the global transmission of electrical energy at industrial power levels would not be practicable, that long range nonradiative wireless power transfer is physically possible.^[19] Tesla's scheme remains today what it was in his time, a fascinating dream.^[6][20]

References:

In the first place, none of the reliable sources above say Tesla used "long-range nonradiative wireless power transmission", some new "propagation mode" such as "terrestrial waves"; all the reliable engineering sources discuss whether Tesla transmitted power by plain old radio waves. The point made by these sources, which you seem to have missed, is that unfocused omnidirectional radio transmissions such as Tesla's are useless for long-distance power transmission. Low power radio waves such as used for communication are not "wireless power"; if they were we could forget Tesla; Oliver Lodge and Guglielmo Marconi were transmitting earlier and further than him. You need a high gain antenna to transmit wireless power long distances, which Tesla never hit on.

The only sources you give to support your "alternative" views don't even come close to meeting WP standards: a book by a fringe author (Seifer) which also promotes ESP and psychic healing, a primary source paper that doesn't even mention Tesla (Corum), some patents, which are not reliable sources (see WP:PATENTS) (Corum, Tesla), a paper "published" in an unrefereed junk science journal by the Tesla Society (Marinčić), and minor quotes from mainstream authors twisted out of context (Papadopoulos, Wearing). Here are my comments on the sources:

(1) Where do Layh and Kennan say that "Replications of Tesla's experiments using similar equipment have achieved long range nonradiative wireless energy transmission"? This paper has already been discussed on this page. Their short range experiment only demonstrated power transmission by capacitive coupling. They explicitly said they didn't use Tesla's methods, and in fact they looked for and didn't find any significant power transfer by Tesla's "ground currents".

2) This primary source discusses surface waves and never mentions Tesla.

(3) Not accessible. Even if it supported your statement it is a primary source that would have to be backed up by secondary sources to be included.

(4),(5) Patents are not reliable sources, see WP:PATENTS. The patent office does no feasibility checking.

(6) Tomar: "[Tesla] tried to broadcast approximately 300 kW power via 150 kHz radio wave. Unfortunately, he failed because of diffusion of the wireless power, which depends on the frequency of operation and the size of the transmitting antenna. (...) The true history of WPT started with the use of microwaves..."

(7) Shinohara: "Unfortunately [Tesla's] experiment failed because the transmitted power was diffused in all directions using 150 kHz radio waves, whose wavelength was 21 km."

(9) Coe says explicitly that Tesla's system didn't work: "Tesla theorized that with his system a very simple installation could extract electrical power in useful amounts anywhere on earth. Of course Tesla was never able to prove this theory or demonstrate it and neither has anyone else"

(10) Cooke says wireless transmission is possible, but he is referring to radio waves, not "nonradiative" power, and not to Tesla's methods. His next sentence was: "Broad area, distributed, wireless electromagnetic power at levels used by a modern home [what Tesla claimed he could do] will not happen."

(11) Curty says that wireless power was impossible using the long wavelength equipment that Tesla was using: "The work of Tesla was based on very long wavelengths and thus the concept of radio wave focusing couldn't be used."

(12) Belohlavek: "Today [Tesla's] pioneering ideas in wave propagation are fundamental to all radio communication, but were impossible for transmitting large amounts of power"

(13) Marc Seifer is a fringe author with no physics or electronics experience and his book also espouses ESP, parapsychology, ether theory, longitudinal electromagnetic waves, the third eye, faster than light particles, and other topics far outside the realm of mainstream science.

(14) A quote taken out of context. Papadopoulos said in the same interview: "[Tesla's] major defect was that he was dreaming but he was doing very few calculations on paper. Because on paper he could have realized that because the dimensions of the wave guide, are so enormous, you can transmit power, but not very much power. You can transfer power to hear the radio, or for television, or for a telephone. But once you want to start turning on lights in which you really need high currents, the power gets diluted because the space is very large. It's a standard defect of dreamers, geniuses, not like Einstein, the other type of geniuses, the inventors, who visualize things, but have difficulty putting numbers [on paper]. And actually, I think that was his downfall."

(15) An article published in The Tesla Journal, an open access (i.e. unrefereed, junk science) publication by The Tesla Society. Even if you trust Marinčić, the phrase: "there is a truth in Tesla's statements about specific behavior of low frequency..." does not mean he believes that "the propagation mode Tesla described is valid" for power transmission.

(16) Tesla's 110 year old patent is nowhere near a reliable source that he actually "...measured a terrestrial pulse to have rebounded off the antipodes."

(17) Seifer again. See re: (13)

(18) Whether Tesla's system could be used for broadcasting information is not under discussion, this article is about wireless power.

--Chetvorno^TALK 15:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)