Bullshit: Texzon Wireless Power

[SaiSharma]

Don't talk rubbish, prove it works and I will happily accept it.

Until then, every thread referencing Zenneck Waves, wireless power transmission soliciting funding and attracting the conspiracy nuts will be regarded, rightly in my opinion, as bullshit.

Nothing I've seen here has shown me anything other than the same, tired, old, crackpot pseudo science and a deep desire to fleece investors.

I am trying to understand, what kind of evidence shall be convincing?
1. Experimental Data?
2. Simulation Model [Industry standards: CST Microwave, ANSYS HFSS]?
3. Analytical Formalism?
Now, coming to ZN waves,
1. Are you saying that the said company is scamming?
2. Are you saying that my earlier posted results on ZN waves at metal-air interfaces in the thread are a crack nut job as well?
 

[bd139]

I was clear earlier. Independent reproduction of the experiments by a reputable team of engineers and scientists.

There is so much crackpottery in this space that you have to do this minimally to even look at credibility.

[SaiSharma]

I was clear earlier. Independent reproduction of the experiments by a reputable team of engineers and scientists.

There is so much crackpottery in this space that you have to do this minimally to even look at credibility.

IEEE, Nature etc. qualifies as a good peer reviewed system according to you?

[bd139]

Not necessarily. There’s a lot of trash coming out of there. If CERN, NASA or NPL reproduced it and published experimental data I might have some confidence in the idea.

But that’s not going to happen because this is all monetised heavily for absolute control of the idea rather than loose patent licensing and royalties. The types of people running these projects tend to clam up when someone approaches them about this.

[wbeaty]

Also, most here are engineers.

As am I.   (Heh, Engineers Allowed Only, since physicists won't touch this stuff even with SOMEBODY ELSES ten foot pole!    Professional scientists are actually smart, and they clearly see that any contact with N. Tesla will drag down their own reputations, rather than elevating the Tesla stuff.    Note well, the Corums who are behind all of this, the Texzon project, are electrical engineers.

novel theories that have little potential to benefit our lives

So you've already made up your mind, don't bother presenting counterevidence?    Also, I usually find that people attacking "Novel theories" don't have any idea of what those theories actually are.   They've refused to inspect the evidence, having made up their minds based well beforehand.

I'm curious: you haven't read any of the Corums' many engineering papers on this topic right?  Or even their latest one?  With their replication of the General Electric 1927 antenna test which disproved Tesla's claims?   (The Corums even performed it at the original 1927 site in upstate NY!)  [oops, edit, that was 1936.  And by Bell Labs, not GE.]

If not, then why bother to participate in the discussion?  (I don't mean just you.)

Again (and again, and again,) for those who do want to discuss, the recent one is https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7577497.    For non-engineers, the non-paywall version is http://web.archive.org/web/20161019214341/www.texzontechnologies.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/TEXZON_Baylor_Corum16.pdf

The reason for the cynicism is pretty obvious - we have yet to see any prototypes or systems with reasonable efficiency and scalability. 

I think a major reason for the cynicism comes from listening to critics who insist that there is no evidence, and there aren't any prototypes.   If we listen to them and belieeeeeve, mah children then why bother even looking?  Reading an obviously crackpot paper from people with no tech training would be just too disgusting.   But in reality there are a bunch of phd-level engineering papers from the 80s and 90s, plus a recent 2014 replication of the antenna field-test which supposedly settled the 1926 controversy, and disproved Tesla (by disproving Zenneck.)   [edit oops, that was 1936, by Bell Labs.]  Heh, they disproved the disproof in 2014.  The Corum's disproof is the entire reason for the giant plastic tower in Texas.   Those who refuse to read unusual tech papers would never know this, and wouldn't understand why anybody sane would want to discuss such a disgusting crackpot topic.

People posting such ideas on this forum either want something, be it funding, collaboration, recognition, or hero-worship, or are just letting folks know current research.  I'm not sure what kind of response is expected.

Or, we want to actually discuss the current research posted here (the Corum bros. new field test, the $100M project to build a pilot plant,) preferably without all the ad hominem coming from multiple eevblog members.  We also want to make you one of us, one of ussss.  Begin to take N. Tesla seriously.   So then all your friends turn against you, and you develop teh Crazy Eyes!  Start playing with kilowatt RF amplifiers in your basement!  And also, we want to see inside that darned Milford TX tower (giant VLF antenna made of plastic girders!   You watched their video, right?  The one with the entire slideshow of the interior?)   [edit, I pasted some stills here: http://amasci.com/graphics/st/ ]

If you have no interest in high-power VLF global-wireless stuff, or tests of exotic bizarre antennas, or the century-old Tesla controversy regarding just that  ...then it's understandable that you wouldn't participate here, or have any need to track down the engineering papers or the field-test data.  That's why it's in Dodgy section, where nobody sane need ever look.

But with the "skeptics," they have no excuse.  Decision prior to inspection, outright refusal to inspect evidence, plus a stream of logical fallacies, ad hominem being the least of them.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-- that principle is contempt prior to investigation." - H. Spencer

PS That Texzon tower slideshow on youtube is cool, just ignore the lecture and skip ahead to the good part like this:   https://youtube.com/watch?v=wFiW2lqdnlM&t=654

[bd139]

What about my request for published experimental data and reproduction via a national level agency or laboratory? That’s all I demand.

Extraordinary ideas require extraordinary proof.

Or in layman’s terms: shit or get off the pot.

A side note: one of the ridiculous things about this idea is the fact it doesn’t actually have a viable commercial benefit even if it does work. Every other alternative is better on paper even under ideal conditions. The compromises are pretty poor. Even burning dead dinosaurs is commercially more viable.

Edit: incidentally Tesla did some excellent work but every idea should be treated critically or we end up with homeopathy, religion and Brazilian butt surgery.

[ogden]

The reason for the cynicism is pretty obvious - we have yet to see any prototypes or systems with reasonable efficiency and scalability. 

I think a major reason for the cynicism is in listening to critics who insist that there is no evidence, and there aren't any prototypes.

Sure! Working prototype is key to success for inventor. Where's small scale prototype like 10W bulb at 10m distance? With efficiency numbers shown? Those field strength measurements in paper you referred to, shows > 30dB loss at 1km distance.  W/o doubt I am cynic here because "wireless energy transfer" network having 99.9% losses is very ineffective to say it politely.

[bd139]

At that loss, I'm going to start tying 18650s to pigeons and issuing people with nets.

[ebastler]

Those field strength measurements in paper you referred to, shows > 30dB loss at 1km distance.  W/o doubt I am cynic here because "wireless energy transfer" network having 99.9% losses is very ineffective to say it politely.

It‘s not only wireless, but also nearly energy-less. Success on all fronts!  ;-)

[SaiSharma]

Not necessarily. There’s a lot of trash coming out of there. If CERN, NASA or NPL reproduced it and published experimental data I might have some confidence in the idea.

But that’s not going to happen because this is all monetised heavily for absolute control of the idea rather than loose patent licensing and royalties. The types of people running these projects tend to clam up when someone approaches them about this.

I agree that a lot of crap is coming out from them.
I also agree that an extra ordinary theory needs an extraordinary proof.
However, as far as I know, Zenneck wave's physical existence has been under controversy from a long time(almost a century).

 I shared my data with a lab at University at Buffalo NY. They have confirmed my results, infact we found a new way to improve them as well.

Also, I am not alien to controversies, I literally fought 4 years to solve the riddle and suffice the critics. 

I repeat, the said company's technology must confirm the following three important physical phenomena in order to qualify as a Zenneck wave:
1. The equi-phases of the E-field must sink into a lossy dielectric.
2. They must exhibit an evanescent field decay property away from the interface (earth-air).
3. Slow attenuation rate in the transverse direction of the interface.
Else, its at the best a single wire transmission system just like the Goubou line.

[ogden]

I shared my data with a lab at University at Buffalo NY. They have confirmed my results, infact we found a new way to improve them as well.

Where is peer review (document)?

I repeat, the said company's technology must confirm the following three important physical phenomena in order to qualify as a Zenneck wave:

If Zenneck wave proven to work as expected - then what? I would love to see how it can beat existing wire-based power grid. Is there any paper demonstrating feasibility of Zenneck wave to power let's say, small town? Oh, wait... in the end it will be wireless power for open field IoT sensors, for applications where huge power loss (>99.9%) is not an issue. We already got wireless IoT power for indoors: uBeam.

[SaiSharma]

I shared my data with a lab at University at Buffalo NY. They have confirmed my results, infact we found a new way to improve them as well.

Where is peer review (document)?

I repeat, the said company's technology must confirm the following three important physical phenomena in order to qualify as a Zenneck wave:

If Zenneck wave proven to work as expected - then what? I would love to see how it can beat existing wire-based power grid. Is there any paper demonstrating feasibility of Zenneck wave to power let's say, small town? Oh, wait... in the end it will be wireless power for open field IoT sensors, for applications where huge power loss (>99.9%) is not an issue. We already got wireless IoT power for indoors: uBeam.

It shall take a month's time for all the reviews to be complete and then only I can share the outcome. In my earlier post, I shared some results , you can check them out.
 In the meanwhile I am waiting for ArXiv to announce my submission.
I am skeptical that it would ever replace wireline system completely.
It can replace some wirelines aboard the marine vessels, space-payloads, IoT device charging- home and industry.
The issue of long distance power transfer can only be solved using a Laser based Power transfer system or Single-wire transmission(again limited).

[ogden]

It shall take a month's time for all the reviews to be complete and then only I can share the outcome. In my earlier post, I shared some results , you can check them out.

So you admit that you don't have signed peer review. As simple as that.

In the meanwhile I am waiting for ArXiv to announce my submission.

Come on. Arxiv is just library for scientists. Papers there are not peer-reviewed but just moderated by volunteers.

I am skeptical that it would ever replace wireline system completely.

Here we go. ZW expert do not agree to "Texzon Viziv Wireless Power" claims: "Power the planet and Bring Light to the World".

It can replace some wirelines aboard the marine vessels, space-payloads, IoT device charging- home and industry.

You just demonstrate why many are cynical skeptics - because of nonsense claims like yours. In space they use silver-plated conductors to get impedance of power wires down but you suggest to use lossy Zenneck Wave?

The issue of long distance power transfer can only be solved using a Laser based Power transfer system or Single-wire transmission(again limited).

Laser based power transfer to replace wires? - Again nonsense.

[SaiSharma]

It shall take a month's time for all the reviews to be complete and then only I can share the outcome. In my earlier post, I shared some results , you can check them out.

So you admit that you don't have signed peer review. As simple as that.

In the meanwhile I am waiting for ArXiv to announce my submission.

Come on. Arxiv is just library for scientists. Papers there are not peer-reviewed but just moderated by volunteers.

I am skeptical that it would ever replace wireline system completely.

Here we go. ZW expert do not agree to "Texzon Viziv Wireless Power" claims: "Power the planet and Bring Light to the World".

It can replace some wirelines aboard the marine vessels, space-payloads, IoT device charging- home and industry.

You just demonstrate why many are cynical skeptics - because of nonsense claims like yours. In space they use silver-plated conductors to get impedance of power wires down but you suggest to use lossy Zenneck Wave?

The issue of long distance power transfer can only be solved using a Laser based Power transfer system or Single-wire transmission(again limited).

Laser based power transfer to replace wires? - Again nonsense.

1. While I dont have a peer review yet, it managed to pass through the nature comm editorial process. Which implies, that the guys sitting there saw some worth in it. Infact it was transferred by the Nature editor to Nature comm.
2. Again, there exists an option with Nature comm, to transmit the manuscript under consideration to the community recognized preprint servers. That implies a "through proper channel" process.
3. I always took a strong and clear stance, that in order for it to be a proper ZN wave, they have to conform to 3 necessary conditions.
4. The system I designed has already been in production with Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI). Again, the space payload thing has been quoted from Dr. George E Ponchak. He commented that during WPTC 2014, where I had presented my work.
So, you can take that issue with him. ZW is not lossy when conductors are around, thats exactly my work is all about. 
5. Laser based WPT is again from Prof.Dr. Zoya Popvic's work at University of Colorado Springs, Boulder. Kindly follow her work, before dismissing it as "all hat no cattle".

[ogden]

1. While I dont have a peer review yet, it managed to pass through the nature comm editorial process.

Ok. At least Springer Nature denied accusations Anyway when you get proper peer review - then we talk.

3. I always took a strong and clear stance, that in order for it to be a proper ZN wave, they have to conform to 3 necessary conditions.

When theory says that ZW is many orders of magnitude less efficient than wire, it does not actually matter - they manage to match theory or not.

4. The system I designed has already been in production with Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI).

What system? Any pointers to information? Efficiency figures?

Again, the space payload thing has been quoted from Dr. George E Ponchak. He commented that during WPTC 2014, where I had presented my work.

I can't find him in the author index. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=6828591

So, you can take that issue with him. ZW is not lossy when conductors are around, thats exactly my work is all about. 

ZW is lossless? How's that? From point A to point B you can generate/transmit/receive ZW power with better efficiency than wires?

5. Laser based WPT is again from Prof.Dr. Zoya Popvic's work at University of Colorado Springs, Boulder. Kindly follow her work, before dismissing it as "all hat no cattle".

It is obvious that one may transmit some (hilariously small amount of) power using laser and PV cells. To compete with wires - you need nearly- 100% efficient PV cells, laser and fiber. I do not recall reading tech news about such. When laser power transfer will be more efficient than wire, humanity most likely will not need power transfer at all.

[SaiSharma]

1. While I dont have a peer review yet, it managed to pass through the nature comm editorial process.

Ok. At least Springer Nature denied accusations Anyway when you get proper peer review - then we talk.

3. I always took a strong and clear stance, that in order for it to be a proper ZN wave, they have to conform to 3 necessary conditions.

When theory says that ZW is many orders of magnitude less efficient than wire, it does not actually matter - they manage to match theory or not.

4. The system I designed has already been in production with Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI).

What system? Any pointers to information? Efficiency figures?

Again, the space payload thing has been quoted from Dr. George E Ponchak. He commented that during WPTC 2014, where I had presented my work.

I can't find him in the author index. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=6828591

So, you can take that issue with him. ZW is not lossy when conductors are around, thats exactly my work is all about. 

ZW is lossless? How's that? From point A to point B you can generate/transmit/receive ZW power with better efficiency than wires?

5. Laser based WPT is again from Prof.Dr. Zoya Popvic's work at University of Colorado Springs, Boulder. Kindly follow her work, before dismissing it as "all hat no cattle".

It is obvious that one may transmit some (hilariously small amount of) power using laser and PV cells. To compete with wires - you need nearly- 100% efficient PV cells, laser and fiber. I do not recall reading tech news about such. When laser power transfer will be more efficient than wire, humanity most likely will not need power transfer at all.

1. Is it not the thing I said earlier? may be we can share my manuscript via email. I am rather happy to take a Physicist's approach. i.e. to first demonstrate a concept, master it and then Engineer it.
2. Using ZN or Surface waves on earth is way different than using them at metal-dielectric or metal-air interfaces.  For SW they have been using corrugated metal structures.
3. Before we talk about efficiency, we need to understand the system requirements a bit first:
(a) Conventional fire alarm systems on the marine vessels rely on powerline, as well as the health check requires the cable as well. They wanted to do away with cables for the fire alarm system and go for a wireless solution.
(b) For wireless system to realize, the metal walls and doors stand as a hindrance. EM shielding.
While efficiency is important, however, primary target is a cable less power up and health monitoring. HHI wanted low power transmission and health monitoring signals to be sent to the fire alarm.

Now coming to your question:

The one to one efficiency is just ~56% with my current design.  But the multi receiver efficiency is (1 Tx and 2 Rx )66% at 2 m across a 40 mm thick metal door. The water tightening door uses neoprene rubber gasket, thus making the scenario of a leaky shield. I send the ZN wave to transmit power along the metal.
 You might want to ask,
i. Where is the rest of the power getting lost?
ii. The power which is being lost, not harmful to human operators around? Does it comply with ICNIRP ratings?
iii. Any field measurements done using state-of-the-art ICNIRP approved equipment?
I have asked these questions to myself as well.
So here is what I came up with based on HFSS analysis, some intuition and experiment based measurements.
- The system which I designed, sets up a Transverse magnetic (TM-Mode) wave, this implies that the  wave is kind of spread across the metal. So, all the power is propagating, once the metal reaches its end point, the sharp corners are going to cause radiation of the wave.
- In order to prevent that, you can increase the number of receiving units, as it is a wave based power transmission, there is no issue of freq peak splitting. As we no longer rely on coupling as a mode of transmission. Also been observed in the studies by Noda &Shinoda[] and Kurs et al[]. These two studies pertain to weakly coupled WPT systems. So, in principle you can achieve a very high efficiency by increasing the number of Rx. Ofcourse, there would be limitations, needs further investigation. But, right now as a researcher, I need to bring a proof of concept. Therefore, I only restricted myself to two receivers.

- I used the NARDA field analyzer to measure the radiation levels. I wont be able to share that data on the forum, but, I can send you via email.
- The findings were that the system shows ~36% lower E-field values and ~80% lower H-field values than the permissible radiation levels. However, when I increase the power levels beyond 100 watts, the radiation levels reach the permissible levels. But, then am using only two receivers. However, when using 65 watts, single receiver and multiple receiver there is a solid difference is radiation levels.
4. George E. Ponchak was the chair of the conference. He had no keynote sessions there. We spoke at lengths during the break times and post-dinner.
5. I already answered this point in the point 3. ZN is lossy when we have earth, it is therefore I have been skeptical about power the globe claims. In terms of metals, its not lossy(relative). Unfortunately, the current Transceiver I use, loses power due to radiation at the metal corners and eddy current generated in the metal due to the primary coil. I had limited success in reducing losses,by adjusting the spacing and by introducing a ferrite core.
6. Please take that issue with Zoya Popovic. I have zero understanding of how the Laser system might be engineered.

 Am not much of an engineer, I am more interested in the physics. Whatever I have spoken at the moment has more to do with Science rather than Engineering.

Reference:
[1] Noda, A. and Shinoda, H.  Selective Wireless Power Transmission Through High- Flat Waveguide-Ring Resonator on 2-D Waveguide Sheet, IEEE Trans. Micro. Theory and Tech.,59,2011
[2] Kurs, A., Moffatt, R., & Soljaˇci´c, M. Simultaneous mid-range power transfer to multiple devices. App. Phys. Lett., 96, 044102-3(2010).

[ogden]

1. Is it not the thing I said earlier? may be we can share my manuscript via email. I am rather happy to take a Physicist's approach. i.e. to first demonstrate a concept, master it and then Engineer it.

It is not about approach. It is about truth - if you do not have proper peer review, just say so.

2. Using ZN or Surface waves on earth is way different than using them at metal-dielectric or metal-air interfaces.

As a matter of fact, this discussion is about exactly that - ZN or Surface waves on earth. Your research is very, very specific case of ZN over metal/conductive surfaces.

The one to one efficiency is just ~56% with my current design.  But the multi receiver efficiency is (1 Tx and 2 Rx )66% at 2 m across a 40 mm thick metal door.

Really? By power transfer efficiency I mean power supplied to transmitter versus power available for downstream load behind receiver. Meaning if transmitter (device) consumes 100W then you shall be able to power 56W load connected to receiver. Is it so in your case? Explain please what you mean by 56% efficiency, state actual power numbers as well.

6. Please take that issue with Zoya Popovic. I have zero understanding of how the Laser system might be engineered.

Not only engineers but scientists shall have common sense as well. It does not matter how the Laser system might be engineered if it is widely known that Lasers are inherently power-inefficient. I would not even talk about potential failure modes of such power transmission system, in case of high power (> 100W).

[ebastler]

@ogden -- I think you are getting increasingly stubborn and unreasonable in this discussion. You have made your points, SaiSharma has provided detailed and honest answers. Time to let it rest.

[ogden]

@ogden -- I think you are getting increasingly stubborn and unreasonable in this discussion. You have made your points, SaiSharma has provided detailed and honest answers. Time to let it rest.

So you believe that 56% efficiency is detailed and honest answer? SaiSharma are welcome to provide detailed and honest answer to my question where 56% comes from, without your insults.

[bd139]

I'm with ogden here. This is a number pulled out of thin air (excuse the pun).

[ebastler]

I'm with ogden here. This is a number pulled out of thin air (excuse the pun).

Only focusing on the 56% question now is quite beside the point.

Just read through ogden's last half-dozen posts or so. He is giving SaiSharma the third degree here, interrogation-style with quite aggressive phrasing. That is uncalled for. While I can't comment on the validity (or lack thereof) of SaiSharma's results, I admire his patience and self-restraint in this "discussion".

[ogden]

I'm with ogden here. This is a number pulled out of thin air (excuse the pun).

Only focusing on the 56% question now is quite beside the point.

In case you did not notice - it was only question in my last post. Anyway I heard you, will try to preserve snowflakes. Just don't be unreasonable yourself, do not (further) pollute thread with offtopic. Let's get 56% efficiency explanation.

[bd139]

Indeed. Efficiency is the mai

I'm with ogden here. This is a number pulled out of thin air (excuse the pun).

Only focusing on the 56% question now is quite beside the point.

Just read through ogden's last half-dozen posts or so. He is giving SaiSharma the third degree here, interrogation-style with quite aggressive phrasing. That is uncalled for. While I can't comment on the validity (or lack thereof) of SaiSharma's results, I admire his patience and self-restraint in this "discussion".

The 56% is a key factor of the viability of the idea so it is not beside the point.

I think that both sides are handling it well. Extraordinary ideas require deep scrutiny. I am regularly subject to similar levels of scrutiny on my consultancy outcomes because they can make or break and idea or business. This is perfectly acceptable.

You wait until you get an investor grilling for non delivery. I got death threats once

[SaiSharma]

@ogden -- I think you are getting increasingly stubborn and unreasonable in this discussion. You have made your points, SaiSharma has provided detailed and honest answers. Time to let it rest.

Thanks. I have been under constant scanner in my professional life as well. Its normal for me to face aggressive grilling sessions. 
BTW, I love Paulaner Hefe, I drank them a lot when I was doing masters at Darmstadt.

[SaiSharma]

I'm with ogden here. This is a number pulled out of thin air (excuse the pun).

Guys, I understand that there would be scrutiny and no offense taken. Koreans trained me
There as couple of published peer reviewed papers by me back in 2014 and 2016. IET Electronics letters and URSI, but they were not claiming a ZW wave back then.

Anyway coming to the number 56%.
This number has not been pulled out of thin air.
Way back in 2014-15, this number used to be as low as 12%-16%.
Back in 2014, for an input power of 20 watts on the Tx, I used to get barely 3.2 watts on the load end on the energy meter.
I also got stuck with one typical problem, i.e. the grounding!
If I used a  lambda/8 length wire and a flat GI metal sheet lying on the ground arrangement connected to one end of the terminal of the Rx, the efficiency would jump to 33-34%.
Thats when I realized that the TM wave makes the metal sheet a quasi- equipotential surface.

The RLC lumped elements would not do anything to help the situation. There used to be simply not enough voltage oscillations across the terminals of the Rx. This is because, the damn thing needs an electrical length across its terminals.
HFSS simulation would not show up any resonance peak either, but the VNA would. Then came good old Balanis to rescue.
July 2018:
One fine morning while taking a massive dump in July 2018 (after a very frustrated night of beer drinking), I attached a Tesla Transformer "like" coil arrangement to the existing ground backed impedance resonator on HFSS. The simulation started showing up the peak at the expected freq zone.
In couple of days from that time, I optimized my design and built it.
When I measured the I/P Power (20 watts) and O/P (11.4 watts)using the energy meter, I got the Tx to 1 Rx efficiency of 56%.  Then I used a second Rx and the overall efficiency jumped to 65%-67% range.  I also built a makeshift partial shield box, it worked through the shield as well with a marginal drop of 3-4% in efficiency.
Until that point in time, people (folks at my Startup) called it various names-e.g. capacitive system, radiative system etc.
The HFSS clearly showed the ZW equiphases, Slow attenuation rate of E-field in the transverse direction and evanescent field decay away from the metal-air interface.

When I showed those results, the external expert was extremely impressed and said, "Sai, you dont have to prove anything to any of these skeptics. They clearly have no idea about Physics"

Long story short, I was kicked out of my startup, as the CEO acquired all my 7 patents from my PhD Uni. His management team didnt want to work with me as they thought, they gathered everything needed to do it themselves.

Lets wait for the peer review, if it gets through I will share the entire set of results. If it doesnt get through, I will just hang my boots and leave.