Bullshit: Texzon Wireless Power

[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.
 

[ogden]

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.

output_power = 0.56*input_power?  That's your answer?

You mentioned arxiv, nature comm, 3rd party university. I was expecting pointer to your research or just excerpts. At least provide pages of your research that describes setup, results and analysis.

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.

Name of the startup or pointer to it's web page? Web links to patents?

To you and your advocates I can honestly admit - you did not produce *anything* that would confirm your results or even existence of your research as such.

[SaiSharma]

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.

output_power = 0.56*input_power?  That's your answer?

You mentioned arxiv, nature comm, 3rd party university. I was expecting pointer to your research or just excerpts. At least provide pages of your research that describes setup, results and analysis.

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.

Name of the startup or pointer to it's web page? Web links to patents?

To you and your advocates I can honestly admit - you did not produce *anything* that would confirm your results or even existence of your research as such.

lol. Now you sound like a pissed off teenager, trying to pick up crap out of thin air and trying to create arguments just to win it. Do you really think that I do not know how to measure power do you? Thats exactly why I replied to you that way.
Also, why the heck should I show you anything related to the name of my company etc? Are you my employer? Investor?
 
As I said, lets wait for the peer review to be done.
Also,  none of you are going to be my investors anytime soon, so it would be great to stick to a certain level of decorum.
If you can argue on facts, then, you are welcome. Else your behaviour is at the best  like my narcissistic ex.

[ogden]

lol. Now you sound like a pissed off teenager, trying to pick up crap out of thin air and trying to create arguments just to win it. Do you really think that I do not know how to measure power do you? Thats exactly why I replied to you that way.

LOL. Trying personal insults? You sound like bullshit artist pushed into the corner. It is very important how exactly and using what hardware you measure input/output power. Seems, you have absolutely nothing to show. You don't even specify frequency BTW.

As I said, lets wait for the peer review to be done.

Provide link to your research so we can read it. You mentioned more than one journal and publisher, yet cannot produce single pointer to your research paper. It is suspicious to say it politely.

Also,  none of you are going to be my investors anytime soon

If you can argue on facts, then, you are welcome. Else your behaviour is at the best  like my narcissistic ex.

When you provide facts - somebody can argue. At the moment you did not provide any facts, just bullshit: that it is possible to wirelessly transmit 11.4 watts over 2m metallic door with 56% efficiency using lambda/8 antennas with Tesla Transformer "like" coil attached to the existing ground backed impedance resonator on HFSS.

[SaiSharma]

lol. Now you sound like a pissed off teenager, trying to pick up crap out of thin air and trying to create arguments just to win it. Do you really think that I do not know how to measure power do you? Thats exactly why I replied to you that way.

LOL. Trying personal insults? You sound like bullshit artist pushed into the corner. It is very important how exactly and using what hardware you measure input/output power. Seems, you have absolutely nothing to show. You don't even specify frequency BTW.

As I said, lets wait for the peer review to be done.

Provide link to your research so we can read it. You mentioned more than one journal and publisher, yet cannot produce single pointer to your research paper. It is suspicious to say it politely.

Also,  none of you are going to be my investors anytime soon

If you can argue on facts, then, you are welcome. Else your behaviour is at the best  like my narcissistic ex.

When you provide facts - somebody can argue. At the moment you did not provide any facts, just bullshit: that it is possible to wirelessly transmit 11.4 watts over 2m metallic door with 56% efficiency using lambda/8 antennas with Tesla Transformer "like" coil attached to the existing ground backed impedance resonator on HFSS.

I wont share any specifics, until review is done. How difficult is that for you to understand?
Its so easy to call someone a bullshit artist.
I have nothing to gain on this forum. I was expecting a sane discussion, not some "fuck_u, nah_fuck_u, nah_nah_fuck_u" game.
I can easily see, you have no clue about Zenneck wave exactly.
 But, you are pretending to be a Skeptic. You cant be a skeptic until you have some inkling.

[ogden]

I can easily see, you have no clue about Zenneck wave exactly.

My understanding of Zenneck wave does not match yours definitely. As you do not provide facts we may have discussion about, our discussion is over unless you actually publish your paper (after peer review).

[SaiSharma]

I can easily see, you have no clue about Zenneck wave exactly.

My understanding of Zenneck wave does not match yours definitely. As you do not provide facts we may have discussion about, our discussion is over unless you actually publish your paper (after peer review).

I realize, you have nothing to offer in this discussion. You have so far behaved like an unruly teenage keyboard warrior, nothing more.

[bd139]

I’m going to sit and wait patiently. SaiSharma you answered the questions perfectly. Thank you and good luck.

[wbeaty]

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

Sarcasm?    If you're actually serious  ...then you're going to disbelieve forever, since no lab/agency has any reason to work on the topic.  Not without serious funding (and perhaps not even then!)    In other words, exactly who would pay for such work?

Extraordinary ideas require extraordinary proof.

Um...  the original quote speaks of extraordinary evidence.  "Proof" is for mathematicians; in physics any idea, sane or weird, just requires good solid supporting evidence, not exotic and special "extraordinary" evidence.

Here's a bit of Trivia:  M. Truzzi, one of the co-founders of CSICOP, was the author of the above quote, but later expressed regrets.   He discovered it to be a recipe for bias.   Why?  "Extraordinary-ness" is totally subjective!   Everyone has a different threshold.  I see a worse problem: to disbelieve anything, just reject all confirming evidence, saying "Nope, evidence still not extraordinary!"    Instead why don't we all just use a level playing field: treat all ideas the same, always with the same high evidential requirements.  Don't try to make bias normal and acceptable. "When a man finds a conclusion agreeable, he accepts it without argument, but when he finds it disagreeable, he will bring against it all the forces of logic and reason." -Thucydides.   Poor Dr. Truzzi.  He could never take back the meme he'd unwittingly released.

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.

How so?

We presume they intend to sell KWh, while preventing power-theft (employing the original method Tesla described, coded frequency-hopping.  Or even perhaps a modern one.)   The stuff about Tesla giving away free power was fictional.  Tesla expected everyone to pay.   Also, we presume that the efficiency must rival that of continental power-grids, otherwise all bets are off.   If efficiency is middling, then the system is only economical where large producers or users might exist, yet it's far too expensive to run power lines.    Tesla's original plan was to harness a huge number of remote mountain waterfalls: wireless hydro not fossil fuels.

The Texzon hype is discussing emergency backup power service: when disaster brings down sections of the conventional grid, or if you're invading a hostile country while destroying their existing power grid, you can still immediately use (perhaps expensive) wireless power service.  No fuel-truck supply-chain to keep the army rolling.

Heh, with mideast oil trillionaires involved, they can pay to run their vacation mansions in the middle of jungles or on mountaintops, yet not be trucking in the fuel to run gasoline power plants.    Perhaps do like Gernsback and HG Wells, have a huge cluster of always-running helicopters, set up tennis courts and gardens up there.  Price be damned, same as with yachts etc.    (The Texzon tower cost ?? $50M, but compare that to the pricier yachts or winter palaces.)
[/quote]

[wbeaty]

Sure! Working prototype is key to success for inventor. Where's small scale prototype like 10W bulb at 10m distance? With efficiency numbers shown?

That's impossible, because if we want to light a bulb locally, we also light the same bulb anywhere on Earth.   The system is not radio, and it only works if planetary resonant modes are being driven.  Without that, we end up with a VLF transmitter with a too-small antenna and microwatt ERP.   Tesla (supposedly) excited planetary resonance at Colorado Springs, a few tens of kilowatts with a giant VLF oscillator.   I'm not aware of any methods for making it any smaller than that.  In the 1980s Robert Golka built a vaguely similar setup, but didn't have full information, and it never worked at all ( yes 10MV, but no 100ft mast w/3ft globe, no ion-beam generator.)   Also, Tesla cheated, by exciting the global "tank circuit" using vertical impulsive lightning bolts up to 150ft tall, from his 100Ft mast.   A Real Man's Spark transmitter, naturally synchronized to the drifting mode frequencies.

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.

Look at the frequency.   Is it in the required operating region, well below 20KHz?   Is it driving an enormous cosine-shaped Schumann antinode, with vertical e-fields constant over tens of KM, and the first node out over the horizon?    Is it even using a grounded antenna?

Of course not.  That paper is only demonstrating the removal of the last critical objection to Tesla's ideas, the one left over from 1936.

Like so:

• Tesla's work is do-do!   Radio travels in straight lines only!   It can't curve around the Earth!   (No, actually the physicists were wrong, and radio is entrained/reflected by conductive ionosphere.  Marconi went ahead with it anyway, despite it being against physics.  Look what happened!)
• Tesla is an idiot!  There are no Earth Resonances!     (Heh, the resonant modes were looked for and found, in the mid 1950s, after everyone in the controversy was dead.  They named them after their discoverer.  WO Schumann, of course.)
• Tesla doesn't understand simple physics!  Radio spreads all the energy off into space!  1/r^2 law!  (No, actually the physicists were wrong, it's a planar distribution, 1/r falloff, not 1/r^2.   But even better, down below 20KHz the waves wrap around the Earth at least ten times before 34% decay, so it's cosine mode-patterns, standing-waves not 1/r.)
• Tesla isn't thinking straight!  Even if it worked, there'd be huge node regions where no power was available!  (Tesla already patented the work-around.  The e-field nodes are also the high-b-field, high-current regions, where the receiver instead is two widely-separated ground-connections.)
• Tesla's stuff is crazy!  You can't transmit megawatts VLF with such a tiny tower!   (This is not a transmitter with an antenna; it's an electrically-short capacitive cavity-probe driving a resonant mode.  Significant different physics, all explored empirically long before EM theory caught up.)
• Tesla's scheme won't work!  It spreads any RF power in the entire Schumann duct, a 50KM-tall layer!  (And scientists proved this in 1936!!!)

See what's going on?   Every one of the above "sane and rational" criticisms turned out to be wrong  ...except the very last one.   The 2014 Corum experiment was an empirical demonstration that the last objection was wrong too.   Tesla's method, now called "Zenneck surface waves," weren't disproved in 1936 like everyone thought.  The Bell 1936 experiment is shown to have been using the wrong antenna structure.   They didn't use Tesla-style wave-launchers, so they detected none of the unusual long-range ground waves on which Tesla had based his system.

[ogden]

That's impossible, because if we want to light a bulb locally, we also light the same bulb anywhere on Earth.   The system is not radio, and it only works if planetary resonant modes are being driven.  Without that, we end up with a VLF transmitter with a too-small antenna and microwatt ERP.

Yes, please - where is microwatt-scale demonstration? If it spreads all over the earth - how it can compete with existing grid (~6% losses) if only one-eighth of Earth's surface is suitable for humans to live on? At the moment it seems like never ending preparation of Fyre Festival (tm) - kind of what Arca Space does, but they at least produce funny youtube videos

[bd139]

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

Sarcasm?    If you're actually serious  ...then you're going to disbelieve forever, since no lab/agency has any reason to work on the topic.  Not without serious funding (and perhaps not even then!)    In other words, exactly who would pay for such work?

100% serious.

For an idea to attract funding, it has to be commercially viable or break a boundary of knowledge. This clearly isn't. The best outcome is a novelty centralised power transmission method, something as a society we're desperately trying to get away from at the moment.

And as you say "who would pay for such work?". No one unless the idea has a demonstrable commercial advantage. Which it doesn't even if the physics are correct.

Extraordinary ideas require extraordinary proof.

Um...  the original quote speaks of extraordinary evidence.  "Proof" is for mathematicians; in physics any idea, sane or weird, just requires good solid supporting evidence, not exotic and special "extraordinary" evidence.

Here's a bit of Trivia:  M. Truzzi, one of the co-founders of CSICOP, was the author of the above quote, but later expressed regrets.   He discovered it to be a recipe for bias.   Why?  "Extraordinary-ness" is totally subjective!   Everyone has a different threshold.  I see a worse problem: to disbelieve anything, just reject all confirming evidence, saying "Nope, evidence still not extraordinary!"    Instead why don't we all just use a level playing field: treat all ideas the same, always with the same high evidential requirements.  Don't try to make bias normal and acceptable. "When a man finds a conclusion agreeable, he accepts it without argument, but when he finds it disagreeable, he will bring against it all the forces of logic and reason." -Thucydides.   Poor Dr. Truzzi.  He could never take back the meme he'd unwittingly released.

This is not bias. That's a junk straw man you threw together to discredit my idea.

If you want intellectual or financial investment, you need collateral.

An analogy. A man walks into my office and says I've made a horse that you feed hay and it pisses dollar coins. Am I going to invest? No I will do due diligence. I hire a horse expert who followed the same steps documented by the original claimant. My horse did not piss coins. Original man was actually running a mechanical turk to pull funding in. There's a LOT of that out there and this is in the same space as a lot of it.

Reputation, trust, reproducibility, transparency and viability are next to ZERO here which is the problem.

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.

How so?

We presume they intend to sell KWh, while preventing power-theft (employing the original method Tesla described, coded frequency-hopping.  Or even perhaps a modern one.)   The stuff about Tesla giving away free power was fictional.  Tesla expected everyone to pay.   Also, we presume that the efficiency must rival that of continental power-grids, otherwise all bets are off.   If efficiency is middling, then the system is only economical where large producers or users might exist, yet it's far too expensive to run power lines.    Tesla's original plan was to harness a huge number of remote mountain waterfalls: wireless hydro not fossil fuels.

The Texzon hype is discussing emergency backup power service: when disaster brings down sections of the conventional grid, or if you're invading a hostile country while destroying their existing power grid, you can still immediately use (perhaps expensive) wireless power service.  No fuel-truck supply-chain to keep the army rolling.

Heh, with mideast oil trillionaires involved, they can pay to run their vacation mansions in the middle of jungles or on mountaintops, yet not be trucking in the fuel to run gasoline power plants.    Perhaps do like Gernsback and HG Wells, have a huge cluster of always-running helicopters, set up tennis courts and gardens up there.  Price be damned, same as with yachts etc.    (The Texzon tower cost ?? $50M, but compare that to the pricier yachts or winter palaces.)

Err you're missing the point by a mile. Centralisation, which this entirely relies on as the power source has to be concentrated on the transmitter logically, brings no benefit at all whatsoever. Look at where the rest of the market is going. It's entirely about moving away from centralised and grid models to fully distributed, high efficiency energy distribution and generation. Any centralisation is a risk.

The rich dudes and the army engineers just build a road and cables to where they want to go or take generators with them. Multiple redundancy. A lot of military strategy is setting up supply chains. Now lets look at your case; if someone uses their hypersonic weapons to take out your two main Texzon towers, which are conveniently centralised and visible from bloody space, where are you then? Shit out of luck. Game over.

[MT]

You're right, they just spent millions on the tower for something they never got working small scale because they wanted to pull a prank and waste theirs, and everyone else's money.

Theranos got tons of investment to, for the same reasons.

The truth is, they have demonstrated it works, they got even more funding, they built the high-power tower, and they are going to launch the wave in the next few weeks and bring up a load on the other side of the world.

wave goodbye to all underground animals.

[EEVblog]

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.

output_power = 0.56*input_power?  That's your answer?

You mentioned arxiv, nature comm, 3rd party university. I was expecting pointer to your research or just excerpts. At least provide pages of your research that describes setup, results and analysis.

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.

Name of the startup or pointer to it's web page? Web links to patents?

To you and your advocates I can honestly admit - you did not produce *anything* that would confirm your results or even existence of your research as such.

lol. Now you sound like a pissed off teenager, trying to pick up crap out of thin air and trying to create arguments just to win it. Do you really think that I do not know how to measure power do you? Thats exactly why I replied to you that way.
Also, why the heck should I show you anything related to the name of my company etc? Are you my employer? Investor?
 
As I said, lets wait for the peer review to be done.
Also,  none of you are going to be my investors anytime soon, so it would be great to stick to a certain level of decorum.
If you can argue on facts, then, you are welcome. Else your behaviour is at the best  like my narcissistic ex.

Like you calling people narcissistic and a "pissed off teenager" for simply asking for links and evidence?, that level of decorum? 

[SaiSharma]

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.

output_power = 0.56*input_power?  That's your answer?

You mentioned arxiv, nature comm, 3rd party university. I was expecting pointer to your research or just excerpts. At least provide pages of your research that describes setup, results and analysis.

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.

Name of the startup or pointer to it's web page? Web links to patents?

To you and your advocates I can honestly admit - you did not produce *anything* that would confirm your results or even existence of your research as such.

lol. Now you sound like a pissed off teenager, trying to pick up crap out of thin air and trying to create arguments just to win it. Do you really think that I do not know how to measure power do you? Thats exactly why I replied to you that way.
Also, why the heck should I show you anything related to the name of my company etc? Are you my employer? Investor?
 
As I said, lets wait for the peer review to be done.
Also,  none of you are going to be my investors anytime soon, so it would be great to stick to a certain level of decorum.
If you can argue on facts, then, you are welcome. Else your behaviour is at the best  like my narcissistic ex.

Like you calling people narcissistic and a "pissed off teenager" for simply asking for links and evidence?, that level of decorum? 

I was being reasonable for fairly long enough. When, he called me a bullshit artist and got personal, I  responded. I had indeed posted here some reasonable theory, but party under question didnt bother to read it and started attacking me in the name of skepticism. You cant be a skeptic without knowing the fundamental physics behind the said thing.
 I am still waiting for my peer review to be complete. I have shared the preprint with bd139, lets see what he has to say.

[EEVblog]

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.

output_power = 0.56*input_power?  That's your answer?

You mentioned arxiv, nature comm, 3rd party university. I was expecting pointer to your research or just excerpts. At least provide pages of your research that describes setup, results and analysis.

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.

Name of the startup or pointer to it's web page? Web links to patents?

To you and your advocates I can honestly admit - you did not produce *anything* that would confirm your results or even existence of your research as such.

lol. Now you sound like a pissed off teenager, trying to pick up crap out of thin air and trying to create arguments just to win it. Do you really think that I do not know how to measure power do you? Thats exactly why I replied to you that way.
Also, why the heck should I show you anything related to the name of my company etc? Are you my employer? Investor?
 
As I said, lets wait for the peer review to be done.
Also,  none of you are going to be my investors anytime soon, so it would be great to stick to a certain level of decorum.
If you can argue on facts, then, you are welcome. Else your behaviour is at the best  like my narcissistic ex.

Like you calling people narcissistic and a "pissed off teenager" for simply asking for links and evidence?, that level of decorum? 

I was being reasonable for fairly long enough. When, he called me a bullshit artist and got personal, I  responded.

There was nothing of the sort in the quoted thread.
I strongly suggest that you don't respond in that way (or at all) to such things.

[ogden]

Like you calling people narcissistic and a "pissed off teenager" for simply asking for links and evidence?, that level of decorum? 

I was being reasonable for fairly long enough. When, he called me a bullshit artist and got personal, I  responded.

There was nothing of the sort in the quoted thread.
I strongly suggest that you don't respond in that way (or at all) to such things.

Right. First came teenager, only then artist:

lol. Now you sound like a pissed off teenager, trying to pick up crap out of thin air and trying to create arguments just to win it.

LOL. Trying personal insults? You sound like bullshit artist pushed into the corner.

[Cyberdragon]

This just sounds exactly like people trying to reinvent Wardenclyfe and are gonna end up the same way. Wasting money. Just because Tesla didn't know about "zennek waves" doesn't mean it's not exactly the same crap, trying to "resonate Earth" to broadcast power. Even if it works, the effeciency will be shit. You'll have a machine constantly pissing away tons of energy waiting for someone to use it instead of wires that direct the exact amount of power to exactly where it needs to go. Also, you'll need local recievers and regulators/coverters everywhere so how would you get it into people's houses, one on every house, on every machine (making them big)?

[ebastler]

@Dave, ogden, SaiSharma:
Please, guys -- I thought we were beyond that quarreling in this thread.

Dave, I'm afraid you did this thread a disservice with your post. If you read through the later posts in the thread, you will find that things had settled down between ogden and SaiSharma, and we were back to "Let's discuss the facts once SaiSharma's paper is ready for publication."

Can we please all turn back our clocks and restart at that point? Thanks!

[ebastler]

Dave, I'm afraid you did this thread a disservice with your post. If you read through the later posts in the thread, you will find that things had settled down between ogden and SaiSharma, and we were back to "Let's discuss the facts once SaiSharma's paper is ready for publication."

So what? Settlement (or whatever it is) between me and SaiSharma does not mean that others can't express their opinions anymore. Are you social justice police here?

I'm just annoyed. I staid subscribed to this thread since I am actually interested what level of experimental evidence will eventually emerge. But I don't want to be bothered reading more of this mudslinging.

Dave (and anybody else) is obviously free to post here s they see fit. But it is bad style to just skim the posts, stop midway at something that catches your attention, and immediately fire off a reply without mustering the patience to read the follow-up posts.

[EEVblog]

Dave, I'm afraid you did this thread a disservice with your post. If you read through the later posts in the thread, you will find that things had settled down between ogden and SaiSharma, and we were back to "Let's discuss the facts once SaiSharma's paper is ready for publication."

So what? Settlement (or whatever it is) between me and SaiSharma does not mean that others can't express their opinions anymore. Are you social justice police here?

I'm just annoyed. I staid subscribed to this thread since I am actually interested what level of experimental evidence will eventually emerge. But I don't want to be bothered reading more of this mudslinging.

Dave (and anybody else) is obviously free to post here s they see fit. But it is bad style to just skim the posts, stop midway at something that catches your attention, and immediately fire off a reply without mustering the patience to read the follow-up posts.

The post was reported. I don't normally read this thread.

[joeqsmith]

Looks like it's running at 1710KHz.   

https://www.google.com/maps/place/32%C2%B009'24.0%22N+96%C2%B056'22.0%22W/@32.1527028,-96.9413238,1530m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d32.1566667!4d-96.9394444

[SaiSharma]

The post was reported. I don't normally read this thread.

First of all, you started this thread, so please read all my earlier posts, where I did post some links and No one bothered to follow them up except for two folks who contacted me on researchgate redirected from this forum.

Now, coming to my reaction to Ogden, that comes as a response to his aggressive antics in the form of posts by him as response to my answers.
I need not be reminded about how to respond, when you simply allow this kind of unscientific way of questioning on this forum.
You may ban me from this forum, I could give a donkey's hoot.

Finally, one can not be a skeptic without knowing the basics of the said concept of physics. Something odgen has been trying very hard to be and has ended up exactly like an unruly teenager.
Also, you have been blinded by your bias against the said Physical phenomena.
@ebastler and @bd139, you both have received the links to the preprint article.
You can always contact me through that. Nothing more on this forum, its a closure.
Sincerely
Sai

[ogden]

please read all my earlier posts, where I did post some links and No one bothered to follow them up except for two folks who contacted me on researchgate redirected from this forum.

Which of your posts contained links? Meaning URL to readable information in form of HTML or pdf document?

I need not be reminded about how to respond, when you simply allow this kind of unscientific way of questioning on this forum.

"Unscientific way" of asking for information (paper) does not justify insults and name calling. Scientific way of questioning would be just take your words for granted?

Something odgen has been trying very hard to be and has ended up exactly like an unruly teenager.

Here we go again. You better send me your paper (in PM), not insults.