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.
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.
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.QuoteLong 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.
As I said, lets wait for the peer review to be done.
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.
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.Quote
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.QuoteAlso, none of you are going to be my investors anytime soonQuoteIf 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 can easily see, you have no clue about Zenneck wave exactly.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
QuoteExtraordinary 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.
QuoteA 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.)
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.
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.
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.QuoteLong 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.
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.QuoteLong 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?
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.QuoteLong 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I need not be reminded about how to respond, when you simply allow this kind of unscientific way of questioning on this forum.
Something odgen has been trying very hard to be and has ended up exactly like an unruly teenager.
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?QuoteI 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?QuoteSomething 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.