Talk:Wireless power transfer/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Proposal to revise paragraph five of Tesla's experiments

---

---

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

---

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 . . ."

---

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." "Sept. 9. Experiments to be made with st. waves.  Exact distance measured to point from ground plate 1938 ft."

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)."

"There is no independent confirmation of this putative demonstration;"

Tesla did not mention it,

"and it does not appear in his meticulous laboratory notes."

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

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

---

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).

@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).

---

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

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, said to be pieced together from "fragmentary material . . . in a number of publications," that in 1899 Tesla lit 200 incandescent lamps at a distance of 26 miles (42 km).  There is no independent confirmation of this demonstration.  Tesla did not mention it, and it does not appear in his Colorado laboratory notes.>

---

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.

@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, . . ."

---

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, . . .

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.

@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."

---

A number of individuals have expressed the opinion that Tesla wireless system technology would not have worked.

---

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.

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."

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."

---

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

---

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.

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.

---

---

"Tesla's world power transmission scheme remains today what it was in Tesla's time, a fascinating dream."

---

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

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.

@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)

Physical properties

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". 

To what "physical properties" do you refer?

GLPeterson (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Electromagnetism for starters, Tesla misunderstood it at the basic level and did not accept even the theory well through 1919 (see "Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age", by W. Bernard Carlson, pages 127-128, "Nikola Tesla: The Guy Who DIDN'T "Invent Radio"", Thomas H. White). Tesla based his ideas on his theory that electromagnetism was actually well understood 19th century conduction and that he could use ground currents and return currents (Carlson 209-210) combined with the idea that he could use (bogus) 19th ether theory to transmit globally without loss (Carlson 274). This is "misunderstanding of the physical properties involved". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

GLPeterson (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

A kind of squeak

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.

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."

"Sept. 9. Experiments to be made with st. waves.  Exact distance measured to point from ground plate 1938 ft."

The powering of a 10 watt incandescent lamp wirelessly at a distance of 1938 feet from the C/S magnifying transmitter is much more than a "kind of squeak."

GLPeterson (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

When the goal was global transmission of wireless power, lighting a 10 watt bulb at 1938 feet is a squeak, and its a squeak that Tesla miss-interpreted. As one reviewer of Carlson put it "(Tesla) had extraordinary imaginative prowess and developed detailed mental images of his inventions. His problems mainly stemmed from committing to them even when the physical world did not yield the right results - most expensively in his effort to develop wireless power transmission while others were forging ahead with radio for communication.." Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That's right. Powering of a 10 W lamp with Tesla's 150,000 W magnifying transmitter is a transmission efficiency of only 0.0067%. 99.99% of the power was wasted. Yup, just a squeak. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable input to this discussion.  Here are Tesla's own words bearing upon the subject:

Let me mention here two widely different experiments of mine.  In one the body of a person was subjected to the rapidly-alternating pressure of an electrical oscillator of two and a half million volts; in the other a small incandescent lamp was lighted by means of a resonant circuit grounded on one end, all the energy being drawn through the earth electrified from a distant transmitter.

The first presents a sight marvelous and unforgettable.  One sees the experimenter standing on a big sheet of fierce, blinding flame, his whole body enveloped in a mass of phosphorescent streamers like the tentacles of an octopus.  Bundles of light stick out from his spine.  As he stretches out the arms, thus forcing the electric fluid outwardly roaring tongues of fire leap from his fingertips.  Objects in his vicinity bristle with rays, emit musical notes, glow, grow hot.  He is the center of still more curious actions, which are not visible.  At each throb of electric force myriads of minute projectiles are shot off from him with such velocities as to pass through the adjoining walls.  He is in turn being violently bombarded by the surrounding air and dust.  He experiences sensations which are indescribable.

A layman, after witnessing this stupendous and incredible spectacle, will think little of the second modest exhibit.  But the expert will not be deceived. He realizes at once that the second experiment is ever so much difficult to perform and immensely more consequential.  He knows that to make the little filament glow, the entire surface of the planet, two hundred million square miles, must be strongly electrified.  This calls for peculiar electrical activities, hundreds of times greater than those involved in the lighting of an arc lamp through the human body.  What impresses him most, however, is the knowledge that the little lamp will spring into the same brilliancy anywhere on the globe, there being no appreciable diminution of the effect with the increase of distance from the transmitter

GLPeterson (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Complete nonsense, as the Shinohara, Coe, Tomar, and Papadopoulos refs in the article already point out. Most of the turgid Tesla quotes above are irrelevant. But the last paragraph above is illuminating, because it illustrates in Tesla's own words exactly where he went wrong. Stuck in outdated 19th century models, Tesla believed that energy could be transmitted wirelessly without "diminution" with distance. Maxwell's equations, which he rejected, shows that in both near and far field transmission power declines with distance. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

If there was no "diminution of the effect with distance", why was Tesla's huge 150,000 watt Colorado Springs transmitter only able to light a puny 10 watt bulb at 1,938 feet, as you relate above? Tesla should have been able to transmit up to 150,000 watts to any point on earth. --Chetvorno^TALK 08:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Experiments misconstrued?

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

I am not producing radiation in my system; I am suppressing electromagnetic [space] waves.  But, on the other hand, my apparatus can be used effectively with electromagnetic waves.  The apparatus has nothing to do with this new method except that it is the only means to practice it.  So that in my system, you should free yourself of the idea that there is radiation, that energy is radiated.  It is not radiated; it is conserved.

---

Counsel

     Referring to the different instrumentalities described as being used by you for supplying sustained electrical oscillations to an antenna of high capacity and tuned to the frequency of the current impressed, for the transmission of energy without wires, what, if any, difference in principle was involved in the transmitting of such energy to a distant telephone, for instance, or for signaling, as compared with such transmission to any other form of translating device, such for instance, as a lamp?

Tesla

     There is no difference whatever that I can see in the principle.

Counsel

     Was there any difference in the equipment employed for these two purposes?

Tesla

     Absolutely none that I can see.

So if there is no difference between radio transmission and wireless power, why should Tesla get any credit? Early radio pioneers such as Oliver Lodge, Jagadish Chandra Bose and Guglielmo Marconi were transmitting "wireless power" (radio waves) earlier and further than Tesla. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Tesla      When I spoke of these enormous potentials, I was describing an industrial plant on a large scale because that was the most important application of these principles, but I have also pointed out in my patents that the same principles can be applied to telegraphy and other purposes.  That is simply a question of how much power you want to transmit.

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

---

The Experiment presented as evidence.

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

A demonstration of wireless energy transmission sufficient to power a 10 watt lamp at 1,938 feet (591 m) from a magnifying transmitter.

This advanced Tesla coil, known as a Magnifying Transmitter was specifically designed to implement wireless power by means of the disturbed charge of ground and air 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." "Sept. 9. Experiments to be made with st. waves.  Exact distance measured to point from ground plate 1938 ft."

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.

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)

Article needs cleanup to remove fringe content

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)

"Reorganisation" vs. "Cleanup"

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)

Proposal to revise paragraph six of Tesla's experiments

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.  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.  Others believe Tesla's wireless system apparatus is viable, the propagation mode he described is valid, his claim to have measured a terrestrial pulse that rebounded off the antipode of the earth is valid, that his calculated earth resonance frequency is essentially correct, that the wireless telecommunications component of the World Wireless plan could have succeeded, 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. Tesla's scheme remains today what it was in his time, a fascinating dream.

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)

Proposal to revise sentence one, paragraph six of Tesla's experiments

Introduction: The Existing Sentence

In the years since Tesla's experiments, efforts using similar equipment have failed to achieve long distance power transmission . . .

Removed "Cheney, Margaret; Uth, Robert; Glenn, Jim (1999). Tesla, Master of Lightning. Barnes & Noble Publishing. pp. 90–92. ISBN 158663187X."

I Removed "Cheney, Margaret; Uth, Robert; Glenn, Jim (1999). Tesla, Master of Lightning. Barnes & Noble Publishing. pp. 90–92. ISBN 158663187X."

"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 comparable components were constructed, they did not demonstrate wireless electrical power transmission."

Bob Golka's efforts were directed toward excitation of the fundamental Schumann resonance mode of approximately 7.83 Hz.  He had an arrangement with a West Coast Schumann resonance monitoring station to evaluate the ELF output performance of his apparatus.  (Of course Tesla himself was not trying to excite a Schumann resonance mode.)  Bob never made any attempt to demonstrate wireless electrical power transfer using a tuned Tesla coil receiver as specified by Tesla's wireless system patents.  Will Mische's contribution to the Saint Cloud, Minnesota "People's Power Project" was construction of the Tesla coil receiver in Belgrade, Minnesota on the farm of Virgil Fuchs.  The Tesla coil magnifying transmitter to be built in Timmons, Ontario, Canada never became operational.  Will confirmed this to me personally some time ago.

The People’s Power Project was set up to try and carry out this Tesla experiment which was going to be a test of Nikola Tesla’s ideas of sending electricity through the earth without the use of wires. . . . The experiment is going to go from Timmons, Ontario in Canada, where they have a radio station there, which was going to provide much of the juice, and it’s going to send electricity to be picked up in Belgrade, Minnesota on the farm of Virgil Fuchs, who’s been one of the militant anti-powerline people.  And the People’s Power Project is pushing that. . . . Nobody knows if it’s going to work or not.  But, you know, we figure what the heck, we can try it.  If it works, great.  There might be some side effects to it.  I mean it’s hard to say, you know, these things have to be experimented with.  But it’s kind of an outgrowth of people wanting to see what other ways electricity could be sent, without the use of powerlines, which is, of course, a major point and struggle in western central Minnesota.

EN: How soon will this be tested or operational?

DO: Well, it’ll be tested first time sometime this spring.  The Canadian people have been a little bit slow and a little bit behind.  Here Minnesota’s been ready for quite a while, but... So I don’t know exactly when it’s going to be tried, but...

EN: I see. Is this something that originated from the urban area, and then arrangements were made with Mr. Fuchs?

DO: Well, it happened when Will Mische of St. Cloud had read something in the paper about the Russians supposedly doing it.  That was last February, in 1977.  So he went to one of the meetings.  The powerline people were in their meeting, and he talked to them.  He also talked to some co-op people here in the Twin Cities, and they said, “Why not?”  Virgil put up some land to try it—-virtually right under where the powerline is going to cross his farm.  So Will Mische has been the one who’s been basically doing much of the work now on that, and he’s one of the other Urban Support people who did a lot of the physical labor, too, last summer.

EN: What role did the opponents out in the area have in the project?

DO: Well, I wasn’t there a lot, wasn’t around last summer, so I don’t know exactly.  I mean I’m sure they helped some in construction and all that, and people have certainly been interested in it.  It’s taken so long.  It was supposed to have been tested way last summer, but people have kind of, I don’t know, put it aside for a while or forgotten about it.  But, you know, it’s done here in Minnesota, and it’s just sitting there waiting to be tried.

GLPeterson (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Any private communication you claim to have had is not a WP:reliable source. Cheney's book, one of the most respected biographies of Tesla, is. --Chetvorno^TALK 05:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The author of the critical sentence in the Cheney-Uth book did not write, 'While high-power transmitters of comparable components were constructed, they tried and failed to demonstrate wireless electrical power transmission.'  He wrote, "While high-power transmitters of comparable components were constructed, they did not demonstrate wireless electrical power transmission."

GLPeterson (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Dunning, Brian (15 January 2013). "Did Tesla plan to transmit power world-wide through the sky?". The Cult of Nikola Tesla. Skeptoid.com.

Dunning, Brian (15 January 2013). "Did Tesla plan to transmit power world-wide through the sky?". The Cult of Nikola Tesla. Skeptoid.com.

"[Tesla's] worldwide wireless power system was theoretical only, employing the Schumann-Tesla resonance to charge the Earth's ionosphere such that a simple handheld coil could receive electrical power for free anywhere, and everywhere, in the world. . . . Now that the nature of the ionosphere is much better understood, physicists now consider Tesla's concept unworkable, and no attempts to test it have ever worked."

Wireless energy transmission by means of a Schumann resonance propagation mode was never part of Tesla's plan.  Saying, "no attempts to test it have ever worked" is meaningless within the context of the subject sentence.  It does not support the assertion of no successful demonstration of long range non-radiative wireless power transfer ever having taken place.

Natural lightning excites the Schumann resonance modes.  They are observed at the lowest few resonance frequencies (about 8 Hertz and multiples of that).  Their measured Q's on the order of 5 to 10 suggest the electrical disturbances produced by lightning make a few circuits of the Earth before damping out and create a fairly definite terrestrial standing wave of a few cycles duration.  What is wanted for wireless power transfer is for the electrical load connected to the receiver to draw power from the transmitter via the standing wave.  When the load is switched on the transmitter should "feel" the load, as it would in a closed circuit, and respond by providing more power via the standing wave.  According to estimates this would require an Earth-ionosphere cavity Q on the order of ~10⁶ or 10⁷ at the lowest Schumann resonance frequencies.  (Cavity Q is defined here as the ratio of the electric field energy stored in the Earth-ionosphere cavity per cycle of the oscillation to the average power input to the cavity from the transmitter.) This estimate of the required Q is based on the requirement that the current induced in the input impedance of the receiver should reciprocally induce power in the output impedance of the transmitter similar to the power that was transmitted initially.  This is a way of expressing the coupling between the transmitter and receiver required for the transmitter to "feel" the load on the receiver.  The estimated Q is the value that produces an electric field in the cavity strong enough to induce the required current in the input impedance of the receiver.  Schumann electrical oscillations do not allow efficient transfer of power from the transmitter to the receiver over long distances.  The concept of transferring power with small losses in this manner will not work because the standing wave would occur in the Earth-ionosphere cavity, which is too lossy, i.e., the Q is too small to enable a standing wave of sufficient amplitude to be generated.  For the transmitter to feed power to the receiver as efficiently as it would in a closed low-loss circuit, power transferred to the receiver should be able to transfer power of the same order of magnitude reciprocally to the transmitter.  This is a necessary condition for the transmitter to “feel” the load connected to the receiver, and to supply power to it via the standing wave.  To do this, the required Q of the Earth-ionosphere cavity is on the order of 10⁶ or so at the lowest Earth-ionosphere cavity Schumann resonant frequency of about 8 Hz, according to estimates, whereas measurements based on the spectrum of natural electrical radio noise yield a Q of only about 5 to 10. [Bradford, Henry. "TESLA ON GLOBAL WIRELESS ENERGY TRANSMISSION". Retrieved 20 September 2016.

Another conceptual difficulty with wireless power transfer by means of standing waves in the Schumann cavity is that at the very low frequencies Tesla employed (1-50 kHz) earth-ionosphere waveguide excitation, now well understood, would seem to be impossible with the either the Colorado Springs or the Long Island apparatus (at least with the apparatus visible in photographs of these facilities). ["Spherical Transmission Lines and Global Propagation, An Analysis of Tesla's Experimentally Determined Propagation Model," K. L. Corum, J. F. Corum, Ph.D., and J. F. X. Daum, Ph.D. 1996, p. 10.]

Furthermore, the operating frequency of ~25 kHz specified by Tesla is far above the highest easily observable Schumann resonance mode (the 9th overtone) that exists at approximately 66.4 Hz.  Tesla's selection of 25 kHz is wholly inconsistent with the operation of a system that is based upon the excitation of a Schumann resonance mode.

GLPeterson (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

. . . and scientific consensus is the World Wireless system would not have worked.

GLPeterson (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There is such a thing as TL;DR. This is standard a GLPeterson PUSH attempt in spades --- combining sources that say "well, Tesla could have been attempting this" with an unrelated source that says "Well, this exist here" to imply "Tesla knew about this, designed for it, and would have employed it if nasty old JP Morgan hadn't pulled his funds". Combining unrelated sources (and even some primary sources) to reach a conclusion has been discussed before. If we follow a reliable secondary source we do not get the story GLPeterson is pushing at all.......Carlson, W. Bernard (2013). Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age. Princeton University Press. pp. 294, 301. ISBN 1400846552..... what we get is a description of a massive case of Confirmation bias on Tesla's part and a system that would never work. Going against that basic take on Tesla's work is a real tough sell, needing several counter sources at that same RS level. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of sentence one, paragraph six of Tesla's experiments

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, i.e., to maintain a neutral point of view, a proposal is made to rewrite sentence one, paragraph six of Tesla's experiments as follows.

Years after Tesla's original research into World Wireless system technology, experimental replications using similar equipment have achieved the long range nonradiative wireless transmission of electrical energy.  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 as he claimed and that the distance effects are attributable to electromagnetic radiation.  Others believe the guided radio surface wave propagation mode (the radial cylindrical surface wave or radial form of Zenneck wave) that Tesla described is valid, that the broadcasting and wireless telecommunications component of the World Wireless plan might have succeeded, and while the global transmission of electrical energy at industrial power levels is not practicable, that long range nonradiative wireless power transfer is physically possible.

GLPeterson (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

References:

Again this is really looking at the hole, not the doughnut.

• The Hole - surface waves, that Tesla knew nothing about, could transmit energy some distance.
• The Doughnut - Tesla designed his system to use non-existent Earth conduction, not surface waves, based on his miss-understanding of physics.

Putting up a claim that Tesla's system would have worked in some minor fashion while playing down the fact that he was way off in his physics to the point of his system never working the way he claimed is PUSHing forward a POV well stated on the contributors own personal websites. Wikipedia is not the place to push forward or promote favorite theories on Tesla (how many times have we said that?). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed; another installment in a long campaign by this editor to introduce fringe WP:OR material from his website into the article. The first sentence: "...experimental replications [of Tesla's experiments] using similar equipment have achieved the long range nonradiative wireless transmission of electrical energy." is not supported by any of the 4 sources given: the Layh paper was about a short-range experiment and doesn't say anything about long range transmission; the 3 Corum sources do not even mention Tesla at all, and two are patents, which are not considered reliable sources (see WP:PATENTS). The sentence is already contradicted by the sources Dunning and Tesla's biographer Cheney, who says: "There is no evidence of this claim [[of Tesla transmitting power long distances], and his results have not been duplicated since". She also says Golka and Mische both constructed equipment similar to Tesla's but did not transmit wireless power. The sentence "...there is a lack of scientific consensus as to whether the World Wireless system would have worked..." is contradicted by seven reliable engineering sources in the article - Shinohara, Tomar, Wheeler, Curty, Cooke, Papadopoulos, Coe - and Tesla's two biographers - Cheney and Carlson - who all say Tesla failed to transmit wireless power.

Plus this huge pile of WP:SYNTHESIS is a long way from establishing that Tesla used surface waves. The mainstream sources above say he used radio waves, and don't mention any new "nonradiative" "propagation modes" like surface waves or "Zenneck waves" . GLPeterson's arguments depend on: a book by a fringe psychologist with no physics experience which also advocates ESP, psychic healing, and Cosmic Conciousness (Seifer), a paper published in The Tesla Journal, an unrefereed "alternative" junk science magazine by The Tesla Society (Marinčić), and the papers by the Corums which don't even mention Tesla. Even if they did WP:primary sources like research papers have to be backed up by secondary sources (WP:PSTS). Seriously? GLPeterson's proposed wording gives a WP:FALSEBALANCE between these flaky sources and the 9 mainstream reliable sources above. Articles "...should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review." (WP:PARITY). As Jimbo Wales said: "If you can prove a theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof."(WP:WEIGHT)

Even if Tesla transmitted surface waves, what relevance does all this have to the article? The consensus of sources given above is that whatever "propagation mode" Tesla used, he did not transmit wireless power long distances, and neither has anyone else using Tesla's methods, so this proposed wording is not notable and gives WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to Tesla. This article is about wireless power, not radio propagation modes. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Promotional edits/Off topic primary sourced claims

Reverted this re-addition of material. Tried to cleanup material added by GLPeterson but found a paragraph that buries the lead, i.e. going off topic on Tesla's "Wireless power" system (topic of this article) to put forward speculation about whether there would be some radio "squeak". Also seemed to be a series of unexplained and poorly written "fan augments"? "Arnold Sommerfeld"? Sentences that were statements about the possibility of long distance power transmission (TEXZON, Nevada Lightning Lab), that were speculation via WP:OR examination of primary sources (research papers and patent submissions) on the general topic that were in no way reliable sources on the history of Tesla's proposed system (several do not mention Tesla at all). Again: Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses and Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advocacy of your own scientific views. Please do not try to shoehorn idea's/original research into this article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Reliable secondary and tertiary source supported on topic edits

The above arguments make absolutely no sense.  All of the recent improvements to the article have been made in order to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable secondary and tertiary sources on and related to the topic of Tesla's wireless system for the transmission and reception of electrical energy, i.e., to maintain a neutral point of view.  The improvements are all supported by reliable sources. GLPeterson (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you have already been made aware that failing to get the point, whether feigned or real, has consequences. Keeping that in mind I will explain this one more time. When you show some experiments exist via citing primary sourced research papers and patents (material that is not about the history of Tesla's system) and put it in a section about the history of Tesla's system (Re:TEXZON, Nevada Lightning Lab here) then the "significant view" you are putting forward is "yours" - you are claiming "this is relevant to Nikola Tesla". That is strictly against Wikipedia policy. You have to cite reliable sources (someone else) that state "this is relevant to Nikola Tesla" and "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." You should also not remove material (Carlson) that is referenced to a reliable secondary source (and in fact directly quotes the source) unless you have a very good reason. Reverting the edit again, it is up to you to fulfill WP:BURDEN on it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD revert this revision of "Tesla's experiments" to the last seamingly stable edit. Editor adding the edits really seems to be making BOLD edits while ignoring this talk page so we can begin discussion form this version:

• TEXZON, Nevada Lightning Lab original research re-inserted without comment
• Off topic primary sourced claims and speculation expanded without comment re: Wardenclyffe could have achieved radio signalling via "Sommerfeld-Zenneck waves" (the topic here is the history of Tesla's Wireless Power system, not whether it could have achieved radio signaling via a means he knew nothing about)
• "It is speculated the Colorado Springs and Wardenclyffe facilities produced the Sommerfeld-Zenneck wave" is actually Tesla speculating after the fact
• "It is also speculated that the Sommerfeld-Zenneck wave does not exist, and that Tesla's idea of wireless global transmission of electrical energy, from a physics standpoint, would not have functioned as he claimed, the output of the Tesla coil magnifying transmitter instead being electromagnetic radiation in the form of radio space waves." (In the second half of that sentence the sourced material is not about Sommerfeld-Zenneck waves)
• "While Tesla's own description of his creative process is entirely consistent with the scientific method" (original research assessing Tesla's own statements)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Once again, these improvements to the article are being made in order to represent fairly, proportionately and without bias all of the significant views that have been published by reliable secondary and tertiary sources on and related to the topic of Tesla's wireless system for the transmission and reception of electrical energy using reliable secondary and tertiary sources.

• The recent experimental efforts by TEXZON and Nevada Lightning Lab are not original research, rather follow-up replications of Tesla's original research, ca. 1891-1904;
• About Wardenclyffe and the Sommerfeld-Zenneck wave, the topic is the history of Tesla's experiments, including his system for the wireless transmission of electrical energy using the electromagnetic surface wave described by Zenneck and Sommerfeld, and theorized by Tesla. The material is on topic and supported by reliable secondary sources.
• The statement "It is speculated the Colorado Springs and Wardenclyffe facilities produced the Sommerfeld-Zenneck wave" is supported by the work of contemporary authors writing about their analysis and replication of Tesla's original research in the area of wireless energy transmission, and about the 20th century controversy over the very existence of the Sommerfeld-Zenneck wave itself;
• The statement, "It is also speculated that the Sommerfeld-Zenneck wave does not exist, and that Tesla's idea of wireless global transmission of electrical energy, from a physics standpoint, would not have functioned as he claimed, the output of the Tesla coil magnifying transmitter instead being electromagnetic radiation in the form of radio space waves." is based upon multiple secondary sources of questionable reliability asserting the output of Tesla wireless system transmitters is radio space waves, when rigorous replications of Tesla's original research demonstrate it to be the Sommerfeld-Zenneck wave;
• The statement, "While Tesla's own description of his creative process is entirely consistent with the scientific method" is supported by a reliable secondary source.

GLPeterson (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a history section in "Wireless power transfer" so the only "significant views" here should be reliable histories on Nikola Tesla's Wireless power system, not research papers that do not mention Tesla, patents, or speculation on whether Tesla could have conducted radio signalling via Sommerfeld-Zenneck waves (this is not an article about radio signaling).

• Re:TEXZON - don't know if you are feigning ignorance or continually failing to get the point but using a primary source research paper is original research, it does not refer to whether one paper followed another.
• Tesla did not theorize Sommerfeld-Zenneck waves, its just speculation after his ground conducting system failed, and its signal transmission, not Power Transmission <--- the topic of this article.
• "It is speculated the Colorado Springs and Wardenclyffe facilities produced the Sommerfeld-Zenneck wave" DITO - off topic and no reliable secondary source (in fact its Tesla)
• "Sommerfeld-Zenneck wave does not exist" DITO - off topic and this is not how Tesla theorized his system would work. The rest of that sentence is sources responding to how Tesla claimed it worked--> ground conduction.
• "While Tesla's own description of his creative process is entirely consistent with the scientific method" is supported by a reliable secondary source." A transcript of testimony by Tesla is a primary source. To be reliable it has to be a reliable third-party author (and historian) with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In this case we have first party Tesla.

In general, this is not the article for after the fact theorizing on Tesla and Sommerfeld-Zenneck waves, in fact Wikipedia itself may not be the forum for these theories, you should maybe try another project? (think you have been told that before). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I have posted messages at WT:WikiProject Energy#Wireless_power.2C_Nikola_Tesla.27s_experiments.2C_paragraph_six.2C_sentence_one_revision and WT:WikiProject_Physics#Wireless_power.2C_Nikola_Tesla.27s_experiments.2C_paragraph_six.2C_sentence_one_revision to invite more community participation. GLPeterson (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Invited as community member and not as an expert for special solutions of the Maxwell Equations, I report that I perceive appeals to "fascinating dreams" neither as encyclopedic, nor as neutral point of view. Furthermore, I am not willing to indulge in repetitive, bolded, fattened, point size varying, underlined, lengthy and imho refuted(imagine bold) arguments, which try to induce(sic!) fringe points of view on a rather esoteric topic (lighting 10W bulbs at a distance of 600m).

I rather support the next paragraph, cleaning the article from fringe views. E&OE Purgy (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I agree that "fascinating dream" is neither encyclopedic nor neutral, and apologize for my above use of big and bold. GLPeterson (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr and Purgy that GLPeterson's fringe theories are not supported by reliable sources and do not belong in the article. --Chetvorno^TALK 08:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Tesla's empirical research between 1897 and 1899 in New York City and at Colorado Springs is not the fringe theory of anyone. The improvements to the article represent fairly, proportionately, and without bias, significant views that have been published by reliable secondary and tertiary sources on and related to the topic of Tesla's wireless system for the transmission and reception of electrical energy. GLPeterson (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, you have made the "fairly, proportionately, and without bias" claim five time on this talk page and it has been debunked four times. Continued WP:ICANTHEARYOU is getting us no where. I suggest another tack. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Chiming in just to supply possibly necessary bureaucratic support: I consider GLPeterson's contributions as valueable in se, but they are neither "significant", nor "fairly", nor "proportionatly", and in no case "unbiasedly" presented views on the relevant general topic of this article. Furthermore, these views appear to me as over-elaborate, over-detailed views on not even a fringe theory, but on experimental efforts, which did not find sufficient support then, and are still not resumed nowadays, possibly suiting in a monography on N. Tesla.

The efforts invested by GLPeterson appear admirable, but here at a wrong place to me. -Purgy (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)