© Copyright 1993
During an address commemorating the installation of his electrical generators at Niagara Falls , Nikola Tesla told his listeners:
We have to evolve means for obtaining energy from stores which are forever inexhaustible, to perfect methods which do not imply consumption and waste of any material whatever. I now feel sure that the realization of that idea is not far off. …the possibilities of the development I refer to, namely, that of the operation of engines on any point of the earth by the energy of the medium…(Tesla, 1897)
In 1902, Tesla wrote to his friend and publisher Robert Underwood Johnson that he had already developed a device for using the energy of the surrounding medium to generate electricity (Nichelson, 1993). In the letter he stated that the design principles for this new type of generator were discussed in his June 1900 Century Magazine article (Tesla, 1902) on page 200, “particularly where I refer to novel facts.” An Energy Sink
His reference is to the article “The Problem of Increasing Human Energy – Through the Use of the Sun’s Energy” (Tesla, 1900). The “novel facts” are mentioned in a section entitled “Energy from the Medium.” It is in this and in the following section where the theoretical and developmental discussions of this new generator take place. Tesla uses two versions of simple graphic image to explain how such an energy extracting generator would work.
In the first example he asks that we consider a closed cylinder
such that energy could not be transferred across it except through a channel or path O… and … that, by some means or other, in this inclosure a medium were maintained which would have little energy, and that on the outer side of the same there would be the ordinary ambient medium with much energy.
Under these assumptions the energy would flow through the path O, as indicated by the arrow, and might then be converted on its passage into some other form of energy. Could we produce artificially such a “sink” for the energy of the ambient medium to flow in [and]… be enabled to get at any point of the globe a continuous supply of energy, day and night (Tesla, 1900).
In the next paragraph Tesla gives another version of how this energy extraction process would take place. He asks if we can produce cold in a given portion of space and cause the heat to flow in continually. Creating such a “cold hole” in the medium would be like creating in a lake either an empty space or a space filled with something much lighter than water.
This we could do by placing in the lake a tank, and pumping all the water out of the latter. We know, then, that the water if allowed to flow back into the tank, would, theoretically, be able to perform exactly the same amount of work which was used in pumping it out, but not a bit more. (Tesla, 1900)
He notes that in such an operation, nothing would be gained by pumping the water out and letting it fall back down the tank. It would be impossible, in this case, to create a sink in the medium.
Tesla, then, asks that we “reflect a moment” and adds:
Heat, though following certain general laws of mechanics, like a fluid, is not such; it is energy which may be converted into other forms of energy as it passes from a high to low level…assume that the water, in its passage into the tank, is converted into something else, which may be taken out of it without using any, or very little, power. For example, if heat [is represented] by the water of the lake, the oxygen and hydrogen composing the water may illustrate other forms of energy into which the heat is transformed in passing from hot to cold.
Corresponding to this ideal case, all the water flowing into the tank would be decomposed into oxygen and hydrogen before reaching the bottom (Tesla, 1900), and the result would be that water would continually flow in, and yet the tank would remain entirely empty, the gases formed escaping. We would thus produce, by expending initially a certain amount of work to create a sink for the heat or, respectively, the water to flow into, a condition enabling us to get any amount of energy without further effort.
Understanding the operation of Tesla’s new generator is a two part task – picturing it as he did in terms of 19th century science and explaining it in terms of today’s science. Fortunately, he framed his explanation within the context of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as it was being formulated by the leading physical theorists of the day.
Rudolph Clausius put it, in 1850: “It is impossible for a self-acting machine unaided by an external agency to convert heat from one body to another at higher temperature.” As given by Kelvin, “It is impossible by means of inanimate material agency to derive mechanical effect from any portion of matter by cooling it below the temperature of surrounding objects.” If a machine was able, by itself, to take heat energy out of the surrounding environment and use that energy to run its cooling work, it would be a perpetual motion machine. Cooling the surrounding medium requires energy from an external source.
In his Century Magazine article, Tesla takes up the thermodynamics question in a section entitled “Possibility of a Self-Acting Engine…Inanimate, yet Capable of Deriving Energy from the Medium.” He challenges the assertion about the impossibility of a cooling machine’s ability to operate from the heat derived from the medium with a simple thought experiment.
If two metal rods ran from the earth to outer space, the temperature difference between the ends of the rods would create an electric current in the rods which could operate an electric motor. This would be a device that would cool the medium and do work from the heat of the medium.
With this example, Tesla does not refute the Second Law of Thermodynamics but shows the limits of its popular understanding. He does not deny the most basic tenant that energy flows from hot to cold, from a high energy state to a lower state. What he asserts is that good engineering can cause work to be done in the change from a higher to lower energy state without creating a perpetual motion machine.
How an energy sink can be created on earth requires two additional pieces of information presupposed by Tesla’s thermodynamics discussion – the nature of the fluid that makes up the ambient medium and what constitutes a low temperature in this medium.
To understand the concept of the energy of the ambient medium, it is necessary to return to the historical roots of electrical science. From the time of Franklin until the beginning of this century, electricity was pictured as a fluid that flowed through conductors and, like steam that powered the engines of the day, could be condensed out the medium. The capacitors of today were once known as condensers due to this concept.
Before the last paradigm shift at which the universe came to be viewed as atomic particles moving randomly in a void, physics believed all matter was made from a primary substance. It was this primary material, the aether (Dunlap, 1934) of Maxwell and Kelvin, that filled the ambient medium.
As for temperature, Tesla wrote (Tesla, Feb. 1919) that “in light of present knowledge we may liken electric potential to temperature.” Creating a low temperature region in the high energy ambient medium meant creating a sustained low electrical potential. Relative to the medium, the device creating this low pressure region could be seen as a self-cooling apparatus.
In principle, the electrical fluid would enter the device, transform into a lower form of energy and perform work as the fluid continued to flow into the device. The nature of this transformation is conjecture at this point, but it seems that the electrical fluid was seen to be transformed into positive and negative potential.
In accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Tesla’s device would make use of energy moving from a higher temperature to a lower temperature, but would be self-sustaining, or self-cooling by converting the energy coming from the environment into a different form in a process that consumed only a small amount of the incoming energy.
This last element in the operation of the device – that it consume very little of the working energy – is mentioned (Tesla, Feb. 1919) in connection with his wireless receiver. He wrote that “energy will be economically transmitted and very little power consumed as long as no work is done in the receiver.” Here “work” is meant in the technical sense – power expended over time.
The Tesla device for extracting energy from the ambient medium, then, operated by transforming the input energy into potential and doing no or little work in the device itself. Electrical energy, the units of work, is measured in watt-secs or amperes x volts x secs. Volts and amperes are the quantities of the electrical fluid and because potential is enhanced, the conclusion is that work, or energy, is conserved by reducing conduction current in the device. The new generator appears to have operated by potential variations and with no or very little current. It seems to have been an electrostatic device.
Because the receiver in the Tesla wireless system and new energy generator share the characteristic of using no, “or very little, power,” it is useful to examine how the receiver was pictured to have operated. In 1919, Tesla detailed his wireless method in the Electrical Experimenter, using hydraulic analogies.
A conventional electrical transmission system requiring two wires is equated to a hydraulic system with a reciprocating piston, Fig. 2. The working fluid is pushed and pulled “with high velocity thru the small channel” so “that virtually all the energy of movement would be transformed into heat by friction, similarly to that of the electric current in the lamp filament.”
On the other hand, the wireless method is like the one-wire transmission system Tesla demonstrated several times, Fig. 3. A reciprocating cylinder pushes the working fluid through the friction device and into a large elastic reservoir. When the piston has reached the end of its stroke, the elastic reservoir is filled with the working fluid and sends it back through the friction device…the fluid is made to surge thru the restricted passage with great speed, this resulting in the generation of heat as in the incandescent lamp. Theoretically considered, the efficiency of conversion of energy should be the same in both cases. Tesla seems to be saying that for a light bulb of a given wattage, it can be powered either by a commercial power source of a certain voltage and amperage, or by a single wire of much smaller amperage but much greater voltage. For example, a 100 watt light bulb could be powered by 100 volts and 1 ampere or by 1000 volts and .1 ampere.
For an electrical device to do no work, this arrangement has to be taken another step. Work consists of a force moving something over a period of time. In the case of electricity this is a voltage pushing a charge carrier through a cross sectional area of a conductor. The number of coulombs of charge passing a certain point in a conductor in a second constitutes a current, q/s=i. Doing no electrical work means the number of charge carriers passing a point in the conductor has to approach zero.
The condition in which an alternating current can be maintained with no translational movement of charge carriers is found in a capacitor. A displacement current consists of the back and forth movement of bound charges within the lattice structure of a non-conducting dielectric material.
No work would be done if the device operated with a displacement current. If a large voltage displaced a small amount of bound charge, the power requirements of a load, like a light bulb, would be met with no conduction current, therefore, with no expenditure of energy.
Tesla’s thermodynamic argument with the rods-reaching-into-space thought experiment is that energy differences in the environment can be used to power a device that extracts that energy without being a perpetual motion machine. With his new energy extraction device, his argument is that energy can be taken from the environment, and, if converted to pure potential, can power a load while doing no work within the device. In the first example the long rods will allow a motor to operate until the earth has the same temperature as outer space. In the second instance, he describes a device that incorporates an energy difference within itself and expends no, or very little of that energy in powering a load. Though the second device may appear outwardly to be a perpetual motion machine, it does, as he shows, follow the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Tesla’s comparison (Tesla, 1900) of his self cooling energy extractor with Carl Linde’s double coiled apparatus for liquefying air, Figure 4, points to his double wound coil (Tesla, 1894) design, Fig. 5, as one likely embodiment (Nichelson, 1991) of his energy extraction device.
Measurements (Nichelson, 1991) of the same size single and double wound coils, both with approximately the same inductance have shown that, at resonance, both the voltage response and voltage gain to be several orders of magnitude greater for the double wound design . The figure below shows the voltage gain of two 4 inch diameter helix wound coils with the same number of turns. The lower plot is of the single wound coil and the upper curve is that of the double wound coil.
Like the equations of Maxwell and the AC motor of Tesla, both conceived within the context of 19th century aether based physics and are still used after the physics has been discarded, the new energy device does not require belief in an energetic ambient medium. The concept served only to explain the source of electricity to earlier researchers who naively sought an answer to this fundamental question. Modern engineering practice does not require a primary source of electricity be given, but only a description of how it operates or makes a device operate.
Tesla’s new “generator” can be explained solely on the basis of its electrical activity. A bifilar coil is capable of holding more charge than a single wound coil. When operated at resonance, the distributed capacitance of the bifilar coil is able to overcome the counter force normal to coils, inductive reactance. It does not allow what Tesla described (Tesla, 1894) as the formation of “false currents.”
Because the electrical activity in the coil does not work against itself in the form of a counter-emf, the potential across the coil quickly builds to a high value. The difference between the turns becomes great enough that (Tesla, 1892) “the energy would be practically all potential.” At this point, the system becomes an electrostatic oscillator.
Minimal work is done in the system due to absence of translational movement in the displacement current. As small heat losses occur, oscillations are maintained by the surplus charge stored in the coil. Very low energy expenditure allows power delivery to a load over an extended time period without an external fuel supply. After an initial input of energy from an outside source, Tesla’s new electrical generator would operate as a fuelless device.
Dunlap, Orrin E., Jr., “Tesla Sees Evidence That Radio and Light Are Sound,” N.Y. Times, X, p. 9, April 8, 1934.
Linde, Carl, “Process and Apparatus for Attaining Lowest Temperatures, for Liquefying Gases, and for Mechanically Separating Gas Mixtures,” The Engineer, p. 509, Nov. 20, 1896.
Nichelson, Oliver, “Nikola Tesla’s Later Energy Designs,” IECEC, 26th Proceedings, Am. Nuclear Society, Vol. 4, pp. 439-444, 1991.
Nichelson, Oliver, “Nikola Tesla’s ‘Free Energy’ Documents,” American Fork, Utah, 1993.
Tesla, Nikola, “Experiments with Alternate Currents of High Potential and High Frequency,” IEE, London, Feb. 1892, reproduced in Nikola Tesla: Lectures * Patents * Articles (hereafter, LPA), published by the Nikola Tesla Museum, Nolit, Beograd, 1956, p. L-105.
Tesla, Nikola, “Coil for Electro-Magnets,” U.S. Patent #512,340, Jan. 9, 1894.
Tesla, Nikola, “On Electricity,” Electrical Review, Jan 27, 1897, in LPA, p. A-107.
Tesla, Nikola, Letter to R.U. Johnson, 1902, in the Nikola Tesla Collection, Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University, New York City. Page 200 of the magazine corresponds to pages A-138 and 139 in LPA.
Tesla, Nikola, “The Problem of Increasing Human Energy, Century Magazine, June 1900, inLPA, pp. A-109 to A-152.
Tesla, Nikola, “Famous Scientific Illusions,” Electrical Experimenter, Gernsback Publications, Feb. 1919, pp. 692-694 ff.
Tesla, Nikola, “The True Wireless,” Electrical Experimenter, Gernsback Publications, May1919, pp. 28-30 ff.
333 North 760 East
American Fork, Utah 84003 U.S.A.
© Copyright 1993
E-mail: [email protected]
From Prometheus @ http://prometheus.al.ru/english/phisik/onichelson/physics.htm
The mainstream scientific community dismisses the idea of “Free Energy”or “Over-Unity” machines because they say that the behavior of such machines violates the “Second Law of Thermodynamics.” The purpose of this article is to squarely face this issue from an alternative science point of view. Many engineers and inventors, working in the alternative energy field, still mistakenly believe that the “Laws of Thermodynamics” are universally true. For them, the “free energy” machine can only be a clever scientific sleight of hand where the machine becomes “outlaw”, breaking some fundamental universe law.
For progress to be made in this field, the limitations and errors inherent in the “Laws of Thermodynamics” must be exposed. Only then will people realize that scientific experimentation is the only reliable tool for revealing the behavior of physical reality.
In order to bring this about, it will be helpful to quickly review some of the pivotal historical events which helped shape the modern scientific era with regards to thermodynamics. Before the year 1800, perpetual motion machines were considered possible and heat was not regarded as a form of energy. Both of these long standing assumptions, dating back thousands of years, were effectively toppled by the ideas of Hermann von Helmholtz in 1847 when he postulated that since no one had ever been able to build a working perpetual motion machine, that just probably, it was not possible.
In order to deny the possibility of perpetual motion and hold the argument together, he had to assume that energy in the system was being conserved. It had long been observed that mechanical devices could not transfer energy perfectly. There was always some friction in the working parts. Friction was not only known to impede the transfer of energy in the machine, but it was known to produce heat. In order to simultaneously explain the work loss and the heat gain, so thatconservation could be satisfied, Helmholtz postulated that heat was a form of energy consisting of a small, random motion in the molecules of matter.
He went on to speculate that the loss of work in the machine as large scale motion was still present as heat in the small scale motion of the molecules in the material the machine was made of. He suggested from this that both the heat and work must be considered energy, and that it was the total that was conserved, rather than the heat or work separately.
By 1850, Rudolf Clausius was able to synthesize the work of Helmholtz, James Joule, Sadi Carnot and others to express a generalized statement that has become known as the “First Law of Thermodynamics.” It states that “energy can be changed from one form to another, but it is neither created nor destroyed.” By the time this thought became universally believed, it had totally transformed the intellectual landscape of mechanics, physics and energy dynamics. This was a clean break from the set of thoughts and assumptions that had come forward from antiquity. A new era in science had begun.
In understanding these historical developments, it is important to realize that besides the new theoretical explanation about the nature of heat, all of the other data that led to the new theoretical generalizations was derived experimentally. This can be illustrated by an observation made by Sadi Carnot in his extensive work regarding the behavior of heat in machines. He states that “in all cases in which work is produced by the agency of heat, a quantity of heat is consumed that is proportional to the work done; and conversely, by the expenditure of an equal quantity of work, an equal quantity of heat is produced.” This statement by Carnot was based on hundreds of experimental measurements. After such convincing experimentation, it was not unreasonable for Clausius to conclude that heat could be converted into mechanical work. It was, however, a theoretical leap of logic to conclude that energy, in general, could be changed from one form to another.
Before we go on, it is important, for our purposes, to be reminded that this new idea expressed as the “First Law of Thermodynamics” consists of a number of overlapping ideas and assumptions that can be expressed as follows:
1) Perpetual motion machines are impossible
2) The nature of heat is reduced to the random motions of molecular matter
3) Energy can be changed from one form to another without any explanation as to how this conversion is actually accomplished in any specific case
4) Energy is not created in or destroyed by its passage through a mechanism
5) All forms of energy behave the same way
All of these ideas are fundamentally inherent in “The First Law of Thermodynamics.” From an alternative science point of view, the experimental work of Carnot and Joule will stand for all time. It is the intellectual overlay of Helmholtz and Clausius, on this experimental work, where the problems are introduced. The theory of conversionand the ideas about the nature of heat will be taken up again later in this article, after more ground work has been laid.
The “Second Law of Thermodynamics” evolved out of further studies of the behavior of heat in closed systems. Remarkably, there is no one statement that is universally recognized as the definitive expression of this so called “Law”. Among the more popular statements which reflect the general understanding of the “Second Law of Thermodynamics” are the following: “In a closed system, entropy does not decrease”, “The state of order in a closed system does not spontaneously increase without the application of work”, “Among all the allowed states of a system with given values of energy, number of particles and constraints, one and only one is a stable equilibrium state”, and “It is impossible to construct a device that operates in a cycle and produces no other effect than the production of work and exchange of heat with a single reservoir.” For those who can fathom the language, these statements clearly do not all express the same idea. Some have broad ramifications while others are more narrowly defined.
All of these statements grew out of the idea, expressed fairly well as the last statement in the series, that a perpetual motion machine could not be made that operated on the principle of a work/heat exchange when this process was limited to a known quantity of heat at the start. After that amount of heat was converted to work and the temperature of the reservoir was reduced to the ambient temperature outside, no further work could be expected to be produced. This is not only reasonable, but it is backed up by thousands of experiments. As long as the “Law” is clearly and narrowly defined as a statement that reflects upon the behavior of heat in closed systems, this author has no problem with agreeing completely.
From Borderland Research @ http://borderlandresearch.com/thermodynamics-free-energy
And see Electromagnetic Resonance of the Tesla Gravity Motor @http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/electromagnetic-resonance-of-tesla.html