Directed EM energy beams have been around since the 60’s at least.   To my 
knowledge gamma, x-ray and normal light all have been used in high energy 
medium and low energy transmission.

The technology associated with the medium and high energy spectrum has been 
weaponized and is classified in most places.  I am surprised about NZ.

Note how carefully the item avoids any mention of how the energy occurs for 
fear of immediate necessity for classification.

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene<>
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[EE] Wireless power transmission

I read it but it seemed flakey.

This could be closer to scam than to reality. No one really knows the loss-rate 
of wireless for high power uses or the dangers involved.

There is not much reason to suspect that there is a breakthrough here nor that 
this makes either scientific or economic sense, other than the mention of 
Tesla, but since they apparently are not using Tesla as a reference - where is 
their data?

On Wednesday, August 5, 2020, 11:13:24 AM PDT, Michael Foster <> 

I read this article. Don't you find it more than a little annoying that Mr. 
Tesla is nowhere mentioned?

This is important. No doubt everyone other than auto mechanics and people who 
like the hear the vroom-vroom would like to switch to electric cars. The 
problem is there doesn't seem to be enough copper wire to carry all the current 
required to charge all the batteries in all the electric cars.  Last time I did 
some rough figuring, it seemed as if the maximum number of electric cars would 
be about 10% of all vehicles before the power grid was over taxed.  Look at 
what happens when there are brown-outs on hot days. Those air conditioners 
don't draw anywhere near the current required to charge a 100% electric car 

Wireless power transmission, if really workable, would solve this problem. 
Autos themselves could be set up to receive the power transmission, thereby 
eliminating the requirement for such large batteries.

On Wednesday, August 5, 2020, 02:50:34 AM UTC, MJ 
<<>> wrote:

Reply via email to