>> Resonance is very very very (...) worthwhile in achieving range and
>> power transfer.
>>
>> TX circuit should also be resonated (series or parallel as appropriate).
>> Some people patented both series and parallel resonance in this
>> context ( =A0 ) (no names) but I can demonstrate proof of prior art
>> (not mine) from early 1970s if this ever became an issue.
>
> Unless they are Nikola Tesla's heirs there would be previous previous art=
 to
> show.

The key phrase, probably, is "in this context".
ie inductive transfer of power.

I would dearly love to know how Tesla did his crystal palace lighting .
Possibly RF.
Could have been magnetic field =3D IPT but he'd have needed resonance
(sounds familiar) at the ranges he used.

With RF you cast your bread upon the waters of free space's impedance
and it returneth not to you after many days, utilised as intended or
no.
With IPT, apart from losses in the TX circuit, you get loading only
when you get magnetic coupling. Far more useful than RF at close range
with various or no or intermittent loads.

I have an IPT project which must happen soon which directly relates to
what's been being discussed here. More anon if possible.

I've just been reading a NZ based IPT oriented site which makes
various ludicrous claims re IPTs reasonable capabilities. You can
achieve essentially unlimited energy transfer rates over short
distances BUT the real-world hardware overhead can be excessive if the
load is a moving target, or many moving targets. This seems lost on
the NZ proposers (or they don't want to make it clear in their
blurbs).



            Russell

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.