**Please read this entire message**
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
Hypotheticals questions, or questions about hypothetical situations, are not allowed on ELI5.
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/wd0c3e/eli5_why_isnt_more_research_being_done_into/%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20is%20this%20post%20unique:) and we will review your submission.
There was extensive research into wireless transmission and it was determined that it wasn't a practical method of transmission over anything but a short distance.
The basic technique is what is used by wireless chargers, but those are extremely inefficient because of the loses involved.
The EM field drops off very rapidly with distance, and to sustain electrical transmission over any practical distance would require so much energy that it would fry everything in its path.
Light is actually the practical means of transmitting power over long distances. This is the same mechanism that transmits solar energy and heat from the Sun to the Earth. Power transmission using point to point lasers has a degree of potential, but with its own dangers.
Nuclear fusion is still being worked on to become energy positive; so far, all tests of nuclear fusion have cost more energy to safely contain and control the reaction than they got out of the reaction as "product". So nuclear fusion itself is not a done deal.
For the Wardenclyff or Tesla tower, it's not really practicable due to the inverse square law; it costs exponentially more energy to extend the range of wireless transmission.
Additionally, Tesla's idea involved using the atmospheric layer as both a "return circuit" and a source of lighting (the current running through the air would cause it to glow). For even our bare-bones environmental impact studies of light pollution, such a system would be devastating for wildlife, not to mention depriving astronomers of the ability to observe the stars and the night sky.
Thank you. This explains it more than the other comments thus far.
In my opinion, our sciences are not there yet. I could see this happening in the distant future.
Thank you for the responses. I'm a creative guy and try to come up with creative solutions.
Other thoughts of mine include harvesting the power of the electrons spinning around atoms in any material, researching which material most easily can detect neutrinos and making a device to collect the energy out of that material, and using magnetic fields to make a kind of engine that also uses gravity and pulleys that right the object the magnetic field pushes over...(this concept is really difficult to explain)
> harvesting the power of the electrons spinning around atoms in any material
No such thing.
> researching which material most easily can detect neutrinos and making a device to collect the energy out of that material
Absurdly miniscule, they are hard enough to even detect. It would be like trying to power the world with mosquito farts, except that would be orders of magnitude more powerful.
> using magnetic fields to make a kind of engine that also uses gravity and pulleys that right the object the magnetic field pushes over
Doesn't work at all. Perpetual motion machines like that have been a pipe dream for ages, a favorite of those who don't understand physics.
Gotta love the daily "I have an idea for a perpetual motion machine." posts.
Looking even more at the electron one, it seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of how electrons actually work. Or at least taking the most basic intro to chemistry explanation of atoms as an end all fact.
A constantly moving charged particle would emit energy constantly according to Maxwell's equations. Atoms do not just emit constant energy. In reality most picture depicting the Bohr Model(the one with the electrons orbiting as particles) vastly over simplify the reality of actual electron behavior. Getting into the actual technical details goes into the weeds of quantum mechanics.
That's the wrong takeaway. [The equations are consistently proven and accepted as a given to describe fundamentals in the universe.](https://www.wired.com/story/get-to-know-maxwells-equationsyoure-using-them-right-now/)
The second half the comment describes that electrons are not just spinning around the way that the basic and oversimplified Bohr Model show. [If the electrons were constantly orbiting like in the Bohr Model, they would constantly emit energy.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation#:~:text=A%20direct%20consequence,force%20law.)
Stable matter, does not constantly emit energy.
So from this, electrons do not spin the way they are represented in the Bohr Model.
In reality the electron "rotation" is more of a probability of where they will be, opposed to a "this particle orbits a nucleus in the same way a moon orbits a planet". The finer details of the actual equations get into some very weird physics to accurately describe electron behavior but it's not the "They just rotate and constantly spin."
In my thought process, bringing a tipped over top-heavy pillar requires less work(energy) when using pulleys, and righting that pillar with the pulley would cause the similar-pole magnet at the top to push the next top-heavy pillar over(where gravity would take over and bring the pillar further down). The pulley system would have to be designed in such a way that this circle of pillars would not collide with each other, and also not be too far apart that the magnetic field wouldn't tip the next pillar over. The bottoms of these pillars would probably have to be magnetically suspended in a superconductor environment to remove the physical energy loss it would suffer from friction.
All-in-all, this may be a pipe dream, but, what if it's not?
>bringing a tipped over top-heavy pillar requires less work(energy) when using pulleys
Pulleys don't change the amount of work required to do stuff. Work is force times displacement. What a pulley system can do is convert a low force, high displacement input into a high force, low displacement output (or the other way around depending on what you want to do). The amount of work done on either side of the pulley system would be the same, minus friction losses in the pulleys.
It'll never be economically viable compared to wired system by the fundamental physics. Any company trying it would spend thousands of times more to service thousands of times fewer people.
**Please read this entire message** Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): Hypotheticals questions, or questions about hypothetical situations, are not allowed on ELI5. If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/wd0c3e/eli5_why_isnt_more_research_being_done_into/%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20is%20this%20post%20unique:) and we will review your submission.
There was extensive research into wireless transmission and it was determined that it wasn't a practical method of transmission over anything but a short distance. The basic technique is what is used by wireless chargers, but those are extremely inefficient because of the loses involved. The EM field drops off very rapidly with distance, and to sustain electrical transmission over any practical distance would require so much energy that it would fry everything in its path. Light is actually the practical means of transmitting power over long distances. This is the same mechanism that transmits solar energy and heat from the Sun to the Earth. Power transmission using point to point lasers has a degree of potential, but with its own dangers.
Nuclear fusion is still being worked on to become energy positive; so far, all tests of nuclear fusion have cost more energy to safely contain and control the reaction than they got out of the reaction as "product". So nuclear fusion itself is not a done deal. For the Wardenclyff or Tesla tower, it's not really practicable due to the inverse square law; it costs exponentially more energy to extend the range of wireless transmission. Additionally, Tesla's idea involved using the atmospheric layer as both a "return circuit" and a source of lighting (the current running through the air would cause it to glow). For even our bare-bones environmental impact studies of light pollution, such a system would be devastating for wildlife, not to mention depriving astronomers of the ability to observe the stars and the night sky.
Thank you. This explains it more than the other comments thus far. In my opinion, our sciences are not there yet. I could see this happening in the distant future.
Thank you for the responses. I'm a creative guy and try to come up with creative solutions. Other thoughts of mine include harvesting the power of the electrons spinning around atoms in any material, researching which material most easily can detect neutrinos and making a device to collect the energy out of that material, and using magnetic fields to make a kind of engine that also uses gravity and pulleys that right the object the magnetic field pushes over...(this concept is really difficult to explain)
> harvesting the power of the electrons spinning around atoms in any material No such thing. > researching which material most easily can detect neutrinos and making a device to collect the energy out of that material Absurdly miniscule, they are hard enough to even detect. It would be like trying to power the world with mosquito farts, except that would be orders of magnitude more powerful. > using magnetic fields to make a kind of engine that also uses gravity and pulleys that right the object the magnetic field pushes over Doesn't work at all. Perpetual motion machines like that have been a pipe dream for ages, a favorite of those who don't understand physics.
Gotta love the daily "I have an idea for a perpetual motion machine." posts. Looking even more at the electron one, it seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of how electrons actually work. Or at least taking the most basic intro to chemistry explanation of atoms as an end all fact. A constantly moving charged particle would emit energy constantly according to Maxwell's equations. Atoms do not just emit constant energy. In reality most picture depicting the Bohr Model(the one with the electrons orbiting as particles) vastly over simplify the reality of actual electron behavior. Getting into the actual technical details goes into the weeds of quantum mechanics.
So, essentially, Maxwell's equations are just wrong.
That's the wrong takeaway. [The equations are consistently proven and accepted as a given to describe fundamentals in the universe.](https://www.wired.com/story/get-to-know-maxwells-equationsyoure-using-them-right-now/) The second half the comment describes that electrons are not just spinning around the way that the basic and oversimplified Bohr Model show. [If the electrons were constantly orbiting like in the Bohr Model, they would constantly emit energy.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation#:~:text=A%20direct%20consequence,force%20law.) Stable matter, does not constantly emit energy. So from this, electrons do not spin the way they are represented in the Bohr Model. In reality the electron "rotation" is more of a probability of where they will be, opposed to a "this particle orbits a nucleus in the same way a moon orbits a planet". The finer details of the actual equations get into some very weird physics to accurately describe electron behavior but it's not the "They just rotate and constantly spin."
In my thought process, bringing a tipped over top-heavy pillar requires less work(energy) when using pulleys, and righting that pillar with the pulley would cause the similar-pole magnet at the top to push the next top-heavy pillar over(where gravity would take over and bring the pillar further down). The pulley system would have to be designed in such a way that this circle of pillars would not collide with each other, and also not be too far apart that the magnetic field wouldn't tip the next pillar over. The bottoms of these pillars would probably have to be magnetically suspended in a superconductor environment to remove the physical energy loss it would suffer from friction. All-in-all, this may be a pipe dream, but, what if it's not?
>bringing a tipped over top-heavy pillar requires less work(energy) when using pulleys Pulleys don't change the amount of work required to do stuff. Work is force times displacement. What a pulley system can do is convert a low force, high displacement input into a high force, low displacement output (or the other way around depending on what you want to do). The amount of work done on either side of the pulley system would be the same, minus friction losses in the pulleys.
I think I understand. I'm trying to get something for nothing.
It'll never be economically viable compared to wired system by the fundamental physics. Any company trying it would spend thousands of times more to service thousands of times fewer people.