It turns out that Cecil was wrong and Tesla was right about broadcast power.
Intel demonstrated it this week.
See story at http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080821/ts_alt_afp/usitinternetenergychipcompanyintel;_ylt=A0WTUdjULK9IEJ8Aayms0NUE
Cecil’s column: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_274.html
It’s impossible to say for sure, since that article doesn’t contain any actual information, but this sounds like it’s just another magnetic induction system. They’ve existed for ages, but they can only work at ranges smaller than the size of the antenna, and even then, they’re horribly inefficient.
Someone else already tried this thread without much success.
And Neil, as you will learn as you stay here, if I pwned One Hit Wonder in that thread–and I did drunk!–it does not reflect well on him. That said, our beloved Cecil attracts seekers of the truth so I welcome you to our band of crackpots, scientists, and people like me who switch hit.
I kinda doubt that the OP is the real J. Neil Schulman.
OTOH, the real J. Neil Schulman is a Libertarian so he’s quite experienced in swallowing any malarkey. 
He is explicitly claiming to be; see his profile.
…especially malarkey involving alleged cases of übermenschen oppressed by the Establishment, Tesla being a favorite.
Oh, good grief. Just when you think your lowest expectations are too pessimistic, something like this comes along and lowers the bar even further.
C’mon, Neil. Really? Tesla?
Q.E.D., there was a more recent example of broadcast power which hit the newspapers and such today. I read about it in a local newspaper. It should be noted, Intel’s people note that all they did was power a simple light bulb, and that they have no intention of powering things at great distance. But they are apparently reasonably confident they can overcome the hurdles to at least be able to power up batteries in things like phones and laptop computers.
Eventually. 
Tesla it ain’t. Of course, Cecil isn’t wrong because Cecil didn’t say it wasn’t possible at all. So the OP is incorrect in that particular.
This may be a commercial application of WiTricity, but there weren’t enough details in the articles to tell for certain. WiTricity - Wikipedia
Yeah, as a participator in the earlier thread, I’d really like to know what happened to WiTricity. Did it get bought by Intel?
Actually… it’s implicit. And God… you guys are assholes.
I’m sure you’re right – but can you be more specific?
ETA: Implicit? His homepage is J. Neil Schulman’s homepage. That’s really, really implicit.
Insults are not acceptable outside the BBQ Pit, as you well know. Take this is as an official warning, by no means your first. Your posting status is under discussion.
bibliophage
moderator CCC
Yeah, that’s so implicit, it’s…what’s that word for when you come right out and say something directly?
Bibliophage, you don’t see anything wrong with calling new posters liars? (And over what? Claiming to be known by five wikipedia editors?) Or jumping on them when they come in to discuss a real article published in a legitimate newspaper concerning a damn established company? (Not that it matters… but anything someone like Intel announces deserves a little credibility from the start.) No, of course there’s nothing wrong. Anyone comes in here mentioning Tesla and Cecil being wrong in the same sentence is ripe for target practice. Ahh, the sense of community we have here.
P.S. yes, I know all the specifics. Cecil didn’t talk about confined rooms. He talked about miles-long links. He didn’t even say it was impossible. Etc, etc. So isn’t that more reason to kill the fn hostility?
I don’t claim to speak for bib, but I’m sure he would, indeed, have a problem with that. Except, that didn’t happen here. May I humbly suggest a dictionary?
We have a long history here of posters using the names of real people, so it never occurred to me that the poster was using his real name, which is, by contrast, extremely rare. It was an assumption, not an accusation.
Another assumption, backed up the many posters pounding on the guest in that other thread, is that anyone who thinks that any of the many recent small-scale short-range experiments in wireless energy validate Tesla simply doesn’t understand either side.
Tesla was wrong then, and wrong today. There isn’t another side to this. If you think so, you need to go back and work to understand the actual claims.
Can someone explain/refute Tesla’s scheme in greater detail? I have heard the phrase “broadcast power” used in three technically distinct ways: the first is short-range electromagnetic induction, mentioned in the linked article. The second is beamed microwave power, such as was proposed to send energy down to earth from orbiting powersats. And the third is what I’ve heard that Tesla proposed.
If I understand Cecil’s article correctly Tesla, who pioneered alternating current and was one of the first people to use grounding as part of an electric circuit, proposed that grounding could be combined with pumping power into the ionosphere in a way that would create an energy potential that could be tapped anywhere on Earth. I’ve seen differing accounts of whether this would be just a way of broadcasting power, or if there was an energy potential already there to be tapped. I also vaguely recall claims that the Defense Dept.'s Extremely Low Frequency transmitter (for communicating with submerged submarines) or an analogous system created by the Soviets shared features of this proposal. Since the above claims also mentioned tin-foil-hattery like weather control, artificially triggered earthquakes and remote mind control, I presume it must be taken with a large halite boulder.
Not quite as experienced as Socialists. (“Castro Saves, and Mao Gets the Rebound!”) 
I thought the main reason broadcast power was deemed impractical was in preventing extraneous objects from receiving that power. One can imagine being shocked when touching a metal railing due to static electricity, but with broadcast power? :eek: