That's not how inductive or resonant transfer works. Imagine a magnet rotating in space end over end, does it's field radiate like rays of light? No. Does it lose (radiate) much energy? No.
However it is possible to tap energy from it if close enough to it. Now as for the ring of metal, did you know that you can make a generator speed up by shorting the generator coils? Without anything to control it's phase the current in the metal will form a phase close to 180 degrees out of phase with the magnet/coil flux source and by doing so will have little influence back on the source but potentially reduce core losses. (Generators and loose coupled transformers are different to tightly coupled transformers in this respect) Same goes for jewelry. However if you have a capacitor that is selected to make a tank circuit in resonance with this received EM flux then the capacitor changes the phase in the receiving coil/antenna and keeps it sucking energy from the source even as the field generated in the receiver becomes stronger than the field the transmitter can create in that location because by no longer generating the opposite cancelling phase you can keep on pulling energy. On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 3:33 AM, John Fields <[email protected]>wrote: > On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:52:11 +1000, you wrote: > > >In reply to John Fields's message of Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:30:45 -0500: > >Hi, > >[snip] > >>Same problem with the electric airport cars; the distance between the > >>transmitters and receivers and the inverse square law, which our dear > >>Mother Nature invokes in order to keep us from blowing up the universe, > >>makes the field strength fall off so quickly as the distance between > >>them increases. > >[snip] > >Apparently for resonant transmission, it's not an inverse square law, but > rather > >linear with distance. > > --- > Picture a point source in space radiating at a single frequency in all > directions. > > Picture now two identical antennas tuned to that frequency, with one > separated from the source by twice the distance of the other. > > Will the signal intercepted by the far antenna be half that intercepted > by the near one? > > No. It'll be 1/4. > >
