I'm not that stupid Pure water is more interesting. I don't know what the DC resistance would be through 2 metres of earth but I think safe to say "big".
I can't make any claims of 95% efficiency because I have not observed it. Then again I don't have RF watt meters (to put) on the output or input. But it's not a default or "automatic" result. That is, you don't just set up a transmitter and receiver and you suddenly have 95% efficiency. In this case the transmitter isn't optimised at all, and I hadn't tuned the receiver properly (using the proper tuning procedure), the receiver was just tuned to the signal source via the earth and balanced for primary voltage reading and audible signal level for the purpose of putting it in the video. With proper grounding and optimised coils who knows. Frankly I wouldn't have expected my setup to have worked at 2 metres given how crude the whole thing was and how little power I was using. I was putting copper pipes in the ground at random distances because my "conservative" efforts were turning out to be a waste of time because they all worked, I had to start trying random greater distances to try and make it NOT work.
Yes, Tesla did at first think of transmitting the energy through the air, but as far as I know he completely abandoned that idea, or at least adapted it. Even in my own experiments I've "discovered" (observed the effect before reading about it) something that I'm sure Tesla would have observed and been very excited by, causing him to adapt his ideas. By playing with the "wireless" around the top terminal one may start to wonder about more possibilities, as the human body appears to be quite conductive as a transmission medium allowing one to power loads at a greater distance from the coil, because the body is acting as a conductive medium in between the coil and the load. The thought then occurs, "what if I were to touch the coil terminal, and had infinitely long arms..." Just saying, ideas and opinions are adapted over time through experimenting with it and learning new things.
How does the Marconi type propagation argument stand when the output is observed to change based solely on the earth terminal? It shouldn't make any difference.
What would you consider to be reasonable power levels and distances? In the video I was using approx 23mW which basically means the setup would have to be relatively close range. But by increasing the power and distance, one may then argue that it's only working because of the higher power. So what is one to do? Go inside a cave? There aren't any that I know of around here, but there are plenty of mountains to stand behind. But then the signal is bouncing off the atmosphere So what kind of power level doesn't supposedly bounce off the atmosphere, and so on?
No cave required, just the inverse square law that will make it impossible to induce the power.
I wouldn't care if you bounced the signal off the moon if you got 95% efficiency!!!!
Unless you have a TMT with the parameters mentioned earlier, You won't even be close ! ( I'm not sure if the original worked as advertized either) You have a scope, and a known load so you can calculate RF rms (.707Vp)^2/R in and out compare the the two for % efficiency. However , Useful measurements will be difficult if not impossible at such low power levels.
If you want to prove that you have done something, you have to have the data and experiential objectivity to back it up.
Read the TMT patents where Tesla describes the important aspects of the transmitter and why. There is nothing to debate, it's in black and white.