Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 897328
  • *Total Topics: 15814
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 36
  • *Total: 38

Author Topic: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions  (Read 373422 times)

Offline forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3949
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #900 on: October 14, 2008, 05:22:20 PM »
Please consider one issue.I'm not certain if this is absolute truth but I think that the most important difference between electric arc and vacuum tube like diode or betatron is the plasma fluctuation. Simply I state that in electric arc plasma fluctuation is random ordered and energy loss while in vacuum tube it's a particle directed beam.I may be wrong but I strongly believe that was the reason why Tesla helped de Forest with vacuum diode and enjoyed it performance over his magnetic quenching spark gap.
I really really advice from the deep of my uneducated mind to stop thinking about DC, generated arc , but start thinking about UNIDIRECTIONAL plasma energy transfer and what is going on when it is abruptly stopped...

Second,I think that Vallery might wrongly interpreted released energy as beta decay while it could be massless radiation or electrons in extraordinary state ?  like EMP impulse ?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #900 on: October 14, 2008, 05:22:20 PM »

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #901 on: October 14, 2008, 07:00:08 PM »
Please consider one issue.I'm not certain if this is absolute truth but I think that the most important difference between electric arc and vacuum tube like diode or betatron is the plasma fluctuation. Simply I state that in electric arc plasma fluctuation is random ordered and energy loss while in vacuum tube it's a particle directed beam.
Hmm... I think I see your point... But doesn't that depend on what type of arc we're talking about? Indeed, a "normal" arc discharge will have a fairly large
chaotic component in that the positive and negative charge carriers are mixed and collide with eachother relatively chaotically. Also, collisions between the
positive particles moving "backward" and the negative particles moving "forward" (in the electric field) should indeed disrupt the circular flow somewhat...
On the other hand, the method we're using to induce the particle stream is extremely similar to vacuum tube accelleration, and is in fact a variation of
that (was sometimes called "magnetic vacuum tube").
But if I do get your point, you're just underlining the fact that a unidirectional particle beam will not have this opposite flow component that a
plasma arc would have?
Funny thing... Plasma is generally considered to be a near perfect electrically conductive medium.
So really, there shouldn't be too much interference from the positive flow component...
But still, your point is worth taking into account. ;)
Fortunately, there's a few variations that could still work. :)

Quote
I may be wrong but I strongly believe that was the reason why Tesla helped de Forest with vacuum diode and enjoyed it performance over his magnetic quenching spark gap.
I really really advice from the deep of my uneducated mind to stop thinking about DC, generated arc , but start thinking about UNIDIRECTIONAL plasma energy transfer and what is going on when it is abruptly stopped...
I'm sorry but it is not clear to me what exactly you mean.
You say "unidirectional plasma energy transfer", I assume you mean the flow of electrical charge through a plasma medium, in one direction only?
Do you mean to suggest we first produce a plasma, then we "pump" a flow of electrons through the plasma in one direction?
How does that differ from the generation of a unidirectional and continuous arc? I mean, we'll still have the plasma which consists of 50% positive and
50% negative particles, of which the neg. particles move "forward" in an electric field and the pos. particles move "backward", and they still collide...
How do you suppose this would get rid of the relatively large divergent component, or what you referred to as "plasma fluctuation"?

Quote
Second,I think that Vallery might wrongly interpreted released energy as beta decay while it could be massless radiation or electrons in extraordinary state ?  like EMP impulse ?

That remains a possibility. Although technically he isn't wrong. It just depends on your definition of "beta radiation". Commonly, beta radiation is the product of
beta decay in nuclear processes, that's true. But beta radiation can just as easily be produced without any nuclear decay. Electrons accellerated to a certain
energy level also qualify as "beta radiation". In fact, every "cathode ray" is a ray of "beta particles". Beta is just another name for "free electrons" flying though space.
And so it is possible that some other, yet not commonly accepted, exotic particle, energy packet, dimensional knot, or anomalous EMP vortex, is the thing that
is produced in the experiments, and that it is dubbed "beta" only because it has measurable electrical charge and flies freely through space.
I don't really care if it's real electrons, virtual beta particles, or EMP vortexes that are created, as long as it adds electrical energy to the system which we can
use to power the system. ;)
Do you think it does make much of a difference?

Offline forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3949
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #902 on: October 14, 2008, 09:46:53 PM »
Hmm... I think I see your point... But doesn't that depend on what type of arc we're talking about? Indeed, a "normal" arc discharge will have a fairly large
chaotic component in that the positive and negative charge carriers are mixed and collide with eachother relatively chaotically. Also, collisions between the
positive particles moving "backward" and the negative particles moving "forward" (in the electric field) should indeed disrupt the circular flow somewhat...
On the other hand, the method we're using to induce the particle stream is extremely similar to vacuum tube accelleration, and is in fact a variation of
that (was sometimes called "magnetic vacuum tube").
But if I do get your point, you're just underlining the fact that a unidirectional particle beam will not have this opposite flow component that a
plasma arc would have?
Funny thing... Plasma is generally considered to be a near perfect electrically conductive medium.
So really, there shouldn't be too much interference from the positive flow component...
But still, your point is worth taking into account. ;)

I mean : no back rush,no oscillations,no chaotic movement inside plasma , just  synchronized ions (fast) flow in one direction. The same from other side : pure DC without AC components (  I guess very hard to get).
I imagine a COLLISION of two components : electron based plasma and pure DC dielectric field (or whatever electric voltage really is) inside carbon will show us some kind of reaction.

A car collision usually means an incident when two elements are thrown from opposite directions.The same seems correct for particles and plasma.

I see a plenty possibilities how it may work but everyone require unidirectional flow and collision or abrupt stop action. Let's see one obvious...
Earth is rotating in stationary magnetic field.Why we don't see free high electric voltage in simple copper wire  but we see quite large potential difference (voltage) between ground and Earth upper atmosphere levels ? Do you see how it may be related to plasma ?


Quote
Fortunately, there's a few variations that could still work. :)
I'm sorry but it is not clear to me what exactly you mean.
You say "unidirectional plasma energy transfer", I assume you mean the flow of electrical charge through a plasma medium, in one direction only?
Yes,correct.

Quote
Do you mean to suggest we first produce a plasma, then we "pump" a flow of electrons through the plasma in one direction?
Well,I don't know.Maybe we should use unipolar (for example consisted  only of positive ions) plasma ?
Quote
How does that differ from the generation of a unidirectional and continuous arc? I mean, we'll still have the plasma which consists of 50% positive and
50% negative particles, of which the neg. particles move "forward" in an electric field and the pos. particles move "backward", and they still collide...
How do you suppose this would get rid of the relatively large divergent component, or what you referred to as "plasma fluctuation"?

I believe Tesla invented something called beam particle generator, so he surely had to know how to supress fluctionations in plasma.

Quote
That remains a possibility. Although technically he isn't wrong. It just depends on your definition of "beta radiation". Commonly, beta radiation is the product of
beta decay in nuclear processes, that's true. But beta radiation can just as easily be produced without any nuclear decay. Electrons accellerated to a certain
energy level also qualify as "beta radiation". In fact, every "cathode ray" is a ray of "beta particles". Beta is just another name for "free electrons" flying though space.
And so it is possible that some other, yet not commonly accepted, exotic particle, energy packet, dimensional knot, or anomalous EMP vortex, is the thing that
is produced in the experiments, and that it is dubbed "beta" only because it has measurable electrical charge and flies freely through space.
I don't really care if it's real electrons, virtual beta particles, or EMP vortexes that are created, as long as it adds electrical energy to the system which we can
use to power the system. ;)
Do you think it does make much of a difference?

Yes.It's like  fire for primitive human beings.Completely new world...

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #902 on: October 14, 2008, 09:46:53 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline sparks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #903 on: October 15, 2008, 02:38:53 AM »
    Plasma has an arrangement of neuclei and electrons  that exist outside of what we consider an element.   The electrons are circulating about a grouping of atomic neuclei.  This is not a molecule wherein the neuclei still maintain predictable electron field orbitals.  The neuclei have been stripped of their electron field and have expressed their dipole moments on other neuclei directly.
The electron field and neuclei have converted an energy scource differentially due to their mass difference.   This happens in a spark gap as the gas enveloping the electrodes looses it's electrons to the circuit.  If the differential in voltage and speed at which it arises in the gap is sufficient; the electrons are accelerated out of their electron orbitals leaving the neucleus behind.  If the voltage then ceases before the ion is significantly accelerated and the cycle repeated; soon orbitals down to low 1s orbitals are absorbing the potential and jumping through the energy orbital shells.  This of course leaves a very + grouping of atomic neuclei which can now react with each other and the field,  without the intervening electron field.  The neuclei magnetic dipole moments begin to assemble the neuclei into a magnetically dictated lattice.  This magnetically dictated  lattice configuration and rate of assembly is highly influenced by the external impressed magnetic field.
The highly + charged neuclei lattice field, after cessation of the applied voltage, attracts electrons into complex orbitals about the entire lattice.  This results in an electrical current of high velocity, first towards then about the lattice.  There can arise from this flow of electrons about the lattice a sustaining seperation of charge and magnetic field arising from the current.  This macroatom not molecule is very unpredictable as it is the result of infinitely variable parameters.  It's life is highly dependent on the external field it encounters, as disruption of the electron flow about the lattice results in disintegration and retroversion to elemental states.
    The prime mechanism for plasma synthesis is exploitation of  the mass relationship between the electron field and neuclei under the influence of a variable force field.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2008, 03:01:26 AM by sparks »

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #904 on: October 15, 2008, 10:56:31 AM »
@Forest:
... ehm... I guess what I'm going to say was already said by Sparks in a way;

One cannot make a plasma that consists only of positive ions, like you suggest,
for the simple fact that plasma by definition is the mix of positive and negative
subatomic particles that remains when atoms are completely broken down.
So it's sort of a chaotic "cloud" of electrons and protons (and neutrons if present).
Ions and plasma are quite different things.
It is possible to inject electrons into a gas, thereby raising the negative charge in the
gas, and increasing the number of negative ions (aka cations). It is also possible
to inject positive charge into a gas, thereby generating an overall positively ionised
gas. Either could in principle be accellerated in an A-field, be it magnetically induced
or electrostatically induced.

So if you're talking about generating a circular flow of either positive or negative ions,
in a chamber which contains only the positively respectively negatively ionised gas,
then indeed that sounds feasable.
However, if you're talking about plasma, then there is no way to seperate the positive
and negative charge carriers (protons and electrons) from the bulk plasma stream,
for doing so would cause the plasma to cease to be plasma.
(And that's aside from the fact that doing so would likely cost rediculous amounts of energy.)

Now let's just assume that you're talking about such an ionised gas and not a plasma, for now...
Like I said, to turn the normal gas into ionised gas of one clear "polarity", we will need to either
add or remove electrons to or from the gas, so that the bulk of the gas becomes more negatively
resp. positively charged, and so that these ions can now be accellerated.
That would allow us to make these ions run in circles in a toroidal chamber, thus generating the
charge flow we need.
But hold on, weren't we looking to use the Protelf reaction to boost the energy levels?
And in the Protelf process, didn't we need to pump a high voltage pulse through the atoms?
So we'll need to have electrons collide with atoms...
It seems to me that using positive ions will not have the same effect, as in that case there will not
be an electron stream "crashing" into the atoms, but rather the positively charged atoms move
in a circular stream, and zero electrons "crash" into them...

However, simultaneous "backward" and "forward" movement of positive and negative ions
(or rather cations and electrons, resp. anions) would result in electrons "crashing into"
the positively charged atoms... Or at least, some of them would do so.
Which may allow for Protelf?
 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #904 on: October 15, 2008, 10:56:31 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline BEP

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1289
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #905 on: October 15, 2008, 01:39:50 PM »
@Koen1

In your research, have you located any construction details of the smaller betatrons used in the late seventies? These would be the ones with the hollow porcelain toroid. They varied in size but some were as small as a couple of inches in diameter.

I'm very interested in the fins (they looked like coils and also may have been used for acceleration).

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #906 on: October 15, 2008, 02:40:33 PM »
@Koen1

In your research, have you located any construction details of the smaller betatrons used in the late seventies? These would be the ones with the hollow porcelain toroid. They varied in size but some were as small as a couple of inches in diameter.
To be honest, I have had serious trouble digging up good pictures of betatrons from the old days, and I am not certain which type you are referring to,
exactly. Most pictures of betatrons I know are fairly large ones with several variations of coils, and as far as I know they started using porcelain for
the vacuum chamber as early as the 1940s (very shortly after the betatron had first been dreamed up) so that doesn't mean much...
But I have not seen many that are very small, I've seen one or two intended for portable X-ray machines from the '70s, but those all showed
big chunks of iron core and none of them were "coreless", nor could I see much of the coils on those pictures.
If you have a link to some pictures of the exact type you are talking about, I may be able to give some usefull info.

Quote
I'm very interested in the fins (they looked like coils and also may have been used for acceleration).
Well, like I said, I don't have a mental picture of what you call "the fins" so I can't give you any clear info on that at the moment,
but if you could provide a picture I'm sure I can give you some more info.
I can tell you that most betatrons do not have anything that looks like "fins". There's versions that have rings of core material
wrapped around the toroid, with coils wrapped around those rings again, there's versions that use pancake coils, and there's
versions that use one or more linear coils, and those again can be coreless or cored. And all of them are used to achieve
accelleration. After all, basically the thing is nothing more than a very large transformer where the input coils are the primary
and the toroidal vacuum tube is the secondary coil.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #906 on: October 15, 2008, 02:40:33 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline sparks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #907 on: October 15, 2008, 02:45:03 PM »
   I believe Moray employed a radioactive coating to build a cold plasma.  The radioactive coating controls the formation of a predictable plasma lattice.  The electron migration about the neucleic lattice now going from a distance measured in proton radians to millimeters.  The electrons are now moving at near the speed of light over greatly extended fields.  Their angular momentum energy no longer resulting in electron pairing and being expressed on the external field as high frequency em waves.  These waves then mixing with the emwaves from the radioactive substance.  This mix resulting in a predictable plasma construct and selfproduced electrical current.  The plasma current then coupled to an external circuit.
   Tesla exploited plasma construction in his spark gap and latter in partially evacuated tubes which were coupled to electrical circuits.  This energy that is being exploited is the intrinsic electron kinetic energy normally expressed in atomic orbitals and electron angular momentum!

Offline forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3949
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #908 on: October 15, 2008, 06:38:59 PM »
   I believe Moray employed a radioactive coating to build a cold plasma.  The radioactive coating controls the formation of a predictable plasma lattice.  The electron migration about the neucleic lattice now going from a distance measured in proton radians to millimeters.  The electrons are now moving at near the speed of light over greatly extended fields.  Their angular momentum energy no longer resulting in electron pairing and being expressed on the external field as high frequency em waves.  These waves then mixing with the emwaves from the radioactive substance.  This mix resulting in a predictable plasma construct and selfproduced electrical current.  The plasma current then coupled to an external circuit.
   Tesla exploited plasma construction in his spark gap and latter in partially evacuated tubes which were coupled to electrical circuits.  This energy that is being exploited is the intrinsic electron kinetic energy normally expressed in atomic orbitals and electron angular momentum!
I heard about magnetic field lines frozen into plasma. Something tells me that it may be together with magnetic reconnection an explanation for radiant energy and particularly for Edwin Gray conversion switching tube, which looks similarly to Protelf in case of carbon rod usage.

Look here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection and imagine what would happen if plasma which has an electron fast flow current inside and frozen magnetic field was abruptly stopped/removed just after reconnection took place.I see this reconnection as shown on picture like a implosion of magnetic field lines where some of them are reorientated.I assume that on removing plasma external magnetic field  tend to revert changes like a bowstring usually do.It may produce huge magnetic flux , maybe even propagated as longitudinal wave.
It a good sign that scientists start to talk about such processed, which are clearly a source of "free" energy (energy taken from magnetic field of Earth ,Sun and solar wind).

Quote :

"AKR is similar to radio emissions that emanate from other magnetospheres at Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune but also certain solar and stellar radio bursts. The radio emission is a result of a plasma instability that frequently develops in astrophysical magnetospheres which can efficiently convert free energy present in energetic particles into radiating electromagnetic waves. Its full comprehension is therefore of crucial importance", wrote Philippe Louarn (CNRS, Toulouse, France) in a recent review on the subject. "

Source : http://clusterlaunch.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=43018

I suggest this as a basic source of radiant energy as depicted here : http://clusterlaunch.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=40762 and described here http://clusterlaunch.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=42863

IMHO, take plasma rich of electron unidirectional (!) current (as fast as possible ,probably near light velocity) in magnetic field, create such plasma and destroy at high frequency . When abruptly stopped/removed magnetic reconnection reversion will release radiant longitudinal wave. Collect energy as a large current when radiant energy is passing through copper or as a magnetic field when it's passing through iron.Surely both copper and iron must be placed in correct direction and correct distance from source.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #908 on: October 15, 2008, 06:38:59 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3949
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #909 on: October 15, 2008, 06:54:22 PM »
Quote:

"The whistlers were found to be greatly enhanced when reconnection kicked off (Figure 2). In addition, as reconnection proceeded, the wave frequency became higher and higher. The fact that spectral characteristics of the whistler waves are observed to be different before and after the start of reconnection suggests that they were produced by different mechanisms.

"The data collected by the four Cluster satellites on 21 August 2002 suggest that whistler waves prior to reconnection may play an important role in triggering reconnection", says Dr. Jinbin Cao, corresponding author of this study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research."

Forgive me but I have a feeling that it's the same what Tesla saw performing pancake coil experiments Voltage stepped  up in strange ratio when radiant energy was flowing around coil turns like whistler wave frequency ...

Offline forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3949
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #910 on: October 15, 2008, 07:02:59 PM »
Precisely I think what radiant energy could be is : longitudinal soliton wave on Earth magnetospehere.
Kind of Alfven wave wave but not limited in velocity, longitudinal , propagating along magnetic field lines.


I think scientist soon re-discover them  (after Tesla)

See here : http://clusterlaunch.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=42432

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #910 on: October 15, 2008, 07:02:59 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline BEP

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1289
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #911 on: October 16, 2008, 03:38:11 AM »
@Koen1

Sorry. No photos here. Where they were used no cameras were allowed. Radiation wasn't a concern either.

There may have been coils not visible but the outer ?windings? appeared more like acceleration rings as seen in old CRT drawings. The rings were not round like a common wire. The crossection was more triangular. They even had the look of bellows on an accordian.

Back then I didn't care about the construction of the device. Now I really wish I had a couple.

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #912 on: October 16, 2008, 04:34:37 PM »
@BEP: hmm... well, I've seen a few versions that had fairly large asymmetrical
"rings" around the toroid, which in turn had their own coils wound around them...
And in general there's a lot more of such devices that don't show the coils as they
are "hidden" inside the core(s).
Although I can't be completely sure at this point, I think the "fan blades"
or "triangular-ish rings" were probably induction core elements.
Can you tell me what these specific types were used for, or are you not allowed to?
(After all, most Betatrons were intended to produce x- or gamma- rays for medical
or research purposes, so if it was in a radiology department or something, or if some
radiation shielding was used, or if lower energies were used, then that could explain
why no fuss was made over the radiation.)
Asymmetrical core elements can help to "concentrate" flux in certain regions,
which can in some cases increase efficiency of the induced accelleration.
So my guess at this point is that that is what those asymmetrical "accordion bellow"-
like "rings" were intended to do...
May I ask whay you did "back then" that you worked with these devices? :)

@Forest: Aha, the famous longtitudional waves eh? :D
Yeah, I know the story. Would be nice if someone could finally build a device
that produces OU based on collection of this alleged longtitudional "radiant" energy.
But despite the masses of speculative documentation, the majority of which is
nothing more than modern mythology, there's only a few that seem to be doing
active experiments trying to achieve it, and so far only one or two who believe
they're close and actually show interesting or at least anomalous test results.
A great many get overexcited about that TPU thing, which many associate with
Tesla's "radiant energy" hints, but which realistically speaking has been around for many
years now and as far as I know still is not powering any homes or cars or anything,
except perhaps for the bank account and ego of that Marks person. Then there's
that "elemental rod" thing which according to relatively new info is based on Tesla's
longtitudional wave research somehow, and which according to the sparse information
provided does work...
But the greater majority of the discussions on fora as well as "information" on many
websites that idolise Tesla as the Jesus of electricity consist of repetitions of
information that has been around (and repeated) since Tesla's own time, mixed
with peoples' own interpretations, often muddled by the fact that most people are
not, like Tesla was, multilingual Europeans, and therefore linguistic flexibility and
creative use of literal or figurative speech in combination with literal or figurative
translation of terms from other languages to formally correct yet not normal English
like Tesla used and which just "beams" off his papers is often overlooked or mis-
understood. Also, if one studies Tesla's writings over the years it is very clear
that as time and his experiments progressed, so did his understanding of electrics,
and hypotheses he used in his early days were often replaced by ones that
better fitted his later experiments, while Telsa did not at all explain his new
views on the matter every time he progressed in his paradigm. Some people
nowadays seem to think that what he said in his early days necessarily remained
valid in his later days, and that his hypothesising about radiant energy was
always the same, never changed, and everything he said about it needs
to be taken extremely literally.
Well, what about Tesla's statements that he had "received communication from Mars"?
He did, you know. In his terminology. He was receiving radio signals that he managed
to correllate with the position of Mars in the sky, and concluded the signals must be
coming from Mars. So far so good. But then he spoke to the press in his typical
Teslaesque English-with-a-very-strong-multilingual-European-twist, and told the
press he was receiving communication. The press, as did just about everyone else,
understood this to mean that Tesla believed he had been communicating with Mars,
and communicating means talking to, and so Tesla had just claimed he had been
talking to Martians! But he never did claim that. He just said he had received signals
from the direction of Mars, and "receiving signals" or "engaging in radio communication"
in his mind were nearly identical concepts. Tesla was notorious for his use of language.
That common Americans did (and do) not realise that "communicating by radio"
and "sending or receiving radio signals" are actually the same thing seems to arise
from a tradition of quite literal language use and of course the fact that most Americans
speak only US English, which does not give them the insight in comparative connotation
and interpretation of words that most multilingual people will recognise to a degree,
was something Tesla hardly ever took into account when he spoke to people.
I believe this different approach to language plays a large role in both the difficulty that
people have with understanding what Tesla meant to say, as well as in his idolisation
and mythologisation. Aside from that, the recurring misunderstanding of Tesla's statements
and successive unjustified criticism he sometimes received, in my opinion, caused him
to spend increasingly less time trying to make the public understand what he was trying to
do, and kept most of the more important developments in his theoretical understanding
of electrodynamics and cosmology "under his hat" as he grew older. That, plus of course
the opposition he encountered from Edison and others in many of his projects, which
obviously did not help.
It is good to see that Telsa is now getting the credit he deserves for many
inventions and discoveries, from the radio that Marconi stole from him, through
AC that Edison tried to first ban and then steal from him, to the Niagara generators,
and beyond.
But nevertheless there seems to be a large cult-like society of Tesla worshippers
that do talk about how great he was and how he made free energy devices,
but that don't seem to be able to actually replicate a working "radiant energy"
device that really does produce energy.
That, to me, seems a bit like a rocket club that idolises Werner von Braun,
and discusses Werners ideas about rocket propulsion every week,
and has been doing so for decades, but does not spend the majority
of their time actually building a rocket and launching it.
A bit like Trekkies but instead of the Kirk and Enterprise fixation they
have a Tesla and Radiant Energy fixation... But they'll never fly a starship,
never see the Federation in reality, never meet a Vulcan, yet they do
speak Klingon and they do know every detail about the fictional physics of
the USS Enterprise.
Sorry for the rant, by the way. ;D

Offline forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3949
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #913 on: October 16, 2008, 05:13:01 PM »
I see your point, however I have learned that Tesla inventions are hard to replicate because of being self-made.
Let's look for example for his experiments with high frequency AC currents.
I saw many attempts to build Tesla coils and nobody really approached to the simplest effects Tesla described, because nobody really used the same materials, the same way , the same equations to build them.
I barely saw arcs at stage 5 as Tesla described, but stage 6 and 7 is essential to get OU like effects.
The same for bulbs - they must be made according to Tesla specs , not just bought. The same for measuring tools. Simply to say our today instruments are build especially to disallow "incorrect" usage - no OU could be measured except for rare cases.
I planed to build small real Tesla coil, small real Tesla one wire bulb but it's not that simple (read: cheap)

Offline sparks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
Re: Single circuits generate nuclear reactions
« Reply #914 on: October 16, 2008, 05:25:27 PM »
    Coronal mass ejection often makes the news when it results in aurora and emp pulses that cause blackouts.  I'm just wondering if CME isn't a continous process on a lower intensity level than what makes the news.  This would result in a continous bombardment of the magnetosphere with high energy plazma with magnetic fields of varying flux intensity on the day side of the Earth.  Perhaps the Earth commutates this energy into a pulsating magnetic field.  Tesla's communication with Mar's could have been a circuit that picked up Mars magnetosphere pulsation.  Something like the process employed in magnetic resonance imaging on a planetary level.  Off subject again. :P

 

OneLink