Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Solid States Devices => Tesla Technologgy => Topic started by: tturner on May 26, 2014, 06:47:38 PM

Title: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: tturner on May 26, 2014, 06:47:38 PM
just found this and its way above my education level so hopefully you guys can help. second half of this page under tesla cosmic energy extraction and attached is his refrenced books
http://www.whale.to/b/lyne_tesla.html

reconstruct much of the unknown Tesla discoveries from available sources, in order to see what has been carefully hidden from us by our own government and the corporate fascists who control it.

Tesla's Extraction of Cosmic Energy

According to Tesla, the ether is not an "energy source", since it is composed of tiny independent "carriers immersed in an insulating fluid"3. The ether, therefore, is a "medium" through which energetic transferences and transmutations can be effected, and electric and magnetic "tubes of force" can be created and carried into a body from space, giving it momentum to propel it."Cosmic radiation" is not the ether, but "starlight"—what Tesla called the "Primary Solar Rays".4 This extremely highfrequency light—of much tinier wavelength than visible light, U.V.,X-rays, and gamma rays (also emitted by our sun and other stars)—is the ZPR. Tesla stated that the Zero Point Radiation gives rise to secondary radiations through impact with the cosmic dust of space, which are commonly called "cosmic rays" today.

In 19355 Tesla objected to the observations of the German radiologist, Dr. Werner Kolhoester, saying his observations were another confirmation of his own theory of cosmic rays originally advanced in l896, but asserted that Kolhoester's 1935 theory was erroneous, because light is a wave motion of definite velocity (C),determined by the elastic force and density of the "medium", while cosmic rays are "...particles with velocities determined by the propelling force...", which therefore could be much slower or faster than that of light. Since the velocities of the two radiations would not (and could not) coincide, Kolhoester's observations whichcoincided with the light observed, would not be accurate. Here, Tesla distinguished between the "cosmic radiation" he proposed in 1896, which was particles, which were propelled by ultra-highfrequency "primary solar radiation", which I equate to the ZPR, which are light rays traveling at C. Because of their extremely high voltages levels and frequencies, they can propel "cosmic dust" articles faster than C, when of sufficiently high voltage levels and frequency.

3T.C. Martin, The Inventions, Researches and Writings of Nikola Tesla, The Electrical Engineer, New York (1894)
4 Nikola Tesla (as told to Alfred Albelli) Radio Power Will Revolutionize the World, Modern Mechanics and Invention (July, 1934)
5Nikola Tesla, German Cosmic Ray Theory Questioned, New York Herald Tribune (March 3, 1935)

In his "objection" letter of 1935, at a time when he was involved with the German "p2" project which I wrote about in Pentagon Aliens, Tesla gave a clue to his electrodynamic spacepropulsion system, which if one is to take Tesla's statements seriously, means that a "particle"—or a ship—in space can be propelled very fast by electromagnetic wave radiation—light waves—which in this case are the "Primary Solar Rays", the ZPR.

The Primary Solar Rays (the ZPR) are ubiquitous in the universe and in direction of approach at a given point, with frequencies so high that there is normally no reaction with atomic matter, being able to pass through "...thousands of miles of solid matter..."6, and therefore can approach an object on earth even from the direction of the ground. This makes this invisible "solar energysource" available around the clock, though it is said to slightly vary cyclically. This radiation should not be confused with so-called "photon energy", which is a Relativist fantasy involving "corpuscles" or "particles" of light. What a laugh.

In the on-going Relativist theory, Wolfgang Pauli, in 1933, invented the neutrino theory, in response to Niels Bohr's radical finding that, if experiments say so, the Law of Conservation ofEnergy does not hold for ("beta" or electron) emission and absorption processes.7 Pauli's theory sought to explain a loss of heat energy in beta decay, which the Relativist theory was unable to account for or measure in such processes as K-capture, in which a neutrino is emitted when a proton is converted into a neutron. The reverse process is the conversion of a neutron into a proton, thus emitting a beta particle (electron) and sucking a neutrino back into the atom from surrounding space. Other particles are involved, but these are the ones of interest. It should be of interest to you that Bohr was not a Relativist, and held a sort of "free-energy" view. It is also interesting to note that Bohr attended the opening of the Tesla Museum in Belgrade. Without Bohr's work, the A-bombwould have been impossible at that time.

6 Nikola Tesla, Radio Power, etc. (Supra) 
7 Gamow, George, Thirty Years that Shook Physics, Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York (1956)

The acquisition of energy from the ZPR was regarded by Tesla as a "step-down" process, in which the super-high-frequency light waves were stepped down to a more familiar and usable form, such as 'normal' radioactivity, heat or electrical energy. In the K-capture process, an element is transmuted into another element, forexample, iron to manganese—and in the reverseprocess—manganese to iron. Monoenergetic neutrinos are ejected in the first process, and sucked back into the iron in the reverse process, but what happens to the damned X-radiation emitted in the first half of the reversible process, Einstein? And how is it mysteriously "replaced" in the reversed half?

The neutrino explanation has always appeared as a loophole in the Relativist theory, since the missing momentum and heat, and misconceived "photon energy" (actually electromagnetic light wave radiation), were impossible to explain without the invented neutrino theory. Furthermore, since the neutrino is a neutral particle, it is composed of tiny positive and negative charges which do not exist according to Relativism, since Relativism holds that the electron is "indivisible", as the main foundation of quantum mechanics. With this argument, I now have some of my Relativist friends denying the existence of neutrinos.

In contradicting their own theory, admitting that the tinier positive and negative charges composing the neutrinos exist, the Relativists inadvertently acknowledged the "building blocks" of electrons and protons. As such, neutrinos appear to be the aether.

Since neutrinos are so tiny, they must have the capacity to react with the ZPR, in bringing about so-called "nuclear radioactivity". In so doing, what are the nuclear characteristics of an element which produces radioactivity naturally? How can a non-radioactive element be made to mimic these qualities, in artificially-inducedradioactivity"? If neutrinos are prevalent in K-capture (transmutation), and its reversal, it seems that an element which is made to oscillate between two elements (to transmute and detransmute), would have to react with the ZPR. Since there is excess energy involved, as the neutrinos (ether carriers) move in and out,energy is being transferred to and from the element, the ZPR, and the ether.

We know that synthetic radioactivity can be induced by exposing an element to appropriate radiation, which is only a reversal of the process which initially created the radiation, as averification of Tesla's theory.

In K-capture in iron, when the K-shell electron passes into the nucleus, converting a proton into a neutron, not only is a monoenergetic neutrino emitted, but also an X-ray, when the vacant K-shell takes on another electron. Though the iron atom is now a manganese atom, and has emitted energy, it has the same mass number. Shouldn't the mass number reflect the loss of energy?

Where is your damned "E = MC2?" There is also the question, "Where did the incident particle beam energy which induced the Kcapture go? If the neutrinos taketh away, they also giveth back, as "carriers". Of course, one can say that the electrons involved do not weigh enough to be reflected in the mass number. The Relativistsadmit (or assert) that the neutrinos carry energy, just as the aether carriers do. Recent Japanese experiments showed that neutrinos are plentiful in space. The greatest source of free-energy appears to be the ZPR.

If the number of neutrons in a disintegration product (the atom transmuted to) is too small compared to its number of protons, the nucleus will tend to reduce its charge by one unit by positron emission, and will always have 1 Mev less kinetic energy than if beta decay had occurred.8 Since a light element (below atomic number 19) will transmute in U.V. light, radioactivity in light elements can be induced very easily. When Joliot and Curie bombarded aluminum with alpha particles, they observed that neutrons and positrons were emitted. When they removed their alpha source, the positronemission did not cease, but decreased exponentially with time, as if the aluminum were a naturally radioactive element, for a period of three minutes.9

8 R. E. Lapp and H. L. Andrews, Nuclear Radiation Physics, Prentiss-Hall, Inc., New York (1950).
9 Lapp and Andrews (Supra)

The positron will always carry 1 Mev kinetic energy, and may be used for energy production. Since this process can be effected by use of an U.V. incident particle beam on the light elements, and will produce positrons at 1 Mev of kinetic energy, it may be used in what I call "leapfrog technology", which can be used for transmutation processes which will manufacture elements in much greater quantities than could be effected by the huge accelerators at such places as U.C. Berkeley.

Based on the Tesla Primary Solar Ray theory, using the Kcapture process, this is my explanation for a device I call Free EnergySurprise (© 1997, Wm. R. Lyne, ISBN 0-9637467-6-6, $10.00, Creatopia Productions, General Delivery, Lamy, New Mexico 87540, Tel/Fax 505-466-3022), a technical report which includes a set of plans and documentary photos.

I got the idea for this device from a statement by Nikola Tesla, concerning "special" uses for iron, to capture the ZPR/Primary Solar Rays. Whether or not this is exactly what Tesla meant, I believe it verifies his statement concerning special properties of iron. The device, composed of steel pipe and bar stock (about 10 lbs.), is stimulated with a 15 kv, center-tapped transformer. Itoperates in several modes, but in what I call the "hum" mode shows an input of 35 watts and a secondary activity of 42.6 kw, operating at or beyond the approximate K-capture voltage on each leg, ca. 7,110 volts (the K-capture voltage for iron), at the standard 60 cps. The low frequency current goes into the mass of the iron (not a 'skin effect'). The iron seems to be going to manganese and back to iron, 60 times per second. This idea is based on what appeared to be the appearance of a purple area near the top of the pipe which Irecognized to be the color of manganese dioxide. The extra electrical

energy might be the product of interaction with the ZPR, the ether (neutrinos?), and the iron. Since manganese is the next element down on the periodic chart, with the same mass number as iron, it sounded like a reasonable hypothesis. The voltage is not really critical, as the effect could occur so long as the voltage passedthrough the K-capture voltage on its way up and down, and is only supposed to cause a somewhat more definite effect when it is right on the "absorption edge".

It appears that the electrical energy in the secondary output circuit can be converted into usable electrical energy, especially by using a resonant transformer, tuned to the same, 60 cps frequency.

Corporate-government disinformationists have already tried to debunk this device. One "debunker" inadvertently revealed the fact that he didn't actually do the experiment, when he described the device when assembled as weighing "two pounds". No reputable "scientist" could confuse "ten pounds" with "two pounds", so I knew he was lying. Naturally, his assessment was negative. He was either a lightweight, who didn't do the experiment as described, or a liar with a concealed agenda. This discovery may prove to be a new way to produce K-capture, and to transmute elements in a reversible process, by stimulation with simple, standard 60cps electric current, at or near the K-capture voltage, or at some other appropriate voltage, without the necessity to use an incident particle beamaccelerator, vacuum chamber, etc.

A good free-energy process, therefore, can use anelement—conveniently a light element—as a "medium" to induce another "medium"—the ether, or another element—to interact with and acquire energy from the ZPR, which is then stepped down to either a synthetic radioactive output—which can be further stepped down to manageable electrical energy or heat—or perhaps converted more directly to electrical energy by some ingenious means.

The attempted destruction and concealment of Tesla's work has now been exposed, and will soon be reversed. The factions which were responsible for this still exist through perpetuity, but will not be able to control the technology when it finally emerges.

Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: forest on May 26, 2014, 08:38:23 PM
oh,crap... why everybody expect more and more complicated theories involving zpr, cosmic rays , radioactivity and maybe alien forces are better to explein natural phenomena ?
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: tturner on May 26, 2014, 10:37:26 PM
im talking about the devise 45kw output 35w input and it looks simple to build check out the free energy surprise attachment
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: e2matrix on May 27, 2014, 05:26:56 PM
Lyne is fairly well known and interesting to read.   He has a Yahoo group also.   That device is one of those things I seem to keep putting on the back burner to try out.   It does look interesting but as far as I know there are no replications jumping out screaming free energy on this.  Might just be an issue with construction or like me it just keeps getting put on the back burner ;)
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: TinselKoala on May 27, 2014, 05:35:08 PM
That pdf -- which by the way includes a clear copyright statement at the beginning.... is another story of misinterpretation and misrepresentation of Tesla's work, and another full set of Bad Measurements, improperly and unsafely performed.
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: TinselKoala on May 27, 2014, 05:43:04 PM
oh,crap... why everybody expect more and more complicated theories involving zpr, cosmic rays , radioactivity and maybe alien forces are better to explein natural phenomena ?
It's because they don't understand the _real explanations_ which are consistent with a huge body of real knowledge and mathematics. They prefer to wave hands about and conjure entities from their imaginations... usually because they have some pet theory (not consistent with any huge body of real knowledge, not consistent mathematically) that they are seeking to "prove" rather than to test experimentally.
The pet theory may be dreamed, or revealed from a higher power, or constructed out of some fictional re-interpretation of Nikola Tesla's writings and experimental work.... and that's why these kinds of theories are so persistent. They are literally Holy Writ. They blind their proponents to real data: data which does not "confirm" or "prove" their theories is rejected as being "conventional" and therefore wrong (without proof being presented for this new claim) or it is simply ignored.
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: tturner on May 27, 2014, 06:23:05 PM
sorry about copywrite i didnt know... can i get in trouble do i need to edit.. has anyone replicated the porsilin device with the spark gap and the magnets or electromagnets. the one thats the first devise in ch.11 of pjk fei
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: forest on May 27, 2014, 06:57:17 PM
Tinsel

You are right in your comment !  :) but  do you afraid of the theory which is stritly based on science and consistent ?  ::) ;)
Lyne theories are admirable , yet explained in sophisticated way, while the nature shows us the real power easily, without going into zpe mumble...




Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: tturner on May 27, 2014, 09:16:01 PM
ok mabey the introduction isnt right but tesla devise in the begining of free energy surprise and ch. 11 that some call mhd devise anyone know of any replications
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: tturner on May 28, 2014, 01:59:38 AM
so I'm reading Tesla's book called the problem with increasing human energy and it says a couple paragraphs into the book that his inexhaustible energy for the world the unlimited energy was the burning of nitrogen check it if you don't believe me but I didn't really expect that definitely have to keep investigating this research
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: forest on May 28, 2014, 08:51:38 AM
so I'm reading Tesla's book called the problem with increasing human energy and it says a couple paragraphs into the book that his inexhaustible energy for the world the unlimited energy was the burning of nitrogen check it if you don't believe me but I didn't really expect that definitely have to keep investigating this research

joe cell
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: tturner on May 28, 2014, 05:51:07 PM
joe cell are very cool. but do they have any type of throttle responce. im talking to a friend who got his vehicle to run on joseph cater free energy box like in free energy info ch. passive systems. the thing he noticed was there was absolutley no throttle responce and he had to use shifting. then after a week of driving he was stopped at a parking spot the engine started revving out of control he said it.must have been from the engine finally getting acclimated to the orgone.

i dont want this to be about orgone but if its free energy that can power our cars and houses then im all for it. and we need to do this now asap

i cant find any circuits that can harness orgone. reich supposively had one but got suppressed
 
i found this devise from ch.11 in kelly's fei and it looks like it could capture some free energy but my questions are what would the emission be? the air that is burnt releases radiation. the devise seems to capture but whats left goes right out the top into the open enviroment. i was never good at chemistry or anything nuclear waste so what are the dangers of this devise. burning nitrogen with a high voltage spark gap and having nitrogen emit radiation onto the electrodes to pick up energy. what happens to the burnt nitrogen. how can we safely let air into the devise and out without being exposed to gamma radiation?

Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: thx1138 on May 28, 2014, 07:52:35 PM
oh,crap... why everybody expect more and more complicated theories involving zpr, cosmic rays , radioactivity and maybe alien forces are better to explein natural phenomena ?
I don't know about the alien forces but, as far as I know, cosmic rays and radioactivity are natural phenomena.
 
And zpr, if you meant zpe, is just a different name for the Casimir effect which is also a natural phenomena although it lives in that weird world of quantum doohickeys. So that one might be purely theoreical.
 
If you want to evidence of radiation, take a look at a dental x-ray. If you want to see evidence of cosmic rays, build one of these: http://quarknet.fnal.gov/resources/QN_CloudChamberV1_4.pdf (http://quarknet.fnal.gov/resources/QN_CloudChamberV1_4.pdf)
 
Then again, cosmic rays can be looked at as "alien forces" since they don't originate on the earth and the more powerful ones originate in different galaxies.
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: tturner on May 28, 2014, 09:21:21 PM
guys made a big mistake i misread tesla problem of increasing human energy . he talks about burning nitrogen but i thought i read he saw it as a unlimitedfuel source.lol. sorry for the mistake i am a newbie but thats for the posts and hopefully we can keep working on this
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: pix on May 28, 2014, 10:32:48 PM
guys made a big mistake i misread tesla problem of increasing human energy . he talks about burning nitrogen but i thought i read he saw it as a unlimitedfuel source.lol. sorry for the mistake i am a newbie but thats for the posts and hopefully we can keep working on this
Burning nitrogen in ambient air means- spark gap.
Spark gap is electrons multiplier plus source of UV radiation. One electron "in"- many more electrons "out". Loeb and Meck, read it.


Regards,
pix
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: thx1138 on May 29, 2014, 02:14:18 AM
so I'm reading Tesla's book called the problem with increasing human energy and it says a couple paragraphs into the book that his inexhaustible energy for the world the unlimited energy was the burning of nitrogen check it if you don't believe me but I didn't really expect that definitely have to keep investigating this research
To understand Tesla's work there's two things that are critical.
 
1. You have to understand the times he lived in and what was unknown at that time, which was a lot of what we take for granted today. In the mid to late 1800's there were no cars or highways for them or airplanes or satellites. Short transporation was by foot or horse. Longer transportation was by steam engine rail over land and steam powered ships over water. The oil industry didn't exist so there were no plastics and coal was the chief mobile fuel source. Telegraphs were in use but most communication was by postal service. Astronomers didn't have telescopes powerful enough to distinguish the difference between stars and galaxies so galaxies were unknown. Geophysics didn't exist and the structure of the planet was largely unknow. The theory of an inner and outer core to the earth wasn't developed until the 1930's. Tectonic plate theory wasn't widely accepted until the 1960's.  That's just a few examples.
 
2. Tesla was so prolific that you need to focus on one single line of inquiry and read his articles, presentaions, and patents in a sequential manner to see how his ideas developed while looking for the parts that apply to that one line of inquiry. Don't get sidetracked by what others say about what Tesla said. Get it only directly from the source. There is so much misinterpretation of what he actually said on the internet that any real knowledge gets lost like a needle in a haystack. Here's an example: a lot of people thought Tesla's Wardenclyffe project was going to transmit power through the air from the top of the tower. If you read the patents you'll see he initially planned to transmit power between tethered balloons at 30,000 feet but no one ever mentions that. That example also plays into item 1 - that's the altitude of the 250+ MPH winds known as the jet stream so it probably would have failed but the jet stream was unknown at the time. He never attempted it because he discovered he could transmit through the ground.
 
Good luck with your studies. I hope the above helps. I've been at it 3 years now and have probably missed more than I've really absorbed.
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: forest on May 29, 2014, 07:15:20 AM
Tesla worked simultaneously in two directions. Only one can be easily known from his lectures, articles. The second one we knew only from rarely spotted comments, usually cut in the middle by saying something like " I'm not able yet to go into details"
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: Farmhand on May 29, 2014, 10:50:17 AM
I've never read Tesla mention ZPR or ZPE, I've read him mention cosmic rays and charged particles ect, but if there is written by Tesla about ZPR or even ZPE I would like to see it in context.

I think a lot of people also believe that Tesla was planning to provide OU energy for everyone for free, and yet I am fairly sure I read that he was installing steam powered generators at Wardencliff.

Then there is the misconception of Tesla's resonant coils being OU based on oscillating power figures compared to input power rather than output power compared to input power.

Some people seem to think Tesla hid OU everywhere when in fact many of his inventions were very conventional as the term applies now. Car alternators with the opposing saw tooth poles are based loosely I think on one of his HF alternator patents I think.

..
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: Shanti on May 29, 2014, 01:59:46 PM
@Farmland:

Full Ack!!!

As Tinsel already  stated, I think much of the misunderstanding from people reading Tesla is based on poor electrical knowledge coupled with an expecting biased view.
Like that people interprete complete wrong things into Tesla's words. E.g. Lyne is a famous example. If you take the parts, he cites about Tesla mentionedn the Anti-Grav or OU, you clearly recognize that Tesla meant something completely different, and only someone without knowledge in (HV) electronics can interpret it that way.
Like Lyne with his generator many people seem to think, that if you accumulate energy in an oscillator, that you get OU.
"Look, there's now more energy in the oscillator, than the input energy". But they do not seem to realize that this is just accumulated energy, and that you cannot get continuous output energy with such a high power. Many of the QEG supporters also seem to make this error.


Just ask yourself:
Tesla proposed to transmit energy from all around the globe to where it shall be used, with his magnifying transmitter.  But he himself stated, that now such transmitting towers can be built directly at the power plants. Like that power plants, like water, geothermic, wind, ... can be built everywhere on the world, where they are economic and you just have to place such a tower beside it to transmit it globally.

Why should he propose transmitting energy with his tower from conventional power plants, if he had any OU device???
Tesla surely thought and speculated, that maybe it is possible to make an OU device.
But actually Tesla never said, he had made an OU device.
Well except for one exception. And as from his description of this invention it is clear, what it was: A heat pump. And yes, a heat pump is OU. But not the type of OU we want.
You must be aware, that at Tesla's time it wasn't yet known, that some types of energy are less "in quality" than others. That's the reason, why you cannot make a self looping device from a heat pump. As any conversion back to mechanical energy from the heat pump OU heat difference has a reciprocal efficiency that equals or is less than the heat pump efficiency for generating the temp difference.

Just my 2 cents...

Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: thx1138 on May 29, 2014, 04:12:44 PM
I've never read Tesla mention ZPR or ZPE, I've read him mention cosmic rays and charged particles ect, but if there is written by Tesla about ZPR or even ZPE I would like to see it in context.
IMO, that's people misinterpreting what Tesla said because they don't consider what was not known in Tesla's day.  From [font=]Experiments with Alternate Currents of High Potential and High Frequency, Lecture before the Institution of Electrical Engineers, London, 02/03/1892 [/font][font=]“Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe.” [/font]and “Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic? If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic – and this we know it is, for certain – then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature.”
 
I suppose that could be interpreted a zpe by those who don't understand history at the point when he made those statements. Today, however, we have systems using that power in the satellites circling the globe and the space probes that go to other planets like Saturn and beyond to the edge of the solar system.
 
Quote
I think a lot of people also believe that Tesla was planning to provide OU energy for everyone for free, and yet I am fairly sure I read that he was installing steam powered generators at Wardencliff.
Quite true and there are photographs. http://www.teslascience.org/archive/descriptions/WP015.htm (http://www.teslascience.org/archive/descriptions/WP015.htm)
 
And he never planned on supplying electricity to anyone for free. The fact that it could be transmitted to the most remote parts of the planet was sufficient to change the world. He never said anything that I am aware of that it would be free. In fact he said, "My belief is firm in a law of compensation. The true rewards are ever in proportion to the labour and sacrifices made." - from his autobiography.
 
He also had patents to proivide individualization that I think were frequency based that would require the receiver to be tuned to the transmitting frequency: US 723,188, US 725,605, and British 14,579. So the power producer could terminate the transmission on a given frequency if the customer didn't pay his bills without affecting other customers. Tesla was always talking about transmitting power on industrial scales so it isn't like every Tom, Dick, and Harry would have a receiver. Corporations or cities with finances to build a Wardenclyffe style installation would have receivers and could distribute power via wires to their customers.
 
 
Quote
Some people seem to think Tesla hid OU everywhere when in fact many of his inventions were very conventional as the term applies now.
I've yet to see an invention of his that can't be explained in today's conventional terms. What may have been a mystery back then is very well understood today. X-rays is a good example. Again it is necessary to understand what was not known back then. The atom was still considered to be the indivisible minimum of matter. So how could particles be transmitted through a Crooke's tube without breaking the tube?
 
I think where people get confused is they try to tie "radiant energy" and "wireless transmission" of power together. They are very loosely linked in that they are both "wireless". Radiant energy explains how the sun and stars transmit power to the earth's atmosphere by "rays", i.e. solar or cosmic rays, the rays being similar to Tesla's one wire transmission without a ground return, which he even states in a later interview.
 
His "wireless transmission" was to be accomplished regardless of the source so the plant could be located where the fuel was located, i.e. wind, hydro, coal, etc., and the power could be consumed where needed without  the cost of constructing and maintaining transmission lines. He states this in the patent US Patent 1,119,732 - System of Transmission of Electrical Energy, "In the accompanying drawing a general arrangement of appartus is diagaramatically illustrated such as I contemplate employing in the carrying out of my invention on an industrial scale - as, for instance, for lighting distant cities or districts from places where cheap power is obtainable."
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: forest on May 29, 2014, 06:17:51 PM
Quite true ! However... the same way you can state that moon has only one side...visible one  ;D
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: thx1138 on May 29, 2014, 06:57:17 PM
If the moon is more or less a sphere, how many "sides" does it have? But I get your point.
 
The point above, however, was that Tesla never, as far as I know, mentioned anything like zpe. But even that's like saying he never mentioned "longitudinal waves". He never used that terminology but he did mention somewhere (it escapes me at the moment) that electrical impulses could be looked at like sound waves which are, indeed, longitudinal waves.
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: tturner on May 29, 2014, 08:40:51 PM
 tesla talks about " its will come that man will attach his machinery to wheel work of nature"  and  " the use of coal, gas, fuels is not nessisary and energy is available in unlimited quantities" what is he talking about exactly
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: forest on May 29, 2014, 09:00:53 PM
Just look for Tesla letter to his friend about Figuera generator
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: forest on May 29, 2014, 09:03:47 PM
tesla talks about " its will come that man will attach his machinery to wheel work of nature"  and  " the use of coal, gas, fuels is not nessisary and energy is available in unlimited quantities" what is he talking about exactly


ambient medium , check again - he is very precise about it when he describes the methods of tapping sun energy during centuriesnothing complicated, just try to open your eyes to analogies
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: Farmhand on May 29, 2014, 09:24:37 PM
Tesla intended to use the earth as a tank to store energy, and like a tank after running the Wardencliff transmitter for some time the activity in the tank (Earth) would build until the point where only the losses need to be input to maintain the activity (oscillations) due to the tank impedance increasing, just like a coil and capacitor tank. now if we tap the tank the impedance to the input will decrease and the input power will increase to meet the load as it should and maintain the activity level, the current doesn't flow in wiggly waves it flows in surge type waves following the path of least resistance, (longitudinal). it does have a wiggly electromagnetic wave associated with it though. 

If we take a coil and capacitor tank and operate it at resonance at 1 000 000 Hz it will radiate a lot of energy, but if we take a cap and coil tank and operate it at resonance at 1000 Hz that will radiate much less, the activity will be less wasteful as far as radiated electromagnetic energy goes.

Tesla's Wardencliff and Colorado transmitters (were to the Earth as the transmitter power input circuit was to his transmitter).

Source
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/nt_on_ac.htm

Below he describes a 10000 HP plant ( 7.5 Megawatt plant) with idle losses of 1% which is 7 500 000 Watts divided by 100 equals ....wait for it ...... 75 Kilowatts of idle input with no power taken out at any other place, running losses not even considering the heating losses due to friction in the generators or the conductors so real losses would be even higher.

Quote
Now, there is a vast difference between these two, the electromagnetic and current energies.  That energy which goes out in the form of rays, is, as I have indicated here [on the diagram of Fig. 82], unrecoverable, hopelessly lost.  You can operate a little instrument by catching a billionth part of it but, except this, all goes out into space never to return.  This other energy, however, of the current in the globe, is stored and completely recoverable.  Theoretically, it does not take much effort to maintain the earth in electrical vibration.  I have, in fact, worked out a plant of 10,000 horse-power which would operate with no bigger loss than 1 percent of the whole power applied; that is, with the exception of the frictional energy that is consumed in the rotation of the engines and the heating of the conductors, I would not lose more than 1 percent.  In other words, if I have a 10,000 horsepower plant, it would take only 100 horsepower to keep the earth vibrating so long as there is no energy taken out at any other place.


Below Tesla is describing in my opinion his plan for power transmission at Wardencliff and he is saying that his transmitter will run idle like a power transformer runs idle at low power when no output is drawn. To achieve this close coupling from primary to secondary I think is needed and described in the last transmission patent. No loose coupling for efficient power transmission transformers.

Quote
But, if I have no pump there to receive these oscillations, if there is nowhere a place where this elastic energy is transferred into frictional energy (we always use in our devices frictional energy -- everything is lost through friction), then there is no loss, and if I have a plant of 1,000 horsepower and I operate it to full capacity, that plant does not take power, it runs idle, exactly as the plant at Niagara.  If I do not put any motors or any lamps on the circuit, the plant runs idle.  There is a 5,000 horsepower turbine going, but no power is supplied to the turbine except such power as is necessary to overcome the frictional losses.

Now the vast difference between the scheme of radio engineers and my scheme is this.  If you generate electromagnetic waves with a plant of 1,000 horsepower, you are using 1,000 horsepower right along -- whether there is any receiving being done or not.  You have to supply this 1,000 horsepower, exactly as you have to supply coal to keep your stove going, or else no heat goes out.  That is the vast difference.  In my case, I conserve the energy; in the other case, the energy is all lost.

..
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: TinselKoala on May 29, 2014, 09:50:52 PM
It's great to see someone actually citing Tesla himself instead of all the woosters who use his name and patents in vain.

Except that the long distance power transmission system isn't analogous to an electromagnetic transformer, I don't think. Long distance transmission is possible, you don't have to be close-coupled. Adding my own "woo" to the interpretation of Tesla's ideas, and putting it into modern language, I think Tesla saw the Earth as a big LC tank with very high Q. He intended to provide the necessary inductance by the Colorado Springs and later the Wardenclyffe installations. (Check out the subterranean features of these towers, the forgotten Earth connections....). And the Earth-ground-atmosphere-ionosphere system provides the capacitance. This capacitance is distributed worldwide. The tank is "sloshed" by stimulating the inductors strongly at the transmitting point and the system responds by ringing, and another tuned inductor at a distant location can ring in resonance, since it is using the same capacitance. The capacitance fluctuates like the air pressure in a sealed vessel that is struck like a bell. Hence the idea of "longitudinal scalar waves" or the analogy to sound waves which are compressions and rarefactions, tiny local variations in air pressure.

/woo

 8)
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: thx1138 on May 29, 2014, 10:14:32 PM
tesla talks about " its will come that man will attach his machinery to wheel work of nature"  and  " the use of coal, gas, fuels is not nessisary and energy is available in unlimited quantities" what is he talking about exactly
Today's version is the photovoltaic or "solar" panel. His radiant energy collector was different but the same. He was talking about collecting the energy of the charged particles that constantly bombard the planet from both our sun and all stars in the universe. That goes back to what I said in an earlier post about the astronomers of that day not being able to distinguish between stars and galaxies - they were all just stars. The van Allen radiation belts created by the earth's magnetic field were also unknown and not proven to exist until the late 1950's or early 1960's when the Vanguard satellites were launched. So actually not many cosmic rays get through and that's a good thing or we'd all be toast.
 
One of the things that is not discussed by Tesla is the altitude of the "elevated, insulated plate" other than he says, the higher it is elevated the more power can be obtained. But consider that his power transmission system patent states that the power would be transmitted between tethered balloons at 30,000 feet which he considered easily accessible. Well, at least compared to the 79,200 feet he originally considered. So was he planning on the "insulated, elevated plate" being maintained at a similar altitude with a tethered ballon? We don't know. As far as I know it was never attempted which is probably just as well. That's the altitude of the jet stream's +250 MPH winds which were unknown at the time by all but one man in Japan who was studying them.
 
Here's the earliest quote I found regarding "radiant energy": “…streams resembling the cathodic must be emitted by the sun and probably also by other sources of radiant energy, such as an arc light or Bunsen burner.”  - “Tesla’s latest Roentgen Ray Investigations”, Electrical Review, New York  No.17, 05/22/1896
 
That's all Tesla meant by "radiant energy" - energy that is radiated, by whatever source. What's interesting is what he didn't include in that list. Lightning also emits radiant energy and besides light and heat it emits charged particles. I saw the phrase used by another scientist of that day but can't remember exactly who it was now. I think it was either Heaviside or Helmholtz. It might have even been Crookes. The point is that it's a generic term like "radiant heat" and not some specific form of electrical energy.
 
But you'll notice in his patent that there is also a drawing of a man made device shooting "rays" at the elevated insulated plate. That's an X-ray tube, known at the time as a Roenken or Lenard tube, that emit "...rays resembling the cathodic...".
 
And radioactive materials do the same thing with alpha, beta, and gamma particles. Tesla believed that radioactive materials would not be radioactive if they could be shielded from cosmic rays. Which leads to nuclear batteries which are in use today, mostly in space probes where there is zero chance to maintain them and they need long life spans. They power the Voyager space probes that have now reached the edge of the solar system. By they time they run out they will have run for nearly 40 years with zero down time and zero maintenance.
http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~blanchar/res/BlanchardKorea.pdf (http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~blanchar/res/BlanchardKorea.pdf)
Look at page 37. That is essentially Tesla's radiant energy colletor. It has a source (S) (Sr-90) that emits particles through an insulation (D) (polystyrene dielectric) to a metal plate collector (C).
 
And keep in mind that radioactive materials were not controlled substances before it was proven they could be weaponized by the atomic explosions over Japan in 1945, two years after Tesla died in 1943.
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: Shanti on May 29, 2014, 10:30:31 PM
@Tinsel:
I completely agree. And the picture with the world as a ballon with pressurized air is actually from Tesla himself, when he explained, how the tower should have worked.

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1660/telsawireless.png (http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1660/telsawireless.png)

(It's from the article: Famous Scientific Illusions, Electrical Experimenter Feb 1919)

Also his idea about longitudinal waves, as you said is obvious, and as he meant it also correct. An electric conductor can have such waves.
He just was IMHO wrong about his interpretation of the Hertz-Waves...

And Tesla himself stated how important the earthing of the tower was to get a good grip to the earth. He went down about 30m 'til groundwater and from there he went out on 4 sides and drove 12 steel shafts almost a further 100m down into the earth. Although he stated in the later court trial it were 16, later sonic measurements only showed 4*3=12 of them. Still impressive. He made a special device to drive these steel shafts down...

IMHO it is actually quite forward how the tower(s) should have worked, as Tesla explained it several times in several different articles.
(e.g. this article: http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm (http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm)
 a nice comparison picture can also be seen in this article: http://teslacollection.com/tesla_articles/1912/modern_electrics/nikola_tesla/disturbing_influence_of_solar_radiation_on_wireless_transmission_of_energy (http://teslacollection.com/tesla_articles/1912/modern_electrics/nikola_tesla/disturbing_influence_of_solar_radiation_on_wireless_transmission_of_energy)
and obviously also in a subchapter of the famous "THE PROBLEM OF INCREASING HUMAN ENERGY")

(there are actually a lot of articles adescribing his system, this was just a small sample. But I guess you all know them anyway...)

Quote
To achieve this close coupling from primary to secondary I think is needed and described in the last transmission patent. No loose coupling for efficient power transmission transformers.

That's IMHO actually one of the main points for the reason of a magnifying transmitter.

IMHO the history is quite obvious (but that's just my 2 cents):

To have the most impression on the earth capacitor you need to oscillate a lot of energy. So what you want is a resonator with a very high q factor.

But Tesla had to recognize that in a normal "Tesla coil" the lose coupling between the secondary and the primary was still limiting the q factor, for the primary circuit still damped the secondary circuit.
 Additionally the lose coupling is a big problem if you want to couple a lot of energy continuously, what was intended for a running transmission system.

Both these problems are solved with a magnifier system:
* Very high q factor.
  Simply because the extra coil as main resonator hasn't any inductive coupling to another circuit, so no energy get's coupled again out of the resonator.
 * Very high Power-Coupling
  Simply because you have a very high coupling between the primary and the secondary. Like that in each period a lot of energy can be coupled into the resonator. The important thing here is, that the secondary impedance is very small compared to the extra coil.

That's why he used as primary/secondary a coil with big diameter and only very few turns secondary.

Sure, there is some coupling out through the secondary, as the secondary is obviously also part of the resonator. But this is why it is important that the impedance of the secondary is very small, for then only a marginal part again get's coupled out of the resonator into the primary.

The funny thing is, almost all the magnifier constructions I saw on the net are IMHO not magnifier constructions. There they often feed the output of one Tesla coil to another Tesla coil. But this again just limits the power and is not the idea of this construction.

But I have my serious doubts if this transmission system would really have worked, as IMHO the losses would probably have been quite big...
But that's surely just a guess...

Edit:
BTW: It's already offtopic, but when I'm at it...

Often it is said that the evil J.P. Morgan crashed Teslas plan of a FE tower as he egoistically wanted to continue selling his power.

Nothing could be more far away from the truth.

J.P. Morgen wanted a way to communicate with his transport ships on sea and his divisions in other countries. This would have been a huge economic advantage for him.
And Tesla said, he could do that with his tower.
So Morgan gave him the money to make the tower.
But then after some time Marconi made his first transatlantic transmission. Then Morgen wanted to have a serious talk with Tesla, why he made such a large and expensive tower, while Marconi does the same just with a simple and cheap setup.

Tesla then had to admit, that his tower wasn't just for communication with e.g. the ships but at the same time also for power transmission, e.g. to power these ships.
The obvious immediate question which came back from Morgan: If my ships can receive this power, then what prevents others to receive that power?
There Tesla then had to admit, that this would have been possible and unpreventable. But as Morgan would have had to pay for the power, which has to be fed into the tower, and as you cannot put a meter on the receivers as anyone on the world can put up a receiver, the project was surely a complete "no go" for Morgan anymore, and has been abandoned.

So no conspiracy here, just true logic. Also no free energy here. Well it's the same kind of free energy as if you tap your neighbours' power line. Just someone else has to pay for it...(but it's free energy for you ;D )
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: tturner on May 30, 2014, 02:06:45 AM
well i think the world need free energy so im searching for free energy i thought had found it way before with his pierce arrow but ive searched for that so much with no luck. im in an emergency state for something that works or can be built/manufactured and be practicle. im 22 and this has taken over my mind im obsessed but cant really understand whats being talked about exactly on this subjects so im looking to educate myself or go back to school i was hinking chemistry but idk. sos help
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: tturner on May 30, 2014, 03:09:11 AM
sorry to sound so demanding... i was reading another thread called confusion on teslas self acting motor and someone said they had heard about free energy by the ambient ether which is dynamic not static so mabey someone could help me with that also someone talked about figuera ive seen a thread round here either here or energeticforum but just wondering if anyone got it working successfully
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: Farmhand on May 30, 2014, 03:38:16 AM
Well Here's my almost to scale 1: 38 or so model of Tesla's Colorado Coil when he had 40 secondary turns.  :D Frequency is way to high in the 750 kHz area. But it can light up 50 watts of incandescent globes near the transformer using other resonant transformers. And it works well as a spark gap transmitter for Morse, anyone listening to the radio on AM near 750 kHz can hear it quite well break into the radio transmission.  ;)

Without the break out point it can contain the energy if too much input power is not used. And it's a lot less noisy.

Test run with break out point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nkJtrKCdFg

As we can see there are some differences and similarities with the last transmitter patent device.


..
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: Farmhand on May 30, 2014, 03:49:40 AM
sorry to sound so demanding... i was reading another thread called confusion on teslas self acting motor and someone said they had heard about free energy by the ambient ether which is dynamic not static so mabey someone could help me with that also someone talked about figuera ive seen a thread round here either here or energeticforum but just wondering if anyone got it working successfully

No I don't think there is any success on the Figuera project as yet,

..
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: forest on May 30, 2014, 07:03:47 AM
well i think the world need free energy so im searching for free energy i thought had found it way before with his pierce arrow but ive searched for that so much with no luck. im in an emergency state for something that works or can be built/manufactured and be practicle. im 22 and this has taken over my mind im obsessed but cant really understand whats being talked about exactly on this subjects so im looking to educate myself or go back to school i was hinking chemistry but idk. sos help


That's good, just don't listen too much to experts, question every statement , ask and search for yourself. And keep in mind that among many inventors of free energy devices there were many simple guys, not much educated ...yet they did it !
Read Tesla european patents also  ;)
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: Shanti on May 30, 2014, 10:52:22 AM
Nice work farm!!!

My replication was much smaller I think I took a kind of toilet paper roll as extra coil and about a 30cm dia primary/secondary...

Quote
when he had 40 secondary turns.

Yep, but I think you also realized that Tesla went down with the number of secondary windings as time progressed. IMHO exactly due to the reason I mentioned (smaller secondary impedance).
In the end IIRC he was around a ratio of about 1:10 primary secondary. but I would have to look it up again. It's quite some time ago...


Also the extra coil was wound quite in a distinct ratio, not really comparable to "normal" "Tesla coils" and it had IMHO astonishingly few number of turns...

And most important, quite some distance between the windings. As Tesla mentions again and again in the CSN, the distributed capacity of the extra coil was a real big problem.
And if you put it together like that, you actually get quite the picture as in the patent. With a big diameter but very small height primary/secondary. An extra coil with much smaller diameter and quite big spaces between the windings.

But I anyhow do not think it makes sense to make a magnifier in small scale. As there IMHO a DRSSTC has just way more power...

Quote
And keep in mind that among many inventors of free energy devices there were many simple guys, not much educated ...yet they did it !

I do not want to discourage anyone, but most of these allegedly FE-devices were never proven to actually work. Always some shady conspiracy theory pops up to explain, why it didn't make it to the market.

I personally believe only a very few of them actually really managed to get an FE device.
And of them even less IMHO actually really made a FE device based on a new principle (but still not necessarily violating current physics laws). Most of them IMHO just didn't realize how it really worked, and that the energy was actually coming from some conventional energy source. E.g. like my new speculation for the Gray-motor.

But IMHO the fact remains, that even those FE-inventions that did work, like the Plauson idea, were just not economic enough. It doesn't have just to deliver FE, it also has to compete with already known FE devices like photovoltaics, or wind generators.

Tesla sure was a genious, no doubt about that, but it is also obvious that some of his ideas and statements were obviously completely wrong.
I do not want to blame Tesla for this, as science at that time just hadn't the knowledge, it has now. And it also could have been, that some of these strange Tesla ideas were correct. But as it showed, they weren't.

And in relation to allegedly electronic FE devices in OU forums: I have yet to see any electronic circuit which isn't explainable by conventional physics. And if you propagate a new theory violating current physics (and don't come now with quantum effects...), you first have to show at least one experiment violating it. But all these allegedly FE effects from BEMF/CEMF, which Lindemann/Bedini/Bearden and friends propagate have not shown any special function or any OU up til now...
And they are already at this for decades...

Where I personally really think there's some really precious stuff in it is Schauberger's stuff. But he has been the most misunderstood man, I have ever seen, much worse than with Tesla. Schauberger has been completely "captured" by the esoterics, so that no serious scientist dares to occupy himself with his ideas.
Although some of them are IMHO pretty neat.

Also if you read his later patents you will recognize that there is absolutely nothing esoteric in it, it is straightforward.

At best I like his idea for the propulsion of airplanes.
We all know, that in theory an airplane does not need energy to fly (if it remains in the same height), e.g. as an example a balloon.
But what needs the excessive energy is the air resistance.
We cannot get rid of this resistance. But instead of it being just losses, we can use it as additional energy source for propelling the aircraft, so that the energy needed for propelling it, is much much smaller.

This was IMHO the basic idea behind the Repulsine.
You first generate an underpressure in front of the plane (for this you need energy). This underpressure will then be the reason that the air friction will be concentrated onto a small point at the inlet of the Repulsine. There a tremendous friction and heat is generated. Here he then uses this friction and heat to make molecular reactions with the air molecules with the help of additional things, like catalyzers, water and some other stuff reacting with the air (as a kind of additional fuel). This in the end results in bigger molecules in the air (e.g. more complex nitrous molecules) or ozone (O3), etc.. In the end what you get is a smaller volume of air, getting pushed out of the Repulsine than what got in. So in total if this thing is running the total air volume around the aircraft gets less and less. And this increases the underpressure situation in front of the aircraft. So that in the end, the aircraft gets pressed by the air itself forward into this underpressure zone.

BTW: Schauberger himself stated, that these higher molecular nitrogen molecules built, will actually finally descend to the earth and be a good fertilizer. So instead of bad exhaust fumes, you have something usable.
But that is not 100% true, as the Repulsine obviously needed a motor itself for functioning. But as said before, the energy needed for this motor is much much smaller than in a conventional plane.
This at least was, what Schauberger was propagating.
He even did let the exhaust fumes of the combustion motor driving the Repulsine into the reaction chamber itself. Like that he could use the waste heat and additionally part of this exhaust gas (CO2) gets also synthesized together with the other molecules to bigger molecules, now also with a bit C in it...

Or as he said it: My machines use the energy for propulsion which conventional machines waste due to friction. That's also the reason why his machines worked in relation better and better the higher the speeds, as then more and more energy from the friction contributed...

Also funny: He stated, that if his machines were widely used, it would decrease the total air pressure, so that now everyone benefits from air conditions like high in  the mountains. LOL

If it would really work, I don't know. But I doesn't sound very esoteric, does it.

But I got far too offtopic here, Sorry...
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: forest on May 30, 2014, 11:58:55 AM
read Tesla interview http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/nt_on_ac.htm, there is now (still?) a copy of full book online  ::)


This is the most valuable source of information (if you know what to look for)

Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: tturner on May 30, 2014, 06:31:56 PM
has anyone replicated  Mead/Nachamkin zp devise
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: tturner on May 30, 2014, 10:58:37 PM
im just f****** sick of this energy war can someone help me get into the right.direction hopefully we can build something that works
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: tturner on May 31, 2014, 04:33:29 AM
whats going on with the blue spike phenominom that tesla experimented with
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: Shanti on May 31, 2014, 07:24:22 PM
A bit offtopic...Sorry...But just as an addition.
@Farm:
Ah BTW. I just stumbled upon an old file, where I wrote down some specs from the CSN setup (I used for my replication):

primary: 2 turns
Secondary: 48 Turns (22. Sept 1899), 22 Turns (1. Okt 1899), 17 Turns (3. Okt 1899)

AFAIR I used a 2:20 ratio on my replication.

The Primary Secondary windings hat a dia of about 15m, whereas e.g. one of the extra coils, which he often used had about 1.6m.

AFAIR I used 30cm prim and something around 3-4cm for extra coil...

That's IMHO one important point, the dia of the extra coil should be quite small compared to prime/sec.
At least if the extra coil is standing in the middle of prim/sec.
For if you make it too big, the coupling will be too strong.
But the coupling should be dominated by the prim/sec coupling and not by an inductive coupling to the extra coil.
As you do not want to have a normal inductive "secondary like" coupling to the extra coil, but you want to bottom feed it.

Just as an addition, as I just stumbled upon these notes...
As always, these are just my 2 cents, no claim for any validity or importance...

Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: Farmhand on May 31, 2014, 08:26:50 PM
im just f****** sick of this energy war can someone help me get into the right.direction hopefully we can build something that works

The search goes on, if anyone had anything that worked it would be getting replicated and spread like wildfire.

People get ahead of themselves though. If someone was to drop off a 15 kW free energy machine to your house for free, what would you do with it ? Just wire it up to your house yourself ? Who will fix it when it breaks down ?

Any free energy device will need to be safe or it will be use at own risk and if it causes the death or injury of another then the owner operator is liable. People go to jail for negligence that causes harm to others.

And unless said device is safety certified in the country of intended installation no one will install it for you unless they are mentally deficient or leave no way to be tracked down. No certified electrician would risk jail for a few days work.

In my opinion it won't be long before grid supplied electrical power is so expensive and privatized that we will need to pre-pay for electricity before we use it. 

Best to be getting ready to be able to live at least temporarily without grid power. It can be done already with existing free energy devices. I'm set, there is just me I don't really need the grid to survive but it is cheap and very handy to have.

Don't use other peoples power if you don't want to pay. That may involve a lot of learning for some to do.

Work out how you can run a refrigerator and a light without the grid and your set. A lot of people get grid tied solar systems but they don't buy a bank of batteries an inverter and a big charger so they can run stuff when the grid goes down then charge the batteries with free energy from their solar panels via the wall socked when the grid comes back on line.

Make alcohol and distill it to 80% to use for heating fuel for cooking ect. and store it well.

Best thing I can suggest as far as new and novel free energy goes is buy or obtain a large deep cycle battery then try to work out how to charge it for free, without connecting to the grid or harnessing electro-smog. It's a good idea to have a capable charger or learn how to build one, so the battery doesn't stay discharged too long if a certain method doesn't work.

People have a lot of theories including myself but if they don't work they don't work.

Truth is no one has shown any credible devices or evidence for such like solid theories that can produce a substantial power output for free. Not that I am aware of.

..
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: tturner on May 31, 2014, 09:48:32 PM
what about hho generators
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: Liberty on May 31, 2014, 11:56:12 PM
The search goes on, if anyone had anything that worked it would be getting replicated and spread like wildfire.

People get ahead of themselves though. If someone was to drop off a 15 kW free energy machine to your house for free, what would you do with it ? Just wire it up to your house yourself ? Who will fix it when it breaks down ?

Any free energy device will need to be safe or it will be use at own risk and if it causes the death or injury of another then the owner operator is liable. People go to jail for negligence that causes harm to others.

And unless said device is safety certified in the country of intended installation no one will install it for you unless they are mentally deficient or leave no way to be tracked down. No certified electrician would risk jail for a few days work.

In my opinion it won't be long before grid supplied electrical power is so expensive and privatized that we will need to pre-pay for electricity before we use it. 

Best to be getting ready to be able to live at least temporarily without grid power. It can be done already with existing free energy devices. I'm set, there is just me I don't really need the grid to survive but it is cheap and very handy to have.

Don't use other peoples power if you don't want to pay. That may involve a lot of learning for some to do.

Work out how you can run a refrigerator and a light without the grid and your set. A lot of people get grid tied solar systems but they don't buy a bank of batteries an inverter and a big charger so they can run stuff when the grid goes down then charge the batteries with free energy from their solar panels via the wall socked when the grid comes back on line.

Make alcohol and distill it to 80% to use for heating fuel for cooking ect. and store it well.

Best thing I can suggest as far as new and novel free energy goes is buy or obtain a large deep cycle battery then try to work out how to charge it for free, without connecting to the grid or harnessing electro-smog. It's a good idea to have a capable charger or learn how to build one, so the battery doesn't stay discharged too long if a certain method doesn't work.

People have a lot of theories including myself but if they don't work they don't work.

Truth is no one has shown any credible devices or evidence for such like solid theories that can produce a substantial power output for free. Not that I am aware of.

..

Another idea is to use grid tie inverters without the grid (by making sure the grid is completely disconnected).  To do this, a substitute grid will be needed consisting of a sine-wave ups that can be cold started off of it's battery.  The output of the sine-wave ups will supply the enable to turn on the grid tie inverters that are solar powered.  Since grid tie inverters normally use the load of the grid as a voltage regulator, voltage stabilizers (buck and boost) will help to regulate the voltage output to the load. 

The ups sine-wave inverter will need a sine-wave input to restore power to the ups, so the ups does not continue to run off of battery.  A small sine-wave inverter that is powered from a solar panel or a battery that is powered from a solar charger, could supply a sine-wave input for the ups.  This set-up would not require a battery bank, but would only work during strong sunshine days.  A small generator that provides sine-wave output might also be used as the substitute grid.  This idea is untested to run a home, but I have successfully tested to see if a ups will enable a grid tie inverter.

Anybody else tried this before?
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: thx1138 on June 11, 2014, 03:27:57 AM
im just f****** sick of this energy war can someone help me get into the right.direction hopefully we can build something that works
The big secret about free energy is that all energy is free. It was created at the Big Bang or however the universe was created if you don't subscribe to that theory, which I don't. You can't add to it and you can't destroy it. All you can do is change what is already there. I think it was Carl Sagan who said, "To make an apple you first need to create a universe." Ditto for energy.
 
So the real question is how much do you want to pay for your free energy. You could build your own solar panels but regardless of how you do it you still need raw materials. Or you could buy some land and drill a gas or oil well and convert everything including cars to LPG but then you need a compressor, etc. You see where that's going.
 
It's not the energy that is the problem. It is everywhere. In the ground and the atmosphere and outer space. In the atoms that make up those things and the ions in the atmosphere and even in the plasma in outer space. There is no such thing as a "vacuum". There is nowhere in the universe that is empty. There is energy in the earth's magnetic field and that of the sun and all the stars in the universe and even, they recently discovered, the black holes have magnetic fields.
 
The problem is harnessing the energy. The best fuelless energy is gravity because it is, to a large degree, constant but you need a river or lake to harness it. Gravity is free. The water cycle of the planet that carries water to heights and releases it to flow down streams and rivers is free. The dam and equipment to generate electricity and transmit it, wirelessly or otherwise, is not.
 
And even free energy won't solve the war problem. There were wars long before electricity or petrochemicals were harnessed. Bigger sials to sail the war ships faster. Coal to power war ships that wouldn't have to depend on the wind and move armies on trains to where they were needed. Petrochemicals (diesel and gasoline) packed more energy into smaller size and weight to make war machines more mobile. Interestingly war is usually behind all energy development - better power sources to power more devastating war machines. Tesla thought war was stupid and a waste of man's efforts also.
 
Unfortunately, it's the nature of the beast. I saw someone say WAR is an acronym for We Are Right. So if you can change human nature you might stop war. Then again you may not be able to change it that much. Wars aren't being fought over energy today. They are fought over ideology and physical and human resources. Read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War".
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: thx1138 on June 11, 2014, 03:37:37 AM
whats going on with the blue spike phenominom that tesla experimented with
It's known today as corona discharge and is what makes laser printers work.
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: thx1138 on June 11, 2014, 03:39:41 AM
what about hho generators
Some of them seem improve gas mileage.
 
I think it was Stanley Meyer? who developed a method of running an internal combustion engine on water back in the 1970's but I don't think it's ever been replicated.
 
If I remember correctly, I think the Japanese had a fighter or bomber in WW II that used water injection to increase either performance or range. Mitsubishi maybe?
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: Farmhand on June 11, 2014, 04:14:37 AM
Another idea is to use grid tie inverters without the grid (by making sure the grid is completely disconnected).  To do this, a substitute grid will be needed consisting of a sine-wave ups that can be cold started off of it's battery.  The output of the sine-wave ups will supply the enable to turn on the grid tie inverters that are solar powered.  Since grid tie inverters normally use the load of the grid as a voltage regulator, voltage stabilizers (buck and boost) will help to regulate the voltage output to the load. 

The ups sine-wave inverter will need a sine-wave input to restore power to the ups, so the ups does not continue to run off of battery.  A small sine-wave inverter that is powered from a solar panel or a battery that is powered from a solar charger, could supply a sine-wave input for the ups.  This set-up would not require a battery bank, but would only work during strong sunshine days.  A small generator that provides sine-wave output might also be used as the substitute grid.  This idea is untested to run a home, but I have successfully tested to see if a ups will enable a grid tie inverter.

Anybody else tried this before?

Problem with that is the grid tie inverter is designed to apply a higher voltage so as to "inject" as much power as possible back into the grid while the panels have sunlight, if you connect a 5 kW solar grid tie system to a sine wave UPS it will destroy the UPS by the grid tie inverter applying about 280 volts AC (maybe more or less) to the UPS sine wave output so as to "inject" 5 kW into the UPS. Would be spectacular but destructive I think.

..
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: Liberty on June 11, 2014, 05:54:37 AM
Problem with that is the grid tie inverter is designed to apply a higher voltage so as to "inject" as much power as possible back into the grid while the panels have sunlight, if you connect a 5 kW solar grid tie system to a sine wave UPS it will destroy the UPS by the grid tie inverter applying about 280 volts AC (maybe more or less) to the UPS sine wave output so as to "inject" 5 kW into the UPS. Would be spectacular but destructive I think.

..

Interestingly enough, when I ran a test to see if a ups could act as a mini-grid to enable the grid tie inverter (600 watt version); I ran the sine wave ups (avr) from battery, and the 120v output went through a small transformer (.5kva) for isolation, to the grid tie.  The grid tie (120v version) did enable, and was powered by my bench power supply, in place of solar input (about 30v input at 4-5amps).  The grid tie put out a max voltage of around 135 volts under no load.  Not really super high, so I think that a buck voltage regulator might be able keep the voltage down to avoid over voltage output.  The ups avr output kept the voltage down to 120 volts, when looped, but didn't have the voltage in range in it's input to go off of battery.  The ups wanted to see 128 volts or less (and my power supply didn't have enough guts to power the ups too).

I suspect at a guess, that as soon as a load is applied to the grid tie output, the voltage would not be at peak output anymore, so the voltage buck/boost regulator should have an easier job of maintaining acceptable voltage ranges to the load.  It was an interesting test that needs more testing before a try at actual use.
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: Shanti on June 11, 2014, 01:08:11 PM
I think it was Stanley Meyer? who developed a method of running an internal combustion engine on water back in the 1970's but I don't think it's ever been replicated.

I have serious doubts about Stan's claims. Mainly, for he was no engineer, making a lot of mistakes in the theoretical world.
But my main point is, that he never published any measurement data. Well except for one time, in his Technical Papers. And there you will immediately see, that he made wrong assumptions and calculations. And if you calculate everything correctly with the measured data he gave, you get an efficiency of 70%. Which is about the value to expect for a conventional electrolysis.
That's also why I'm not surprised, that the experts in the court case also were not impressed by the device, also stating, that they do not see anything special from a normal electrolysis...

Additionally we have in the meantime an interview of someone close to Stan who was there on the car tests. And he said, that the car would drain the batteries instantly, so that they were down within minutes...
So he basically run it electrically, just by the way of an H2 generation and a combustion engine. Sure also an interesting idea, for a kind of hybrid car design...
So you could either chose to run it electrically or on gaz. But as said, you then need quite some batteries, like electric cars do need them. And the efficiency, when you run it electrically would be really bad...
But yes, it would be an easy system to convert any car, into an electric car, without too much effort...

Quote
If I remember correctly, I think the Japanese had a fighter or bomber in WW II that used water injection to increase either performance or range. Mitsubishi maybe?

Water injection into engines (piston, or jet) has been used on and on in history. AFAIR it's main use has been  to cool the inlet air (increase density) and the engine, so that you can increase the power without wrecking the motor. But the cooling also increases efficiency.
In jet engines it has been used for the same, additionally the water exhaust has much more mass than air, so that you get much more thrust.
As said, all this info  is AFAIR.
But you can also look up Wiki, as always: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_%28engine%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_%28engine%29)

Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: Rude456 on September 24, 2014, 10:12:04 AM
Hi! I would like to share this great online resource for anyone seeking a x-ray-generator: http://www.medicalexpo.com/tab/x-ray-generator.html
 8)
Title: Re: tesla zpr generator cosmic energy
Post by: giuseppe on January 04, 2015, 11:02:02 PM
is viable  solution with semiconductors used by DAVID WYNN MILLER ?  see detatails

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/4429349 (http://www.tubechop.com/watch/4429349)