Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

News announcements and other topics => News => Topic started by: quantum1024 on December 01, 2007, 09:29:23 AM

Title: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: quantum1024 on December 01, 2007, 09:29:23 AM
I would like to use this particular message thread for an open discussion on the idea proposed by John Bedini and T.E Bearden. I watched their videos and read their literature and web site info, including some of their experiments and found them interesting.

Let me talk about the way in which I believe they refer to energy, in the negative form. They basically state that negative energy, exists in and around all circuits and space. That the negative energy seeks impedances and uses them as incoming channels or incoming flow areas into circuits. That the higher or more impedances/resistances the better. That nothing has to be done in order for negative energy to come into a circuit because it is already there, seeking a way in. The problem is one of conversion, and that this energy is enormous.

Ok, lets look at this for a moment from a fresh perspective. Pretend where underwater and we are inside a large pipe. If I drill a hole from inside the pipe then water wants to get inside if the pressure is less then the pressure outside the pipe (negative pressure), if the pressure was larger inside the pipe then the pressure outside then it would push air or water out (positive pressure). This is a simple analogy, I know, but it does go to prove a point, that energy could indeed be attempting to get into a circuit and yet is pushed outwards (primarily by positive energy), if it exceeds a threshold.

John Bedini refers to radiant energy as a spike (or backemf) of pure potential without current! (or as least the smallest amount of current as possible), while maintaining pure potential. Which is exactly what a large backemf  spike is. In other words, if we have a condition where we could have tremendous voltage potential in the form of a spike, and current is controlled via time and since time is so small, current is irrelevant. We then have radiant energy. Pure energy that is pure potential only, no current. Go figure.

They (Bedini and Bearden) both claim that we should be working towards converting negative energy since this would yield larger output and zero or less losses. So I figured I would do a couple thought experiments on this as well. I begin by looking closely at John Bedini?s Monopole motor, which I am sure you are already familiar with. My concentration went into analyzing the pickup/drive coil and what its doing. I should state that I have been building these motors for years.

Here is what I believe is going on inside the pickup/drive coil. Firstly, this is not just a simple coil, with simple AC or DC currents and voltages flowing through them, John has build very nice motor/generators and has put much thought into it and how it functions, I credit him for all his hard work.

Think about inductive reactance with pure potential and extremely low or no current and medium drive frequencies, you will realize that Lenz law does not really apply!


Yep, and here is why, Lenz law states ? induced current opposes primary current.  But if there is only pure potential and extremely low or no current then this law becomes null and void.

http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/EddyCurrents/Physics/selfinductance.htm

Also inductive reactance will increase if the number of winds in the coil is increased since the magnetic field from one coil will have more coils to interact with. False, Inductive reactance would be meaningless since there is almost or no current. Pure potential only.

So here is the problem then, how is it that pure potential is traveling in the wire? If it has no magnetic component then what is it? I believe the answer is pure electrical and electrical fields with no magnetic component. The idea that adding magnetic fields is the root cause of enormous losses is just to me plainly unbelievable.

Tesla I believe knew this, which is why he worked so hard on electrical rather then magnetic components and ideas.  Telsa?s induction coils show higher and higher potentials while dramatically decreasing or eliminating current, why? I thing we see evidence here that he knew that reducing or eliminating reactive inductance was prime in reducing the losses and increasing the potentials.  8)

Comments?
Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: Grumpy on December 01, 2007, 04:09:15 PM
...which means we have to apply "dielectric induction laws" (or electrostatic induction laws) rather than Lenz's Law - which is for elecro-magnetic induction.

Mr. Tesla claims that all electric and magnetic effects are traceable to the action of electro-static molecular forces, and in confirmation of this theory

Quote
About 15 years ago Prof. Rowland demonstrated a most interesting and important fact?namely, that a static charge carried around produces the effects of an electric current. Leaving out of consideration the precise nature of the mechanism which produces the attraction and repulsion of currents, and conceiving the electrostatically charged molecules in motion, this experimental fact gives us a fair idea of magneti&m. We can conceive lines or tubes of force which physically exist, being formed of rows of directed moving molecules ; we can see that these lines must be closed ; that they must tend to shorten and expand, etc. It likewise explains in a reasonable way the most puzzling phenomenon of all, permanent magnetism, and, in general, has all the beauties of the Amp?re theory without possessing the vital defect of the same?namely, the assumption of molecular currents. Without enlarging further upon the subject, I would say that I look upon all electrostatic current and magnetic phenomena as being due to electrostatic molecular forces. But of all the views on nature, the one which assumes one matter and one force, and a perfect uniformity throughout, is the most scientific and most likely to be true. An infinitesimal world, with the molecules and their atoms spinning and moving in orbits, in much the same manner as celestial bodies, carrying with thorn and probably spinning with them ether, or in other words, carrying with them static charges, seems to my mind the most probable view, and one which, in a plausible manner, accounts for most of the phenomena observed. The spinning of the molecules and their ether sets up ether tensions or electrostatic strains ; the equalisations of ether tensions sets up ether motions or electric currents, and the orbital movements produce the effects of electro and permanent magnetism. The preceding remarks I have deemed necessary to a full understanding of the subject as it presents itself to my mind. Of all these phenomena the most important to study are the current phenomena, on account of the already extensive and ever-growing use of currents for industrial purposes.
Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: z_p_e on December 01, 2007, 07:10:27 PM
quantum102,

Quote
Think about inductive reactance with pure potential and extremely low or no current and medium drive frequencies, you will realize that Lenz law does not really apply!

Yep, and here is why, Lenz law states ? induced current opposes primary current.  But if there is only pure potential and extremely low or no current then this law becomes null and void.

It's easy to take what B&B say without question, but be cautious about what they say and what you regurgitate from them.

First, the spikes seen from collapsing inductors is not bemf, it is simply an inductive kickback. BEMF is the result of the Lenz effect.

Stating that little or no current exists in the inductive kickback is a grave error, and it's being made frequently here.

In terms of REAL inductors, Lenz always applies, even if the coil is left open-ended upon collapse. Flux and current is conserved, and infinity does not exist when dealing with real inductors.

Flux, current, and hence Lenz, must be integrated over time, otherwise assumptions are meaningless.

Bedini (with all due respect) is simply utilizing inductive kickback as a means to the RE end. The same RE effect can be realized by causing an abrupt "positive" potential change, as opposed to the "negative" one created by an inductive kickback.

Bottom line: there is nothing magical about an inductive kickback, aside from it's apparent ability to elicit a RE effect. In this regard, it is simply utilized as an abrupt change in potential, nothing more. Switch a high voltage DC supply ON and OFF through a coil or long wire, and you have achieved the same effect. Utilizing inductive kickback is a cheap and easy way to step up relatively low voltages, and that is the only reason why it is used.
Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: z_p_e on December 01, 2007, 07:32:47 PM
ERfinder,

You've referenced Tesla's 14 or 18 important papers and patents. I wonder if you would be so kind as to list them here?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: z_p_e on December 02, 2007, 02:56:17 AM
Erfinder,

It's interesting that you should label "inductive kickback" as a "new age" term. That's hardly the case, and in fact it is quite a common term and definition of the effect. Do a search of your own....there are many hits. One is from MAXIM-IC who are indeed quite experienced in the field of switching power supplies involving the use of inductors: http://www.maxim-ic.com/glossary/index.cfm/Ac/V/ID/175/Tm/Inductive_Kickback
Quote
Glossary Term: Inductive Kickback

      Definition
      The very rapid change in voltage across an inductor when current flow is interrupted. Snubber diodes are often used to channel this energy in relays, and other inductive loads. Kickback can be a problem (causing EMI and component failure); or it can be used in power supply circuits to develop higher or opposite-polarity voltages from a single supply.

      See Also
          o Show application notes for: "Inductive Kickback"

Are you refuting the well-known fact that inductors do indeed "kick back" when their magnetic fields collapse? Why does this trouble you?

The Tesla quote you provided does indeed describe the use of inductive kickback for charging the capacitor.

The use of the term and method of inductive kickback is perfectly valid. Are you sure I'm the one delving into the "new age"?...I don't think so.
Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: Grumpy on December 02, 2007, 04:52:35 AM
Consulting my "A Dictionary of Electrical Terms, Words, and Phrases, 1897, Edwin J. Houston:

Back Electromotive Force - see Force, Electromotive, Back - term used for "counter electromotive force"

Counter Electromotive Force - an opposed or reverse electromotive force which tends to cause a current in the opposite direction to that caused by the source.

Hmm - sounds like Lenz's Law rather the collapse of a field.

By the way, choking coils were called "kicking coils" back in  1897 - because the self induction opposes the starting or stopping of current like an opposing kick.

Grown-ups?  Teenagers?  Hell, I'm just a smart-assed little brat!  LOL!

Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: z_p_e on December 02, 2007, 05:21:18 AM
@ Grumpy...the point being? I think you've just echoed pretty much what I mentioned above.

@ Erfinder, thanks for the patent numbers.
Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: Grumpy on December 02, 2007, 06:26:29 AM
@ Grumpy...the point being? I think you've just echoed pretty much what I mentioned above.

@ Erfinder, thanks for the patent numbers.

The point is that you are using the term "BEMF" incorrectly to describe the release of energy from an inductor when it actually means current induced in accordance with Lenz's Law.

It doesn't matter. 

You can store potential energy in an inductor or a capacitor.  What matters is what you release it into - the parameters of the circuit that is.  Stienmetz pointed this fact out after a thorough review of Tesla's work, in which he could find no errors in Tesla's logic.  (I do not know of anyone who has proven the Stienmetz was correct about using inductors.)

Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: z_p_e on December 02, 2007, 06:55:54 AM
The point is that you are using the term "BEMF" incorrectly to describe the release of energy from an inductor when it actually means current induced in accordance with Lenz's Law.

Good grief mate, check again what I actually said in my post above:

Quote
First, the spikes seen from collapsing inductors is not bemf, it is simply an inductive kickback. BEMF is the result of the Lenz effect.

 ???
Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: Grumpy on December 02, 2007, 03:46:36 PM
The point is that you are using the term "BEMF" incorrectly to describe the release of energy from an inductor when it actually means current induced in accordance with Lenz's Law.

Good grief mate, check again what I actually said in my post above:

Quote
First, the spikes seen from collapsing inductors is not bemf, it is simply an inductive kickback. BEMF is the result of the Lenz effect.

 ???

You are correct, and I am all screwed up!.  Guess I can't read sometimes.

Sorry 'bout that.

To get back on track with the discussion:

You can use capacitor or inductor discharge to achieve the effects in question.  This per Steinmetz.
Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: Grumpy on December 02, 2007, 04:16:19 PM
I asked once what RE was and someone responded that it is the "negative side of electricity" - not a direct quote.

Is this correct?

From the video of Eric Dollard with a TMT in which he shows that copper is "attracted" to bulbs lit by RE, while the hand is expelled, and taking Francis Nipher's work in which he views conductors as a "positive column" (electrically speaking), and then compare this with the laws explained by Walter Russell:

Quote
Positive charge attracts positive charge and expels negative discharge.

Negative discharge repels both negative discharge and positive charge.

Add all of this to the interpretation of Tesla's MT - that the ground connection is not negative, but is positive to the aerial capacitance (which is a virtal ground) and it appears that RE is "positive".

Now, this is by no means "difinitive", and may be totally wrong, so I open it for discussion...

Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: hansvonlieven on December 02, 2007, 10:27:56 PM
Quote
believe I said it before, but in case it slipped your mind, I will repeat it here.  I spend my time immersed in the works of those who knew the source.  Russell, Tesla, and Keely, are three names on a really short list of individuals who knew the source.

Yes Erfinder, and all three got their ideas from Helmholtz. Now here is a guy worthy of study.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: Grumpy on December 03, 2007, 04:48:23 AM
The electrical theory of Helmholtz required longitudinal waves, and an ether.  Tesla thought very highly of him.

Eric Dollard ran across a few things in his work the he stated "defied analysis".  I think he did all he could do and that this amounts to proving that Tesla's statements are correct (like you stated) and that we have much to learn about electricity.  As far as I know, he never defined RE or electricity -  at least not adequately.  I think Eric sought to understand Tesla's work and shared his findings - typical engineering approach to some degree. You are correct that he added to in some instances - specifically in reference to the e"qual weight of the primary and secondary" - which Eric changed to "equal surface area".  Had Tesla required "equal surface area", he would have stated it!   

So, the question is, what would equal masses provide that surface areas would not?  If you view mass as "potential energy" this may indicate that Tesla was working with something more "fundamental" than surface area and skin effects!  How is "matter" made manifest? What is "mass"?
Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: quantum1024 on December 03, 2007, 02:20:34 PM
Update  :o

@ erfinder - Thanks a bunch! iou one for pointing me in the right direction.  ;)  I wish I was 20 years younger and 40 years smarter, But i'll bet i'm still better looking! LOL ::)

@ Grumpy - Thank you for the informative insights and brief humor!

@ ZPE - I agree that B&B is overrated and ect.. I loved the pulse motors thought, also adams and konzen. Got me started...first start and all that...Perhaps you could explain your sentence...

Quote
Bottom line: there is nothing magical about an inductive kickback, aside from it's apparent ability to elicit a RE effect. 

What is the RE effect you are referring to? please elaborate!

Update: Holy Crap, I replace my reality and substitute it with Tesla. My aching brain ;D

Thanks Again!
Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: armagdn03 on December 03, 2007, 07:04:06 PM
My my erfinder! you have been buisy!

@tesla, russel, and others quoted---

-------brilliant, we must all spend more time conversing with you---------
Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: quantum1024 on December 05, 2007, 05:55:08 PM

Best of the bunch! Keep up the good work!  ;D
Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: z_p_e on December 05, 2007, 09:07:21 PM
quantum1024,

I recommend you read up on T.H. Moray, the Correa's PAGD, Gray's Motor, and the discussion of Tesla's greatest work portrayed in the Gerry Vassilatos book: "Secrets of Cold War Technology", Chapter 1. All these inventors are seemingly tapping into or converting the same energy source...RE.

I would suspect the Newman motor could may included here as well. Whether Bedini's methods or Konzen, or Adams can also be classified as generating/capturing RE in a similar respect, I am uncertain. Bedini does refer to Radiant Energy though in his systems. Is it the same? Perhaps it's a matter of opinion.

In regards to my statement, I mainly wanted to point out that any abrupt change of a high gradient potential, should produce RE effects, and inductive kickback is just one method (not necessarily the best) to accomplish this.
Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla & the Tower of Babel
Post by: Torus on December 05, 2007, 11:23:09 PM
No.  Radiant Energy is not the negative side of electricity.  There is no negative side of electricity!  Don?t like that answer do you; a person hungry for knowledge hates being told no.   I won?t leave you out there though; I will not offer my interpretation, nor my insights, instead, as before I will provide you with a few quotes from one who was speaks/spoke with authority.     It is my hope that you can benefit from it as I am!  So, let?s see what Dr. Walter Russell has to say about why there is no such thing as negative electricity.

I'm not familiar with Dr. Walter Russell (my apologies to said good doctor) - however, it just seems to me that the difficulty with the subject stems from pure semantics, and nothing else.  For, if we were to say that electricity is that "useful - and profitable" potential/kinetic form of energy, and RE as that "untapped - as yet non-profitable" potential/kinetic energy, then the only thing one CAN say about electricity is that it works for the benefit of those who've found a way to tap into it (of course, to Ben Franklin's chagrin, it did him no good).  I suppose the following (over-simplified) example would do just as well:

1.  Take a plastic spoon.
2.  Use it to collect "non-profitable" (hence, negative) electricity from your hair (by stroking through hair with spoon a few times).
3.  Next, turn on faucet and run a small, steady, trickle of water (let this represent "useful - profitable" electricity).
4.  Slowly position spoon next to water trickle - and watch the result of the interaction between "profitable" and "non-profitable" electricity.

Question 1:  Does nature have electricity flowing (abundantly) in and around it?
Question 2:  Is it static or kinetic?
Question 3:  Why does one of the planets in our Solar System turn counter to all others?
Question 4:  If nature hates a vacuum, why is there so much of it?   ;D

Thanks.
Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: quantum1024 on December 06, 2007, 02:45:07 AM

@ torus

potential energy is the ability to do work, whereas kinetic energy is the work being done. this is not semantics, it's fact!

This is a conversion of potential to kinetic energy concept.
Take a swing, hold it up high (potential energy - ability to do work but not doing work yet), now release it (release the potential), now work is being done (kinetic energy)
 
Battery stores potential until work needs to be done. again same conversion.

Niagra falls. potential energy of water until drop, release of kinetic energy, work done.
Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: Localjoe on December 25, 2007, 12:10:13 AM
The electrical theory of Helmholtz required longitudinal waves, and an ether.  Tesla thought very highly of him.

Eric Dollard ran across a few things in his work the he stated "defied analysis".  I think he did all he could do and that this amounts to proving that Tesla's statements are correct (like you stated) and that we have much to learn about electricity.  As far as I know, he never defined RE or electricity -  at least not adequately.  I think Eric sought to understand Tesla's work and shared his findings - typical engineering approach to some degree. You are correct that he added to in some instances - specifically in reference to the e"qual weight of the primary and secondary" - which Eric changed to "equal surface area".  Had Tesla required "equal surface area", he would have stated it!   

So, the question is, what would equal masses provide that surface areas would not?  If you view mass as "potential energy" this may indicate that Tesla was working with something more "fundamental" than surface area and skin effects!  How is "matter" made manifest? What is "mass"?
@Grumpy
A quantum resonate wave guide not defined by shape but rather mass and vector interaction or some other variable?  Normally very hard to make military has some wave guides that are like tunnle links for energy exactly same size shape and mass composition ... and that last mit demo where they had two coils of exact shape and size.. Im assuming weight too but waveguide..thats what im sticking with.  Please tell me if you think im completely off or if it makes sense.
Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: Grumpy on December 25, 2007, 12:53:38 AM
who knows?
Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: z_p_e on December 25, 2007, 05:01:45 PM
Might be that the TPU does not work by RE principles and that precise sine waves are required.

Yes, absolutely correct imho.
Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: quantum1024 on December 25, 2007, 09:01:24 PM

 ;DVisit the following web site and read the discussion about radiant energy and Tesla! ;D

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/473-radiant-energy.html

The first page is Awesome!

Peter Lindemann joined and gave his knowledge as well!!

Happy Holidays!!!
Title: Re: Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla
Post by: one on January 04, 2008, 06:30:39 AM

Quote

Might be that the TPU does not work by RE principles and that precise sine waves are required.

I don't  agree

I don't  remember  Mark  saying   you have to be precise in  any of his   posts .

I  DO  remember him saying  you have to KICK it


gary