Radiant Energy theory

[Iotayodi]

Great videos. Altered my view on black holes.

[Farmhand]

G'Day Iotayodi, I think this diagram from Eric's paper I am studying now might show what I meant about the diagram you posted back in the earlier post, the one with the magnetic field and the radiant arrows. Page number is in the bottom right corner.

http://wv1zba.bay.livefilestore.com/...xCo.jpg?psid=1

Cheers

[MonsieurM]

I have an idea about Tesla's Radiant energy and would like a little peer review.

I have studied Tesla and built some of his circuits. In particular I have studied and built a "pancake" coil and I have built a "hair pin circuit". If your not too sure what these are, a little search on the internet will yield a ton of information. Send me a message if your still not too clear. What strikes me as strange is what is the mechanism between the primary and secondary? What is the connection from energizing the primary and getting that energy to the secondary to produce obvious high voltage results?? If you look at a pancake coil you will find that the magnetic coupling between the two is incredible weak. On top of that the amperage going through the primary is really small and as a result the magnetic field produced is also really small. Again, how does the energy get from the primary to the secondary? It just just doesn't make sense if you think it in terms of magnetic fields. Conventional transformers, the magnetic field of primary is strongly coupled with secondary so that the fields have the greatest effect from one to the other. But Tesla coils don't seem to work this way. Now, I have read peoples best attempts at explaining how Tesla transformers work, but they never seem to have a strong explanation of the link from primary to secondary. And saying that Tesla transformers work because they are resonant transformers is not a good explanation.

Conventional transformers work by using amperage in primary to create magnetic field to create amperage in secondary. The connecting feature between the two is the magnetic field. And we all have played with magnets as kids, so we can understand that a magnet seems to effect the environment around it. It can attract metal like iron and can create amperage in a copper wire by just moving past it. It is almost like the magnet can reach out touch things through its field. So one can understand that a coil of wire with current running though it can have an effect on a second coil even though the two may not be mechanically linked.

Tesla transformers don't really produce this magnetic field, so what's going on? Then it occurred to me. The primary in a Tesla coil does produce a field but it is not a magnetic field but an electric field. When you turn on a Van De Graff machine you create a high voltage electric field. This field has effects on material around it at a distance, similar to how magnetic fields work. Now, in a Tesla coil, this field is rapidly turned on and off. If magnetic fields can transmitted across space, is it not possible that a electric field be "radiated" outward? It seems that if this is the case that transformers utilizing magnetic fields tend to create voltages with higher currents and transformers based on electric fields tend to create high voltages with low currents. This theory lends itself to a really good explanation for the experimental results when using the hair pin circuit. It also puts a new spin on how wireless power works. Not as a magnetic field travelling through the air but as an electric field, which may have completely different characteristics.

Any thoughts?

Leon SPRINK:Space Activator

Leon Sprink was a Russian engineer who operated a cement manufacturing plant in France circa 1950. He received several patents for a simple method to create a type of electric field that accelerates chemical reactions.

In one example given by Sprink, �One month after the setting in operation of the apparatus, the duration of the reaction, which normally is 24 hours, had fallen down to 3 hours and the saving in calories to be supplied for the reaction was 50%� The field also affects the states of matter such as solubility and crystallization, distillation, reduction of metallic ores, etc..."

In the simplest form of the invention, Sprink used a grounded container placed in an electrostatic field. More control and power was obtained with geometric arrays of positive electrodes mounted diagonally from grounded electrodes.

...

The form (e.g., a cube) was mounted upright and aligned East-West. 1000 to 5000 KV of positive charge (per meter of electrode separation) was applied for two weeks or longer to establish a zone of activation, spreading up to 60 meters :

from http://www.energeticforum.com/135946-post17.html

[mbrownn]

This old mechanical brain is trying to catch up as best it can, this is all good stuff, I,m keeping quiet because I'm trying to learn.

[StweenyA]

"you cannot divorce cause and effect, otherwise you might as well give up, and get a real job"

..speaker on vid said, referring to einstein haha, thanks for the vids

btw, you can find the 3rd one by googling, but here is the link:

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/32877/The_Electric_Universe_Pt3_of_4/

[lamare]

He is pretty intense in his explanations, but he does show experimental evidence of his claims. You get to see his setups while he is explaining theory. I'll try and help if you have any questions.

He doesn't teach anymore since he got scammed a while back so the video's are old. Here they are:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...OEhj0Q&cad=rja

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...zN1QUw&cad=rja

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...3I5pvg&cad=rja

He also has published mathematics for describing this which he speaks of.

Those should keep you thinking for a minute.

Dave

I have posted everything I could get my hands on by Dollard on my website:
Directory contents of /pdf/Eric_Dollard_Document_Collection/

Update: Oops, already said that in this thread.
I posted this msg on my mobile, so I missed my own post..

Anyway, I am working on OCR'ing these to make them fully digital:
Directory contents of /pdf/Eric_Dollard_Document_Collection/OCR_in_progress/

"The Theory of Wireless power" is about 60% finished:
Tuks DrippingPedia : Theory Of Wireless Power

The hard parts are those that are hand-written.

Should someone be willing to help, the password for the wiki is the name of this domain, without the "forum" and then a 3 for the second e.

Also see this thread:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...-theories.html

[lamare]

Lots to answer here so ill try to be brief. My hypothesis is based around the interactions of charged particles and observed results when switching on and off a current.

As far as I am aware, quantum physics requires a material aether of some sort and could not work without it, Cosmology also seems to say the same thing. It would seem that "standard Electrical Theory" is out of step with modern science because it was set in stone. Theory is theory and science does not allow for something to be set in stone unless it fits all the facts and conditions. Electrical theory does not do that.

Current is the movement of electrons, this can only happen if there is a charge differential and a circuit for the electrons to follow. With radiant, it does not require a circuit to follow and it is not movement of electrons so no current can be measured. It may be that radiant can cause electrons to flow by way of their charge but this is so short in duration that little current is measured.

As with all theories, they have to be applied within certain borders. The idea of currents being movements of charges, electrons, is actually an approximation which works very well for most applications. This model is basically modeling electronics using the same kind of descriptions we use to describe hydraulics. I have written about that in my 'article' over at PES:
Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice - PESWiki

Based on all this, it is clear that we need to look at electrical systems in a different way, we need a way of thinking that does account for the energy source that is really powering our systems. In a way, we need a similar change in our models as the change from Newton to quantum mechanics. While Newtonian mechanics can still be used in mechanical engineering most of the time, at some point they are no longer valid, for example in the calculation of satellite orbits. In the same way, the current electrical engineering model is fine for most applications where it suffices to consider only the door part of our fandoor analogy, that is, by considering electrical systems basically as an analogy of hydraulics, which is literally just a variation of Newtonian mechanics. However, if you want to be able to utilize the energy source the electric field provides, there just ain't no way to do that without taking the energy exchange between an electrical system and the vacuum completely into account. And that means we have to go back to field theory instead of describing our systems in terms of concrete components, the so-called lumped element models, especially in the case we are dealing with resonating coils.

In reality we are dealing with the electric and the magnetic fields, which can exist on their own. As a matter of fact, quantum mechanics describes atoms and electrons as localized, standing electromagnetic waves (in the shape of vortexes....). So, it is clear that it is the fields that cause matter to exist and not the other way around.

And that means that the Maxwell equations we use to describe the EM fields are incomplete, because they postulate that the fields are caused by matter, charge carriers. When you remove that postulate and derive the Maxwell equations directly from the experimental results by Faraday, the same results the mathematician Maxwell used, you get a set of more general equations, such that the current Maxwell equations are just a special case of the more general ones. Prof. Meyl has described this perfectly well:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Mat...or-Maxwell.pdf

Interestingly, with these new Maxwell equations, you suddenly are confronted with what Dollard calls "the Einsteinian Lie". Dr. Charles Kenneth Thornhill argues that the wave equations describing EM waves are the same as those describing waves in a fluid-like ether, but for fluid waves one accounts for speed differences between fluid and observer using the good old Galilei transform, while for EM waves one uses the brainf***ed Lorentz transform and that there is no sound argument for doing so:
Dr Charles Kenneth Thornhill

So, if you go back to ether physics, basically the floor is dropping underneath the whole general relativity scam. And it is so obvious something is wrong that it is nothing less than incredible that this flaw is still in the textbooks, because the currently accepted Maxwell equations say that the fields are caused by matter (charge carriers) while QM says the matter is caused by fields and that matter is basically an EM wave, a vortex, in the ether. And you really, really, really, really can't have it both ways at the same time! Make up your mind, folks!


Futhermore, Paul Stowe went further with ether theory and he has formulated a theory that comes very close to a theory of everything. ( I say close, because I still haven't studied this trough, but I think it actually is a theory of everything that also explains (anti-)gravity, for example).

Directory contents of /pdf/Reference_Material/Paul_Stowe/
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...er-theory.html

For example, his "The Cause of Gravity, EM, and QM"
The Cause of Gravity, EM, & QM - Paul Stowe - Mountain Man's News Archive

Clearly, as I showed in "Simply Beauty", we can define all the QM/EM constants in terms of p, L, c, and the fine structure constant. So, in this regard, the model is both internally consistent and fully compatible with existing data. Moreover, it encompasses gravity, defines elemental charge, and predicts new aspects of known processes that can in fact be tested. So, I now comes the question, "is there something in this model that is incompatible current observations"? If so, specifically what & why. If not, is there any other single model that encompasses as much and is equally simple in its foundation?

So, in essence, it is the fields that cause everything and they can and do exist on their own. Yes, we can use matter (electrons) to manipulate the fields and cause effects, but that does not mean that that is all there is to it. When you go back to ether physics and field/wave descriptions you can describe everything Bedini calls "radiant energy". It is nothing other than the electric field, which *can* be caused by moving electrons (current) and *can* cause currents to occurer. BUT it can and does also exist on it's own.

[MonsieurM]

has anyone ever seen this vid, i know it was filmed in america but it is dubbed in Russian

YouTube - ‪Бесплатное электричество‬‏