Walter Russell - Understanding and applying his work

[uusedman]

Hello fellow enthusiasts,

I have a question that I need to ask that is burning to come out. What IF Walter Russell is wrong? What proves the fact he (Walter Russell) was on the right path?

Then, all of our research and energy is being directed in the wrong direction.

I hope my fears are understood to why I am asking these question.

Peace and Love

[MonsieurM]

Hello fellow enthusiasts,

I have a question that I need to ask that is burning to come out. What IF Walter Russell is wrong? What proves the fact he (Walter Russell) was on the right path?

Then, all of our research and energy is being directed in the wrong direction.

I hope my fears are understood to why I am asking these question.

Peace and Love

It would just mean that an awful lot of people that preceded him and followed him, and found more or less the same pattern in Nature are wrong


as for what proves he was right...not much....but he seems to echo quite a bit of what was written and said about Nature and its processes by previous researchers throughout our recent history...It just depends on how you interpret it...IMHO

[blackchisel97]

What sort of cable was that? Looks like a good method.

I still think I will do it as I described before. I believe I can get a much stronger field strength due to the greater number of turns involved.

Cheers,

Steve

It looks like 300 Ohm antenna cable. They were commonly used in '60 - '80 for TV's and AM radio sets. They maybe still used today for different applications.
I had one conical coil also done with CAT5 wire which was quite simple to wind on the form with help of crazy glue. It gave me multifilar winding. I didn't have a chance to continue with several projects which I was working on. Work of Russell is fascinating however not easy to comprehend sometimes but definitely worth following. He was on the right path (IMO).

Vtech

[StweenyA]

John Bedini's "negative" spike..

In John Bedini's video's, its interesting to see he often referred to Walter Russell... Yet in the writings, I haven't seen Bedino or Tom Bearden mention him.

In the video, Bedini says we must capture the radiant spike. He also often calls it 'negative' electricity, and also mentions 'splitting the positive'

However, to relate this to Walter Russell's work, I think it's actually 'positive' electricity, as electricity is positive, and magnetism is negative.

This would make sense then, as positive is attractive, and magnetism is repulsive....
So the electricity is somehow being attracted, gathered... Instead of scattered by radiation (current, magnetism)

Also keep in mind that electricity is cold (static, voltage), whereas magnetism (radiating, current) is hot.

Cold electricity!

So this is what they are talking about.... Not negative electricity, but positive, attractive, generative, cold electricity.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't for a second think I know more than Bedini.

Just wanted to point that out.... as I found the vids a bit misleading after reading WR's books.

[MonsieurM]

In John Bedini's video's, its interesting to see he often referred to Walter Russell... Yet in the writings, I haven't seen Bedino or Tom Bearden mention him.

In the video, Bedini says we must capture the radiant spike. He also often calls it 'negative' electricity, and also mentions 'splitting the positive'

However, to relate this to Walter Russell's work, I think it's actually 'positive' electricity, as electricity is positive, and magnetism is negative.

This would make sense then, as positive is attractive, and magnetism is repulsive....
So the electricity is somehow being attracted, gathered... Instead of scattered by radiation (current, magnetism)

Also keep in mind that electricity is cold (static, voltage), whereas magnetism (radiating, current) is hot.

Cold electricity!

So this is what they are talking about.... Not negative electricity, but positive, attractive, generative, cold electricity.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't for a second think I know more than Bedini.

Just wanted to point that out.... as I found the vids a bit misleading after reading WR's books.

If you look into Leedskalnin's writings, he also mentions the importance of negative being actually positive, attractive, generative,



I'll find the ref for you

[MonsieurM]

Using different terms but the idea is the same as Russell's writing ;

Edward Leedskalnin: Magnetic Current

Matter --- Every form of existence, whether it be rock, tree or animal, has a beginning and an end, but the three things that all matter is constructed from has no beginning and no end. They are the North and South pole individual magnets, and the neutral particles of matter. These three different things are the construction blocks of everything. To begin, a meteor rock falls in the sun, the sun dissolves the rock to the final division of matter, the North and South pole individual magnets, and the sunlight then sends them out here

To the electrical engineers the positive electricity is everything, the negative electricity is nothing, but to the physicists the negative electricity is everything, and the positive electricity is nothing. Looking from a neutral standpoint they cancel each other, so we have no electricity, but we have something. If we do not know how to handle the thing that comes through a wire from a generator or a battery, we will get badly shocked. Read the booklet Magnetic Current; then you will know what the thing is, and the way it runs through a wire.

[StweenyA]

Using different terms but the idea is the same as Russell's writing ;

Brilliant thanks! Just need to try and wrap my head around that now...

I was actually watching a youtube vid on coral castle the other day, however it wasn't at all technical. Interesting, but as an intro only

[barbosi]

Using same terms but the idea is the different as Russell's writing ;
Sorry MonsieurM, I had to twist your phrase (above) to make a point

In John Bedini's video's, its interesting to see he often referred to Walter Russell... Yet in the writings, I haven't seen Bedino or Tom Bearden mention him.

In the video, Bedini says we must capture the radiant spike. He also often calls it 'negative' electricity, and also mentions 'splitting the positive'
...
Just wanted to point that out.... as I found the vids a bit misleading after reading WR's books.

In my opinion, with regard to WR's definitions, often the terms like Back Electromotive Force (BEMF) and Couter Electromotive Force are misunderstood reflecting the area of education. These words pass as a slang on different professions and often may look even contradictory.
Dr. Lindemann will describe it as it manifests in electric motors. A counter motive force (which in my opinion is different than BEMF) which will generate an opposing magnetic field, yada, yada, yada....
John Bedini will describe it as the spike generated when a current is suddenly interrupted while flowing through a coil. As a friend pointed out a long time ago, Tesla considered the spike not being BEMF, nor counter EMF (CEMF). Better quote the master when talking about radiant energy.

The circuit, including the motor is of relatively high self-induction, and this property is imparted to it by the coils of the motor, or, when these are not sufficient, by the addition of suitable choking-coils, so that at each break of the motor-circuit a current of high electromotive force will be developed for charging the condenser, which may therefore be small and inexpensive.

Walter Russell defined radiative action as the return to the Source, fulfilling the desire for rest. Radiating away from the compressed action which forms also matter. Integrating event (EMF) vs. disintegrating event (BEMF). The so called "radiative spike" in Bedini terminology, is in fact just pure EMF. dI/dt in this case is INFINITE and an oscilloscope cannot display it. Not in amplitude, nor in duration. A later spike... yes, but that is the effect of radiant event.

However, to relate this to Walter Russell's work, I think it's actually 'positive' electricity, as electricity is positive, and magnetism is negative.

This would make sense then, as positive is attractive, and magnetism is repulsive....
So the electricity is somehow being attracted, gathered... Instead of scattered by radiation (current, magnetism)

Also keep in mind that electricity is cold (static, voltage), whereas magnetism (radiating, current) is hot.

Cold electricity!

So this is what they are talking about.... Not negative electricity, but positive, attractive, generative, cold electricity.

As different researchers (Edwin Gray, Dr. Lindemann, John Bedini, Ed Leedskalnin, etc.) use different terminology the confusion tends to increase. Sometimes people use same terms but the idea is different, so the confusion is even greater.

While discussing Russell science, I better use Russell's words.

Man's senses have misled him into believing in a force called magnetism which attracts compass needles and lifts tons of steel. These phenomena of motion are due to electricity and not to magnetism. The cosmic Light is absolutely still. It neither attracts nor repels.

Electricity is the strain or tension set up by the two opposing desires of universal Mind thinking: the desire for balanced action and the desire for rest.

In other words, they are all being either compressed or expanded if we use pressure terms; or charged and discharged if we use electrical terms. Both are the same. Likewise, all that are being compressed or charged by positive electricity are simultaneously being expanded and discharged by negative electricity to a lesser extent.
Likewise, all that are being expanded by negative electricity are simultaneously being compressed and charged by positive electricity to a lesser extent.

[MonsieurM]

Using same terms but the idea is the different as Russell's writing ;

Using different terms but the idea is the same as Russell's writing

Both are the same. Likewise, all that are being compressed or charged by positive electricity are simultaneously being expanded and discharged by negative electricity to a lesser extent.

You are quite correct if there is a confusion in using different terms to convey the same idea...there must surely be also a confusion in using the same terms to convey a different idea.

Thanks barbosi for pointing that out....fractal indeed

Matter --- Every form of existence, whether it be rock, tree or animal, has a beginning and an end, but the three things that all matter is constructed from has no beginning and no end. They are the North and South pole individual magnets, and the neutral particles of matter. These three different things are the construction blocks of everything. To begin, a meteor rock falls in the sun, the sun dissolves the rock to the final division of matter, the North and South pole individual magnets, and the sunlight then sends them out here Edward Leedskalnin

The Principle of Polarity.

"Everything is Dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled." - The Kybalion

[barbosi]

There are things (phenomena) which most of us cannot easily understand.
Some examples:
Bennet's doubler - YouTube
Viktor Schauberger : Lord Kelvin Water Drop Electrostatic Generator - YouTube
or even
Ball Cyclotron (electrostatic accelerator) - YouTube

It is my own opinion that all these experiments were given to us not to replicate them at a larger scale to fulfil our desire for a cup of warm tea.
If we would do that we would become not more that automatons.
These are meant to inspire us and become creators. To create our very own materialisation of an idea.

I thought this thread was somehow different and I think I was wrong. I apologise to other Russell researchers, but I see no point in pursuing this.

The rusty human nature with lack of focus beats me. I'm on my own.

[blackchisel97]

all these experiments were given to us not to replicate them at a larger scale to fulfill our desire for a cup of warm tea.
If we would do that we would become not more that automatons.
These are meant to inspire us and become creators. To create our very own materialisation of an idea.

I second that. I did replicate Lord Kelvin experiment but only to clearly see, touch (ouch!) and contemplate. It did inspire me more than just description and b/w picture in the school book. I'm test-bench type thinker lol.

V

[dambit]

How can we possibly create anything if we don't first understand the principles of the technology. I think it is vital the we replicate Walter Russell's work and experiments. Only then, with a proper understanding of what we are doing, can we apply the knowledge to create bigger and better things.

If you think it's a waste of time, fine. You are free to waste your own time on other stuff.

Cheers,

Steve

[dambit]

Thanks for the updated document.

What I don't understand is how you can pulse the coils from both ends if they are connected by the bi-filar coil?

Cheers,

Steve

[boguslaw]

purelyconstructive, this is all fine and purely constructive but give me example where is is used to power house or heat it for ordinary not rich person.

[dambit]

Hi All,

I've been thinking about the power supply issue with regards to the optical generator coils. I have modified the diagram from the pdf to illustrate my changes.

I have isolated each conical coil and each winding of the bi-filar coil (Black & Blue). At this stage I'm not sure which way the bi-filar windings are connected, but this is the only way I can think of to power the coils properly.

Cheers,

Steve