The Truth About Tesla

[GSM]

I've still not yet found my original Tesla reference.
It was - The Electrical Experimenter - and dated 1919.

By searching for it on the 'net I have just found these, and I did not know they existed - they would have saved me so much bother in attempting to explain above.

The Tom Bearden Website
The Tom Bearden Website
SLIDE 15

This IS 'The Truth about Tesla' - *He 'knew'*
and those who doubt this need to reconsider, no matter what teachings they might have been subjected to.

Once EM radiation is understood as being 'photonic', and not waves/fields, then new reasoning becomes possibile. This was how, early last year, I ended up imagineering a new design of inductor intended for use in 'energetic transduction' but which also proved to be a superb AM receiving antenna, as utilized here -

http://antenadx.com.br/PDF/Antenas%2...%20ferrite.pdf

and for which I have found awful comments made about me behind my back and on forums I don't belong to, merely due to me for stating that there are no transverse voltage and magnetic fields to EM radiation, and that the field in ferrite is related solely to electron orbit alignments.

Due to illnesses, bereavement, and so many other life related problems this Ferrite Sleeve based inductor has yet to be used for its original purpose, and everyone here should feel free to try it - it is open source.

[mire]

Hi Mire,

Your last post suggests you are attempting energy transfer.
Just found your thread and video, but I do not understand what you are trying to do.

Its not very complicated, in fact i may have made it more complicated than it needs to be.

The study of Tomas Bearden helped me make conclusions.
first I studied Tesla, Faraday, Cavendish, and Dr Townsend brown.

I compared all of these experimenters, and came up with many of the same conclusions. This devise i made is not special, but it was hidden from the public view, because Tesla described this effect best.

One of the books by Tesla, a man out of time I think? Helped me understand his insight, and the devise he described in one of the books he wrote explained it best.

The description Tesla gives. He made a motor of sort, and it caused a cold wind to rush in, he was amazed, and then lite paper and the smoke flowed from far away in the room to the devise. This is the secret of anti gravity.

All is confirmed if you can locate the book about the devise and the Tesla experiment. There is much more to it. Townsend Brown followed in Tesla footsteps on this one, and had created the first lifter. That lifter was not ion-wind alone, but something greater hidden in the devise called the ionic breeze by sharper image. Another spin off of brown, and Tesla device.

I confirmed the inflow of energy with smoke, and flame also. I just use a very small voltage in comparison to the original devises by Tesla, and Brown.

If i go 100 thousand volts negative energy you will see the same results.
I took this a step farther, and still have a way to go. Leads me to the coal car analogy by Tomas Bearden. You can find that on his web sight, or lifter page i made.

This should open many doors for people who will take the time, and experiment with the negative, and positive ion generators. This sheds light on the energy I wish to borrow from the vacuum to use in oscillators, and other charging systems.

What i have done is used the neg ion generator, and ion wind as conformation of Maxwell descriptions of plume waving, and Tomas Bearden on vacuum energy, and so on... Lots of supporting information has already been described by these men listed. We are just starting to catch up.

Keeping an open mind helped me make these observations.

Thanks guys, and if you want more information go to the vacuum energy thread, I don't want to highjack, because there is good information here on the subject of Tesla.

cheers..

[GSM]

ionisers

Hi Mire,

Yes ionisers do that. Be careful - the air (you) can take charge with it (you) and interfere with or blow electronic gadgets in other places.
Anything beyond that I have no experience with.

[GSM]

the 'photon' - a quanta

The Tom Bearden Website

not a wave.

A continuous stream might cause a transducer to respond as if energised by a wave, but a photon stream is not a wave.

[LetsReplicate]

Claiming the duality of a 'full' system is avoiding my (Tesla's?) point/question.

The duality is experimentally verified fact. Photons have the properties of BOTH waves and particles. That is because on the quantum level, everything is a wave; on a macro level everything appears to be a particle (matter). Unless the duality is accepted, then there is NO explanation for how energy can give rise to matter.

Just as an Agnostic cannot be converted to Christianity by a devout follower quoting from his New Testament (which provides no proof of evidence to convince the un-believer), so no amount of quoting duality can explain the 'transverse magnetic field wave' of electromagnetic radiation, because it is NOT real between source and the point of transduction. Besides, the voltage and magnetic fields at transmitting antennas and receiving wires are in quadrature (= constant energy exchange), yet we are expected to believe there is a 'wave' of phase co-incident voltage and magnetism (= inconstant energy) traversing space ?

There is a flaw in your logic. There are many Atheist theologians that can explain how the bible disregards observable reality and experimental evidence. That leads to the conclusion that the Bible is simple mythology and not fact.

Physics theories are required to survive "peer review". While doing so many scientists that are skeptical on the subject (including Telsa regarding transverse waves) have ample opportunity to shoot as many holes in the theory as possible. If the theory can't survive the barrage of disagreement, then it is disregarded. The transverse wave has survived the barrage for 150 years now and comes out smiling every time. The "just particle" theories did not survive peer review because of self-interference, and refraction. In fact, they were disproved BEFORE Tesla. Duality is the ONLY aspect that salvaged the particle theories.

Tom Bearden's statements have NEVER been subjected to real peer review because they are fantasies, not reality. They are more in line with the Bible than science. You are saying: "I don't understand how it can happen, therefore it must be false" which is on par with saying "God said it: therefore it is fact". That is not a valid argument tactic, and it is knowingly disregarding counter-evidence.

Unless there can be an explanation for a 'magnetic transverse wave' component travelling through a vacuum, where there is NO medium for current flow in order to generate a magnetic field (remember a magnetic field is the activation/alignment of electron orbits) then there cannot be a 'magnetic wave', no matter which hypotheses are claimed to apply.

There is NO electromagnetic vacuum, it is a positive pressure that has been incorrectly called a vacuum, as I've already explained. "Free space" (aether) carries magnetic fields without there being an electrical current. The electrical current is the reversible result of the magnetism, not the other way around. "Permanent magnets" DO NOT have an electrical current but CAN INDUCE an electrical current. That is how radio waves are received, in the same way current is produced when you MOVE a permanent magnet around a coil. Thus: Current requires magnetism, magnetism does not require current.

Another point.
Take an antenna coil wrapped around a ferrite bar/rod in a portable AM radio; ferrite being an excellent source of amenable (magnetically alignable) electron orbits.
It does not matter how long the bar is made it will not lead to the coil transducing more electromagnetic energy from any supposed much larger 'wave field' because it is the wire of the coil itself which transduces the electromagnetically radiated photon stream, not the ferrite coupling with any 'magnetic wave' (which the coil induces as part of the resonant/tuned circuit).
However, increasing the size of a linear ferrite core within a much larger sized static alternating magnetic field does increase coil output, especially when there is a resonating coil overwind, though then of course a static field is not electromagnetically radiated.

How can there be a 'transverse magnetic radio wave component' if it does not induce greater magnetic field alternation into a longer ferrite core, the dimension of which is still negligible compared to the propagating EM radiation 'wavelength' ?
Put a cork on a real water wave and it bobs; the bigger the cork, the more energy is transduced.

A "longer core" increases the inductance of the core (well, it increases capacitance too, but not in equal ratios). Inductance is equivalent to mass in physics and relating to your example capacitance would be buoyancy. A "cork" has much more buoyancy than mass. If you were to increase the surface area of the cork without increasing the mass, it would receive the same amount of energy. For a highly buoyant cork (low Q receiving antenna), adding mass will cause the cork to receive more energy but will change the cork's "water line". A cork with a high water line (high Q) will be more affected by "low frequency waves" (which have higher peaks, and lower valleys for the same amount of energy) because there will more more momentum due to the mass; "high frequency waves" (which have smaller peaks and smaller valleys) will have less effect on the cork because peaks and valleys are closer to the median value. Too much weight (unbalanced, high inductive "mass") and the cork (which will look more like a brick at this point) will sink, causing it to receive NO "wave energy".

The ratio of inductance to capacitance is the MOST important factor in telecommunications. The "electrical length" (ratio) of the receiving coil for a radio is usually balanced to be 1/4 of the wavelength of the desired frequency (depending on the type of antenna, it may be a multiple of 1/4 wavelength). You are trying to say that you can make an antenna overly-inductive so that it can't receive waves: therefore waves don't exist. That's like saying "the boat has sunk: therefore it could never float". It is not an entirely false statement but is an oversimplification that disregards physical evidence and doesn't disprove the existence of waves.

This *evidence* alone is proof that there is NO 'transverse magnetic wave' component of propagating EM radiation, and indeed is the reason why fitting longer ferrite antenna systems does not lead to increased sensitivity with portable radios. This, coupled with the 'travelling wave' concept, is likely the reason why ultra sensitive portables, which could be manufactured if based upon photonic transduction, presently do not exist.

Q factor

The Q factor is a widespread measure used to characterise resonators. It is defined as the peak energy stored in the circuit divided by the average energy dissipated in it per cycle at resonance. Low Q circuits are therefore damped and lossy and high Q circuits are underdamped. Q is related to bandwidth; low Q circuits are wide band and high Q circuits are narrow band. In fact, it happens that Q is the inverse of fractional bandwidth

Q factor is directly proportional to selectivity, as Q factor depends inversely on bandwidth.

Inductance = high Q = high "selectivity". High Q antennas have higher gain over smaller bandwidth.

I am aware of theories relating to voltage and magnetic 'radio fields', and how if one is supposedly removed then an entire 'radio wave' is removed, or how receiving via a 'magnetic' loop antenna supposedly reduces voltage field interference, etc.; but these fields materialise ONLY at the (any) site(s) of photonic interaction.
To claim their individual presence, or their presence at all points along a path of propagation is erroneous, and doing so induces the most serious of misconceptions; as witnessed.
(Similar reasoning can be applied to the supposed 'transverse electric wave component' of EM radiation but is more difficult to attempt in isolation, and thus I thank those who are responding here, for them not becoming like the abusive shills I have come across, and suffered from, in other places.)

Take the florescent light bulb and place it near a large transmitting antenna. You will see it light up in certain spots (the 1/4 wave and 3/4 wave maximums) depending ENTIRELY on the frequency in use. That is how you can find the "invisible" waves and how wide they are. The aurora borealis is a natural example of this effect. Ever notice how the aurora borealis looks like a shimmering wave? You're looking at transverse waves moving across long distances in the upper atmosphere. Using the same method you can find "standing waves" as well as Fresnel zones. The waves are only "invisible" to those that don't believe they exist, much like the fossil evidence of evolution to creationists.

[GSM]

to letsreplicate

You are repeatedly failing to state how transverse waves can exist in atmosphere or vacuum !!!!!

Where is the current flow/electron spin alignment between transmitter and receiver essential to establish the magnetic wave you state has stood the test of time ?
Why do you obfuscate and not clarify ?

Are you implying that both Tesla and the ex military Tom Bearden (THE published *scalar* expert) have both been writing rubbish ?

*Inductance* necessary for any antenna bandwidth is constant and the number of turns must be adjusted as necessary for any core. Hence I wonder what your argument is.
Also with ferrite antennas, making the rod longer does NOT always increase inductance as you imply, for the length of rod actually coupled with any coil changes with frequency and the higher the frequency the less the increase.
Inductance does not equal Q either !
Yes higher Q provides higher field/coupling/output, and that comes from COIL transduction, not any supposed transverse wave !

[Aaron]

current without voltage

GSM,

You're wasting your time. Letsreplicate (Geoffrey Ingram) claims energy is not work so what do you expect? He also thinks back emf or counter emf is the same thing as the inductive spike. I mean - come on!

Whether he agrees with Bearden or not is irrelevant - he doesn't follow up on any references that Bearden gives to back his claims. Oftentimes, Bearden's bibliography is LONGER than the material itself! letsreplicate is only interested in maintaining what he already believes - you're not going to get anywhere.

I disagree with most of Bearden's claims about soviet weapons, aids, etc... but for most of the basics, his references are pretty solid (as far as conventional science goes). He uses conventional references to back his claims. Whether you agree with the conventional references or not is another story. Some people that believe in a lot of the conventional garbage try to dispute Bearden's claims because they refuse to simply look at the references, such as letsreplicate.

Letsreplicate doesn't understand that magnetism IS because of current and that a permanent magnetic has moving current in it without a voltage potential difference.

Leedskalnin's work and the Radus flux switching (no difference that Flynn's parallel path) - all show that magnetism IS a current circulating without voltage. A simple amp meter in a Leedskalnin PMH can show several amps of current flowing WITHOUT 0 VOLTS since there is no potential difference, the coil is completely shorted. It can last for weeks, months or years and when breaking the shunt, you get the transient spike that will light a bulb, etc... "Magnetism" is caused by a current and a permanent magnet is like a shorted PMH that has the magnetic current flowing at 0 voltage potential in the circuit. Amps without volts. People that can't emotionally cope with this fact need to get over it. Voltage potential can exist without current just like current can exist without no voltage potential difference. Volts can be without current and current can be without volts.

[LetsReplicate]

You are repeatedly failing to state how transverse waves can exist in atmosphere or vacuum !!!!!

That is a false argument because the capability to carry the wave is an accepted property of "free space" regardless of whether it is a vacuum or not. It can also be verified experimentally using arc lamps. The "how" is aether... I've explained that several times in several different ways, if you don't want to accept that, fine, I'll explain it again in another way:

The "density" of the aether is the magnetism in the local area. Magnetism causes compression of the aether. The magnetism-density waves are actually more more like a heat-density wave (in a 3 dimensional, buoyancy-free and gravity-free liquid) than a "sound wave". Heat-density waves do not require a "density barrier" to propagate and "a photon" is the minimum unit of compression that can propagate through the aether. A heat-density wave is JUST as hard to visualize as a transverse electromagnetic wave (and makes the whole thing even more confusing especially when it comes to reflections due to areas of high density) so a sound wave is the common analogy that is explained to laymen. The sound wave is closer to the detectable instantaneous results, and not the way it propagates.

Just as a heat-density wave underwater does not cause current during propagation (when you exclude buoyancy and gravity as they do not apply to aether density) but does cause expansion/compression (potential to return to equilibrium) which propagates the wave, a transverse wave does not directly cause electrical current during propagation but does cause a detectable potential (voltage compared to space at local equilibrium) through it's propagation. This makes the detectable portions of the wave: potential and magnetism of equal proportions. Still, the waves do not move "straight" but move as a "3 dimensional volume" in the aether that has peaks and null points as the aether expands and collapses. This does not make the waves "photons", it makes them waves.

If you can't understand that, I can do nothing more to explain it to you, so I'm not even going to try.

Are you implying that both Tesla and the ex military Tom Bearden (THE published *scalar* expert) have both been writing rubbish ?

I was implying that Tesla was an educated scientist engaged in peer review of scientific ideas that he was qualified to talk about. That doesn't mean that his view was fully correct, only that he did not fully agree with the theory as it was being established. Just because Tesla said something does not guarantee that it is true. Tesla also claimed that he was "receiving signals from martians", does him claiming it make that true too? Also, Tesla repeatedly refers to, and believed in Aether, and NOT quanta (photons and electrons) so by denying aether you are claiming he was wrong anyway.

Tom Bearden writes rubbish so he can make money (that's what "published" means), I don't care if he was in the military as it does not specifically qualify him to talk in the field of telecommunications. He has said many things that are just plain wrong including claiming that HAARP is based on Tesla's Death Ray (something already covered earlier in this thread). You should be wary of self-proclaimed experts: they are usually the charlatans.

*Inductance* necessary for any antenna bandwidth is constant and the number of turns must be adjusted as necessary for any core. Hence I wonder what your argument is.
Also with ferrite antennas, making the rod longer does NOT always increase inductance as you imply, for the length of rod actually coupled with any coil changes with frequency and the higher the frequency the less the increase.
Inductance does not equal Q either !
Yes higher Q provides higher field/coupling/output, and that comes from COIL transduction, not any supposed transverse wave !

Inductive reactance varies with frequency; inductance does as well, but that is due to the inductive reactance.

There are 2 factors to inductance: real inductance and self-inductance. Coils are self-inductance, real inductance is dependent upon "metal mass". There is much confusion in this regard because real inductance is not normally calculated, but increasing the metal mass of a core is increasing the "real inductance" of the core while normally not increasing the self-inductance of the coil. By the same token "a metal block" that is not coiled still has electrical inductance relative to its metal mass as does an uncoiled length of wire. Both types of inductance will affect center frequency with self-inductance being an easier means to control center frequency.

For 2 antennas with the same center frequency, the one with the higher Q will always have more inductance. Q in antennas is a reference to resonance losses; inductance has lower losses than capacitance due to the inertia (or "vacuum energy" if you prefer) of the induced current. Q refers to the RATIO of inductance to capacitance at the center frequency (not reactance, as that is equal at resonance); more inductance results in a higher Q while more capacitance results in a lower Q. EMF (in inductors) is low loss when compared to electrostatics (in capacitors). Tesla confirms this statement in a court transcript which I will link in the thread when I track it down again.

[Farmhand]

Here's where the problem and misunderstanding is in my opinion. The Terms and definitions.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...finitions.html

I've taken some quotes from the above thread. I think the boat analogy
further down serves to show the difference between electron movement in
the conductor and the flow of charge.

Electrical Current

Quote:

Definition: Electrical current is a measure of the amount of electrical charge transferred per unit time. It represents the flow of electrons through a conductive material.
Current is a scalar quantity (though in circuit analysis, the direction of current is relevant). The SI unit of electrical current is the ampere, defined as 1 coulomb/second.
OK electrical current is a measure of the amount of electrical charge transferred per unit of time. It represents the flow of electrons through a conductive material.

So current is a "measure" or a representation.

OK so no need to use the word "electron" we can do without it in my opinion.

We can just say "unit of charge", now voltage is a measure as well.

Do we really have voltage a measure causing current another measure ?
A measurement causing a measurement,

I think we cut a corner, there is more to it.

Voltage is a representation of the electric potential energy per unit charge.

Electrical current is a measure of the amount of electrical charge transferred per unit time.

We can argue this but I think if the words of a good definition are understood in context it should be self explanatory.

So voltage measures the electric potential energy per unit of charge and current is the amount of electrical charge transferred over a unit of time.

The transfer of charge or the flow of "current" is caused by the application of the potential energy to the circuit, which is measured as energy per unit of charge "voltage".

Really there is no need for the word electron.

Electrical current is a measurement and only as real as a measurement can be.

Seems to me it's all about that "unit of charge".

I think we really need to differentiate between measurements or representations and things.

Actually I think this definition.

Quote:

Definition: Electrical current is a measure of the amount of electrical charge transferred per unit time. It represents the flow of electrons through a conductive material.
Current is a scalar quantity (though in circuit analysis, the direction of current is relevant). The SI unit of electrical current is the ampere, defined as 1 coulomb/second.

Should read just like this. for less confusion.

My definition.
Electrical current is a measure of the amount of electrical charge transferred per unit time. It represents the flow of charge through a conductive material.

Here's what I was thinking about current. If a piece of #12 wire get's hot from
current of 200 amps and a superconductor doesn't then it occurs to me that
when electrical charge is transferred through a resistance the effect of the
transfer of charge might be what causes the electrons to jiggle. So couldn't it
be possible that the electron flow is an unwanted but unavoidable result or
effect of the transfer of charge through a resistance, or put another way the
current we measure is like the wake of the boat but the wake of the boat is
not the process by which the boat is moved, the wake of the boat is only the
consequence, however by measuring the wake the amount of boat could be
measured. I think measured current is the same kinda thing it is the result of
what happened not part of the process itself.

Even though the boat may be moving very fast the wake moves only a small
amount in progression. So it seems that maybe the electron movement is like
the wake of the boat.

What about displacement current, how much do electrons shuffle when
displacement current occurs ?

Could it be that the measured current is only a result of the transfer of
charge and being easy to see and measure and fairly uniform in it's resulting
action we measure it as an indication of what happened ? Why not ?

Maybe considering displacement current at the same time could help.

There are different types of current. Current is the flow of something, it could
be water or charge or electrons or jellybeans. I think the boat analogy is a
good one, the boat is the unit of charge current (flow of charge) and the wake
is the electron movement.

The definition of Energy is what started the thread.

http://www.energeticforum.com/160688-post1.html

Source:- Energy Definition.

The part in bold (my bold) makes no sense to me. How can they claim that
the sound and heat energy remain in the system ? A system must have
boundaries, unless they are referring to the entire universe as a system.

Quote:

Definition: Energy is the capacity of a physical system to perform work. Energy exists in several forms such as heat, kinetic or mechanical energy, light, potential energy, electrical, or other forms.
According to the law of conservation of energy, the total energy of a system remains constant, though energy may transform into another form. Two billiard balls colliding, for example, may come to rest, with the resulting energy becoming sound and perhaps a bit of heat at the point of collision.

The SI unit of energy is the joule (J) or newton-meter (N * m). The joule is also the SI unit of work.

OK so energy is the capacity of a physical system to do work.

From the definition.
Quote:

Energy is the capacity of a physical system to perform work

.
Now for that one sentence to make sense the terms "a physical system" and
"to perform work" need to be clearly defined.

What defines a particular "physical system's" boundaries ?

Cheers

[GSM]

Hi Aaron,

Thank you for your communication; ALL valid.
--------------------------------------------------
Hi LetsReplicate,

Sorry, I have not read past your last opening paragraph: Such a shame but with reason -
I wrote >
"You are repeatedly failing to state how transverse waves can exist in atmosphere or vacuum !!!!!"

You claim this is argument.
Not so, it is a FACT (!), as substantiated by your first sentence continuation of >

"the capability to carry the wave is an accepted property of "free space" regardless of whether it is a vacuum or not"

Well sorry LetsReplicate, this is neither explanation nor evidence, but an unfounded assumption, and thus proof of a prior closed mind belief on YOUR part.

As Aaron suggested, I do waste time responding to you, because you do not share the discussion, but merely promote the 'peer review' dogmas which are limiting humanity and thus causing the ruination of our home planet.

Actually I too now wonder why you are here in this 'energy' Forum, for most discussions must surely cover aspects inexplicable by yourself and 'conventional' science ?

[GSM]

Hi Farmhand,

My take on it is that charge may be transferred (to do work) -
via a conductor = electron-electron/hole/ion activity = current,
or via a radiation event = photon-electron/hole/ion activity = no current,

and that both activities become modified by
frequency/waveform/resonance, and
ambient/relative/resonant potentials,

plus the type of loading
whether resistive/reactive/complex,

there not being any single analogy capable of covering all.