Tesla Radiant Receiver - Collector

[Farmhand]

Sorry Forest, The Radiant Energy Collector was for collecting cosmic Rays as Tesla put it, he says they were mainly positive in nature and his collector used no rectifier, which reinforced that statement.

Read the Patents why not ? Both of them.

And as I said in this day AC type noise rules the ground and RF signals rule the air.

The amount of electricity that even Tesla collected was only enough to power clocks and so forth anyway.

..

[forest]

Sorry Farmhand , but you have read the wrong patents    Give it a try again.

[Farmhand]

OK no probs whatever you say genius. The Magnifying Transmitter was invented at a later date though.

He used tubes that produced Roentgen Rays to demonstrate the effect in quick time, and those were powered by a "Tesla Coil" or whatever.

But if one is to get free energy from it then the sun and other Cosmic Rays are the only option. That is because using a Tesla Coil or other generator of rays is not an Efficient option, it is below C.O.P. = 1.0.

Try it and show us your results. With a Magnifying Transmitter I mean.

Truth is that the Magnifying Transmitter was for the transmission of energy via the ground.

But you having the last word won't change that. So please comment further.

..

[Doug1]

The only problem with copy paste of Patrick's book is he has rewrote some of the info found in patents and states that he has done so. Leaving the patent number for the reader to go to the USPTO to find the original if they desire.The reasoning being that the language has changed over the course of time and the meaning of some words have changed.
  There is a little game called Down the Lane. If Patrick wishes to express his own opinion he should add it into the info with (....) or in another color so the original information is preserved in event his interpretation is found to be wrong some where down the lane.
  Most people skim over and reread the parts that catch their attention so it's is no surprise that attempts to replicate are lacking in results. Even Tesla held back some secretes of the trade. If you read directions after all ells has failed, your life time will be mostly wasted on repeating the basic development of an idea that was worked out by a person of the highest intellect. Unless you are equal or better there is little chance you can exactly duplicate the process.If you also lack the funding and the assistance of a small lab of employees to give some of the physical tasks to and rely on only yourself then you will take far longer to do the same physical work. Within the details of the patent Tesla does not mention what he treated the plate in the air with to enable it to absorb so many different types of energies nor did he mention if the ground plate was treated. He only mentions the finish being polished which is what people focus on. The term amalgamated means to combine with. Unless you can get past that hurdle you need not construct the rest of the device.
   

[thx1138]

I'd like to ask about the orientation of the insulated metal plate which will collect the positive charges from the atmosphere. In Tesla schematics is at a vertical position but i'd like also to hear your opinion on this, as it will determine the place where i will put them.

Patent drawings are not construction plans so don't count on them for the orientation other than they show the elevated plate perpendicular to the radiant energy. Read the patent very carefully. There's a lot of info there in the text. Note that one of his drawings shows a vacuum tube and he references Roentgen and Lenard tubes. Roentgen is the man who discovered X-rays and a "Roentgen tube" is an X-ray tube. Lenard made some modified Roentgen tubes for his experiments.  Note that Tesla says in the patent that he created a special tube. It was along the same lines as a Lenard tube but I think he used higher voltages. Note that this is not collecting the energy from the cosmic rays but are devices for man made simulation of cosmic rays for experimentation. There is no over unity there.

In terms of Tesla, his radiant energy collector is intercepting charged particles. This is not atmospheric static electricity. The charged particles come from the sun and the cosmos but they are not light as in a photovoltaic collector. In that they come from the cosmos, they come from all directions all the time. A goodly portion of them are captured by the Van Allen radiation belts (which were unknown at the time) but not all, which is a good thing or we wouldn't exist.

The major component that reaches the surface of the earth is what are today called muons which are created when cosmic rays interact with the atmosphere. Interestingly, muons decay into electrons. It's a bit more complicated than that but they do create electrons in their decay.

The charged particles impact the surface and will penetrate a few feet depending on their strength so the ones coming from the opposite side of the earth will be absorbed before they get to you. Other than that, they can come from any direction you can see above the horizon. Obviously, the ones coming in roughly parallel to the ground are going to travel through a lot more atmosphere before they get to you so fewer will reach you. Therefore the orientation should be whatever is the shortest path to you from space. If you are in a valley, the surrounding hills or mountains will absorb them before they get to you. Your plate will be miniscule compared to what is coming in so you will only get a tiny portion of them. Tesla notes that the energy is collected slowly.

Note also that Tesla doesn't say how high the elevation should be, other than the higher the better. That's so they will have traveled through less atmosphere to reach the plate. But it raises an important question. His original patent for transmission through "natural media" is between balloons maintained at 30,000 feet. He originally wanted 15 miles (79,200 feet) but knew that wasn't feasible so reduced it. But it brings up the question, did he also consider those kind of altitudes for the radiant energy collector? He never said as far as I know. That was  feasible back then in principle because there were no airplanes. I say "in principle" because the jet stream and its +250 MPH winds are at about that altitude but it was unknown at the time. He figured out how to do the transmission through the ground so he never attempted it between balloons at altitude. There are, however, entries in his Colorado Springs notes about extracting hydrogen for the balloons from the atmosphere. We know for a fact today that flying at those altitudes increases our radiation exposure and it is one of the things that flight crews have to monitor.

I found galvanized metal plates 2mX1m, and i intend to paint them with a metal transparent varnish to insulate them. The height difference between ground and plate will be about at 15m.

The patent says the plate should be "highly polished or amalgamated" so I'm afraid your galvanized plates won't work. Amalgamated in those days meant, in metallurgy terms, combined with mercury. They might be but don't be surprised if they don't. I used aluminum.

The "highly polished" part was so that the insulation (think dielectric) would make as good a contact with the metal as possible. The insulation has a couple of functions. It must completely enclose the metal plate to prevent any corners, burrs, or edges from ionizing the air around it. If the metal is exposed to the air and ionizes it, the ionized air is more conductive than normal air and will give lightning an easier conduction path to ground - through your assembly. In effect what you'll have built is a Franklin lightning rod that actually attracts lightning.

Getting back to the dielectric function of the insulation, we don't want the captured charges to neutralize with static charges in the air so the dielectric constant of the insulation used should be as high as possible to separate the charges and it needs very good contact with the metal plate to transfer those charges to the circuit. I used high density polypropylene sheet (not the foam board) and it double my captured voltage over a spray on insulation (Plasti-Dip) I used initially.

Also keep in mind that the charged particles will impact the surface around your ground rods and neutralize charge on the surface of the ground rod if it is not insulated. I pulled my ground rods and used heat shrink tubing on the top 3 feet and got another improvement. I didn't have a way to do this in my test site but the best way to do the ground is to use a polished sheet buried 3 or 4 feet deep with the wire connected there and insulated all the way up to the collecting circuit. Everything above ground should be insulated.

The place where i live is very windy and i have to think very well where to put the collectors. One thought is to handle them as a normal sun charge collector, lying them down on my roof. But, i am not sure about the losses in relation with the orientation (angle)! Has anyone tried it?

I covered the orientation above but would recommend not putting them on your roof. The insulation can be damaged by hail, squirrels, whatever, and if it is you now have a lightning collector attached to your roof. For the same reason you should not use your house wiring ground rod or plumbing pipes for the ground connection. If you do have a problem, you don't want it taking out all of your appliances or zapping you while in the shower.

I had a couple of interesting experiences with this project. One night I was taking readings and a thunderstorm was passing by some miles north of my location. I didn't have any rain where I was. A cloud-to-cloud lightning strike occurred while I was checking out the storm and when I looked at my voltage reading it had jumped to 4 times the reading before the lightning and then slowly subsided back to normal over about 10 to 20 seconds. A little research revealed that lightning does indeed emit X-rays and gamma rays if it is strong enough.

I took readings at various times for about a year. I had started the project in winter, took reading for a few months and for various reasons got side tracked and didn't work with it again until summer. When I got back to it in July I was getting maybe 1/10th of what I was getting before. I went through the circuit and connections several times and couldn't find anything wrong. It finally dawned on me that what had changed was that the sun was directly overhead in July but the location was shaded during the winter. With the sun directly overhead the ground surface was getting charged and neutralizing the charge on the surface of the ground rod. That was when I pulled the ground rods and put the heat shrink tubing on them.

In my readings I included weather data like temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, % cloud cover, and UV index but never found a correlation between the weather and the readings. I did, however, find an interesting correlation: there is an inverse correlation between the voltage readings and the solar wind density. The higher the solar wind density, the lower the readings and vice versa. We didn't have any big Coronal Mass Ejections while I was working on this. That could have been interesting. My theory is the cosmic rays are being absorbed by the solar wind so higher density solar wind is effectively blocking the charged particles like a cloud passing between the sun and a photovoltaic panel. There were a few outliers in the correlation but more than 90% of the readings that I took that had the solar wind data fit the pattern.
http://spaceweather.com/
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/wsa-enlil-solar-wind-prediction