Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla

[quantum1024]

Best of the bunch! Keep up the good work! 

[z_p_e]

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.

[Torus]

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?   

Thanks.

[quantum1024]

@ 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.

[Localjoe]

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.