PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-28, 09:41:35
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Nikola Tesla free energy concepts  (Read 4620 times)
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
On the nature of free energy.

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla/esp_tesla_27.htm

Quote
This new power for the driving of the world's machinery will be derived from the energy which operates the universe, the cosmic energy, whose central source for the earth is the sun and which is everywhere present in unlimited quantities- Nikola Tesla, 1933.

Quote
On June 9th, 1902, both the New York Times and the New York Herald carried a story of a Clemente Figueras, a "woods and forest engineer," in the Canary Islands who invented a device for generating electricity without burning any fuel. What became of Figueras and his fuelless generator is not known, but this announcement in the paper prompted Tesla to send a clipping of the Herald story in a letter to his friend Robert Underwood Johnson, editor of Century Magazine.
In this letter, a part of the Nikola Tesla Collection, at Columbia University Library, Tesla claimed he had already developed such a generator and to have revealed the underlying physical laws.

In fact, the most credible and successful free energy inventors like Nikola Tesla, Clemente Figuera or T.H.Moray all claimed the same thing. They invented a self-acting machine, which does not consume any fuel, which they believed was powered by some form of cosmic energy. As well, like myself these successful FE inventors did not believe any of this technology violated the conservation of energy.

Think about that, why did all of the critics claim any FE device must violate the COE when anyone with any credibility knows nothing can violate the COE?. My belief is most of these critics were either incompetent or paid shills because early on nobody was suggesting any energy came from nowhere. The critics made that nonsense up to try and discredit these inventors. Only a fool would believe anything can just be created from nothing.

I'm not sure why so many people are making up nonsense about Tesla. Early on he claimed his life goal was to tie into the wheel work of nature. To extract clean energy from nature anywhere on the planet. As such anyone claiming they read Tesla's work and also claims Tesla didn't mention free energy is a liar.

I remember the first article I read about Nikola Tesla describing free energy as if it were yesterday. It was his lecture " THE PROBLEM OF INCREASING HUMAN ENERGY" from June of 1990. More so the section concerning...
Quote
A DEPARTURE FROM KNOWN METHODS—POSSIBILITY OF A "SELF-ACTING" ENGINE OR MACHINE, INANIMATE, YET CAPABLE, LIKE A LIVING BEING, OF DERIVING ENERGY FROM THE MEDIUM—THE IDEAL WAY OF OBTAINING MOTIVE POWER.

In fact, here Tesla quite literally describes how the concept of free energy actually works. Only a fool would believe they could do work lifting an object and then gain more energy from the same object falling. This is where the myth of violating the conservation of energy came from, from fools. As Tesla explains there is nothing to gain from repeating a conservative cycle where nothing changes. It does not matter whether the cycle is mechanical, electrical, hydraulic or otherwise. There is no extra energy to be gained unless the working medium being utilized can be transformed in some way.

From Tesla...
Quote
For example, if heat be represented in this analogue by the water of the lake, the oxygen and hydrogen composing the water may illustrate other forms of energy into which the heat is transformed in passing from hot to cold.  If the process of heat transformation were absolutely perfect, no heat at all would arrive at the low level, since all of it would be converted into other forms of energy.  Corresponding to this ideal case, all the water flowing into the tank would be decomposed into oxygen and hydrogen before reaching the bottom, and the result would be that water would continually flow in, and yet the tank would remain entirely empty, the gases formed escaping.  We would thus produce, by expending initially a certain amount of work to create a sink for the heat or, respectively, the water to flow in, a condition enabling us to get any amount of energy without further effort.

The concept is so simple even a child could understand it. Take a ball, it's just a ball and will always act just like a ball. However if we break the ball up into it's constituent smaller parts then it stops acting like a ball. The ball now has completely different properties than when it was whole. Now we drop the ball, it bounces back upward but as it does it breaks up into a million much smaller and lighter parts. Now external/environmental energy could act on all the smaller parts helping to lift them. Then at the peak of it's height we reassemble the ball back into it's original form. Conceptually this is how a "transformation" works. In part of the cycle we change the working medium to act like something else, we change it's properties, which changes the nature of cause and effect and the total energy present. 

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 345
Agree!  I found this Why Files new episode really supports all of this - watch it to the end where he is talking about the Sapphire project in Canada - a plasma device.  Although in his usual way of backing out and partly debunking some of what he first states this episode is all about free energy and how Tesla described it being available to use.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIgbsZ05O2A
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
e2matrix

Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIgbsZ05O2A
Gravity is a Lie, Light Speed is Slow, Nothing is Real, the Universe is Electric

Thanks for the link that was an excellent video.

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1770
Agree!  I found this Why Files new episode really supports all of this - watch it to the end where he is talking about the Sapphire project in Canada - a plasma device.  Although in his usual way of backing out and partly debunking some of what he first states this episode is all about free energy and how Tesla described it being available to use.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIgbsZ05O2A
for reference https://aureon.ca/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GFFfmBGb5U&t=690s Sadly Wal Thornhill passed away recently.
   
Group: Guest
Erased sorry for that.
« Last Edit: 2023-11-18, 15:36:40 by AlienGrey »
   
Group: Guest
   What or who do you mean (from the dark side)?  What I'd like to see is discussions from the bright side, instead.
   Just how to progress, what are we doing wrong. What works, etc. 

   NickZ
   
Group: Restricted
Sr. Member
*

Posts: 270
Nothing is faster than speed of ligth  ;D
   
Group: Guest
Quote
author=Classic link=topic=4537.msg108741#msg108741 date=1698845635]
Nothing is faster than speed of ligth  ;D

Thats misleading and your ignoring quantum entanglement and that's instantaneous and that's a fact.
And light is spelt 'light' !

Sil
« Last Edit: 2023-11-18, 15:39:27 by AlienGrey »
   
Group: Guest
   What or who do you mean (from the dark side)?  What I'd like to see is discussions from the bright side, instead.
   Just how to progress, what are we doing wrong. What works, etc. 

   NickZ
err quotes from those locked in the mushroom celler of course.

You could try and find out about Tesla's experiments on resonance.
Tesla said FE is a wast of time with out resonance.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 453
...
You could try and find out about Tesla's experiments on resonance.
...

I particularly enjoyed (and appreciated) how meticulous Tesla was in studying various types of wine bottles for use in his salt water bath capacitors.  If I recall correctly, he decided that champagne bottles with their inward domed bottoms worked best.  Amazing guy...

PW
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
err quotes from those locked in the mushroom celler of course.

You could try and find out about Tesla's experiments on resonance.
Tesla said FE is a wast of time with out resonance.

I successfully replicated many of Tesla's resonance/radiant energy experiments and found almost everyone has Tesla's idea of resonance wrong.
Many suppose it relates to simple alternations or LC but this isn't the case.

For example, the common analogy is ringing a bell or pushing a swing at the correct time. Similar to Alternating Currents moving to and fro at the correct time or LC circuits. This is not the kind of "resonance" Tesla, Moray and many other FE inventors were speaking of. Tesla abandoned AC for short impulse DC which relates to a different form of resonance.

Think of it this way, most equate common resonance as an external force or vibration that matches somethings natural frequency. Like pushing a pendulum at the right time when it's at the highest/slowest point. This relates to the motion of the pendulum back and forth. Where Tesla was talking about hammering the mass of the pendulum so hard and fast it started vibrating in and of itself.

Most not only got this kind of resonance wrong but completely backwards. We strike the pendulum mass to make the mass vibrate and any losses appear as oscillations back and forth. As such most were confusing the losses (motion back and forth) with a supposed gain. Obviously we have nothing to gain from simply moving a pendulum or mass back and forth, it's a losing proposition. We would get out exactly what we put in.

It's no wonder so few people could replicate these effects because as Tesla said, everyone was thinking on the wrong level.

Consider the experiment done by John Hutchison shown below. A solid aluminum bar became fluid at room temperature due to it's own internal oscillations. A fluid defined as a substance whose molecules move freely past one another. Now suppose what might happen if a metal capacitor plate became fluid physically expanding and contracting?. Since the energy of a capacitor plate is dependent on charge density and surface area when the area changes then so must the energy. At which point one or more capacitor plates could become an electrical generator in themselves.

NickZ
Quote
What I'd like to see is discussions from the bright side, instead.
Just how to progress, what are we doing wrong. What works, etc.

Is this post bright enough?.

AC



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 453
...
For example, the common analogy is ringing a bell or pushing a swing at the correct time. Similar to Alternating Currents moving to and fro at the correct time or LC circuits. This is not the kind of "resonance" Tesla, Moray and many other FE inventors were speaking of. Tesla abandoned AC for short impulse DC which relates to a different form of resonance.
...

 Where Tesla was talking about hammering the mass of the pendulum so hard and fast it started vibrating in and of itself.
...

AC

In between which lines do you have to read to come up with that?

Resonance is resonance...

PW

   
Group: Guest
  To resonate with the surrounding ambient frequency, may not be the same as device LC resonance.
  Coherence to a natural resonant frecuency. If one is trying to tune to an Earth natural frequency. May be what is meant by resonance, in that case.

   NickZ
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 453
  To resonate with the surrounding ambient frequency, may not be the same as device LC resonance.
  Coherence to a natural resonant frecuency. If one is trying to tune to an Earth natural frequency. May be what is meant by resonance, in that case.

   NickZ

I fail to see the distinction...

PW
   
Group: Restricted
Sr. Member
*

Posts: 270
I successfully replicated many of Tesla's resonance/radiant energy experiments and found almost everyone has Tesla's idea of resonance wrong.
Many suppose it relates to simple alternations or LC but this isn't the case.

For example, the common analogy is ringing a bell or pushing a swing at the correct time. Similar to Alternating Currents moving to and fro at the correct time or LC circuits. This is not the kind of "resonance" Tesla, Moray and many other FE inventors were speaking of. Tesla abandoned AC for short impulse DC which relates to a different form of resonance.

Think of it this way, most equate common resonance as an external force or vibration that matches somethings natural frequency. Like pushing a pendulum at the right time when it's at the highest/slowest point. This relates to the motion of the pendulum back and forth. Where Tesla was talking about hammering the mass of the pendulum so hard and fast it started vibrating in and of itself.

Most not only got this kind of resonance wrong but completely backwards. We strike the pendulum mass to make the mass vibrate and any losses appear as oscillations back and forth. As such most were confusing the losses (motion back and forth) with a supposed gain. Obviously we have nothing to gain from simply moving a pendulum or mass back and forth, it's a losing proposition. We would get out exactly what we put in.

It's no wonder so few people could replicate these effects because as Tesla said, everyone was thinking on the wrong level.

Consider the experiment done by John Hutchison shown below. A solid aluminum bar became fluid at room temperature due to it's own internal oscillations. A fluid defined as a substance whose molecules move freely past one another. Now suppose what might happen if a metal capacitor plate became fluid physically expanding and contracting?. Since the energy of a capacitor plate is dependent on charge density and surface area when the area changes then so must the energy. At which point one or more capacitor plates could become an electrical generator in themselves.

NickZ
Is this post bright enough?.

AC

Basically you suggest that we have to introduce a second frequency to trigger its own internal resonance ? Can this be induced from the 1. ground (parametric excitation) or 2. reactive power from the load ?  :D
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 40


Within some of the best Tesla concepts, would be one of the ideas about the coil that he worked on in the 40’s. It is a 2 way coil, which can be seen in Mr. Walter Russell’s work. The discussion about nature’s coil and man’s coil, could definitely be most productive, in understanding electricity.

We all know that nature works with a cold cathode and a hot anode. From a cathode, speed, frequency and pressure increase while volume decreases. We call this the generoactive half of the wave cycle, uphill flow of energy or gravity cycle, where pressure is exerted from without to the centre of matter.

Now we can compare this to man’s interpretation of that coil. When power is applied to man’s coil, the cathode in the middle divides the coil into 2 hemispheres north and south. Not being the natural flow for electricity, heat and high disturbance are created. One of the biggest mistakes of man’s coil is that, when the cathode divides electricity, we assume that the metal core, is also divided in the same fashion, when in reality we know that this is impossible.  This is the biggest reason why man’s coil is so inefficient.

This is a very simplified process of electricity but definitely could be explored deeper if there was enough interest, especially a lot of discussion must be done for the reaction side of the wave cycle.


Best Regards

   
Group: Restricted
Sr. Member
*

Posts: 270
So, what will be disturbed and how ? What is affected in a coil ? What about air core coils than ?
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 40


When we talk about man’s coil, it must be understood, that it was done by people who had no clue about electricity. Secondly the poles are opposite phases. They cannot operate in man’s way.  This is the reason why there is so much disturbance in man’s coil.

In nature’s two way coil, the compression side is compression. Everything lines up to push only one way, flow is simple and effortless, no left right jumbo mumbo. Without putting some effort into understanding electricity, we will not go too far.

When something is built very unnatural, everything is going to be affected in a negative way and the best solution is the waste basket.

We tried the air core. The drag is the same as the metal core. Drag and resistance are created by the electrical vortex. The space within the air coil is going to heat up very fast, because of the different pressures and vortexes working on it.

As we can see, metal multiples electrical potential, and is the best solution when it is used properly.

We cannot pretend any longer that we know so much about electricity.

Classic – I hope this answers some of your inquiry.

Best Regards

   
Group: Restricted
Sr. Member
*

Posts: 270
Can you give more details about unnatural build of coils ? We already know about wrong usage of batteries.
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 40

The best example would be our planet. Planets have 2 hemispheres, 2 poles and the equator in the middle. Power comes into the planet through the poles and it is radiated through the equator. This is how electricity creates matter, atoms or stars.

If we take the same action and try to accomplish the same task, in one of the hemispheres, what could happen? How is it going to affect the compression side of the wave cycle?

How natural is that action going to be? What is the best solution?

Best Regards
   
Group: Restricted
Sr. Member
*

Posts: 270
Interesting … so, how shall we build a coil in a more natural way than ? And what would be the effect(s) ?
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 40


It is easy to build a coil and to receive help if one needs it. The problem is knowing the details of it. We learn around grade 3 that the planets have hemispheres, 2 poles, the equator and so on. If you look at our coil, it is not the same at all. Why? Because someone else told us differently. As we know one hemisphere is compression and the other expansion. In this way, nature keeps her desired temperature. Using only one side, it will definitely create only heat! Without looking deeper, and processing information, it is easy to make catastrophic mistakes.

A few posts earlier, someone claimed that this is an electrical universe without trying to explain why they think that way. They need to explain how electricity can go into different dimensions and grab inner gases, then use them at random and return them back in the exact place. They also need to explain how electricity travels through space, how the waves are produced and repeat themselves.

Not having the nuts and bolts of how it is, we know that the story comes from a do nothing community. Do they even know what role the inner gases have in the physical universe?

Building a coil and not knowing the basics of the electrical world, did not take us too far! My advice is to know as much as possible, so that we cannot be side-tracked by the smallest nonsense, that is thrown at us. Behind the bench, problems arise and one must be ready to solve them with common sense and logic.

To build nature’s coil, creates no heat, much higher efficiency and it will solve a lot of our problems that was created by our ignorance.

Best Regards

   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
ourunity
Quote
A few posts earlier, someone claimed that this is an electrical universe without trying to explain why they think that way. They need to explain how electricity can go into different dimensions and grab inner gases, then use them at random and return them back in the exact place.

It's not rocket science, on the primary level we see particles which carry something called an electric field. When said charge carriers move they produce a supposed magnetic field. Thus the nature of everything we know must relate to moving electric fields. Note, the electric field came first then when it moved the magnetic field was produced. I suspect there is no such thing as a magnetic field, there are static electric fields and motional electric fields we call magnetic fields. Ergo, an electric universe according to first principals.

According to most peoples reasoning if a horse started moving we should call it a cow. Maybe that's why nobody has a clue what a "field" is or where to even start hence there dilemma.

Quote
They also need to explain how electricity travels through space, how the waves are produced and repeat themselves.

Your basically asking the same question as above. You don't understand electricity or EM waves because you have no idea what a field is. In effect, we start with electric, magnetic, gravic fields and particles. Everything else is built on top of these first principals.

AC




---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Restricted
Sr. Member
*

Posts: 270
A “field” is a volume, an electric field is a volume under certain influence of electric charge and so on. The problem accepting such assumptions will lead to universal acceptance of aether which mainstream science deny it in their complacency with bigoilco.

Ask mainstream science to explain why we can use many times same amount of energy stored in batteries when we use “unconventional” series-parallel setups and you’ll be told they still need to dissect particles in search for their truth. They are given unlimited resources just for that instead of coming out clean and accept the obvious truth.
   
Group: Restricted
Sr. Member
*

Posts: 270
And if we accept Nikola Tesla was correct that everything is electric, and connections should be made between vibrations and frequency … “miracle” is happening like harvesting electricity from a sheet of graphene layer on an aluminium plate which vibrate and vibration make possible physical movement which translate in moving electric charge.

Take a piece of coal, put it on top of an piece of aluminum and stick your probes from your meter on each. This is the very essence, the evidence that mainstream do not accept as fundamental.
Your galvanic cell if you ever build one is based on same principle, all elements conduct electricity in nature, one form or another and when they are placed in proximity they vibrate, all of them I would say. Supposed chemical reaction should be seen in this terms and we can see the transmutation when elements with electro potential difference are in close proximity generate heat as effect of opposing electric charge … at least this is my observation.

So, basically we don't need any fosil fuel, nor nuclear to generate electricity. Batteries can provide power and probably never discharge while they have any electrodes left, when they are connected in series-parallel and pulsated at certain frequency, and they don’t heat up as there will be a natural flow.
   
Pages: [1] 2 3
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-28, 09:41:35