ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 213 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events

Hot Links
Aetherometry

American Antigravity

Closeminded Science

EarthTech

ECW E-Cat World

Innoplaza

Integrity Research Institute

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times

Panacea-BOCAF

RexResearch

Science Hobbyist

T. Bearden Mirror Site

USPTO

Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
AER_Network
E-Cat World
NexusNewsfeed ZPE
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
EMediaPress
Energy Science Forum
Free_Energy FB Group
The KeelyNet Blog
OverUnity Research
Sarfatti_Physics
Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
Vortex (old Interact)
Magazine Sites
Electrifying Times (FB)
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine

www.zpenergy.com :: View topic - Did T. Henry Moray discover the "Radiant Energy" o
 Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Did T. Henry Moray discover the "Radiant Energy" o

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.zpenergy.com Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
vlad
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: Dec 23, 2002
Posts: 1011
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2003 5:44 pm    Post subject: Did T. Henry Moray discover the "Radiant Energy" o Reply with quote

From the free_energy yahoo list (first part was published in the main NEWS page - same title).

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 23:02:21 -0400
From: "Leslie R. Pastor" <lrpastor@...>
Subject: Did T. Henry Moray discover the "Radiant Energy" of Nikola Tesla? [Bearden/Laithwaite commentary] [Part 2]

[Part 2]

"Nikola Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter, T. Henry Moray's Radiant Energy Device, Edwin Gray's EMA Motor, and Paul Baumann's Testatika Machine all run on radiant energy. This natural energy form can be gathered directly from the environment (mistakenly called "static" electricity) or extracted from ordinary electricity by the method called "fractionation."

"Radiant energy can perform the same wonders as ordinary electricity, at less than 1 percent of the cost. It does not behave exactly like electricity, however, which has contributed to the scientific community's misunderstanding of it."

Source: http://www.luisprada.com/Protected/the_world_of_free_energy.htm



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Thomas E. Bearden in a recent email stated: "I put a section on the Gray work in my book."

"There are two energy flows (Heaviside flow and Poynting flow) that come out of a generator and flow through space outside the conductors of the attached external circuit, and only one (the Poynting flow) is covered in university. Because Lorentz arbitrarily discarded the addition huge CURLED energy flow that Heaviside discovered, everybody continues to use the same little trick to keep from accounting it (and these days, they don't even know that's why the trick was originated by Lorentz in the first place). For that reason, the Poynting flow IS NOT the total flow of energy through an orthogonal plane in space (see a really good electrodynamics book for confirmation). The Poynting energy flow is a linear flow, so it has a robust divergence and can be diverged into the conductors easily, to potentialize the Drude electrons and power up the circuit.

The Heaviside flow is in curled form, and so as long as the spacetime isn't too curved, its divergence is zero and so none of it gets diverged into most circuits --- or interacts with anything --- unless one dies something very special.

The Heaviside curled energy flow component is very large; often a trillion times the Poynting in magnitude. But since it doesn't usually interact with anything, most electrodynamicists still use Lorentz's original phrase, that it "has no physical significance". Jackson uses that approach, e.g. While that is often true, it is not always true. If one wishes to completely solve the energy crisis forever, then focusing on how to forcibly diverge some of the free and tremendous Heaviside energy flow would do it.

If one does something special to be able to curve that local spacetime more appreciably, then the divergence of the curl is NOT zero as we were all taught in vector analysis (which is for a flat spacetime assumed!). Then one can catch a bit of it, and easily produce COP>1.0. We will cite an experiment that does it, is already "certified" in hard physics texts and journals, and works everytime, anytime, anywhere.

In nonlinear optics, it is the area known as "negative resonance absorption of the medium". (See journal papers by Letokhov, Bohren, and others). It always yields more energy output than one inputs in one's POYNTING (accounted) input, because it catches some of the Heaviside energy flow component that one also input but did not realize it or account it .

Realize that "the field" as defined in electrodynamics and electrical engineering is not "the" field at all. Instead, at best it's a representation of the measured POINT INTENSITY of the flows comprising the field, at a given point , and even then it's only a very "special" kind of point intensity. It's rigorously defined as what is DIVERTED FROM the energy flows comprising the field ( i.e., it is what is DIVERTED FROM the field itself) by a unit point static charge placed at any point of interest (and at every one of them). THAT placement of a unit point static charge doesn't even exist in space, because there are no unit point coulombs of static charge at every point in space! So it's a "theoretical" definition, approximated in practice (there are no truly "point" charges!).

Now if one takes the "unit point charge" one is going to use for one's "diverter" and therefore in one's "intensity measurement meter", and one feeds that charge some EM radiation energy at a frequency where the charged particle self-resonates, the same "unit point charge" --- now in particle resonance --- will sweep out a much larger "geometric reaction cross section" and divert lots more energy FROM THE SAME E- FIELD. One knows the standard equation F = Eq, but that is a special q that assumes the basic unit point STATIC charge doing the basic diversion. It really should be given as F = (E) x q(cr) , where q(cr) is q x the reaction cross section of one unit of that charge in its particular condition. If the charge is in particle self-resonance, its q(cr) is quite different from its q(cr) when NOT in particle resonance, but static.

So, in short, one uses IR energy input for insulating particles adjusted to the right size, and UV energy input for conducting particles adjusted to the right size. That way the charges will "self-oscillate" and therefore their q(cr) will dramatically change. So the F changes also. Put in another equation, W = (phi)q, or W = Vq, and do the same thing with q as replaced by q(cr). Then the energy W collected from the same voltage and same intercepting charge, will be quite different from the STATIC case.

Voila! That little rig where the IR or UV energy is fed into the waiting materials made of insulating charged particles or conducting charged particles respectively, will then put out 18 times as much EM radiation energy ( by standard Poynting measurement of it after its divergence) as one inputs ( by standard Poynting measurement).

Since this is a replicable experiment and long well established and replicated, then all the theory and modeling in the universe cannot refute its results. Else one is not practicing scientific method, but dogma.

A good reference is Craig Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?" American Journal of Physics, 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327. Under nonlinear conditions, a particle can absorb more energy than is in the light incident on it. Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies are another. See also H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?'}," Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327. The Bohren experiment is repeatable and produces COP = 18. Anywhere, anytime.

The reason that Lorentz discarded the huge Heaviside component in the 1890s was that , if that huge additional energy flow is accounted, then every generator, battery, and other power source in nature is already producing COP>>1.0, contrary to every textbook. No one could come up with a possible legitimate source of such a stupendous outpouring of energy, pouring from the terminals of every generator and battery. It's immensely greater than the mechanical energy one inputs to the shaft of the generator, and immensely greater than the chemical energy dissipated in the battery.

Anyway, I got onto the Heaviside component of energy flow many years ago from Professor Laithwaite (now deceased) in England. Laithwaite was a gyro expert, and widely known for it at the time . He was a "rising star" in physics and science, so to speak, and most thought he would eventually win the Nobel Prize. So he was invited to give a distinguished lecture to the Royal Society, a great honor. What he gave was unexpected and a real shocker.

He carried in a very large, heavy gyroscope which he could only lift with difficulty, using both hands. He clearly showed this to the assembled members of the Royal Society. Then he plugged the gyro into the power socket, and let it wind up to full rotational speed. Whereupon he readily lifted the rotating gyro off the floor and over his head with one hand, and remarked that "Newton may be in trouble!" ( Of course, Newton is the Saint of the Royal Society -- to say that this was "shocking" to the assembly is an understatement!) .

That was the first invited lecture in some 200 years history of the Royal Society's history where a special proceedings of the lecture WAS NOT published. And the Society DID NOT invite Laithwaite to become a member after all, etc.

Anyway, note that spinning is a "curl" of sorts, and so spinning gyros do collect a bit of that "curl" Heaviside energy flow component (note that I would favor making a very peculiar charged rotor in the gyro, so that the charges in it could be in particle resonance, or at some subharmonic, etc.) . There's a complicated thing that happens also when one goes over unity appreciably , in a COP>1.0 EM machine , or it can happen. The peculiarity is that free Dirac sea holes (negative energy electrons) are formed and persist for awhile , at the output of the system . The negative energy electron IS NOT a positron until it interacts with matter and "eats" an electron , leaving a lattice positron or excess positive charge . So one cannot just use "hole theory" from solid state semiconductor theory; that's all "lattice positron " stuff and the negative energy electrons are already gone . (Scientists also still argue over negative energy, and take up "positions" on it). Nontheless, as a source charge, a negative electron has negative energy EM fields and potentials . So the space around the output of many COP>>1.0 systems has some appreciable Dirac sea holes, and the negative energy fields and potentials from these provide negative spacetime curvature . The negatively curved spacetime then interacts back on the system, to produce some antigravity. HOW MUCH ANTIGRAVITY is produced is a function of the strength of the negative energy fields and the average persistence time of the Dirac sea holes .

The result is that some ANTI-gravity on the physical system is produced by the negative ST curvature due to those somewhat persisting Dirac sea holes. This adds to the normal positive gravity already acting on it, so that the total gravitational force operating on the physical system is the vector combination (difference) of the two forces.

The real way to practical antigravity is to be able to make very persistent holes (negative energy electrons) so that appreciable negative ST curvature is made, and that means that appreciable antigravity is made. Sweet's VTA did make very long-persisting Dirac Sea holes.

The foregoing was the theory I put together in 1971 at Georgia Tech, and it is what I was going on when I convinced Sweet to do the antigravity experiment with the VTA . That experiment worked like a charm. The "goosed" VTA reduced its weight by 90% when "pushed" to double its output. Shortly thereafter, there was an assassination attempt on Sweet, and he shied away from the antigravity as if the devil were on his tail. I tried to get him to go to the leaders of the scientific community with the experiment, but he would not hear of it. So when Sweet later died, that was the end of that.

Before his death, Heaviside finally realized the gravitational implications of his enormous energy flow component. His notes with his antigravity theory from it, were found beneath a floorboard of his little garret apartment, after his death. One of the societies later published it; it is

H. J. Josephs, "The Heaviside papers found at Paignton in 1957," The Institution of Electrical Engineers Monograph No. 319, Jan. 1959, p. 70-76.

Anyway, a good Laithwaite reference is: E. R. Laithwaite, "Oliver Heaviside - establishment shaker," Electrical Review, 211(16), Nov. 12, 1982, p. 44-45. Laithwaite felt that Heaviside's postulation that a flux of gravitational energy combines with the (E´H) electromagnetic energy flux, could shake the foundations of physics. Extracting from Laithwaite: "Heaviside had originally written the energy flow as S = (E´H) + G, where G is a circuital flux. Poynting had only written S = (E´H). Taking p to be the density of matter and e the intensity of a gravitational force, Heaviside found that the circuital flux G can be expressed as pu - ce, where u represents the velocity of p and c is a constant."
Anyway, I hope that helps a bit and sheds some light on antigravity for the young researchers . Sorry I am so pressed and just cannot enter any more discussion groups etc . But I certainly wish them well; antigravity propulsion is sorely needed, along with free or nearly free energy."

Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
Monday, Sept 15, 2003

Also in a previous email Dr. Bearden further clarifys regarding over-unity and perpetual motion:

"Minor point: There are indeed other COP>1.0 and even COP = infinity electrical systems and processes, well-established. The Bohren experiment (an example of what is called "negative resonance absorption of the medium") produces COP = 18, or 18 times as much energy output as the operator/researcher inputs. Those type experiments are routinely done in nonlinear optics departments. The well-known anti-Stokes emission also always emits more energy than the operator/researcher inputs, but takes the excess from the molecules and atoms of the material.
The common solar cell takes all its input energy from its active environment, and the operator inputs nothing. So it has a COP = infinity. So does a windmill and waterwheel.

Sadly, most of the researchers do not know the precise difference between efficiency and COP. No machine can produce an efficiency greater than 100% -- simply put, efficiency only deals with the energy not wasted by the device, regardless of what or who is inputting the energy. The COP is a ratio expressed in decimal form, that is used as a sort of "cost/benefit analysis" or statement. It's the energy out or work out, divided by only that energy input made by the operator.

So an efficient windmill, e.g., may waste only 45% of its input energy, and in that case will have an efficiency of 55%. However, the operator does not have to input anything, so its COP = (output) divided by (zero) = infinity.

A common solar cell may only have some 17% efficiency, which means it wastes 83% of all its environmentally input energy. But again, the operator does not have to input anything at all, so its COP = infinity.

You can more easily understand this when one uses a RIGOROUS definition of work (even most of the thermodynamics books are still deficient in this respect). Work rigorously is defined as the change of form of some energy. So obviously, if a device is to perform work (change the form of some energy), it has to be fed the energy in order to have it in order to be able to change its form!

That's why a perpetual working machine with no energy input at all is impossible; it would have to create the energy out of nothing, to provide the energy whose form is being continuously changed.

On the other hand, perpetual motion alone is perfectly permissible, because it is simply Newton's first law, and is a common characteristic of the universe. Any object placed in a state of motion will perpetually remain in that state of motion unless and until an external force intervenes and changes it. The word "perpetual" actually just means "continuously". An object in its motion (perpetual motion) state by Newton's first law does not have to have any energy input, and it does not do any work.

Usually the professional skeptics erroneously assert that a "perpetual motion device" implies a 'continuous working machine with no energy input". This is an old saw easily demolished with simple logic, although it has largely come to be a "knee-jerk reaction" in much of the scientific community, for more than a hundred years (since even before Heaviside and Poynting originated the notion of the flow of energy in space, in the 1880s after Maxwell was already dead).

To show the total violation of logic, let us use Max Planck's statement of it, which is typical of the ubiquitous error. Planck stated:

"It is in no way possible, either by mechanical, thermal, chemical, or other devices, to obtain perpetual motion, i.e., it is impossible to construct an engine which will work in a cycle and produce continuous work, or kinetic energy, from nothing." [Max Planck, Treatise on Thermodynamics, 3rd ed., Dover, New York, 1945.]

Let us now analyze Planck's statement. It contains two major clauses, therefore two major statements, and with the "i.e." connector it asserts that these two statements are equivalent.

The first statement, that perpetual motion is impossible, is refuted by Newton's first law. Hence it is a false premise, as written. An object in simple continuous motion with no interruption, does not have to have any energy input nor does it do any work. Any rotary device, once set in motion, would turn forever if it had no external force that acted on it to change its state of motion (such as friction, air drag, resistance of a load via Newton's third law, etc.). It would do no work, and need no input energy.

Planck's second statement says that no machine can do continuous work without the necessary energy input, which is a true statement. Else the machine would be creating energy from nothing at all, and that violates the conservation of energy law (that energy can neither be created nor destroyed).

[Eerily, the standard Maxwell-Heaviside theory and electrical engineering assume that every EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe is and has been created from nothing at all, by the associated source charges. So the greatest unwitting advocates of perpetual working machines with no energy input, are in fact the present electrical engineering departments, professors, and textbooks].

Work rigorously is the change of form of energy; no machine can continuously change the form of energy unless the energy to be changed is fed into it and is therefore continuously available for continuous changing! So Planck's second statement is perfectly true.

But what has Planck's second statement got to do with his first statement?

Nothing at all! They are totally different statements. In the first statement, for perpetual motion under Newton's first law, no work is done and no energy need be input. In the second statement, work is done (the form of energy is changed), which requires energy input so that the input energy can be changed!). The second statement merely admonishes that, without inputting the energy, work (change of form of energy) cannot be done.

Thus the assertion in Planck's connector "i.e.", that the two statements are equivalent or identical, is a logical non sequitur. One cannot equate a false premise to a true statement, and then claim that the equating constitutes a proof of the first (false) statement!

Hence Planck's statement (and the usual variations in the statement of the prohibition of perpetual motion machines as if such were perpetual working machines performing work without any energy input at all) is false. Technically it is false because it contains a false premise and a logical non sequitur."

Best wishes, Tom Bearden [Sunday, May 25, 2003]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sources:
The Sea of Energy on which The Earth Floats [Thomas Henry Moray]
http://www.rexresearch.com/moray2/morayrer.htm
A Radiant Sea of Energy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/farout/story/0,13028,984710,00.html
Radiant Energy by Thomas Henry Moray
http://www.sumeria.net/phys/moray4.html
http://www.tesla.hu/moray/moray.htm [Hungarian source]
The Life and Work of T. Henry Moray by Gaston Burridge
http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/free_energy/moray.html
On Thomas Moray [Fate Magazine 1956]
http://www.twelvestar.com/Sourceworks/Thomas%20Moray.html
Radiant Energy and Cold Electricity
http://www.free-energy.cc/radiant.html
Moray Energy Device History [Moray Valve Manuscript]
http://www.24hrz.com/adeone/science/moray/moray_intro.htm
Thomas H. Moray: Transmutation of Ores
http://www.rexresearch.com/moray/moray.htm
Book Review: Excalibur Briefing/Bearden
http://www.raven1.net/excalibr.htm
Electrifying Times Discussion Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ETList/message/333

Edwin Gray's Energy System
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/edwingray.htm
Edwin Gray's EMA motor [The Engine that runs itself]
http://www.sumeria.net/free/evgray.html
History of EV Gray Motor [VHS] Norm Wootan
http://www.teslatech.info/ttstore/books/330004.htm
Edwin Gray Creates Motor that Consumes No Fuel
http://www.rexresearch.com/evgray/1gray.htm
Ed Gray's Power Conversion Tube
http://www.keelynet.com/evgray/powrtube.htm
Links: Edwin Gray, Howard Johnson, Robert Adams
http://www.electricalternative.com/Support%20Links.htm
Al Francoeur and Ed Gray Pulsed Capacitor Discharge Engine
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/grayphotos.html
Free Energy and The Death of Ed Gray
http://www.ohooligans.com/weird_stuff_ed_gray_story.html
First Conference on Future Energy
http://users.erols.com/iri/cofe.html
Tom Valone on the Death of Paul Brown
http://users.erols.com/iri/Pauleulogy.htm

Paul Baumann
http://colossus2.cvl.bcm.tmc.edu/~wje/free_energy/testatika/testatik.txt
Testatika Machine
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/testimages.htm
http://utenti.lycos.it/testatikmachine/introindex.htm
http://utenti.lycos.it/testatikmachine/prototypes/external-first.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/testatika/
http://www.siw.at/de/html/body_testatika.html [German]
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/testatika.htm Paul E. Potter [Free Electricity]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/testatika/messages/1001?viscount=100

Alan F. Francoeur
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/bingofuel/alfvap/ ALF Vaporizer
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/wesley2.htm Gary Motor Replication
Russian Patent Controversy
http://www.greaterthings.com/News/FreeEnergy/Directory/FaradayLabs/alternator/ALF_controversy/
Interference Disk Electric Generator
http://geoffegel.tripod.com/interference.htm
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/interference1.htm
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/interference2.htm
Self Running Regeneration Machine [Al. Francoeur]
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/francoeu.htm
The Works of Al Francoeur
http://freeenergy.greaterthings.com/Directory/ALF_Vaporizer/index.html
Quantum Magnetic Motor Project [Jean-Louis Naudin]
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/qedynmnu.htm

E. R. Laithwaite
An Inventor in the Garden of Eden
http://www.opengroup.com/sabooks/052/0521441064.shtml [book]
Bearden Correspondence regarding Laithwaite
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/061903.htm
Bruce DePalma on E. R. Laithwaite
http://depalma.pair.com/Absurdity/Absurdity10/ElectricalScienceWrong.html
http://www.padrak.com/ine/INE23.html
Fractal Magnetism and the Structure of 4D Winding [Laitwaithe]
http://www.geocities.com/syzygywjp/FractalMagneticField.html
Books on Magnets [Laithwaite included]
http://my.execpc.com/~rhoadley/magbooks.htm
Gyroscope Papers and documents [E. R. Laithwaite]
http://www.gyro-scope.co.uk/papers.asp
Mass Transfer: An Introduction by E. R. Laithwaite
http://www.gyro-scope.co.uk/masstran.asp
Gravitoelectromagnetism And Singular Translation [abstract]
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/MAX.htm
Driven Coherent States And Their Delocation
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/DELOC.htm
Levitation [Laithwaite, Bearden, Heaviside]
http://www.halexandria.org/dward135.htm

Ref:
http://www.wanttoknow.info/ufocover-up10pg Disclosure Project: Military, Government witnesses
http://www.pseudo-blue.com/FreeEnergy/TeslaWaveTheory.html Tesla Wave Theory
http://www.777-health.net/free_energy_futures.html
http://www.gocs1.com/Psionics/FREE-ENERGY-DEVICES2.htm
http://www.free-energy.cc/moray.html
http://www.greaterthings.com/News/FreeEnergy/Directory/Inventors/THenryMoray/dumped_in_river.htm
http://www.sumeria.net/phys/moray4.html Radiant Energy by Thomas Henry Moray
http://www.nuenergy.org/3rdExotic.htm
http://www.aw-verlag.ch/NewsE.htm
http://www.aw-verlag.ch/Intro/Intro05E.htm
http://ionvalve.com/book7.htm
http://www.newphys.se/fnysik/2_1/alternativ-teknik/alttek1_se.html [Danish]
Top Ten Impossible Inventions that Work: Jeanne Manning
http://www.atlantisrising.com/issue4/ar4topten.html
http://www.pacificsites.net/~dglaser/h2/*links4.html Free Energy Links
The Lifter Project and the Sea of Energy
http://www.serv.net/~only1egg/science/LifterPage.htm
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/1135/perrogos.htm
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/electrets.htm
Water Drop Electrostratic Generator
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/1135/kelv1.htm
The Problem of Free Energy by Bruce DePalma
http://depalma.pair.com/Absurdity/Absurdity07/ProblemOfFreeEnergy.html
What is Scalar ElectroMagnetics?
http://twm.co.nz/Beard_scalem.html
1984 Tesla Centennial Symposium Proceedings
http://www.tfcbooks.com/mall/proceed.htm
Transmutations of Nuclear Waste
http://www.rexresearch.com/articles/nukewa~1.htm

Where in the world is all the Free Energy?
http://www.geocities.com/loco_labs/l-g-pages/l-g-issues/l-g-i-wherethefreeenergy.html
http://www.777-health.net/free_energy_futures.html

Edwin V. Gray [Spanish]
http://energiailimitadagratis.sinfree.net/enlaces_energia_electrica_gratis.html

Patents
http://www.keelynet.com/tesla/
http://www.helpinghandconsulting.com/tesla/ftpteslapatents.html

Action to Declassify Secret Energy Patents
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/vesprman.htm

Contacts and Sources:
http://users.rcn.com/zap.dnai/contact.txt

UFO's Captured On Film
http://www.anomalies.net/ufo/nasaufo/3902/
http://www.hardware-one.com/forum/read_msg.php?tid=277&forumid=seriousth
http://www.nationalufocenter.com/news/images.php?id=68
http://www.nationalufocenter.com/news/images.php?id=67
http://www.nationalufocenter.com/ufo/sts48.shtml
http://www.nationalufocenter.com/ufo/sts75.shtml

Certain UFO's [lightwave emissions go unseen by naked human eye] are captured on film.
http://members.aol.com/ufomedia/dir11/blksaucr.html
Mexican Skies full of UFO's
http://ufoarea.bravepages.com/events_mexico.html

General Ref:
http://www.padrak.com/ine/INECONF99.html
http://www.keelynet.com/vsrtnews/mar96.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
vlad
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: Dec 23, 2002
Posts: 1011
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Same source - Part III

Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:36:51 -0400
From: "Leslie R. Pastor" <lrpastor@o...>
Subject: Did T. Henry Moray [Edwin V. Gray] discover the "Radiant Energy" of Nikola Tesla? [Part 3] Examine the Facts.

Part 3

Research:Source: http://www.rexresearch.com/evgray/1gray.htm

Edwin V. Gray http://www.free-energy.cc/graybio.html is a 'significant' focal point regarding radiant energy. Also what happened to him is indicative of what happens to most 'researchers' and 'inventors' who try and provide 'alternative' means and methods of 'free' and 'unencumbered' modes of 'energy' capture and transport modality.

They have been [historically] "officially' [investigated] sanctioned and prevented from providing a method and the means for the 'demonstration' of their 'technical' innovation. In short they have been [officially] 'stopped,' before they could present a [significant] alternative to the [current] status quo.

Those that are in the 'energy' [catbird] seat refuse to relinquish their [position of] power. Their power is derived from their [current] status as energy providers [oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear]. The provision of these 'providers' is maintained by the 'money' power [bankers, regulators, and fin/pols [Ferdinand Lundbergh: book [The Rich and the Super Rich]. This has been a cozy relationship, albeit a fraud against the 'consumer, citizen, and ultimately the national and international populace of this planet.
They have been successful at maintaining this 'fraud' because they have 'conveniently' hidden behind the 'plausible defense' statement of protecting the 'public interest' from [out right] fraud [on the part of unscrupulous hucksters].

This can be remedied by allowing the funding [official grants] of 'inventors' and 'researchers' in an 'open' system of 'observers' via the internet, satellite (TV/Radio) communications, by all 'governments' [state, local, federal]. Research is the lifeblood of Technology, and only OPEN SYSTEMS (open to all) will provide mankind the necessary advancement of their culture, and lifestyle. To provide less, is a clear indication of 'hidden' controls and therefore a furtherance of the 'control' paradigm.

Those in the current energy 'catbird' seat know that time is running out, and they have attempted to prolong their 'status' via alternative 'methodology' of their 'scarce' [limited] resource, via fuel cells, and hydrogen production [from coal, oil, shale---using nuclear energy as a method of extraction]. This indeed will gain them an advantage---by extending the timefactor by several decades. But the economy will have to be 'overhauled' and there will be a significant "retooling" of the industry.

Why not just allow for the 'complete' transference from the current [oil, coal, shale, nuclear] paradigm into the 'newer' more [efficient] direct methodology of 'open' energy systems, via 'magnetism' and 'cold' [more efficient] energy systems. Just leave the 'old technologies' behind. And start 'funding' the 'newer' paradigm. Make a determined effort to 'JUMP The SYSTEM' now before the problem reaches our doorstep. Or we will face the 'reality' of 'shortages' via higher prices, less freedom, and the 'relative' loss of wealth. Our situation will deteriorate until we are no longer a viable 'entity' as nation-states, people, or culture. We should not allow this to happen. We must go on, worldwide research must go on, and individual 'effort' must go on. For our 'humanity' depends upon it, for the 'needs of the many' do in deed, outweigh the 'needs of the few'.

All the Best,
Leslie R. Pastor
PS:Source: http://www.rexresearch.com/evgray/1gray.htm
"The electromagnetic motor has attracted attention from important government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Air Resources Board, and the Department of Transportation. Governor Ronald Reagan of California last year presented Gray and his wife, Evelyn, with a certificate of merit. Others indicating interest in the project are congressman Barry Goldwater, Jr, Edward Roybal, Del Clawson, and James Corman, US Senator Alan Cranston, and state senators Alfred Alquist and Nicholas Petris.

John Brogan, head of the Environmental Protection Agency's advanced automotive power systems development division, says his 25-man staff has looked at approximately 20 alternate engine proposals each week for the past two years. He says nearly half of the proposals are for "perpetual motion" machines; that is, machinery that would produce continuous movement without any outside energy source. The concept of perpetual motion violates all known laws of thermodynamics." [Editors Note: This is not true, it is a fundamental law of Newtonian physics: "that a body in motion tends to remain in motion," This is how the 'galaxies rotate', the 'electrons spin', and the 'planets orbit around star systems.' Perpetual motion is a fundamental fact of physics and is irrefutable as demonstrated in the vacuum of space.]

Free energy physicists and inventors have shown us how to 'capture' this 'wheelwork of nature'


Research: http://www.rexresearch.com/evgray/1gray.htm
Sources: Edwin V. Gray
http://archive.anomalies.net/archive/Keely-Net/Energy/PEA1.ASC
http://befreetech.com/energysuppression.htm
http://www.keelynet.com/evgray/evgray.htm
http://www.keelynet.com/evgray/evgray1.htm
http://free-energy.ws/gray.html
http://www.sumeria.net/free/evgray.html
http://www.free-energy.cc/gray.html
http://educate-yourself.org/fe/coldelectricityvideo.shtml
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/graypatentjun.htm
http://www.rexresearch.com/evgray/1gray.htm
http://www.losangelesweb.biz/cgi-bin/search.cgi?keywords=Los%20Angeles%20Patent%20Attorney%20and%20Agents
Edwin Vincent Gray Jr Married Joy Rene Means
http://freepages.books.rootsweb.com/~teking/simon/pafg168.htm

ElectroStatic Field Power Generating System
http://www.sumeria.net/free/hydeptnt.html

Testing New Technologies that Claim to Be Over-Unity
http://www.seaspower.com/

Tesla
http://www.altenergy.org/3/new_energy/early_pioneers/tesla/tesla.html

Ref:
http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/n-mach.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/notes.htm
http://www.aip.org/physnews/graphics/html/supercon.html
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/av_index.html Establishment Viewpoint
http://www.lindsaybks.com/arch/turbine/ The Tesla Turbine [Lindsey Technical Archive]
http://www.cheniere.org/briefings/circuitcurrents/002.htm [Circuits]
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/video.htm
http://users.rcn.com/zap.dnai/turbine.txt Tesla Bladeless Turbine
http://www.t0.or.at/tesla/teslatli.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/3354/wallace.html
http://www.car-stuff.com/carlinks/future.htm Electric Cars and Alternate Fuel Cars
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/3354/ Informagnet
http://www.altenergy.org/
http://www.rexresearch.com/aulegd/egdpla~1.htm
http://www.padrak.com/ine/index.shtml
The Negative Side to ZPE according to Jay Garrett [Technologies]
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/2272/

Back to the Future: Baku Oil
http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/63_folder/63_articles/63_adams.html
http://www.citisight.com/baku/azpetrol-info.html
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/company/cnc11926.htm
History of Baku
http://www.window2baku.com/eng/9Main.htm
History of Baku Oil
http://www.window2baku.com/eng/9oil2.htm
The Russian Rockefellers [book]
http://www.nobel.se/nobel/alfred-nobel/alfredbooks/
http://www.nobel.se/nobel/nobel-foundation/publications/miscellaneous.html
http://www.kb.nl:88/perl/av_clt.pl?KBC-COMM=GET&BIBLIO_KEY=AC:781781647&KBC-PREV=dossier
How the Order Developed the Stagnant Soviet Union [Antony C. Sutton]
[America's Secret Establishment pp.149-150]
http://www.ciagents.com/article.php/?sid=121
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.zpenergy.com Forum Index -> General All times are GMT - 10 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

 

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.