Walter Russell, Otis Carr (Tesla) and Schappeller

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Walter Russell
  3. » Walter Russell, Otis Carr (Tesla) and Schappeller

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2008 07:21 am
I think most of you already know this, but if not, I will mention this, as it is something very obvious and interesting.

As we all know, Walter spoke with Tesla about his theories. And as it seemed, they really impressed Tesla. Unfortunately nothing much is known of the late Tesla, except a few mentions by Tesla himself.
He said once in a letter to a friend, that he should not be to much amazed if he will fly to him in a vehicle, where you would never guess it could fly, when you see it standing on the earth, that it would rather look just like an iron stove.
He also mentioned to a newspaper, that he invented the perfect flying device, which doesn't need any propellers or wings.
He also mentioned shortly before his death, that he now finally has found the ulimate theory, which explains what gravity is.
I personally think all these efforts were actually, because Tesla now used the cosmogony of Walter.
Later on it is known, that the young Otis Carr worked in the hotel, where Tesla lived. He brought Tesla daily the nuts for feeding the pidgeons on the balcony. They got friends, and as Tesla knew, he would not live forever, he passed all his knowledge to Carr.
Carr later on produced flying saucers with the knowledge he got from Tesla. And if you read the explanations from Carr, how these work, you will immediately recognize the wordings of Walter. Carr used exactly the same words, for the same things, as Walter did mention them in The Universal One. So this actually means, Tesla used them too, which actually indicates, that Tesla got this from Walter. Otherwise this would be some very strange coincidences...

And if you now look at how he built his flying saucer, you immediately recognize Walters work.

Some time before the German Carl Schappeller got his own theory about how things work. And the funny thing is, this is actually about exactly the same, as what Walter is saying! He only uses a completely different wording for the same things (so it's unlikely he knew Walters work). You also recognize, that he didn't get as a complete picture as Walter had, but for a "simple man" on its own this is rather amazing...
And Schappeller also developed a device to get free energy, or to drive with this an "ether ship" as he called it. And guess what, this looks also almost exactly like the Carr device, which is a Walter device...
The only difference is, that Schappeller made his coils spherical and not conical, like Carr and Walter. This also indicates, he didn't knew Dr's work.

So all these persons actually proclaimed the same circuit for generating Free-Energy. The only difference was, that Dr made a bit the lazy man approach, by saying, I don't mind if it is not directly self sustaining, as long as it produces much more energy than needed, one could take a turbine and make it self sustaining...Carr and Schappeller made them directly self sustaining, but this actually meant, to quite complicate the circuit. So I think for the home power plant, as to what Dr emphasized to use this (HSC), Dr's approach would be much more economic to produce...

Addition:
I forgot to mention, that it is quite funny, that the different people used the different features, which Dr described:
* Dr used the feature of resistance to compression, by inserting a metal in the anode core, so that this will heat up to incandescence. So he created heat.
* Schappeller used the fact, that the planets will revolve around the sun. Even if you stop them, they will immediately again start to turn. So he used this motive power which his artificial sun (he called it stator) created on the artificial planet(s) (he called them rotors) to use as power. He calculated, that a stator of 15cm diameter would theoretically be able to deliver 36'000HP, but in practical reality one would have to limit the number to about 9'000HP. (Quite tremendous values, for a 15cm stator sphere...)
* Carr used three effects: He used the motive power as Schappeller did, but he also used mainly the regeneration power of the "planets", to get more electric power out, than needed for the central core (artificial sun). He also said, that a downgraded version of his "saucer engine" will be perfect as a home power plant. (Well as Carr was Tesla's disciple, it's no big surprise that Carr focused on the electric features...)
And as third effect he used the fact, that negative discharge repels and that objects seek like pressure conditions, to actually get his device to levitate.
 
Richardgrant
 
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2008 08:21 am
@Peace phil,
Peace wrote:


Anf if you now look at how he built his flying saucer, you immediately recognize Walters work.

Some time before the German Carl Schappeller got his own theory about how things work. And the funny thing is, this is actually about exactly the same, as what Walter is saying! He only uses a completely different wording for the same things (so it's unlikely he knew Walters work). You also recognize, that he didn't get as a complete picture as Walter had, but for a "simple man" on its own this is rather amazing...
And Schappeller also developed a device to get free energy, or to drive with this an "ether ship" as he called it. And guess what, this looks also almost exactly like the Carr device, which is a Walter device...
The only difference is, that Schappeller made his coils spherical and not conical, like Carr and Walter. This also indicates, he didn't knew Dr's work.
..

Yes there is no doubt in my mind that Walter Russell had a wonderful understanding of the cause of creation, last November Justin and I were approached by two inventors to have a look at a free energy machine, (based on Russells philosophy) they had made which required no input of fuel to produce energy. This machine is now almost ready to go public.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 07:30 am
@Richardgrant,
@Peace: Do you have any good links on Carr?

@Richard: What kind of machine was it? Electro/magnetic or mechanical device?
 
Richardgrant
 
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 08:12 am
@mr4v0,
mr4v0 wrote:
@Peace: Do you have any good links on Carr?

@Richard: What kind of machine was it? Electro/magnetic or mechanical device?

Its a mechanical device, using a pendulum, tapping into the energy coming from the center of the shaft, and attaching mechanical devices such as generators, pumps etc. It is a good example of Russells philosophy of energy in motion. He states that there is no energy in motion, all energy will be at ninety degrees to motion which is at the still center of the fulcrum, eg the center of the crankshaft of an engine, the center of who we are is.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 08:25 am
@Richardgrant,
I have trouble understanding some technical words in english. Can you explain to me what hub, fulcrum and crankshaft (ok, I guess I know what this one is) are... in layman's words. Best with some examples.

Thanks!
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 07:58 am
@mr4v0,
@mr4v0: What is your mother tongue?

Well just for better view, I assembled here the pictures of the different devices, so people interested don't have to look around in the net:

Schappeller's Device:
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9992/schappellergi5.jpg

It consists of a metals sphere in which the two spherical coils are, which are filled with an electret material. On the upper and lower side are two magnets. The coils are embedded in a ceramic core which as a spherical hole in the middle. In this hole, the "artificial sun" will be built. The rotor is connected to the equator connections of the stator windings (just like in Dr's drawings). And then the angle of the rotor to the stator determines the power developed (as described in the Universal One)
(Unfortunately the rotor(s) is(/are) only drawn symbolically in this drawing, but I think you all know how it would look like[see below])

Carr's Device:
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/1481/carrengineyz3.gif

It consists of two central conical coils, base to base, on a (metal?) core. In the middle of the core is a spherical hole (like in Schappellers device). On the outer rim are the artificial planets which are also exactly made like that, and their angle to the central core is so, that they are in charging position (see The Universal One p. 219)
The outer magnets are IMHO for starting and for modulating the discharge (because you actually wanna be able to control this thing, where it flies, ...).

And last and certainly not least, Dr's device (from the HSC):
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/4811/russellshomepowerplantsyn5.jpg

I don't think it needs much explanations, as you all know it. Well Dr didn't make a "spherical" hole in the middle, but except this detail it's exactly the same as Carr's coils.

But it's obvious, that they all share the same characteristica and base idea. Namely to create an "artificial" atom/planet/sun/galaxy, and use the features of it.
 
esaruoho
 
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 10:58 am
@Peace phil,
something related to otis carr..
im not sure where this is from or who did it or anything, but chekit

http://www.scene.org/%7Eesa/merlib/specs1_lg.gif
 
esaruoho
 
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 11:03 am
@Peace phil,
could you tell me which page of HSC, and which edition this is from?

Peace wrote:
And last and certainly not least, Dr's device (from the HSC):
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/4811/russellshomepowerplantsyn5.jpg

 
Peace phil
 
Reply Sat 9 Aug, 2008 02:45 am
@esaruoho,
HSC 3rd edition, page 730.
 
Richardgrant
 
Reply Sat 9 Aug, 2008 07:29 am
@mr4v0,
mr4v0 wrote:
I have trouble understanding some technical words in english. Can you explain to me what hub, fulcrum and crankshaft (ok, I guess I know what this one is) are... in layman's words. Best with some examples.

Thanks!

The fulcrum is the axle which a pendulum swings from, like a childs see saw, is the pivot point of the see saw, which is always at right angles to the motion. This is where God is, the energy here is stationary, centering all motion, the material world of matter is in constant motion, and has no energy in that motion, only a potential energy. that same energy centers my being, this is where God is within my being. I get all my energy from that center within myself.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Sat 9 Aug, 2008 12:30 pm
@Richardgrant,
@Peace: I don't have that picture of Dr's device in my HSC. Damn, I hate my HSC. All the good stuff is left out.:perplexed: I have this Lindo and some1 else thingy. It's not worth the money I payed for it. Especially now, when I see what other editions contain.

My mother tongue is serbo-croatian, but the language doesn't exist anymore. It used to exist in another time (and place). But it is not my active language, since I don't live in those parts anymore. Why?
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Sat 9 Aug, 2008 12:42 pm
@mr4v0,
That's strange. I always thought the 4th edition is the same just with some additional explanations at the end. I didn't know that they actually also changed part of the content. But you shouldn't hate because of this fact. For what is the use of hate, it only makes you unhappy, shuts off your love connection to your environment and doesn't change anything. So be happy.
Is the drawing of the sun power multiplication lens device also missing?

About the language: I just thought, if I just happended to speak your language, I could've explained to you directly. But Richard did such a good job. Again thank you very much, for this, from the deepest depths of my heart. I always get into a very good consciousness while reading your posts.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Sat 9 Aug, 2008 12:50 pm
@Peace phil,
I don't hate it, it just isn't so interesting. I don't even have the 730th page. My edition is some 500+ pages. I'd just like to know who those people are and why they changed the HSC and with what right. I smell a conspiracy here.:detective:

What other picture are you talking about? Please put it on the forum, I doubt that I've seen it in my HSC. Thanks.

Well, Richard's explanation is the almost same as Dr's. I guess you can't put it any other way in English language. I thank Richard for that. I'll have to find some children's mechanical-devices-explained site with pictures. Why haven't I thought of that earlier? Wink
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Sat 9 Aug, 2008 12:57 pm
@mr4v0,
Well, I knew, that the 4th edition has a different typesetting, therefore it has less pages. But I didn't knew that there were some real changes in content. Anyone having seen both of these editions could shortly tell, where these editions differ?
For content also has to differ in these areas, as the content explains these pictures...

The philosophy.org page says:
Quote:
[...]the Fourth Edition contains the additional Unit 12 with a comprehensive review of the previous units, an integral presentation of the Russellian science in light of the latest development in the Neo-Russellian research, and a further instruction on living a Cosmic Conscious life.[...]


So it doesn't sound as if anything has been discarded. But why an additional Unit 12? The 3rd edition already has 12 Units? So they maybe mean an additional chapter in unit 12?

I will upload it and send you a PM with the link, as this thread is already going much offtopic...
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Sat 9 Aug, 2008 12:59 pm
@Peace phil,
Maybe if you tell me in what units to look for those pics. But I belive I would remember a picture as the one you posted.
 
esaruoho
 
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2008 11:30 am
@Peace phil,
Peace wrote:
HSC 3rd edition, page 730.


thanks, also, could you tell me which figure it is?
 
esaruoho
 
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2008 11:35 am
@mr4v0,
mr4v0 wrote:
Maybe if you tell me in what units to look for those pics. But I belive I would remember a picture as the one you posted.


yeah, that would be useful. i dont think they are in the first 6 units of home study course#4. i only have the text of edition#3, no images. and they werent in home study course #1 either.
it seems 1+3+4 are accounted for, up to a point, i'd like to see what differences there are in 1, compared to 2, compared to 3, compared to 4. would be nice. :nonooo:
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2008 12:41 pm
@esaruoho,
It's Fig 34. Surely these pics are not in the previous editions, as Dr experimented with these devices only shortly before the publishing of the 3rd, while working with the NORAD.
(E.g. the Power Multiplication Lens Figure is from 1962)

EDITED!!!
In the meantime, we know that the fourth edition is actually a revised edition of the first edition. This is also indicated on the cover of the 4th edition.
This explains, why these pictures are not in it.
And there are quite big differences in content and in the figures from the 1st (4th) edition compared to the 3rd.

But why did they take the first edition as the base for a new revised 4th edition and not the 3rd?
 
daystar
 
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 06:42 pm
@Peace phil,
Yes, this is what I've been trying to figure out myself re:the details. After scouring the www seems the 3rd edition sounds like the one to have.

Peace;21470 wrote:
It's Fig 34. Surely these pics are not in the previous editions, as Dr experimented with these devices only shortly before the publishing of the 3rd, while working with the NORAD.
(E.g. the Power Multiplication Lens Figure is from 1962)

EDITED!!!
In the meantime, we know that the fourth edition is actually a revised edition of the first edition. This is also indicated on the cover of the 4th edition.
This explains, why these pictures are not in it.
And there are quite big differences in content and in the figures from the 1st (4th) edition compared to the 3rd.

But why did they take the first edition as the base for a new revised 4th edition and not the 3rd?
 
daystar
 
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 10:54 pm
@Peace phil,
Re: 3rd edition vs. 4th edition of the Walter Russell Home Study Course:

Others can chime in if they know more (please do). But after some investigation it looks like it might be a different or very much edited Unit 12 compared to the last one Walter worked on. Though I cannot say what may have been added, if anything, by Lao or anyone else, post-Walter's death, to the last 3rd edition version (12 units) that was copyrighted. Though it sounds like, if nothing else, that additional images were later added to the 3rd.

I also noticed when searching online that there were editions being sold with only units 1 through 11. But the prices were generally the same as for the 12 unit versions of the 3rd edition [around $200(US) to $240(US) - in America and the monetary equivalent in the UK]. The 11 unit ones were described as either 3rd editions or as being the last ones Walter worked on himself.

Most of those used/second hand ones I found for sale initially are no longer available. Looks like unless someone gets lucky and finds an old copy somewhere they'll have to order for new copies. From one of the current 2 main HSC sellers. For getting either the amended 4th edition version (revised 1st edition) from the University of Science & Philosophy or the 3rd edition version from Dowsers.com...though I recently also saw a 4th edition listed at the Dowsers website, too. Not sure if it is or was the same one as what the US&P offers.
:puzzled:

Anyway, it has been kind of fun in between study sessions to find out about the dramatic history of the Walter Russell Home Study Course saga. History is rarely ever boring. :detective:


Peace;21419 wrote:


The philosophy.org page says:


So it doesn't sound as if anything has been discarded. But why an additional Unit 12? The 3rd edition already has 12 Units? So they maybe mean an additional chapter in unit 12?

I will upload it and send you a PM with the link, as this thread is already going much offtopic...
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Walter Russell
  3. » Walter Russell, Otis Carr (Tesla) and Schappeller
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/22/2014 at 11:09:26