The Power in a Name
To name something is to hold a certain measure of power over it.
But to name it falsely is to risk that it will have power over you.
In the Biblical tradition, naming was never arbitrary. To name a thing was to discern its nature—to speak to its essence. When Adam named the creatures of the earth, it was not an act of dominance, but of intimate recognition. Throughout Scripture, names revealed character, calling, and destiny. Even God’s own name, revealed through fire and breath, was more than a label—it was a mystery, a current of being.
In science, too, names shape perception. When we call a force “back EMF” or “inductive collapse,” we are not simply describing it—we are deciding how to approach it, how to harness it, how to dismiss or revere it. Misnaming can obscure understanding. And yet, the same phenomenon may carry many names depending on the lens through which we view it.
As physicist C.F. Bohren once said:
“Many errors of a truth have their origins in imprecise language. Precision of language is needed, not to please the pedants, but to avoid absorbing nonsense that will take years—if ever—to purge from our mind.”
This is not just a linguistic issue—it’s a spiritual and scientific one. Words don’t really mean things to people; people mean things through words. When our terms are confused or misaligned, we risk misunderstanding what we are working with. This is especially true in electromagnetic theory, where language has shifted, merged, or broken apart across decades of evolving models.
On Counter Electromotive Force (CEMF), Back EMF, and Inductive Collapse
In a foundational clarification, Dr. Peter Lindemann writes:
“The Wikipedia definition for Counter Electromotive Force (CEMF) actually covers the territory pretty well. It is just a little short on detail. Technically, BACK EMF is the reverse voltage generated in an electric motor that is responsible for holding back the current when the motor speeds up. CEMF is any other reverse induction in an inductor that slows down the increase or decrease in the applied current. This process is described by Lenz’s Law, where ANY induced current opposes the movement of the magnetic field that induced it…”
“…The appearance of the very short duration, very high voltage transient, when the current powering an inductor on DC is shut OFF, does not follow these Laws—especially on CLOSE OBSERVATION… I refer to this situation as the energy of ’the inductive collapse,’ since that distinguishes it from other varieties of CEMFs. The voltage-producing phenomena produces a different QUALITY of electricity, according to the ‘Method of Conversion’ described by Tesla… the first step in the process of producing PURE Radiant Energy.”
This distinction is vital. Lindemann challenges the assumption that all reverse voltages are the same. While CEMF and Back EMF fall within the classical framework of Lenz’s Law, the inductive collapse—what Tesla may have seen as the first step in radiant generation—operates under different principles when closely examined. It emerges not merely as an opposing force, but as a transformative event.
On Radiant Energy and Tesla’s Method of Conversion
Lindemann continues:
“There are two issues here. The first issue is the PRODUCTION of radiant energy and the second is the EFFICIENT TRANSFER of radiant energy. The first issue is covered by Tesla in his work on the ‘Method of Conversion’—the conversion of ‘normal electricity’ into ‘longitudinal waves of electrostatic force,’ otherwise known as Radiant Energy…”
“Tesla’s Radiant Energy patents clearly state that Radiant Energy is defined as electrostatic charge conveyed by Radiant Matter. Radiant Matter is made up of neutral particles of mass at least 100 times smaller than electrons. The general ‘Method of Conversion’ is to charge an inductor with intermittent DC current, and collect the inductive discharges in a capacitor.
Then, discharge the capacitor into another inductor of high self-inductance and low impedance, to raise the voltage even higher for use in lighting systems or stepper-type motors. When studying Tesla’s ‘Method of Conversion,’ it becomes obvious that he was talking about a very broad phenomenon. The original diagram shows SIX different processes, all of which produce variations on the Method.
The term ‘Radiant Energy’ evolved from Tesla’s friendship with and admiration of Sir William Crookes. Crookes invented the Radiometer, a device Tesla referred to as the most elegant motor ever devised. Crookes was studying the effects relating to the emissions from incandescent matter. The question was: when a piece of mass is heated to the point where it starts to emit light and heat, what EXACTLY is coming out of the matter that conveys these properties into the surrounding space?
The Radiometer demonstrated that these emissions had MASS and could convey a PHYSICAL FORCE to another object. Tesla came to believe that ANY source of light and heat—such as the Sun—was emitting ‘whatever’ is emitted when MATTER RADIATES. Whatever that was, was termed ‘Radiant Matter.’
Since it could go right through the glass enclosure of the Radiometer WITHOUT disrupting the vacuum inside, the determination was that the particle size was INFINITESIMALLY SMALL. Tesla’s later experiments determined that these Radiant Matter particles were the primary CONVEYOR of electrostatic charge.”
Here we see another terminological shift. Radiant energy is often misunderstood—conflated with solar radiation, infrared heat, or generic high-voltage discharge. But in Tesla’s usage, and Lindemann’s interpretation, it describes something else entirely: a distinct form of energy transfer involving longitudinal waves, neutral particles, and electrostatic propulsion.
This highlights the danger of flattening meanings. When we assume all energy is alike, or all discharges are equivalent, we lose the subtlety of Tesla’s method. A misunderstanding of names can lead to decades of misdirected effort—while the truth hums quietly in the background, waiting to be rightly named.
When we study these phenomena—CEMF, BEMF, inductive collapse, radiant energy—we are not merely navigating a technical maze. We are engaging in an act of discernment.
To name a thing well is to approach it with reverence and precision. It is to say: I see you for what you are—not just what others have called you.
This page is not just about clarifying definitions. It is about reclaiming the integrity of language in the search for truth. In the tradition of prophets and scientists alike, we seek to name the invisible—carefully, humbly, and with eyes wide open.