Follow by Email

Friday, November 19, 2010

the eternal dilemma


Dear Reader,

I don't know how to describe what little insights I have.  I get deeply embarrassed when I think of my presumptions in trying to explain anything at all -  let alone something of such profound importance  as this field.  And all with so little evident schooling or ability.  And then I'm caught up again in the beauty and simplicity of all those patterns that I'm compelled to make yet another attempt to describe it all.   The solutions are classical. Yet it seems that I can do this vision, this solution, no justice at all.  This is my Hell.  It is holds me locked in a dilemma that has doggged my best efforts for all these many years. 

The real problem is this.  I know of no-one who has proposed such eccentric properties to a single particle that it can have a field condition distinct with properties that are entirely reversed from it's 'out of field' condition.  It's not the same thing as holding an electron bound in a bubble chamber.  It's far, far stranger than that.  The proposal is that the particle in the field is cold and fast and small - and out of the field it becomes hot and slow and big.  And then there are other required eccentricities.  Correspondences.  Synchronicities.  It needs must sustain a field condition that is mathematically perfect.  Yet that very perfection intrinsically generates its required imperfection.  It repels and attracts - both.  The strings are held bound - locked in a formation as strong as Sydney Harbour Bridge.  South to North, head to toe, in an uncompromising military formation.  And in a line that can be as short as the space between two atoms or as long as the entire length and breadth of our universe.  And all sizes in between.  In that head to toe formation - that necklace - that linear formation, it is propelled into an orbit at extraordinary velocities by the sheer repulsion to all those other strings in that field formation.  Yet within that repulsion is enough attraction to hold the field bound.  Perfect charge distribution in whole and in part.  Those long necklaces group together.  Chokers of pearls piled against more chokers of pearls.  Break those strings and the entire formation collapses in a cascading miracle of matter made manifest in our own time frame.  We see this as sparks from a fire,  the glow in flux,  the vast clouds of our nebulae.  And then that glow fades - the fire cools, the nebulae recongregate - all against varying times that span infinity itself.  Those miraculous little pearls cool.  They regain their formation and their velocities.  They again dip back to enjoy a field condition where they simply hide outside our time frame and disappear from our world.  No longer  are they in our dimensions.  And then they busily engage with each other in that field condition.  A structured background as perfectly assembled as a sonnet - and as breathtakingly economical as a haiku.  As classical as is required for perfect conservation of energy.

So.  How does one reduce such a vision into the dry and accurate language of applied physics?  The concept itself may very well be reduced to a mathematical formula.  But at what price?  I would hope that the field itself can be conceptualised.  That way it can be better shared by many.  Else it may drift into the dry abstractions that our physicists require - which will devolve and damage this vision and condemn it to obscurity.  And it is a classical solution.  It seems that Einstein did well to object to our quantum resolutions.  If any of these insights are correct then God indeed does not play dice.


abstract and introduction to the paper authored in open source collaboration and submitted to TIE


Dear Reader,  

Again for the record, I am here intending to copy some parts of the that paper submitted to TIE - that was so heavily contended.  What follows is the text that was authored by myself and Donovan Martin and which was open for edit and comment by all the authors including Harvey Gramm.  In point of fact none of the the remaining authors outside of Harvey Gramm - and this includes includes Glen Lettenmaier -  made any material contribution to the text.  Glen simply conducted the tests under mine and Donovan's guidance and according to the requirements proposed by both Open Source members and Harvey Gramm.   I will give a copy of paper to TIE representing a full replication of our earlier published tests published in QUANTUM October edition 2002 - when this has been scanned and can be reproduced together with the details of the collaborators' names.  The following posts are intended to represent that part of the text of that paper that represented my own contributions.  It is not intended or implied that this is the entire text of the entire paper, missing as it will do, the  text and contributions of Harvey Gramm. 

The paper is lengthy and will be added to here - but I'm not sure of the limitations to these post lengths and will have to determine this on a 'trial by error' basis. 

Kind regards,

This experiment is designed to test the predictions of a thesis that determines material hidden properties of charge in circuit components. A MOSFET switching circuit is applied in series with an inductive resistive load and an interactively tuned duty cycle on the gate then enables an aperiodic, self oscillating frequency.  Subject to overlying harmonics this is seen to improve the circuit’s coefficient of performance above four.  The thesis proposes that this level of efficiency is due to the induced transients where the resultant current flow emanates from the circuit components. It is proposed that these have an alternate material source of charge to that of the supply. This energy is further proposed to be the source of the anomalous heat signatures as the circuit components enable this charge flow through the battery supply thereby also enabling a conservation of charge.


THE following tests were designed to evaluate a thesis that predicted anomalous heat signatures on an inductive resistor placed in series with a switching circuit. The thesis is developed from a non classical magnetic field model but a full description of this falls outside the scope of this submission. What is pertinent here is some overview of that thesis as it applies to current flow. The following paragraph is intended as a broad brushstroke description of this and is further clarified as described in the Appendix I.

The model proposes that charge has the property of mass with the material properties of velocities and thermal capacities associated with that mass. These particles do not conform to the standard model and remain hidden within three dimensional solid or liquid objects or amalgams. They are extraneous to the atom itself and only interact with the atomic energy levels that, in turn, comprise independent fields of the same fundamental particle. These extraneous fields are responsible for the bound condition of the amalgam. This interaction between the fields and the atoms’ energy levels results in a balanced distribution of charge throughout the amalgam. Measurable voltage reflects a transitional state of imbalance throughout these binding fields that, subject to circuit conditions, then move that charge through available conductive and inductive paths to reestablish a charge balance. In effect the circuit components that enable the flow of charge from a supply source are, themselves able to generate a flow of current depending on the strength of that applied potential difference and the material properties of the circuit components. Therefore both inductive and conductive circuit components have a potential to generate current flow in line with Inductive Laws.

(This reference to the thesis was included because TIE would not allow reference to any of the author's names prior to review to ensure absolute impartiality in that review process.  The previous submissions of this paper to IEEE included a direct link to that thesis, and my name associated, as it is, with this  - as the IEEE do NOT have this preclusion in their review process.   In other words, the thesis had ALWAYS been a part of every submission.  And much required.  We needed to show that the results of these tests were not of an anomalous nature.  Lest the reviewers assumed that we were pointing to a 'freak of nature' rather than to something that was both predicted and indeed repeatable.  This was an essential part of our submission as it was not expected that any reviewed journal would publish a mere anomaly.   We therefore had to rewrite the paper to TIE to include a synopsis of that thesis else the paper would otherwise have lost this advantage.  This inclusion of the thesis became the 'theme' of Harvey Gramm's complaint to all the collaborators where he seriously proposed to them that  I was hijacking Glen's replication to promote my own work.  And what followed were those mutterings - both loud and public by  both S Windisch and A Palise, added to the excessive parade of injury and indiganation by Glen Lettenmaier  - that the work SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROMOTED AS AN ANOMALY. 

Sadly and unfortunately none of them, none of these so called promoters of clean green,  and with the entire exception of Harvey Gramm realised this.  And Harvey Gramm was careful to advise all the collaborators that he could convince - that the paper COULD indeed be published as an anomaly.  And it seemed an easy task to convince them and thereby achieve the required alienation of myself in that collaboration as they none of them seemed to realise that it was ALWAYS referenced in the introduction of our previous submissions.  I often wonder if those collaborators even understood the most of the text in either paper.  Certainly, on the face of it, it seems not.)

Classical assumption requires an equivalence in the transfer of electric energy based as it is on the concept of a single supply source. Therefore voltage measured away from the supply on circuit components is seen to be stored energy delivered during closed circuit conditions of a switching cycle. The distinction is drawn that if indeed, the circuit components are themselves able to generate a current flow from potential gradients, then under open circuit conditions, that energy may be added to the sum of the energy on the circuit thereby exceeding the limit of energy available from the supply. Therefore if more energy is measured to be dissipated at a load than is delivered by the supply, then that evidence will be consistent with this thesis. The experimental evidence does indeed, conform to this prediction.

This submission details the experimental apparatus, the applied measurements protocol and the data from a test that is designed to adequately assess the data as it relates to the thesis. It is considered that this submission of the experimental results will allow a wide dissemination both of the experiment and some consideration of questions relating to these anomalies, as being preferred and required.

The circuit is designed to enable a secondary, current flow that is induced from the collapsing fields over the resistor during the ‘off’ period of the duty cycle as a result of counter electromotive force (CEMF). This induces a flow of current in anti phase to the initial current from the source and this is seen to return to the battery supply source to recharge it. The performance coefficient is enhanced through an applied duty cycle that allows the circuit components to oscillate at a naturally recurring frequency. This is referred to herein, as a preferred mode of oscillation which, in turn, results in an aperiodic, self-regulated, resonating frequency. Distinctive harmonics are evident in the waveform and these are seen to be a required condition to the circuit’s enhanced performance as it relates to the efficiency of the recharge cycle over the battery. However the precise parameters of the duty cycle, determined by adjustment of the potentiometer at the gate of the MOSFET transistor, are found to be both critical and elusive.

The fact that these benefits to an enhanced coefficient may have been overlooked under usual applications can be attributed to the narrowness of the range required for this setting. Under usual applications such aperiodicity is considered undesirable and therefore systematically factored out of standard switched applications.

Also included is a discussion on ‘meshed currents’ that are evident and a detailed account of the data analysis that was applied to all measurements. A series of related tests are appended that variously record the progress of the applied test parameters and the improved methods of measurements as the knowledge of the application unfolded. This schedule includes an evaluation of the inductance required on the load resistor to optimize the effect, as well as an evaluation of the comparative diameters of that resistor to determine optimized conditions. Other tests include the measurements that were performed to address a variety of concerns including grounding problems, voltage differentials and applied high frequencies without the required harmonics. These have been appended, together with an overview of the thesis relating to this effect, for both purposes of record and to afford a fuller evaluation as required.

The test that is described herein has results that appear to be consistent with the predictions of that thesis. The returning current from CEMF is seen to reduce the battery discharge rate while sustaining a higher level of energy dissipated at the load. This has a resulting advantage to the coefficient of performance. Indeed, the actual measurements indicate a potential for an absolute conservation of charge at the supply. The conclusions to the tests include a broad discussion of the potential of this technology and indicate a need for expert evaluation of both the results and the theoretical paradigms that predicted the results.

thank you Coast to Coast - and David Davey for your help


Dear Reader,

I need to pay tribute to our team member - this marvelous LeCroy - which is making due record of all our test results.  Many thanks for your contribution here to all our efforts to David, to Coast to Coast and to LeCroy.  All are very much appreciated.

Kindest regards

protocols applied to heat profiling on our tests


Dear Reader,

I'm simply trying to bend my mind around the logic required for the control on these tests that we're conducting.  We're attempting to establish the heat profile of that standard type resistor.  I'm writing this down because it sometimes happens that I then better understand the logic.  Here's the set up. 

We've contained the element inside water inside some hefty insulation that the heat is more or less trapped.  Now.  Our advice or instruction is to apply a series of graduated voltages to that rig - from small voltages of say, 10 volts to 12 volts - 16 volts - 24 volts and upwards - in a series of independent tests.

Then we record temperature rise, say every 10 minutes on each of those control tests.  That way we establish the graph - a time line against the record of temperature rise over a time - which can then be plotted on an  'x' and 'y' axis, I think it's termed.  And we allow each control test to run until the temperature has reached a predetermined maximum say of 60 degrees centigrade.

Then we apply standard protocols to those controls.  The value of the wattage is determined by the measure of the applied voltage divided by the Ohmage of the resistor to determine the rate of amperage.  Then, the applied volts multiplied by the applied rate of amperage flow - volts times amps or 'vi'  - determines that wattage empirically.  And then that wattage times the time taken to reach the pre determined temperature is summed to equate to the actual number of joules required to heat that body of water from ambient room temperature to that 60 degrees, say.  That rate of temperature rise will then precisely relate to the amount of energy dissipated to heat the water to that level expressed as power and related to the caloric values of the test.

In effect, if it takes 2 watts 12 hours to heat it to 60 degrees, and if it takes 4 watts 6 hours to heat it to 60 degrees, then it should take 3 watts 9 hours to heat it to that same level.  In effect we have a graphic indication of what energy is applied and dissipated which then, in turn, relates to the applied wattage delivered against that temperature graph.  Not only will we be able to determine the caloric values of those measured tests - but with those graphs we will be able to determine any arbitrary or 'in between' value by reference to those results that are then empirically evident.

This test is perfect.  In effect - when we apply this to a measure of our supplied energy from the battery supply source then it will relate to the rate of delivery determined by the amperage measured across the shunt multiplied by the voltage of the battery or volts times amps or 'vi'.  This wattage times the time it takes to heat that water to the equivalent 60 degrees will then be compared to the standard control test and any increase in the rate at which it heats that water from that applied wattage - will be a gain of our experiment over the control.  I see it now.

But there's a caveat.  We also need to gauge those smaller wattage values that will never be sufficient to heat that water to any discernible or measurable value.  Here the proposal is to take the readings of voltages applied from 2 volts upwards with the probe somehow positioned that it touches the actual body of the resistor and without immersing the resistor in water.  Here the object will be to apply a series of lower voltages to whatever temperature it stabilises at - against ambient room temperature.  The same protocols then apply - but this will determine the wattage but only with reference to ambient room temperature.  Because of the small heat values associated with this lower wattage - it will be the only reasonable means of determining those wattage values that we anticipate on the experiment itself.

Personally - I see no difference between the two tests other than the fact that the one dissipates its energy into water - which becomes the standard reference and the other that dissipates its energy into the surrounding atmosphere.  But the former test has the advantage of a reference to it's actual intended application.  And in as much as the dispersion of that heat is more general - less localised - it is probably a fairer indication of the total heat dissipated.  This the more so as it is understood that the on our earlier tests the resistor has localised areas of heat that can vary.