Follow by Email

Saturday, November 20, 2010

test objectives outlined by Harvey Gramm


Dear Reader,

The following extract was authored by Harvey Gramm.  It was included in the introduction to the first paper submitted to the IEEE and was added as an appendix 1 in the paper that was subsequently submitted to TIE.

I am including it here for three reasons.  The one reason is that Harvey claims that he simply does not understand the thesis.  Yet this extract shows a remarkable level of understanding.   If he does not or did not understand it - then he, notwithstanding, was able to give an exceptionally articulate account of it.  Here is that evidence

The second reason that I'm publishing it is because Harvey is on record as denying that the spirit of collaboration was ever there.   It is true that the text of those papers was variously written only by myself, Donovan and himself.  But that early spirit of collaboration was always there - alive and well - and if Harvey was  intending to harm that effort then that intention was well hidden.  The inclusion of A Gardiner, A Palise and S Windisch to the collaboration, was simply intended to broaden that global open source representation. I trusted that they would support the objects of the paper and invited them to join.   In retrospect it was an appalling decision to invite them at all.  So much say for so little contribution.  What was I thinking?

The third reason is a chapter all on it's own.  This extract - this introduction - was absolutely in the opening paragraphs of that earlier submission - loud and clear and in full view.  It's the required proof that the thesis was always in the main body of the work that was submitted to the IEEE.  In other words - here is the evidence.  For those readers who eventually get here and who don't know of this relevance - it is this.  The thesis was also in the introduction to that second, much contended paper, submitted to TIE.  But while the thesis was more fully explained in the appendix to that first paper, we were obliged to take out the appendix in our TIE submission as it referenced the actual name of one of the authors, being myself.  This was NOT allowed - when submitting for review.  Therefore I had to give a more comprehensive overview of the thinking that required this predicted result in all that experimental evidence.  The absurdity is this.  Those contenders, being H Gramm, G Lettenmaier, A Palise, Gardiner, Windisch ALL agreed to what was written.  What's more they gave their written approval.  I submitted that they could leave my name off the paper - in which case they could include the reference.  Or they could include my name in which case we had to add that explanation in the revised introduction.  They unanimously stated that they preferred me to leave my name in the paper with its required amendment. 

The paper was NEVER designed as an account of an anomaly - but rather as a result of a prediction in the context or frame of that thesis.  It is every theorist's dream that there is a definitive prediction in terms of a thesis.  I had that evidence.  And they all effectively  and publicly denied me this right.  Under the spurious pretext of preferring to consider it an anomaly.  And THAT after the event.  God alone knows why.  And all those shouts, all that denial, is not only a breach of their undertaking  but  is a breach of good faith towards the advancement of aether energy and technology.  It is the theme of the thesis and the dream of many of us enthusiasts.  Since the thesis is considerably more significant than these 'effects' which are somewhat crude considering the potential inherent in that 'field model' - then indeed - they have all been rather prodigal both with my early trust and with this potential benefit.  Certainly there is an apparent indifference to concerns for the furtherance of this study in 'dark energy' applications.  What may well have launched us into an early advancement and recognition of that model resulted in a fiasco.  And the advancement of the thesis is really required - on just so many levels - not least of which - being that it appears to be correct.

What I need to add is this.  My rights to publish this extract and any part of the work in that paper are protected.  In terms of the rules applied to all collaborative works - any or all the authors may publish where they will - provided only that they compensate all authors in the event that there is a payment for that publication.


The following exercise is intended as a broad brushstroke description of the non classical properties of current flow that was tested in the experiment described herein.

The classical approach to current flow recognizes that charge motion is predominately that of electric charge. The aspect of this thesis that is considered appropriate to this submission relates to current flow. It proposes that current flow comprises the motion of magnetic charge which, in turn comprises elementary magnetic bipolar particles. In classical terms, these particles would align with Faraday’s Lines of Force and therefore the number of lines that exist through a particular  real or imaginary surface, would still be represented as magnetic flux while the particles themselves, in distribution along those lines, represent the magnetic field.

It is proposed that these fields are extraneous to the atomic structure of matter and are thought to play a critical part in binding atoms and molecules into gross identifiable matter. Further, the particles obey an immutable imperative to move towards a condition of balance or zero net magnetic charge. Given a source material with an ionized charge imbalance which is measured as a potential difference, and given a closed circuit electromagnetic material path, these particles will return to the source material with the necessary charge to neutralize that imbalance. in anti-phase or opposite polarity to the first cycle.

While this is substantially in line with classical assumption as it relates to the transfer of charge, the distinction is drawn that the energy that is then transferred to such electromagnetic components, is able to regenerate a secondary cycle of current flow in line with electromagnetic laws. This energy is then not limited to the quotient of stored energy delivered during the first cycle and as presumed by classical theory. Instead it is dependent on the circuit component’s material characteristics and the means by which those materials balance a charge put upon them. Therefore there is a real energy potential in the secondary cycle which would reflect in a measured improvement to the performance coefficient of the circuit arrangement. This enhanced performance coefficient may be at the expense of the bonding of the material in the circuit components. In a worst case condition, this energy may be released as is observed in an exploding wire that is put under extreme charge conditions due to excessive current flow. In a best case condition, the energy is released gradually over time and results in fatigue to those components. This paper addresses an application of the gradual release.

Harvey Gramm - author