Follow by Email

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

28 this was published in oped and copied over from my scribd file


A discussion on the emergence of a dynamic new energy source from dark energy

By Rosemary Ainslie 1-2010

Opinion is divided on the causes of Global Warming. The question is whether this is entirely the result of carbon dioxide being spewed into the atmosphere from our profligate energy demands, or whether it is some cyclical occurrence that has more to do with solar rhythms. The consensus, however, is that our manufacture and use of energy is somewhat less than responsible. And the alarming effects of Global Warming have precipitated a thinly disguised global hysteria. These concerns were articulated at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that was concluded in mid December 2009. The mandate endorsed the general requirements of the Kyoto Accord with detailed proposals for implementation at this accord’s expiry in 2012.

This convention was held in Copenhagen which, through a curious quirk of coincidence, was also the birth place of modern physics. Here, in 1941 Bohr and Heisenberg formulated the principles of quantum mechanics which, in turn, has systematically enabled the unravelling of the structure of the atom and its particles. In effect the expanding knowledge of quantum mechanics introduced those very same modern technologies that, today, are widely exploited in the manufacture of energy. And while, at the time, the event was newsworthy, it did not carry the banner headlines afforded to the UNFCCC. The year is now 2010 and our need for ‘clean and green’ energy dominates our attentions. And this is the more so as we learn of the fragilities associated with Nature’s need for balance to ensure some continuity of our species. Doomsayers abound and even the more moderate amongst us are aware of that nervous inner reference which speaks to possible annihilation of our entire species. It is seen as a kind of Armageddon where the affront comes not so much from an international assault but from some unstoppable turbulence within Nature herself.

It is perhaps, as a consequence of this concern that a fringe group of experimentalists have come into their own and they use the vehicle of the Internet to test new forms of energy. This is not a minor event, hidden within some small chapter of “Google”. Rather it is a fast growing movement spearheaded by some extraordinary talents in applied electrical engineering. And its growth seems exponential. Some of the larger forums that are dedicated to these discussions are Energetic Forum and Over Unity. Others include Free Energy, Rex Research, ZP Energy, and on and on. The “dot-com” list is long and growing; and the discussion threads varied and well subscribed. And the readership of these topics is also growing at pace. So much so that the forums have become a required advertising medium and, in some instances very evidently and profitably so. And the contributors to those threads, the experimentalists themselves, take pride in the quality of their presentations, the accuracy of their measurements and the effectiveness of their devices to reduce pollution or to enhance efficiency. The overriding theme, the need to explore new energy and new ways of applying this energy.

But this, in turn brings one’s focus back to those Laws of Physics which tell us that we can never get more energy out of an energy supply source than was first put in. It is widely understood in the same context as “what goes up – must come down, what goes in must come out”. The battery that supplies our starter motors cannot give more energy than is available in the battery. The plug that feeds power to our lights cannot give us more energy than the power available from that plug. And so it goes. These principles are known as Thermodynamic Laws and they constrain a maximum efficiency in the delivery of energy to “1”. For this reason it’s known as an equivalence principle and it’s been a rule that has been tried and tested since it’s inception when Sir Isaac Newton uncovered the gravitational force at the turn of the 18th Century. This was subsequently expanded to include the forces from induction and then the nuclear forces themselves. Always there is a required conservation of energy and as always, there is this restriction, this constrained value in the exchange of energy, which is evident - - everywhere.

Or is it? Ten years prior to the Copenhagen Convention, that historical meeting of the minds, that well publicised confrontation between the charismatic Bohr and the less than engaging Heisenberg, was the first quiet announcement of yet another force. A full decade in advance of the birth of quantum principles was the certain evidence of a new force both proposed and located. It was first called hidden matter and subsequently defined as dark energy from dark matter. And it is now conservatively proposed that this energy and its variously-proposed particles make up 96% of the entire universe. And notwithstanding the search for this force, a search that has now spanned four generations, no one has ever seen or identified the particle that is understood to be the foundation upon which visible matter rests. It is only known by default. The fact is that according to mainstream’s knowledge of physical laws, our galaxies should, by rights, be systematically unravelling. Something extraneous to those galaxies is also holding their star structures together. This is also variously referred to as zero point energy or “the God particle” and is measured through the art of gravitational lensing. It is thought to permeate the universe in considerable abundance. It is entirely invisible to light. It responds to gravity. But in all other ways it’s properties can only be determined by a “best guess” exercise that our scientists themselves find less than satisfactory. Consensus on its overarching description is that its particle does not fall within the standard model. And no textbook description of the particle is possible because, quite simply, and notwithstanding extraordinary efforts to do so, no one has ever seen it.

But there is absolute consensus on one thing. If the source of this energy could be located, if the particle could, indeed, be identified, then it promises an abundance of energy that will more than satisfy the urgent demands of our mushrooming energy requirements. Perhaps it is a response to this challenge to discover or uncover this energy that motivates those myriad threads in those manifold Open Source Energy forums. Or perhaps it is simply the desperate, last and earnest reach of a minority interest to salvage humanity from its own excesses. But whatever it is that initiated this obsessive interest, it is now fuelled by constantly growing claims that this energy can, indeed, be accessed. The energy barriers that were determined by that equivalence principle appear to be crashing down with monotonous regularity. And many such claims seem to show a signature transient ‘spike’, an unusually large momentary voltage level induced across a variety of components in inductive switching circuitry. The configuration of the circuits are as varied as the objectives. But the constant theme is that whether it is heat or motion that is required – it is readily available and at a cost that has blown the energy barrier into history together with those rigid paradigms established by our mainstream scientists and articulated in their Thermodynamic Laws.

A little over a decade ago this author developed a magnetic field model using the atypical tools of dialectic reasoning. While such is usually applied to philosophical questions the application here was tested against observed physical realities and were seen to conform to such. But more to the point, the developed model was also able to reconcile the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron. The underlying proposal is that composites of a superluminal magnetic dipole may comprise all visible matter. But it is the conclusions to that model which is the subject of this exercise rather than the model itself. It points to the fact that the thing that binds our galaxies, that new and dark force, is the same thing that binds all atomic structures into three dimensional objects. In other words everything that has a three dimensional property, bricks, stones, electric kettles, even the very ground of the earth, is bound by fields of these particles that are referred to as zipons. And the departure from mainstream thinking is precisely that the atomic value of the atom remains untouched in this exchange of energy, in this binding of matter. The actual exchange of energy, be it thermal or kinetic, is managed by these particles in their interaction with atomic energy levels which in turn also comprise their own fields of zipons. The binding fields are seen to be extraneous to the atomic structure itself.

If these proposals are fundamentally correct then their implications are profound. In effect the proposal is that measurable mass has an energy quotient that is not in its particles, those electrons and protons that we can and do measure, but is actually in these fields of zipons that remain outside the scope of our measuring instruments. It can only been seen or measured when some applied imbalance alters these fields and induces it to move outside that bound condition. Then a chain reaction sets up a cascading series of imbalances while these fields readjust and, in some instances, entirely unravel that bound state. The result can vary between a mild and evident fatigue in that structure, all the way to a total atomic disassociation from its bound condition. It can result in a break in the filament of a light or in a heap of ash from burnt wood. And conversely, and without that applied potential difference, the field is in a state of balance. And then the atoms that it binds are in a state of comparative rest. In this more quiet form the field holds its position albeit that it continues to orbit.

It is proposed that the velocity of the particle in its orbit is the reason that the field remains invisible. It moves at superluminal speeds and light itself cannot find it. But break those symmetries and one can either see or feel the heat off its broken and cascading strings of zipons. Or we can use and measure the voltage which then induces a current flow. The model also proposes that the mass of the zipon carries both a kinetic and a thermal property both of which can vary. In a field it becomes cold and fast and small. Outside the field it becomes hot and slow and big. And the two manifestations are in a direct and inverse proportional relationship to each other. But energy itself, the thing that moves through space and in time, the thing that varies the position and properties of the amalgams that it binds, the thing that manifests as a flame to impart heat or as a voltage to impart current flow, those things are also proposed to be the source of all the energy that we use. The questions then remaining is how true to observed realities are these proposals? And what changes are introduced regarding any new insights into the exchange of energy?

Here’s the thing. It means that inductive components in electrical circuitry, anything that can experience an induced voltage, is also able to generate its own energy. This thesis suggests that the filament in a light bulb is able to generate as much energy as was fed to it by the plug source. The element in an electric kettle can give back the same amount of energy that was delivered to it to make it hot. And this energy is dynamic. It can be as great or greater than the amount of energy first supplied to it and it only depends on the mass of that component to determine the amount of energy that it is able to regenerate and on the rate of the switch to determine the number of times it can perform this ‘cycle of regeneration’. And in this way, and always with the proviso that some switching system is applied to “give it a chance” the model proposes that this energy is useable, or better yet, reusable. It refunds the fund of energy first applied and suggests that the cost of energy is then the difference between what was first given and what was then put back. Within the approved system of recycling all things, it is suggested that energy itself can be recycled. And the model proposes that this is done by and with courtesy from these very fields of invisible matter.

And then to the second question. How accurate are these claims? Here opinion has been divided. The training within academia has traditionally denied the possibility of breaching these thermodynamic constraints. This tradition is long and well grounded in evidence. Switching circuits are well known. All varieties of applications have been tried and tested. And “always” results conform to the required parameters of these equivalence principles. However, a breach of these laws, as it applies to this model, was proved in an experiment detailed and published in the October edition of Quantum Magazine, in 2002, written by this author in collaboration with Brian Buckley. Every effort was first made to get this published in a reviewed journal so that the information could get academic attention. But those efforts were unsuccessful. The published claim indicated a co-efficient of performance in excess of “17”. In other words the amount of energy delivered by the battery supply source used, was exceeded 17 times by the amount of energy dissipated at the load. This co-efficient of performance is generally referred to as “COP” and in this instance it is COP>17. It was an extraordinary claim but it faded from a minor flurry of South African media attention, probably because there was no academic comment. The publication was subsequently also posted on the Internet at Various Open Source Energy forums then picked up on the information and their evident desire to replicate the experiment was then communicated to this author.

Which is where these forums’ experimentalists come into their own. Glen Lettenmaier, also known by his avatar as “FuzzyTomCat”, was the first to successfully replicate the test detailed in that original quantum paper. He was given the use of a Tektronix TDS3054C Digital Phosphor Oscilloscope, which is state of the art measuring equipment. Then through a series of well documented tests he studied the required parameters to realise the gain using the same experimental apparatus that was detailed in that earlier paper. What he uncovered, largely due to the sophistication of that measuring equipment, was that there was a signature harmonic waveform required to establish the gains. It appears that the circuit is able to establish a preferred aperiodic oscillating condition that holds, within it, a signature pattern. This can be pictured as a swing that pushes in one way and is then pushed back in the opposite direction. Then at a certain precise speed the swing will move in both directions, the forward thrust giving enough energy to secure the backward thrust. Then a short period or a “wobble” where that ‘harmonious’ pattern is lost and then again, the cycle is repeated. Subject only to the evidence of that harmonic the actual cost of energy expended by the battery appears to be zero. But because the harmonic pulses are intermittently lost, the actual expenditure is slightly greater than zero. But always, when properly tuned to resonance, it is less than the amount of energy that is dissipated at the load. The ratio here is “COP>4” when one takes only the heat at the resistor into account. If all the heat evident throughout the circuit is also taken into account, then the value is more in the region of “COP>9”, or thereby. In other words, the claim in the original Ainslie / Buckley document was validated and the particular requirement for the over-unity performance definitively exposed.

It is important to give some explanation for the fact that this effect has been overlooked by mainstream science and for so long. In point of fact the real miracle is that this condition was found at all. In the first instance applied switching applications are designed to hold a frequency. Any condition of aperiodicity, any evidence of a chaotic waveform, would systematically be factored out of the application as being corruptive to the objects of that application. There are papers written on how to reduce this chaos. Historically all such conditions were considered less than satisfactory. It has never been encouraged. And consequently nor has this innate advantage ever been seen nor studied.

The implications of this are extraordinary. It points to the real possibility that if the circuit were sufficiently finely turned so that the resonating frequency could always include that harmonic, then the indications are that energy can be delivered by a supply source at absolutely no cost from that supply. Yet this is not a “perpetual motion” claim. The battery will lose mass to evaporation. The plates will be corrupted over time. The battery supplying the signal source will lose voltage. And the bound condition of the resistive element itself may systematically degrade. But that’s pocket change. The cost of supplying energy through this technology remains seductive and promising and, in truth, seems to answer the overriding need for an inexhaustible supply of energy at a cost that Nature herself can afford. Which is good news indeed.

However there are certain hurdles that need to be crossed before this technology passes through to the production lines and enters the world as a usable technology. There is a radiated “RF” (radio frequency) component in that resonance that will need proper shielding in some applications. There is the need to develop circuitry that is better able to maintain the signature harmonic. The optimised shape and size of the various resistors need to be tested. Different inductive and resistive materials need to be considered. And all this will take a great deal of research and with it, research funding. Traditionally such funding is channelled to universities, technical institutions and privately owned laboratories. This funding is usually supplied by companies with a vested interest in exploiting the technology and/or securing patent rights. But there’s a caveat to investment. This is that the research itself is not that unrealistic, that exotic, that it flies in the face of thermodynamic principles. And this is the very point at which this application falls on its knees and dies. These claims are indeed, that ‘far out’ and that bazaar. No self-respecting researcher will endorse such a study, nor a self-respecting investor fund its research, unless and until the claim has been published and closely scrutinised by a broad range of academics.

So, for this technology to move forward, publication in an academic medium is required. It must be understood that there are two reputable sources of publication that, between them, control the publication of virtually all academic papers written in English. The first is the Institute of Electrical Technologies, (IET) which is the European arm and it’s sister body across the Atlantic being The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, (IEEE). Between them they hold significant control over nearly all academic paper submissions of this type. The first application was submitted to the IET in January 2009. This was rejected out of hand and was not even submitted for review. The second was submitted shortly thereafter to the IEEE. The editor here was evidently prepared to look to the experimental evidence and the paper was submitted for review but summarily rejected – probably by consensus vote from the reviewers themselves.

But by now the replication exercise on one of those many Open Source forums had taken off. This was on a thread named “COP 17 heater / Rosemary Ainslie”. The readership of that thread is in the thousands per day. And the postings have evolved to evidence multiple replications. There are many experimentalists who have done some variation of that initial “Quantum” test as it is referred to. Two such players are Aaron Murakami and Glen Lettenmaier. But it was Lettenmaier who pipped everyone to the finish line with the accurate and transparent evidence of the required and unequivocal evidence of heat being dissipated at the resistive load at a cost that was singularly less than that being supplied by the battery. His experimental aptitudes were exemplary and his data and multiple “YouTube” video demonstrations together with live streaming broadcast of the actual waveforms was done without any editing of the facts. This therefore proved that the circuit was able to regenerate usable energy. More to the point, the measurements relating to that supply source was determined by state of the art measuring equipment.

As a consequence of these efforts some of those members decided to rally together, to collaborate and submit an Open Source paper to the IEEE. This is possibly a first of its kind, and is intended to confront those same academic editors with the evidence of this new data based on these carefully recorded tests. In evaluating the strength of a thesis it is required that there is some experimental proof and that the experiment itself is replicable. In other words, a claim is never substantiated unless and until the conditions of that claim can be tested and replicated and proved. Then indeed the thesis may have merit. Here the initial test was designed to prove that the circuit components themselves were capable of producing regenerated energy. This first submission carried with it the accreditation and endorsement of BP (South Africa), SASOL (SA, who also offered a bursary award for its advancement), ABB Research (North Carolina, USA) and others. But the circuit was actually Replicated only by ABB Research, the others being Verifications of the existing built circuit. The Open Source replications proved that the first tests were not an anomalous result from some freak, co-incidental and haphazard assemblage of experimental apparatus that produced a “one-off” effect. And this is the point. That entire replication exercise is usually and traditionally advanced within our academic institutions who, in turn, are alerted to these technological breakthroughs courtesy of the publication of papers in those journals. But failure to publish prevented those same academics from knowing about this claim let alone testing it. In effect, Open Source had filled the gap that had been closed by a handful of editors and/or reviewers who pontificated that, on the basis of probability, the experimental evidence presented in that initial paper, was erroneous.

Some talented members of the Open Source community collaborated in this publication, including this author, Harvey Gramm, Glen Lettenmaier, Ashtweth Palise, Andrew Gardner, Donovan Martin and Steve Windisch. Each contributor brought their own expertise into the exercise. And this time the paper has not been rejected but rather has been referred to a different journal with a different emphasis. It has been deemed to more appropriate to the journal devoted to renewable energy rather than power generation. Which may be good news. The hope is that this recommendation was well considered. Meanwhile the technological breakthroughs are happening at pace. The latest feat is by Michael John Nunnerley who has done a live broadcast of his own circuit variation of these principles that shows the battery recharging over a 17 hour period while systematically running a compact florescent lamp which is burning something in the region of 11 watts.

All of which points to unequivocal evidence of over unity results – that challenging claim that goes to the throat of our Thermodynamic Laws and calls to question it’s applicability to the dark energy that the thesis claims as its source. But to get this argument to mainstream, to those academics who between them can evaluate the evidence in that paper, it first needs to get through that rigid editorial process. The hope is that, should that process fail, should the sheer lack of credibility in the reviewers prove to be an insuperable barrier to publication, then this article and others like it can alert our public to these facts. Indeed the good news is that energy is available and it is inexpensive and it is clean and green. It will put paid to our dependency on both utility supply sources and oil. It may thereby cause a certain amount of social upheaval as the broader populations rid themselves of their dependency on traditional energy supply sources. But the good news is that energy usage will be freed from the pollutant excesses that have resulted from so many years and so many generations of abuse. Nature herself will get a much deserved break. And, whatever the causes of global warming, our own culpabilities will then no longer be at question.