Follow by Email

Saturday, December 31, 2011

217 - a medieval science poyntedly based on belief

Dear Reader,

There's a delicious kind of 'push me pull you' dialogue in science that moves it to ever greater clarity. What I mean is this. Galileo finds proof that we orbit the sun. Then other astronomers find the boundary of our galaxy. Then others find the existence of more galaxies. And more. Then they find nebulae, the seed bed of galaxies. And so on. But these are all EVIDENT. When it comes to the scale of the 'small' then everything's INFERRED - because the smallest of the small is still the quark and the quark is still not entirely proved.

And what is also so profoundly excellent about science is this. UNLESS IT IS MEASURABLE - then, by and large, scientists reject the postulate - or they entertain it in a 'partial' context - at best. This has been the rule. UNTIL NOW. For some reason that can only be understood by our scientists - there is an ENTIRE reluctance to acknowledge the possibility of ABUNDANT ENERGY. It's strange. There is a global school of string theorists and dark energy enthusiasts who REQUIRE an outright abundance of something that is not actually visible. A particle that - most assuredly - is NOT part of the standard model. And - at a rough guess, about ninety percent of all scientists simply DENY that any such particle is even required. For the first time EVER in the history of science - there is a profound schism in theoretical physics. No matter the measurable proof - the evidence of this new force and it's required particle - there is a blanket DENIAL. Now the new rule is this. If it relates to DARK ENERGY - then the evidence is to be ignored.

Which is strange. There is no reluctance - to either fund or research the existence of the graviton. But the graviton has also NEVER been SEEN. There is no hesitation to award a Nobel prize to Murray Gell-Mann, the proposer of the quark. But the quark has NEVER been SEEN. So? Why then discard the possibility of a magnetic dipole? Because it's never been seen? Or because to acknowledge it would also require an acknowledgement of all that ABUNDANT energy?

I strongly propose that Ellis et al are due for a Nobel Prize - for the miracle of finding a way to measure and prove the existence of dark energy. And this is denied them simply because they are flirting with the proof of much energy - which, at the moment - is not considered to be politically expedient. Which makes a mockery of the Nobel Prize.

But they have also shot themselves in the foot. They too have spent some valuable resources on trying to find a particle which, by definition, can only be INFERRED. But there is nothing wrong with INFERENCE. Inference was required in those early searches for our galaxial boundaries. If the logic can stack - then why deny the particle? That 'darkon' equivalent of the 'graviton'? It makes no sense. If it were purely 'speculated' then indeed. Ignore the postulate. But once it's PROVEN? Then one ignores the evidence at the cost of respectable science - being as it is, based on experimental evidence. And what we show is that particle is a magnetic dipole. Use it and all falls into place.

Now. One of Poynty Point's preferred complaints against our own work is that it was all based on errors of measurement. IF this was the case - then this is what's needed. We must throw away our broad band oscilloscopes. Tektronix and Le Croy must both acknowledge that their very best instruments give ENTIRELY erroneous results - REPEATEDLY - and that the waveforms that are shown by both instruments are FALLACIOUS at best. Then those - not such broad band - standard oscilloscope manufacturers must follow suit. Because they show the same waveforms albeit without the ability to give the precise measure of the waveforms. Then all scientists everywhere must simply acknowledge that measurements are MEANINGLESS. And from hereon in, we must depend entirely on BELIEF. That would, indeed, cut it.

Then indeed, we can all comfortably deny that there is any abundant energy - speculated - or proved - and we can all set about destroying our planet with our prodigal overuse of fossil and nuclear fuels. Then, indeed, everything will make very good sense.

So. Poynty Point. I get it that you find it offensive that a mere uneducated old lady can endorse our string theorists with measured proof of postulate. I get it that you either do not understand the simplicity of a magnetic dipole or that you do not understand the requirement to rely on meaurement. And I certainly get it that the obscure and contradictory thinking incorporated into the standard model is to be sanctioned and used - in the face of the all evidence. But I put it to you that it is NOT scientific. At best - it's BIGOTRY. LOTS OF IT. WRIT REALLY LARGE.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Friday, December 30, 2011

216 - the background resulting in that prior collaboration fiasco

Dear Reader,

The following is a summary of the fiasco that relates to this early effort of mine to get this technology replicated and then published. It's written here for the record.

Harvey Gramm, to his credit, advised me, long back, that he was NOT my friend. I should have taken him seriously. What he did was insinuate himself into our collaboration for purposes of controlling the paper that we were working on - and thereby ensuring that it would never be published. His first efforts were to include a rambling discourse that referred EVERYWHERE to 'this author's opinion' - or 'this author considers' - all of which is diametrically against the collaborative contract where the author's personalities are required to be indistinct one from another. He then went to some pains to assure the collaborators that he was the 'author' of the paper and that my own contributions were nominal. He then advised all and sundry that my sole purpose was to 'plug my thesis' on the back of Glen Lettenmaier's unique results that had NOTHING to do with a replication. May I remind you all how thin was that denial. Glen managed a COP>7. Harvey miscalculated this to show a COP>4. BOTH claimed that since they did not get a COP>17 they had NOT therefore replicated. And - to confuse the hell of out this nicety - this then became their logic. In as much as their result did not reach COP>17 it was NOT therefore, a REPLICATION in any real sense of the word. ????? What the hell? Why not just acknowledge a COP>1? That alone is AMAZING. Anyway.

Needless to say - when those personal pronouns were edited out of the paper - then Harvey Gramm set up a HOWL OF PROTEST. Such manufactured outrage. The general plot being that 'how dare Rosemary Ainslie amend THIS MY WORK'. Again. This was the kind of self-serving nonsense that he could get away with because Glen Lettenmaier, Ashtweth Palise, Steve Windisch and Andrew Gardiner - were that ignorant of the protocols of a collaboration - that they simply did not realise that it was required. To this day I am satisfied that Steve Windisch is under the delusion that I had NOT written the bulk of that paper - that Harvey was the author and that I had NO RIGHTS TO AMEND HIS WORK. If it weren't sad it would be funny.

Then. With all that fabricated anger - he then engaged in lengthy discourse with all and sundry - to advise them that I was simply using Glen Lettenmaier's unique experimental evidence to 'piggy back' the ride and right to refer to my thesis. Fortunately for us all - the paper was REJECTED - but with the request that we submit to TIE - within the IEEE. And THAT required a complete re-write. TIE protocols require that submissions are made without any reference to the names of the collaborators - so that the work can be evaluated independently. Since half the paper required wide reference to work that was associated with the authors - then the work had to be included in the main body of the paper. This included the work on the thesis. Therefore were the salient points of the thesis referenced. And here again. Harvey pointed out to EVERYONE - yet again - that I was simply trying to justify the thinking in order to DETRACT? - was it? - from Glen Lettenmaier's independent DISCOVERY of over unity. Because, that rewrite necessitated an explanation of the thesis that predicted the over unity result.

Harvey had a field day and made fools of us all. He broke the spirit of collaboration that had thrived before this through a series of skype calls to all an sundry save myself and Donovan. He had the ready co-operation of Glen Lettenmaier who was most anxious to separate any of our prior work from the acclaim of what was to become THIS HIS OWN DISCOVERY. Ashtweth Palise was just flattered out of mind that he was included in this little 'foray'. Not only did he refer to himself as one of the 'big boys' but presumed, rather laughably - to claim to have had any part in writing that paper. In truth he can hardly write a sentence. Ashtweth was simply invited to be one of the collaborators because I knew he had the required skills to submit the paper. He was nominated, therefore as the submissions author. And Harvey, in his genius, managed usurp even this responsibility.

Fortunately TIE alerted me to the fact and asked me to validate the submission. They also required a substantial editing as Harvey - again deliberately - posted all the diagrams in haphazard format out of context of the paper itself. We edited. We submitted. And within the hour - the paper was REJECTED PRIOR TO REVIEW. This time the request was that we submit to a Physics Journal - as electrical engineers were not qualified to comment on the theory that predicted these results.

The good news was that I now fully understood what Harvey Gramm intended. And it was NEVER to progress this to a publication. In fact I think this would have diametrically opposed his actual mandate. The truth, dear Reader? It is that I was THAT stupid that I could trust to the good will of some internet personalities to progress this work - when they were variously trying to 'kill' credibility (Harvey), take ALL credit for the experimental results (Glen), just rattle around and feel important (Ashtweth), or simply arbitrate from a position of profound ignorance (Steve).

The person I feel sorry for is Glen. The poor guy at least managed the experimental replication. For this his work should have resounded - with or without my involvement. But then Harvey managed to manipulate him too. He was required to post results that DID NOT exceed that magic >1. THAT was when he killed off his own credibility. Let me explain. The results - on all aspects of this test - require careful tuning. Too much 'on' or too much 'off' and that magic moment is gone. Glen knew this. and he exploited it to co-operate with Harvey's need to cast doubt on the technology. Easily managed, but it should have then been followed by NEW and BETTER results. The rabbit out of the hat. The surprise victory in the face of certain defeat. BUT. He never got there. Tektronix recalled their apparatus - and Harvey had now done all that was necessary to 'cast' those 'aspersions'. Now all that Glen could do was throw a tantrum - and rather than acknowledge how utterly duped he had been by Harvey - he chose to rant freely through all the threads accusing me of ... God knows what? He's not renowned for his ability to articulate anything at all.

But the truth is this. Harvey Gramm's mandate was and is to actively prevent the advance of over unity. Be warned - dear Reader. Those sad little concerns - those 'mouthings' that he managed on what was ostensibly Glen's thread at EF.Com. The concern that over unity was never managed - that there may be radiation problems that have not been detected? All that? That was the applied anesthetic to put this technology to sleep. And he would never have had to try that hard. There is ONE TRUTH that is absolutely not arguable. To FIND this result requires the use of sophisticated measuring equipment. And this, most assuredly, is out of the range of the most of our forum experimentalists. Which means that this technology will get a good long sleep - certainly on the forums.

Anyway. That's the history of that little fiasco - an episode in the life of the internet. It shows me that one needs to meet ones collaborators 'eye to eye' to get a gauge of the character one is dealing with. My comfort is that there are whole threads and whole blogs DEDICATED to maligning me. I refer to it often to remind myself of the caliber of the troll. This alone is the proof required to show the lengths to which our pack dogs will go to prevent credibility of our work. And the good news is that their's is a losing battle.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I should add this. I am entirely satisfied that Harvey Gramm and Tinsel Koala? among others are all paid to deflect from this 'free energy' technology. They are trained in psychology - NOT SCIENCE - and their mandate is to use any means possible to detract from either the work, the character - or BOTH - to continually frustrate this reach for energy abundance. They are WELL PAID. And they are VERY EFFECTIVE. The also have liberal access to laboratories. And TK was able to deflect from the work of ?? - can't remember the name as it happened before my advent to the forums - (it could be Mylow - somesuch?) where he was able to INSERT a wire that simply was not there. I'll get back here when I've found out the man's name. They are DANGEROUS. And this is the real psyops program that is happening under our noses. I am NOT paranoid. And frankly I'd prefer it if this were not the case. We can all get comfort from the fact that Rossi is well able to deal with their nonsense. The man's a genius. And he's had his own bellyful of exposure to their agendas.

Think about it guys. Why is it important to maintain whole blogs to attack my character - when all I'm doing is trying to promote the concept of a particle in a magnetic field? Seems a bit excessive wouldn't you say?

Again,
Kindest as ever,

Rosemary

Thursday, December 29, 2011

215 - what the hell

Dear Reader,

I see my work is now being coupled with Aaron's work at Energetic forum. God help me. Let me remind you Poynty. We have entirely resolved the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron. We have conclusively proved that electric current has two optional charges depending on their justification around an electric circuit. We have shown a breach of Kirchoff's unity constraints in the evidence of a negative wattage which has no relevance to any standard paradigms. I find it rather presumptuous and intensely irritating that there is any assumption that I endorse the 'bouncing ball' as proof of unity excess. And I believe our own research to be rather more thorough than any proposed by anyone at all, let alone at EF.com.

When you are qualified to comment on my thesis then I'll be inclined to pay some small attention to your own thinking. As it is - Poynty Point - I would strongly recommend that you hold back until you actually get to understand the thinking. Clearly you're incapable.

What you can do - with some considerable skill - is dog my best efforts in your facile attempts to diminish this our work. Just 'lay off' - until such time as you've done a bit of homework. And start with physics. That'd be a good kick off. You need to understand the implications of putting a particle in a magnetic field. Do that - and you'll possibly get the same answers.

Sorry guys. This post has just ended up being a rant. I'll try and do something more constructive later today.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Let me add this - lest any of you don't see the relevance. If a magnetic field comprises particles then - as day follows night - we MUST be able to breach unity in the context that unity is understood - in terms of the standard model. And we propose that the particle is visible in 'flame' which is also when it is out of the field condition.

And THAT Poynty Point - is our contribution to the cause. Now - in the fullness of time - you can perhaps advise us what exactly your own contribution has been - other than these rather obvious and increasingly clumsy attempts at keeping this fact away from our forums. From where I sit it seems that you are rather frantic to refer to my work OUTSIDE OF THE CONTEXT OF OUR CLAIM. That's like criticising Einstein for his hairdo. Just not appropriate. I get it you don't understand. But just admit that much and you could, possibly, move on. MUCH NEEDED - I might add. You're the quintessential wet blanket. Damp and dreary. And - self-evidently - you have no intention of promoting any understanding of anything at all in your forum. God help us all. Have you ever stopped to consider why you're enjoying diminishing readership - and increasing lack of respect. Just address Rossi's breakthroughs for starters. That may convince your public that you're promoting and NOT frustrating OU. You see this I trust. We your public are on to you and your agenda.

R

Monday, December 26, 2011

214 - belated greetings

Dear Reader,

I'm up in the sticks - bushveld country. I was going to work from here - but the internet link has been tenuous - and today's the first time I've managed anything. Quite apart from which - I've been busy with my grandchildren. What a pleasure.

Belatedly - merry Christmas everyone. I hope, like me, you all had way too much of everything delicious - and that you recuperate in time for the New Year. I should be back by then. I noticed, with alarm, that our thread has dropped off front page at ou.com. I hope it's not from want of interest. We've been viewing game, lions, every species of buck. Some wonderful species.

This is my first exposure to the bushveld and I'm blown away at the sheer number of thorn trees. In the small area around his house there are at least a half dozen varieties. Everything surprisingly green - as we're in the rainy season. And WHAT storms. The sky alive with lightning flashes and rolling thunder. It makes our Cape storms rather tame by comparison.

I'll get back on topic soon. Just enjoying this much needed break.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Thursday, December 15, 2011

213 - good - we can relax now - Grumpy et al are going to sort out our problems

Dear Reader

A couple of points. The first is that I've finally got another blog. I'll post there soon. I'll possibly keep this one open as a commentary for our trolls. lol.

Much amused this morning to discover that Grumpy now determines that energy does, indeed, come from the environment. lol. As he puts it - like Tesla before him - this is his GREATEST DISCOVERY. Well. Then they've referenced another dissertation - this time on energetic forum - where a pretender has wrapped himself into a Gordian knot and found himself without the wherewithal to extricate himself. He is their new 'authority'.

Dear God. I seem to remember that Grumpy attributes energy to the movement of electrons that respond to 'pressure'. It's akin to MileHigh's contention that particles respond to gravity. The joke is that they both accuse ME of being deluded.

Anyway - it seems that all our puzzles related to 'free energy' or 'force fields' and their abundance - can now be safely ascribed to our new authorities on these matters. We all await their learned discourse with bated breath. Hopefully they'll find the required particle. And presumably they're aware of this need.

But on the whole, dear Reader, I suspect that this new meandering may only serve to keep our physics off its required course. Perhaps they should take a leaf out of my own book and show us all some experimental evidence FIRST. That would help.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

212 - there's none so blind

Dear Reader,

I'm miffed. Actually, that's not true. I am angered. Which still, somehow does not do justice to this outrage that I feel.

Please do yourselves a favour. Just imagine that a magnetic field comprises a particle. Impose that on what you know of a magnetic field. Then your own logic will carry our argument to its inevitable conclusion that herein lies the source of all that elusive energy that needs must be accessed.

In over a decade I know only this. A handful of collaborators and another handful of academics have acknowledged, privately, or publicly, the merit in this proposal. Now. I do not give a twopenny damn if that particle is called a zipon or a catastrophon or anything at all. I don't care if anyone comes out of left field who has the required credentials then give that proposal better credibility. I just CARE THAT IT'S PROGRESSED. It is a magnetic dipole that has a field velocity of 2C and out of the field it is identifiable as 'flame'.

It is a VERY unpopular realisation. Because it cannot be made without also owning up to our collective inability over the many, many thousands of years where we have worked with fire - that we have misidentified or misconstrued the properties of this. Something so OBVIOUS. Why then was it missed? I'll tell you why. It's precisely because it IS that obvious. Our theoreticians work with SUBTLE concepts. And the intellectual OUTRAGE of our academics is PRECISELY because the concept can then EASILY BE UNDERSTOOD BY ALL. They will need to forfeit that stranglehold monopoly they've assumed in their authority on matters scientific. IF indeed, this concept will be EASILY AND READILY UNDERSTOOD - then what further need for all that 'mystique' which cloaks precisely that authority that they parade.

Now. Let me tell you about another ATTENDANT danger. When these simple principles are applied to our general knowledge on things scientific - then it will, most assuredly, be progressed OUTSIDE OF OUR ACADEMIES. There is a simple solution here to generating PERPETUAL SPIN - that ultimate 'no no' of perpetual motion. A further simple application would enable anti gravity. If I can already see how this is applied - how much more readily will this be seen by those sharper intellects drawn from our world's population - now measured in the billions. Unlike me, there will be those who have the funds to experiment. All that power and knowledge - so freely dispersed. It's going to cause an unwelcome BALANCE. It is an imbalance or inequity in the general distribution of wealth that our monopolists require to promote their monopolies.

And the solution is based on one little non standard particle that operates in a field condition and transfers its energy when that field condition is disturbed. OF COURSE there is a crying need to close down my threads - to mock my work - to deny our results. But its done at the CERTAIN DELAY to the progress of this knowledge. AND. IF we do not progress this knowledge - and USE THIS FORCE - THEN WE WILL, MOST CERTAINLY - DRIFT INTO A CONFRONTATION WITH NATURE THAT WILL DECIMATE our population and most of the progress that has been managed by our civilizations.

So. It's a kind of ARMAGEDDON - but the war will be with nature itself. And it's neither here not there to say it's my idea - or anyone's at all. The truth is that - like all knowledge - it belongs to us all. I am therefore COMPELLED to progress this, as best I can - within the very real constraints of my poor abilities - until such time as someone manages to do this better. BUT KNOW THIS. It may be called by a different name - but it will always be what it is. A MAGNETIC DIPOLE as the basic structure of a 10 DIMENSIONAL BINARY SYSTEM which, in turn, structures our universe.

Dear God, I pray that there are those who read this and pay attention. This is now getting critical.

Regards,
Rosemary

here again is the link to that second paper of ours. Please read the appendix. It's all there.

click here

211 - a sample of pathological science

Dear Reader,

Here's a sample of the pathological science that proliferates our internet this one courtesy Poynty Point's forum - where his members are reaching into dimensions of pretension that that are staggering in their scale of absurdity and ludicrous for their want of good sense.

"The second longitudinal wave equation applies to vector potentials that vary in an accelerative manner through time:

When the vector potential is strongly and nonlinearly pulsed, it creates a corresponding gravitational pulse because the ether is double compressed. This is what Tesla observed in his experiments with radiant energy, where upon sending a strong current pulse down a wire he would feel a sharp slap to his body even if standing behind a metal shield. The scalar superpotential around a wire carrying a steady electric current looks something like this:

When the current is pulsed, it creates a gravitational shockwave in and around the wire. Electrons drag ether along with them, and when electron density changes rapidly, so does the ether density. This is why wires given strong current pulses mysteriously break apart into segments as though pulled apart by internal longitudinal forces, and why rail guns buckle in ways that cannot be explained by mere magnetic forces."

And then, like all BAD SCIENCE - there's a reach for 'authority' by misquoting their shining guru and light - Tesla. What Tesla pointed to was that energy - the thing itself - does not 'come from' our physical dimensions but that it comes from the ether. He was SPOT ON. Now - lest this be overlooked - I SAID IT FIRST. The ether is simply the all encompassing magnetic field. It comprises magnetic dipoles - little spherical magnets. IT IS EVERYWHERE. Put that into your pipes when you smoke out all those obtuse little statements supported by that appalling reach into pretentious but ever inadequate equations - and you may, indeed, find what you're all trying to find. What a joke.

It's all very simple. And if you object to anyone finding the solution bar yourselves and Nikola the Great - then unfortunately you're all in for a disappointment. It was first seen by FARADAY. It was required by our STRING THEORISTS. It was then measured by our ASTROPHYSICISTS. And some of it's full force was then exposed by ROSSI. That's the ACTUAL HISTORY. Interspersed with this are the confusions of both classical and quantum theorists who haven't yet managed a full description of the 'weak interaction' let alone the strong. And their particular Achylles heel is centered on their denial of anything ever exceeding light speed. How - in God's name - do they know this? If something exceeded light speed then LIGHT would not be able to find it. There could be a whole world of things that move faster. And it would ALWAYS be out of tangible measurable reach.

So. Spare us that very public display of such ponderous nonsense - For God's sake. We are way past the time when you can drivel on with obtuse and ill defined verbose rubbish, intended to throw a smokescreen around your ignorance. Surprisingly, it is the ONLY thing that shines through all that fog in your forum - the beacon of light to steer theoretical physics BACK TO THE ROCKS.

Just spare us all that pretension. We really need to find answers. Not perpetuate the nonsense that proliferates around theoretical physics.

Regards,
Rosemary

Monday, December 12, 2011

210 - that 10th post thing

Dear Reader,

With the caveat that our thesis is correct - then here's the thing.

We all know that the atomic space between the nucleus and it's electrons is VAST. For example, in a hydrogen atom - if the nucleus was the size of your average granny smith apple - then the electron would be the size of a split pea - orbiting at a radial distance of about 8 miles from that apple's core. The assumption is this. All that space between the 'apple' and the 'split pea' is empty. At best there is a proposed electromagnetic field that results from the movement of the electron. But that assumption errs.

What we have done is structured the theoretical imposition of magnetic field in a series of concentric circles comprising varying lengths of Faraday's closed lines of force. As this relates to hydrogen atoms the proposal is this. Each closed line of force is structured from magnetic dipoles that have conjoined - head to toe - or north to south. In effect there's a 'saucer shaped' field made up of 6 then 6 + 6, then 12 + 6, the 18 + 6 - and so on, the one circle enclosing the next, until there is a total of 1836 dipoles including the 'vanishing charges of the particles in the proton and the electron of each hydrogen atom. These concentric circles are structured from dipoles that form the energy levels. Interestingly, if one structures this field then, logically, there is a natural progression where the charge of the entire field demarcates into naturally occurring energy levels that carry their own precise graduations of size and charge

The proposal is that these particles in the field cannot be detected because they orbit at a velocity that exceeds light speed. We were able to reconcile the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron based on the proposal that the field itself orbits at a velocity of 2C. There is, therefore, an implicit relationship between mass and velocity which is also defined in the thesis. Because of this velocity they are 'out of reach' of a photon, which has a velocity of C or less. Therefore they are invisible. And because of the complexity of the composite charge of those closed strings, their charge value is neutral. Therefore the charge of the field is also not discernible. Therefore too, have these energy levels been rendered 'invisible' and their existence inferred only by the orbit of the electron. And the electron, in turn, is 'trapped' between two or more energy levels - in its orbit around that nucleus - as the fields themselves orbit the nucleus.

The nucleus itself is proposed to comprise a proton which, in turn comprises a composite of 9 of those magnetic dipoles. The electron comprises 3. Every time that the hydrogen atom transmutes to more complex atoms then it extrapolates it's new protons, neutrons and electrons from the dipoles in those energy levels. This results in the reduction in size of the atom as it increases in complexity. Again. While the 'energy' required for this transmutation process is from outside the atom, the material in the transmutation process is from the dipoles in those energy levels. Therefore as this progresses to increasingly complex atomic elements then there is a corresponding reduction in the volume of the atom - which is inversely proportional to the weight/mass of that element. It is proposed that all the elements evolved in this way - from a base structure of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium. Therefore there are essentially not less than three branches of the elements.

In effect the first 'closed system' comprises this precise number of dipoles that orbit their own structure of the nucleus and that hold the electron trapped in their energy levels. All these observations conform to the standard model but require a precise count of the mass variations of all the elements. That is outside the scope of this thesis.

The point is this. These fields all follow an immutable imperative to move to a condition of charge balance. An imbalance in charge is measured in the ratio of electrons to protons. Where they exceed or are less than the proton count then that imbalance is reflected in the energy levels. This then compels or 'predisposes' the element to a bonded condition with compensatory imbalances in juxtaposed elements. This balance is a function of the weak interaction.

I have no idea if that makes anything clearer. But that's essentially what we're pointing to. Its possibly better explained in the 'model'. When I find that link I'll post it here.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Sunday, December 11, 2011

209 - be afraid - be very afraid

Dear Reader,

Our need for religion seems to have lessened as our knowledge of Natural Law has increased. I am not arguing a direct correspondence. It's just that our unique and ever bolder pretensions to logic are evidently supplanting an earlier sense of wonder. The more we push the boundaries of our knowledge - the less we seem to depend on the concept of a 'creator'. In a strange way it seems that Adam and Eve's journey into knowledge has indeed, resulted in increasing the distance between ourselves, our paradise and our God. It's the unfortunate legacy of knowledge. Not as Sarah Adams wrote 'Nearer my God to Thee' - but indeed, further and further apart. But with this increasing distance, then here indeed is the the consequence - the picture of our paradise lost.

"Or if on joyful wing, cleaving the sky,
Sun, moon, and stars forgot, upwards I fly,
Still all my song shall be, nearer, my God, to Thee"

It's that joy. The more we manage our prosaic - ego centric - and often, frivolous lives - then where knowledge abounds, with it is the systematic erosion of a dependency on God. We are reaching into some kind of uncompromising and brutal adolescence where we demand to talk to God as our equal. And we are tearing into the very fabric of His mysteries - with the rampant self interest that motivated the storming of the Bastille. Our arsenal is nuclear. Our needs are critical. And our energy is frantic. And that long romance with 'speculative science' that has meandered through our history. It has now run its course.

In short - we've run out of time. It's do or die. We can no longer tolerate delays in our knowledge. And this because our knowledge has only been partial and partial knowledge has only manged to take us to this brink of catastrophe. With or without our unwitting complicity - our new natural cycle seems to be moving ever nearer to some kind of global wipe out. And the signs of this are everywhere. There is no more time left to speculate. If our God is indeed kindly and forgiving and all powerful then indeed, He owes us a solution. Clearly we cannot cope on our own. And clearly, as this earlier prayerful dialogue has regressed, then there is no longer any time for joy. That relationship between the child, and his father so eloquently expressed by Donne...

But as I raved and grew more fierce and wild
At every word,
Methought I heard one calling, Child!
And I replied My Lord.

that's gone. We need more answers and we need them asap. Either that - or we must resign ourselves to a fate that will decimate the most of our population and destablise our societies and Nature along with it. There is much to lose. A whole world full of life that is about to get clouted out of existence. And no kindly God would allow that. Not under any circumstances.

Not exactly a happy day but regards, nonetheless
Rosemary

Saturday, December 10, 2011

208 - the elephant in the arm chair

Dear Reader,

It occurs to me that there's an elephant sitting full frontal - in every one of our free energy forums that is being 'poyntedly' and 'energetically' ignored. One has to wonder why. If, indeed, these forums are intended to promote the advent of 'free energy' then what is there - on or off the market - that is quite as wonderful as Rossi's E-Cat? Yet there is no mention?

I suppose in the same one one could ask why it is that I was hounded off both those forums? I merely committed the folly of producing some rather compelling evidence of over unity. And supposedly this is the goal of those forums. It's confusing. But whatever it was that we managed - it is nowhere near as extraordinary as the proven efficiencies of the E-cat. And this is simply not getting any mention at all.

I'm inclined to suppose that these forums are rather relying on the bad measurements and hopeful claims of their experimental members - to actually keep spreading 'doubts' about those results rather than otherwise. Certainly pride of place was given to Harvey et al on all rights to comment on my own technology. And those comments regressed to a total misrepresentation of the fact - on a thread where I was not allowed to comment at all. The history still rankles.

On the whole, I'm inclined to believe that they are all actually anxiously promoting - not free energy - but on their own beliefs related to this. Either for or against, but never to be the property of anyone other than themselves to do with as they please and in any context that they choose.

Here's some rather distressing facts. All were entitled to 'flame' my threads in a personalised attack against my morals, my lack of training, lack of mental stability and my entire lack of intelligence. If and when I defended myself against this attack then I was systematically 'banned'. This left the floor open to the detractors to say what they wanted. And all they wanted was to kill off the subject which they did in short order.

It would be excessively naive to assume that there are any of these forums that are not promoting an agenda. Fortunately Rossi is more 'street wise' and had the good sense to stay away from all such. He also had immediate access to academics for their evaluation. And he also is motivated by the sincere desire to advance free energy in the true sense of the word. Thank God. And thank you Adrea.

My own interest in continuing on those forums is to ensure that our readers are given the truths about this vast reservoir of energy that we're beginning to realise. They, the readers, do not subscribe to all that agenda - that conspiracy thing - that all sensible thinkers deny and yet - to which so many have also somehow have fallen victim.

Rossi just dismisses the whole catastrophe as being irrelevant in the face of his working technology. And at the levels of power of produces - then the detractors are going to have to dig deep to deny all that evidence.

We're all privileged to live in a time when the true properties of energy are going to be fully exposed. Which is a really good thing.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

207 - also just for the record

Dear Reader,

The following is the official notification to the IEEE to withdraw our paper.

From: Rosemary Ainslie
Date: 05 December 2011 9:34:06 AM
To: *****@ieee.org
Cc: Evan Robinson , DONOVAN Martin , Mario Human , Riaan Theron , Alan Macey
Subject: Re: - Manuscript ID TPWRD-00647-2011

Dear Ms *****,

We have, for some time now, been trying to solicit a response from your offices regarding the review status of our paper. On one occasion I even wrote directly to Professor *****, your editor. Our correspondence has, for some reason gone unanswered.

In as much as the experimental evidence - recorded in that manuscript - represents work that constitutes a profound extension to the standard model, our reasonable expectation was for the expeditious passage of this through review that we could either be published or look for an alternative journal for publication. Self evidently the claims need to be put out there that academics can evaluate the evidence for themselves and across as broad a range of academies and even, disciplines as required and as enabled through the reviewed journal publication process.

In the entire absence of any kind of reply to our communications we are obliged to withdraw that submission to Transactions of **********. Thank you very much for your work here and please extend my gratitude to Professor *****. Happily, an alternate journal has offered to publish these papers for us.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie


lol Apologies but have made a belated and much needed editing out of a name. Sorry about that.
Rosemary

Monday, December 5, 2011

206 - off topic but of interest - I've finally found use for our trolls

Dear Reader,

This is way off topic. But indulge me. As you all know, by now, my sojourn on the internet has been dogged by the rather noisy intervention of some sad little creatures who prefer to remain anonymous. Well. They have been invaluable - on more than one level.

In the first place, courtesy all that hysterical denial - I am able to measure the extent of their panic which is proportionate to the efficacy of our technology. In the second place, they have given me a variety of personality and character that I'm working into a little book that I am writing for my grandchildren. It's about Petal - the fairy that brings flowers to the world.

Huff'n Puff is a dragon that lives in the clouds. He's a manic depressive who takes himself excessively seriously. He's got the intellectual reach of clay brick and the tempestuous nature of a typhoon. He's based on MileHigh.

Then there's Bogus the Bullfrog. He's particular genius is centered in the art of denial. But Bogus is hooked on diet of worms and the worms only come out when it rains. And Huff'n Puff brings the rain. Which means that this toad rather trails in the wake of Huff'n Puff. Unlike Huff'n Puff who who's got a roar like thunder - poor little Bogus can only croak. And it becomes tediously monotonous. That's Fuzzy.

Then there's an extraordinary little creature - part imp, part man. But mostly just moustache. Fillapint Wayward. He's an inappropriate little menace who draws way too much attention to himself. Forever scrambling up mountains. He's a 'low down' life form, literally and figuratively. And to look down on people he first has to climb high. But he suffers from vertigo which means he's in a continual state of hysteria. That's Humbugger.

Then there's a variation of Plod the Policeman who is, on the whole, one of my favorite literary characters. He's called Major Mownin-Mynah. He's particular genius is to rally the forces to kill 'hope' along with little old ladies and pretty butterflies and anything in pink. Unfortunately he suffers from a squint and shoots at a tangent. Off centre. Off the mark. Off the point. Just a sociopathic bully. That's our pointedly pointless Poynty.

Then there's the excessively rotund caterpillar - 'Catas Trophia'. Her vocabulary is as thin as her body is fat. And she lives on a diet of Major Mynah's victims. When she can find any. She has a propensity to theatrics and is loosely based on a combination of the Muppets' Mrs Piggy and a lump of pure lard. Needless to say that's our cat-lady.

Catas Trophia is married to Gloom'n Doom - who looks like Jabba the Hut. He's the menace of the story because, unlike all the others he's got a natural low animal cunning. Gloom'n Doom continually spouts sanctimonious platitudes which does nothing to hide his true nature. He's particular art is the art of calumny and intrigue. He sort of waddles around - and whispers in dark corners. And he's friends with dark shadowy creatures. All negatively phototropic.

And so it goes. It's a rich pool of personality to draw from. Such fun. As I've mentioned it's off topic. But it's going to fill my holiday and I'll have the real benefit of reading the stories to my grandchildren to test the register - so to speak. Who knows, The antics of our trolls may yet be elevated to an art form.

lol

Kindest regards
Rosemary

By the way. I'll ask my son to start another blogspot for me - if it's allowed and then transfer this post and sundry sketches together with some stories - as a pre-print trial. See how it goes. It'll be nice way to relax and indulge some of my artistic pretensions.

Sunday, December 4, 2011

205 - dear sir

Dear Reader,

Finally a small letter published in the Argus, Friday 02nd December, 2011.

Dear Sir,

A NEW SOURCE OF ENERGY

Cold Fusion or Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) has now been harnessed in Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat technology. Not only are his units available for sale to the public, but they also have been demonstrated to generate upwards of 500-kilo watts. The claim is that these units are ‘self running’ and that the results have all the benefits of a nuclear process with none of those dangerous toxic emissions that bedevil our nuclear plants.

If this is true, then it seems that our own proposed expansion into 2 new nuclear power stations may be somewhat redundant as I, and I’m reasonably certain, the most of us, would prefer to decouple from our national supply grid. Our history there is plagued with escalating supply costs that far exceed the normal inflation rates. Quite apart from which, the supply itself is brittle and unreliable.

It intrigues me that this news has not been covered by our media – except on the Internet and with the entire exception of this one short article in the Boston Globe. The link refers. I wonder if you could perhaps give your readers the benefit of some investigative reporting into this. It would be nice to learn of the actual status here. Indeed, I suspect our Government and our COP 17 movement would also be delighted to learn of this. And unless the media address it, then it's unlikely that they'll learn of it. Traditionally it's the media who lead with this kind of news. If there is no merit in the claim, then early exposure would be valued. And, on the other hand, if there is, indeed merit – then it would be a ‘revolution’ in the making – as suggested in that article.


http://bostonglobe.com/business/2011/11/28/hope-skepticism-for-cold-fusion/w7FgGyI9Zx432chxuD5BEL/story.html

Kind regards,

Rosemary Ainslie

204 - AT LAST

Dear Reader,

Today is a red letter day. I have finally managed to make contact with Rossi. Here's the letter that I wrote subsequent to sending him those two papers of ours.

What a pleasure. Hopefully we'll hear more from him in due course.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Dear Andrea,

This is – very broadly – the synopsis.

The thesis argues that magnetic fields are a primary force and that all the forces are the effects from varying dimensional structures of these magnetic fields. The fields themselves are structured from magnetic dipoles that naturally organise into ‘closed strings’. The fields are dynamic and they orbit at a velocity of 2C.

These fields come in three dimensions. So, a 1 dimensional field (a binding field) is responsible for the weak nuclear interaction including the electromagnetic and the galvanic processes. 2 dimensional fields, (having length and breadth) are responsible for the strong nuclear force. And finally, 3 dimensional fields (having length, breadth and depth) is the torus, which is associated with a complete magnetic field. This is responsible for gravity.

Where it deviates from the standard model is only in this. It proposes that magnetic fields comprise this non-standard dipole that has a velocity that exceeds light speed. It also proposes that a magnetic field is a primary force underpinning all the known forces. In all other respects it conforms ENTIRELY to the standard model. It would explain the existence and operation of the forces – and it would account for the Casimir effect. and it would be precisely related to Plank’s constant. Because – in a field – they orbit at velocities that exceed light speed, then light cannot find these particles. Therefore they remain ‘dark’ – outside our abilities to detect it. Effectively they operate in a dimension of time that exceeds our own abilities to measure it. Therefore it relates precisely to the ‘dark’ energy that has been measured by our astrophysicists.

As this relates to your own system, the proposal is that these fields are responsible for binding coalesced matter. Read the appendix to the second part of that two-part paper. In a chaotic state which is when the particle is NOT in an orbital field formation – then the particles become as hot and as big and as slow as they were previously cold and small and fast. But in their ‘hot’ state, they are no longer ‘binding’ that coalesced material. Therefore the bound condition becomes compromised. This would enable the contamination of anything within range of those chaotic particles. For example, should copper be proximate – then the copper atoms would decouple from their coalesced condition and loosen from the structure.

The thing is this. If there is an intrinsic molecular imbalance which occurs when more binding fields are available than required to ‘bind’ that material - then the condition of chaos can be perpetuated to become self sustaining. Our test 3 of the 1st part of that paper refers. As, indeed, do the results in your own experimental evidence. Then the requirement is to continually apply more material to reduce the rate of that interaction which, otherwise, will become catastrophically hot. We both applied water. You did this to much greater force and effect. LOL

But here’s the thing Andrea. We have only defined a magnetic field as being ‘structured’ from a magnetic dipole. I’ve presumed to call this a ‘zipon’ because it sort of relates to a required function to ‘zip’ on and off atoms – or to ‘zip’ in and out of a field condition. And then it links to the thing that it IS, which is related to ‘zero point’ energy. But call it what you will. The minute you apply a particle to the magnetic field – then all those unanswered questions of our Greats – fall into place. It explains the existence of that ‘other’ dimension – which is required to explain many paradoxes including questions of ‘locality’. It also marries those diverse branches of physics including quantum and classical – dark forces and string theories. And it is ONLY based on an extension to Faraday’s Lines of Force. It is better explained in the appendix to our second paper.

Incidentally – we have been able to reconcile the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron – using this field. And this was managed, through the simple means of analysing stable particles as composites of these fundamental magnetic dipoles. And, more to the point – it localises that ‘dark energy’ that our astrophysicists require. I suspect that they may be pleased to hear of this – as it explains so much.

But most significantly – this explanation does NOT deviate – in any way – from the standard model. It’s only an extension. And the minute you apply this ‘extension’ then, as mentioned, everything sort of falls into place.

Let me know if you want to discuss this further.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

202 - I am reminded

Dear Reader,

Do not, EVER, assume that there is not a conspiracy - ALIVE AND WELL - that is effectively denying the truth of 'free energy'. It constantly amazes me how effective is this counter information program. Our energy monopolists are well served by the following.

1
First and foremost is the happy truth that theoretical physics is COMPLICATED. It serves their cause well. Science is a subtle art that relies on conceptual understandings which, in turn, need advanced mathematics for its full description. That puts the intellectual knowledge out of the reach of public comment. And way outside the reach of mere public comprehension.

2
Then there's an even more pernicious arrow to their bow. It's the simple fact that all and sundry are well served in maintaining an attitude of 'judicious scepticism' or 'skepticism' as you Americans insist on misspelling it. Either way, we are considered adult and reasonable to dismiss rather accept evidence. So much more 'grown up' - so to speak. So much more REASONABLE.

3
Then there's all that evidence that abounds in those 'free energy forums'. The members are usually recklessly hopeful that they can, collectively, challenge anything at all - least of all with the mere proof in experimental results. Such absurd optimism. That hopefullness, that optimism, is, unfortunately thereby tarnished by a lack of - 'judicious scepticism'. Altogether too buoyant and too 'in your face' to be credible.

4
Then, when the truth rings out too clearly, there's an immediate solution. Employ the 'trolls' those well fed dogs - to come and DENY ALL. That part's easy. They not only display an excess of all that 'judicious scepticism' but they compound it with a welter of incomprehensible claptrap - disguised as 'advanced knowledge'. Effectively they dispute EVERYTHING - and disprove NOTHING AT ALL. But the readers at those forums are then somewhat confused. Who to believe? Who not to believe? Until the entire question is dismissed for want of an answer.

5
And if that evidence is still too GLARING - too CONSPICUOUS - then the solution is to attack the character of the claimant - and their reputation. That part's easy. It requires any reach into any allegations at all - without any attendant need to support that allegation with proof. That's the technique that was developed by Goebbels et al - refined to an art form during Hitlers sojourn with history.

6
And the trolls are in the pay of - God knows who? But since their efforts best serve the energy monopolists - who in turn serve the Governments - then? Still a tricky question to answer. One never knows if the Governments are in the pockets of those monopolists - or if the Governments license those monopolists. I'd say it's a symbiotic relationship - where the monopolists tend to better long term benefits.

7
But finally it's our media. That 'voice of the few' masquerading as the 'voice of the people'. God spare us from the effects of their work. It's where judicious scepticism is poisoned by the toxic requirements of the monopolists and our governments - to ENDORSE THEIR POLICIES. They can pretend to any kind of objection - unless and until it rocks the corner stone foundational structures that support the power of both. And when it comes to free energy then they're definitely applying a pick axe to all that support.

It's complex. I've barely touched on it all. But the good news - notwithstanding - is that 'TRUTH WILL OUT'. Whatever else history has shown us - where truth shines, however dimly - it eventually shines bright. And of all those listed here - hopefully it'll show up the rather 'red' faces of our editorial staff and their witting or unwitting cooperation with our monopolists' agendas.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

by the by. Here's what reminded me.
Click here. It's simply the previous post for those who missed it

201 - for the record

Dear Reader,

just another one of those 'for the record' numbers. It's a letter I wrote to the editor of the *****.


Dear Sir,

Unlike most of your readers, I am in the happy position of being able to attest to the active role your newspaper played in keeping some critical information regarding Rossi’s E-Cat - out of the public eye. I tried to alert you to this technology. WHAT WAS I THINKING? I know better now. We understand NOTHING without your guidance.

I am also reminded about the critical role that the media engaged in denying that cold fusion technology of Fleischmann and Pons. They also managed the much needed and complete annihilation of their reputations. To this day and even as mentioned in the reference attached here, the technology is ‘haunted by previous “cold fusion’’ claims that have gone unproven’. In fact the technology WAS proven. Only the explanation was lacking. But, there again. Who cares? It was enough to bury the technology for a couple of decades or so – while our monopolists made us ever more gridlocked and themselves ever richer. That’s the real scoop.

Meanwhile, clearly, we are all indebted - quite literally. Far be it from anyone at all to frustrate the progress of our nuclear expansion program. While this will inevitably leave the entire South African population deep in the red - for generations to come, it will assuredly continue to enrich our utility suppliers. Which is a very a good thing. Without that indebtedness God knows where we’ll all squander our money? And who then will fund our Governments and our university research programs into the myriad ways to use conventional energy supplies?

And, in conclusion, and at its least, we have you, our dear editorial staff of this and many other ‘rags’ to thank for keeping this knowledge out of the public eye. Would that the Boston Herald would follow your good example. But even there, ALL IS NOT LOST. They have not written that the technology works. On the contrary. There's also no reference to the prior accreditation of Focardi, Del Gudice, Celani, Stremmenos and Preparta who are merely EXPERTS in the field. It’s a little worrisome though that so many academics attended that meeting. One hopes they know better than to speak out openly in support of that technology.

So. Again. Thank you, dear sir, for your extraordinary efforts at intervening in our reckless efforts to get this information known. And in the unlikely even that anyone wants to look up this Boston Globe article. Here it is.

http://bostonglobe.com/business/2011/11/28/hope-skepticism-for-cold-fusion/w7FgGyI9Zx432chxuD5BEL/story.html

Kindest regards
Rosemary Ainslie


click here for a direct link to that article.

the Boston Globe article

Sunday, November 27, 2011

200 - the dogs have lost their teeth - thank God.

Dear Reader,

I am beginning to realise that we're winning the theoretical argument - probably based on that second part of our 2-part paper. The evidence is this. Where before I was hounded by detractors from hell at every post that I made - I now see none of those dogs snapping at my heels or even bothering to bark. Indeed. We're even in receipt of some rather qualified but, nonetheless, support and well wishes, from some highly esteemed academics - thus far 5. Which is a handful. lol. When we get to a round dozen - then we've got a full jury and, subject to their permission, I may even make their support public.

The fact is, nonetheless, that our own experimental evidence is already antiquated by Rossi's technology. And the further truth is that it will not be long before even his technology is outmoded and eclipsed. It's the nature of the beast. What Rossi has brought to the table is something that will rock our science at its foundations with a level of experimental evidence that will FINALLY gainsay all that prejudice against it. It's been insufferably difficult path for Rossi. Clearly the man has been flirting with mainstream prejudices for a while now. He was first hounded to hell from his Petroldragon ventures - and now, with this new discovery of his, I'm satisfied that the level of attack will be exponentially increased. But he's strong - and more to the point his evidence speaks way louder than his detractors. FOR ONCE. That's a very good thing.

Meanwhile, we hope that he'll be alert to our own explanations which I'm reasonably certain he could use to justify those values that are so hotly contended. It's easy to argue provided only that one proposes that little magnetic dipole to the magnetic field. How easy is that? Then everything really does just fall into place.

Roll of 2012. I know we've reached a very critical junction in our path. My own little contribution is to show all this in some readily understood pictures. Can't wait. Science made logical. It'll be a first. But, unfortunately for some - it will make this accessible to EVERYONE. Within easy intellectual reach. Needless to say it could be fueled for and against an orderly transition. But I'm satisfied that it'll be a good thing. It levels the playing fields for starters. That's likely to make it less confrontational for the most of us. And hopefully the good of the many will somehow prevail.

Just for the record though. We are also able to take water to boil at no apparent cost of any energy at all from a battery supply source. Smaller - much smaller (lol) quantities than Rossi. But it's there. Therefore, should Rossi's technology be effectively denied, or refused, or frustrated - then there's another string to the bow - or bullet to the gun - as required. So. My advice to anyone who is still trying to frustrate all that evidence. You're wasting your time. These truths are likely to leak out all over the place with some considerable discomfort to our energy monopolists. That's a discomfort that I'm happy to advance.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Thursday, November 24, 2011

199 - here's hoping our reviewers will 'put foot'

Dear Reader,

here's the letter to our editor.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Dear Professor,

It seems that these delays in publishing our paper have allowed the news of Rossi's E-CAT to advance our own news. Not that I mind - one little bit - as it's all grist to the mill.

I wonder if I can impose on you to please read that second part of that 2-part paper. You will see that it argues that so called 'over unity' is the inevitable consequence when one uses 'dark energy' which, we argue is simply 'magnetic energy' from the primary Magnetic Force.

This has the very real merit of reconciling some diverse branches of physics without a required revision to the standard model. I am reasonably satisfied that the argument is well articulated as I have comments on record about this from some very prestigious academics to whom I've shown that paper. I also understand that I've made an error - in the nature of a 'typo' where I reference Power = vi dt where I should have written 'energy'. It's correctly referenced elsewhere in both papers. And that error is correctible. Apart from that I've only had favourable comments - in those few instances where the recipients commented at all.

I wonder if I could impose on you to please advise us of the status of that paper. We have not managed to solicit a response to our earlier request on this.

And, in conclusion, dear Professor ******, I wonder if it would not be as well to at least put those questions out there. We are not being pedantic in our proposed solutions to this. It may initiate the required dialogue amongst those academics that they evaluate this energy as coming from an alternate force to those proposed in the standard model. And it may help to advance Rossi's technology which is so urgently required. Certainly the debate needs initiation and then our learned academics can argue the need for those emissions that are sorely lacking in the LENR technology. If this is, indeed, determined as 'dark energy' which is what we propose - then there is an immediate explanation and the standard model is entirely secured - notwithstanding.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary.

198 - breakthroughs - all over the place

Dear Reader,

There is the real promise FINALLY of getting the news of both ours and, more especially, Rossi's technology - to the public. NOT MUCH LONGER NOW. And possibly even before Christmas.

It's important. We need the public to know that there is information ABOUNDING that allows access to clean and abundant energy. And then that public can ask our very learned and revered - why the HELL they're ignoring all this evidence? Indeed. Our academics will need to rally because IF they don't - they'll finally lose all credibility and respect and with it - their authority on matters scientific. I'm sure they'll not put that to risk.

Then more good news. It may be possible to fund the required to interpret the model in terms of simple patterns that you can all better understand what I've been banging on about for so long. The model is EASILY explicable diagrammatically - pictorially, fractally? - if that's even a word? In any event, it's impossibly difficult to explain it with words. The diagrams are that simple and the fractals - so logical - that I promise you this. Your own children - or grandchildren - from the age of 7 years or younger, will be able to understand it - let alone the rest of us - regardless of our age. Science rendered as it should be - conceptually and logically. AND - it does not conflict with what our greats have been teaching us for so, SO long.

Then that will give a result that will make this technology so well understood - that absolutely no individual will be able to claim any recognition for 'leading' this - least of all - ourselves. It is our heritage and it is courtesy our Greats - but it will be rendered in terms that are understandable and purely conceptual. AT LAST. So when we reach into this elusive field to extract all that available energy - then we can do so with the required circumspection and modesty that this will require.

And all this is a consequence that is 'devoutly to be wished' because I am reasonably satisfied that it will re-awaken a sense of the 'orderliness' and 'permanence' of our universal order - and our need to assume better accountability for the role we play in it. Sorely lacking. All's well with God, and all's well with His universe. We, on the other hand, have been somewhat reckless and somewhat presumptuous in imposing our own fallible solutions onto His greater plan. Which possibly sounds insufferably sanctimonious. But please bear with me. One cannot look at even this very small part of such a beautiful pattern without acknowledging a sense of wonder and awe. Which is why I've been compelled to keep plugging all this.

Finally, Dear Reader, just know this. If you Google my name - the very first reference is to that claim that I am a fraud. THAT is the proof of the efficacy of our TROLLS. They engineered the 'hits' that this has now become the very first reference to any search into my name as it's associated with this technology. Please READ THE COMMENTS to make yourself UTTERLY familiar with the caliber of that handful of anonymous posters - to familiarise yourself with their toxic mindset. And then you will KNOW - that this is what we're up against. It has not made a blind bit of difference to the growth of this knowledge - nor to that small part that I play in this - and, it is there as EVIDENCE of the rather hysterical requirement of these competing interests to throw discredit in the face of this growing knowledge. That conspiracy thing - that is so vocally denied by those many that have themselves been seduced by those allegations - IT'S ALIVE AND WELL. We're fighting an insurgent war here guys. I just hope that I'll survive long enough to see this wonderful energy abundance brought to the world.

So. Very soon now you will, all of you, be able to understand the model - and then apply it in just so many ways that's on offer. I can't wait. All this news will be broadcast soon - and my article may yet be published. What a pleasure.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

by the by - PLEASE - let as many people as possible know about cold fusion. The word cannot be spread fast enough.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

197 - this may yet be published in our local rag

Dear Reader,

I found myself embroiled in some rather confrontational letters exchanged between me and one of our more patient editors. He was actually surprisingly tolerant as, unlike most, he allowed me to argue the case at all. My usual diet is to be cut off mid sentence and mid argument.

In any event he has allowed me to 'tell the story' and may even publish it - obviously subject to any required editing. Hopefully he'll not be too liberal with those cutting shears.

Here's that article. It may still need some revision. But the Guys at overunity.com have more or less approved it.

What fun.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

COLD FUSION – OR A NEW FORCE UNFOLDING?

This year heralds the possibility of a solution to our global energy requirements and pollution concerns. An Italian company headed by a Mr Andrea Rossi, has held a series of demonstrations of the E-CAT technology that, if it works as claimed, will produce more heat than the fuel that is used to generate that heat. In effect Rossi is able to generate robust levels of energy measured in the Kilowatt range – at the cost of a small initialising electrical input. What was shown is that a current was applied to the reactor for about half an hour until it reached a temperature of about 170 degrees centigrade. Thereafter some operating process ‘kicked in’ and the system ran itself.

This extraordinary claim flies in the face of Thermodynamic Laws unless it can somehow be attributed to the nuclear force. For those of us who remember the event – it is similar to the claims of Cold Fusion, now more widely referred to as Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) that were advanced by Fleischmann and Pons in March of 1989. They too repeatedly demonstrated experiments that measured this same extraordinary heat signature in an interaction of heavy water (a water molecule comprising deuterium) and palladium. Rossi uses the more accessible materials of nickel and hydrogen and possibly some catalyst that has not yet been disclosed. The only way, within our standard model, that this amount of energy surplus can be explained is in terms of nuclear processes. But to prove that some kind of fusion was occurring there is also the required proof of ‘emissions’ – those radioactive waste materials that are the signature proof of a nuclear interaction. This was sorely lacking and it was precisely this lack that buried both the claims of Cold Fusion and the good names of both Professor Fleischmann and Dr Pons. Ironically, it is also precisely this lack of a toxic waste product that makes this energy technology so desirable.

The difference between Fleishmann and Pons and Andrea Rossi is that Rossi has taken this to the level of a working, saleable and patented product in units that can be ‘containerised’ and shipped anywhere in the world. And these units are designed to deliver 10’s and even 100’s of Kilowatts. The other glaring difference is that Rossi took the precaution of inviting only that public to his demonstrations, that are qualified to evaluate the measured energy surplus. It includes, among many, the august names of Professors Sergio Focardi, Emilio Del Giudice, Francesco Celeni, Christos Stremmenos and Dr Guiliano Preparata, all of whom are experts in the field. They have all publicly accredited these results that support the claims of efficiency. But none of them are able to explain the result, as the measured emissions do not fall in line with what is expected in a nuclear process. It is interesting to see that some highly reputable scientists, including Nobel Laureate Emeritus Professor Brian Josephsson, are speaking out in support of the ‘cold fusion’ results – regardless of the theoretical constructs required for this.

All of which means that, yet again, our theory may lag the experimental evidence. Perhaps there are new forces that are emerging – a new science in the making. But whatever the explanation, this certainly promises a potential and welcome freedom to all energy users from the gridlocked relationship with our utility monopolists. Nor are there the toxic waste products associated with nuclear energy production. And most significantly, it will also resolve the escalating problems associated with global pollution resulting from our prodigal over use of fossil fuels. As it’s described in the official link to Rossi’s work - this may be a revolution in the making.
http://ecat.com/inventor-andrea-rossi

Monday, November 21, 2011

196 - for the record

Dear Reader,

I know that many of you read here on a daily basis. I see the hit stats. Which also makes me feel guilty when I simply put things here that simply repeat what I've already said. But the truth is that one day I want to try and construct a book from this blog - so I 'keep record'. For those who want to 'skip' the 'records' I think, in future I'll just use that title. So if you see it - then just skip the reading. Perhaps that'll be less irritating? I do hope so. And I apologise for the repetitive nature of all this.

The following is - yet again - 'for the record'.

Hello *****,

It is interesting. Indeed. Many thanks for this.

But that unification number - it's already there. I think our own experimental evidence sort of proves that its in the magnetic field. Which only means that all this has already been discovered by our astrophysicists. The bottom line is this. The electromagnetic force was 'lumped' into one force. But magnets can interact with other magnets without any measurable electric field AT ALL. Which therefore indicates that the magnetic force must have come first - a PRIMARY and independent force. If one accepts that - and then assumes that the field comprises magnetic or dipolar particles - then the 'fields' follow on perfectly - in line with Faraday's Lines of Force. Again. Nothing new. Except that those pesky Thermodynamic Laws will need revision. Because with the advent of Dark Energy comes the advent of Free energy. That's the problem. It's all over the place. Ridiculously abundant. It sort of goes to the gullet of some heavily entrenched 'beliefs' in thinking that's been cemented in stone. lol

And the simple fact is that the magnetic field needs some respect and attention. It's also a fact that our academics are going to dance around for a while. Because with it will be a required admission that this was rather overlooked as an independent FORCE. But fortunately our need for clean green is now so critical - that they may indeed make that admission. And as soon as one puts the particle in that magnetic field - then you've found the SOURCE of that dark energy. And, conservatively speaking - that ENERGY IS EVERYWHERE. What's wonderful is that our academics are now confronting each other with the PROOF of this energy abundance. That's going to be a dynamic dialogue. Can't wait to see what happens. I'm entirely satisfied that they'll vindicate Ellis et al for their discovery - EVENTUALLY. Can you believe it that the most of these academics do NOT subscribe to their proof of this? It's extraordinary.

Unfortunately - the simple truth is that no-one has discovered anything at all. All that's happened is that the so called 'standard model' simply needs a small revision. Then it's all there. Very, very simple. Complete vindication for our Quantum, Classical, String and Dark Energy theorists. And with it the liberal access to some really clean energy. What could be better.

Kindest regards, and thanks again,
Rosemary

Sunday, November 20, 2011

195 - truth to tell

Dear Reader,

I suppose I keep banging on about 'cold fusion' because I'm hoping that, sooner or later, our academics will consider that - just perhaps - they're looking at that new dark force that has managed to stay hidden for these centuries past. The point is that there's no evidence - whatsoever - of those emissions. I've mentioned this ad nauseum. No emissions means that it's NOT the nuclear force. Not even a low energy nuclear reaction. There's no acceptable term for this energy - yet. In which case? Could it be that this is, indeed, that dark energy that's been lurking on the outskirts of our theoretical models - with rather less recognition and interest than it probably deserves. There's nothing else on offer. No other theoretical model to explain these anomalous heat signatures.

Also. We were hell bent on promoting our own evidence of surplus heat. Unequivocal proof. Careful measurements. Very repeatable. Only lacking expert accreditation. The difference here is that - unlike Rossi et al - we could not get ANY academic to a demonstration. Which also meant that there was no official stance - for or against. Just the rather toxic flavour of scepticism and opinion which has, historically never really played a constructive role in science. One is reminded of a kind of medieval mindset. A prejudice that values 'belief' above 'evidence'. Which really has nothing whatsoever to do with the proud bases of that noble art.

Now that Rossi's results are out there - now that we have this delicious proof of more energy available than can be reasonably explained in any context at all - then we're rather anxious to again remind you all that there is - indeed - a perfectly viable explanation for all of this. And that it falls within the standard model. One hopes that our learned and revered wake up to this before too much time is wasted in that tedious debate of the 'lack of evidence in emissions' or even in the reconstruction of our theories. If it IS dark energy - then there should be no emissions. That's a good thing.

Anyway. The simple truth is that this wonderful technology of Rossi's entirely eclipses our own - until such time as we can get this to the robust wattage levels that Rossi manages. But the nice thing is this. Unless they prove that cold fusion is a NUCLEAR reaction - then the chances are that those many of us who claim evidence of over unity - are also merely accessing the same thing. And that's enough for the time being.

Over these last 10 years or so, I've been in touch with a number of academics. There are those among them that are offensively bigoted. And there are those that are simply not interested. But there are, very obviously, only a small but growing number, who are prepared to look and even to ask questions with an open mind - as referenced by Dr Preparata. And that's the thing that is likely to actually get this ball rolling - get us moving, however gradually, to some kind of theoretical platform where these academics can stand together - more comfortably.

And frankly, I think they'll be delighted to find that there's very little that's wrong with the standard model. In fact, from where I sit, there's no difference at all - provided only that they impose the theoretical construct of a magnetic dipole as the basis of a magnetic field. That's just a modest variation. And it has the real merit of then vindicating all our theorists whether they're classical, quantum, string or dark energy subscribers.

Where our own tests merit some close attention is that unless one proposes the existence of this particle then there is absolutely no other explanation for the waveform that is evident from our own circuit performance. It thereby constitutes proof of postulate. I trust that, by now, I've given enough links to argument in our second part of that two-part paper. When I get back here I'll add the one link, nonetheless.

Kindest regards as ever,
Rosemary

Here's the link to that second paper for anyone with the appetite for an appraisal of the evidence that proposes this 'small variation' to the standard model.

Saturday, November 19, 2011

194 - for cold fusion - think dark energy

Dear Reader,

I've just been reading the following link. Very interesting it is too.

click here. It may take a few moments to download as it comes with a 'must see' video at the end of that script

It's a commendable piece of reporting as it gives every side of this story unfolding. I'm of the opinion that this is most certainly NOT a galvanic - nor a nuclear - reaction and that it may very easily be the same thing as we've uncovered - albeit to a less robust level. In a word it's - 'dark energy'. Actually that's two words.

Comments in that link, are made by Professors Sergio Focardi, Emilio Del Guidice, Francesco Celani, Christos Stremmenos, and Dr Guiliano Preparata - who all attest to the clear evidence of energy being dissipated at the 10's to the 100's of Megawatt levels. Clearly too, there is something in that 'powder mix' catalyst that Rossi is anxious to keep to himself. He's not frustrating the research but is first looking to adequate protections to cover his patent concerns. Understandable - but irritating if one wants to reverse engineer this - which is always the challenge to those of us who are interested.

But the evidence is that it is not a fusion reaction. Or, at best, it's some variation of a fusion reaction - as there are no toxic emissions. If you recall, it was this lack that buried Fleischmann Pons's claims in the late 1980's. Curiouser and curiouser. Because it is precisely the lack of gamma ray emissions that makes this technology so thoroughly desirable. The truth is that our standard model does not have an explanation. And, at the risk of promoting a rather preposterous piece of presumption (couldn't resist the alliteration) - I am entirely satisfied that we do.

I'm going to forward our paper to those esteemed academics and cross my fingers that one or more will actually read it. If they do - then they'll be in the rather rare and exalted company of a very few academics who have done so. I might add that I've had no unfavourable and 'some' favourable comments on that thesis. But here's why I'm going to advance it.

What they've got is the application of HEAT ONLY. We, on the other hand, have sorted out the electrical application. Now all we need is the motor. And that - frankly - is easily resolved with the judicious application of some of that 'steam' that both our technologies manage. Although, obviously, Rossi does it with considerably more competence than ourselves.

IT IS ALL VERY GOOD NEWS. ROLL ON DARK ENERGY. It's still just a shadow at the opening door. But it's also beginning to take shape.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

And here, yet again, is that link to our paper.
click here. And read this carefully. We also have those anomalous heat signatures - at over 100 watts - from the electromagnetic interaction. Just from the simple application of Faraday's Inductive Laws. It must surely give pause for thought

Friday, November 18, 2011

193 - definitely just for the record.

Dear Reader,

I'm just keeping this here for the record - as it's likely to be deleted from the forum where it was posted.

2:02:59 AM »


Dear JouleSeeker
I wonder if you could advise us if you are one and the same person as our member who variously identifies himself as Physics Prof and Steven E Jones? Surprisingly I'm in receipt of a personal message from B**** - who also, apparently, shares the same name. Such an extraordinary co-incidence. Regarding this post of yours.


Quote from: JouleSeeker on November 13, 2011, 11:55:55 PM
There is some recent information -- .....Adding ONE proton to a Nickel nucleus as claimed by Rossi and Focardi will produce Copper isotopes, predominately Cu-59 and Cu-61, since the predominate isotopes of nickel are Ni-58 (68%) and Ni-60 (26.2%). {Add one proton to Ni-58, becomes Cu-59; add proton to Ni-60, becomes Cu-61.) Furthermore, both of these copper isotopes are highly radioactive (releasing gammas) and easily detectable! And detecting their presence via decay products would conclusively demonstrate the occurrence of the proton-capture reaction on Nickel.


Where exactly have either Rossi and/or Focardi claimed this? I believe this was a claim made by a 3rd party and is entirely unsubstantiated. Nor do I find any support of this finding - by anyone at all. Then. I'm merely a member of that 'vulnerable' public who, thankfully, you're anxious to 'protect'. The copper that was found was, as I understood it, 'stable' - is that the right term? Presumably this means that it had no 'isotopic'? - again terminology - help me out here - imbalance? Which, again as I understand it - means that it would not, therefore emit that 'radioactive' decay. Those 'gammas'. Golly. One's alarm bells start ringing. Without any kind of schooling - even I know that 'gamma rays' are somewhat toxic if not lethal. IF, indeed, this E-Cat was emitting Gamma Rays - then SURELY? We should do our level best to resist any further progress of this technology?

Unless, of course, there isn't actual PROOF of this or, indeed, any toxic emission. Poor Rossi. Neither he nor Focardi - nor any of those academics who actually REPLICATED his E-Cat findings - were able to find any emissions at all. Which just goes to show. Give a sample to an independent laboratory for analysis - and God alone knows what they'll find. One hopes that sample wasn't tampered with. The comfort is this. If was - then it was not by Rossi et al. They're on record. They can find ABSOLUTELY no toxicity in this technology AT ALL. Possibly it was simply 'claimed' by whoever it was that's 'claiming' this. My vote would be to get a second independent laboratory onto the job. It could be that there's an over zealous detractor at the laboratory who's trying to discredit cold fusion. We need to look out for such people. They're those dedicated 'disinformants' who are trying to keep over unity evidence out of the eye of our public. God forbid that they succeed. We need to beware.

But there's another point to this. If, indeed, the E-Cat is able to transmute nickle to copper and iron - and if it comes out in such copious quantities - then - frankly - why bother with using the E-cat as a generator? I would have thought that Rossi's time would be far better spent in manufacturing copper. HUGELY profitable. One should alert him to this potential. It seems that he's overlooked it. I'm absolutely satisfied that he would make considerably more money in this way than in trying to sell those working units of his to the needy public.

Actually, come to think of it - even our academics would know this - and they're not renowned, as a rule, for their business acumen. Perhaps - after all - it was simply 'contaminated' - as you propose. But then I wonder if Rossi would have contaminated it. It rather works against his claim - and simply confuses the issue. No. On the whole I would suggest that the contamination was from that 'plant' at the plant. lol. Probably he's in the pocket of our rich oil or grid supply monopolists. Golly. This is all giving me a headache.

Anyway - in conclusion - and as a rule - I think we should rather desist from alleging anything at all. It's like any speculation. It just goes around in circles. The best thing to do here is to support any MEASURED EVIDENCE of over unity - in the E-cat - and leave it at that. And, happily, that evidence is incontestable. Being, as I am, a member of the vulnerable public - I'm glad there are those such as you to protect our best interests in all things. Clearly we can hardly assess anything at all - for ourselves. But actually, I for one would not care if Rossi was a Christian, a Buddhist, an ultruist - or even an outright capitalist. Golly. I would just love to see his technology available to us all without any further gossip mongering. Unless - of course - there are proven FACTS against his good name.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

By the by. This post of yours has nothing to do with your thread topic. I notice it's been copied on yet another thread of yours. Something to do with coins that you're offering as a prize for a perpetually running motor. Just as an aside - I think a perpetual motor may just earn even more than the value of those coins. But is is nonetheless, excessively generous of you to offer anything at all. If you check out the board here you'll see that we have a member who has dedicated a thread to the promotion of the E-Cat. You may find some answers to those 'allegations' that you're promoting.

Golly. And I also see that it's the identical post copied at Overunity Research.com. You've clearly been rather busy. ;D

Kindest again,
R
I took out B**** 's name to protect his identity. Sorry about that.

192 - perhaps this explains things better

Dear Reader,

The following is a question from one of the readers here. I'm hoping it may help any others of you who are asking the same thing.

Dear *****,

is that your name? And are you aware that there's a Professor ***** on the forum? It's an extraordinary co-incidence.

In any event. Here's the concept. We know that there's an abundance of energy that is responsible for 'binding' our galaxies together. There is no explanation for this. We only know of the forces of 'gravity' - electromagnetism - and the strong and weak nuclear force. Well. The force of gravity is such that those galaxies should not be able to stay together. And they do. By rights - and according to the Laws of Gravity - the galaxies should, by rights, be UNRAVELLING. Falling apart. Our astophysicists therefore proposed that the thing keeping them together is the 'dark force'. They then applied gravitational lensing - a measurement technique - and discovered that INDEED - there is something there that is not directly able to interact with light - or photons - or whatever. Yet it is, INDEED measurable and is holding those great star structures together.

Therefore they called this Dark Matter from Dark Energy. And being a new kind of energy then it - in turn - has a 'FORCE' or, alternatively, it IS a force. Which means that this force has NOT been factored in to the 'standard model' as they call it. It's an entirely NEW discovery. Well. It's also shown to be EVERYWHERE. Our model is based on the proposal that magnetic fields are the source of all the forces and is therefore a PRIMARY force. So. If this model is right - then what we're proposing is that the magnetic force is this very thing. The dark force. The "FORCE behind the FORCES" - so to speak.

Now. The next point is this. Fusion and fission are the means by which atoms are transmuted into different elements - or different atoms. It needs extraordinary levels of heat to effect that 'transmutation'. In fact, the only known 'factories' to manufacture this huge variety of atoms are the stars themselves when they're in the process of exploding. Super novas - I think they're called. Which is the point at which they cannot - themselves - contain all that energy, all that heat. The thinking is that - at this critical and catastrophic moment - they explode. This is also when these explosions then seed or saturate space with the all the elements or atoms - in all their varieties. And these gradually 'accrete' into the planetary structures that then orbit those or alternative star structures in those or even other distant galaxies.

It's that 'accretion' that is the foundational concept of our model. What we propose is that it is these entirely separate 'binding fields' of small or discrete packages of magnetic fields - that are responsible for that 'accretion'. We propose that these are sourced from the energy levels (magnetic fields) of stars and that they are dispersed - quite literally as 'hot flame' at the point when those stars explode. And they can only cool down and separate into discrete packages - when they can find two or more atoms to bind together. So. First they're in a chaotic slow - relatively localised condition and seen as 'flame'. And then this flame 'separates' into discrete parcels to form a necklace - a ring - an orbit - that interacts with the energy levels of two or more of those atoms. But they become invisible to light because, when they orbit, they orbit at twice the velocity of light. Light is that slow, by comparison, that it can never find these little fields to actually interact with them. So. They become as cold and fast and invisible as they were previously hot and slow and visible.

All of which only means this. All matter - everything that we can see - or that has a visible or discernible or 'real' boundary is simply some composite of those atoms that are 'held together' or 'bound' by these binding fields. And the point is this. When we manufacture our heating elements - or indeed any circuit material - then those atoms are also bound by these binding fields. As is everything that is tangible in our visible dimensions of time and space. So. It's not the atoms that are held together by a gravitational force - but these binding fields that hold those atoms together. That's a small departure from the standard model. But it resolves certain paradoxes related to the 'Casimir Effect' - and, I suspect, that it's also the source of Plank's constant.

Be that as it may - if, indeed, this is the source of the 'dark force' then it should be provable. Because it means that the energy in 'bound material' should be accessible provided only that we can induce those fields to break that orbit which will then compromise the bound condition of that material. Well. There's nothing new here. Our contention is that we do this every time we induce an 'electric' field in the electromagnetic interaction. We're claiming that those binding fields are being disrupted - and that - in inductive and conductive circuit material - these fields can 'liberate' their potential energy - provided only that there's some initialising imbalance to induce that interaction. In other words - we're using that dark matter - every time we run an electric current. But if this is correct - then we've not been using this electric energy - this force - to its potential. It also means that if we induce ONLY the force in the circuit material - then unity will be exceeded. The more so if we don't heat those elements to a catastrophic level.

Which is all - probably - more than you wanted to know. The reason that this does not 'leak' out of the system in the sense that you mean it - is better explained in our paper on the subject. I'll attach it here. It may make things clearer. I hope your mailbox can accommodate such a big file.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Thursday, November 17, 2011

191 - a rally call

Dear Reader,

I was rather hoping to have the final say on this argument. It seems not. Here's more on the subject and - again - my response.


On 16 Nov 2011, at 11:33 AM, ***** ***** wrote:

Rosemary, I think you’re being a bit silly. There’s no gag, and never has been.
The following are some of the stories we have carried in recent years. If you can detect a conspiratorial thread running through them or proof that we are determined to gag discussion about cold fusion, I’ll eat my words.
We don’t have agendas. Where the news is is where the focus is … and I am afraid to say cold fusion has gone cold. You can’t keep news down, genuine news. It never works – as the Iranians and Egyptians have discovered, as the old Nationalists found, as the Americans know. But you also can’t make news out of nothing.
Best
*****

Dear *****,

I was hoping to speak to you. In the very real likelihood that you'll not phone - then let me see if I can, yet again, marshal the argument.

The facts relating to that article by Usha Lee McFarling - are incorrect.


In 1989, two scientists at the University of Utah said they had found a way to extract energy from room-temperature water - cold fusion. Their claim was quickly disproved after a month-long frenzy of news conferences, wild claims and sudden retractions. The episode is one that physicist David Goodstein of the California Institute of Technology now calls "science gone berserk''.

What actually happened is that Pons was surprised by the evidence of more energy being dissipated in a reaction between hard water and hydrogen. He took this to Fleischmann who was an expert in the field. Fleishmann came on board as the experimental results were repeatable. But there was no explanation. They surmised that it may have been a cold fusion reaction because there was no other explanation for those anomalous results. They then booked to perform a public demonstration in 1989 and were not able to repeat that experiment. Conjecture has it that there was some menace that intervened prior to that demo. But that's not proven. What IS fact is this. There is no disgrace in not being to replicate on demand. It does not thereby disprove the claim. But by the time the experiments were more widely tested - then too the disgrace of faulty postulates could not be lived down. A fusion reaction - any fusion reaction requires the emission of some kind of radioactive waste. This is the incontestable proof. And it was the lack of this evidence - this waste product - that buried the science. You see this I trust. Added to which both Fleischmann and Pons claimed that there was an emission. Had they proved the emission then they would have had no difficulty in proving their claim. Clearly they could not prove this.

But the real issue was this. If that over unity result could not be attributed to either fusion or fission - then there was and is no other explanation within the current paradigms - within the standard model. Which is a complicated way of saying that our scientists could not account for it. And because the vast body of our academia are not unduly hampered by any immodest doubts as to their knowledge of all things - to a man they were satisfied that there there could, therefore, be nothing to the initial claim. The alternative explanation - being that there was an explanation 'YET TO BE FOUND' - never entered their heads. And because this mindset has infected the vast majority of our learned and revered - then the vast majority sided 'against'. Which is where science has regressed. It seems that experimental evidence is to be determined by majority opinion rather than by measurement.

Fortunately - while the most of our scientists are reasonably certain that they can prescribe what nature can and can't do - there are those who are more inclined to let Nature Herself guide them. This is rather more wholesome. Which includes those remarkable names that I've already mentioned to you as well as to a small and rather less vocal group of academics. I'm fortunate to be in correspondence with some of them. However, not a one of them will come out openly in support of any scientific evidence until it's been published. Which is the real miracle. This work has, indeed been published. I've already advised you. But it was reported as anomalous. It's that problem again with the standard model. There's still no explanation. And without an explanation then that vast majority of academics - to whom I've already referred - prefer to refute the evidence IN THE FACE OF THAT EVIDENCE. It's extraordinary - and UTTERLY illogical and does nothing other than protect their pride and belief in Thermodynamic Laws. They'd do better to revise those laws. They had to do this once before to accommodate nuclear energy. Then they should do so again. Actually - by now - they should be a dab hand at revisionist theory.

Which brings me back to the point. If these results claimed by Rossi - were not experimentally evident - then we'd have a problem. Our scientists' belief in those results are irrelevant. Rossi has got the technology to a viable level of production. We need no further proof. And, frankly, if I were in your shoes I'd have a field day with our academics. It will be impossibly difficult for them to say that this is 'nonsense' or 'pathological' unless they're prepared to run the risk of a damages claim supported by the evidence of a working generator. In any event they won't dare say that. Even they realise that their own credibility will be called to question in the face of that evidence.

I need to tell you this as well. Rossi himself has clearly determined that the best way to advance this technology is by simply selling working models. But he is also, very obviously, doing this on a low key. My own interests in making this public is because it's the most eloquent reason that I know of to object to Nelly Magubane's investment in that nuclear expansion program. I've yet to forward this information to her. I was hoping I could cut out a report from our local papers. But, *****, there is absolutely no justification to doubt those results. They're irrefutable.

And I'm not being silly about this. That trivialises the issue. The fact is that we'll have those nuclear contracts written in stone if we don't get this news out. There's otherwise no reason to stall that expansion program. We really need the media to rally.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary


So. The fact is that our editor claims that there's NOTHING TO THIS SCIENCE. It is incontestable proof of the efficiency of that disinformation program that is orchestrated by our energy suppliers and their troops of well funded trolls. Dear Reader, we are not here talking about the possibility or otherwise of the UFO's - or time travel - or, indeed, anything that is debatable. What we've got is EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. But our academics have, unfortunately, set a precedent. They've allowed 'opinion' to determine the veracity of any scientific claim - when, in the past, it was only required to produce experimental proof. This is a tragedy of no mean proportion.

We URGENTLY need to ask this of our academic scientists. "WHAT EARTHLY RIGHT DO YOU HAVE TO DENY WHAT IS EXPERIMENTALLY EVIDENT - AND THEREBY PERPETUATE THE CATASTROPHIC CONDITIONS THAT PUTS OUR FUTURE AT RISK?"

That's the rally call. Would that everyone could hear it. And all we can do is our very best to spread the word. Dear Reader, do advise all and sundry. Every bit helps.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary