Follow by Email

Monday, January 31, 2011

40 - a quick poynt

Guys,

It seems that my illustration has been understood - but spare me any more lessons on rms. As I had to point out - it's simply NOT appropriate for calculating the energy dissipated in a switching circuit.

Rosemary

39 - how to tell the difference between fantasy and fact

Dear Reader,

I read - all over the place - that I apparently suffer from paranoia and sundry delusions of attack. It is hugely amusing. I think I must be the only person in the world who is deluded by so much evidence. My comfort is that it's a really small minority who seem to find my thinking offensive. I just wish they weren't quite that noisy. And to those of you who have written of your support - many, many thanks. I think I owe you all what little is left of my sanity.

In any event - I'd like to get back on topic. There's been a rush of 'thinking' that is offered to justify aether energy for these over unity results. The explanations are wide ranging and I'm simply not qualified to comment. Truth is I barely understand the most of them. Indeed I'd be amazed if anyone can. But having said that - I always assumed that my own thinking was a clear as daylight. It seems that many of you struggle. And here the fault is unquestionably my own. I do not have the skills to explain things as those experts amongst you require - and nor do I seem to promote an understanding to those who are not expert. Here and there I get a breakthrough And that's encouraging. But in the main I've achieved very little considering the enormous effort I've put into this. I'm not sure if the most of you are simply not interested - or if it is because I am that obtuse - or possibly both.

I must however make due record. I have been warned by a colleague of Harvey Gramm that Harvey is developing his own thesis based on mine. I now understand why he was so anxious to prevent my referencing the thesis in that paper and would alert you all to the fact that he is, in all likelihood, attempting to steal that thesis from me. His friend was required to do a graphic illustration of the electron's interaction inside the environment of the atom. He showed me this. I'm delighted to see that the concept is grossly flawed and will be easily refuted. But I nonetheless feel that I need to alert you to this new event and would insist that Harvey has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to attempt to appropiate my thinking in any context whatsoever. That would be plagiarism writ large.

I will, hopefully and in due course, make my own thesis more easily understandable. But I've been advised by many of you - especially those experts amongst you - that there will be ample opportunity for this to be promoted and expanded when we've finally completed our demonstration. I can't wait as I assure you the thesis is of considerably more interest than these experiments, Possibly not as immediately useable. But they point to far greater potentials than has been exposed thus far.

Kindest regard,
Rosemary

Sunday, January 30, 2011

38 - the abuse of logic

Dear Reader,

I cannot get my head around the term 'radiant energy' unless whoever's using the term is referring to the energy in photons. I think it's widely used by our free energy thinkers as it's associated with aether energy. But I'm not sure that the term is required. And the continued confusion then is that 'light' presumably is the source of this great hidden energy pool. Hardly likely - else it would, at it's least, be visible. In my humble opinion it's an unfortunate misnomer. One thing is certain. This energy has NOTHING to do with photons.

Then there's the endless reference to the 'spike' which is pointed out by our enthusiasts as some sort of 'evidence' of this radiant energy. Yet more confusions. That spike is only associated with and the direct consequence of back electromotive force. And there is no mystery to it. What is interesting is only that it's been somewhat underused as a potential energy supply source. It is usually very big - indicative of high voltage - and high voltage is usually also a measure of high current flow. But - that flow of current times the short time in which it manifests is still only equal to the energy first applied to those components. In other words the energy that is delivered may be returned - subject only to the availability of some path for that current to flow.

Ten years ago when I was still arguing the fact - I was widely assured that one could NEVER return significant quantities of energy 'back to itself'. Therefore would it be absurd to try and return energy to its source - be it a battery or a plug. Our evidence puts paid to that - and it is with some pleasure that I read EVERYWHERE that no-one challenges this fact anymore. Clearly there has been some progress in this gradual unfolding. Nor do I still read, except here and there, that the current flow from a battery is from the negative rail - albeit that the negative rail is still referred to as the 'source'. Hopefully this term too, will disappear. It cannot happen too soon.

I wonder if everyone is trying to complicate the matter to death. It's really, really simple. Apply Inductive Laws - and acknowledge that inductive/conductive components can, themselves become energy supply sources, and ALL confusions will then be obviated. Not only that - but we'll be able to restore Faraday's Inductive Laws in their pristine excellence together with Einstein's mass/energy equivalences. And we'll be saved the tedious and fruitless intellectual endeavour of supplanting this with some kind of tribute to 'stored energy' and it's fallacious 2nd Law of Thermodynamics' debacle. The justification for any requirement related to stored energy represents a monumental error of logic that has dogged our progress for way too long.

Now. As a final and simple exercise to those rather combative readers from Poynty's forum - let me ask you to toy with the following simplified circuit - either theoretically or on your bench. Put ONLY a 1 Ohm inductive resistor in series with a battery supply and a switch with a body diode. And ensure that the battery supply is rechargeable. Then do the math. You will see that the amount of energy that is delivered by the battery is the sum of that spike which is evident below zero and the voltage above zero that was supplied from the source. The sum implies that the one value is is deducted from the other. Then calculate the energy dissipated across that same resistor using simple Ohm's Law. It's still the same waveform. But now you will need to use the product and NOT the sum of both cycles of that switching cycle. The voltage is evident both above and below the zero crossing. There are no complicated phases shifts to account for. Then tell me which value of energy will be the greater? The sum? Or the product?

That example is NOT offered as correct protocol. It is only meant to remind you that any such assessment of energy calculated from a measure of the voltage across that resistor and as it relates to dissipated energy - is SPURIOUS - FAULTED - INCORRECT. I'm not sure how to state this more strongly. I am also really sorry that it is, yet again, me that needs to point this out. Especially as those that have argued this with me are anxious to advise their readers that I have no knowledge of this - or indeed - any power measurements at all.

While I predict that this poynt will never be openly acknowledged - along with so much that is never acknowledged - certainly not by those few who so LOUDLY proclaim my ignorance - one hopes, nonetheless, that maybe the penny may yet drop.

And that's my tuppence worth.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

37 - on the practical side of things

Dear Reader

One of the many questions put to me is 'why do I not just go out there and manufacture the device?' I actually don't know the answer here. And in the light of the recent commercial interest that this technology seems to be generating I have even less excuse. But it seems that I need not worry. Applications will be available - and never can this be too soon.

My only concern is that those manufacturers are not accused of doing what our scientists claim can't be done. But since the Wright Brothers had an articulate argument against their critics by simply flying their planes - then perhaps there is real merit in going this route. So. Good luck to all who put up those hot water cylinders and the rest. It is indeed relatively simple and relatively inexpensive and - more importantly - will give everyone some much needed relief to that ever increasing cost of living. Conservatively speaking there will be the requirement of a 60 - 80 volt battery supply source, a stack of IRFPG50's to share the load of those voltage spikes - some software to deal with that switching requirement and then, indeed - we should be able to unplug.

But I'm afraid my actual interest is absolutely NOT in line with this. It should be. But I am simply not pragmatic enough. This last week I've been trying to find some way to reconcile the enormous amount of energy returned to the amount of energy delivered by the supply. And - more to the point - I'm now looking at a variation in this waveform that I have never seen before. It's fascinating stuff.

Anyway I am not in a position to make any of this public yet. This coming week I'll be testing the waters to see if we can get some experts to a demonstration and when. We have now got the apparatus that it can be tuned to two - hopefully there will be a third - variations of the waveform that show the required benefits. All of it blow away material. And all of it very good news. This time - hopefully - that news will stick. For once I won't have to bat away the jealous denials by those many who purport to want to find the truth in the claim - but who - in fact - only want to deny it. Unfortunately they proliferate our so called 'free energy research forums'. You'll notice them. They're always the most verbose.

And again - a very real tribute to our own university. Such a rare academy. To the best of my knowledge the only institution in the world that will decide on the validity of a claim AFTER a review of the evidence. Anything less than this is of interest but is certainly NOT of interest to science.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Saturday, January 29, 2011

36 - a pretender

Dear Reader,

Sadly, I've deregistered from Poynty's forum. It was the inevitable consequence of yet another orchestrated troll attack this time from Humbugger - who assures us he is not TK. I know we can entirely rest on his advices in this regard. These identity confusions are the inevitable result of our forums where one can adopt any personality that anyone requires. Never is one expected to be accountable on a forum. But I'll give more on this later.

For now I'd like to illustrate the kind of person that is this Humbugger. It was a pure co-incidence that he chose one of TK's videos to educate us. The intention was to warn us about the dangers of faulty 'readings' from our DSO's. But it was an unfortunate choice. I say 'unfortunate' because TK states that he's referencing two points on a single line when, in fact, he's referencing an entirely different line at an entirely different junction. But there again - we need not have worried. He, Humbugger, has connections. Lots of them. This time he referred to the CIA Forensic Labs and to the Jet Propulsion Labs and they rallied. At speed. They must have dropped all their other work. Irrelevant by comparison to this issue. Within the space of a short half day, Humbugger was able to get both to thoroughly investigate this problem. They did a detailed search. A full investigation of the video at hand. You see for yourself that the question was of National Importance. Well deserving of this skilled and expert investigation. And in the light of those many that required an IMMEDIATE answer - it shows an appropriate and democratic response to a question that was far from trivial.

Thankfully, they found that there was, indeed, no error at all. Unbeknownst to us, there was a wire attached directly to the 'blue line' in question. This could never be detected through the video itself or with the simple use of one's eyes. And again, thankfully the question was put to bed with the personal assurance of Humbugger himself, that THERE was NO NEED TO CONCERN OURSELVES. Golly. Had I not had such a detailed investigation into this matter I'd have been inclined to think that TK could have made a mistake - compounded by Humbugger's oversight of this. God forbid. To think that this God of a Man could have mere feet of clay. That would not have given me my required restful sleep nor peace of mind.

I intend writing to both laboratories to thank them for their efforts in this regard.

Rosemary

Here's the video in question...Sorry - he's disabled this. Can't think why? Such an excellent video. I think I can still give a link to the link. Here's hoping. And one also hopes that it will remain accessible to all. It would be a crying shame if he saw fit to withdraw this or EMBED it.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=538.msg9471#msg9471

And here's the link to that assurance given us by Humbugger.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=538.msg9527#msg9527

35 - comments

Dear Reader,

I'm not sure what's going on but for some reason I've not been getting any comments at all this last month. Nor can I find them when I look in my 'comments file'. All's just blank. I think these have been disabled - somehow.

In any event, until I get this fixed, please just reach me at my email address. It's ainslie@mweb.co.za

Thanks,
Rosemary

Saturday, January 22, 2011

34 - a tribute to our chauvinists

Dear Reader,

I feel that what's long overdue is some tribute to the masculine flavour of this 'club science'. It's an 'old school' requirement that women's role in any such field of endeavour is relegated to 'second place'. With good reason. We all know that women are not inclined to logic, reason, critical observation, good sense, or indeed, any kind of worthwhile contribution outside our roles as housewife. We're the illogical half of the human equation. And man is its logical half. His is the muscle and brain. Our's is a secondary role of meek acceptance and deference and quiet compliance.

That's why, for instance, when a woman discovers anything at all men, all men, any men, can assume the right to appropriate ownership of that discovery. Or ignore that it was ever discovered. Or both. That's why if she presumes to explain the thinking behind the discovery - that explanation can be entirely dismissed. That's also the reason that when a women points out some critical error in a man's thinking that - correctly - those points are dismissed out of hand - with the appropriate accusation of 'how crass is such a thought' - or words to that effect.

Let me give some examples of this excellent code of practice as it applies to general forum discussion. MileHigh - an engaging personality on Poynty's forum - will argue - at length - on the fact that particles are subject to the Laws of Gravity. And he will apply techniques of 'scoff and scorn' if a woman dares question this. And why not? All men, everywhere, will see the sense of it. That's also why - notwithstanding the evidence - Humbugger (TK's new (and much needed) forum identity) can advise all and sundry that we may ignore the effect of a junction on a 'line' when making a voltage measurement. If a woman references the need for an integrated rather than an averaged power analysis - it is 'gobbledygook' and redundant. If a woman points out inconsistencies in test parameters - it's to be ignored and set aside. No MAN will come to the defense of her observation. Indeed not. It is excessively presumptuous to question any man - ever - on any point. Unless, of course, one is first a MAN.

Commendable indeed Gentlemen. Really commendable. I am personally looking forward to the much needed acknowledgement of some measure of over unity. And I agree. It is ONLY to be accepted if the claimant is of the right gender. Else what good is there of this elite 'gentleman's club'. No good at all. You do right by ignoring the manifold evidence from published papers and the rest. Deny them. On whatever grounds you can fabricate. There is no worse sin than for a mere female to ever say anthing at all - unless of course it's related to the good and orderly running of the household.

Meanwhile - I also thoroughly endorse your general desire to diminish and belittle any efforts by us poor presumptuous females. We have no right to upturn anything at all - let alone the foundations of physics. And certainly we have no right to find any answers - no matter how simple. In fact - least of all - if they're simple. Science involves matters of grave and earnest consideration. I get it we must not burden our little heads with anything short of observations about butterflies - or bread making - or children.

So. Indeed. Roll on another huge chapter of our history - to be dominated by this impeccable reach at masculine authority. We don't have to look far to find how effective is the 'alpha male' syndrome. It's taken the gorilla to where he is today. It's surely got to be commendable.

Rosemary

33 - in general and in particular

Dear Reader,

We've officially just slipped over to the other side of our summer equinox. The good news is that there seems to be an ever increasing interest in the Lawrence Tseung's device and appropriate reference being made to similar claims elsewhere. Clearly those paradigms are shifting along with our seasons. And by the looks of it - somewhat more rapidly.

Not such good news is Lawrence Tseung's thread where he's established a 'teaching' monologue to explain the phenomenon of Over Unity. My advice to him would be to desist. His device is deserving of every respect. His thesis is not. He assures us that God Himself has endorsed his thinking - and I'm a little concerned that God should, perhaps, put that in writing. He took the trouble to do so when he instructed Moses. And anything short of God's signature blessing - will incline me to doubt any such claim. Surely - at this late stage of our history we should give some due respect to God's gift to us of the faculty of reasoning. Unless the general evolutionary requirement is that our brains are redundant and and needs must grow small again. I for one would be sorry.

The simple truth is that our scientists - our Greats - have actually unravelled all that ever needs to be unravelled. That's where the true genius lies. What transpired from their 'unravelling' was unfortunately corrupted by 'assumption' and it's the errors of assumption that need to be addressed. The acid test of any scientific claim is in its experimental evidence. And when scientists deny the right to show proof - or where the deny the opportunity to even consider alternate opinion - then science itself will be corrupted by bigotry and belief. Then indeed we can deny any need for any critical faculties whatsoever. No need for any further questions. Just a simple 'Then make it so' to paraphase an esteemed Captain in his search for those far frontiers.

The fact is that Inductive Laws are well known and very well applied. There is no Law of Stored energy which, somehow, has been required to supplant our pristine Inductive Laws. What our alternative experimentalists are showing - all over the place - is precisely the fact that the Law is indeed a Law - to be universally applied. Then too Einstein's equivalence is required. There is indeed energy trapped in matter. And inductive and conductive material can release their inductive and/or conductive potentials to become an electric supply source - all on their own. Then - as a tribute to our astrophysicists - there is all that energy around. Everywhere. Even in all visible matter. And even in non-visible matter. In the vacuum itself. Then as tribute to our String theorists - there is indeed the proof of those multiple dimensions and a potential structuring of the vacuum where all this energy seems to reside. And on and on. Our scientists are right. In general and in particular. And we'd be rather foolish to question all the evidence that was required to forge our technological progress to where it is today.

But with one small caveat. Our scientists are NOT God - any more than Lawrence Tseung is God or even God's representative spokesperson. And it would be foolhardy to propose that they are right in EVERY particular. I think there is still some onus of responsibility on us all to keep our questions alive. Because without questions - then where are we? We're presuming that we're God - knowing everything - or denying that there is more to be learned. God forbid. And dare I say it? It seems that our Thermodynamic Laws are due to be revised. That's a good thing.

Rosemary

Friday, January 21, 2011

32 - and yet more on where we're at

Dear Readers,

I've got some relatively good news. It seems that it may be possible to get a public demonstration of our device - and, provided that it includes enough experts - then this could be a feasible means of advancing this entire project. At its worst it will be taking the bull by the horns - assuming that the bull first allows itself to get that close.

I've been alerted to a new danger. There's enough in this technology that is new - and even yet to be tested - that may indeed be patentable. Frankly - I think that will be an inevitable consequence. But there's enough without any improvements to be directly applied - so it's not actually of that much cosequence. In other words - what's patented can only improve on what's evident already. And even where we're at - the results are pointing to a required decoupling from that supply grid. Never a bad thing.

Then too - even at this early stage - it seems that there are those who are introducing this 'nascent' technology at some relatively high Government levels - here and there. The proposal that has been advanced is that they - the investors - act as a licensing authority - that the manufacturers or users or both - pay some kind of licensing fee. No doubt there would be some kind of 'back hander' to that 'approving authority' - presumably the license grantor. This is absolutely not tenable. Especially if the technology cannot be patented. All the more do I see the need for Open Source. I can see that patenting it would allow some kind of graduated control to the implementation - that things don't become too chaotic. But to try and operate this simply by allowing a Government to control either those manufacturers or the end users - simply through financial considerations - then we're back to the monopolistic controls that we've been subjected to since that supply grid was ever first designed.

All the more reason to get this onto those academic work benches that our experts can see what is needed and how to apply it - in everyone's best interests. Frankly - I suspect that this 'first evidence' will be buried by far more interesting applications. I have a few ideas here myself. And if I can think it through then how much better would all those experts and all those skilled engineers around the globe. We indeed live in exciting times.

However. More to the point - I have lost our little waveform. Not sure where it's gone to. I think it's taken fright at the level of interest that seems to be coming forward - and just decided to withdraw until it's recovered from that fright. Nor do I blame it. I feel a bit frightened myself.

I'm going to get a stable demonstration designed and developed and will then conclude that report that was interrupted. The interruption, incidentally was due to my not getting access to the lab during the Christmas break. Then too I'll post out some invitations and trust to God that there will be a few who will come to that party. That should, at it's least, get the questions started. Which is a good thing. I've been looking forward to the time when I can share some of my own questions here.

So. Dear Reader. Now is the time to start talking. There's much that is developing. Poynty's forum - I'll post the link - has an ongoing discussion with an esteemed and worthy academic - a Professor Emeritus - who's kindly and bravely, showing anamolies on Lawrence Tseung's device which is a Joule Thief variant. Wonderful stuff - compelling evidence - and really good news. Other developments are on Overunity.com - but I'm not sure of the link. You'll need to check it out. It seems that all is HOTTING UP. Thank you God.

Kindet regards,
Rosemary

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=538.msg9582;topicseen#msg9582

I think that's the link.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

31 - a little more on where we're at

Dear Reader

I am being hounded by an anonymous poster who demands an immediate disclosure of our full report and who's somewhat annoyed at the continued delays. The point is this. Until recently I have seen it as some kind of social imperative that I release a full update on all experiments. I have been given some good advice. It does not help mine or any cause to freely submit anything at all on the Internet. Not only is the information then subject to arbitrary criticism and evaluation - but there is the real danger of outright theft of the technology by anyone at all who wishes to do so. Therefore am I being circumspect. I know, for a fact, that there are those who are attempting to claim this technology as their own. And while I have no intrinsic objections to this - it carries with it a danger of intellectual property right claims that I would rather not enable. And to give the news freely only results in a degradation of the novelty itself - the more so as it is then systematically and further degraded or contaminated by unsolicited and irrelevant opinion that seldom carries any kind of qualified expertise. Nor am I under any obligation to disclose anything at all - least of all 'on demand'. I am not sure what 'anonymous' considers as a basis for his/her demands. But he/she does not even give the courtesy of his/her full identity. And the nature of a contract is reciprocity. Anonymous has given me nothing in return. And yet he/she demands access to all the information I have at my disposal that is now the culmination of something like 12 years of dedicated work. What is he/she thinking?

I am afraid that I must beg your patience. In or around the 23rd of this month I may be in a position to know how this project of mine is to be progressed. Until then I will be doing nothing but advancing the conceptual understanding related to the thesis. I hope to post more of that work here. Just know that the results are better than anything I had hoped for and that the news is all good. But I cannot afford to rush into this again. I've said it before. The internet carries with it more dangers than otherwise. And I unfortunately know this as I have been its victim.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Monday, January 10, 2011

delays - and more delays - 30

Dear Friends,

It's been hectic. Sorry I've neglected this side of my life. But all's well. We're still debating the 'final show' and how to do this. We're also upgrading that bread board to give us a few more options.

Regarding your comments. Loved them all. Including the question as to which year we intend publishing. Just by the way - the intended year is still this year. The month - not so sure. We've finding things on the circuit that I've never actually seen. Only predicted. We're still trying to find out if this may be 'new evidence' or if it conforms to the old. Booya, Oompa, and the rest. Thanks very, very much. All support is heartening. But. Again. Please don't 'spread the news'. It seems I've grossely underestimated the time required. Still ever hopeful that something will move here before the close of this month.

Thanks again guys - especially to those who are giving such unequivocal support.

Kindest regards
Rosemary