Follow by Email

Monday, February 28, 2011

81 - here's that test sample example

Dear Reader,

Here's an example of that earlier reference where the math trace product and the mean averages differ so widely that the the one can be positive where the other is negative.

Note also, in this example, the level of that spike over the shunt. It's huge.

Kindest regards,

BTW at this level we're dissipating in the region of 40 watts or thereby at the load. It is, nonetheless, not the waveform that will be disclosed at the demonstration. It will only be shown as one example of many more that need to be fully evaluated and fully researched. What we need, most urgently, is academic evaluation of all these anomalies - if such they are.

80 - the offset to the mosfet

Dear Reader

Another point for our Poynty. You ask if we change the offset. Yes - is the short answer. That's needed to explore the variations in the resonance. Each change will give a new result.

On a personal and entirely irrelevant matter - I suffer from insomnia. And I cannot tell you how often those sleepless nights have been filled by trawling through the internet to find supporting evidence of our own rather exotic 'over unity' claims. Then - like a tongue to a sore tooth - I read of the counter claims. Those tedious arguments against the evidence - argued from the use of protocols that are hard to understand - couched as they are with jargon and acronyms that are presented as scientific. And - precisely because they are not explicit - they are also so much less than what is required. It may yet surprise the Ions and the Humbuggers of this world that their own descriptions of circuit peformance is sub-standard. Loose jargon is NOT scientific. It's what it is. Jargon. To his credit MileHigh does not indulge in this. He's explicit. Tedious - but explicit. Always a pleasure to read your posts MileHigh. Not their substance. Just their clarity.

But - be that as it may. I had long come to the conclusion that there was some kind of agenda to Poynty's forum. And that agenda was to deny the evidence - come what may. It is therefore - with considerable pleasure that I read that Poynty not only defined his protocols but that he came up with a number that exceeds what was previously denied. It may be a fleeting moment. It may be denied or even yet proved wrong. But right now I actually don't even care. I'm over the moon to see that he is that intellectually honest that he openly acknowledges this new result.

So. For me this is momentous news.

Kindest regards,


Dear Reader,

AT LAST it seems that Poynty is exploring some values on the LT Joule Thief circuit variant - that ACTUALLY challenge those classical restraints required for the transfer of electromagnetic energy. I'll ask my friend to post a link for me later on today.

The tribute is to the intellectual honesty required in applying classical measurement protocols and then reporting on that result - that elusive efficiency number that is doing all that it really should NOT do. It is an enormous comfort to see that he is looking into this with the required rigour.

I confess that I had come to the opinion that any result would be deliberately skewed to deny the evidence. I am DELIGHTED to be proved wrong. He and Professor are breaking new ground here and, in the process, are making history.

Now dare I ask? What price Kirchhoff's rules now? I think that Mr Faraday will yet win this argument. It also seems that this value results from precisely the same protocols that we apply to our own tests.

You're opening doors here Poynty. What a pleasure.

The very kindest and the very best of my regards to you

Sunday, February 27, 2011

78 - what spurious oscillations?

Dear Reader,

If the correct method to compute wattage is in the instantaneous analysis of the shunt and the battery voltage then school classical has a big problem. I want to be very clear what I'm referring to here. I take the first one sample of the voltage across the shunt and then the first one sample of the voltage across the battery. Then I multiply those two values together and divide that product with the Ohm's value of the shunt. Then. I copy that equation to each of those 500 000 plus samples. Then I take the sum of those samples and divide it by that sample number. That's what I do, and that, I believe, is in line with what the math function does and what it shows in the math trace.

Then we have ALWAYS have a negative value - indicating that nothing is being discharged at the battery. Then too, the battery voltage first drops - dramatically - and then it consistently climbs back to a steady high voltage. So MileHigh. If this is the correct analysis then - again - school classical has a problem.

Regarding that 'short' positive spike at the drain. There is no question that this is not breaching the resistance at the MOSFET where, I presume, it would be blocked. It's the fact that it still generates those really high oscillations at all - after the discharge of this small spike - that is of interest. Surely? Because what is also self-evident is that the voltages at the battery and the voltages at the resistor - ramp up to a higher and higher value until the point that it 'levels out'. How does that energy influence the battery voltage? It clearly goes through the battery and through the load as it's also evident at the drain. And the voltage at the drain shows a waveform that is consistent with the battery voltage.

And again. The kicker. One can adjust the offset or the duty cycle - or both - and one can then get the clean 'on time' that you're all looking for. At which stage - depending on the level it's tuned to - one sees the voltage rise, correspondingly, across the shunt. I've shown this but will post this again - later today. Then here's what happens. The mean average and the cycle mean average MAY SOMETIMES default to a positive value. But the product shown by the math trace ALWAYS STAYS NEGATIVE. And this is born out in the close analysis of the instantaneous wattage that you all have determined is the CORRECT analysis. And it certainly does not result in any evident loss of charge to the battery supply source.

THEN. We have the negative oscillation persisting - during the off time. No matter what. There has been prior evidence of a negative triggering - evidenced by Aaron Murakami. If it is the result of stray capacitance then so what? I understand that stray capacitance is seen as a kind of residual charge. On my side, I see it as an induced voltage over circuit material. But stray or spurious oscillations are not expected to be that strong that they can be returned to both the supply source and then back to the load - repeatedly. And every return ADDS to the charge conservation from that supply - a little more with each osciallation.

That it has not been evident before is due to a variation of the circuit. What is enabled is that there is sufficient path made available to the circuit to ensure that the full benefit of the current induced by that negative spike is able to flow. I suspect that all prior circuit configurations blocked this courtesy some resistance in that Zener diode. Access the full range of it's value and it most certainly returns a net energy gain to the system.

This is what we intend showing. However. It is absolutely NOT the only way to 'skin this cat'. One can achieve precisely the same thing as has been shown on previous test replications. But the net return is then more modest. That negative spike invariably rang 'down' not up. COP >1 rather than COP infinity.

And for those who have read it - the explanation is only in line with known Inductive Laws. I keep saying this. What is evident is almost prosaic in it's essence. All that aether energy - and all it turns out to be is the full and proper use of the negative potentials in induced voltages. Which does not minimise this application. The implications are mind bending. It points to the possibility that there is far more potential locked in inductive/conductive material - than has, heretofore, been fully exploited. And that points to the 'thinking' that initiated this circuit design in the first place.

Kindest regards,

Saturday, February 26, 2011

77 - which value is right?

Dear Reader,

I have a problem which I'm hoping will be addressed. It's this. Energy measurement is based on the product of voltage and amperage over time. And energy is measured in Joules which, in turn, is based on wattage which, as mentioned, is vi*dt.

Now. We've been the happy recipient of the use of some really zut DSO's. The one gives us data dumps in the half million and the other in the million sample range. Hugely detailed. Each sample range under observation is really thoroughly accounted. And the dumps are right out of the moment that the sample was captured. How the different DSO's measure their mean averages, or anything else, depends on that initial sample capture. It's that dump that represents an actual record. And we can access that record of samples - right out of the DSO.

Typically on the multiple channels that these instruments provide - it's possible to measure the different points on each circuit. So it is that the battery voltage and the shunt voltage are shown simultaneously. Therefore is it possible to measure them both - to estabish vi - in real time. As they occurred. So. One can take a record of that sample range and then transpose it to the spreadsheet for analysis and do a moment by moment computation of those measurements. For example, one can take the voltage across the shunt, divide it by the resistive value of the shunt and get the instantaneous current measurement. Then one can multiply that current by the measured voltage and that will give the actual measure of that instantaneous sample as it happens, so to speak. And one can do that sum for each of those 500 000, or 1 million samples - as required.

Alternatively, one can take the sum of all those voltages over that entire sample range and divide it by the number of samples to get a mean average of the current flow and a mean average of the applied source voltage and one will then get the average of the amount of energy applied over that time period related to the sample range.

Here's the kicker. The sum of the instantaneous wattage computed against each sample is never the same as the mean average. Those numbers never relate to each other.

I do have an answer - but I'm not sure if it's classical. Poynty, - if you're reading here - or anyone. I'd be glad of some kind of explanation. Which of those two systems is right? Certainly they're NEVER in agreement with each other.

Why this is relevant is because the math trace is the instantaneous product of both the shunt and the battery voltage. At higher wattage outputs the mean average of the shunt voltage defaults to positive but not that instantaneous product - not that math's trace. This remains negative. Interestingly - possibly because of the higher voltages, the battery voltage first dips by a half a volt or thereby and then steadily climbs back to its previous value.

It's puzzling.

Kindest regards,

76 - on negative triggering and its implications

Dear Reader,

This is a very generalised description of the negative triggering and it's results on the waveform that is proposed to be demonstrated.

It is established that current moves through conductive and inductive material. Above zero voltage induces a clockwise directional flow and below zero, conversely, induces an anti-clockwise flow. The direction of current flow then induces a voltage across circuit material that is established in counterphase to that applied voltage.

From a detailed analysis of the data taken from our two digital storage oscilloscopes it is evident that the amount of voltage applied to the element/resistor - from the battery and during that brief 'on' period - is consistent with the amount of wattage that is measured to be dissipated as heat at the resistor.

But it is also evident that the current resulting from that applied voltage did not flow to the negative terminal of the battery as there would be some corresponding evidence of an applied above zero voltage at the shunt resistor. It is proposed that because the gate signal immediately defaults to zero the passage of this current flow is interrupted that it cannot flow through the circuit path to reach the negative terminal of the supply. Again. The time during which the circuit is closed, to enable this flow, is brief. And the resistance from the circuit is sufficient to prevent a 'through flow' of that current.

The voltage applied to the resistor, albeit small, is now in antiphase to the source voltage. And it is consistent with the amount of voltage applied during that brief 'on' period enabled by the duty cycle. The voltage across the element then discharges that small negative voltage through the closed circuit path, through the battery, then through the Zener body diode of the MOSFET and back to the source of that negative voltage being the element/resistor. This results in a discharge of that voltage at the resistor. It is also consistent with a small negative voltage spike measured at the shunt.

But in moving through the circuit that anti-clockwise current flow has increased the battery voltage and it has simultaneously established an opposite positive voltage in the conductive/inductive properties of the circuit material. This postive voltage now has no restriction to enable a current flow path from the circuit as the signal at the gate is now negative. And negative charge signal at the gate of the MOSFET will not repel a postive charge. The source battery voltage is now marginally higher as a result of that brief anti-clockwise current flow. And it is then able to discharge a marginally greater current flow. This combines with the discharge of positive voltage from the circuit material all of it moving as current flow in a clockwise direction. And this, in turn, establishes a marginally greater current flow and a marginally greater negative voltage is again establshed on the circuit components. This then discharges that voltage as current flow in an anti-clockwise. This then again increases the level of voltage in the battery. And so it goes, ramping up to higher and higher voltages in a resonating condition. Until the level of voltage in that resonating condition exactly equals the limit to the amount of voltage induced in those circuit components. At that point it reaches the limit in the level of it's resonance. Then the switch defaults to present an brief closed condition to the supply. And so the cycle is repeated.

In effect, the osciallations that result from the negative triggering are the result of - and limited to - the sum of the voltages induced from the circuit material and not from the source. In the discharge of that voltage there is a resulting conservation of charge at the initial supply source.

What may be proved by this is that potential difference can be transferred to passive circuit components that they, in turn, can become an energy supply source. Certainly the fact that the battery voltage is in antiphase to the voltage measured across the shunt - is indicative of this. As the only way that this antiphase voltage condition across the shunt and the supply, can otherwise be generated is with the application of an alternative energy supply source to the circuit.

There are subtleties in that resonating condition that need fuller explanation. But I think it is outside the scope of this explanation. There are also certain questions that relate to closed circuit conditions that are not here fully explored. These will be partially covered in that report that will result from that demonstration.

Hope that helped.
Kindest regards,

Friday, February 25, 2011

75 - more detail at the gate

Dear Reader,

Here's a shot of the gate with a small resistor (0.5 Ohm) in series. This to determine if there was perhaps some current moving from the circuit back through the Functions Generator. All looks as it should.

Kindest regards,

PS - I should have clarified this point. Channel 3 the gate and Channel 4 the shunt in series with the gate - both waveforms are superimposed - one on the other. I show both.

74 - on accreditation

Dear Reader,

I need to disabuse you all of the impression that any of these results of ours are - in any way - accredited by any academic experts at all. All that is available to us is to have our measurements closely analysed by those experts as they unfold. If there is to be any kind of accreditation then it must be from a fairly wide group of academics. Else this accreditation will lack a required representative value.

Also. I need to disabuse you of the idea that these results are comfortably accepted. They are not. They are closely scrutinised and closely evaluated - as it should be. In fact, just about every aspect of this has been challenged and subjected to more and more detailed analysis. We use more than one DSO - and with all those data dumps - I have done very little but test the displayed results against the actual data for some months now. Bear in mind that we now do our dumps from samples ranging from 100 000 to 1 million - then that analysis has been close.

The difference is this. The challenge from those experts is on the results. It has nothing to do with the thesis. And it has even less to do with me as a person. That's the aspect of this that I have, personally, found to be very comforting. And refreshingly so. It seems that the forum invariably confuses the experiment with the experimenter and comments - rather liberally - on both. Fortunately, here, it is only the science that is under scrutiny.

Where tribute is required - and frankly, where I'm enduringly and eternally grateful, is that it's being analysed at all. It is a tribute to the science that it will NOT rest on assumption - but on experimental evidence. And on an entirely personal level - I've been guided into the significance of some of these measurements - as seen by school classical. You must remember that with my own 'concepts' these results were largely self-evident. I have been on a pretty steep learning curve. I also have Poynty and sundry - to thank for some of this. Very grateful guys. To all of you. But I'm deeply indebted to those academics who are looking into this. That's a debt of gratitude that I will never be able to repay. Hopefully we'll all be the beneficiaries.

But again. No-one has accredited anything at all. All that has happened, thus far, is that the measurements and their accuracies are being closely monitored and closely scrutinised. And all that is under consideration is whether there is, in fact, any anomaly at all. And thus far there is simply the need to look at more and more aspects of the experimental data. And as a reminder. I have NEVER claimed that this 'effect' is frequency dependent. There are many, many ways of skinning this cat. Frankly, I'm seeing new waveforms on a daily basis - all variations to the previous. There's a world of variety in this resonance. It's entirely engrossing.

Kindest regards

Thursday, February 24, 2011

73 - voltage taken at the drain

Dear Reader,

This is for Poynty who wanted to see the voltage at the drain. Hope it helps.

Kindest as ever,

Channel 1 shunt
Channel 2 battery
Channel 3 Gate
Channel 4 Drain

72 - yet more on those elusive electromagnetic properties

Dear Reader,

The only thing that I predicted - in terms of the thesis - was that current from the supply would induce a counter electromagnetic effect in a resistor. This could, theoretically, be routed back to the supply to recharge that supply. To my way of thinking this would result in some level of charge conservation at the supply. I am afflicted, as mentioned, with a rather literal turn of mind. Therefore, as I saw it, if current flow is at 90 degrees to the voltage - and if current from the supply induces a corresponding but opposite voltage in the inductive/resistive components of the circuit - then current flow is the electric moment of the electromagnetic interaction and voltage the magnetic moment. As I understood it, as there is a measurable voltage induced in that inductive/conductive resistor then allow that resistor voltage to 'equalise' by interrupting the current from the supply. And it, in turn, will induce an electric moment at 90 degrees - but in counterphase to the energy supplied from the source or initiating supply. And then? Obviously in as much as current is then returned to the supply then the supply would be recharged to the extent that it was first discharged.

What I did not realise is that mainstream were very well aware of this. But the difference was this. They NEVER returned that energy to its source. For some reason this was seen to be of no value - no net gain to the system. I sort of saw it as a recycled current. They didn't. To this day I battle with mainstream concepts and I know that I am barely beginning to understand it. But there are huge differences - obviously. The main one being that I also saw current and voltage as having material properties. In other words, to me, current comprised the same magnetic dipolar particles that voltage comprised. They were the same fields - but separated from ech other by a critical spatial distance. Circuit conditions allowing, then current simply moved to establish a charge balance that first initiated that measurable voltage imbalance.

So. In my book current is the movement of imbalanced fields of magnetic dipoles that are first measured as voltage. But when that current induces other opposite voltages in sundry circuit material - then that material also needs to move to a 'balance' and it, in turn, will discharge current to resolve that imbalance. Therefore that circuit material - that circuit component - is as capable of being an energy supply source as is the energy from the initial supply both being evidently capable of inducing the electromagnetic interaction.

And I know that it's round about now that I've lost the most of my readers. The point is critical but subtle. Voltage is always a measure of potential difference. And current is the means whereby potential difference is discharged. Voltage is localised to sundry components. Current flow is not localised but requires a current path. Both fields are structured from one dimensional fields. These discrete and orbiting fields were previously binding sundry atomic material into solid or liquid three dimensional amalgams. If the valence condition of that amalgam is sufficiently imbalanced and extreme, such as is found in the electrolytic condition of batteries - then these fields split apart. They literally become spatially separate. This partially resolves that experienced imbalance. But it is at the expense of the bound condition of that amalgam. The other half - the remaining fields that have not structured themselves into magnetic fields - are no longer able to bind those atoms. This induces a cascading condition of disorder where those remaining magnetic dipoles - the other half of all those discrete binding fields, then come out of 'orbit' - out of their balanced condition. Their thermal properties are then locally evident and measurable.

However, if there are circuit paths to enable the discharging voltage/current to be returned to that localised voltage imbalance - then that imbalanced 'hot' condition can resolve itself back to it's cooler bound condition at the expense of voltage imbalance. The magnetic dipoles, moving as current, can then resolve themselves by losing that imbalanced 'field condition' to split back into discrete parcels of one dimensional strings that re-establish their orbital interaction with the atoms - specifically, with the atomic energy levels. In effect voltage is the measure of imbalance. As a field it can move as current flow. If it can do this it can then recombine a more balanced bound condition with the atoms. Magnetic fields always move to promote a condition of balance.

I keep saying all this. I just wish it could be understood. I keep hoping I'll stumble on the right way of explaining it.

Kindest regards,

Added. Perhaps this image will explain it better. Imagine that voltage is a continual line of magnetic dipoles that arrange themselves in a series of concentric rings around a specific component. Then imagine that this spring is released into a long line that moves through the circuit to effectively reach back to itself. That spring is the voltage. That dispersion through the circuit is current flow. But that spring is actually only the sum of one half of another field that is not able to 'orbit' or structure itself as a 'field'. The material in that spring and their other halves need to 'join up'. If they can do this then they can again split into discrete little orbits - join up with those separated isolated packets that are hot and bothered without their other half. When they join up they can then go about their work of binding atoms together. Then they again become balanced orbits and then they're again invisible and cold - both.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

71 - the actual anomaly that we're hoping will be addressed

Dear Reader,

BP's accreditations of these tests, back in 2001 or thereby - were based on the draw down rate of batteries against a control. In effect they required us to run two sets of tests simultaneously - then recharge the batteries - swap the control to the test - and run the same experiment again. This to ensure that battery vargaries weren't the cause. The first was to evaluate the amount of energy required to heat the resistor to an equivalent value. The second was to run the control at the equivalent current that we were measuring. The second gave a draw down commensurate with the experiment. The first depeleted long before there was any kind of significant discharge from our supply battery. These tests took forever to complete. The good news here is that this actually generated a report. But I cannot, for the life of me, find it.

Notwithstanding I used this protocol in our COP>17 experiment. We always ran the control with the experiment. But - for reasons which I have never fully understood, we were not allowed to reference those controls. Therefore did our schedule of results simply hold what was seemingly an arbitrary test duration period. That duration related to the time it took to run the control to below 10 volts per battery used. At which stage the batteries on the test experiment had barely lost a fraction of a volt.

However, having said that - I must acknowledge that, to the best of my knowledge, I have never run any tests with zero discharge from the battery. I have certainly seen battery voltage climb but then it drops. And with these new results - technically we should only ever be showing a recharge or, alternatively, a stable voltage. In fact, I'm reasonably sure that this is the case. We have never used any kind of battery charger on the bank of batteries that we're using. And they've been operational daily for the last 3 months or so. Today was the first time that I actually looked at the effect on the battery voltage and saw that it continually swings between 0.5 volts up and down. No evident entirely 'upward' swing. But by the same token nor was there a downward swing. On some resonances there's a wild swing and an immediate drop to plus/minus 10 volts each from the 12 volts that should be available. But under these circumstances there's a steady climb back to the start voltage - so I assume it's some kind of charge balance that kicks in when the resonating condition is established. Under 12 volts is certainly not representative of the battery's actual charge.

We will be using an hydrometer to test the actual battery condition - just to see if there's any evidence of recharge through our system. But. And here's the caveat. I absolutely do not depend on the battery condition to assert our claim. We would first need to evaluate whether the recharge can be reasonably accomplished at all - at the high frequencies that we use. I just don't know. I've never studied the process closely enough to know what's required.

The claim is only this. We have both a negative mean and cycle mean average over our shunt that indicates that there is more energy returned to a supply than was first delivered. This is unequivocal. And it's a result that can be found at multiple frequencies and with a variety of settings from the functions generator. And this while the temperature over the resistor reaches a level indicative of 5 watts or greater being dissipated - depending on the frequency and setting at the switch. This result is absolutely NOT in line with classical prediction. If this can be acknowledged as an anomaly - then the questions - those many many questions that we've all be asking for so long - may well get the attention they both need and deserve. In other words - if we had a pure DC supply source - then what's evident is that we could return enough energy to that supply that would be measurable. In effect, if we used our grid supply and rectified the current to DC - then we could return enough energy that we could bill our utility suppliers - subject to them allowing this through their watt meters. It will - at its least, require a revision to the protocols applied to standard measurements. There is nothing exceptional on our circuit. Nothing out of the ordinary. It is only these results that need a full investigation and full analysis.

Kindest regards,

70 - infinite co-efficient of performance

Dear Reader,

Lest anyone - especially MileHigh - missed this. Please note that the point at which these results move away from all classical prediction is when the mean average, the integral and the cycle mean averages of the shunt voltage shows a negative voltage. This is the moment when there is also clear evidence that the supply source is - at its least - conserving its charge. Proof is in the math trace that computes the product of the battery and shunt voltages.

Just to remind you. Here it is again. And given that this is 50 seconds worth of data - then it also appears that this is not an accidental result of some momentary aberration in the data capture. Again. Mainstream require that power comes only from the supply - in this case - from our batteries. How then can more energy be returned to that supply than was first delivered?

And Poynty - to answer your questions - our probe is unquestionably across the shunt. (added) B is connected to ground - and we have a short wire to enable the probe connection at the FET.

Kindest regards,

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

69 - This is for MileHigh

Dear Reader,

I really need to say something about the propensity of some sad forum personalities to continually see the need to belittle or deride this technology.

The fact that their comments are so ill considered and the fact that they indulge in a level of criticism that is entirely inappropriate - is also my comfort. Clearly they have all forgotten that all new discoveries depend on that early derision. It goes something like this. First the idea is scoffed - then it's denied - then it's considered to be self-evident. Fortunately - there are those who are already at the 'self evident' stage of this development. The scoffers are way behind.

What is particularly sad is that this is certainly NOT a new discovery. It depends on those very Laws that have been forged by our Giants in physics. All I have done is suggested that these Laws are, indeed, universally applied. To add to this point is the fact that I would never have been able to progress any part of this had it not been for the impeccable standards of some academicians to apply themeselves to all that experimental evidence. It is an enduring comfort to still find evidence of that pristine level of intellectual integrity - largely missing from the egocentric clamour of the 'forum'. Would that they exercised some kind of professional constraint and then their denials would be so much more credible. As it is their criticisms are discounted, precisely because of their excess.

May I remind those noisy detractors. I have done no-one any harm. I have simply proposed a new perspective on a really old truth. Why is there this need then to mock the idea? There are ideas out there in the world of science that are promoted by experts that are far, far, stranger than anything that I have ever proposed. And if you do not want to be associated with that thinking or any eccentric thinking - then there is always the very real option of dismissing the idea. That's it. Just let it go and move on.

Kindest regards,

68 - a partial replication of that earlier surprise

Dear Reader,

Here's that spike that I mentioned earlier. We've at least got this one on a semi-stable setting. The data dump taken off the multiple waveform screen shows a mean average current flow of -0.49amps (negative ie. back to the battery) Not as dramatic as was seen yesterday.

I have not managed to get a repeat on that runaway number. But I'll try again tomorrow.

Kindest regards,

67 - something about Einstein's mass/energy equivalence

Dear Reader,

Just a quick reminder about the thesis. This, because one of the questions that was posed is 'how can the energy exceed the supply?'. I need to remind you all that I do not propose that there's any extra energy at all. I'm fully in synch with our classicists. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The difference is this. All matter has potential energy locked in its structure. That's Einstein's E = MC^2. What is proposed here is that if that structure is largely inductive or conductive - then those inductive and conductive properties can be exploited in the electromagnetic interaction. That way the material of the circuit components then becomes an energy supply source. This because the applied electric current flow 'releases' that locked energy.

Where in that structure this energy is located is then easily answered. Clearly it is NOT in the atoms themselves as they are not themselves 'changed' by that interaction. Therefore it must be outside the atomic structure. And since the only things that become 'changed' in an electromagnetic interaction - are the bound conditions of the molecules in the battery supply and the the bound conditions of the resistor and sundry circuit components - then one may propose that the binding of those material structures - molecular or atomic - is where this energy is actually located. Since we are not aware of anything other than the induced magnetic fields measured as voltage - then perhaps these fields are responsible for that bound condition. And then too, in as much as the atomic structures remain precisely as they were before that interaction, then perhaps they're extraneous to the atom itself. Surely from that premise to the proposal of 'hidden' or 'dark' energy is just a small but logical forward step? That, in any event, is where my own thinking leads.

So. Let's look at an example. We can burn a piece of wood and yet we would not alter any single atom in that entire structure. We'd only effect it's bound condition. We'd be left with a heap of ash - at best. Perhaps - in burning - those binding fields, like Elvis, just 'left the building'. Maybe they are just fields of 'binding matter' - hidden material that has moved from the wood into something else. Maybe they just dispersed in space to find some new 'home' or 'abode'? Some new atoms to 'bind'?

The difference in the electromagnetic interaction - is that these fields don't seem to go too far from the circuit itself. There is no actual 'conflagration' unless the applied current is that extreme. In which case the bound condition of that circuit component can be entirely compromised. But under usual conditions, our filaments - elements - all last a predetermined amount of time. At least long enough to justify their use.

But I do seriously propose that both that 'fire' and that heated element are indeed the consequence of change - not to the atom - but to something outside that atom that has, itself a material property. But these are hidden in a field condition. They're measurable and visible outside a field condition. And then they're experienced as 'fire' - in varying intensities and degrees - depending on the circuit material.

So. Back to that one overriding question. Are we simply referring to 'dark energy'? It would explain much that has been seen and measured by our astrophysicists. And it would certainly explain those questions raised by our string theorists. All that required matter. All those many dimensions. And all of it - entirely invisible.

Kindest regards,

Monday, February 21, 2011

66 - yet more surprises

Dear Reader,

We are barely touching on the signifance of these effects. Since Friday I've found yet another waveform. A friend has taken downloads onto his flash drive today and I'll get my own download from this tomorrow. It's extraordinary. Something in the order of spikes at plus/minus 40 volts peak to peak measured across the shunt. Conservatively there's an estimated 80 to 100 amps in that really brief moment. And the battery voltage climbs dramatically.

Then. The flash drive left with it's owner. Another colleague of his came in to consider the simulation requirements. I had, by now, changed the frequency by another small adjustment to the duty cycle. The interval between those waveforms was reduced and the consequence was blow away. The resistor rocketed up to over 156 degrees. I turned off the system when it reached 168 degrees and climbing at speed. Still the values stayed negative. I'm hoping to duplicate that condition tomorrow and get the appropriate downloads. I'll let you know if this can be replicated. Ideally I need to video tape that event. But I'm not sure that I can manage the adjustments and the video taping. Perhaps I can get someone in to assist.

The real beauty of this new little number is that the mean average values still stay glued to those negative values.

I'm hoping that all this is repeatable. If not - it's not of too much consequence as our previous waveform is always there. That's more than enough for the demo. And all these other effects? Provided that our demo motivates enough interest - then I'm reasonably satisfied that it will all become apparent as this project is more carefully researched. Much needed. I have never expected that this energy is just so, so plentiful. But it relies on some careful tuning. I cannot see how this will ever be progressed without having broadband oscilloscopes. I foresee a big future in the market here.

Meanwhile - just to let you all know. I'm looking forward to that demo despite the scare that sits in the pit of my stomach and despite the sleepless nights. I've been largely reassured as the actual demo will be given by someone else. I'm reasonably satisfied I would not be equal to addressing a large group of people.

Kindest regards as ever

65 - some answers to some questions

Dear Reader,

This is just to asnwer some of those questions that have been put to me on forums.

Poynty - we did do a waveform directly across the load resistor - courtesy a very special little DSO. Here's the link. (Blog 54. I see I've incorrectly numbered two of them the same. In any event. You'll see which is which)

The waveforms across the shunt and the load are about 30 degrees out of phase. (sorry I edited this having written 70 degrees - incorrectly) But they follow the same general shape above and below zero. I am not sure of the significance of this but was assured that it was to be expected. My flashdrive was incompatible and I could not download the waveforms. But I hope to have that instrument for the 12th March demo.

TK - no aliasing whatsoever. And we've many downloads on the required 4 cycles. My only concern when we use so few samples is that the mean averages and that math trace become even more apparently advantageous. I prefer the more modest result from multiple waveforms. It seems to trend to a more conservative value that also matches the apparent energy dissipated at the load.

Also for Poynty. There's nothing wrong with our diodes - I assure you.

Many thanks to all those who have written in to show their support. It all helps. I confess to feeling more than a little nervous at the prospect of the demonstrations. But as someone else will be giving the demo then that fear is a partially abated.

Kindest regards,

ps. Also to mookie. I read your post with interest. Thank you for your efforts. Rather daunting to think that this could result in a lifetime of derision. But as I'm already so old - then I doubt that would be too long to endure. And I'm not concerned about the consequences to my reputation. I have none. But I would be very sorry if I dealt this science a harmful blow - ever. I doubt that I'd be able to survive that disappointment. I have been entirely seduced both by the logic and this general unfolding. It's been extraordinary. And in the wild hopes that this gets accredited as an anomaly - even then the tribute is hardly to my own efforts. It's very a much a joint endeavour shared by the hard work and hopes of thousands of us poor 'free energy addicts'. It's with some certainty to say that this energy is very much required.


Sunday, February 20, 2011

64 - a general appeal

Dear Reader,

We're leading up to our demonstration - planned for the 12th March 2011. I've asked both Stefan and Aaron to post news of this. My hope is that it will focus some internet attention on the demonstration and to alert you all to this.

Please may I impose on you all to spread the word. I would be glad if there could be some internet focus on this event. I will be inviting a reporter to the demonstration - but would prefer to keep it prescribed to 1 or 2 at the most. This to ensure that the news is not 'blown' out of proportion and that the reporting itself is handled responsibly.

Kindest regards,

63 - the circuit to test for the simulation

Dear Reader,

I suspect I'm boring you all with all this repetition. But I need to make this point as poyntedly clear as possible. To anyone who wishes to simulate that waveform - I propose that it may be achieved if you assume the following circuit.

Two rechargeable batteries are in parallel. A resistor with a small associated inductance is in series with the drain of battery one - with a switch and with a positively biased diode where the cathode is against the positive terminal of battery 2.

A second rail leads from the positive of battery 2. A resistor with a small associated inductance is also placed in series with the drain of battery 2 - with a switch and with a positively biased diode where the cathode is against the positive terminal of battery 1.

The switches work in antiphase that only one battery can deliver energy at any one time. You can use a solid state MOSFET type with a body diode driven by a 555 or by a functions generator. I think you'd need one switch for each rail - but have no idea how you determine the 'on' 'off' time of them both. Hopefully you guys will know.

A common rail links the negative of both batteries. A shunt resistor is in series with both negative rails in order to determine rate of current flow.

I am not sure what is required to ensure that both batteries sustain a different pd to each other. I'm afraid you guys will need to sort that out.

The switches work in antiphase. If the battery 1 is closed, then battery 2 is open. And when battery 2 is closed battery 1 is open.

I'm reasonably satisfied that the waveform across either battery and the shunt resistor will correspond to the this one where the two waveforms are in antiphase to each other

If so, then I'd modestly propose that our own circuit seems to indicate that there's an alternate energy supply source.

Kindest regards,

It seems I've confused everyone. Abject apologies. The circuit described here is only theorised. I've never built it. Our circuit is substantially the same as it's ever been. Here I've proposed that this be tested only to see if a second supply will then generate the waveforms that we're getting. I thought it would be an articulate means of proving that our resistor/element is also an energy supply source. That speaks to the 'thinking' which is my best euphemism for 'thesis'. Apologies for the mix up. Clearly my writing is worse than ever I realised.

What I'm hoping Poynty - is that the waveforms will now move in antiphase. It'll be an interesting study.

Saturday, February 19, 2011

62 - how about it Poynty?

Dear Reader,

it seems that Poynty Point will consider anything in his simulator bar the possibility of actually testing the thesis itself. This is a sad tribute to that 3rd school mindset that I've referred to earlier. And if it were a trivial matter I'd still joke about it. But it's not.

Pointy, the art of debunking is - possibly - required. Especially when what is being debunked is obviously being perpetrated as a deliberate fraud. But what is at issue here is not a fraud. I would not have the skills required to fabricate a waveform in any event. All those resistances and what have you in series with the gate of the MOSFET. Golly. I wouldn't know where to begin. We're looking at waveforms that are either the result of some intrinsic corruption in the circuit components - or we're looking at an alternate energy supply source. And there is nothing corrupted in our MOSFETS.

So. Test it Poynty Point. If you don't, I assure you that others will. And then your counter arguments here will be entirely irrelevant. What exactly are you scared of? That you'll duplicate the waveform - and thereby show that the thesis may be correct? And what harm? It would be of riveting interest to the guys at Caltech. and it would be memorable piece of simulation. I rather hoped you'd be equal to all sides of this argument. That's the base requirement for a serious experimentalist. Surely? Failing which, I'm afraid that your integrity will remain questionable. It's one thing to pose as a serious researcher. That's deserving of every respect. But it carries certain obligations that require objectivity and impartiality. I'm not sure that you're equal to it. Sadly.

Kindest regards,

61 - just a way to stress those rigid paradigms yet further

Dear Reader,

I've been asked to give a full description of circuit and circuit components. I won't do this prior to the demo. Therefore, technically, it will need to wait until the 15th of March or thereafter. The simple facts are that Fuzzy et al - lurk - with as much menace as ever. Quick to deride or decry - and either way - may well, and again, attempt to usurp or deny these results. Either way I'm not sure that the technology would survive a second attack. And I've run out of the required energy to fight it all again. I want academic accreditation to precede disclosure on the internet. Frankly I have no reason, whatsoever, to distrust mainstream. I only know that they've been indifferent and entirely sceptical. I've learned better than to ever again trust our internet personalities.

But the actual simulation does not depend on precise circuit components. What needs to be tested is this. Assume that there is no body diode. And assume that there's an alternate energy supply source. With those two items factored in - then I'm reasonably satisfied that you'll get a waveform precisely as we manage on our circuit. It will have the added advantage of evaluating the actual thesis which everyone, thus far, has chosen to ignore.

If, indeed, current flow has these properties of 'dual charge' and if there is an energy supply source extraneous to atoms - then the actual beneficiary will be our entire scientific community and their required skills to apply this knowledge. Then - to those who can operate those simulators - here's the carrot. The first person who actually finds this will be in the happy position of proving the thesis. And that proof would be conclusive - provided only that I can then show that our body diodes are in tact.

I would have thought that this could be a desirable test. Certainly with all that promising conservation of charge - the simulation should attract a certain amount of interest.

Just a thought.
Kindest as ever,


60 - ta muchly

Dear Reader,

I must say that I'm in awe of Poynty's and Humbugger's technical knowledge. I have to perform all kinds of mental gymnastics to get past those tedious acronyms - but when I finally manage that I see the genius involved in reverse engineering. And surprisingly, I think I'm beginning to understand how school 'classical' thinks. The only criticism that I have is that they both insist that my writing is less than obscure - if you can manage that double negative. It's when a double negative does not become positive. LOL I rather prided myself on the idea that I was articulate. But 'clearly' not. I"ll need to do better. Here's my first best effort.

What I find intriguing is that if you apply a material dual charge property to current - which, by the way, precludes electrons as they're monopoles - then that resonance - indeed any type of resonance on this circuit - is immediately explicable. Just a thought. I've always sort of depended on this - from the beginning. In other words, I predicted that the flow of current would be bi-directional depending on the applied voltage. And when it flows in 'the opposite direction' then it also presents and alternate charge. That way, and only in that way, can you get that energy going back through the diode. And the strength of that resonance? That means that there may be an alternate supply source on the circuit. Surely? That way you can eliminate all those tedious possibilities. And better yet. You won't need to reference those acronyms.

Jokes aside. Thanks for your efforts - Poynty Point and Humbybugger. I'm learning lots - but I think I'm the only beneficiary here.

Kindest regards,

Friday, February 18, 2011

59 - close but no cigar

Dear Reader,

This is for Poynty

Thanks for the efforts here. But you've not given us a replication. I don't think that PSpice can manage it - quite frankly - unless and until it can trace the battery voltage as a direct product of the current through the shunt resistor. It really needs to show that second order phase shift as you term it. Also. See if you can do something where the resonance ramps up rather than down as it progresses.

Poynty. It bothers me that you're so easily satisfied with an explanation. Your reasons are wrong. Transistor Zener very much in tact. And there's no variation if and when we put the probes directly on the battery terminals. And you're rather keen on using your standard DMM. If you put the setting to AC it will show that negative battery voltage. But it never exceeds zero to the extent that you've shown it. Look again at our traces. The battery voltage 'flirts' with zero at best - and only now and then does it actually breach that level - and then only by a fraction.

Kindest regards,

I keep trying to post the link. It's not taking it. Here's the best I can manage.;topicseen#msg10980

PS - it seems that I've again exposed my 'amateurish' status. LOL. MH - take it as read that this is the fact. However, to clarify that AC setting of your standard DMM - here's what's meant. Poynty insists that we do not need those sophisticated DSO's. I needed to cater to his preference. (another edit) As well as putting the DSO probes closer to the battery terminals - I also used a standard DMM on the battery, putting these probes directly on the battery terminals. And on a DC setting it's rock solid at a given value. On an AC setting, interestingly, it moves all over the place - even into negative - but never to the extent of those voltages that PSpice shows.


Thursday, February 17, 2011

58 - another general update on the planned demonstration

Dear Reader

I am not sure that the waveform can be duplicated on a simulator. I'd be interested to see if this is, in fact, possible. Perhaps our Poynty can give this a go. I am delighted, in any event, to see that it's being denied on the basis of a faulty IRFPG50. It's an intriguing number. I think, in fairness, the person that first found this negative triggering was Aaron Murakami - and that by accident. It's just unfortunate that to see the full effect one actually needs a really broad band DSO. And to hold the pattern one needs something a little more reliable than a 555. In any event, the results are unequivocal. And on this particular setting it shows infinite co-efficient of performance. I think Harvey, for one, denied the general effect on the basis of the temporary nature of the data capture. There was an implicit suggestion that the data - over a short period - was not, necessarily, representative. That 50 second number should put that argument to bed.

I can assure you all that the resonance sustains itself. At slower frequencies we get an identical pattern but with a far longer interval of resonance. Of interest is that this seems to be a rock solid resonating condition. Very intriguing - from so many levels. I'm still of the opinion that the only possible explanation of this - dare I say it - is in that 'thinking' that preceded the experiment. But I'm open to correction. Time alone will tell. And I'm most interested to read of some kind of serious analysis applied. If, as I recommend - one simply allows a material property and a dual charge in the current then all is very easily reconciled. Hopefully that explanation will be considered - eventually.

Meanwhile - just a quick update on the demonstration. We will be sending invitations to all our campuses for a demo to be held on Saturday the 12th of March, 2011 - to view the demonstration and accredit the results. In order to 'fit in' with the onerous demands of those heavy academic timetables, we'll also be offering optional more private viewings during the week from the 11th through to the 14th for those who can't make it on Saturday. But we'll only be sending out the invitations during the course of next week. The Saturday viewing will be the official demo and hopefully, we'll be able to get a reporter there.

This will give me the time to settle the variations that we would also need to show and it should allow more time to collate yet more data. I also have to list those many questions that are still outstanding. The most intriguing is that the phenomenon is definitely dependent on the resonating condition of the circuit. And while the resonance is replicable - it is also both elusive and subtle. There is much to be researched. And it needs to be left in the capable hands of serious researchers. Hopefully the demos will be the required catalyst. Certainly I hope that we can prepare a paper on this prior to that demonstration.

So dear Reader. I trust that we can get this to the desks of our learned and revered that they can determine what gives. When and if I see that this is being constructively managed - then I can bow out. It really only needs the trained academic mind to resolve this. And my own contributions here are really and only in as much as I have - I hope - pointed to those questions especially as it relates to the material property of current itself.

Kindest regards,

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

57 - waveforms - 180 degrees out of phase

Dear Reader,

I took the trouble to do a series of downloads just to compare values. I'll download some of those pictures but need to do a detailed schedule of results. Note that the values remain negative - proof of infinite co-efficient of performance and our resistor is dissipating plus/minus 6 watts in temperature. Just out of interest that beautiful waveform entirely disappears at below 36 volts from the supply.

Kindest regards,

CHANNEL 1 shunt @ 0.25 Ohm
CHANNEL 2 battery
CHANNEL 3 gate
CHANNEL 4 math trace product of channel 1 and 2

56 - on presumptions and poynted poyntifications

Dear Reader,

I really need to answer Poynty and his brave if somewhat intellectually challenged cohorts. In any event - here's a quick response just to assure them that I still read there and before I get back on topic.

Poynty Point, I will pass on your offer to debunk - but thank you. I have infinitely more confidence in the expertise of real experts. And they abound in our own country. And God willing, they may yet have a look in and check out the facts for themselves. With respect, and unlike you, they do not offer gratuitous abuse and nor, thankfully, do they apply the level of editing that you seem to enjoy in your own data capture - ably asssisted as you are by your excessive use of a simulator. In any event I rather rely on their professionalism and very much doubt that they'd indulge in the character attack that you seem to actively encourage. You should exercise more restraint in this mission of yours to DENY THESE OUR RESULTS. That way one could still accuse you of impartiality. Do you really think that that staff memebers here do not have the required expertise to establish whether or not a result is due to a badly soldered joint - or to incorrect probe positioning - or to inadequate data capture??? What are you thinking Poynty?

MileHigh, you are right and yet you are wrong. We have lost that lossy parasitic Hartley Effect and replaced it exclusively with a stable harmonic - the same one that did so much good on our replicated tests. That's courtesy the functions generator. Far more stable. I wish that it was as readily available and as inexpensive as the 555. But there you go. Never did anyone claim that the chaotic oscillation increased the efficiency. But as it's you, then I can understand your need to fabricate the facts to try and highlight whatever you can manage. Not so long ago you were crowing that we could not manage a demonstration at all. I just wonder where your next attack will come. Possibly you'll claim that we need to replace the battery with a capacitor. That'll be a new one for the books. How aout it Milesupintheclouds?

And Ion and Humbugger and Grumpy and even WaveWatcher. If you were less spiteful I could still consider you to be men. As it is I don't.

Kindest as ever,

55 - not so brief - many moments in time - in fact, 50 seconds worth

Dear Reader,

Here's a sight for sore eyes. Fifty seconds of pure magic in one fell swoop. Enjoy. Much more to follow - but this little doozy took a cool 18 minutes to upload. It needs framing.

Kindst regards,

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

54 - thinking aloud

Dear Reader,

We have been debating how to do the demonstration planned for month end. The idea is to present unequivocal proof of what classically would be seen as an anomalous result. Our options are fairly wide. We can show a very high wattage dissipated. But the values off our data dump vary from between any extreme of negative loss from the battery to 11 watts for the 44 watts dissipated. This is in line with our previous test results and more specifically in line with that well publicised replication. It's the fact that it varies at all that worries me. It will, possibly, become contended - and I would prefer it that the results are unequivocally anomalous. Surprisingly, or perhaps because the wattage dissipated is higher - there's also evidence of a quicker recharge to the batteries which, as measured drifted north - to end up about 1 volt higher after a little over a 2 hour run. But it is also a fact that the one reading varies from another and I'm not sure that I want to spend time debating the measurements.

I think what we will do is simply set the parameters to show the mean average of power delivered where all measurements relating to the delivery of the energy from the supply show negative values. This includes the mean average, the integral, and the math trace. These values are also consistently born out in the data dumps off our 200 MHz bandwidth and our 500 MHz bandwidth DSO's.

I'll be posting some preliminary updates here for that report. The down side is that we're dealing with smaller wattage levels again. But what I can do, after the demo, is show them the fuller range of benefits. I just want accreditation to be unarguable. And then - perhaps - just point at what still needs to be researched.

Kindest regards,

54 - FLUKE 190-104 4CH 100MHz 1,25GS/s

Dear Reader,

Just a quick note. I had a few day's loan on a really wonderful little Fluke DSO that could show the waveform across the load and the shunt resistor simultaneously. What a wonderful little instrument. It is not compatible with my flash drive and unfortunately I was unable to give you copies of that waveform.

What was evident was a small phaseshift between the two but their essential shape is the same - both moving above and below zero. I'm hoping I can secure another one for our demo. Meanwhile I'll post the photos that I did - unfortunately also not that clear. I still need to upload them to photobucket.

Sorry we can't give more info here.

Kindest regards

53 - on resonance on our circuit

Dear Reader,

This is an attempt to explain the resonating cndition that is evident on our circuit. I'm not sure how 'classical' is this explanation. But it is certainly in line with what is seen and measured. And it is also in line with the 'thinking' which is now the preferred euphemism for 'thesis'. LOL.

The 'diagram' schematic has been included now. Technically the schematic should include a resistor and inductor in series but, as we're addressing the properties of inductance will leave it as it is.

Also, the waveform samples show a a triggering on the negative cycle. When this is combined with that resonating frequency it has very beneficial results to the co-efficient of performance. I'll add more on this later.

KIndest regards,


The following assumptions are made. Magnetic fields comprise the material property of magnetic dipoles that are hidden from view as they exceed light speed and therefore, in a field condition, they are invisible. All magnetic fields obey an immutable imperative to move to a condition of best charge balance. Voltage is the measure of the potential difference in magnetic fields that are in a transitional stage of imbalance. Current flow comprises magnetic fields that move at 90 degrees to the applied voltage. Current flow moves to discharge potential difference from a voltage or supply source. Both current and voltage comprise magnetic dipoles in fields that are aligned in a sympathetic charge relationship to secure a balanced charge condition in their field.

Therefore, voltage is a measure of localised potential difference or magnetic imbalance. Current flow is a non-localised measure of the rate at which the voltage or potential difference is able to discharge that potential difference through a circuit. Therefore current flow relies on the material inductive and conductive conditions of a circuit path to enable its flow. Conversely voltage, as a localised measure of the material charge imbalance, can be regarded as a store of potential difference of electromagnetic energy.


Voltage can either be positive or negative depending on its orbital justification around circuit material components. Convention has determined that this is measured in relation to a zero reference where positive, above zero, would generate a current flow in a clockwise direction and, conversely, negative, below zero, would generate a current flow in an anti-clockwise direction. Therefore there is a consistency in the field distribution of charge, where the positive clockwise will lead with the positive of the field. And conversely, the negative anti-clockwise will lead with the negative of the field.

The function of the transistor in this circuit is to allow a small charge from a signal generator (or similar) onto the gate sufficient to block the path of current flow in the circuit. Therefore, if the flow of current from the signal generator to the gate is positive then, when a positive signal of sufficient strength is introduced to the circuit path, the transistor will block the positive flow of current from the supply battery. During this period the positive voltage supply source can no longer deliver a current flow and the circuit is, effectively open relative to that supply.


If the signal applied to the transistor gate is then changed to negative or neutral it will allow the flow of a positive current in the circuit. Conversely the gate will block any flow of current that leads with a negative charge. However, in this circuit configuration the transistor used has an internal body diode that allows the passage of current that is negative or that leads in an anti-clockwise direction with a negative charge. Effectively therefore the circuit is configured that it is intermittently open to a positive charge as is determined by the applied positive charge at the gate of the transistor. And it is permanently closed to allow all conditions of negative current flow through its body diode.

Therefore, provided only that there is a negative voltage induced as a consequence of the prior discharge of a positive current from a positive voltage then there will always be a path for the flow of that negative current enabled by that Zener body diode at the transistor switch.

When the applied signal charge at the gate defaults to negative charge, then there is nothing to prevent the flow of positive current from the potential difference across the circuit components. These collapsing, positive voltage fields generate a clockwise current flow that moves through the gate to complete their orbit at their respective localised terminals.

The amount of discharge relates precisely to the amount of current that, in turn, relates to the level of voltage that was first applied by the positive voltage supply sources including the supply and the inductive/conductive material of the circuit components. But when that potential difference is discharged it again collapses to zero and in changing it induces a reverse voltage or potential difference measured as a negative voltage. This is determined in line with Inductive Laws where changing electric fields induce a magnetic field. And changing magnetic fields induce an electric field.

A voltage collapsing to zero represents a changing magnetic field. This, in turn, develops an opposing voltage that is generated in anti phase and can be seen as a negative voltage. And this, in turn, induces an anti clockwise current flow that is able to move through the internal body diode, which, as mentioned, is sympathetically charged to permanently enable this current flow polarity.

The signal at the transistor gate changes to allow positive clockwise current flow from the battery through the circuit. A corresponding positive voltage is developed across the conductive and inductive circuit components. And this persists until the circuit is again opened by the imposition of a blocking positively biased charge at the gate. And so the cycle is repeated.

Therefore the resonance that is evident during the period when the gate signal is negative (bidirectional current flow) is also allowed only if there is the assumption of a dual charge property in the material of both voltage and current and if there is also a prior assumption of a material property in those magnetic fields. Only on the basis of this assumption can one then explain the evidence of resonance where the voltage is seen to persistently induce a counter phase voltage and its consequent current flow to discharge that voltage.

The level of resonance would be determined by the availability and size of path that is provided by the body diode during the discharge of negative current and by the resistance provided in circuit components. The negative path through the body diode would need to be sufficiently wide to allow for the unrestricted flow of current in the negative or anti-clockwise direction to secure that resonating condition. With this proviso, then the rate at which voltage collapses and regenerates, would be determined by the material where the voltage is localised. In the samples referenced it is evident that this occurs at approximately 1 MHz.

When the voltage on circuit components collapses, they induce a corresponding current flow that is seen in anti phase to the initiating supply source. In this circuit example the supply is a lead acid battery. Therefore, while open circuit conditions apply then a negative anti clockwise current flow will increase the potential difference at the supply thereby representing a recharge cycle. And the consequent and induced positive voltage will decrease the supply thereby representing a decrease of voltage to the supply. If the amount of current flow delivered during the negative cycle is in excess of the amount of current flow delivered during the positive cycle then there will be a net recharge to the battery supply source commensurate with that measured excess.

Sunday, February 13, 2011

52 - the poynt of no return

Dear Readers,

Greatly amused at the even greater nonsense being referenced on our old 'erstwhile' locked thread. I see that the all the license of the 'rant room' is now liberally extended to any reference to me or my work. One would almost think that Poynty still intends to 'debunk' this circuit rather than submit it to serious analysis. I'm glad of this evidence of partiality. It reminds me that I must never actually refer to them in any serious context whatsoever.

And it also seems that the only reason that the thread was locked was because I dared defend myself against Glen - aka Fuzzy. He's that well known dyslexic that tried so hard to steal the invention by multiple unsubstantiated allegations against my good name. He struggles on - with a rather ham fisted attempt at wit. And now with the full endorsement of Poynty the Partial. And because they're all just nasty old men they all cackle away. Quite endearing in a sort of twisted way. Anyway - they may all post - apparently - in as defamatory a tone as they require. Just as long as I don't defend myself. Also just as well as it seems that this technology is progressed as much by notoriety as by serious research. And I only care that it's progressed.

And this is for that short but noisy list of toothless 3rd school 'nay sayers'. You guys have got a serious problem. You still need to explain how it is that we're getting all that 'ringing' if that's how you want to refer to it. I'm looking forward to an explanation that is not couched in such ponderous attempts at wit.

And Poynty. I think the public generally would appreciate it if you could 'debunk' the LT Joule Thief variant by showing similar waveforms - at LEAST. Anything short of that and we're all rather inclined to think that your experimental aptitudes are bereft. You've been posed some questions by Harvey the Wooly Worder - who has presented you with some uncharacteristically articulate posers. Let's see you wriggle your way around them. And PLEASE. Give us some relief in CLEAR SCHEMATICS. Where are your probes positioned and ON WHAT CIRCUIT and around what components? If you need to learn how it's done ask Harvey. Your references are somewhat confusing - compounded by your liberal use of inappropriate acronyms. Not good Poynty Point. Not good at all.

Kindest regards notwithstanding

Saturday, February 12, 2011

52 - resonance on an open circuit

Dear Reader,

For those who are interested - here's a close-up of some of the ringing. Of possible interest is some explanation that this can happen during the period when the circuit is ostensibly open. The clue is in the negative triggering at the gate.

I'll be including that explanation in my report.

Kindest regards,


Friday, February 11, 2011

51 - on a question of teachers - team players - and questions generally

Dear Reader

We are in the process of re-doing the heat profiling on our resistor/element. Tedious work but much required. I'll post the schedule when it's completed.

We have many new 'team players'. I"ll photograph them all later on today. Much thanks required all over the place. And with that much expertise - who will dare argue the results?

I'm a little concerned that our final objection will be along the following lines. 'I can't yet see the error. There is one. I don't have the time nor interest to try and find it.' I do hope not. I do hope - that for once, there will be an acknowledgement. Even if it's only to acknowledge an anomaly. I just pray that there will be enough residual questions after that demonstration - that they can be tabled and addressed. It so needs that well disciplined academic mind to get this subject onto a respectable work bench

I am so privileged to find real teachers. I think they're our angels in this world. A very rare and special gene. I think we owe just about everything of value to these great souls. One day I intend paying a full tribute. For now I think it would be preferred that I don't.

Regarding the 'resonance' - or 'noise' I think was Poynty's term. You really need to ask how it's possible that this can manage a path through the switch without any restrictions from the body diode or the FET itself. There's evidence here that defies classical explanation. I'll post a close up of that so called noise - hopefully later today. And it seems that the noise does all that's required to conserve the potential difference in that battery supply. To my way of thinking that 'noise' is proof that our current flow has two optional charges.

It's all happening and happening at pace. Great fun.

Kindest regards,

By the way - many thanks again to Coast to Coast. We've got a WONDEFUL little portable DSO to determine our waveforms across the shunt and the load resistor simultaneously. I'll post shots of that too.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

50 - things are hotting up nicely

Dear Reader,

Just a quick note. Tempus fugit and I've got a rather stringent schedule to follow this month which leaves me little time for updates.

Just to let you know - we've made another breakthrough to get the resistor temperature at 170 degrees centigrade - and some. And still at no cost of energy from the battery.

I have a lot of writing to do to get that report of mine finished. But the news is all good. I'll give more reports if we break through any more of those barriers. 170 degrees centigrade is probably at the maximum we can manage without inserting the element in water. I'm entirely confident that our MOSFETs will manage 300 degrees and would like to see if I can get there before our demo even if only for a brief moment.

The mosfets are running cool, by the way, at 170 degrees from the resistor. NO EVIDENT OR MEASURED DISCHARGE AT ALL FROM THE BATTERY SUPPLY. So. It's all good news.

Kindest regards,

Channel 1 shunt voltage
Channel 2 Battery voltage
Channel 3 Gate voltage

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

49 - the poynted argument

Dear Reader,

How often and how clamorously have our dissenters argued our evidence? Not enough data, no clear measurements - wrong assumptions based on lack of evidence - or wrong assumptions based on bad measurement protocols. It's been a gathering of the forces that counters every claim with a complete dismissal of the evidence.

Therefore have I waited with bated breath - to see how does Poynty Point get LT's experiment replicated. And lo and behold. No clear points at which measurements are taken. No clear labelling of the resistors used - no clear indication of where the probes are positioned. And on and on. But. Surprisingly. No-one objects. On the contrary - all are clapping their hands and MileHigh is in a frenzy of delight that Poynty is pointedly computing everything that he chooses - as arbitrarily as is required. While he, the great MileHigh - dizzy from altitude sickness - chases each and every one of Poynty's posts with yet another tribute - in the rich tradition of a 'praise singer'.

I see a gathering of the forces of dark trying their best to hide the clear evidence of unity breaches - everywhere. Nothing quite as clear as ever increasing evidence happening at pace. Our latest - presented by Dr Stiffler - is quite simply amazing. He has powered his circuit without the use of any batteries at all. How's that for energy from the vacuum? And far from evoking 'de light' - he's ignored on and referenced in slanderous terms on I will spare him the posting of the video link as Dr Stiffler has been hounded by mainstream and it hurt. I feel if he wanted to state his news more loudly - then he would have taken the required steps.

No relief in sight yet - guys. But in the light of this latest orchestrated denial of the evidence - then I'd strongly recommend that you look past all that denial and check out the truth for yourselves. This uncovering of these universal energy fields is happening and happening at pace. I strongly believe that our own evidence - as extraordinary as it is - will be entirely 'outpaced' by even more extraordinary applications - in no time at all.

It is wonderful stuff.

Kindest regards,

Monday, February 7, 2011

48 - a slippery poynt

This is for you Poynty.

That argument on power analysis is hopelessly flawed. What are you thinking? I wouldn't write here except that I'm rather shocked at the liberal applause that you seem to have generated from your 'followers'.

If we put a power meter in series with a plug and then light a light - then that power meter will register a wattage. Our utility suppliers depend on this.

If we look at the voltage through that wire in series with that light - using your average DSO we will see a perfectly sinusoidal waveform. The power trace is developed from that voltage. You claim that the net power dissipated is zero based on the sum of both traces above and below zero. But. If I was to agree with your argument then I'd be left with the evidence of power dissipated that refutes your argument. I'd see it in the lit light - and I'd read it on the watt meter.

Poor Lawrence simply agrees because his FLEET is widely seen as usurping the technology progressed by others. Therefore is his tenure on other forums denied. You allow it? Why? Because you intend refuting his evidence and thereby all the evidence of the Joule Thief researchers?

If you refute it on the argument that you've presented it's wrong. You'll need to find another argument Poynty Point. The power dissipated is based on the voltage from a preceding sinusoidal voltage trace. The power delivered is greater than zero. Therefore too is the power dissiapted greater than zero. Power is NEVER based on the sum of any voltage at all. It's the product - however you wish to factor that product. However - there's no simple factor in the application of RMS on a simple switching circuit. I wonder how often I'll need to say this? It reminds me of the time when I had to repeatedly point out that back electromotive force could, indeed, recharge a battery. Do you remember that argument Poynty?

What are you thinking?


btw - it seems that there are three schools of thought - not two. The third school borrows any fallacious argument it wants to deny any evidence it chooses. That school is definitely going to win every argument - provided only that they're ever given any kind of credibility at all. If this is an example of that argument then neither of the other two schools need worry too much.

47 - on marriage counselling and repairing the rift

Dear Reader,

It doesn't often happen that we're presented with evidence that precisely and completely contradicts known physics. And certainly it is not expected in the field of electromagnetics. The fact is that - of all scientific disciplines - it's our electrical engineers who have, unquestionably, made the greatest progress. They have been largely, very largely, responsible for launching us into this new technological era and it's explorations on both the small and large scale. Their applications are, indeed, well used and well applied. Everywhere. And everywhere it's based on the knowledge of electricity.

At the foundation to this knowledge is the concept of the electron as the 'charge carrier' and with the flow of electrons as the basic property of electric current. Also well known and well understood are switching circuits and their myriad applications. So. To use a simple switching circuit to defy known electromagnetic technology? It's a double whammy. Typically I see reactions of outraged denial. And then - possibly understandably - a complete rejection of the proposal and, needless the say - the rejection of the proposer of that proposal.

There are two schools of thought. The one determines that the conservation of energy outlaws any possible breach of those Laws of Thermodynamics. And since electromagnetic forces are incorporated into the 2nd Law - then the delivery of this energy can never exceed 1. In other words - you can't get more work out of a circuit than the amount of energy first applied. Mainstream science and scientists belong to this school. It carries a global concensus. Then there's the second school. Not such a big following. In fact, here a small eccentric group defy any constraints to the potential in electromagnetic energy and justify this variously in terms of photonic energy - or radiant energy - or both. Their thinking is rather confusing. And their outrageous claims are considered to be somewhat eccentric and rather naively optimistic. What is not so fully appreciated is that both schools rely on muddled thinking - the former less so than the latter. And what has not been clearly evidenced, yet, is that our 'free energy thinkers' have not managed to prove their claims to our 'not so free thinkers'. In other words the 'nays' still have the edge based on the evidence or lack of it.

But both schools enjoy a kind of license in their foundational conceptual constructs that has everything to do with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. In effect what this says, in a rather circuitous way, is this. 'If it works - then use it'. And this - indeed - was the basic justification of quantum theories which have, unquestionably, forged our progress in all technology at a compounded and accelerating pace. Which, in the final arguement is 'not so bad at all'. Far from it. Mainstream progress of matters scientific has, quite simply been awesome.

The role I've played here is as an outsider. I am seriously hampered by a very literal turn of mind. When I read of a Law, then I assume it is meant to be universally applied, like our Inductive Laws. When I read of the energy trapped in matter, then I assume that energy is literally available in that matter. Which also means that when I read or see contradictions to these laws and then learn of restrictions superimposed on their applications - then I'm floored.

As I see it when we follow an argument in the abstract, we develop a kind of mental model to support that argument. Not unlike the concept of electrons flowing in a shared parth - which is the widely applied concept of current flow. That's more or less what I do. But because of the rather stringent requirements of this literal turn of mind with which I'm afflicted - then I need to develop those concepts that fit the whole picture. I don't live that easy with those contradictions that both our mainstream scientists and our free energy thinkers manage. And this also means that I subscribe to the ideals of both schools of thought and yet I belong to neither. And yet. I think I may possibly have found the 'link' that marries both schools. Which may yet prove to be a good thing. Indeed, thus far I seem to have managed little more than alienate both schools, as can be seen by my rather confrontational history on representative forums from both sides of this argument. I have not been sheltered because I do not subcribe to either philosophy. And nor can I. I have my own argument. And I'm not sure that I need to win a popularity contest. The issue is way too important.

Which brings me back to the point. It is one thing to disprove a known principle. But it is an entirely different matter to prove it easily and with the simplest of simplest circuits that is absolutely well known and well used and well measured and EVERYWHERE applied. It may have helped the cause, generally, if it were something more hidden - where the evidence was more ponderous, the rendition of the evidence more learned, more obtuse, more befuddled. It would have helped if I'd been schooled in traditional science, and learned the tactful subtle art of counterproposal and tedious debate. But I didn't. Nor could I. And that speaks to my lack of formal training.

But there is one thing that I do know. Evidence, experimental evidence, is way more articulate than any argument. And that evidence is there - repeatedly. Therefore, when we finally can show that evidence then, hopefully, these facts can be seen as a marriage of these two disparate schools. And maybe then I'll be seen as a marriage broker rather than as an unschooled dissident. It would be nice to be considered in a more constructive role - in any event. I'm tired of being considered confrontational - when all I'm actually trying to do is to confront the weakness in two arguments and thereby make them both stronger. I'm tired of being considered the antagonist. I'm really, at heart, a kind of marriage counsellor. But I've never really learned the art of tact. And I may be a little too old to learn anything more at all. I hope not.

Kindest regards,

Friday, February 4, 2011

46 - another appeal

Dear Reader,

I've followed up on my previous communication to Natasha. Hopefully this will earn a response.

Dear Natasha,

I have not yet had the benefit of your answers to my questions. Presumably they'll be to hand - eventually. Meanwhile let me - yet again, address some very real concerns I have related to this technology.

As I see it - there is a great deal invested in the 'belief' that one can never get more energy out of a battery or a plug supply than was first delivered. I'm afraid that our utility supply sources and our petrol suppliers rather depend on this. Governments benefit from the delivery of their utilities - no matter their efficiencies, and our petrol suppliers are anxious to enjoy their considerable revenues for as long as their supplies last. Both represent billion dollar enterprises. And both are able to fund whole departments at our global academies to further their best interests. And both have rather squandered the best interests of our Earth's good health in exploiting this energy with its poisonous consequences of nuclear waste and carbon pollution. But we're all to blame. We all use that energy to the limit of our pockets. That there is this belated movement to challenge that constraint to the supply of energy - is probably a consequence of this fact. There is now a dearly held hope - certainly by a huge majority of the population - that we will find a solution to this 'energy crisis'. I am not that certain that it's a hope shared by either the oil producers nor our utility suppliers.

Now. It is evident that man is highly inventive. At the risk of overworking this example, may I remind you about the facts related to 'heavier than air' flight. It seemed that in defiance of all academic opinion related to this, there were those eccentrics who took the trouble to test the fact. The early efforts were scoffed and the media had their share of the fun as they reported on those sad but brave efforts where our pioneers offered themselves and their devices up for ridicule very often together with their lives. But they persisted. And eventually, it was our Wright brothers who eventually 'cracked the puzzle'. In the same way do many people try and challenge our Laws of Conservation of Energy. But with far greater urgency. But again. Their best efforts are ridiculed. Some of our best players have simply disappeared. Others have been impoverished or discredited - deservedly or not. History is yet to judge. And others, such as myself, persist. It is hard not to. In my defense I see repeated evidence on tests that are replicated around the world - and I have my own apparatus on my own work bench on campus - where the evidence is that our Second Law of Thermodynamics is somewhat less than appropriate or required.

What is true is that unless this technology is first evaluated by our academics then it is unlikely to progressed. Thus far have these esteemed and revered - entirely ignored these many claims of breach that proliferate on our internet and that are discussed in depth at our many different forums. But what I know and what is nowhere reported is the fact that these same academics have, thus far, refused to even look at a demonstration. This is excepting the Steorn device which seems to have been largely discredited. In any event, this lack of accreditation by our academics is not in the interests of good science. I will append the introduction to the report that I'm preparing which covers this point. However, it is a matter of great good fortune that there are still academies and academics who believe that scientific fact must be established by experimental evidence rather than assumption. And I'm immensely proud to be associated with one such - in all likelihood - the only such in the world. If the evidence is not available then they will have the real prestige of being able to assert this as a fact rather than as a belief. And if, conversely the evidence is that it is possible to generate energy at far less cost than convention allows - then the prestige, I hope, will still be theirs. Either way they will have conformed to the base requirement of all science - that a claim is first experimentally evident and that it is then established - or not - by that evidence.

But - having said that - it's also required that the public be made aware of this fact. You see the progress of energy has always depended on a financial transaction. The one side will sell an energy product and the other side will buy the rights to use it. The question then is - what happens if one can simply access an energy supply that costs nothing or next to nothing? The upheavals in our financial and social structures would be a given. And we have not yet established that this energy is that clean or that non-pollutant - that it won't perhaps harm the health of either the users or the planet. It needs research. And lots of it. At the same time - the hope is that, in as much as it does appear to be freely available - then it will not ever be appropriated by some kind of monopolistic control. I don't think that this last concern is actually a danger but that would depend on the public being widely alerted to the technology itself. It needs to be understood that anyone can apply it as required. And that, again, depends on the simplicity with which the technology is advanced. It does not need to be wrapped and structured in the obscurities that now seems to be a required and standard expression of science. Sadly.

So. To avoid sensationalism and to ensure accurate reporting and to establish some kind of sound foundation to understanding what is going on here - my hope was to find a single reporter that I could enter into a dialogue. Clearly it will never be your Mr Yeld. But there must, surely, be someone in your organisation with whom I could speak and who could do the background work that is here required. I would be very sorry to read a banner headline that claims 'perpetual motion' or 'a discovery of a new source of energy' - or anything along those lines. We have found NOTHING NEW. All has already been found by our Greats in science. What we have uncovered is that the dark energy - which is the discovery of our astrophysicists - is possibly available in all matter. That has already been proposed. And proposed widely. The tribute here would go to Ellis et al at Caltech. That our Inductive Laws are right. Here the tribute would go to Faraday and possibly Maxwell. And that the our mass/eneregy equivalence is right. And here the tribute goes to Einstein. Then we'd need to revise the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But that's hardly a new event. Those laws are forever being amended. The last amendment related to a required revision exposed by nuclear energy.

At the same time - without fair and objective reporting there would be the danger of burying the evidence. If this is not reported then how can our public be alerted to this potential? It's a story that needs telling. But it needs to be told quietly. And it needs to be carefully progressed. Which also means that one needs to find a reporter who is equal to this. I'm still hoping that you can recommend someone.

Kind regards,