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,
Rosemary
