Dear Reader,
As you know my preference is in 'dialogue' as I believe this is the best means to progress this knowledge. Where this dialogue has been progressed is at overunity.com's forum. Here's the link.
click here
Unfortunately Harti, our forum owner, has allowed Glen Lettenmaier full membership with the mandate to flame my thread to death. He's more than qualified to do this - not because he's a debater - but precisely because he is not. He lacks the language skills and the intellectual subtleties required. But he makes up for this in his ability to dominate whole pages with utter irrelevancies. Glen is to a thread what fire is to tinder or what stupidity is to knowledge or what spite is to goodwill.
Anyway it is likely that I'll have that thread locked in the near future. Harti can have no other objective in allowing Glen. So. For good order I'll copy all here that - when the time comes - there'll be continuity. In any event one of our team members has long been telling me to give reference to this dialogue. Perhaps it's overdue.
Herewith that post.
And Guys, I think, round about now, I should try and explain the relevance of Romero's work to our own - albeit less dramatic evidence. It has nothing to do with the results and everything to do with the measurements.
You guys are captivated by the motor. With good reason. It's sexier to see those moving parts. You're all of you skilled experimentalists - and the 'holy grail' of all this research is to get rid of any overt dependency on an energy supply source. Therein lies 'true freedom' so to speak. Certainly it extends one's potential for true self reliance away from a direct geographic reliance on our supply monopolists. But - by the same token, it has been impossibly difficult to prove a motor's efficiencies. One just needs to look at the work of Bedini et al - and their efforts in this regard.
Now, while those numbers could be contended - while the actual level of efficiency was subject to any kind of debate - then there was also no reason to consider any such work to be any real threat to our jealous energy suppliers. Therefore was there also no real reason to mount a campaign of objection. And even where the efficiencies were debated and contended - it was never enough justification to halt progress, so to speak. That motor configuration was going to be studied - no matter what. It's where your hearts lie. With good reason. Back to the 'sexiness' of moving parts and to the compelling and compulsive interests of all you engineers.
Our own experimental evidence was always compelling. Coupled with which there was a pesky prediction required for those results in an eccentric thesis. And that thesis represented an entire departure from conventional phyiscs. Field theory reduced to a digital analysis and requiring consideration of nothing more than a positive - a negative and a neutral. In effect, it was nothing more than a philosophical reach into dialectic exercise in logic. But it had some rather compelling parallels to known physics. No overt contradictions to what was classical and what was quantum and even what was not. It conformed.
What was not arguable was the repeatability of the experimental proof of that thesis. And so it was absolutely required to attack - not so much the results - but the person advancing those results. Not the message so much as the messenger. I don't think I need remind you all. Threads flamed, threads locked, threads dedicated to maligning me, and on and on. Certainly I was widely painted as a deluded incompetent and there was even a time where I was accused of the fraudulent attempt to somehow capitalise on this knowledge which I'd plagiarised from Open Source. But it's painful to remember it all let alone to reference it here. And it's inappropriate to moralise. So. I'll try and get to the point.
Which is this. There is no earthly way that you can get a self runner without accessing an energy supply that has heretofore been 'outlawed' by our scientific community. This is now 'in the bag'. What must follow on from this is a sincere revision of those concepts related to energy. And most especially this needs a radical revision of the actual properties of energy itself. This will now need some real attention from our brightest and best academicians. And here we can all rest easy. Theoreticians have been somewhat adventurous in pointing to explanations. But to the best of my knowledge there is no theoretician that has presumed to propose, let alone to analyse, the actual properties of energy. And as that is now required - I am reaonably certain that they'll come to the table to address this. And physics is absolutely NOT determined by speculation. A line of argument is either right or it's wrong. And in the unlikely event that my own exercise is even half-way right - or even if it's entirely wrong - then the fact is that the explanation will STILL BE NEEDED. And thus far they've been able to avoid the question at all.
I hope that goes some way to explaining my relief in seeing the good work that Romero's doing - and indeed that all are doing in their efforts to protect this knowledge and keep it open source. And I trust it will explain the relevance to this thread topic - circuitously (lol) related as it is to our own work. If I am even 'half way right' then what I'm seeing is the potential, not only of defeating those prescribed constraints in the transfer of energy - but of defeating even the gravitational forces. It's all good news. I see a bright beacon of light - where I am only used to pointing to a small 'glimmer'. And that glimmer was shrouded by the most concerted attack that has ever been advanced on these forums. And, by the looks of our latest contributor here, is likely to continue.
Anyway. It's all good news everyone. Really, really good news.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
