Follow by Email

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

114 - the truth behind the forum facade

Dear Reader,

To continue where I left off in my previous post. I mentioned that RomeroUK may have simply intentionally fabricated a pretense along with that rotor of his to indulge in his 15 minutes of fame. Unlikely unless he is utterly reckless and utterly mad and ultimately intends to change both his address and his name. Because a duped public are intensely confrontational and likely to resort to litigation - especially in America. Then it may be that he'd been given a 'buy out' offer. This is possible as I know something about these kinds of moves. But a 'buy out' would only be justified on patentable technologies and prior public disclosure precludes this. Unless there's a reach for licensing rights. But that requires the explicit co-operation of whole Governmental departments and the knowledge was not out there for long enough for this to be considered. Or it may be that competing interests have muscled in to test his commitment to life - the hallmark of the Mafia. But it would, self-evidently, be FAR TOO LATE. The details of that build are now imprinted on the minds of many thousands of experimental enthusiasts with a force that can only be measured against all that tenacious and riveted interest. Indeed any disclaimer would fuel rather than starve that interest.

Or it may be that RomeroUK was actually persuaded to 'con' the public - to embark on a romp of misinformation. Then the eventual admission to that duplicity would ultimately serve to remind the public that representations on Open Source generally - and on forums specifically - are NOT TO BE TRUSTED. Now - for the first time - I see some value in that exercise. And at the risk of appearing paranoid - then let me, at least, argue this case. If it is an argument based on a paranoid delusion - then there is, notwithstanding, some compelling logic for its support.

To begin with there is a muddle of misinformation related to the measurement of energy. All that talent that abounds on these forums - and it is not inconsiderable - has at its foundation a real weakness - an Achilles heel - that cripples every endeavor at unity breach - at the get go. This may be somewhat offensive to read - but it is a truth that really needs exposure. To measure the actual energy that is delivered by an energy supply source is the simplest of ALL sums. When one generates waveforms that are NOT either pure sine waves or purely direct current then on needs to apply a small shunt resistor - a resistor that has a low Ohms value - precisely at the negative or positive rail of that supply source. Take a measure of the voltage across that resistor to determine it's amperage and then multiply it with the voltage delivered from that supply. That will give you a measure of instantaneous wattage. THAT IS IT. There are further refinements - obviously - but that's the essence. For some reason - possibly to show off one's talents and facilities with rotor turns, with subtle measurements around inductors - whatever the reason - this is simply never done. It was not done on Bedini's motors. It was not done on Romero's motor. And as a result there is simply NEVER a conclusive result in the evaluation of any motor's efficiency. And that I, who am a self confessed amateur, need to explain this - will be doubly offensive. I apologise. But it's a fact. And it needs to be addressed - URGENTLY - if one is ever going to accurately assess the output from a supply source. Which means that any evidence of a turning rotor - be it for an hour or indefinitely - its energy output is CERTAINLY calculable.

So. To use a motor for proof of unity breach is PERFECT. Not only does the rotor fixate the attention of most of the forum experimentalists - but the results can be debated forever. Long winded - winding - pretentious argument. A parade of complex detail that tangles itself in repetitious nonsense - in showing off. The perfect circular argument that has no beginning and no end. And as in most such displays - it achieves absolutely nothing. Whether or not Romero's device was a fake or whether it was real - most certainly one could evaluate whether it breached those unity barriers. And if it was/is real then it most certainly exceeds/exceeded the co-efficient of performance - that COP factor - by, dare I say it, that 'i' word. INFINITELY. And I would put money on it that Bedini's motors and many, many others that all you guys have built over the years, there are many there that BREACH those energy barriers. I am reasonably certain that COP>1 is there - all over the place. But you cannot find it - precisely because you are NOT measuring it properly.

So. The use of the motor was an ideal device to capture attention. Then. It is understood that while the debate rages against the validity of our own claims - what is incontestable is that it generates a great deal of interest. Co-incidentally I was advised of Romero's thread by a forum member whom I trust. But I was also, out of the blue - sent an email by someone called carol maguire (she doesn't use capitals in her name) - someone who asked me to PLEASE REFERENCE the work being done by Romero. I obliged. I went to the thread - and I responded. I immediately advised all and sundry to go there and pay attention. Whoever wrote to me obviously also relied on my unequivocal support for any technology that may lead to cleaner greener. In other words - I was used - as a kind of news agent - to bring this little noticed work to the attention of those many who follow our own work. The fact that it was a woman who advised me also and most definitely solicited my co-operation. Who better than me knows the rarity of any female engagement in this cutting edge science. My sympathies were immediately aroused. Of course I'd co-operate. But clearly it was also required that more of the public engage in this fiasco. I was as good a source of this as any to focus the required attention.

Then. The co-incidence. Glen Lettenmaier - who posts under the name FuzzyTomCat - and more recently fuzzytomcat - was banned from posting at energetic forum. In fact that's not the whole of the truth. What Stefan Hartman, the forum owner and moderator - advised Glen was that he could post under a different identity and that he was not allowed to join the forum if he continued with his 'flaming'. Then - out of the blue - Stefan advised Glen that he may now post again - with his full identification. And no requirement to constrain those 'flaming' compulsions of his. So. Precisely when the focus of the forum members was meant to be exclusively engaged with Romero's hoopla - then Fuzzy was meant to come to our thread and flame it to death. I am certainly not imagining this. Because - if I may now present some more evidence - I complained to Stefan about the inappropriateness of those posts. And instead of moderating Stefan wrote me an UTTERLY DISCOURTEOUS email - where he not only did not reference me by name - but declared - mandated - ordered - that we HAVE to do the test without a functions generator and that he was thinking of closing the thread. I protested and my protests have been ignored or unanswered.

Now. If I were a forum member who ostensibly promoted over unity technologies - and, in fact, was only interested in frustrating them - then I would learn from history. Nothing will engage the interests of those members of this forum more than to busy themselves with those beloved and preferred motors. And even if there is that abrupt denial of the fact then the inclinations of that great collective heart - that enduring love of all you guys - the spinning rotor that may spin forever - that will most CERTAINLY be reawakened. It will still engage all your interests for some time to come.

And then - more to the point - with that subsequent denial, then those many readers of those forums - those with better discernment and greater objectivity - will only be able to conclude that any forum representations, any Open Source submissions - are likely to be unreliable - and most likely fraudulent. So. If, as there is, any extant and looming threat of a 'valid claim' to unity breach - then that too will be tarnished by association. And that's the point. You are all encouraged to debate overunity. You are actively prevented from proving it. And that proof is just so easy - and yet the logic eludes all you brilliant engineers. What gives? Our own proof is abundant. But it's still being debated for Heaven's sake.

And that Harti regrets my own involvement on his forum is self-evident. This is a chapter all on its own. But his refusal to afford any moderation - is in defiance of his own forum rules. In effect he is discouraging any furtherance of this technology based on what? That I am not capable of building the schematic that he requires? That I am lying about the results that are shown by our LeCroy? Which are also endorsed by our Tektronix? That the video results that were presented on the device were fraudulent? That there are ground issues that pertain to our device? Which by the way are also concerns that are roundly denied by simulations of our schematic? That our power measurement analysis is wrong when they indeed conform PRECISELY to the required protocols? What? Why is he that anxious to get rid of me and the information along with it? Why - if he is that anxious to promote overunity technology is he prepared to get rid of our claims? I would have thought that any evidence at all requires nurture.

I'm at a loss. I do know that he resented our non-disclosure of that rather eccentric MOSFET positioning. But that was required - by all who had been involved in the progress of this technology. It was an issue that was considered closely - on many levels. Glen Lettenmaier is on record. He claims ownership or discovery of what is widely referred to as the Rosemary Ainslie circuit. Would he or others come forward and claim the ownership or discovery of that unusual MOSFET configuration? It was a valid and real concern. Our best protection was intended to show this to experts - to one or more persons with a Doctorate or Professorial title - at a public demonstration. Their comments would then have merited publicity or publication. Either would have been welcome. BUT. Those experts did not attend. Nor did they advise me that they would not be attending. And our intention was to protect that knowledge until then. Because then no-one would be able to claim that for themselves as their own discovery. And it's hardly likely to advance our cause if there are those that still try and pretend that we are plagiarising their work. And the sad reality is that Open Source advances these types of opportunists.

Which, I think, concludes this analysis. And my conclusion is this. I am not sure that there are any forums that are dedicated to promote overunity or clean green - notwithstanding their claims to the contrary. And for those members within those forums who are engaged in a genuine reach - then you need to learn how to do some simple power measurements. Because until you do then any valid claims will be contended. And worst still - existing circuits and already built apparatus - are likely to surprise you all with their results when the measurements are appropriately applied. You may indeed find that elusive evidence of COP>1. But for some reason you never seem to get around to measuring this.

Kind regards,
Rosemary