Follow by Email

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

126 - submission around the corner

Dear Reader,

I'm holding back on submission to hear some comments from someone who has kindly offered to read our efforts. When that's to hand I'll correct - if and as required and then send it in.

It's decidedly my last efforts here. I am utterly disheartened by the absurdly inadequate critiques that have followed on from my report that was distributed to the most of our SA academics. The one study that was offered proposed that the simulation be modified to AVERAGE the battery voltage. That's an absurd proposal for so many reasons. The battery voltage is NEVER stable during the oscillation phase. It's a veritable roller-coaster. And no-one has picked up on the significance of that anti phase relationship between the battery and the shunt voltages. They're weird. Just to re-cap for those who are following this - here's the thing.

The battery discharges from a current flow that is measured above zero. Correspondingly it recharges from a current flow that is measured below zero. The conventional 'take' is that above zero the flow is clockwise. Below zero the flow is anti clockwise. So. What does one then do with our own evidence - both in the measured voltages and in the simulations. Because the above zero, clockwise current flow results in a REDUCTION of the battery voltage. And the below zero anti clockwise current flow results in an INCREASE in the battery voltage. It's quite literally back to front - upside down.

What's needed here is such a profound revision to the thinking of current flow and its properties that there's going to be a howl of protest. Any editor who is brave enough to publish is DEFINITELY going to need some caveat to justify it as - the content cannot be evaluated against prior work. There are no CITATIONS applicable. And the 'due diligence' from any reviewers if it even gets that far - will need to be confined to the evidence of simulations - which is hardly satisfactory. But it should help.

And then I have found - to my horror - that the level of expertise amongst some otherwise skilled engineers - is entirely lacking when it comes to the evaluation of what I would have thought was rather elementary power analysis. There seems to be a kind of mismash of confusing terms and confused concepts and utterly absurd equations. For some reason - everyone seems to think they can change the established protocols to just about anything they require. Poynty, for example, has seriously proposed that since one can expect the battery to 'discharge' it's enough to ASSUME that it is discharging. Under usual conditions it may show a ripple. Therefore, all that is needed is to disregard the ripple and assume a 'FLAT LINE'? Some easy and utterly illogical steps that have no bearing on anything experimentally evident. And that averaging of the battery voltage is then seriously proposed to be multiplied by amperage of the shunt in real time. So. It's not evident. It's INCORRECT protocols. So? Why then use it?

The answer is obvious. It's the only route left to FUDGE the evidence. It takes the attention away from that glaring anomaly of a battery's voltage climbing HUGELY in the process of delivering a really strong current flow. And by the same token it takes away the advantage of the reducing battery voltage precisely while the amperage is climbing in what is expected to result in a reduction in that voltage. A product of this in real time would INEVITABLY be to the benefit of a retained potential difference at the supply - to that COP infinity - that we keep referencing.

But I've now been in some discussion with some really clever academics. It's no accident that they also gravitate to the better universities. A real pleasure to see the questing mind. It's rare. And more to the point - when it can finally get to that forum - which it will do if it's published - then I'm reasonably certain that these questions will get 'sorted'. It needs mathematical clarification. And that is way beyond our own capabilities.

So. A few more days and we'll submit. Hopefully there's enough evidence to justify publication. Because, after all, it's the experimental evidence that - in fact - determines our science.

Kindest regards,

Just some doggerel for the amusement.

If philosophy is logical
And logic mathematical
Then the argument that follows this would be

That philosophy is measurable
Quantifiably numerical
And all determined unequivocally

While numbers metaphysical
Would then become nonsensical
A gross dimensional absurdity.

While these thoughts are just conceptual
It may perhaps be practical
To twine these branches from a single tree

Of knowledge. And though questionable
It may yet be more than reasonable
To let the thought conceive reality.

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

125 - just for the record

Dear Reader,

I've finally 'run out of space' on my computer. I need to clean out a lot of work and am simply making due record of it here before deleting it.

Please don't bother to reader here unless you're that interested.

Kindest regards,


A little about the background and problems related to the structures available to progress new discoveries.

It is evident that a simple switching circuit is able to dissipate more heat at a load than the amount of energy supplied by a battery supply source. This was first recorded in an article published in the October edition of Quantum magazine in 2002 – and subsequently widely reported on the internet in a test replication completed at the end of 2009. Both tests gave evidence of a co-efficient of performance in excess of 1, the first by a factor of 17 and the second by a factor of 7.

The essential design of both tests was a simple battery supply source placed in series with an inductive resistive load and a MOSFET transistor driven by a 555 circuit. Measurements were confined to a calorimetric evaluation of the energy dissipated at the load compared to a control. And the measure of the energy delivered by the battery supply was based on the voltage measured across a non-inductive shunt resistor placed in series with the negative rail of the battery to determine the rate of current flow.

The question is why either test generated so little public interest given the extraordinary nature of the claim? The reason for this is that our application to publish in a reviewed journal was denied. The rejection of the first paper may possibly have been excused on the bases of insufficient data and possible inadequacy of the measuring instruments used. But the second paper detailing these results rather erred on the side of excess. And the instrument that recorded this data was a Tektronix TDS3054C that was more than adequate both in terms of its rated bandwidth and the sophistication of the software that enables due record.

The actual reasons given for the rejection of the second paper, even prior to review, was that the technology was based on a thesis that was outside the expertise of the reviewers. The suggestion was made that it would, therefore, be more appropriate for publication in a physics journal. But, in as much as electrical measurement falls outside the expertise of our physicists, it seems that the paper may forever remain profoundly and fundamentally unpublishable. In the light of the extraordinary nature of the claim one hopes not. The more so as the results show a technological potential that may address those manifold concerns related to pollution. These concerns dog our burgeoning energy needs and our somewhat profligate use of this.

The fact is that our Thermodynamic Laws are that entrenched in our general and mainstream physics paradigms that it is now entirely impossible to give a reasonable account of breach of this through any respectable medium whatsoever. Claims of breach are met with rank scepticism and dismissed on the basis of ‘assumption of error’. And all solicitations, to either attend a demonstration or to comment after such attendance, were only ever met with a blunt refusal accompanied by a parade of contempt and condescension. And it is unlikely that such an attitude can be considered appropriate to science. Science is only ever progressed through experimental evidence. To deny that evidence, or more appropriately, the careful evaluation of that evidence, serves nothing but prejudice. And neither prejudice nor assumption can ever serve the truth.

As it applies to an evaluation of our own experimental evidence, this less than satisfactory attitude is entirely unacceptable. The circuit is simple. The component parts are easily identifiable. The measurements are instantaneously available subject only to the use of an appropriate oscilloscope. And to compare each and every aspect of the test claim as it relates to the dissipation of heat against a control, then a short half hour would suffice. To refute the claim would take a matter of minutes for any expert qualified in power engineering. The numbers are neither elusive nor marginal. The results are unambiguous and repeatable. And they consistently point to a breach in Thermodynamic constraints that merits considerably more attention than they have actually, historically managed.

As mentioned, the review process allows publication of experimental evidence that interested parties can then evaluate the experiment to progress it or to use it as required. But, historically, this progress has been confined to incremental improvements and small variations where results remain substantially within thermodynamic constraints. The only vehicle available for publication of results that defy these limitations are through Open Source and the internet.

But herein lies a second danger that rather exceeds the risk of test evidence being merely overlooked. Internet communication is by individuals who, more often than not, hide behind an avatar or an assumed identity. There is an overriding lack of accountability and, not being accountable allows contributors the freedom of expression that is as unrestrained as ‘road rage’ and often as destructive. Opinion, unsubstantiated allegation, calumny and rank unprofessionalism abound. Technology is promoted or destroyed with far less effort and far less merit than the carefully composed chapters of those many papers submitted through traditional channels. And where claims of unity breach are actively encouraged through multiple forums they are also as readily dismissed due to the flagrantly self-serving opinions of those many who subscribe. While the facts of any issue are recorded for posterity, the memory of its readers and contributors is short. Open source is indeed vulnerable to gross and even to criminal abuse. And it can, therefore never be considered a reasonable alternative to progress new knowledge.

In conclusion therefore, it is evident that there is no vehicle, no procedural blue print, where new thinking and new discoveries can be appropriately addressed. Scientific merit is only ever attributed within the tight confines of popular opinion be it learned or otherwise - be it through the channels of academic publication or through free internet publication. Either way is fraught. The hope here is to forge some system, some method that can breach these barriers. The thinking now is that demonstrations should be limited to a prepared audience and that their subsequent evaluation carry the required accreditation to merit publication in a reviewed journal. Publication would then, hopefully, satisfy mainstream that the experiment requires fuller research. There is more than enough experimental proof to of concept. What is now required is that these tests be put up at multiple benches through many different laboratories and institutions that the full extent of the claim can be carefully evaluated and verified or refuted as that knowledge grows.

Reference 1 -

124 - hope springs eternal

Dear Reader,

We're nearly there. I'm still struggling with the introduction to the paper - but that's only because I'm trying to get it simplified yet comprehensive. No easy task. I know now that the battle with our trolls is nearly over. A few coming forward with the occasional blunt swipe - but their arguments are stale and grounded in gross misconception.

When I look back at all those posts and all those objections - I feel I've climbed Everest - four or five times - only to reach the precipice to tumble down again. But this time I think we've forged a better path through all those previous climbs. Certainly it's one that others can now walk - without getting altitude sickness - or vertigo.

Whatever happens - published or not - these experimental results are profoundly significant. And I think they'll survive me - as required - if they're to be advanced. And that's all thanks to the internet. It is a sad truth that there is very little support for these findings - most significantly lacking by our 'free energy enthusiasts'. One would have expected them to rally. But the news is not palatable when it's advanced by an old woman - least of all one who is untrained. I think the hope or expectation was that such exciting news should have been advanced by someone with charisma - another Tesla. So. What can I say? And the most of those members do their own experiments within the constraints of budgets and available testing equipment. And to disclose the full benefit here one actually needs the super sophisticated measuring tools that I have been privileged to use. It is a truth that if our paper is published - then our instrument manufacturers will have to up the anti in their software to let these facts be more readily accessible.

Anyway - our target for submission is mid month. Everyone's rallying. And it's all good news. I have cautious reason to expect a genuine investigation by our reviewers - which will be a first. And I think the evidence will now be considered on its own merits. Which is a very good thing. I'm afraid that our South African academics have still not rallied. Perhaps that'll change prior to publication. One can only hope.

Kind regards