Follow by Email

Sunday, July 31, 2011

134 - more results - this is getting a bit boring

Dear Reader,

Here's the thing. I don't want to risk leaving the oscilloscope on for the duration of the tests. It's a delicate instrument and I'd hate it if the experiment went out of control. So I turn it off during the course of the test. Then I turn it on to download a test result. It invariably starts off at 73.something - and then immediately climbs to 74.3 or 74.4. Then it drops to 74.1 and then just moves between these values. The test start voltage was 72.something. Can't remember it but I've got the download. That made me think that it was 'recharging'. But it really isn't. It is simply retaining its charge...I think.

In any event it has now been running for 67 hours. Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this. It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours. Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.

I'll let it run for the duration of the day. But this is really getting absurd. By rights the batteries should, by now, have completely depleted. In fact they're fully charged.

I'll download the waveforms later today when I conclude the test. So. I'll let it run for another 12 hours or more. But I think this has now been conclusively proven.

Kindest regards,

It's mildly amusing to me that Stefan has assured me that my membership will be re-instated when I've run this test. I've advised him but notice that he's rather anxiously pretending that he's not aware of these tests or of my notification. But nor will I do anything about it. I've got a battle ahead of me if these papers of ours are to get published. And I rather prefer it that it's not done in the face of those horribly flamed threads. And as for Poynty et al. That doesn't even bear mention. They're promoting Romero's tests LOL - because that has the very real benefit to them of being INCONCLUSIVE and substantially not replicable. LOL. To those of you who want to know about agenda on our forums - look no further. The last thing that either of them want is finality to these claims. It's sad but true.

Saturday, July 30, 2011

133 - interim test results

Dear Reader,

I ran the tests on 5 batteries but was getting next to no heat albeit a steady rise in battery voltage - from 60.5 to 62.3. That test ran for 10 hours. I then added another battery - now 6 of them - and reduced the switch to its slowest - just to get the measure of what happens to the temperature over that long 'off' period which at this setting is almost 20 seconds. The test has been running - again from 8 o'clock last night until now. The battery climbed from 72.6 to where it is now at 74.2, over the last 8 hours or thereby. I'll down load waveforms later on. Right now I want to see if there's an upper limit to the level it will climb or if it's just getting back to it's 'kick off' or 'rest state' voltage. Heat dissipation is negligible at about 12 watts.

It seems I was wrong. I stated that there is no evident recharge from the oscillation in our paper. I should have done these tests before. Very interesting - in any event.

Kindest regards,

Friday, July 29, 2011

132 - SUBMITTED - now the wait - meanwhile more test results

Dear Reader,

We've just completed our submission - first journal - first attempt. If it's rejected I'll post the paper here and then try a whole lot more journals.

Meanwhile - I'm running that much asked for test to the duration of the batteries. I've got it at ridiculously low settings. The good news it's been running for the last 5 hours and battery voltage has climbed from a steady 60.4 to where it is now which is 62.3 volts. I'll let you know how it goes. And next post I'll download some of the those screen shots. I'm using 5 batteries only and deliberately including the two that caught fire as I think they've been compromised. It'll be interesting.

Kindest regards,

131 - a small glitch on our submission - and yet more on the problems of assumption

Dear Reader,

We've got a glitch on the submissions which is being attended to. Therefore a small delay.

Meanwhile, one of the editors has written to me to explain that editors are, as a rule, inundated with papers that claim to have discovered a violation of conservation of energy and that, to date, they have all been uniformly incorrect, 'regardless of the degree of evidence asserted'. That phrase is worrisome. One would have thought that the validity of the claim would be established or not 'in line with the evidence asserted'. If the evidence is in the results then it cannot be deemed to be incorrect. Correspondingly, if the evidence is not in the results then it can be deemed to be incorrect. In any event, we none of us know about those 'hundreds if not thousands of submissions' precisely because they are never published. One hopes, therefore, that they are not being rejected on the basis of assuming that they are uniformly incorrect.

The problems here are manifold. In the first instance I know of many claims to have breached over unity. The most dependable are usually related to small wattage values and therefore the results themselves become debated. Then too there are many where the circuitry and sundry components are so complex that it's almost impossible to isolate or identify the single cause of that over unity result - as claimed. And to compound the problems there have been hoaxes and duplicitous promotions that have rather sullied the pure drive to knowledge that is required in any scientific endeavor. It's a minefield - fraught with fraud and deception. Not a happy springboard to launch any new drives to new knowledge.

All I know, with absolute certainty, is that these questions need to be openly discussed and addressed. And to get it to the forum for discussion it first requires publication. There are not one of us collaborators in this paper would not be relieved to discover the errors in our results that are merely 'assumed' by our academics. But that quest cannot be answered without due consideration of the evidence. It is entirely inappropriate to science to simply ignore the evidence and deem them incorrect 'regardless' of that evidence. Actually that's not even science. It's philosophy.

Kindest regards,

Thursday, July 28, 2011

131 - the cover letter with our submissions

Dear Reader,

Here's the cover letter with our submissions. It's some small record of the difficulties that we've experienced. And, as it's been described - we've possibly initiated some 'strong headwinds'. What is good news is that we've been invited to nominate the reviewers. Not sure if this is standard or what. But it may very well help in this drive to get this to the academic forum.

Herewith the cover letter.

The following two papers refer. The experimental results appear to fly in the face of classical prediction but nowhere do we assert that there is a contradiction in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. What is detailed is the proposal that the source of the extra energy measured in the experiments is due to magnetic properties that are located within that circuit material but extraneous to its atomic structures. This is required in terms of a non-classical magnetic field model that predicted these results. Our second paper refers. Also, we have gone to some lengths to explain that the measured results, albeit anomalous, comply with predictions required by the standard model. The modification relates exclusively to the proposed material properties of the magnetic field which modification is then able to fully account for the path required for induced CEMF during the discharge half of each cycle of the oscillation. We would presume to suggest that the purpose of academic publication is not for endorsement or otherwise of the thesis related to this research, but to circulate the findings in order to provide opportunity for a broad assessment of the claim by actively proving or disproving these results and their conclusions. Therefore, by submitting the paper we are initiating precisely this engagement. And, therefore too, disagreement with any or all of these proposals is not only inevitable but required. The following is a synopsis of the difficulties we’ve experienced in trying to get these results into the public domain.

We have, for a period of 10 years, been trying to get these results to the academic forum. We all live within easy reach of four highly respectable academies and in 10 years, have not been able to get a single academic expert to even witness a demonstration. When these efforts failed we turned to industry to do the accreditation of the results. This included BP (SA), SASOL (SA), ABB Research in North Carolina, Spescom (SA), Power Engineers (part of the Alstom group) and many other smaller industries. Those referenced above are listed companies. SASOL (SA) offered UCT a bursary award to take the study further, which offer was declined. ABB Research was sent a prototype model to do their own independent testing. All those listed gave us written permission to quote their names as accreditors in a paper that we published in October 2002 edition of Quantum magazine, which followed a prior rejection from our submission of a paper to the IET. To date that is the only publication of these tests and their results and Quantum is not an academic journal. What followed from this publication was a small flurry of media interest and the directors at MTN ScienCentre then asked us to do a demonstration of the artifact at their center for an international conference of scientists. Not one scientist came to that demonstration which was available for the duration of that conference.

My son eventually put the information onto a blogspot for us and that did attract attention. We were then variously engaged with sundry replicators all over the world and it eventually caught the attention of some of the lecturers at Cape Peninsular University of Technology. At the beginning of 2010 we were invited us to develop another prototype in their labs, where we worked for the last 16 months or thereby. We were fortunate in getting the loan of some sophisticated oscilloscopes, and were then able to even improve on our earlier results. Those results were the subject of yet another report that was circulated, this time to every university in South Africa - with an invitation to attend a public demonstration of the device in March of this year. Not one expert attended. That was when we decided, again, to try and get this technology published.

We are well aware of the contentious nature of the claim. If the results are flawed then we can, none of us, find that flaw. What has been suggested is that it may be due to grounding errors. But the oscilloscope that we use shows us the same numbers as a Tektronix that was loaned to us, which is not earthed. It has also been suggested that the functions generator that we use is responsible for the extra energy. But we get the same results with a simple 'flip flop' circuit. The only reason that we used the Functions generator is that it gives us a better handle on the switching cycle. Then too is the fact that these results are easily replicated on simulation software which, at its least, suggests that our classical algorithms allow for these results.

It is difficult to compute exactly how many hours have been spent on these latest tests. We have more than 230 tests on the database at different settings that all show variations to these waveforms and the results. But what does not vary is the consistent evidence of more energy being dissipated than delivered by the supply source. It is this evidence that needs to be evaluated by our academics - preferably by replicating that experiment. And preferably it needs to be widely disseminated that many different academies and experts evaluate this to enable the checks and balances required in the promotion of new technologies and to then prove or disprove it as required.

Therefore we cannot do more than submit the evidence and the thesis that predicted these results. We are not claiming finality in these proofs but asking that these results be evaluated through those required checks and balances that are available to the discipline when the experimental evidence is widely disseminated. And it will not get exposure without prior publication. It may be that the experiments are not clearly explained, or that the language in the paper is obtuse or confusing. But those are editing functions and can be corrected. The results are what they are. And they have been variously filmed, downloaded on flash drives, recorded in these and other reports and papers, accredited, witnessed and publicly demonstrated. The proof has been overwhelming. Only the credibility is still heavily taxed.

Saturday, July 23, 2011

130 - a discursive analysis to justify the existence of the magnetic dipole

Dear Reader,
I've been busy on the second paper. It's FINALLY completed. This is the the text for the appendix in our second paper. If the paper is NOT accepted for publication then I'll post it here.

Kindest regards,

It seems that much is known about the conditions required to sustain a fire or flame, while little is actually understood about its material properties. For instance, it is known that fire requires oxygen in the atmosphere for it to burn, but a nuclear fire, such as in the sun, does not require this. The following simplistic and hypothetical experiment is used to explore the property of fire and, by extension, the material property of the magnetic field.

Place a pile of wood under a ceramic pot holding iron filings. Then set the wood alight. Flames would heat the ceramic pot and this heat would then transfer to the environment inside that pot. With a required sufficiency, the heat would then melt the filings to form a liquid. This experiment would conclude precisely when the fire extinguishes which, in this theorized example, would also be precisely when the filings will have coalesced into a liquid. Then the ceramic pot would cool and the liquid iron solidify, and in the process of solidifying it would also shrink in volume compared to its liquid state.

Assume also that, at the beginning of that experiment, a detailed account is made of the number and type of atoms and molecules in the wood, in the ceramic pot and in the iron filings. Then at the end of that experiment all those atoms and molecules associated with that energy exchange during the fire, would still be fully accounted for. For instance, some of the carbon atoms in the wood may have combined with oxygen in the atmosphere to form carbon dioxide. Yet other exotic gas molecules may have escaped. The small volumes of moisture in the wood may be vaporized into steam. But the structure and weight of the ceramic pot would remain substantially the same except that it may show evidence of cracking and heat fatigue. The amount of the iron would match its quantity as filings. And the most of the carbon atoms in the wood would be there in the loose ash condition of its burnt out state.

Which begs the question, what actually has changed as a result of that fire if the atoms themselves remain inviolate? And the answer is evident in the wood that will have lost its bound condition. Conversely, the previously unbound condition of the iron filings would have become bound. And other than a few escaping gas atoms and molecules, all those atoms involved in and associated with that fire, may not only be entirely accounted for, but they would and do remain substantially unchanged. The actual atoms comprising all parts of that experiment and its experimental apparatus remain exactly as they were prior to their exposure to those flames. It is only their bound condition that would have been altered.

In as much as the atoms are known to remain unchanged as a result of the fire, then the material source of fire may have little, if anything, to do with an interaction between those atoms. The fire itself may have a material cause that is extraneous to the atomic material from its source. If so, and as it results in an unbinding in that transfer of its heat from the material of the wood to a binding of the material of the filings then, what is actually being transferred in that exchange of energy, may be that binding material. By extension, therefore, this binding material may also be the material property of that flame. Which suggests that three-dimensional bound structures, be they liquid, solid, or molecular, may be bound by something that is extraneous to the atom.

It is this ‘something’, this binding material, which is here proposed to be the hidden material structure not only responsible for binding matter into its identifiable structures, but also the structure behind all the forces. A magnetic field model identifies this binding field as a single discrete, one-dimensional closed string of orbiting magnetic dipoles structured as a Line of Force (Fig 5). And this precise one-dimensional field is identified as the fundamental structure upon which all the Lines of Force are developed because it is, in fact, all that is needed. It is the essential and profoundly elementary structure required to potentialize and interact with the three valence conditions of atomic charge. For ease of reference this orbiting string of dipoles will be called a ‘binding field’.

Lines of Force that are closed therefore balanced.
The single line of force as the proposed link between atoms
proposed source of the Casimir effect

The assumption is made that these binding fields are magnetic and that they are constrained to only interact with other magnetic fields. They obey an immutable imperative to move to a condition of charge balance. And this actual atomic binding could, therefore, be managed by an orbit of these strings, which can be seen, in the mind’s eye, as a small cog, (the binding field), interacting with the boundary of a bigger cog, (the atom’s outer energy levels). Both fields are proposed to comprise Lines of Force. And, being closed strings, then the charge of both the atom’s energy levels and the binding fields are perfectly balanced and thereby rendered undetectable. The difference in these two fields is proposed to be only that of size. The atomic energy levels are proposed to be more complex, two-dimensional magnetic Lines of Force, having length and breadth.

But the question remains. Why are these fields undetectable? And the proposed answer to this is that they are indeed detectable. They are seen every time we light a fire. In effect, flame itself is proposed to be the hot material property of magnetic dipoles that have moved out of their field condition as a coherent Line of Force into a chaotic imbalanced mass of conflicting raw charge. As there is also a proposed and immutable imperative for these dipoles to structure themselves into an orderly field then they needs must search out material in their immediate environment to reassemble into those discrete and structured fields. In effect, they are looking for something to ‘bind’. And having found the required disassociated atoms or molecules they can then transfer through space to reassemble into those discrete packages of their coherent field condition, by binding disassociated atomic material.

A variation of this ‘binding’ and ‘unbinding’ is proposed to be the motor that drives the electromotive force. But to explain this first requires a close analysis of the closed Line of Force. One half of each of those closed strings will oppose the other half. And if they orbit, then one half of every orbit will still oppose the other half. The orbit itself is a composite of a potential bi-directional path through space. And whether the orbit is clockwise or a counter-clockwise, then whole of the field would be neutral. In effect, each Line of Force, whether or not it is orbiting, would be balanced by its own innate structure, which would render the binding field neutral. Therefore, in summary, the field would essentially comprise the sum of two opposite potential spins and therefore, two opposite charges. Each part of each field would be charged, determined by the alignment and/or the justification of those magnetic dipoles. Yet the field itself would be neutral.

Current flow, on the other hand, is proposed to be the dynamic condition of voltage that comprises open strings. And its movement through the circuit is led by a single justification or direction or charge. This is here further proposed to be either the negative or positive half of each dipole leading the string that also leads the current. See figures 7, 9 & 10. And unlike the proposed binding fields, current is known to be mono directional therefore it only has one charge. The binding fields would be located in that circuit material that is presenting a path for the flow of current. Therefore when current flows through the circuit material it would repel that half of each of those binding fields in its path that present a ‘like’ charge. And this force of repulsion is then proposed to break the symmetry of that orbit of these binding fields. Broken Lines of Force would also be open Lines of Force. And unlike their closed condition, open Lines of force have an identifiable charge. In terms of the Laws of Charge, like charges repel. So one half of that field would, of necessity, be repelled by the current charge. And having been repelled it would also then restructure as an open field outside that circuit material, and would be measured as voltage. This is proposed to be the source of the voltage that results from EMF.

Open Lines of Force proposed to be measured as voltage

The remaining half of those Lines of Force, are now no longer able to attach or to orbit. These fields remain within the structure of the circuit material. But they have lost that interaction with the atom’s valence energy levels, which thereby become unbound. It is proposed that these broken Lines of Force then tumble out of their coherent field condition and, like the sparks in the flame, they get bigger and hotter as more and more of these fields move into this shared state of chaos. These broken strings then lose their orbital momentum. This unbinding, or unbundling of the field string structure, represents a chaotic condition where the level of binding of the circuit material becomes compromised. The early evidence of this is that the material itself expands to accommodate the increased volume of these, now big, hot and slow, magnetic dipoles. So it is that the magnetic dipoles themselves are here proposed to be the source of heat, which is exploited in electrical applications.

The magnetic field model referenced hereunder, has proposed that these Lines of Force comprise magnetic dipoles. It further proposes that all particles are composites of these tachyons. And as the model is able to resolve the mass/size ratios of the proton to the electron, it may thereby constitute some proof of postulate. The objective of this appendix is to summarize these concepts relating to the electromotive force. It is stressed, however, that there is no material departure of these concepts to mainstream physics other than in the proposal of a magnetic dipole being the fundamental construct or ‘building block’ both of the magnetic field and of matter. The significant and further departure from mainstream is that these dipoles are here identified as the material structure of ‘flame’. This, in turn, begs the ratio that in the field condition the particles are as fast and cold and invisible as, out of a field condition they are as hot and slow and visible. And their quantized value of spin and charge is required to be intimately variable depending on the atoms that they bind.

Also of significance is that these fields may be the source of the ‘dark force’ that has been proved by astrophysicists. And on a broader scale it may also be the source of the strings that are required by our string theorists. But, as it is based on Faraday’s Lines of Force, then there are no significant departures from mainstream thinking. The hope is that it will resolve some outstanding questions related to those many paradoxes that are identified by mainstream.

Thursday, July 7, 2011


Dear Reader,

I am delighted to see that Stefan has FINALLY deleted the most of those flaming posts. It is also most unfortunate that it took so long before he actually intervened.

I still have an outstanding quarrel with the results of allowing those posts - but I will get back there when I'm ready. As of now I will not be posting anywhere at all until I've completed those papers.

kindest regards,


Wednesday, July 6, 2011

128 - history just repeating itself

Dear Reader,
Here's an email from Stefan Hartman and my response. For those who are NOT aware of the significance of this I'll explain more tomorrow.

Hi Rosemary,
there are too many problems now.

Please go to a different forum with your work.

I will close all the treads tommorow about it.
You can deceide, if I should leave the material on there or should
delete it all.


Stefan -

I have long wondered to what extent one can make a forum owner ACCOUNTABLE to his members. Through nothing more than your irresponsible lack of protection you have passively assisted in harming the work that we're trying to advance. I call on you here to REVERSE THAT.

If you lock my thread and thereby refuse me a chance to UNDO THAT DAMAGE THAT YOU HAVE ALLOWED - then I have a contractual complaint against you that I will address. So. It's not my choice. It's yours. If you DELETE my work then I will most CERTAINLY hold you to account.

And in either instance I will simply hold up your PROTECTION offered to RomeroUK to the the COMPLETE LACK OF PROTECTION offered to me. And I would remind you that YOU opened that thread and that YOU invited me to post there. And I would draw your attention to the MANY ATTEMPTS I MADE TO ASK YOU TO INTERVENE and your ENTIRE LACK OF RESPONSE. The time that I've spent on that thread speaks for itself. It has been a DEDICATED effort by me to advance this work against an ENTIRELY unmoderated attack.

The ONLY appropriate intervention is to put Cat under moderation and to delete two remaining references that I have pointed to. I would have thought that - retrospectively - that would take up very little of your time and that it is, perhaps, the LEAST you could do to correct the harm that you have seemed not only to ALLOW but to actively ADVANCE. Why have you not considered that simple solution?

You more than ANYONE knows that any SUCCESSFUL CLAIM of a unity breach brings out an attack and that it is orchestrated and probably paid for by those with vested interests in denying this. I have asked this publicly. Do you share those interests?


Saturday, July 2, 2011


Dear Reader,

For those of you who are into this kind of thing - here's my LOGIC to justify the magnetic dipole. Let me know if there's an error. I'm using a variation of this for our second paper.

Faraday proposed that magnetic fields are structured along lines of force. The voltage across a magnet or an induced magnetic field has two distinct poles or charges. Therefore lines of force also have two distinct charges. This field condition can be sustained if there is a further proposal made that the lines of force comprise magnetic dipoles, as this would satisfy the required 180-degree alignment of those lines of force. Current is widely ascribed to the movement of charge and it is known to induce electromotive force on circuit material. Electromotive force is measured as potential difference or voltage. And voltage, in turn, is a measure of an imbalance where the negative and positive charges are separated at the terminals of a supply source or across circuit components including the wire. This negative and positive charge imbalance is reduced, proportional to the rate of current flow. As electromotive force is known to be proportional to the rate of change of magnetic flux, and as current flow is proportional to the rate of change of the electromotive force then it may be proposed that both voltage and current flow may have this material magnetic property. Therefore, both current and voltage can, in turn, be modeled along Faraday’s lines of force. Current flow would then vary the distribution of that material throughout a circuit, which would then result in a redistribution of charge. In effect, a magnetic field in a condition of voltage imbalance, would be in a dynamic condition to redistribute that charge provided it is able to generate current flow through circuit material in order to enable that redistribution