Follow by Email

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

151 - marking time

Dear Reader,

I see that many of you keep coming back here to check if there's an update. It leaves me feeling guilty that I'm neglecting this blog. The fact of the matter is that I can do nothing significant at the moment except wait and see. We need to know if that paper is to be published - or re-written - or, indeed, if it is rejected. And I doubt that there's anything I can do to hurry the review process. My earnest hope is that the reviewers will - at least - try the simulation of the circuit. That would be an early and easy validation of the claims. But I have no idea what goes on there. And all we can really do is sit on hands.

I keep speculating on what will happen if it is published. I think the first thing will be a wide and wild denial of the fact. But that won't last. It's an easy test to put up and validate. And then, hopefully, our mainstream intellectuals will start looking at the questions that the circuit raises. Regardless of anything else the repeated evidence is that the measurements require an absolute conservation of battery charge. And that does not vibe with mainstream assumption. My hope is that they'll also see that nor does it conflict with conventional knowledge related to charge and to Inductive Laws. In fact, we modestly propose that the thesis may resolve some outstanding questions in physics. But those issues are way beyond my competence to determine. I can only propose what I think is the solution.

And then - dear Reader - we should be able to start some real work on applying this technology. Another hope is that it will revitalise those many - many experiments that are conducted on forums. I am reasonably satisfied that this can be applied to a motor to get precisely the same benefit. And with luck we may be in the happy position of testing this - fairly soon. What we have found is someone who is more than willing to get applications up and out there - regardless of publication. Which is a really good thing. I'll update you all - as and when I learn more.

But my overarching objective - as ever - is to get our brilliant academics onto this. Then there will be no stopping it. It is an enduring shame that 'free energy' has so many dreadful connotations. It is considered fraudulent or naively optimistic - at best. And its history is peppered with some outrageous attempts to capitalise on effects - when all that it should be doing is promoting a wide interest. Certainly until the measurements are more conclusive than has been advanced by Steorn et al. Hopefully our own experimental evidence does something to mitigate this lack.

Meanwhile - apart from the promotion of its understanding and on our own ideas related to potential applications - I'm taking a break. And what a pleasure. I've been painting. I'm doing some illustrations for my grandchildren. And I shall then write a small story for them. It's about the fairy who brings flowers to the world. I think - somewhere - somehow - it's analogous? lol.

Kindest regards,

Friday, August 19, 2011

150 - on a belated tribute and history going round in circles

Dear Reader,

I provided a link here and then decided to simply 'reprint' this, first posted here in November last year. It's strangely apt - which shows how history repeats itself.

I have slept almost 14 hours - with a one hour break divided into two short wakes of less than 1 half hour each. More to the point - I've woken up to find none of those alarming email notifications '***** has replied' with that dreaded link directly back to another flamed thread. It's the first time in over 3 months that I've have missed that faint early morning light where I see our wild syringa tree silhouetted against the sky. It's also the first time in months that I've missed seeing the full promise of day announce itself in great washes and varieties of red. And I missed those horrible hours before this - from midnight to early dawn - where I struggled to explain one thing after another, within the limits of my poor skills and huge efforts. I am delighting in this removal from public comment that I seem to have achieved. And the greatest delight is that I have watched the stats on this blog of mine. They are that manageably small that I feel I'm moving about - incognito - so to speak, recording what needs must. And all this being done outside the glare of all that highly polarised attention. Long may this last. Where I asked, before, that you tell everyone about this new vehicle of mine - this blog. Well. Now I would much prefer it that you keep it secret. Certainly for the time being.

My last upload was my article on 'more inconvenient truths' and I've just re-read this. Its rather outspoken but was written in an explosion of anger after reading the absurdities on 'what is electric current flow' and sundry other mutterings and mouthings from some rather pretentious posters. Also, in fairness, it all needed to be said. But I'm not sure that it warranted that level of criticism. What I would like to mention - belatedly and much needed - is that our scientists - those exceptional theorists who, through the ages have taken us from a study of the wheel to the study of quantum physics. They have all diligently applied their exceptional work led as they were and are, by our even more exceptional Greats. Our progress in all matters scientific is entirely due to their hard work and their amazing skills at measurement and observation. To me their greatest miracle is that they have unfolded the properties, not only of the atom, but in an even greater miracle of observation - they then unfolded the actual properties - almost the entire mug shot - of the atoms' constituent particles. Consider this scale of small. Whole galaxies of atoms could fit on the tip of a needle. And then if that doesn't leave one with the mouth agape at the wonder of it all - consider this also. They also showed us their particles - the population and its distribution, so to speak of the atom itself. And the particles within the atom are just fractions of a fraction of the size of that body - that atomic geography. We are here talking about a scale of small that quite simply beggars belief. And this unfolding, these amazing insights, could not be have been done without their genius and their applied disciplines - those extraordinary applications of observation and measurement applied both from empirical evidence and from the logic of math. I most certainly owe them. We all do. We owe them everything that we know about science. We owe them a tribute of sincere thanks for the miracles of explanation and breadth of knowledge that they have progressed. And I, personally, owe them. Hugely. I owe them a debt of gratitude for learning something of their amazing work and for the passionate interest it has afforded me albeit rather late in life.

Indeed I have no quarrel with scientists and their exceptional abilities. I only quarrel with some of their theories - based as they are on the problems that I've recounted hereunder.

Kindest regards,

Thursday, August 18, 2011

149 - some answers to some questions

Dear Reader,

Many of you coming back to me on the paper. Just to answer a few questions - YES - the thesis absolutely does away with the need for those 'holes' which have always been problematic from a theoretical perspective. But it also does away with electrons - which will probably generate a howl of protest from most of our physicists. But we're on safe ground. They have NEVER found a spare or loose electron anywhere to account for current flow. And I'll append my own link to my personal protest against this - hereunder.

We have absolutely NOT been able to raise the funds to get this onto a continual 'show' on the internet. But that's just for now. I'll make alternate applications in due course - even if I have to use a different battery manufacturer.

And no word back yet - from the reviewer. All I can assure you all is that if this is 'rejected' then we've got a few alternative journals. But I do hope it won't come to that. I'm rather committed to getting this through the IEEE. Which is why I kept the argument to Faraday's 'Lines of Force' and to inductive laws which our engineers know very well. And that's only because I also know that it's our engineers who are best suited to progressing these applications. The tricky part is getting them to accept it and, more to the point, to understand the implications. Which are mind boggling. lol.

Anyway - here's the link to the 'protest' and another reminder of where to find the paper.

Kindest regards

Click here for some 'inconvenient truths'

and this - belated tribute - lest anyone think I'm not aware of the amazing contribution by our scientists

And click here for another view of the paper

Monday, August 15, 2011

148 - ungagged

Dear Reader,

I've been re-instated at one of the forums - in fact I think at 2 forums. But I've no intention of going back there unless and until our paper is published. It's just an awful lot of noise and does nothing whatsoever to progress anything at all. The trouble with promoting any new concepts in the full glare of public opinion - is that those opinions are usually immoderate and unmoderated. Especially when it relates to new ideas. It seems that there's a great deal of abuse justified under the banner of 'extraordinary results' requiring 'extraordinary proof'. But that's a particularly unhappy road to walk - ever. Especially for me. I have rather bruised memories of this intervention. But from the distance of nearly two months - it is now - I return to those threads and see the same horrible confusions and pretensions that I tolerated before. It's not a happy place. Just a parade of ego and self-interest

But here's the thing. I've just seen a documentary that lists what's required if we're to satisfy our energy needs in the future. It's something in the order of the needed manufacture of 3 solar panels a second - 1 wind turbine every 10 minutes - 1 nuclear power station every month - for a period of 10 years - just to satisfy 10% of the needed alternative energy by the year 2025. That's simply not doable. I would have thought an alternate option would be the voluntary reduction to our birth rate as a preferred route. But for some reason it also seems that we, as a species, become inordinately creative when we're under the hammer - so to speak. It could, perhaps be that we are flirting with these catastrophic potentials in order to 'dig deep' and find that much required solution.

These are all big questions. Right now I'm banking on the human potential to evolve into something considerably better. That would be nice. But to get there I think we first need to get rid of those restraints that are associated with classical and quantum thinking - and reach for the 'impossible'. Historically I see a crisis growing - like the ground under a volcano - really with nowhere to go but upwards and outwards. That's a desirable direction provided only that it does not conclude with an explosion of magma. My money is on achieving that paradigm shift. It would certainly be a desirable evolutionary consequence.

Kindest as ever,

Friday, August 12, 2011

148 - something at last

Dear Reader,

I think our paper has actually been passed for 'review'. We're all of us more or less expecting a rewrite. We also rather urgently hope that it won't be rejected. That would simply not be fair.

Here again is the cover letter to our editor - which explains this.

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 a couple of lecturers 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 have now completed those papers and we are, yet again, trying to get this to the academic forum.

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.

Thursday, August 11, 2011

147 - the real paradigm that needs shifting

Dear Reader,

I admit to being in a horrible place at the moment. It's that point in time where I can do nothing but wait. I've had one feedback from the many people included on a circulation list. And still nothing from the IEEE.

Just for the minute I'd be glad to indulge in a little bit of philosophy. History has record of those holy men - and women for that matter - who were somehow miraculously endowed with the ability to defeat the laws of physics. Instant healing - the ability to walk on water - fly through the air - change water to wine - and on and on. Well. I also seem to recall that Christ said we must faith. And faith is within ourselves. 'Believe and it will be so'.

What intrigues me is this. If indeed, this field of magnetic energy is all around us and IF - as is proposed here - this field is the source of all energy - then the implications are, indeed, marvelous. Here's why. It means, theoretically that this field and it's energy 'leads' our observed reality. It shapes the present and the future because, in fact - it moves in our future.

Let me see if I can explain this better. We, our observable and measurable realities, are constrained to the speed of light. If light cannot find it - then it will forever remain dark. Therefore the speed of light is NOT necessarily the limit of reality but only the limit to our own observable and measurable reality. Think of it like this. A wind blows a balloon. We do not see the wind. Or think of the tortoise and the hare analogy - where the hare will always outpace the tortoise. Then think of those photons that cannot ever find a single magnetic particle because it's always out of reach. When it gets to the general locality of the magnetic particle then that particle has already 'been and gone' - to be replaced by another that 'comes and goes' before the photon has interacted or 'focused' - so to speak. The best that light can do is find a 'halo' around the general area - that only, at best, rather insubstantially, reflects the presence of a field. That's our magnetic field.

Now. The proposal is that these little particles fall outside a boundary constraint. They operate in a 'future' time dimension. Therefore they can only directly interact with other little magnetic dipoles in juxtaposed fields. But it is also proposed that these fields are EVERYWHERE. But, by the same token, everything else is 'out of reach'. And herein lies the dimension of the miracle. Assume also that the substance of thought is NOT restricted to light speed. Therefore thought itself is able to interact directly with the future. Or within a dimension that is not constrained to 'present time'. We know that when we think there's a sequential pattern to that logic and to all observations that are somehow shaped by time. And it all happens within a certain 'quotient' of time. If I am any kind of 'bench mark' then that speed of thought is somewhat ponderous - and heavily constrained by 'time'. Especially when it comes to explaining that 'thought' or 'sequence of logic' - or whatever. But. There's a quintessential dimension that absolutely has nothing to do with time. It's a pervasive state of being. It's the yearning and longing that 'speaks nothing' and simply feels. It's that response of outrage against injustices. Or its the love that we invest in our families and friends. Or it may be destructive feelings - which are equally powerful. Now. Assume, for a minute that these feelings, these inner yearnings - are of the very same substance of the 'magnetic field' that also then communicate directly with these hidden particles. Then? Indeed. We would be in the happy position of shaping our own future precisely because we'd be in direct contact with these fields.

I often remind myself that - if indeed, this is the case, then we, mankind, needs must grow much more civilized in order to exploit all that potential - lest our desires are not in the general interest of the general good. But here's the exciting bit. In order to level the playing fields we all need equal access to all that free energy because that is the first ingredient required to improve our general lot. And 'free energy' is a reality. It has been conclusively proven on our own tests and - I'm sure - by many others. But I can only speak about what I know. And our tests I know. Intimately. Which also means that - provided there are inductive and conductive materials within reach of anyone at all on this planet - and provided there is some kind of electrolytic material to make a battery of some sort - then everyone - theoretically - will be in reach of enough energy to power their lights? warm their houses? drive their cars? The whole 'catastrophe'! What a pleasure! That will - most assuredly - reduce the conflict between the 'haves' and 'have nots' which is the source of all confrontations. And then? Peace and prosperity. That, after all, is the reach of civilization. Surely?

This paradigm shift - the actual unfolding of this 'field' science - is, I fondly believe - the root cause of what will be a profound evolutionary change which will bring about all the much needed peace and goodwill - that is so urgently required. And the 'kick off' is acceptance of this particle. It holds enormous promise - to my way of thinking.

Kindest regards,

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

146 - feeling a bit smug

Dear Reader,

I'm feeling a little heady because it seems that our paper may actually be comprehensible. Which rather inspires me to see if I can perhaps do something similar with a paper on gravity. If that were also understandable - then all that's left would be the strong nuclear force - which is the most obtuse - but, doable? Maybe?

Anyway. That's my undertaking. I intend giving it my best shot.

Meanwhile - still no word about funding the filming of our experiment. And more to the point, still no word on our submission to the IEEE. It's not a holiday over there - so I'll be able to at least contact them - this evening. I'll let you know when I hear more.

Kindest regards,

Monday, August 8, 2011

145 - thinking aloud

Dear Reader,

Here's what's exciting about this model that we're trying to prove. It depends on a particle that is capable of exceeding light speed. To be precise, it's been determined that, in a field condition, it moves at 2C. If anything is capable of exceeding light speed then it would, effectively, have the potential to communicate at a rate that - within our own rather clumsy and gross dimensions - would effectively be instantaneous. Which is HUGE. It's the first small opening of a potential that not only explains but would justifiably require telepathy, far viewing - all those magical concepts that are related to time itself. That's the first point

Then. IF indeed these little particles are there - then this is the source of energy itself. The model argues that one dimensional fields - that single 'binding' field - is responsible for 'gluing' atoms together into identifiable structures. Two dimensional fields hold the atom's nucleus locked in an interaction between its particles and the particle's quarks. It also holds the electron imprisoned between it's energy levels. And three dimensional fields would be the source or the gravitational field. I've tried to explain all this in the model. I'll give a link here when I've finished this post.

But the most exciting aspect of all is this. If the three dimensional field - proposed as the source of gravity - is also just our standard toroidal magnetic field - and if this is all that is required to determine the 'pull' of material towards certain positions in the field - then it's relatively easy to defeat this as well. I need to explain all this better than I've managed in the rendition of the model. But I'll work on it. I think I just need to take the trouble to draw the appropriate illustrations.

So. What I'm actually proposing is that we may yet be able to defeat ALL the physical barriers required by our classical and quantum theorists. That's got to be a good thing. lol

Why I'm prepared to tackle this again is that I see the enormous interest that is associated with this second paper of ours. It's gratifying. I'm beginning to feel less lonely here.

Kindest regards,

this will take you back to the model

144 - I'm stopping that test today

Dear Reader,

I'm stopping that test today. I've organised it that the batteries will be moved to the study rather than here in the cottage. This place is beginning to feel as if I'm living in a laboratory and it's getting me down.

And that will ready me for the test to be run with a control. I can then set it to a higher wattage output and run two tests concurrently. But I'm not doing that either until I've sorted out the filming of this. And for that I need to get some small funding - or at least the expertise to do the necessary.

There's no point in reporting on the battery performance here because downloading the screen shots won't cut it without the video. I get it that everyone is looking for proof. That long slow draw down test is a mind killer. It's just way too boring and uneventful. And low wattage output is of very little interest to anyone. I'm also a bit concerned that I've under valued the potential output of those batteries. Therefore at high wattage and looking at the performance of two banks of batteries run concurrently will be more to the point, and more dramatically interesting.

But for the record - the batteries have now run for 10 days CONTINUOUSLY - with absolutely ZERO discharge. To be precise there's been a net 1.04 volt average increase in the voltage over that entire period measured across all 6 batteries. Or - about - 0.176 volts each.

Kind regards,


Sunday, August 7, 2011

143 - still climbing - fractionally but unequivocally

Dear Reader,

RMS voltage up by a fraction - mean average up by a fraction - average up by a fraction - measured directly across the batteries - up by a fraction.

The voltage definitely seems to be moving north. Which is hugely comforting. There's no evidence of loss and some real evidence of gain. The thing is though that - if it were recharging in line with the measured recharge - then the batteries would be boiling by now. Therefore are the methods related to computing this wattage - somewhat off true. However. If one takes the measure of the power as delivered by the inductive/conductive materials and components on the circuit - then the measure of energy dissipated actually shows a loss as required in terms of Kirchhoff's rules. Which would also make those numbers appropriate. So. Hopefully this is proof that the energy is indeed sourced within the circuit material - as proposed.

I've taken the first stroll through the forums that I've taken in a long time. Nice to see that MileHigh's been given a voice again.

Kindest regards,

Saturday, August 6, 2011

141 - why publication of the paper is needed

Dear Reader,

I had extensive discussions with one of the collaborators here. We now have a very clear indication as to what is required for the application of this to a motor. Somewhat atypical compared to other open source information on this. I have taken the trouble to advise a whole lot of electric car manufacturers about this potential. My concern now is that maybe they'll try to patent. In which case I really need to get this information out there.

The required modification to the circuit design is simply to replace the load (RL1) with an inductor and to place the motor on the source rail. That should cut it - but it may also need a diode across the inductor with the diode's anode at the anode of the battery supply. Hopefully this information will now prevent any attempts at zapping intellectual property rights here. I'll post a couple of circuits when my other computer is cleaned. Hopefully tomorrow or soon thereafter.

Kindest regards,

Here's the paper link again. Please study this carefully. It may prove to be significant. Who knows?

BTW - and apologies again for not mentioning it sooner. The batteries still running and now showing clear evidence of a small increase in voltage. It seems to be charging - which will be very, very interesting. But it's slow. But there's also a negligible wattage dissipated - so it needs to run for longer. Nor have we had confirmation of the funding needed to get this on online video. But when and if we do get it then we'll recharge all batteries and run controls in conjunction with these tests. That will, hopefully, make everything clearer. lol Quite exciting. I do hope our application is successful.

140 - here's the second paper

Dear Reader,

In promoting the publication of this paper I've had to distribute it quite widely. Therefore pro temp - I also need to keep due record of it lest any of this gets - borrowed - adapted - and thereby patented. If it's actually published then I'll delete this post.
Kindest regards

A heat by product of an oscillation has an exploitable potential as this relates to the efficient use of energy, which is the subject of the first part of this two-part paper. This second part looks at the implications of that oscillation as it confronts certain assumptions related to current flow. An oscillation is induced on a circuit that then enables a reversing current flow that exceeds the circuit restrictions to this flow. This is explained using an extension to Faraday’s model of Lines of Force to include a dual charge in the material property of current flow. These explanations form a small part of a non-standard magnetic field model that predicted and required these results. The analysis concludes that energy can be sourced from the inductive and conductive circuit material.

Index Terms—Energy efficiency, heating, inductance, switching circuits, Kirchhoff's Law, magnetic fields.

A circuit (Fig 1) is designed to reliably induce an oscillation that is enabled for the duration that a negative signal is applied to the gate of the MOSFET Q1. The level of that oscillation can be varied through adjustments to the duty cycle and to the applied signal at the gate of the transistors. The waveforms (Figs 2 & 3) are typical examples of these oscillations that are induced from voltage measured across a current sensing resistor, (RSHUNT) and the battery supply. The oscillations are robust and they represent a current flow that continually reverses direction. This results in a wide swing of the battery voltage that climbs and falls, well above and below its rated capacity. Also, of interest is that there is no circuit path afforded for this discharging period of each cycle within the standard reference, as its path is blocked, both by the transistors’ body diodes and the negative signal applied at the transistors’ gates. Nor indeed have the transistors been compromised to allow for this half of each oscillation. This raises the questions as to what there is in the property of current flow relating to this oscillation that is able to exceed the circuit components’ physical restrictions to this flow and what accounts for the extreme range of the battery voltage resulting from this oscillation.

These questions can be answered within a classical context as it relates to the both the Laws of Charge and Inductive Laws, here modelled with a modification to the standard reference. The modifications are to concepts related to Faraday’s lines of force (Fig 3) that are extended to incorporate a dual charge in a proposed material property of current. Effectively the proposal is made that while multiple lines of force comprise a magnetic field, each line is structured from magnetic dipoles that are naturally organised at 180 degrees to each other. It is then argued that voltage is an imbalanced, open condition of a magnetic field and that current flow is the transfer of those fields through a circuit and back to its terminal source. By returning to the source it is then able to reduce that charge imbalance by closing those open lines or strings. In this way, the justification or direction of current flow is then led by either a positive or a negative charge depending on the applied voltage and the material source of that voltage. And this charge presentation can then be either repelled by, or attracted to, the ionised condition of various transistor materials or to the charge presented at the transistor’s gates. This would then allow for the flow of current or not, depending on the negative or positive charge presented to the circuit and circuit components that are in the path of that flow of current, and on the polarisation of the voltage that has induced that current flow.

The question that remains outside the scope of this study, relates to the location of this source of this energy if it is not, in fact, coming from the battery supply source. This question goes to the heart of a thesis that was developed around a non-classical magnetic field model that predicted these results. The relevant aspect of that model is that it requires this oscillation as a result of the exchange of energy that is supplied by the circuit material. The proposal is that the voltage and the resulting reversing flow of the induced current from the oscillation itself, is led by an opposite charge to the battery primary supply and that the material property of charge is from the circuit material itself. These results are measured in tests that relate to the first part of this two-part paper. What is here intended is to model the current comprising magnetic dipoles and to show that the circuit paths would then allow that current reversal without a discharge of energy from the primary battery supply source.

The experimental apparatus comprises a simple switching circuit (Fig. 1). 6 x 12 volt lead acid batteries are in series with both a heating element (RL1) and the Q-array of 5 MOSFET transistors (Q1 & Q2 x 4 in parallel). A signal generator drives the transistors. A current sensing resistor (RSHUNT) on the source rail of the supply determines the rate of current flow both to and from the battery supply source. Circuit components are listed in Table I.

Fig. 1. Circuit schematic including probe positions.

A. The Circuit Operation
The circuit is designed to allow a secondary current flow that is induced from the collapsing fields of inductive components in the material of the circuit, during the OFF period of the duty cycle and as a result of counter electromotive force (CEMF). A reverse current path is enabled by the paralleled Q-array positioning of MOSFETs (Q1 & Q2) that are configured to enable their body diodes to allow a counter clockwise current flow driven by a negative charge applied to the gate of Q1. This allows a current flow generated by CEMF, that returns to the battery supply source to recharge it. The oscillation occurs at a natural resonating frequency determined by the impedance of the circuit components. The adjustment to the offset also requires careful tuning to regulate the level of power required to be dissipated at the load.

Component Description
RL1 Incoloy alloy air heating rod element threaded with nichrome resistive wire. Resistance = 11.11Ω, L = 2.23μH. 200 watts. Supplied by Specific Heat CC, Cape Town, South Africa.
RSHUNT 4 ceramic wire wound 1 watt resistors 1Ω each, placed in parallel. Resistance therefore = 0.25Ω. L = 110nH.
Q1-Q5 IRFPG50 with Zener body diode
Functions generator IsoTech GFG 324
Batteries 12 V Raylite silver calcium

Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.

B. Measuring Instruments
The following measuring instruments were used: Le Croy WaveJet 324 200 MHz Oscilloscope (DSO) (2GS/s 400 Vpk tolerance. Sample range maximum 500,000 samples), Tektronix MSO 3054 Mixed Signal Oscilloscope (DSO) (500 MHz 2.5 GS/s. Sample range maximum 1 million samples), FLUKE Digital Multimeter TopTronic T48 True RMS with thermocouple measuring to 400°C (rated at ±1%+4).

A. Lines of Force
It is proposed to extend the model of Faraday’s Lines of Force to address certain questions related to solid-state devices that, under usual switched conditions, prevents the flow of current through a circuit (Fig 1). An oscillation is here deliberately induced that results in a reversing current flow, which moves in both directions through the primary battery supply source. This reversal is evident from waveforms of the voltage measured across RSHUNT and the battery supply (Figs 2 & 3). These waveforms present at precisely 180 degrees in anti-phase to each other and, as they persist for the duration that a negative signal is applied to the gate of Q1, they are seen to be self-reinforcing

Of special interest is that, during the discharge half of each oscillating cycle, the current is able to find a path through the circuit notwithstanding the restrictions to this flow that are presented by both the transistors’ body diodes and the negative signal that is applied at the gate of Q1. Nor is there evidence that the transistors or any components are compromised to allow for this reversal. The question then is to find a path that will allow this discharge cycle, which can be answered by modelling a dual charge on the material property of current. This then allows for the flow of current in either direction.

Inductive Laws rest on the concepts proposed by Faraday that include magnetic fields that are structured along Lines of Force (Fig 4). On a permanent magnet, these Lines of Force are modeled as a coherent field condition arranged in multiple closed lines or strings. A magnet comprises not less than two opposing poles or charges that are spatially separated. The preferred alignment for permanent magnets is at an angle of 180 degrees at the opposing poles of each magnet. Correspondingly, the Lines of Force resulting from that alignment would then be consistent with the aligned magnets creating a magnetic field as a single composite of their individual fields. It is here proposed to extend that model of Lines of Force to include the material property of magnetic dipoles (Fig 5). This extended model proposes that each magnetic dipole would comprise two opposite charges that are spatially separated. And their preferred alignment to other dipoles would also then be at an angle of 180 degrees. Therefore in line with the Laws of Charge, each dipole would then align against the opposite charge of proximate dipoles, thereby forming a closed string. This charge alignment would result in those magnetic dipoles structuring themselves into naturally occurring fundamental Lines of Force.

Fig. 4. & Fig. 5. Magnetic Lines of Force & magnetic dipoles

Current is widely ascribed to the movement of charge and it is known to induce electromotive force (EMF) on circuit material. EMF 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 charge separation that is evident in voltage is consistent with the separation of the charge in magnets where the distinction is drawn that a magnet does not have a measured voltage imbalance. Negative and positive charge imbalance that is measured as voltage 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 can be argued that both voltage and current flow may have this material magnetic property. (See Fig 6).

In line with this magnetic property, both current and voltage can, in turn, be modelled along Faraday’s lines of force. However, since a magnet only shows a spatial separation of charge but does not have a measured voltage imbalance, then the further distinction is drawn that its field can be modelled as closed strings, which would result in a neutral charge. Conversely, it is then proposed that the charge separation that is evident in voltage is the result of open strings where the dipoles at each extremity present opposite but unattached charges. (See Fig 6) This would then allow for the measured voltage across that field where the predominance of charge is either positive or negative. Current would then comprise this material magnetic property to transfer those fields from one terminal to another, thereby effectively and systematically reducing the quantised number of those open strings to equalize the charge imbalance. If, as it is here theorised, current comprises the material property of magnetic dipoles, then this flow of current through a circuit, would then result in a redistribution of that magnetic field material from one terminal of the supply to the other, thereby corresponding to a reduction in the measure of voltage

Fig. 6. Voltage as Lines of Force

In summary therefore, it is proposed that current is the dynamic condition of voltage as it moves through space to transfer the material Lines of Force from voltage. And current may then lead with either a positive or a negative charge depending on the induced and corresponding positive or negative voltage and the source that initiates that potential difference. Therefore too, this model proposes that current returns the magnetic material from the open Lines of Force of voltage back to the opposite terminal of the supply source being either the primary battery supply source or the circuit material. When the induced current returns to its opposite terminal it reestablishes a charge balance by closing those open strings. This neutral condition allows for the redistribution of that charge material that can now reorganise its orbits, or spins to establish a charge balance. This adjustment re-establishes the balanced charge distribution of the material at the supply source, which results in a reduction to the potential difference that is induced from EMF. And this in turn, raises questions as to what it is that is dissipated from circuit components if, as is here proposed, there is a total conservation of this charge material. This last question is answered in a discursive analysis included in the Appendix. What follows is a detailed account of the phases of the oscillation, the induced CEMF, the charge nature of the resulting induced current flow and the circuit paths that are proposed to allow this flow.

B. Circuit Paths
Under typical conditions of a switched circuit (Fig 7) and during the ON period of a duty cycle, closed circuit conditions allow the flow of current from the anode to the cathode of the battery supply. The arrows in Figure 7 indicate a clockwise justification of this current flow. This justification or direction of flow is modelled that the current leads with the positive charge of each dipole. This is consistent with the positive voltage imbalance at the source and is measured as a positive voltage across RSHUNT. The ionised condition of the body diodes and the applied charge at Q2 repel a positive flow of current. The path for current flow is therefore permitted through Q1 across the applied positive signal at the gate and then through to the source back to the negative terminal of the battery. Under conventional conditions, this current then results in the potential difference that is developed across the circuit components including RL1. Also, under typical switching conditions the discharge of energy during this ON period of the duty cycle corresponds to a negligible, if any discernible drop in battery voltage except as this is seen over time and as it relates to the rate of current flow.

Fig. 7. Standard Clockwise justification of current from ON period of a switching cycle. C – charge -/+, DoCF - direction of current flow, SG - signal generator, CR – charge repulsion, CA – charge attraction, BD – body diode.

It is possible to tune the offset of the signal generator that no current is delivered during the ON period of the duty cycle which is the setting required for this test example as seen in Fig 8. A small voltage spike is induced on the circuit at the termination of the ON period, which initiates the oscillation. This then ramps up in gradual increments until it establishes a peak at an oscillating frequency when the amplitude of the oscillation becomes fully established. The frequency of the oscillation is determined by the inductance and impedance of the circuit components. But no current flow that is generated from this oscillation can have been discharged by the battery supply, under open circuit conditions.
It is proposed that the oscillation is established in phases. As mentioned, a small voltage spike is first induced at the termination of the ON period when the circuit is opened. Effectively RL1 and the circuit wire develop an initialising potential difference where the amplitude of the voltage is restricted to an induced voltage across the circuit components for a short duration. It then collapses to zero and the resulting CEMF then initialises this first phase of the oscillating cycle (Fig 9).

In line with these proposals voltage comprises open Lines of Force that, in turn, comprise the magnetic material of dipoles. Therefore, in collapsing from that small positive value back to zero this initialising potential difference represents magnetic fields that are changing in time. Magnetic fields that are changing in time induce electric fields in line with Inductive Laws.

Fig. 8. Example of the transitional phase of the oscillation from the negative triggering at the termination of the ON period of the duty cycle.

Fig. 9. The Counter-clockwise justification of current from CEMF 1st phase of oscillation. C – charge -/+, DoCF - direction of current flow, SG - signal generator, CR – charge repulsion, CA – charge attraction, BD – body diode.

Therefore CEMF is established on that same circuit material with a reversed polarity to the supply. The resulting induced current now leads with a negative charge (Figure 9) induced from the negative voltage across RL1 and other inductive and conductive circuit material including the wire. This voltage or potential difference generates a current flow in a counter-clockwise direction. And the path for this flow is first allowed through the battery supply, then through either or both of Q1 and Q2s’ body diodes and/or across the gate of Q2 where the applied charge is sympathetically aligned. In effect there are multiple paths and no material restrictions to this counter-clockwise justification of current flow at the transistors during this phase of the oscillation.

The current then discharges this small potential difference or voltage, which then induces the next phase of the oscillating cycle. As in the both the preceding phases including the spike and the subsequent first phase of the oscillation, the collapsing EMF would again represent magnetic fields changing in time (Fig 10). Changing magnetic fields induce electric fields in line with Inductive Laws and therefore again, these collapsing fields, also, and in turn, induce a reversed EMF over the same inductive circuit components including RL1 and the wire. This CEMF therefore reverses from a negative to a positive voltage or potential difference. But the model requires that the current induced from the circuit material remains negative and conversely the current discharged from the primary battery supply remains positive. Therefore the alignment of the magnetic dipoles from this induced current flow would now lead with negative charge, which, nonetheless, would reverse to move clockwise through the circuit. And the path for this phase of the oscillation is through the battery which still has an open circuit condition and through either or both the body diodes of Q1 and Q2 and a further optional path across Q1 with the applied negative signal. As in the discharge of the initialising EMF there are, therefore multiple circuit paths to enable this reversed current flow that now leads with a negative charge during this phase of each oscillation.

Fig. 10. The Clockwise justification of current from CEMF 2st phase of oscillation. C – charge -/+, DoCF - direction of current flow, SG - signal generator, CR – charge repulsion, CA – charge attraction, BD – body diode.

These cycles are repeated with small increments to the applied voltage from CEMF until a peak negative and positive voltage is reached that corresponds to the full value of the induced EMF that is available from the inductive and conductive circuit material. The peak positive and negative of each cycle represents the moment that current flow reverses. And this peak, in turn, corresponds to and increase or decrease of the voltage across the battery supply. This is when the oscillation is fully established and it will continue to oscillate at this level, for an indefinite period provided only that the negative charge is applied at the gate of Q1. In effect, the circuit material itself is now proposed to be the energy supply source to enable the continued oscillation.

Of interest is that whether the voltage across the circuit material is positive or negative, in terms of this model the circuit material always induces a current flow that leads with an opposite charge relative to the primary supply. Also of interest is that the paths that allow this oscillation may be provided exclusively by the material structure of Q2 provided that the transistor includes a body diode as provided by a the MOSFET IRFPG50. The use of Q1 is only required to determine the amount of energy applied during the ON period of the duty cycle from the battery supply source, which would be determined by the circuit’s intended application. But it is evident then that Q1 is able to add to the potential paths, as the induced current itself would lead with a negative charge during this phase of the oscillation.

The voltages across the battery and RSHUNT are at 180 degrees in anti-phase indicating that the battery is charged and discharged depending on the directional flow of current. When the full oscillation amplitude is established, then the counter-clockwise current is seen to peak when the battery voltage is approximately double its rated capacity. And, correspondingly, the clockwise current peaks when the battery voltage approximates zero (Fig 3). If the CEMF from inductive circuit components, including RL1 and the wire, are in fact the energy supply sources driving this oscillation, then it appears that the amount of energy that it is able to generate is somehow related to and, possibly, indirectly determined by, the amount of potential difference at the battery. This can be explained as the current that is induced from the oscillation, adds to or subtracts from the potential difference at the supply. It thereby imposes the battery supply’s innate imbalance into each phase, which increases the potential difference available to the circuit to drive that oscillation.

Effectively, therefore, the battery primary supply represents the only component on the circuit that has an intrinsic charge imbalance. Therefore at each zero crossing, which is the point when the current entirely discharges the potential difference across the circuit material, then the voltage across the battery moves to its average voltage which, unlike the circuit components, is always greater than zero. Therefore too, the CEMF will add to or subtract from that battery average depending on the applied voltage and direction of current flow. This, in turn, thereby imposes a greater potential difference at the battery than its rated capacity.

A capacitor has no retained potential difference after a discharge of its energy. Therefore, to test whether this retained potential difference is a required condition to enable the oscillation, capacitors were applied to the circuit during operation when the oscillation was fully established. The batteries were then disconnected leaving the capacitors in series with the circuit and the oscillation then collapsed to a zero voltage. This evidence may support the conclusion that the retained potential difference at the primary supply source is required, if not entirely responsible, for driving this oscillation. Which, in turn, points to the need for any applications of this technology that are either restricted to battery supply sources or, if a grid supply is used, that the circuit is applied directly in series with that supply source thereby being able to access the potential difference at that supply.

If CEMF is indeed the result of generated rather than stored energy then correctly the sum of the energy that is thereby induced will be added to or subtracted from the potential difference at the battery supply. Effectively, P = vi dt where both the induced voltage and the resulting amperage are from the circuit material rather than from the battery supply source. Therefore, with the proposal that the circuit material is a potential energy supply source, these results would conform to Kirchhoff’s unity requirements and would indicate that there is indeed a net loss of energy to each oscillating cycle that then corresponds to the amount of energy dissipated as heat at RL1.

However, the distinction is drawn that the battery primary supply is a passive component during this oscillation. And while it is evident that it fluctuates in line with the applied current flow from the oscillation, yet its average voltage does not appear to rise significantly above its rating either during or after these tests which would be proof of a recharge in the oscillation cycle. But nor is there evidence of a loss of voltage. In fact these results point to an energy supply potential in circuit material that may be exploited without a corresponding loss of energy from the battery supply source. This requires a fuller study, which is the overarching intention of this publication.

The theorised imposition of a dual charge potential on the properties of current may answer the questions related to the path for the flow of current through this circuit during the oscillation phase. But it is stressed that this extended charge potential to current flow, in no way contradicts the established model. What is does confront is the wide assumption that electrons are the carrier particles in the electromagnetic interaction as electrons are known to be negatively charged. The further concern is that the proposed magnetic dipole remains speculative, as it has never been detected. The appendix includes a discursive analysis that may qualify the use of the magnetic dipole model as a material property of current.

The hope is that publication of these results recorded in this second part of the 2-part paper as well as the first part, will encourage wider research and investigation to either prove or disprove these claims and the premises of those claims which is the overriding requirement of publication. The actual rate of charge and the condition of charge of the battery primary supply requires the analysis and expertise of chemists, which is also hoped will be included in a broader investigation of these effects. There is, however indication that this oscillation may be exploited to generate clean, non-pollutant energy.

A. A Discursive Analysis to Justify the Existence of the Magnetic Dipole

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 di-oxide. 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 allows for the possibility 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 behind all the forces. A magnetic field model identifies this 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 potentiate 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’.

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, the 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 a proposed and immutable imperative for these dipoles to structure in 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 ‘unbinding’ and ‘binding’ 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 always a composite of a potential bi-directional path through space. And whether the orbit is clockwise or a counter-clockwise, then that neutral condition of the whole of the field would yet pertain. 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. The field therefore, essentially comprises the sum of two opposite potential spins and therefore, two opposite charges. Yet each part of each field would be charged, determined by the alignment and/or the justification of those magnetic dipoles.

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. It is 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 binding fields, current is known to be mono directional therefore it only has one charge. The binding fields are located in that circuit material that is presenting a path for the flow of current. Therefore when current flows through the circuit material it repels 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 will, of necessity, be repelled by the current charge. And having been repelled it then restructures as an open field outside that structure to be measured as voltage. This is proposed to be the source of the voltage that results from EMF.

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. These broken Lines of Force 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 particles 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 within mainstream that relate to quantum and classical physics.

[1] D. A. Grant and J. Gowar, “Power MOSFETs, Theory and Applications”, Wiley-Interscience, 1989.
[2] International Rectifier, HEXFET Power MOSFET Designer’s Manual, 2nd ed. vol. 3, El Segundo, CA: 1995, p. 1575-1581, 1541-1566, 1116.
[3] Velleman HQ PS3003 Users Manual, [online]
[4] Edward J. Ross, Professional Electrical/Electronic Engineer’s License Study Guide, 1st ed. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Tab Books, 1977, p. 329, 332-333.
[5] James Stewart, Calculus Early Transcendentals, 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole, p. 522–524.
[6] The Linear Control Circuits Data Book for Design Engineers, Texas Instruments Incorporated, 2nd ed., 1980, p. 282-283.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To CPUT for the use of their facilities and for the critical input that was so freely available.
Markin Mwinga for his assistance during 2010.
Battery Centre and RayLite batteries for the gift of 9 batteries.
Coast to Coast for the supply of the LeCroy for such an extended period. Also for the brief use of the Fluke.
Inala and to Pieter Rousseau for the use of the Tektronix. This was much required to confirm the results from our LeCroy.
Specific Heat and Ikram Ebrahim for the donation of the element and his support in supplying exotic resistors as required.
Roy Adams of Tecron who built a copper water cylinder for an earlier experiment and applied the required plumbing.
Poynt.99 (online alias) for his impeccable work on the simulations that may encourage a wider investigation of these anomalous results.

Friday, August 5, 2011

139 - on a personal note

Dear Reader,

Here's the thing. Science is profoundly based on what is seen and can be measured. But the art has now moved into fields where we need to infer what we can't see or measure. It's the art of inference led by our quantum physicists that has unraveled the mysteries of the atom. But what has happened now is something new. A kind of confusion that results from wild unsupported inference. It introduces a confusion of possibilities that are logically unsatisfactory.

My own response to this was to find some logic behind all that scientific inference. And I modestly propose that this may have been effective. Certainly the experimental evidence seems to support the reasoning. But having said that I am still left with so many questions that I know I've barely touched on the explanation. And to compound this unhappy condition - I am personally aware of how utterly and offensively simplistic is that early explanation.

Science rocks. Our boffins are amazingly insightful. They work with abstractions that beggar belief. They deal with facts and figures that are infinitely variable on the studies of matter and manifestations that are both infinitely large and infinitely small. It's amazing, profound, extraordinary, precise. Mind boggling. Yet, on a deep, deep level - it's not logical. And that logic - that missing something - is what compelled me to add my bit.

But I am also, unhappily, very aware of the presumption in proposing anything kind of thesis. And then. I do it from a position of very little knowledge about anything at all. And then - the proposal - the 'solution', if such it is, is so self-evident, so obvious - that, at it's best, it will be offensive to those rather weighty thinkers that make up the 'school' of mainstream thinking.

I'm equally embarrassed - if that's any comfort. I'm embarrassed that I may be wrong and yet clamorously demanding attention. And I'm embarrassed that I may be right - and yet clamorously demanding attention. My excuse is that 'if I'm right' then there's a very tangible solution to our energy crisis. Maybe I can use that to excuse my otherwise inexcusable presumption in proposing anything at all. And, I suppose, in the final analysis, I'd prefer to stand up for what I believe, even if I'm wrong.

But it's lonely out here. If peace of mind is the overriding objective of life , and if majority consensus is required for peace of mind, then I strongly recommend that you do not follow in my footsteps. This place where I'm at is not a happy place.

Kindest regards,

click here to see what I'm talking about
BTW - those batteries are still cooking. Still at those improbably high values. Still showing no signs of 'discharge' or 'recharge'. Just exactly where they were. That's way more articulate than anything I've managed in this post. Perhaps I'll hear from someone today about funding that 'live broadcast'.

Thursday, August 4, 2011

138 - patience is not something God gave me - certainly not in any discernible quantities

Dear Reader,

It doesn't seem that we'll get the funding for filming this on the internet on a continuous basis. Perhaps if we did a more detailed test? That would be a fair response as it would also be more conclusive. We would need to run two tests with the test and a control run in parallel. Which brings me back to those mind numbingly boring tests that we did for BP. Which is all a round about way of saying I've heard nothing yet. But we'll go this route if we do secure funding. And then we'll need to establish a feasible type test and the required parameters. I'll let you know.

Meanwhile, the batteries are still exactly where they were. Extraordinary.

We've heard nothing from IEEE. It's still at that early review stage to determine that the references and so on, are overtly correct. Then it gets forwarded to a reviewer or it's rejected outright. I'm not good at this waiting thing. By now I should be well used to it. But it's most uncomfortable.

Kindest regards,

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

137 - the daily update

Dear Reader,

Still much of a muchness except that the voltage climbed to a dizzy 75 volts at it's peak yesterday. Right now it's back to 72.9 volts which is surprisingly low and the lowest I've seen yet. It's also developed a spike that predominates each switching period. Not sure where that's from. But I'll let it run and report on all this later. There's also a marginal increase in the temperature but I think that relates to an increase in ambient. I'll check this out too.

kindest regards,

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

136 - still more of the same - and what a pleasure

Dear Reader,

Still at the same levels. I'm hoping to hear from various people today to see if I can get the funds to get this filmed on the internet on a continual basis.

I think a reasonable target would be to get the battery running for 10 days or so with a zero loss of energy. And then conclude it by doing a repeat of the water to boil test.

Anyway. So far we're into the 5th day. Such fun. I had no idea I'd be able to tolerate such a boring test. But actually it's great. I may yet become an experimentalist. lol

It's aether rising guys and gals. Just so nice.

Kindest regards,

Monday, August 1, 2011

135 - still cooking with gas

Dear Reader,

Frankly I didn't have the heart to stop the test last night. It's getting a personality all of it's own. Defiant - springs to mind. Like it's showing the finger to all those smug physics predictions. It's still at precisely 74.2 then 74.3 then 74.4 then 74.3. 74.2 - 74.1 - 70.0 - 73.9 and then back up. And so it goes. Every now and then it drops as low as 73.6. That's the lowest I've seen. Heart stopping moments. And then it just quietly reverses direction again.

The batteries have now doubled their performance capacity. I was rather hoping to move this test out of my cottage and into the main house. I'll get hold of Raylite and see if they - perhaps - could make use of this publicity. That way they I may be able to get a a decent filming of this and wider accreditation.

Very nice.
Kindest regards,

BTW. Just bear in mind that these are the same batteries that have been used continuously for over 11 months now and the only two recharged were recharged some months back because they caught fire.