Follow by Email

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