Follow by Email

Saturday, October 29, 2011

171 - when energy does not equal mass x the speed of light squared

Dear Reader,

The next point is this. We're all familiar with the equation that E=mc^2. That knowledge is also courtesy Einstein and is, therefore, 'classical'. Now. Here's the thing. A photon has zero mass. That 'c' is the definitive constant that correlates to the speed of light. In effect the equation stipulates that if you want to find out the amount of potential energy in any given material - then establish its mass and multiply it by that constant - which is the speed of light. There it is again. That - HUGE light speed number. And then. Multiply that product by the speed of light AGAIN. Well. Who am I to argue? I can barely get my head around light speed - let alone a squared product. It's all a bit mind bending.

However. What do we do with this puzzle? Photons, according to my understanding - have NO MASS. Yet their velocity is light speed. So. If you then take the speed of light and multiply it with the mass of a photon - ZERO - then the product is ZERO - whether or not it's Squared or Cubed - or Quadrupled - or multiplied by any number at all. How then does one explain the energy in a photon? In truth, unless the photon has a mass of something marginally greater than zero - then it has no energy in itself to travel at any speed at all.

It's a question that - presumably - our boffins have addressed. But the explanation for this is not in layman's literature - and it is, therefore, outside of my own reference. But here's what I do know. IF light were, in fact, without any energy at all - and IF it were simply moved by some hidden force - then it would appear to be very energetic and yet it would not, necessarily, and of itself - have any innate velocity to move anywhere at all. In other words - light may, indeed be MOVED by a hidden force - and that may, by the same token account for it's extraordinary velocity. I use this analogy. We live in a box with a window and no doors. Then one day we see a balloon drift past the window - being blown by the wind. Without knowing about the wind we'd be inclined to think that the balloon has it's own energy to move it across the sky. We'd be wrong of course. In the same way? Just maybe we're also wrong about the photon. Perhaps it is moved by a hidden force. We just don't know about that force.

These comments are not meant to be frivolous. The question is out there. How do the forces interact with material and yet remain entirely hidden? Well - it all goes back to that boundary constraint 'thing'. If a photon or anything at all - responds to the hidden forces - then there must be some shared 'dimension' in space and in time - where they interact that they can respond to the forces.

That's the next subject. Hopefully I can explain it.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

170 - clarification on foundational concepts

Dear Reader,

I get it that there are those of you who are trying to get into the thesis. And I also know that this is really badly explained - except, I hope - in the summary of the electromagnetic interaction that's been included in our paper.

Well - the foundational concepts are - themselves - not the easiest to express. I'm going to try and make them clearer in a series of posts here. This being the first. And the kick off must therefore relate to what is termed the 'boundary constraint'. Here's what is meant.

The analogy is this. We have a machine that throws stones. It throws this in a tunnel. There is a vacuum in the tunnel. So there's no drag from atmospheric material. But the tunnel itself is somewhere on our planet - so it's subject to the Earth's gravitational pull. Now. The machine always applies the same force to each throw. Therefore we can confidently predict that the bigger the stone then the shorter the distance of the throw. And the smaller the stone then the further the distance of the throw. And within the constraints of a standard applied force to each throw we can, eventually, determine the distance of each throw from the weight/size of that stone. That's simple.

BUT. If the stone was too big or too heavy to throw - or if the stone was too small to detect - then the machine would 'fail'. The interactive material - those stones - would now be out of range of that machine. In effect all those bigger/heavier or the smaller/lighter stones - would remain outside the boundary constraint of the machine. That's the boundary constraint. It's simply out of reach of an interactive association.

Now. Let's consider the three dimensions of our world. There is nothing that is out of reach. We can tangibly touch and interact with all its solid and liquid and gaseous material states. And, more to the point, photons can also interact with those materials that they can be made visible - again within the constraints of our eyesight which has evolved to discern a certain limited spectrum of frequency and colour. But - generally speaking - we're fairly familiar with the three dimension of our earth and its myriad forms of matter. And we can most certainly interact with it. And light can certainly define the shape, size, and even the material comprising the most of it.

Now. We also know this. A photon travels at about 186 000 miles a second. Actually it's slightly more than this but I forget the exact value. It's possibly closer to 186,300 m.p.s. It doesn't matter. The point is this. That's pretty jolly quick. In point of fact there is NOTHING that we know of that can move through space FASTER than the speed of light. Indeed. Classical physics is structured and developed around this concept as Einstein stipulated that NOTHING can exceed the speed of light. By NOTHING he included, accretions of matter, atoms and the constituent parts of the atom being the atomic particles. That's EVERYTHING. It's everything that we know or can touch, or that we can interact with. And it's most assuredly all that we can see - even through the aid of sophisticated digital equipment. For some reason - not sure why - it was determined that NOTHING CAN EXCEED THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

Here's my question. IF anything moved at faster than light speed - then HOW WOULD WE KNOW OF IT? 186 000 m.p.s is FAST. Mind boggling quick. Lickerty split. Amazing. BUT - by the same token - IF anything moved at faster than light speed - then LIGHT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FIND IT NOR INTERACT WITH IT. It would thereby be out of range. Outside the BOUNDARY CONSTRAINTS of light itself.

Now. We know this much. Our forces are INVISIBLE. No-one to date - with the best will in the world - and with all the benefit of all that respectable and well-funded research - has found the 'graviton' that is required to account for gravity - nor the quark that is required for the strong nuclear force - nor particle that is required for the transfer of simple charge in the electromagnetic interaction. Actually I need to say this quick. Lest I hear that HOWL of protest where all our engineers shout that the electron is the carrier particle of the electromagnetic force. My answer is simple. IT IS NOT. And my justification for this? I'll append a link to my argument - hereunder. You don't need to read all of it. Just the first page or so. It is a little known fact, but nonetheless a 'truth', that no-one can account for the forces. They have only mastered the miracle of its predictable measurements. They have not found THE THING ITSELF. They have never found 'the particle' to account for any of the measurable manifestations of the forces.

So. Back to the question. Could it be that the speed of light is actually ONLY the limit to our own measurable dimensions? We have three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. And time is intimately related to our measure of the speed of light. That's somehow satisfying. Because the minute we postulate this - then it begs another question. Could it be that there are other dimensions that remain outside of the boundary constraint of light speed? Could it be that the forces themselves operate in different dimensions of space and time? Could it be, in fact, that the forces - which we know interact with our own space/time dimensions - may, in fact interact at speeds that exceed the speed of light?

And that's the start of another rats nest of questions. But I'll leave it there for now. Just know that the speed of light has been entirely proven - is well understood and widely used in the interpretation of many science questions. It is not an arbitrary number and it is most assuredly correct - in general. It's the implications of this that perhaps need to be looked at more closely. Because the implications take us into the realm of magic which happens when we exceed light speed. And proof that light speed can be exceeded is already with us - in well tested experimental evidence from our particle wizards in their studies of particle interactions at nuclear accelerators - all over the place.

In summary, therefore, I propose that the speed of light is ONLY the boundary constraint to our own dimensions. BUT. Light speed is also a constraint that has no relevance to anything outside our own dimensions of space (3) and time (1). And as the forces are invisible to 'light' then it's possible that the forces themselves operate in alternate dimensions that are not constrained to light speed. Something greater than light speed? But- again. If the 'boundary constraint' argument is to hold - then there must be an interactive moment where the forces 'reach' our own dimensions. Else there would be no interaction. And matter - most certainly interacts with the forces. This model proposes that the 'interactive moment' occurs outside our time frame - in a time frame that precedes our own - but in a shared 'spatial' dimension. I'll get to that argument next.

And if any of this is not clear - then apologies. Let me know and I'll write it again. It's actually very, very simple. But my rendition may yet be too complex. And I really do want to make all this as clear as possible.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

here's that link - for those who are prepared to read some confrontational truths. lol


Click here for some 'inconvenient truths'

Thursday, October 27, 2011

169 - a double whammy

Dear Reader,

If it weren't sad it would be funny. I've been advised by a highly respected nuclear physicist that Dark Energy is an entirely unproved theory. What gives? Our classical and quantum scientists are closing their eyes to the evidence of dark energy that has been measured to proliferate our universe. It seems that the thinking related to an expanding universe can be 'condoned' but all that hard work applied by our astrophysicists that relates to 'dark energy'? That, apparently, can be entirely ignored? Not sure why. Possibly because it's not yet found a foothold in conventional thinking

Frankly I'm entirely unconvinced that the universe is expanding at all. Indeed I'd only be surprised if there was NO evidence of a variable shift - that red shift thing. But I'm possibly not the best authority to argue this. lol. In any event, what I do know is this. If galaxies collide - yet the universe is expanding - then that rate of expansion must be both VARIABLE and LOCALISED. Not the best premise for any arguments at all. Bear in mind our own authority of all things quantum is from John Stewart Bell who states that the 'statistical predictions of the quantum theories.....cannot be upheld by local hidden variables'. Here's how I see it. Galaxies are moving through space at variable velocities. Which means that their velocity must exceed the rate of spatial expansion else they would NEVER connect with each other. If some move at the required velocity and others do not - then we're introducing precisely those variables that are discounted by Bell. The universe would then be entirely chaotic. And that will put paid to our quantum theories. Quite apart from which - where we may see galaxies colliding - we're looking back into history that very often precedes the birth of our own galaxy. What definitive proof is there that those galaxies are even still 'extant'? I don't think anyone has found an argument for absolute proof of this. It's all theoretical. So far - in any event.

What is NOT arguable - however, is the fact that those galaxies are exceeding the gravitational pull required by our Newtonian physicists. For some reason this is 'swept under the carpet' and there are no attempts - ANYWHERE - to resolve this.

Except my own. LOL

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

168 - forward planning

Dear Reader,

I sort of feel guilty making two posts in the same day. lol. But I really need to mention this. I'm learning about more and more of you who are actually preparing for some catastrophic weather patterns as well as doing whatever's required to get off grid. It's so heartening. Progress - but exponential. It's amazing how these movements are happening outside the glare of the media and yet they're happening at pace.

The other good news is this. We're going to actively progress a battery operated steam generator. I think what's needed is ONLY an imbalanced voltage source to elicit the required resonance for this current flow. If we can prove that - then, theoretically, we don't even need fully charged batteries. My personal concern is that I can't get my batteries flat to test this. lol. I'll need to make a plan here. By 'flat' I mean that a 12 volt battery need only show 10 volts which is TECHNICALLY flat - but it would, nonetheless, show a potential difference. That's all that's needed.

I know of one experimenter who has put this onto LED's and started with a flat battery. I'll post more when I know for sure - but I understand that the battery has simply recharged. Also of interest is that the LED's stay lit notwithstanding that two way oscillation. That speaks volumes as it relates to the thesis - as this claims that the current has a 'charge' bias. We all know that an LED will NOT allow current flow in both directions. The question is whether this actually sustains that oscillation. If it's there - notwithstanding - then ONWARDS AND UPWARDS. It may indicate that current flow has a CHARGE. lol.

But kudos to those forward planners. We're only about two generations away from potential catastrophe. That's scarey. Hopefully those that take the trouble to build their 'arcs' may also survive the risks that our reckless energy consumption entertains.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

167 - in defense of numbers

Dear Reader,

In science - measurement is EVERYTHING. Regardless of theory - regardless of prediction - the story of science is actually only the STORY OF MEASUREMENT.

Therein lies the truth. If anything is to get any credence at all - then it must be MEASURABLY EVIDENT. Now. Scientific protocols have also defined WHERE to measure - and HOW to measure. And that's been rooted in the bedrock of science and defined its progress. In other words - if it can't be measured - then it can't be true.

Regarding the measurement of our own claims - here's the thing. The measurements were taken appropriately with instruments that are well able to record the data and are also able to compute those traces - to a remarkable degree of accuracy. IF indeed - they're wrong - then we must throw away our measuring instruments and START AGAIN. And I don't think that's required.

And the simple fact is that the measurements SHOW that there is more energy being returned to the battery supply source than the battery ever delivered. And what we show - in well in excess of 300 screen downloads and in more than 200 individual tests - and with careful analysis of ALL those data samples - is that we have precisely this. In other words - the computation of wattage shows a negative wattage value delivered by the battery. That's definitively INFINITE CO-EFFICIENT OF PERFORMANCE.

What has transpired is that certain TROLLs have gone to some considerable efforts to DENY that evidence. I cannot comment on their motives. But I leave that to you all to assess.

You see this - I hope. There are multiple claims of overunity on the forums. But ours is the only one that has been subjected to rigorous analysis - as required by the most exacting measurement standards - AND YET THOSE RESULTS ARE DENIED by this small vociferous band of trolls. And it is no co-incidence - that it is ONLY our own evidence that solicits this unbridled and unfettered attack. All others are discussed and tolerated. It is the PROOF which we show in those EXACT MEASUREMENTS - that puts them on the defense. They will accept any claim provided ONLY that it does not result in conclusive proof. Which we have. No wonder they unleash those claws.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

166 - chauvinism capping those ivory towers

Dear Reader,

The reason that our academics - feel free to ignore or dismiss our claims is that it is, unfortunately associated with my name. And my identity is unquestionably 'female'. That's the real reason that they refuse to entertain these results. They're chauvinists. How sad is that? They'll assess any controversial claim - any equipment - any test apparatus - by anyone in the world - provided only that they are NOT female.

That - in the final analysis - is what I think is going on. Else how does one explain how Steorn and indeed ANYONE can get academic assessment - and I cannot. It's the only explanation that will wash.

And I might add that publication is denied on the same basis. Here it is again. When the benchmark is moved - then it needs wide accreditation. That can only be managed through academic publication. This to ensure that anyone with vested interests to deny the experimental results - or anyone without the competence to replicate the experimental results - are filtered out by those who can, indeed, find that new benchmark trace. And to get there you need a wide experimentation. That's the whole point of academic publication precisely because it does encourage that invetigation. It's worrisome that - for some reason - there are way too many individuals who comment with all kinds of assumed and pretended authority - without actually attending a demonstration or replicating that physical apparatus and reporting on their findings. The best that's been managed - to the best of my knowledge - is Poynty Point and his heavily fudged simulation results that - notwithstanding - show that waveform oscillation that theoretically and in terms of the standard model - SHOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE. Golly.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Monday, October 24, 2011

165 - the actual reply

Dear Reader,

I'll not post the letter from our esteemed Professor lest I breach his trust. But here's my response. I believe if may help clarify the situation.

Dear Professor,

Clearly you have mastered the art of the 'inoffensive' insult. lol. My ideas are NOT fantastic theories. Indeed they're not a theory at all. That would be absurd. I have no training. How in God's name could I promulgate a theory? All that I've pointed to is that the magnetic force possibly underlies the known forces. And I've explained it - I thought rather well - in that second paper that I forwarded to you.

You mention your fond memories of lengthy telephonic discussions. I wish I could recall them. I remember only your rather urgent requirement that I refer this 'problem' to your colleagues. Your opinion related to these 'ideas' may very well be correct. But you see this I trust. If, indeed, I am talking a lot of nonsense - then I and an awful lot of highly qualified engineers - including those at SASOL, BP, ABB RESEARCH, and many other - are also seeing that nonsense proven experimentally. Therein lies the puzzle. Why are those results co-operating with all that theoretical nonsense? I wish I could resolve this.

And if you indeed promote the use of 'models and visualization' as indicated on your profile - then may I ask this? Where exactly do I deviate from this practice that you otherwise commend? I would have thought - at it's least - that I have certainly managed this much. I am reasonably certain that you have not bothered to read those papers. When you do and when you can comment on them and not on your impression of them - then we'll definitely be on the same page.

Until then, unfortunately, I must conclude that you are denying the evidence of what you propose conflicts with the standard model. They do not conflict. And nor do the results - nor for that matter does the 'thesis' - deviate from the standard model.

Kind regards,
Rosemary

164 - NEITHER THE THESIS NOR THE RESULTS DEVIATE FROM THE STANDARD MODEL

Dear Reader,

I'm more than a little exasperated. I've had one particular response to my circular - from an estimable and - I'm reasonably certain - otherwise kindly and approachable academic - that advises me that he is entirely indifferent to my 'fantastic theories'. WHAT - in God's Good name is that 'THEORY'? I have none.

Here are the facts. A changing electric field induces a magnetic field. And a changing magnetic field induces an electric field. But unlike an electric field a changing magnetic field DOES NOT NECESSARILY INDUCE AN ELECTRIC FIELD. You can get one permanent magnet interacting with another permanent magnet through space and in time - where there is NO MEASURABLE EVIDENCE OF AN ELECTRIC FIELD. NOTA BENE - This is a scientific fact. I have looked and looked and looked through as much scientific literature as I could access. There is absolutely NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS ANY ELECTRIC FIELD IN A MAGNET ON MAGNET INTERACTION. This is HUGE. If this is right then WHAT DOES THIS IMPLY?

Well. At it's least it suggests that a magnetic field MAY INDEED be a PRIMARY FORCE. If so, then WHAT COMPRISES A MAGNETIC FIELD? That's all I've proposed to ask - and, actually, attempted to answer. And when you start on that line of questioning - then the answers WILL COME. Fast and furious. But with them it also destablises that smug understanding of our classical and quantum theorists. Like Humpty Dumpty - but more so. No only will that smug shell 'shatter' but actually the whole wall will collapse. But that's a good thing. The more so as when you start putting that wall back up - its foundations may be more solid. All those inherent flaws in its structure will be eliminated.

It is an absolute truth that neither quantum nor classical physics can reconcile all the known paradoxes with which our theorists grapple. And this is because our astrophysicists have PROVED the existence of DARK MATTER from what is known of as a DARK FORCE. What I have presumed to suggest is that this force is actually in a magnetic field and that the field itself may comprise a particle. That's MODEST. I've left it out there for the thinking to be validated by those EXPERTS and we have offered nothing more than the PROOF which is in our experimental results. And an explanation which is simply a revival of Faraday's brilliant insights.

But Dear God. Don't give me that my theories are FANTASTICAL. If they are and as they're based on the standard model - then they are ONLY an extension of known theory. Then somewhat circuitously - you are criticising your own theories. Which is possibly a good thing. But I know that's not what was intended. My theories are absolutely NOT FANTASTICAL. NOR ARE THEY A THEORY. THEY'RE ONLY THE REQUIRED PROOF TO INDICATE THAT THE STANDARD MODEL IS FAR FROM BEING COMPLETE. And herein may lie the final link to COMPLETE THE STANDARD MODEL. No biggie. Just a proposal based on experimental evidence. That's got to count. SURELY? How many ways can that monkey see, say and hear NOTHING? That attitude should have been permanently defeated with the transition from our medieval mindset. It's inappropriate.

Kind regards,
Rosemary

Sunday, October 23, 2011

163 - on theory

Dear Reader,

It seems that the the elusive 'unified' theory - abounds with as many variations as there are promoters. The problem with all of them is that they're obtuse and complex. And they defy Occams requirement for 'parsimony, economy and succinctness'. Personally I think we can add nothing to the standard model. Nor need we. Our experts have already got it right. It's just that - to date - they've overlooked the fact that the magnetic field may, indeed, be a primary force. Then everything falls into place and theory stays sharp.

So. It's just a minor modification and a small adjustment to the focus - so to speak. What beggars the mind is that - having made that small adjustment - then the abundance of available energy becomes mind boggling.

The downside to all this, of course, is that we'll need to re-evaluate our requirements for centralised grid suppliers. That's likely to be disruptive. Very much so. So. Here's the thing. Not only will our Governments dislike the promise of this technology - but so will our energy suppliers. Not sure what's going to happen. But fasten your seat belts everyone. Because it's a ride that's going to get very bumpy.

And if I'm overstating the 'bleeding obvious' - it's to remind you all that it is virtually impossible to suppress a desirable technology forever. It's going to be tested - eventually. And then? God alone knows what will happen. Personally I think that the transition to move off grid may be made smooth provided only that there's some control over the standards of implementation.

And then? The question is which technology to apply. We're all at the 'crawling stage' of this development. Our personal best in the wattage we dissipated was in the region of something in excess of 200 watts. That's not likely to cut it. And it's not likely to change until we can get hold of more robust transistors. But here's my dream. I know that there's a far better way of generating this energy. So. If our academics can validate the results that - in themselves are anomalous, then they will give this technology some kind of respectability. That should justify funding for research. And that funding should make it possible to shape those magnets to make that 'perpetual' motor that is required in terms of that model.

Now. I need to point something out - lest it's been overlooked. When there's a breakthrough in technology - then it needs to be validated. The whole point in publishing experimental evidence in papers is that the claim is WIDELY assessed. One representative authority is just NOT enough. It's that benchmark thing. Here's the theoretical analogy. No-one can jump higher than 4ft - say. Technical experts have established that this is the limit possible within the constraints of human muscle power. Then someone uses certain artifices and scales 10 feet. There are those who will try this and fail. And there are those who have a vested interest in denying this result. And there are those that will follow suit and also jump that 10 feet. Which is true? Well. The minute that the first person replicates or even betters that first result - then those that deny this evidence fall by the wayside. It only needs one independent replication to establish that truth. And to get that replication needs as wide an audience as possible - precisely to filter out the failures and the nay sayers. That's the beauty of the journal review process. It unequivocally establishes the truth or otherwise - of any scientific claim.

Which is why I keep knocking on the academic doors.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Saturday, October 22, 2011

162 - On trollmanship. An art in the making.

Dear Reader,

I have finally dipped into that blogspot which, as I understand it, was intended to give a balanced view against my claims. Golly. I'll give a link hereunder for those who may not know about it.

Well. What can I say? I've been hugely amused. I might add that I actually made a formal complaint about it to Google when I learned of it. Now, however, I've finally learned the trick of finding those comments. I needn't have bothered to complain and will withdraw it. It's a remarkable tribute to the mentality of of those anonymous posters and I fondly predict it will go some way to advancing this technology of ours.

In any event. I've said it all before. I absolutely do not mind what anyone thinks of me. But what is important is to either DENY or ACCEPT those amazing results that are experimentally evident. A mere indifference is entirely inappropriate. And indeed, I am gratified to see that much DENIAL. So passionately expressed. It's a a fair measure and tribute to the importance of what's being disclosed. So. To all of you anonymous posters. Thank you very much. Indeed. Any publicity is good publicity.

For those of you who post there to defend the technology - or me - don't bother. Your comments are edited out.

For those more balanced readers - here's the thing. I'm old. And I'm tired. And these efforts of all of us to bring this to the academic table have, to date, been somewhat fruitless. Hopefully that will change. But the experimental evidence is not something that I can fudge. I don't have the required skills. Nor the intelligence. The results have all been 'double checked' by all of us - through a close analysis of the data from those multiple data dumps. And there is unequivocal proof of a negative wattage - which has absolutely no relevance to any known standard models. At it's least - its anomalous. AND - this is important - it is easily replicated on simulation software. Of course, you can do what Poynty did - and fudge those numbers to death. But what you can't do is deny the existence of that waveform. And one half of that waveform is simply NOT POSSIBLE - not within any standard model, framework or reference. Smaller and diminishing values have been seen. But a sustained oscillation? And with so much energy? And always resulting in a 'negative' wattage - which, in itself has no standard reference? That definitively defies conventional predictions and certainly it defies conventional explanations. And the truth is that it can be replicated on simulation software. It's a delicious irony that Poynty Point - who has vested so much time and trouble in discrediting my work - has actually been instrumental in making this so publicly available. So. Again. Thank you Poynty.

I'm not sure how much of the 'character' of a poster becomes evident through their writings. And when one assess oneself - it's rather difficult to be entirely impartial. But I absolutely would not promote this device if I did not also know that this technology was not both desirable and feasible. But it is absolutely NOT the full benefit that this potential allows. I am reasonably certain that even this much will be 'old hat' before very long. I keep looking out for that 'breakthrough'. But it's eluding us all. Meanwhile what we offer here is a good start. It has the merit of being replicable, easily so - and measurable. And - more to the point - if our transistor manufacturers were to co-operate - then it would also be IMMEDIATELY applicable to every possible electric application. That will put paid to our reach into nuclear energy as a grid supply source. And that cannot happen soon enough. No wonder our grid suppliers have gone to so much trouble to besmirch my good name.

But with regard to that blogspot. It's fine. For every opinion - there's always an opposite. And either are entirely irrelevant. It's the technology that matters. Not it's promoters. So. If you learn of it from denials or not - at least the word is spreading.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

added

For those who are interested. Here's that link. I am continually intrigued with the extraordinary license to 'free expression' that is enjoyed by anonymous posters. It seems that they also require that 'anonymity' lest they be accountable for all that nonsense that they allege. Also greatly amused at the reach of their inventiveness. It does - however, become rather repetitive.

http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/

(sorry I pasted over the wrong link)

Thursday, October 20, 2011

161 - them paradigms they's shift'n

Dear Reader,

What a pleasure. I see a small but perceptible movement towards a wider investigation into our claims - BY OUR LEARNED AND REVERED. I am feeling cautiously optimistic.

Not only that but it seems that there are also some rare members of our media that do not rely on 'popularity' to promote a story or not. WHAT A PLEASURE. Perhaps this academic and media boycott may yet disintegrate. It's been tough.

I'll keep you posted. The good news is this. Subject to that wide investigation into this claim, then our trolls - that have hounded my every step through the internet - will simply become utterly discredited overnight. Hopefully there may yet be some cursory investigation into who dominated and pioneered that attack - together with some much needed exposure as their motives. That's the part that defeats me. Why should this desirable technology elicit that poisonous and disproportionate attack? I just don't get it. God knows. It's not as if we've invented anything. It's all within mainstream science. Just a very, very small variation to the standard model. And what a difference it will make to our future and our hopes for some kind of solution to our energy concerns.

Then - hopefully - those clever academics and those much, much cleverer engineers - will take all this seriously and take it to where it needs must go. I'm looking forward to the time when this struggle of ours will be old news and the technology itself old hat - replaced by some excellent and inventive variations for those much needed applications. I'll be able to relax when these small contributions of ours are as obsolete as the dodo is to evolution. We've done nothing miraculous. It's all been required by physics. Just that it seems to depend on that much maligned zipon. Hopefully they'll find a more respectable name for it. It's that particle that 'zips' our atoms into infinitely variable coalesced matter. That's the real miracle.

Golly. I'm actually beginning to see daylight. It's been a dark place this - that I've been obliged to endure. But there's a light. Just a glimmer. But NOT imperceptible. (LOL. I had to edit this. A double negative always stronger than a simple positive. I'm getting way too old.)

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

160 - Golly Mookie!

Dear Reader,

Certain utterly unsubstantiated allegations have been made by a variety of 'trolls' or 'free energy traducers' against my good name. Slanderous indeed. lol This is my message to Mookie.

Here's the thing. It's fine to hide behind an avatar or an internet personality - and then, apparently, you can say more or less what you like. But the rule is this. Keep your identity ENTIRELY HIDDEN - LEST YOU BECOME ACCOUNTABLE FOR those ACTIONABLE STATEMENTS. I now know where you're from Mookie. And I know your name. And I even know where you work. No wonder you could bring influence to bear on that demonstration of ours where you persuaded a certain Professor to attend. No doubt his mandate was to disrupt proceedings. My personal regret is that I ever tried to persuade you to attend that public demonstration in the first instance. What was I thinking? Eskom are not likely to advance this knowledge.

Anyway. Justice is very patient. But that long reach of the law? That's irreversible.

And here's an explanation of all this for our readers. The only academic who attended that meeting was mandated by our friend MOOKIE. I don't think it's advisable to give a full transcript of his statements at the meeting here. Nor is it advisable to give a full disclosure of his expertise. But it is decidedly NOT electrical engineering. But what I am prepared to disclose is this. Eskom are in the process of concluding - alternatively - have concluded - some valuable contracts to expand their nuclear facilities. There would be no justification for this if this technology were to reach the light of day. The plot thickens. And for those readers who are not in our country. Eskom are our utility suppliers.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

159 - and yet another approach to our learned and revered.

Dear Reader,

I am slowly but systematically forwarding this circular to every academic with whom I've been in contact. Hopefully we'll get feedback, sooner rather than later.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Dear Professors,

There are some of you included in this circulation that reside in South Africa and were invited to a public demonstration of this device in March this year. Further to that invitation and to my prior communication with you all, the attached are the first and second part of a 2-part paper now submitted for publication in a reviewed journal within the IEEE.

You will note that the results do not fall in line with classical prediction as there is an apparent breach in Thermodynamic constraints. The thesis argues that there is, in fact, no breach. The claims are, nonetheless controversial and the likelihood of publication therefore somewhat sorely taxed. The technology is fragile and it would not be in the best interests of science that this is dismissed due to lack of credibility. Belief has nothing to do with science, resting as it does on experimental proof. We hare happy to demonstrate that proof as required.

To this end we are taking the trouble to circulate these papers to as many academics as we can reach. We would be grateful, therefore, if you could read those papers and ideally, circulate it to those colleagues and experts in your department for their perusal and discussion. Yu will see that it is relatively easy to replicate that experiment and its resulting oscillation on simulation software. And according to the standard model that oscillation should not be possible. This in itself represents an anomaly and it has the real merit of being relatively easy to prove.

I have been in written communication with experts in the art who have commended the clarity of the papers or variously suggested that they need to be published in a review journal. I am awaiting word of that submission.

If you have the time we would all be very grateful for your overview of these papers and equally grateful for some feedback. I have taken the liberty of including my blogspot link which may give you a fuller picture of our general concerns here. It is an enduring shame that there are no recognised protocols for the evaluation of claims such as this - when those experts who are required simply refuse to evaluate the evidence based on an assumption of measurement errors. We refute that assumption.

Kindest regards
Rosemary Ainslie

Monday, October 17, 2011

158 - another approach to the media

Dear Rader,

Rather repetitive I'm afraid. The same story but told to a member of the media in terms - I hope - that are understandable.

Kindest again,
Rosemary


It is going to take me some time and also the reach into some considerable efforts to marshall the facts and indeed the energy - to write all this. The trade off is this. Please print this letter and then read it when you're relaxed and able to concentrate. On Wednesday you had a theme on the lines of 'if you were to die tomorrow or soon - what would you like to first achieve?'. Well. My dream would be to find a radio or television chat show host who would pick up on our story and rally - either before or after I die, but preferably before. Or, at least, the sooner the better. I cannot tell you how often I've wanted to reach you - telephonically. But I'm not sure that I'd have had the courage to tell the whole story publicly and - God knows - even if I did I wouldn't have the time. But you'd be my 'spokesperson' of choice - precisely because you're that interested and curious about most things. And I suspect that if this story did capture your interest - then I'm reasonably certain that you would be well able do it justice.

Here's the thing. We all know that looming large is an energy crisis that can only move into a disaster zone. We are running out of fossil fuels and we're polluting our atmosphere with toxic carbon waste . If we manage the improbable goals of containing our current usage then we'll run out of that abundant fuel source within 50 years. By then carbon pollution would have introduced a level of imbalance to our atmosphere that will be irreversible and catastrophic. 50 years is within your own life time. If you have children, or, like me, grandchildren - then you and they will confront an onslaught from Nature that will be unstoppable. It will inevitably devastate our coastal urban structures together with all predictable weather patterns and rising sea levels from global warming. Think of it - water encroaching 70 kilometers inland. That's the most of our own beautiful Cape. Then. If we also supplement this supply with something in the order of the manufacture of 1 nuclear atomic station every week - and the manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines - at the rate of 2 per hour for 24 hours for each day during that 50 year period - then we'll satisfy a mere 10% of the required level of energy to also satisfy our population growth and our requirements. It's a bleak picture and it's a reality that the most of us are simply not addressing.

Well. There's a solution. And this is where our story kicks in. I am not a scientist. But some 13 years ago, now, I read a book called 'The dancing Wu Li masters' by Gary Zukov, which entirely engrossed me. It was my first exposure to science and the book itself is a wonderful summary of the development of physics up to the time of writing that book . I think it was published in the late seventies. I'm also not a mathematician. But there's a principle in atomic physics which is determined by Bell's theorem. This states that 'the statistical predictions of quantum theory....... cannot be upheld by local hidden variables'. All this means is this. On a very profound level - at the level of our particles - there has to be an order and a symmetry. Else all would be chaos and life could not be sustained. And I've got a natural aptitude to find those symmetries - I think. In any event, I set to and did my own 'take' on the magnetic field and came up with a property in electric energy that is not part of the standard model. What was proposed is that electric current actually comprises little magnetic dipoles that comprise the basic structure a magnetic field. I'm not expecting you to comment on the physics. I do not expect anyone to understand this unless they too are scientists. But what is significant is that this actually also meant that we were and are using our electric energy supplies at a small fraction of their potential force.

Now. There's a very profound 'litmus test' to all theories. There has to be experimental proof. This is so fundamental to the progress of science that the adage is this. SCIENCE IS PROGRESSED BY EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. That's it. In other words - if you cannot prove a thesis then the thesis has no relevance to science and is intellectually interesting at best. I therefore had to prove the thesis. And the proof was very quickly managed on simple apparatus. Then the next point. The experiment must also be REPEATABLE. We could repeat it. Then. It must be MEASURABLE. We could also measure it. In effect, at those early stages, we were able to get a battery to 'out perform' it's watt hour rating. Then the experiment must also be DEMONSTRABLE. We could demonstrate it. Then. To evaluate the MEASURABLE REPEATABLE DEMONSTRABLE EXPERIMENTAL PROOF we also had to find those experts to evaluate all that evidence. And this is where we fell on our face. In 13 years we have not been able to get one or more academic experts to the table to even witness a demonstration let alone evaluate it. The apparatus has, nonetheless, been demonstrated at the MTN Sciencentre - in the offices of Coopers and Lybrand - and latterly on a well known campus. Every academic electrical engineering expert in South Africa was invited to that last demonstration. And not a one of them attended. Ever. To any of those demonstrations.

This is understandable. Let me see if I can explain this. Scientists are schooled in Thermodynamic Laws which in essence states that energy can only be transferred - never created. Effectively, in terms of Kirchhoff's unity requirements you cannot get more out of a system than was first supplied by an energy supply source. In other words the energy in your battery is the most energy you can ever access. The energy from your plug is the sum of the energy you can route to your appliances. And so on. And what we're showing is that we're getting more out of the system than was ever supplied. Indeed. On our last tests we are showing that we are ONLY getting energy from the system with a zero cost of energy from the supply. This is known as INFINITE COP which is even more extreme than a co-efficient of performance that exceeds 1. Both results are considered IMPOSSIBLE by our mainstream scientists. And yet, as an example, we can even take water to boil without any energy at all measured to have been delivered by that battery supply source. These are results that are based on careful measurement. Our technology is well known on the internet. But the claims of 'more out than in' more energy from some hidden field - is often, too often - associated with those who are trying to capitalise on their discoveries. Or they're simply stories that are promulgated as hoaxes. This has tarnished this study to the point that if any academic were to openly accede to these results then they too would be 'tarnished' and their academic reputations would be destroyed. But think of it. It would enable cooking, running lights, heating water, assisting our poor, progressing knowledge, progressing society. Which is a very, very good thing.

We have gone to some considerable trouble to ensure that all of this is available to the public. It's in the public domain, so to speak. If you google my name you'll see many many references. Certainly in excess of a million hits. Which means that no-one, not even we who are progressing this - can ever call for any kind of royalty on the development. Our sincere wish is simply to get this to the academic forum so that our experts can FINALLY evaluate all this evidence for themselves. That's been my mission from the get go. To be perfectly frank - there's another point. I am intensely bored with this side of the exercise. I am way more interested in the thesis. It shows great promise - especially as it relates to gravitational forces which - I think - may be exceeded. But for now we urgently need to get this technology more widely known. For obvious reasons.

So. As it's said - if you can't get Mahomet to go to the mountain then the mountain must go to Mahomet. There's another way to get the 'story' known - which is through the well tried and tested route of publication in an academic journal. Consider if you will the enormous challenge of this to one - such as me, who has had no academic training and no formal schooling in science - tackling the explanation of these intuitively held concepts - based on nothing more than an analysis of charge, and patterns and some elementary science promoted simplistically for the layman through layman's literature. And all for the readership of those academic journals. They're skilled academics who require a technical excellence in scientific discourse. It's a mountain in and of itself. But I tackled this. We went mountaineering - and submitted a total of 5 - actually technically and correctly 6 papers to the IEEE or to IET who both have a stranglehold on journal publications in America and Europe respectively. The first 4 papers were rejected out of hand. These last two papers have, SURPRISINGLY, been forwarded for review. But the editor has put himself out of reach to me and I cannot ascertain whether this is now mired in bureaucratic delays or if it's been relegated to a 'never touch these papers - and do not answer emails from the author' - folder. So strange. I've now resigned myself to an inevitable declination. Or the editor is too scared to formally reject it as he's aware of my internet exposure and the kind of criticism that this will possibly generate.

Now. Just a little more on the 'internet' exposure and 'conspiracy theories' and I'm done. I apologise, profusely, for the length of this. But it's required for a reasonably sufficient overview of the facts. There are those personnel at Eskom that BLOCK every effort I make to get them to witness a demonstration. One doesn't have to dig too deep to find an explanation. Then. I've belonged to forums where I've tried to progress this knowledge. Here I was hounded by those who - I suspect - are paid to dismiss any 'over unity' evidence to protect the vested interests of our energy suppliers. I can only guess at this. I cannot confirm it. But it is strange that I was hounded on forums by characters and individuals who have disappeared from view as I desisted from those forums. It's a truth. No individual has been subjected to so much abuse ever, anywhere on the internet for doing nothing more damning than trying to advance a desirable technology. And here's the one delicious fact that I have kept for last. Where we could not get academics to a demonstration we certainly managed to get industry to take note. BP (SA), SASOL (SA), ABB Research NC (the mecca of electrical measurement and research), SPESCOM (SA), POWER ENGINEERS and many, many smaller firms, together with many hundreds of electrical engineers, have witnessed a demonstration and accredited these results from the get go. Those listed are public companies and they allowed us to reference them as accreditors in the only paper that we managed to publish - October edition of Quantum in 2002. But that magazine is only in a technical journal. Not the academic publication which is required. SASOL went further and offered UCT a bursary award to progress this research. I offer this information with a certain amount of reluctance - but a circumspect call to a Professor Gaunt will confirm this. That offer too - was simply DECLINED.

So. There you have it - . We have unequivocal proof that it is possible to generate cheap energy from an abundant potential supply source - at no risk to pollution and at zero cost other than installation. It's a technology that's consistent with standard model and calls ONLY for the inclusion of a particle in a magnetic field. And the existence of that particle which is proven in the experimental evidence recorded in these last two papers - also has the potential to reconcile quantum physics and classical physics as well as endorsing the findings of our string theorists and our dark energy experts. It answers many open questions that these fields ask. It is potentially an entire solution to our global energy requirements for clean green - and it is EASY to install - subject only to the development of robust transistors. It is more than desirable. It's required. And all this is easily proven by a simple 30 minute demonstration of the equipment and the results which are easily measured - to two or more experts. One would have thought it's possible.

Our sincere hope is that you could take up this story and challenge the required authorities to - at least - witness a demonstration. That way we would not need to publish which seems to be another impossible hurdle - another slippery summit. This news should be shouted across the roof tops. Across the world. Instead there are many, many authorities who are ignoring their own criteria of experimental proof - who are closing their eyes, gagging their mouths and blocking their ears. Alternatively, or perhaps concurrently, it would be wonderful if the public could be advised. They alone can put the required pressure on our academics to answer this unanswerable question. WHY DO YOU EXPERTS NOT WANT TO EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE which is so transparently - openly and freely offered by us? Isn't that, after all, the first and primary requirement of scientists?

Please let us know if you can assist us - if this story has piqued your interest. It will be wonderful if it has. I've included our last two papers. Please do not expect to understand them. But you could, perhaps, forward them to any engineer who most certainly should be able to understand it...... I simply can't get a breakthrough. Not on my own. We need someone to help and rally the public interest to pressure the experts to act like the responsible scientists that they profess to be. It's nothing to do with science to say 'I do not believe the apparatus will work'. It's only scientific to first test it.

Sunday, October 16, 2011

157 - on censorship. This is scarey

Dear Reader,

Here's another FACT. There's a 'flag ship' journal within the AIP that is the appropriate publication for NEW technologies and sundry scientific breakthroughs. That's a good thing. BUT. Having submitted your paper - in the normal way - it then goes straight to a certain venerable DOCTOR who decides whether or not to publish it. That's his RIGHT. One person ONLY required to approve a submission. THEN - and ONLY IF IT GETS HIS APPROVAL - it is submitted to the usual review process. Then. Even more alarming. He is contactable on an address that when we tried it - ALL OF US - were subject to an error message explaining that the ADDRESS WAS INVALID. I phoned about 5 numbers within the AIP to track down an alternate address. It's an AMERICAN GOVERNMENT ADDRESS. But it seems that this address is NOT accessible to any South African. Not at all sure why. One would have thought that an international publication would ensure that their email addresses were also internationally available - even when it was to reach the elusive DOCTOR ***.

All of which means this. New discoveries are FIRST assessed by an elusive American Governmental Civil Service - in a department which is not accessible to us in South Africa and - possibly - nowhere else in the world. Which puts them out of reach of the average author. And in rejecting any such submission then they are also in the happy position of knowing everything about the new discovery without having any obligations to publish that knowledge. What, in God's name is that? Surely it's censorship? Writ really, really LARGE? How many breakthroughs have been spurned by this simply procedure while the technologies detailed in those submissions may yet be exploited.

Here's my cover letter to that elusive Doctor. I have written proof that this has been forwarded by someone within that department. And it was sent to him to 'SPREAD THE WORD'. Who knows. It may be the best possible way of actually getting this to application - unless that Government department also possibly sees some threat to vested interests. Golly.

kindest regards,
Rosemary

Dear Dr ***,

A Ms ********* has kindly offered to forward this communication to you. I have been advised that your authorisation is required to approve the submission of a paper for review to your journal - **********. I wonder if I could impose on you to read the attached papers ....- in order to cover the concerns detailed hereunder.

We have two papers which will be attached. These papers are the culmination of ten years of research and detail the experimental evidence of more energy being returned to a battery supply to recharge it, than delivered by that supply source. This is consistent with the predictions of a magnetic field model that required this effect, resting as it does, on the assumption of a dual charge in a material property of current. This proposal conflicts with mainstream assumption of an electron being the carrier particle in the exchange of electric energy. However, the proposed dipole also resolves the anomalous oscillating waveform that is detailed in that paper which, according to the standard model, should not be sustainable. The papers were written as a two-part paper where the experimental evidence is detailed in the first and the explanation detailed in the second. What is of particular interest is that the results point to an exploitable property in inductive and conductive material that enables it to become a supplementary energy supply source. However, the results also fly in the face of classical prediction as the amount of energy that is dissipated at the circuit components exceeds the amount of energy delivered from the supply. And the level of energy is significant - measured to the limit of the transistors' tolerance at 170 watts or thereby from the delivery of 72 volts from the battery supply. The experimental evidence is detailed.

What is significant is that these thermal properties have an exploitable potential especially as they relate to the generation of clean and abundant energy which is desirable in the face of our current energy crises. It is, therefore, in the nature of a discovery. But the arguments rest on Faraday's Lines of Force and therefore do not represent a major departure from mainstream. Only the results remain contentious. Fortunately the circuit can be replicated on simulation software such as PSpice, and therefore most engineers will be able to duplicate those waveforms if not precisely the same results. This may go some way towards acceptance of these experimental results. Certainly we hope so.

Over this ten year period we have written a total of 5 papers on variations of this experiment all of which were rejected prior to review. They were submitted to the IEEE and to IET respectively. This last paper has now been submitted for 9 weeks or thereby and we have still not heard whether they're to be published. I have written to the editor some two weeks ago and have not had a reply. Our suspicion is that they'll be rejected as there is a discursive analysis in an appendix to the second paper that may not be considered appropriate to electrical engineering disciplines.

To compound our concerns is the general resistance to acceptance of the experimental evidence notwithstanding the sophisticated measuring instruments used. We have not been able to get experts to witness a demonstration, notwithstanding repeated solicitations. And we held a public demonstration of the artifact on 15th of March of this year where many attended but not one of the invited experts. Had they done so then we suspect we would not have had to go through this onerous exercise of looking for academic publication. There is a blanket resistance amongst academics to be associated with these claims and I suspect it is because endorsement of the results will possibly tarnish the good reputations of those experts. It is an unfortunate truth that these claims of ours are associated with others that are variously false, or duplicitous and it is therefore understandable that experts are reluctant to be associated. However, the value of the technology together with the thoroughness of our own research, we hope may mitigate in favour of a sincere investigation into these potentials.

I have forwarded these papers to the major international academies and some of those applications have called for sincere interest and some favourable comments from some highly respected academics one of whom commended it for its clarity, another who saw the need for publication in a journal of some sort. I therefore presume that they may merit publication and, if so, that the many questions that are raised in those papers will then be addressed. It needs a wide assessment, which results from publication. Then the checks and balances that result from that assessment should be enough to protect this rather fragile technology.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie

Saturday, October 8, 2011

156 - a general update - and ancient aliens.

Dear Reader

Still no news. And frankly I've not got the courage yet to contact the IEEE to find out why no progress. My sister in law is an academic and has advised me that I must complain only if I've still not heard after 6 months or so. Golly. That's calling on reserves of patience and tolerance that I simply do not have. As you all know I've taken a breather and have been working on a story book for my grandchildren. It's progressing - slowly - as I'm developing the register and the general plot line. And the pleasure of painting again. It's all been a welcome distraction. But my thesis nags at the back of my mind and I return to it constantly - like a tongue to a sore tooth. I took the trouble today to read through the model and it's far from sufficient and equally distanced from completion. My overriding intention was to write it that all us poor laymen would understand it. Frankly, on a re-read - I find that I also am confused. God alone knows how you must all have struggled to wrap your mind around it. So. For those that managed it - it speaks to your own remarkable intelligence and an equally remarkable tolerance of an utterly clumsy rendition of concepts. I can only apologise.

The good news is this. I have worked out a way to explain gravity using those Lines of Force. It begs a certain departure into pure geometry - but I've been finding symmetries that I've not yet been aware of and - these last three days - I think I've found a way of arguing it. It's kept me awake - but I've enjoyed it - not so much the exhaustion that comes with these obsessive interests of mine. But the challenge was there and I could not resist it.

I've had the good fortune - always - of working with some very clever people. Riaan Theron is going to help with the diagrams and the rest of the team, hopefully - as ever, will give me their input and criticisms. Then the intention is to finish a paper on gravity and submit this to AIP. I'll be using the same experimental proofs - where required - so all that hard work on our first paper will not go to waste.

What actually motivated me was another one of those Discovery programs - this time on Stonehenge. What a fascinating subject. If the thesis is right - then I think Stonehenge was designed to isolate a locality from the Earth's magnetic fields. And again, given that our thesis is even half way on the mark - then that would have resulted in a feeling of, if not actual weightlessness. Would that they could restore that monument to its earlier state. I think the English National Trust would then find the real purpose of that construct. It was surely no accident that it was located in the heart of the Wiltshire Moors resting, as it does on a chalk bed. Nor was it an accident that they chose those granite stones - rich, as they are, in iron. To my mind they created a super conductor and charged it with the Earth's own magnetic fields. Then they created a potential voltage source with the broken line of those taller inner standing stones. And then? Who knows. I think that it would have generated a flux field that would have delighted the likes of Tesla and God knows - the most of our energy enthusiasts. You see this. The voltage generated on that inner 'half moon' alignment of standing stones would have released that potential difference onto the 'alter' - whether or not the stone was standing. That would have been shocking. lol

On another subject - I've been watching a new series on television. Ancient Aliens. I wonder if - indeed - our ancients do, indeed, have a history that predates the 5000 years BC as required by our anthropologists. If we were instructed by these aliens - and if that instruction predates the 'cave man' era - then it is a puzzle as to why they left us. Presumably we needed to evolve our own knowledge. It makes sense - on some kind of intuitive level. But there are way more questions in this than answers and all is purely speculative.

Very interesting - nonetheless.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary