Follow by Email

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,

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