Follow by Email

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,

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