Dear Reader,
Here's another hopeful submission.
AN EMBARGO ON THE TRUTH ABOUT ABUNDANT CLEAN ENERGY
Science is determined by experimental evidence. Nothing else cuts it. If you have got the demonstrable evidence – then the claim associated with that evidence becomes incontrovertible. The Wright brothers, for example, were flying their machines at a time when our academics were teaching the impossibility of heavier than air flight. And the Wright brothers won that argument.
We all know that claims associated with the liberation of clean free and abundant energy – although a topic that proliferates our internet – is also unhappily associated with the profligate high hopes of eccentric scientists who are variously dupes or duped – banging on about the possibility or the reality of free and abundant and clean electric energy. These dreamers claim that conspiracies abound – that suppress this information.
Mainstream has determined that energy is limited by the amount of energy delivered. A limitless supply of energy would require that more energy is returned to a supply source than delivered. And that much is impossible. Therefore any claims to ‘exceed unity’, as it’s called, are considered to be fallacious at best. They are, therefore, not worth investigating.
Both of which arguments are flawed. Experimental proof – if it is conclusive enough – is not arguable. Therefore those energy cooks must produce the required evidence. And by the same token those mainstream adherents, our academics, must evaluate that evidence – if and when it’s produced. That’s only reasonable and fair.
And here’s where the truth of experimental evidence becomes a victim of pure prejudice that has no part in any science at all. We have incontrovertible proof of more energy being returned to a battery supply source than was delivered by the battery, which in science parlance is known of as a co-efficient of performance that exceeds 1. In fact it is INFINITE COP. This evidence is open sourced and well documented – has been publicly displayed, has been carefully measured, was required in terms of a field model that does not deviate from classical principles – has been submitted for publication 5 times in reviewed journals – and that is entirely ignored by our academics. And we all know. We require academic accreditation to progress this knowledge. Yet those academics – to a man – REFUSE to evaluate that experimental evidence.
So. Be informed. There is carefully documented evidence that our Thermodynamic Laws need to be re-assessed as they relate to the electromagnetic interaction. The proof of this claim has been accredited by companies including, BP (SA), SASOL (SA), ABB Research (NC USA), among others. SASOL even offered a bursary award to advance this study. That award was declined by UCT. Those companies have allowed reference to their accreditation in the publication of early tests in a technical (un-reviewed) paper. The final tests for this evidence, has been submitted for publication to a reviewed journal. This is the fourth attempt at publication. We are still to hear if the paper is to be accepted. We have been struggling for over a decade to get this evidence to the academic workbenches. But we are gravely hampered as it is only the prejudice in those institutions that mitigates against a fair or, indeed, ANY evaluation, of this scientific experiment.
This refusal to acknowledge experimental evidence confounds what would otherwise be a desirable solution to the pollutant consequences of our conventional energy usage. It is this author’s opinion that there is an active conspiracy that is keeping this knowledge from the public. It is a conspiracy that, unhappily, is greatly assisted by the prejudice of our learned and revered. Should this ‘truth’ be liberated from its embargo – then the whole world would benefit from this abundant source of energy which would put paid to our concerns related to our own responsibility for carbon pollution.
The piece de resistance – the final flourish of this experimental evidence - is that the model and the consequences – are required in terms of the standard model. Therefore there is nothing within known science that conflicts with this result. Which is extraordinary – considering the weight of all that academic prejudice.
Golly. I must be ever and excessively hopeful. lol
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
