Just a little more on the manifold confusions that bedevil our free energy enthusiasts as well as our academics - both.
For our academics. You cannot deny the potential energy in matter. That knowledge is courtesy Einstein. And for our Free energy enthusiasts - you cannot find excess energy except in the heat by product that results from an application of the forces - be they gravitational, electromagnetic or nuclear.
You all need to look at the source of heat itself. That miraculous product of work which we have used - with absolute familiarity and increasing expertise, since the dawning of our civilizations. Therein lies the secret. When you've grasped some understanding of that element - fire - then indeed it will be more than possible to apply it - use it - to far better effect.
Please read this carefully. It's probably the only thing that I have ever written that really, really matters. And apologies to those who have already read this.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I. APPENDIX
A. A Discursive Analysis to Justify the Existence of the Magnetic Dipole
It seems that much is known about the conditions required to sustain a fire or flame, while little is actually understood about its material properties. For instance, it is known that fire requires oxygen in the atmosphere for it to burn, but a nuclear fire, such as in the sun, does not require this. The following simplistic and hypothetical experiment is used to explore the property of fire and, by extension, the material property of the magnetic field.
Place a pile of wood under a ceramic pot holding iron filings. Then set the wood alight. Flames would heat the ceramic pot and this heat would then transfer to the environment inside that pot. With a required sufficiency, the heat would then melt the filings to form a liquid. This experiment would conclude precisely when the fire extinguishes which, in this theorized example, would also be precisely when the filings will have coalesced into a liquid. Then the ceramic pot would cool and the liquid iron solidify, and in the process of solidifying it would also shrink in volume compared to its liquid state.
Assume also that, at the beginning of that experiment, a detailed account is made of the number and type of atoms and molecules in the wood, in the ceramic pot and in the iron filings. Then at the end of that experiment all those atoms and molecules associated with that energy exchange during the fire, would still be fully accounted for. For instance, some of the carbon atoms in the wood may have combined with oxygen in the atmosphere to form carbon di-oxide. Yet other exotic gas molecules may have escaped. The small volumes of moisture in the wood may be vaporized into steam. But the structure and weight of the ceramic pot would remain substantially the same except that it may show evidence of cracking and heat fatigue. The amount of the iron would match its quantity as filings. And the most of the carbon atoms in the wood would be there in the loose ash condition of its burnt out state.
Which begs the question, what actually has changed as a result of that fire if the atoms themselves remain inviolate? And the answer is evident in the wood that will have lost its bound condition. Conversely, the previously unbound condition of the iron filings would have become bound. And other than a few escaping gas atoms and molecules, all those atoms involved in and associated with that fire, may not only be entirely accounted for, but they would and do remain substantially unchanged. The actual atoms comprising all parts of that experiment and its experimental apparatus remain exactly as they were prior to their exposure to those flames. It is only their bound condition that would have been altered.
In as much as the atoms are known to remain unchanged as a result of the fire, then the material source of fire may have little, if anything, to do with an interaction between those atoms. The fire itself may have a material cause that is extraneous to the atomic material from its source. If so, and as it results in an unbinding in that transfer of its heat from the material of the wood to a binding of the material of the filings then, what is actually being transferred in that exchange of energy, may be that binding material. By extension, therefore, this binding material may also be the material property of that flame. Which allows for the possibility that three-dimensional bound structures, be they liquid, solid, or molecular, may be bound by something that is extraneous to the atom.
It is this ‘something’, this binding material, which is here proposed to be the hidden material structure behind all the forces. A magnetic field model identifies this as a single discrete, one-dimensional closed string of orbiting magnetic dipoles structured as a Line of Force (Fig 5). And this precise one-dimensional field is identified as the fundamental structure upon which all the Lines of Force are developed because it is, in fact, all that is needed. It is the essential and profoundly elementary structure required to potentiate and interact with the three valence conditions of atomic charge. For ease of reference this orbiting string of dipoles will be called a ‘binding field’.
The assumption is made that these binding fields are magnetic and that they are constrained to only interact with other magnetic fields. They obey an immutable imperative to move to a condition of charge balance. And this, the actual atomic binding could, therefore, be managed by an orbit of these strings, which can be seen, in the mind’s eye, as a small cog, (the binding field), interacting with the boundary of a bigger cog, (the atom’s outer energy levels). Both fields are proposed to comprise Lines of Force. And, being closed strings, then the charge of both the atom’s energy levels and the binding fields are perfectly balanced and thereby rendered undetectable. The difference in these two fields is proposed to be only that of size. The atomic energy levels are proposed to be more complex, two-dimensional magnetic Lines of Force, having length and breadth.
But the question remains. Why are these fields undetectable? And the proposed answer to this is that they are indeed detectable. They are seen every time we light a fire. In effect, flame itself is proposed to be the hot material property of magnetic dipoles that have moved out of their field condition as a coherent Line of Force into a chaotic imbalanced mass of conflicting raw charge. As there is a proposed and immutable imperative for these dipoles to structure in an orderly field, then they needs must search out material in their immediate environment to reassemble into those discrete and structured fields. In effect, they are looking for something to ‘bind’. And having found the required disassociated atoms or molecules they can then transfer through space to reassemble into those discrete packages of their coherent field condition, by binding disassociated atomic material.
A variation of this ‘unbinding’ and ‘binding’ is proposed to be the motor that drives the electromotive force. But to explain this first requires a close analysis of the closed Line of Force. One half of each of those closed strings will oppose the other half. And if they orbit, then one half of every orbit will still oppose the other half. The orbit itself is always a composite of a potential bi-directional path through space. And whether the orbit is clockwise or a counter-clockwise, then that neutral condition of the whole of the field would yet pertain. In effect, each Line of Force, whether or not it is orbiting, would be balanced by its own innate structure, which would render the binding field neutral. The field therefore, essentially comprises the sum of two opposite potential spins and therefore, two opposite charges. Yet each part of each field would be charged, determined by the alignment and/or the justification of those magnetic dipoles.
Current flow, on the other hand, is proposed to be the dynamic condition of voltage that comprises open strings. And its movement through the circuit is led by a single justification or direction or charge. It is either the negative or positive half of each dipole leading the string that also leads the current. See figures 7, 9 & 10. And unlike the binding fields, current is known to be mono directional therefore it only has one charge. The binding fields are located in that circuit material that is presenting a path for the flow of current. Therefore when current flows through the circuit material it repels that half of each of those binding fields in its path that present a ‘like’ charge. And this force of repulsion is then proposed to break the symmetry of that orbit of these binding fields.
Broken Lines of Force would also be open Lines of Force. And unlike their closed condition, open Lines of force have an identifiable charge. In terms of the Laws of Charge, like charges repel. So one half of that field will, of necessity, be repelled by the current charge. And having been repelled it then restructures as an open field outside that structure to be measured as voltage. This is proposed to be the source of the voltage that results from EMF.
The remaining half of those Lines of Force, are now no longer able to attach or to orbit. These fields remain within the structure of the circuit material. But they have lost that interaction with the atom’s valence energy levels, which thereby become unbound. These broken Lines of Force tumble out of their coherent field condition and, like the sparks in the flame, they get bigger and hotter as more and more of these fields move into this shared state of chaos. These broken strings then lose their orbital momentum. This unbinding, or unbundling of the field string structure, represents a chaotic condition where the level of binding of the circuit material becomes compromised. The early evidence of this is that the material itself expands to accommodate the increased volume of these, now big, hot and slow, magnetic dipoles. So it is that the particles themselves are here proposed to be the source of heat, which is exploited in electrical applications.
The magnetic field model referenced hereunder, has proposed that these Lines of Force comprise magnetic dipoles. It further proposes that all particles are composites of these tachyons. And as the model is able to resolve the mass/size ratios of the proton to the electron, it may thereby constitute some proof of postulate. The objective of this appendix is to summarize these concepts relating to the electromotive force. It is stressed, however, that there is no material departure of these concepts to mainstream physics other than in the proposal of a magnetic dipole being the fundamental construct or ‘building block’ both of the magnetic field and of matter. The significant and further departure from mainstream is that these dipoles are here identified as the material structure of ‘flame’. This, in turn, begs the ratio that in the field condition the particles are as fast and cold and invisible as, out of a field condition they are as hot and slow and visible. And their quantized value of spin and charge is required to be intimately variable depending on the atoms that they bind.
Also of significance is that these fields may be the source of the ‘dark force’ that has been proved by astrophysicists. And on a broader scale it may also be the source of the strings that are required by our string theorists. But, as it is based on Faraday’s Lines of Force, then there are no significant departures from mainstream thinking. The hope is that it will resolve some outstanding questions related to those many paradoxes that are identified within mainstream that relate to quantum and classical physics.
