Follow by Email

Saturday, December 31, 2011

217 - a medieval science poyntedly based on belief

Dear Reader,

There's a delicious kind of 'push me pull you' dialogue in science that moves it to ever greater clarity. What I mean is this. Galileo finds proof that we orbit the sun. Then other astronomers find the boundary of our galaxy. Then others find the existence of more galaxies. And more. Then they find nebulae, the seed bed of galaxies. And so on. But these are all EVIDENT. When it comes to the scale of the 'small' then everything's INFERRED - because the smallest of the small is still the quark and the quark is still not entirely proved.

And what is also so profoundly excellent about science is this. UNLESS IT IS MEASURABLE - then, by and large, scientists reject the postulate - or they entertain it in a 'partial' context - at best. This has been the rule. UNTIL NOW. For some reason that can only be understood by our scientists - there is an ENTIRE reluctance to acknowledge the possibility of ABUNDANT ENERGY. It's strange. There is a global school of string theorists and dark energy enthusiasts who REQUIRE an outright abundance of something that is not actually visible. A particle that - most assuredly - is NOT part of the standard model. And - at a rough guess, about ninety percent of all scientists simply DENY that any such particle is even required. For the first time EVER in the history of science - there is a profound schism in theoretical physics. No matter the measurable proof - the evidence of this new force and it's required particle - there is a blanket DENIAL. Now the new rule is this. If it relates to DARK ENERGY - then the evidence is to be ignored.

Which is strange. There is no reluctance - to either fund or research the existence of the graviton. But the graviton has also NEVER been SEEN. There is no hesitation to award a Nobel prize to Murray Gell-Mann, the proposer of the quark. But the quark has NEVER been SEEN. So? Why then discard the possibility of a magnetic dipole? Because it's never been seen? Or because to acknowledge it would also require an acknowledgement of all that ABUNDANT energy?

I strongly propose that Ellis et al are due for a Nobel Prize - for the miracle of finding a way to measure and prove the existence of dark energy. And this is denied them simply because they are flirting with the proof of much energy - which, at the moment - is not considered to be politically expedient. Which makes a mockery of the Nobel Prize.

But they have also shot themselves in the foot. They too have spent some valuable resources on trying to find a particle which, by definition, can only be INFERRED. But there is nothing wrong with INFERENCE. Inference was required in those early searches for our galaxial boundaries. If the logic can stack - then why deny the particle? That 'darkon' equivalent of the 'graviton'? It makes no sense. If it were purely 'speculated' then indeed. Ignore the postulate. But once it's PROVEN? Then one ignores the evidence at the cost of respectable science - being as it is, based on experimental evidence. And what we show is that particle is a magnetic dipole. Use it and all falls into place.

Now. One of Poynty Point's preferred complaints against our own work is that it was all based on errors of measurement. IF this was the case - then this is what's needed. We must throw away our broad band oscilloscopes. Tektronix and Le Croy must both acknowledge that their very best instruments give ENTIRELY erroneous results - REPEATEDLY - and that the waveforms that are shown by both instruments are FALLACIOUS at best. Then those - not such broad band - standard oscilloscope manufacturers must follow suit. Because they show the same waveforms albeit without the ability to give the precise measure of the waveforms. Then all scientists everywhere must simply acknowledge that measurements are MEANINGLESS. And from hereon in, we must depend entirely on BELIEF. That would, indeed, cut it.

Then indeed, we can all comfortably deny that there is any abundant energy - speculated - or proved - and we can all set about destroying our planet with our prodigal overuse of fossil and nuclear fuels. Then, indeed, everything will make very good sense.

So. Poynty Point. I get it that you find it offensive that a mere uneducated old lady can endorse our string theorists with measured proof of postulate. I get it that you either do not understand the simplicity of a magnetic dipole or that you do not understand the requirement to rely on meaurement. And I certainly get it that the obscure and contradictory thinking incorporated into the standard model is to be sanctioned and used - in the face of the all evidence. But I put it to you that it is NOT scientific. At best - it's BIGOTRY. LOTS OF IT. WRIT REALLY LARGE.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Friday, December 30, 2011

216 - the background resulting in that prior collaboration fiasco

Dear Reader,

The following is a summary of the fiasco that relates to this early effort of mine to get this technology replicated and then published. It's written here for the record.

Harvey Gramm, to his credit, advised me, long back, that he was NOT my friend. I should have taken him seriously. What he did was insinuate himself into our collaboration for purposes of controlling the paper that we were working on - and thereby ensuring that it would never be published. His first efforts were to include a rambling discourse that referred EVERYWHERE to 'this author's opinion' - or 'this author considers' - all of which is diametrically against the collaborative contract where the author's personalities are required to be indistinct one from another. He then went to some pains to assure the collaborators that he was the 'author' of the paper and that my own contributions were nominal. He then advised all and sundry that my sole purpose was to 'plug my thesis' on the back of Glen Lettenmaier's unique results that had NOTHING to do with a replication. May I remind you all how thin was that denial. Glen managed a COP>7. Harvey miscalculated this to show a COP>4. BOTH claimed that since they did not get a COP>17 they had NOT therefore replicated. And - to confuse the hell of out this nicety - this then became their logic. In as much as their result did not reach COP>17 it was NOT therefore, a REPLICATION in any real sense of the word. ????? What the hell? Why not just acknowledge a COP>1? That alone is AMAZING. Anyway.

Needless to say - when those personal pronouns were edited out of the paper - then Harvey Gramm set up a HOWL OF PROTEST. Such manufactured outrage. The general plot being that 'how dare Rosemary Ainslie amend THIS MY WORK'. Again. This was the kind of self-serving nonsense that he could get away with because Glen Lettenmaier, Ashtweth Palise, Steve Windisch and Andrew Gardiner - were that ignorant of the protocols of a collaboration - that they simply did not realise that it was required. To this day I am satisfied that Steve Windisch is under the delusion that I had NOT written the bulk of that paper - that Harvey was the author and that I had NO RIGHTS TO AMEND HIS WORK. If it weren't sad it would be funny.

Then. With all that fabricated anger - he then engaged in lengthy discourse with all and sundry - to advise them that I was simply using Glen Lettenmaier's unique experimental evidence to 'piggy back' the ride and right to refer to my thesis. Fortunately for us all - the paper was REJECTED - but with the request that we submit to TIE - within the IEEE. And THAT required a complete re-write. TIE protocols require that submissions are made without any reference to the names of the collaborators - so that the work can be evaluated independently. Since half the paper required wide reference to work that was associated with the authors - then the work had to be included in the main body of the paper. This included the work on the thesis. Therefore were the salient points of the thesis referenced. And here again. Harvey pointed out to EVERYONE - yet again - that I was simply trying to justify the thinking in order to DETRACT? - was it? - from Glen Lettenmaier's independent DISCOVERY of over unity. Because, that rewrite necessitated an explanation of the thesis that predicted the over unity result.

Harvey had a field day and made fools of us all. He broke the spirit of collaboration that had thrived before this through a series of skype calls to all an sundry save myself and Donovan. He had the ready co-operation of Glen Lettenmaier who was most anxious to separate any of our prior work from the acclaim of what was to become THIS HIS OWN DISCOVERY. Ashtweth Palise was just flattered out of mind that he was included in this little 'foray'. Not only did he refer to himself as one of the 'big boys' but presumed, rather laughably - to claim to have had any part in writing that paper. In truth he can hardly write a sentence. Ashtweth was simply invited to be one of the collaborators because I knew he had the required skills to submit the paper. He was nominated, therefore as the submissions author. And Harvey, in his genius, managed usurp even this responsibility.

Fortunately TIE alerted me to the fact and asked me to validate the submission. They also required a substantial editing as Harvey - again deliberately - posted all the diagrams in haphazard format out of context of the paper itself. We edited. We submitted. And within the hour - the paper was REJECTED PRIOR TO REVIEW. This time the request was that we submit to a Physics Journal - as electrical engineers were not qualified to comment on the theory that predicted these results.

The good news was that I now fully understood what Harvey Gramm intended. And it was NEVER to progress this to a publication. In fact I think this would have diametrically opposed his actual mandate. The truth, dear Reader? It is that I was THAT stupid that I could trust to the good will of some internet personalities to progress this work - when they were variously trying to 'kill' credibility (Harvey), take ALL credit for the experimental results (Glen), just rattle around and feel important (Ashtweth), or simply arbitrate from a position of profound ignorance (Steve).

The person I feel sorry for is Glen. The poor guy at least managed the experimental replication. For this his work should have resounded - with or without my involvement. But then Harvey managed to manipulate him too. He was required to post results that DID NOT exceed that magic >1. THAT was when he killed off his own credibility. Let me explain. The results - on all aspects of this test - require careful tuning. Too much 'on' or too much 'off' and that magic moment is gone. Glen knew this. and he exploited it to co-operate with Harvey's need to cast doubt on the technology. Easily managed, but it should have then been followed by NEW and BETTER results. The rabbit out of the hat. The surprise victory in the face of certain defeat. BUT. He never got there. Tektronix recalled their apparatus - and Harvey had now done all that was necessary to 'cast' those 'aspersions'. Now all that Glen could do was throw a tantrum - and rather than acknowledge how utterly duped he had been by Harvey - he chose to rant freely through all the threads accusing me of ... God knows what? He's not renowned for his ability to articulate anything at all.

But the truth is this. Harvey Gramm's mandate was and is to actively prevent the advance of over unity. Be warned - dear Reader. Those sad little concerns - those 'mouthings' that he managed on what was ostensibly Glen's thread at EF.Com. The concern that over unity was never managed - that there may be radiation problems that have not been detected? All that? That was the applied anesthetic to put this technology to sleep. And he would never have had to try that hard. There is ONE TRUTH that is absolutely not arguable. To FIND this result requires the use of sophisticated measuring equipment. And this, most assuredly, is out of the range of the most of our forum experimentalists. Which means that this technology will get a good long sleep - certainly on the forums.

Anyway. That's the history of that little fiasco - an episode in the life of the internet. It shows me that one needs to meet ones collaborators 'eye to eye' to get a gauge of the character one is dealing with. My comfort is that there are whole threads and whole blogs DEDICATED to maligning me. I refer to it often to remind myself of the caliber of the troll. This alone is the proof required to show the lengths to which our pack dogs will go to prevent credibility of our work. And the good news is that their's is a losing battle.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I should add this. I am entirely satisfied that Harvey Gramm and Tinsel Koala? among others are all paid to deflect from this 'free energy' technology. They are trained in psychology - NOT SCIENCE - and their mandate is to use any means possible to detract from either the work, the character - or BOTH - to continually frustrate this reach for energy abundance. They are WELL PAID. And they are VERY EFFECTIVE. The also have liberal access to laboratories. And TK was able to deflect from the work of ?? - can't remember the name as it happened before my advent to the forums - (it could be Mylow - somesuch?) where he was able to INSERT a wire that simply was not there. I'll get back here when I've found out the man's name. They are DANGEROUS. And this is the real psyops program that is happening under our noses. I am NOT paranoid. And frankly I'd prefer it if this were not the case. We can all get comfort from the fact that Rossi is well able to deal with their nonsense. The man's a genius. And he's had his own bellyful of exposure to their agendas.

Think about it guys. Why is it important to maintain whole blogs to attack my character - when all I'm doing is trying to promote the concept of a particle in a magnetic field? Seems a bit excessive wouldn't you say?

Again,
Kindest as ever,

Rosemary

Thursday, December 29, 2011

215 - what the hell

Dear Reader,

I see my work is now being coupled with Aaron's work at Energetic forum. God help me. Let me remind you Poynty. We have entirely resolved the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron. We have conclusively proved that electric current has two optional charges depending on their justification around an electric circuit. We have shown a breach of Kirchoff's unity constraints in the evidence of a negative wattage which has no relevance to any standard paradigms. I find it rather presumptuous and intensely irritating that there is any assumption that I endorse the 'bouncing ball' as proof of unity excess. And I believe our own research to be rather more thorough than any proposed by anyone at all, let alone at EF.com.

When you are qualified to comment on my thesis then I'll be inclined to pay some small attention to your own thinking. As it is - Poynty Point - I would strongly recommend that you hold back until you actually get to understand the thinking. Clearly you're incapable.

What you can do - with some considerable skill - is dog my best efforts in your facile attempts to diminish this our work. Just 'lay off' - until such time as you've done a bit of homework. And start with physics. That'd be a good kick off. You need to understand the implications of putting a particle in a magnetic field. Do that - and you'll possibly get the same answers.

Sorry guys. This post has just ended up being a rant. I'll try and do something more constructive later today.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Let me add this - lest any of you don't see the relevance. If a magnetic field comprises particles then - as day follows night - we MUST be able to breach unity in the context that unity is understood - in terms of the standard model. And we propose that the particle is visible in 'flame' which is also when it is out of the field condition.

And THAT Poynty Point - is our contribution to the cause. Now - in the fullness of time - you can perhaps advise us what exactly your own contribution has been - other than these rather obvious and increasingly clumsy attempts at keeping this fact away from our forums. From where I sit it seems that you are rather frantic to refer to my work OUTSIDE OF THE CONTEXT OF OUR CLAIM. That's like criticising Einstein for his hairdo. Just not appropriate. I get it you don't understand. But just admit that much and you could, possibly, move on. MUCH NEEDED - I might add. You're the quintessential wet blanket. Damp and dreary. And - self-evidently - you have no intention of promoting any understanding of anything at all in your forum. God help us all. Have you ever stopped to consider why you're enjoying diminishing readership - and increasing lack of respect. Just address Rossi's breakthroughs for starters. That may convince your public that you're promoting and NOT frustrating OU. You see this I trust. We your public are on to you and your agenda.

R

Monday, December 26, 2011

214 - belated greetings

Dear Reader,

I'm up in the sticks - bushveld country. I was going to work from here - but the internet link has been tenuous - and today's the first time I've managed anything. Quite apart from which - I've been busy with my grandchildren. What a pleasure.

Belatedly - merry Christmas everyone. I hope, like me, you all had way too much of everything delicious - and that you recuperate in time for the New Year. I should be back by then. I noticed, with alarm, that our thread has dropped off front page at ou.com. I hope it's not from want of interest. We've been viewing game, lions, every species of buck. Some wonderful species.

This is my first exposure to the bushveld and I'm blown away at the sheer number of thorn trees. In the small area around his house there are at least a half dozen varieties. Everything surprisingly green - as we're in the rainy season. And WHAT storms. The sky alive with lightning flashes and rolling thunder. It makes our Cape storms rather tame by comparison.

I'll get back on topic soon. Just enjoying this much needed break.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Thursday, December 15, 2011

213 - good - we can relax now - Grumpy et al are going to sort out our problems

Dear Reader

A couple of points. The first is that I've finally got another blog. I'll post there soon. I'll possibly keep this one open as a commentary for our trolls. lol.

Much amused this morning to discover that Grumpy now determines that energy does, indeed, come from the environment. lol. As he puts it - like Tesla before him - this is his GREATEST DISCOVERY. Well. Then they've referenced another dissertation - this time on energetic forum - where a pretender has wrapped himself into a Gordian knot and found himself without the wherewithal to extricate himself. He is their new 'authority'.

Dear God. I seem to remember that Grumpy attributes energy to the movement of electrons that respond to 'pressure'. It's akin to MileHigh's contention that particles respond to gravity. The joke is that they both accuse ME of being deluded.

Anyway - it seems that all our puzzles related to 'free energy' or 'force fields' and their abundance - can now be safely ascribed to our new authorities on these matters. We all await their learned discourse with bated breath. Hopefully they'll find the required particle. And presumably they're aware of this need.

But on the whole, dear Reader, I suspect that this new meandering may only serve to keep our physics off its required course. Perhaps they should take a leaf out of my own book and show us all some experimental evidence FIRST. That would help.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

212 - there's none so blind

Dear Reader,

I'm miffed. Actually, that's not true. I am angered. Which still, somehow does not do justice to this outrage that I feel.

Please do yourselves a favour. Just imagine that a magnetic field comprises a particle. Impose that on what you know of a magnetic field. Then your own logic will carry our argument to its inevitable conclusion that herein lies the source of all that elusive energy that needs must be accessed.

In over a decade I know only this. A handful of collaborators and another handful of academics have acknowledged, privately, or publicly, the merit in this proposal. Now. I do not give a twopenny damn if that particle is called a zipon or a catastrophon or anything at all. I don't care if anyone comes out of left field who has the required credentials then give that proposal better credibility. I just CARE THAT IT'S PROGRESSED. It is a magnetic dipole that has a field velocity of 2C and out of the field it is identifiable as 'flame'.

It is a VERY unpopular realisation. Because it cannot be made without also owning up to our collective inability over the many, many thousands of years where we have worked with fire - that we have misidentified or misconstrued the properties of this. Something so OBVIOUS. Why then was it missed? I'll tell you why. It's precisely because it IS that obvious. Our theoreticians work with SUBTLE concepts. And the intellectual OUTRAGE of our academics is PRECISELY because the concept can then EASILY BE UNDERSTOOD BY ALL. They will need to forfeit that stranglehold monopoly they've assumed in their authority on matters scientific. IF indeed, this concept will be EASILY AND READILY UNDERSTOOD - then what further need for all that 'mystique' which cloaks precisely that authority that they parade.

Now. Let me tell you about another ATTENDANT danger. When these simple principles are applied to our general knowledge on things scientific - then it will, most assuredly, be progressed OUTSIDE OF OUR ACADEMIES. There is a simple solution here to generating PERPETUAL SPIN - that ultimate 'no no' of perpetual motion. A further simple application would enable anti gravity. If I can already see how this is applied - how much more readily will this be seen by those sharper intellects drawn from our world's population - now measured in the billions. Unlike me, there will be those who have the funds to experiment. All that power and knowledge - so freely dispersed. It's going to cause an unwelcome BALANCE. It is an imbalance or inequity in the general distribution of wealth that our monopolists require to promote their monopolies.

And the solution is based on one little non standard particle that operates in a field condition and transfers its energy when that field condition is disturbed. OF COURSE there is a crying need to close down my threads - to mock my work - to deny our results. But its done at the CERTAIN DELAY to the progress of this knowledge. AND. IF we do not progress this knowledge - and USE THIS FORCE - THEN WE WILL, MOST CERTAINLY - DRIFT INTO A CONFRONTATION WITH NATURE THAT WILL DECIMATE our population and most of the progress that has been managed by our civilizations.

So. It's a kind of ARMAGEDDON - but the war will be with nature itself. And it's neither here not there to say it's my idea - or anyone's at all. The truth is that - like all knowledge - it belongs to us all. I am therefore COMPELLED to progress this, as best I can - within the very real constraints of my poor abilities - until such time as someone manages to do this better. BUT KNOW THIS. It may be called by a different name - but it will always be what it is. A MAGNETIC DIPOLE as the basic structure of a 10 DIMENSIONAL BINARY SYSTEM which, in turn, structures our universe.

Dear God, I pray that there are those who read this and pay attention. This is now getting critical.

Regards,
Rosemary

here again is the link to that second paper of ours. Please read the appendix. It's all there.

click here

211 - a sample of pathological science

Dear Reader,

Here's a sample of the pathological science that proliferates our internet this one courtesy Poynty Point's forum - where his members are reaching into dimensions of pretension that that are staggering in their scale of absurdity and ludicrous for their want of good sense.

"The second longitudinal wave equation applies to vector potentials that vary in an accelerative manner through time:

When the vector potential is strongly and nonlinearly pulsed, it creates a corresponding gravitational pulse because the ether is double compressed. This is what Tesla observed in his experiments with radiant energy, where upon sending a strong current pulse down a wire he would feel a sharp slap to his body even if standing behind a metal shield. The scalar superpotential around a wire carrying a steady electric current looks something like this:

When the current is pulsed, it creates a gravitational shockwave in and around the wire. Electrons drag ether along with them, and when electron density changes rapidly, so does the ether density. This is why wires given strong current pulses mysteriously break apart into segments as though pulled apart by internal longitudinal forces, and why rail guns buckle in ways that cannot be explained by mere magnetic forces."

And then, like all BAD SCIENCE - there's a reach for 'authority' by misquoting their shining guru and light - Tesla. What Tesla pointed to was that energy - the thing itself - does not 'come from' our physical dimensions but that it comes from the ether. He was SPOT ON. Now - lest this be overlooked - I SAID IT FIRST. The ether is simply the all encompassing magnetic field. It comprises magnetic dipoles - little spherical magnets. IT IS EVERYWHERE. Put that into your pipes when you smoke out all those obtuse little statements supported by that appalling reach into pretentious but ever inadequate equations - and you may, indeed, find what you're all trying to find. What a joke.

It's all very simple. And if you object to anyone finding the solution bar yourselves and Nikola the Great - then unfortunately you're all in for a disappointment. It was first seen by FARADAY. It was required by our STRING THEORISTS. It was then measured by our ASTROPHYSICISTS. And some of it's full force was then exposed by ROSSI. That's the ACTUAL HISTORY. Interspersed with this are the confusions of both classical and quantum theorists who haven't yet managed a full description of the 'weak interaction' let alone the strong. And their particular Achylles heel is centered on their denial of anything ever exceeding light speed. How - in God's name - do they know this? If something exceeded light speed then LIGHT would not be able to find it. There could be a whole world of things that move faster. And it would ALWAYS be out of tangible measurable reach.

So. Spare us that very public display of such ponderous nonsense - For God's sake. We are way past the time when you can drivel on with obtuse and ill defined verbose rubbish, intended to throw a smokescreen around your ignorance. Surprisingly, it is the ONLY thing that shines through all that fog in your forum - the beacon of light to steer theoretical physics BACK TO THE ROCKS.

Just spare us all that pretension. We really need to find answers. Not perpetuate the nonsense that proliferates around theoretical physics.

Regards,
Rosemary

Monday, December 12, 2011

210 - that 10th post thing

Dear Reader,

With the caveat that our thesis is correct - then here's the thing.

We all know that the atomic space between the nucleus and it's electrons is VAST. For example, in a hydrogen atom - if the nucleus was the size of your average granny smith apple - then the electron would be the size of a split pea - orbiting at a radial distance of about 8 miles from that apple's core. The assumption is this. All that space between the 'apple' and the 'split pea' is empty. At best there is a proposed electromagnetic field that results from the movement of the electron. But that assumption errs.

What we have done is structured the theoretical imposition of magnetic field in a series of concentric circles comprising varying lengths of Faraday's closed lines of force. As this relates to hydrogen atoms the proposal is this. Each closed line of force is structured from magnetic dipoles that have conjoined - head to toe - or north to south. In effect there's a 'saucer shaped' field made up of 6 then 6 + 6, then 12 + 6, the 18 + 6 - and so on, the one circle enclosing the next, until there is a total of 1836 dipoles including the 'vanishing charges of the particles in the proton and the electron of each hydrogen atom. These concentric circles are structured from dipoles that form the energy levels. Interestingly, if one structures this field then, logically, there is a natural progression where the charge of the entire field demarcates into naturally occurring energy levels that carry their own precise graduations of size and charge

The proposal is that these particles in the field cannot be detected because they orbit at a velocity that exceeds light speed. We were able to reconcile the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron based on the proposal that the field itself orbits at a velocity of 2C. There is, therefore, an implicit relationship between mass and velocity which is also defined in the thesis. Because of this velocity they are 'out of reach' of a photon, which has a velocity of C or less. Therefore they are invisible. And because of the complexity of the composite charge of those closed strings, their charge value is neutral. Therefore the charge of the field is also not discernible. Therefore too, have these energy levels been rendered 'invisible' and their existence inferred only by the orbit of the electron. And the electron, in turn, is 'trapped' between two or more energy levels - in its orbit around that nucleus - as the fields themselves orbit the nucleus.

The nucleus itself is proposed to comprise a proton which, in turn comprises a composite of 9 of those magnetic dipoles. The electron comprises 3. Every time that the hydrogen atom transmutes to more complex atoms then it extrapolates it's new protons, neutrons and electrons from the dipoles in those energy levels. This results in the reduction in size of the atom as it increases in complexity. Again. While the 'energy' required for this transmutation process is from outside the atom, the material in the transmutation process is from the dipoles in those energy levels. Therefore as this progresses to increasingly complex atomic elements then there is a corresponding reduction in the volume of the atom - which is inversely proportional to the weight/mass of that element. It is proposed that all the elements evolved in this way - from a base structure of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium. Therefore there are essentially not less than three branches of the elements.

In effect the first 'closed system' comprises this precise number of dipoles that orbit their own structure of the nucleus and that hold the electron trapped in their energy levels. All these observations conform to the standard model but require a precise count of the mass variations of all the elements. That is outside the scope of this thesis.

The point is this. These fields all follow an immutable imperative to move to a condition of charge balance. An imbalance in charge is measured in the ratio of electrons to protons. Where they exceed or are less than the proton count then that imbalance is reflected in the energy levels. This then compels or 'predisposes' the element to a bonded condition with compensatory imbalances in juxtaposed elements. This balance is a function of the weak interaction.

I have no idea if that makes anything clearer. But that's essentially what we're pointing to. Its possibly better explained in the 'model'. When I find that link I'll post it here.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Sunday, December 11, 2011

209 - be afraid - be very afraid

Dear Reader,

Our need for religion seems to have lessened as our knowledge of Natural Law has increased. I am not arguing a direct correspondence. It's just that our unique and ever bolder pretensions to logic are evidently supplanting an earlier sense of wonder. The more we push the boundaries of our knowledge - the less we seem to depend on the concept of a 'creator'. In a strange way it seems that Adam and Eve's journey into knowledge has indeed, resulted in increasing the distance between ourselves, our paradise and our God. It's the unfortunate legacy of knowledge. Not as Sarah Adams wrote 'Nearer my God to Thee' - but indeed, further and further apart. But with this increasing distance, then here indeed is the the consequence - the picture of our paradise lost.

"Or if on joyful wing, cleaving the sky,
Sun, moon, and stars forgot, upwards I fly,
Still all my song shall be, nearer, my God, to Thee"

It's that joy. The more we manage our prosaic - ego centric - and often, frivolous lives - then where knowledge abounds, with it is the systematic erosion of a dependency on God. We are reaching into some kind of uncompromising and brutal adolescence where we demand to talk to God as our equal. And we are tearing into the very fabric of His mysteries - with the rampant self interest that motivated the storming of the Bastille. Our arsenal is nuclear. Our needs are critical. And our energy is frantic. And that long romance with 'speculative science' that has meandered through our history. It has now run its course.

In short - we've run out of time. It's do or die. We can no longer tolerate delays in our knowledge. And this because our knowledge has only been partial and partial knowledge has only manged to take us to this brink of catastrophe. With or without our unwitting complicity - our new natural cycle seems to be moving ever nearer to some kind of global wipe out. And the signs of this are everywhere. There is no more time left to speculate. If our God is indeed kindly and forgiving and all powerful then indeed, He owes us a solution. Clearly we cannot cope on our own. And clearly, as this earlier prayerful dialogue has regressed, then there is no longer any time for joy. That relationship between the child, and his father so eloquently expressed by Donne...

But as I raved and grew more fierce and wild
At every word,
Methought I heard one calling, Child!
And I replied My Lord.

that's gone. We need more answers and we need them asap. Either that - or we must resign ourselves to a fate that will decimate the most of our population and destablise our societies and Nature along with it. There is much to lose. A whole world full of life that is about to get clouted out of existence. And no kindly God would allow that. Not under any circumstances.

Not exactly a happy day but regards, nonetheless
Rosemary

Saturday, December 10, 2011

208 - the elephant in the arm chair

Dear Reader,

It occurs to me that there's an elephant sitting full frontal - in every one of our free energy forums that is being 'poyntedly' and 'energetically' ignored. One has to wonder why. If, indeed, these forums are intended to promote the advent of 'free energy' then what is there - on or off the market - that is quite as wonderful as Rossi's E-Cat? Yet there is no mention?

I suppose in the same one one could ask why it is that I was hounded off both those forums? I merely committed the folly of producing some rather compelling evidence of over unity. And supposedly this is the goal of those forums. It's confusing. But whatever it was that we managed - it is nowhere near as extraordinary as the proven efficiencies of the E-cat. And this is simply not getting any mention at all.

I'm inclined to suppose that these forums are rather relying on the bad measurements and hopeful claims of their experimental members - to actually keep spreading 'doubts' about those results rather than otherwise. Certainly pride of place was given to Harvey et al on all rights to comment on my own technology. And those comments regressed to a total misrepresentation of the fact - on a thread where I was not allowed to comment at all. The history still rankles.

On the whole, I'm inclined to believe that they are all actually anxiously promoting - not free energy - but on their own beliefs related to this. Either for or against, but never to be the property of anyone other than themselves to do with as they please and in any context that they choose.

Here's some rather distressing facts. All were entitled to 'flame' my threads in a personalised attack against my morals, my lack of training, lack of mental stability and my entire lack of intelligence. If and when I defended myself against this attack then I was systematically 'banned'. This left the floor open to the detractors to say what they wanted. And all they wanted was to kill off the subject which they did in short order.

It would be excessively naive to assume that there are any of these forums that are not promoting an agenda. Fortunately Rossi is more 'street wise' and had the good sense to stay away from all such. He also had immediate access to academics for their evaluation. And he also is motivated by the sincere desire to advance free energy in the true sense of the word. Thank God. And thank you Adrea.

My own interest in continuing on those forums is to ensure that our readers are given the truths about this vast reservoir of energy that we're beginning to realise. They, the readers, do not subscribe to all that agenda - that conspiracy thing - that all sensible thinkers deny and yet - to which so many have also somehow have fallen victim.

Rossi just dismisses the whole catastrophe as being irrelevant in the face of his working technology. And at the levels of power of produces - then the detractors are going to have to dig deep to deny all that evidence.

We're all privileged to live in a time when the true properties of energy are going to be fully exposed. Which is a really good thing.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

207 - also just for the record

Dear Reader,

The following is the official notification to the IEEE to withdraw our paper.

From: Rosemary Ainslie
Date: 05 December 2011 9:34:06 AM
To: *****@ieee.org
Cc: Evan Robinson , DONOVAN Martin , Mario Human , Riaan Theron , Alan Macey
Subject: Re: - Manuscript ID TPWRD-00647-2011

Dear Ms *****,

We have, for some time now, been trying to solicit a response from your offices regarding the review status of our paper. On one occasion I even wrote directly to Professor *****, your editor. Our correspondence has, for some reason gone unanswered.

In as much as the experimental evidence - recorded in that manuscript - represents work that constitutes a profound extension to the standard model, our reasonable expectation was for the expeditious passage of this through review that we could either be published or look for an alternative journal for publication. Self evidently the claims need to be put out there that academics can evaluate the evidence for themselves and across as broad a range of academies and even, disciplines as required and as enabled through the reviewed journal publication process.

In the entire absence of any kind of reply to our communications we are obliged to withdraw that submission to Transactions of **********. Thank you very much for your work here and please extend my gratitude to Professor *****. Happily, an alternate journal has offered to publish these papers for us.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie


lol Apologies but have made a belated and much needed editing out of a name. Sorry about that.
Rosemary

Monday, December 5, 2011

206 - off topic but of interest - I've finally found use for our trolls

Dear Reader,

This is way off topic. But indulge me. As you all know, by now, my sojourn on the internet has been dogged by the rather noisy intervention of some sad little creatures who prefer to remain anonymous. Well. They have been invaluable - on more than one level.

In the first place, courtesy all that hysterical denial - I am able to measure the extent of their panic which is proportionate to the efficacy of our technology. In the second place, they have given me a variety of personality and character that I'm working into a little book that I am writing for my grandchildren. It's about Petal - the fairy that brings flowers to the world.

Huff'n Puff is a dragon that lives in the clouds. He's a manic depressive who takes himself excessively seriously. He's got the intellectual reach of clay brick and the tempestuous nature of a typhoon. He's based on MileHigh.

Then there's Bogus the Bullfrog. He's particular genius is centered in the art of denial. But Bogus is hooked on diet of worms and the worms only come out when it rains. And Huff'n Puff brings the rain. Which means that this toad rather trails in the wake of Huff'n Puff. Unlike Huff'n Puff who who's got a roar like thunder - poor little Bogus can only croak. And it becomes tediously monotonous. That's Fuzzy.

Then there's an extraordinary little creature - part imp, part man. But mostly just moustache. Fillapint Wayward. He's an inappropriate little menace who draws way too much attention to himself. Forever scrambling up mountains. He's a 'low down' life form, literally and figuratively. And to look down on people he first has to climb high. But he suffers from vertigo which means he's in a continual state of hysteria. That's Humbugger.

Then there's a variation of Plod the Policeman who is, on the whole, one of my favorite literary characters. He's called Major Mownin-Mynah. He's particular genius is to rally the forces to kill 'hope' along with little old ladies and pretty butterflies and anything in pink. Unfortunately he suffers from a squint and shoots at a tangent. Off centre. Off the mark. Off the point. Just a sociopathic bully. That's our pointedly pointless Poynty.

Then there's the excessively rotund caterpillar - 'Catas Trophia'. Her vocabulary is as thin as her body is fat. And she lives on a diet of Major Mynah's victims. When she can find any. She has a propensity to theatrics and is loosely based on a combination of the Muppets' Mrs Piggy and a lump of pure lard. Needless to say that's our cat-lady.

Catas Trophia is married to Gloom'n Doom - who looks like Jabba the Hut. He's the menace of the story because, unlike all the others he's got a natural low animal cunning. Gloom'n Doom continually spouts sanctimonious platitudes which does nothing to hide his true nature. He's particular art is the art of calumny and intrigue. He sort of waddles around - and whispers in dark corners. And he's friends with dark shadowy creatures. All negatively phototropic.

And so it goes. It's a rich pool of personality to draw from. Such fun. As I've mentioned it's off topic. But it's going to fill my holiday and I'll have the real benefit of reading the stories to my grandchildren to test the register - so to speak. Who knows, The antics of our trolls may yet be elevated to an art form.

lol

Kindest regards
Rosemary

By the way. I'll ask my son to start another blogspot for me - if it's allowed and then transfer this post and sundry sketches together with some stories - as a pre-print trial. See how it goes. It'll be nice way to relax and indulge some of my artistic pretensions.

Sunday, December 4, 2011

205 - dear sir

Dear Reader,

Finally a small letter published in the Argus, Friday 02nd December, 2011.

Dear Sir,

A NEW SOURCE OF ENERGY

Cold Fusion or Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) has now been harnessed in Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat technology. Not only are his units available for sale to the public, but they also have been demonstrated to generate upwards of 500-kilo watts. The claim is that these units are ‘self running’ and that the results have all the benefits of a nuclear process with none of those dangerous toxic emissions that bedevil our nuclear plants.

If this is true, then it seems that our own proposed expansion into 2 new nuclear power stations may be somewhat redundant as I, and I’m reasonably certain, the most of us, would prefer to decouple from our national supply grid. Our history there is plagued with escalating supply costs that far exceed the normal inflation rates. Quite apart from which, the supply itself is brittle and unreliable.

It intrigues me that this news has not been covered by our media – except on the Internet and with the entire exception of this one short article in the Boston Globe. The link refers. I wonder if you could perhaps give your readers the benefit of some investigative reporting into this. It would be nice to learn of the actual status here. Indeed, I suspect our Government and our COP 17 movement would also be delighted to learn of this. And unless the media address it, then it's unlikely that they'll learn of it. Traditionally it's the media who lead with this kind of news. If there is no merit in the claim, then early exposure would be valued. And, on the other hand, if there is, indeed merit – then it would be a ‘revolution’ in the making – as suggested in that article.


http://bostonglobe.com/business/2011/11/28/hope-skepticism-for-cold-fusion/w7FgGyI9Zx432chxuD5BEL/story.html

Kind regards,

Rosemary Ainslie

204 - AT LAST

Dear Reader,

Today is a red letter day. I have finally managed to make contact with Rossi. Here's the letter that I wrote subsequent to sending him those two papers of ours.

What a pleasure. Hopefully we'll hear more from him in due course.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Dear Andrea,

This is – very broadly – the synopsis.

The thesis argues that magnetic fields are a primary force and that all the forces are the effects from varying dimensional structures of these magnetic fields. The fields themselves are structured from magnetic dipoles that naturally organise into ‘closed strings’. The fields are dynamic and they orbit at a velocity of 2C.

These fields come in three dimensions. So, a 1 dimensional field (a binding field) is responsible for the weak nuclear interaction including the electromagnetic and the galvanic processes. 2 dimensional fields, (having length and breadth) are responsible for the strong nuclear force. And finally, 3 dimensional fields (having length, breadth and depth) is the torus, which is associated with a complete magnetic field. This is responsible for gravity.

Where it deviates from the standard model is only in this. It proposes that magnetic fields comprise this non-standard dipole that has a velocity that exceeds light speed. It also proposes that a magnetic field is a primary force underpinning all the known forces. In all other respects it conforms ENTIRELY to the standard model. It would explain the existence and operation of the forces – and it would account for the Casimir effect. and it would be precisely related to Plank’s constant. Because – in a field – they orbit at velocities that exceed light speed, then light cannot find these particles. Therefore they remain ‘dark’ – outside our abilities to detect it. Effectively they operate in a dimension of time that exceeds our own abilities to measure it. Therefore it relates precisely to the ‘dark’ energy that has been measured by our astrophysicists.

As this relates to your own system, the proposal is that these fields are responsible for binding coalesced matter. Read the appendix to the second part of that two-part paper. In a chaotic state which is when the particle is NOT in an orbital field formation – then the particles become as hot and as big and as slow as they were previously cold and small and fast. But in their ‘hot’ state, they are no longer ‘binding’ that coalesced material. Therefore the bound condition becomes compromised. This would enable the contamination of anything within range of those chaotic particles. For example, should copper be proximate – then the copper atoms would decouple from their coalesced condition and loosen from the structure.

The thing is this. If there is an intrinsic molecular imbalance which occurs when more binding fields are available than required to ‘bind’ that material - then the condition of chaos can be perpetuated to become self sustaining. Our test 3 of the 1st part of that paper refers. As, indeed, do the results in your own experimental evidence. Then the requirement is to continually apply more material to reduce the rate of that interaction which, otherwise, will become catastrophically hot. We both applied water. You did this to much greater force and effect. LOL

But here’s the thing Andrea. We have only defined a magnetic field as being ‘structured’ from a magnetic dipole. I’ve presumed to call this a ‘zipon’ because it sort of relates to a required function to ‘zip’ on and off atoms – or to ‘zip’ in and out of a field condition. And then it links to the thing that it IS, which is related to ‘zero point’ energy. But call it what you will. The minute you apply a particle to the magnetic field – then all those unanswered questions of our Greats – fall into place. It explains the existence of that ‘other’ dimension – which is required to explain many paradoxes including questions of ‘locality’. It also marries those diverse branches of physics including quantum and classical – dark forces and string theories. And it is ONLY based on an extension to Faraday’s Lines of Force. It is better explained in the appendix to our second paper.

Incidentally – we have been able to reconcile the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron – using this field. And this was managed, through the simple means of analysing stable particles as composites of these fundamental magnetic dipoles. And, more to the point – it localises that ‘dark energy’ that our astrophysicists require. I suspect that they may be pleased to hear of this – as it explains so much.

But most significantly – this explanation does NOT deviate – in any way – from the standard model. It’s only an extension. And the minute you apply this ‘extension’ then, as mentioned, everything sort of falls into place.

Let me know if you want to discuss this further.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary