Follow by Email

Sunday, January 30, 2011

38 - the abuse of logic

Dear Reader,

I cannot get my head around the term 'radiant energy' unless whoever's using the term is referring to the energy in photons. I think it's widely used by our free energy thinkers as it's associated with aether energy. But I'm not sure that the term is required. And the continued confusion then is that 'light' presumably is the source of this great hidden energy pool. Hardly likely - else it would, at it's least, be visible. In my humble opinion it's an unfortunate misnomer. One thing is certain. This energy has NOTHING to do with photons.

Then there's the endless reference to the 'spike' which is pointed out by our enthusiasts as some sort of 'evidence' of this radiant energy. Yet more confusions. That spike is only associated with and the direct consequence of back electromotive force. And there is no mystery to it. What is interesting is only that it's been somewhat underused as a potential energy supply source. It is usually very big - indicative of high voltage - and high voltage is usually also a measure of high current flow. But - that flow of current times the short time in which it manifests is still only equal to the energy first applied to those components. In other words the energy that is delivered may be returned - subject only to the availability of some path for that current to flow.

Ten years ago when I was still arguing the fact - I was widely assured that one could NEVER return significant quantities of energy 'back to itself'. Therefore would it be absurd to try and return energy to its source - be it a battery or a plug. Our evidence puts paid to that - and it is with some pleasure that I read EVERYWHERE that no-one challenges this fact anymore. Clearly there has been some progress in this gradual unfolding. Nor do I still read, except here and there, that the current flow from a battery is from the negative rail - albeit that the negative rail is still referred to as the 'source'. Hopefully this term too, will disappear. It cannot happen too soon.

I wonder if everyone is trying to complicate the matter to death. It's really, really simple. Apply Inductive Laws - and acknowledge that inductive/conductive components can, themselves become energy supply sources, and ALL confusions will then be obviated. Not only that - but we'll be able to restore Faraday's Inductive Laws in their pristine excellence together with Einstein's mass/energy equivalences. And we'll be saved the tedious and fruitless intellectual endeavour of supplanting this with some kind of tribute to 'stored energy' and it's fallacious 2nd Law of Thermodynamics' debacle. The justification for any requirement related to stored energy represents a monumental error of logic that has dogged our progress for way too long.

Now. As a final and simple exercise to those rather combative readers from Poynty's forum - let me ask you to toy with the following simplified circuit - either theoretically or on your bench. Put ONLY a 1 Ohm inductive resistor in series with a battery supply and a switch with a body diode. And ensure that the battery supply is rechargeable. Then do the math. You will see that the amount of energy that is delivered by the battery is the sum of that spike which is evident below zero and the voltage above zero that was supplied from the source. The sum implies that the one value is is deducted from the other. Then calculate the energy dissipated across that same resistor using simple Ohm's Law. It's still the same waveform. But now you will need to use the product and NOT the sum of both cycles of that switching cycle. The voltage is evident both above and below the zero crossing. There are no complicated phases shifts to account for. Then tell me which value of energy will be the greater? The sum? Or the product?

That example is NOT offered as correct protocol. It is only meant to remind you that any such assessment of energy calculated from a measure of the voltage across that resistor and as it relates to dissipated energy - is SPURIOUS - FAULTED - INCORRECT. I'm not sure how to state this more strongly. I am also really sorry that it is, yet again, me that needs to point this out. Especially as those that have argued this with me are anxious to advise their readers that I have no knowledge of this - or indeed - any power measurements at all.

While I predict that this poynt will never be openly acknowledged - along with so much that is never acknowledged - certainly not by those few who so LOUDLY proclaim my ignorance - one hopes, nonetheless, that maybe the penny may yet drop.

And that's my tuppence worth.

Kindest regards,

37 - on the practical side of things

Dear Reader

One of the many questions put to me is 'why do I not just go out there and manufacture the device?' I actually don't know the answer here. And in the light of the recent commercial interest that this technology seems to be generating I have even less excuse. But it seems that I need not worry. Applications will be available - and never can this be too soon.

My only concern is that those manufacturers are not accused of doing what our scientists claim can't be done. But since the Wright Brothers had an articulate argument against their critics by simply flying their planes - then perhaps there is real merit in going this route. So. Good luck to all who put up those hot water cylinders and the rest. It is indeed relatively simple and relatively inexpensive and - more importantly - will give everyone some much needed relief to that ever increasing cost of living. Conservatively speaking there will be the requirement of a 60 - 80 volt battery supply source, a stack of IRFPG50's to share the load of those voltage spikes - some software to deal with that switching requirement and then, indeed - we should be able to unplug.

But I'm afraid my actual interest is absolutely NOT in line with this. It should be. But I am simply not pragmatic enough. This last week I've been trying to find some way to reconcile the enormous amount of energy returned to the amount of energy delivered by the supply. And - more to the point - I'm now looking at a variation in this waveform that I have never seen before. It's fascinating stuff.

Anyway I am not in a position to make any of this public yet. This coming week I'll be testing the waters to see if we can get some experts to a demonstration and when. We have now got the apparatus that it can be tuned to two - hopefully there will be a third - variations of the waveform that show the required benefits. All of it blow away material. And all of it very good news. This time - hopefully - that news will stick. For once I won't have to bat away the jealous denials by those many who purport to want to find the truth in the claim - but who - in fact - only want to deny it. Unfortunately they proliferate our so called 'free energy research forums'. You'll notice them. They're always the most verbose.

And again - a very real tribute to our own university. Such a rare academy. To the best of my knowledge the only institution in the world that will decide on the validity of a claim AFTER a review of the evidence. Anything less than this is of interest but is certainly NOT of interest to science.

Kindest regards,