Follow by Email

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

93 - on the need for nuclear energy

Dear Reader,

In case this is not clear - let me say this again.

If there is any truth to any of the results that we're exposing from this simplest of simple circuits - then there is no question that our households can unplug from our grid suppliers. And that really soon. We just need to scale this highly scalable technology and learn to establish the required resonance in the switching circuitry.

Alternatively - it may be possible to run these applications through the grid - provided only that the grid supplier can credit us with all that returning energy. Either way - we're looking at a possible contender to nuclear energy. At it's least it seems that our dependence on this supply source can be lessened. If for no other reason - this technology needs thorough exploration. There is nothing safe or desirable in the short or long term effects of nuclear supply. It is toxic and hazardous and will not contribute to the long term benefits of our species. Not unless we learn how to deal with all that waste which absolutely will poison our planet.

And we are only just uncovering some of this potential. Who knows where it may lead. But there may be a real and vested interest in denying these results. And I'm reasonably satisfied that the over-reaction of Mookie et al - is a reflection of this concern. Why should I be barred from ever approaching UWC? Because I had the temerity to ask them to attend a demonstration? That's a bit odd. More than a little bit disproportionate. We showed what we undertook to demonstrate. It was not wasted time. And I have not asked them for money. I haven't even asked them for recognition. Why the need to say that CPUT required the disclaimer? Why the distortion to the numbers in attendance? Why the reference to 'mere students' and a handful at that? All lies. Why?

I just wanted them to address the same questions - and do their own research. Our own country is looking to increase its nuclear dependence - in the near future. Could this distancing - this need to make me a pariah - be part of that strategy? I certainly hope not. It's unfortunate co-incidence that the expert in question here is also a nuclear physicist.

Kindest regards,

92 - for mookie - whoever he is

Well Mookie

If I didn't know better I'd guess that you have an agenda. The statement that you 'stand by what you said' can only carry water if you are also - responsible for writing that email that you allege you received. Else how would you know?


The reason it was offered is precisely because those such as you and your 'friend' are well able to denigrade whatever it is that you require. It is an enduring shame that what you claim is simply not based on truth. I am ever more aware of the lack of integrity that is associated with these multiple attacks that this technology is subjected to. And being alerted - I am ever more anxious to work for its recogition.

I suspect that your interest in this is also in your interest in the continued use of nuclear power. I trust that this technology will confront that need.

And may I add. The whole academic community is NOT WRONG. Nor are they right. They did not attend the demonstration. There is absolutely no part of this claim that confronts classical physics. And if I am delusional I share that delusion with those many who attended that demonstration and many others who are intimately associated with these results. Farrah is correct. In every respect. Current is the flow of charge. And that, indeed, is what we find. I suspect, with or without respect, that it is you who are delusional - if you think that we have confronted classical physics at all - anywhere. Had we done so - then outright denial of the evidence may been justified.


91 - yet again

Dear Reader,

I am reminded, again and again, of the sad but predominant need to decry and deny any good news related to this technology of ours. My only comfort is that truth cannot - forever - be suppressed.

All I would like to draw your attention to - which is the sole reason that we held that demonstration - is that what is known of in the trade as 'parasitic oscillation' is a very exploitable event. This is very easily verified. You need to put those MOSFETS in parallel - then let the system do its thing. If nothing else comes from this - then at least, to those who experiment at all - just test this for yourselves. We have, traditionally, been throwing away a potential in back electromotive force - that actually needs to be encouraged. Parasitic oscillation is - self-evidently - the need for all that energy to manifest as current flow. And for this you need to 'widen the throat' - so to speak - the 'path' to allow it to flow. For those who've grasped the implications. The circuit now acts as a booster converter - without the attendant energy expense.

We have tested this to 30 amps. I have every reason to believe that with more FETs we could have accommodated even more current. And then, the theoretical implication is that this should obviate those extremes spikes at the transitional phases - when we go into heavy duty mode. And then too it should just comfortably osciallate. This is what requires advancement, research. Let's just look at all that potential. It will, most certainly, put paid to all those equivalence requirements applied to electromagnetic energy transfer - that has dogged our theoreticians for way too long. They're nonsense. Certainly NOT applicable to electric energy.

And. Dear God. What harm to test this? And what harm to view that test? What harm? Anywhere? Just look again at the crisis of nuclear energy. Just look at the catastrophes that result from using such dangerous technology. Look at the political crises escalating around the globe as result of abuses related to energy rights. The crisis of pollution. The crisis and risks to the continuation of our species.

At the risk of referencing something where I'm ill equipped to comment - while God may have given us supremacy over all things - I wonder if he would not prefer it that we were a little less prodigal and a little less self-serving - in our use of all that abundance. And I wonder then - that with the small inclusion of some transistors to some of our circuitry then the indications are that - at its least - we can do away with some of those toxic energy supplies. Not a bad thing at all.

I wonder at the malice that keeps dogging my best efforts. I am only trying to do my best in the interests of clean green. I'm increasingly aware of the need to silence me and to discredit the technology. It is a fact that the latest reach - that lastest entire distortion of the events at the demonstration - was by a nuclear physicist. Let him go public with his name as he is, so publicly yet so vicariously, able to distort the facts.

Kindest regards,

90 - what's new?

Dear Reader,

For those of you who want to have a full account of the demonstration - we are preparing a video of the proceedings. And I'll prepare a full account of the matters discussed at the demonstration.

It seems that it has been reported that there were no experts or academic staff at the demonstration and that it was only attended by a handful and those all students. This is an utter fabrication that will be born out in the evidence. It is comments like this that satisfy me on the agenda related to recognition of this technology. There were absolutely NO students at the venue whatsoever. And there most certainly WAS faculty representation. And with the exception of 2 of us there was no-one at the meeting who was not accredited.

What the demonstration lacked was the attendance of those experts that were specifically invited. Some with regret - some despite advising that they'd be there - and some who gave advance notice that they would not come. Indeed. There was even one university who denied us the right to invite them at all.

Kindest regards,

I have just been advised. There was one student. ONLY 1. And he is not a student at CPUT.