Follow by Email

Thursday, May 12, 2011

119 - about suppression of information and some means to resist this

And dear Reader, may I also take this opportunity to advise you about some real concerns of mine.

RomeroUK stated publicly that his apparatus was a hoax. However, he also intimated that he was obliged to do this as his life and safety were under threat. One can only speculate. We - unlike him - have never had any physical threats, albeit there has been an orchestrated attack on this technology - intended to discredit both this and my and my good name. I know that the most of you reading here are satisfied that we are NOT misrepresenting anything. But. In as much as there are still many who doubt these numbers and these facts, then that campaign has been successful. It would be wonderful if you could, perhaps, try and spread this good news. I would be very sorry to find that such breakthroughs simply disappear from the pages of history for want of attention.

And I need to remind you all. This is NOT a discovery. Rather more of an 'unfolding' of the properties that I suspect may belong to 'dark energy'. What a misnomer. The energy itself may be dark. But it promises to give so much hope and so much light. And what is more, this is simply a modest application. There will be much more to follow from those who are considerably more skilled in the art.

But do tell your friends. And then, hopefully, the news will spread. While we can't yet manage any traditional interest from our media - I think a 'ground swell' of interest may yet get the news out there.

Kindest regards,

118 - this was the final step to take it to boil - STILL NO MEASURABLE ENERGY FROM THE SUPPLY SOURCE - A SOLUTION TO POLLUTION

And then, dear Reader, this was the conclusion to those tests. I trust that all this news will go some way to brightening your day - and, God willing, all our futures. I'm rather old - so my own is prescribed. But I have grandchildren and this is all for them as much as for all of you. There is indeed a solution to our problems. The indications are that we can manage our rather pressing energy needs with the quintessentially cleanest of clean green energy. The problem is that our learned and revered will have to revise an awful lot of conceptual understanding related to the electric energy transfer. And when they do - then that will be a very good thing. I just can't stop smiling.

Kindest regards,

the following posted from

Then Guys - and in conclusion - in the space of a few short minutes - with an increased frequency - it then took the temperature to boiling point - I think. It wasn't actually boiling but it had small bubbles. And the temperature recorded at 104 degrees C - or thereby, from memory. No noise, surprisingly - that one associates with a kettle at boiling point. Perhaps that's the lower wattage than our kettles put out.

Anyway here's that final screen shot. The battery voltage simply rose to 62 Volts (sorry I wrote degrees) and then stabilised at that value. I didn't get that final screen shot - but that was the voltage I posted before I went to bed last night.

NOTE that at these higher frequencies the level of oscillation across the batteries and the CSR increase.

Also. I unfortunately did NOT take a screen shot at the conclusion of that test before I increased the frequency. Because it barely took 10 minutes to raise the temperature of the water from plus/minus 80 degrees C to that 104 degrees C. And the battery voltage was absolutely stable at 62 something. I should have made another screen shot.

AND MAY I ADD, lest anyone miss the significance here - this may be the first time in recorded history that water was taken to boiling point at an evident ZERO cost of energy from a supply source. That's got to give pause for thought.

117 - this first step took water to 80 degrees centigrade with NO measurable cost from the battery supply

Dear Reader

This was an exciting test. We took water to boil 0.7 litres. There was absolutely NO evident discharge of energy from the supply. And if you look closely you'll see that during the 'on' time of the duty cycle the voltage across the shunt was only ever 'fractionally' above zero - indicating that the current flow from the battery during the on time was next to nothing.

Kindest regards,

The following copied over from the forum

Guys What followed on from here is a series of shots to show the results from a minor adjustment to the offset. The first screen shot shows the limit of that adjustment. There was a second adjustment during the test procedure to re-adjust the offset to return the positive back to this position. I'll down load a few of these because I actually took 15 downloads showing the same thing, essentially, with an ever but slow increase in the rise of temperature. It rose from 66.9 degrees C to it's final temperature of 240 degrees C. That's when I put it in water. And then it took the water up to 80 degrees centigrade where it pretty well stabilised. I'll post in the time it took when I've checked the time on those downloads.

Also, NOTA BENE guys, the voltage across the batteries that I mentioned in my earlier post is wrong. But just note that the battery voltage both climbs and falls - on these slower frequencies. This is most clearly evident at the very slowest fequency which is when we get that delicious oscillation that just goes on forever.

Also. I've not posted all the downloads - 15 in all - as they're too repetitive. I downloaded a screen shot at certain intervals just to relate it to temperature rise. I think I'll post three as that should be fairly representative. So. The first is to show the 'offset' detail. And two others - at the beginning and near the end - when I had to immerse it in water. Again. The water temperature then stabilsed after an hour or so - at a little over 80 degrees centigrade.

ALSO Please note. The actual level of oscillation across the CSR reduced at those higher wattage levels. But it did nothing to stop the temperature rise. The offset was pretty well stable but I think it may have ended up fractionally 'higher' than the start of these tests.

116 - first test to show the variations with different settings

Dear Reader,
This is the first test designed to show how that 'offset' varies the results

Difference in temperature rise between the extreme 'on' and 'off' settings of the duty cycle to the limit of the functions generator's capacity.

FIRST SETTING = longest on
DATE 2011/04/30
TIME 20.55.43

TEMPERATURE RISE +/- 20 degrees C greater ambient = plus/minus 2.5 watts.

SECOND SETTING = shortest on
DATE 2011/04/30
TIME 21:07:44

TEMPERATURE RISE +/- 49.8 degrees C greater ambient = plus/minus 8 watts.

115 - some interesting test results just to keep all updated

Dear Reader,

I'm simply transposing some posts across from that I can keep record here. They show some encouraging results. I'll post them across and then explain the significance of all this.

Kindest regards,
Herewith the relevant.

Ok guys. I really need to move on. What I've done is this. I can't take a photo of the set up as it is at the moment because my other computer has been rifled and doctored with a virus. And that holds my photobucket software. But what I have done is a whole lot of tests to see if I can explain this. NOTA BENE ALL. The ground of the signal generator is MOST CERTAINLY at the point marked B on the video. In other words it's BEFORE THE CSR. And by the way - it makes not an ounce of difference if it's there or if it's positioned as shown in our DEMO diagram. So. Right now the CSR is precisely in series with and on the same rail as the negative terminal of the battery supply which then conforms to my circuit variation of 'a poynted revision' shown earlier.

Then. I took the tests through an extreme range of duty cycle tests - most on - most off. This shows the advantage of the oscillation as it relates to the temperature rise. THEN I did a whole lot more tests to show the subtleties of the off set. I took the temperature to 240 degrees and climbing. But I started melting the plastic container - so I filled it with water. It took the water temperature to plus/minus 80 degrees and climbing. I think I'm dissipating upwards of 120 watts - but will only confirm this in the morning. The test has been running for the last 4 hours. And right now - on the highest frequency setting I'm FINALLY seeing evidence of battery voltage actually climbing. So is the water temperature rising - and I'm not sure how much longer I can sit up. I'm exhausted and there's nothing interesting on television to ease the boredom.

The point is this. There is absolutely no difference in where we position the ground of the functions generator. With the exception of a short 5 minutes where the offset started rising (it gets a mind of its own) there have been absolutely NO VALUES of the cycle mean - the mean - or the math trace showing anything other than a negative value. And that's notwithstanding the clear evidence of dissipation of wattage in excess of 100 watts. And I am FINALLY seeing a stable 'kick off' voltage over the batteries. It needs a high frequency.

I'll do the downloads in the morning and walk you through the different settings as they relate to the temperature rise.

PLEASE DO NOT PAY ANY ATTENTION TO POYNTY's ENDLESS INNUENDOS AND HINTS AND INTERRUPTIONS. He is talking a whole lot of nonsense. When I've done those downloads - I will then walk you through my own take on what is happening. You can take it on board - or not - as required. And Peter and Ron - as ever. Thanks for the interventions. It gets rather lonely in this corner of mine. And I missed your post there woopy. Thank you. It's always heartening and frankly, was much needed.

I'm reasonably sure that there will be those readers here who will be delighted at this. And by the same token there will be those who are not. lol.

Kindest regards,

Just checked. Water showing some really small bubbles. We're at sea level but the temperature reading is now 104 degrees c. Shouldn't it be boiling at this level? Anyway - the voltage on the batteries now at 60 from an early 59.7. I really need to turn it off. I'll do the screen shot downloads first thing tomorrow. I'm also not sure how much water in that container. I think it's about a litre. I'll check this tomorrow as well.

edited. Added comments and corrected the spelling - I hope.