Here's the cover letter with our submissions. It's some small record of the difficulties that we've experienced. And, as it's been described - we've possibly initiated some 'strong headwinds'. What is good news is that we've been invited to nominate the reviewers. Not sure if this is standard or what. But it may very well help in this drive to get this to the academic forum.
Herewith the cover letter.
The following two papers refer. The experimental results appear to fly in the face of classical prediction but nowhere do we assert that there is a contradiction in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. What is detailed is the proposal that the source of the extra energy measured in the experiments is due to magnetic properties that are located within that circuit material but extraneous to its atomic structures. This is required in terms of a non-classical magnetic field model that predicted these results. Our second paper refers. Also, we have gone to some lengths to explain that the measured results, albeit anomalous, comply with predictions required by the standard model. The modification relates exclusively to the proposed material properties of the magnetic field which modification is then able to fully account for the path required for induced CEMF during the discharge half of each cycle of the oscillation. We would presume to suggest that the purpose of academic publication is not for endorsement or otherwise of the thesis related to this research, but to circulate the findings in order to provide opportunity for a broad assessment of the claim by actively proving or disproving these results and their conclusions. Therefore, by submitting the paper we are initiating precisely this engagement. And, therefore too, disagreement with any or all of these proposals is not only inevitable but required. The following is a synopsis of the difficulties we’ve experienced in trying to get these results into the public domain.
We have, for a period of 10 years, been trying to get these results to the academic forum. We all live within easy reach of four highly respectable academies and in 10 years, have not been able to get a single academic expert to even witness a demonstration. When these efforts failed we turned to industry to do the accreditation of the results. This included BP (SA), SASOL (SA), ABB Research in North Carolina, Spescom (SA), Power Engineers (part of the Alstom group) and many other smaller industries. Those referenced above are listed companies. SASOL (SA) offered UCT a bursary award to take the study further, which offer was declined. ABB Research was sent a prototype model to do their own independent testing. All those listed gave us written permission to quote their names as accreditors in a paper that we published in October 2002 edition of Quantum magazine, which followed a prior rejection from our submission of a paper to the IET. To date that is the only publication of these tests and their results and Quantum is not an academic journal. What followed from this publication was a small flurry of media interest and the directors at MTN ScienCentre then asked us to do a demonstration of the artifact at their center for an international conference of scientists. Not one scientist came to that demonstration which was available for the duration of that conference.
My son eventually put the information onto a blogspot for us and that did attract attention. We were then variously engaged with sundry replicators all over the world and it eventually caught the attention of some of the lecturers at Cape Peninsular University of Technology. At the beginning of 2010 we were invited us to develop another prototype in their labs, where we worked for the last 16 months or thereby. We were fortunate in getting the loan of some sophisticated oscilloscopes, and were then able to even improve on our earlier results. Those results were the subject of yet another report that was circulated, this time to every university in South Africa - with an invitation to attend a public demonstration of the device in March of this year. Not one expert attended. That was when we decided, again, to try and get this technology published.
We are well aware of the contentious nature of the claim. If the results are flawed then we can, none of us, find that flaw. What has been suggested is that it may be due to grounding errors. But the oscilloscope that we use shows us the same numbers as a Tektronix that was loaned to us, which is not earthed. It has also been suggested that the functions generator that we use is responsible for the extra energy. But we get the same results with a simple 'flip flop' circuit. The only reason that we used the Functions generator is that it gives us a better handle on the switching cycle. Then too is the fact that these results are easily replicated on simulation software which, at its least, suggests that our classical algorithms allow for these results.
It is difficult to compute exactly how many hours have been spent on these latest tests. We have more than 230 tests on the database at different settings that all show variations to these waveforms and the results. But what does not vary is the consistent evidence of more energy being dissipated than delivered by the supply source. It is this evidence that needs to be evaluated by our academics - preferably by replicating that experiment. And preferably it needs to be widely disseminated that many different academies and experts evaluate this to enable the checks and balances required in the promotion of new technologies and to then prove or disprove it as required.
Therefore we cannot do more than submit the evidence and the thesis that predicted these results. We are not claiming finality in these proofs but asking that these results be evaluated through those required checks and balances that are available to the discipline when the experimental evidence is widely disseminated. And it will not get exposure without prior publication. It may be that the experiments are not clearly explained, or that the language in the paper is obtuse or confusing. But those are editing functions and can be corrected. The results are what they are. And they have been variously filmed, downloaded on flash drives, recorded in these and other reports and papers, accredited, witnessed and publicly demonstrated. The proof has been overwhelming. Only the credibility is still heavily taxed.