Follow by Email

Sunday, September 11, 2011

153 - still no news and still more petitioning

Dear Reader,

I'm posting hereunder yet another application to yet another learned and revered - to advance publication. Thus far not successful. But I'm like that widow in the parable. I keep at it. lol

Also. Still no news from our editor. But after this much time - then? Maybe they've finally tested it for themselves. I do hope so. Plenty questions there folks.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Had I asked you to report favourably on anything at all then I would have been obliged to involve you in a discussion of the thesis. Thus far you have not engaged. Therefore I could not expect it. If that is what you concluded from my request then you clearly have not understood it.

We have experimental evidence that - as you put it - a switch passes current when it should not. There is nothing wrong with the switch. The results are repeatable. And they are replicable. They have been widely replicated. Not only have they been widely replicated but they can also be replicated on simulation software. We are attempting to bring this to the attention of the academic fraternity through the publication of a paper. Why it is important is that it results in more energy been returned to than delivered by a battery supply source. This appears to fly in the face of mainstream assumption. The more so as there is also evidence of energy being dissipated at the load resistor.

The evidence is unarguable. There are NO apparent measurement errors and - if there are - then those errors are evident by many experimentalists. I personally know of 5 successful replications. They all seem to generate that same oscillation. I put it to you that the experiment results in a catastrophic defeat of thermodynamic laws unless there is an alternate supply of energy identified. We identify this energy in the circuit material. This then also conforms to Einstein's mass energy equivalence. This explanation also has the merit of endorsing the Dark Energy requirements of our astrophysicists as it localises that energy in bound matter. However we propose that it is extraneous to the atom itself. We argue that current flow comprises a magnetic material that binds matter and that it compromises that bound condition when it is induced through voltage imbalances.

I specifically asked that you do NOT endorse our findings but that you would, nonetheless, recommend publication. I was given to understand that you viewed publication as a requirement regardless of the evidence. Science is progressed by experimental evidence. We have that evidence. And we would, most assuredly, require that it is progressed. But we are not anticipating anything less than some considerable resistance to that evidence. Provided that publication also results in wide experimentation to test that evidence - then that would be a very good thing. Because this effect will then also be widely seen. One hopes that it will not then be ignored.

What is required is that those personalities in the scientific world who are still inclined to let the experimental evidence lead our science - stand up in defense of publishing. I was hoping to number you among them. And again. I am absolutely not looking for endorsement. I do not even require you to report positively. I simply ask that you advance this to publication. As it is we can't even get an academic expert to the table to evaluate that evidence. It's hardly conducive to the disinterested impartiality that is required to evaluate anything at all. A blanket refusal to acknowledge repeated evidence that is carefully measured is not actually even scientific. With very few exceptions this - indeed - has been our unhappy experience. Your own credentials in this regard are impeccable. Is that any clearer? We are absolutely not asking for endorsement. We are asking that we can number you with those who recommend publication - is the point.

Golly. If I first had to get endorsement or any favourable comment - then there would never be any hope of publishing. I don't think any academic would ever be that reckless. These are contentious claims. We're just looking for those people who have influence and who will also recommend that this is widely tested - before it could possibly be accepted. And that wide testing cannot happen unless it's first published. That has always been the purpose of academic publication. And that's why we're asking for this to be published.