Follow by Email

Friday, November 4, 2011

176 - - where are you?

Dear Reader,

It seems that has disappeared. Golly. Hopefully it's a glitch rather than the entire annihilation of the forum.

I need to stress something. There was a clamorous requirement by many members of for us to run our batteries ad infinitum to prove our claim. I would remind you all. Our very first paper - the only paper that was ever published - and that in a technical journal rather than a reviewed journal - included battery draw down tests. We ran controls in conjunction with our experiment. The control batteries were FLAT where our own barely lost a quarter of volt. Those schedules were carefully recorded. Yet the reviewing editor - a certain Professor Jandrell - insisted that we remove that information as being irrelevant.

The actual test for those draw downs are tedious in the extreme. They involved us in continuous testing over a 17 hour period - then a recharge of the batteries - then a repeat run of the tests with the control batteries to the experiment and vice versa. I was disgusted at required removal of this data as I felt it was conclusive proof. Thereafter I realised that the battery draw down rate - albeit of interest - and indeed some significant interest - was irrelevant. The only appropriate results required were the actual measurements of the energy to and from the battery supply.

So. Here's the thing. We now have even more conclusive proof that there is more energy being returned to the battery supply than delivered. This is evident in about 220 different settings resulting in varying waveforms - and also shown in a little more than 350 individual screen downloads. These numbers are also proved when those screenshots are downloaded to spreadsheets for detailed analysis. We have that exotic negative wattage result that has little if any relevance to the standard model. The anomaly here is that extraordinary that there are no known protocols that can interpret the actual dissipation of wattage from the supply nor the actual delivery of energy from the supply. All is anomalous. And all is carefully measured.

Then there's another significant point. The oscillation moves above and below zero and - again according to the standard model - the circuit is open and the battery cannot be delivering any energy during one half of that waveform. Another anomaly that requires consideration.

And finally. I am on record. I would have been more than happy to run those tests for the duration - provided only that our learned and revered go on record that this test would represent conclusive proof of our overunity claim. It's tricky monitoring these tests when the output is in excess of 100 watts or thereby as the setting often slips and the amount of energy then delivered can get out of control. To finance that required monitoring was doable - but would have been pointless if it did not first carry that assurance from our academics.

So. What we've done is submitted the papers based exclusively on the numbers that have also been very carefully extrapolated. And we've attempted to show how the 'thinking' related to that current flow - is accommodated in our thesis. That's enough for the start of what should become a hotly debated, and I hope, widely tested experiment.

Kindest regards,

175 - riding a tsumani

Dear Reader,

Thank you to all you well wishers. It's been a very pleasant sojourn with my insomnia - for once. It seems that these small efforts of ours are possibly adding to the those rising tides of knowledge.

I've said this before. Bear with me. I think we can be forgiven everything if we had not also simply based our insights on something that our boffins have overlooked. But there it is. It's all very simple. And yet it's not simple at all. Science has rather depended on increasing the complexities of its mathematical structures to move to the weighty abstractions of our string theorists. But when the final analysis is simply shown to depend on an understanding of charge - plus, minus and neutral - then math itself rather falls by the way and is replaced with the digital structures that your average preschool toddler could manage to count on one hand. Mildly amusing but nonetheless rather sad. It puts paid to intellectual pretension - and it should elevate the understanding of physics - particle physics - that we, the lay public, the non expert, can entirely understand.

This is important. I'll see if I can explain it. Knowledge - historically, has been the exclusive property of the expert. And the expert - by definition - is the minority. That resulted in a kind of relationship where we not only followed our leaders but allowed them the exclusive rights to comment. It is thanks to the laudable skills of those few excellent physicists - the Gary Zukov's et al - who worked to take this knowledge to the public through interpretations of physics into their understandable and conceptual forms of layman's literature - that the public were ever given the opportunity to engage. And that engagement - of necessity - broadened the dialogue - exponentially. Essentially it means that insights are not the exclusive property of the expert. Indeed - they are well within the intellectual grasp of us mere mortals. And unlike the expert - we have no axe to grind - no pet theory to advance. We simply want to reconcile all those muddles that standard physics promotes.

It is increasingly comforting to know that those simple concepts that we've included in our second paper - are, indeed, both understandable and unarguable. That's a good basis for a conversation. The question now is whether our boffins will actually even talk to us.


Kindest regards,