Follow by Email

Sunday, December 4, 2011

205 - dear sir

Dear Reader,

Finally a small letter published in the Argus, Friday 02nd December, 2011.

Dear Sir,

A NEW SOURCE OF ENERGY

Cold Fusion or Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) has now been harnessed in Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat technology. Not only are his units available for sale to the public, but they also have been demonstrated to generate upwards of 500-kilo watts. The claim is that these units are ‘self running’ and that the results have all the benefits of a nuclear process with none of those dangerous toxic emissions that bedevil our nuclear plants.

If this is true, then it seems that our own proposed expansion into 2 new nuclear power stations may be somewhat redundant as I, and I’m reasonably certain, the most of us, would prefer to decouple from our national supply grid. Our history there is plagued with escalating supply costs that far exceed the normal inflation rates. Quite apart from which, the supply itself is brittle and unreliable.

It intrigues me that this news has not been covered by our media – except on the Internet and with the entire exception of this one short article in the Boston Globe. The link refers. I wonder if you could perhaps give your readers the benefit of some investigative reporting into this. It would be nice to learn of the actual status here. Indeed, I suspect our Government and our COP 17 movement would also be delighted to learn of this. And unless the media address it, then it's unlikely that they'll learn of it. Traditionally it's the media who lead with this kind of news. If there is no merit in the claim, then early exposure would be valued. And, on the other hand, if there is, indeed merit – then it would be a ‘revolution’ in the making – as suggested in that article.


http://bostonglobe.com/business/2011/11/28/hope-skepticism-for-cold-fusion/w7FgGyI9Zx432chxuD5BEL/story.html

Kind regards,

Rosemary Ainslie

204 - AT LAST

Dear Reader,

Today is a red letter day. I have finally managed to make contact with Rossi. Here's the letter that I wrote subsequent to sending him those two papers of ours.

What a pleasure. Hopefully we'll hear more from him in due course.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Dear Andrea,

This is – very broadly – the synopsis.

The thesis argues that magnetic fields are a primary force and that all the forces are the effects from varying dimensional structures of these magnetic fields. The fields themselves are structured from magnetic dipoles that naturally organise into ‘closed strings’. The fields are dynamic and they orbit at a velocity of 2C.

These fields come in three dimensions. So, a 1 dimensional field (a binding field) is responsible for the weak nuclear interaction including the electromagnetic and the galvanic processes. 2 dimensional fields, (having length and breadth) are responsible for the strong nuclear force. And finally, 3 dimensional fields (having length, breadth and depth) is the torus, which is associated with a complete magnetic field. This is responsible for gravity.

Where it deviates from the standard model is only in this. It proposes that magnetic fields comprise this non-standard dipole that has a velocity that exceeds light speed. It also proposes that a magnetic field is a primary force underpinning all the known forces. In all other respects it conforms ENTIRELY to the standard model. It would explain the existence and operation of the forces – and it would account for the Casimir effect. and it would be precisely related to Plank’s constant. Because – in a field – they orbit at velocities that exceed light speed, then light cannot find these particles. Therefore they remain ‘dark’ – outside our abilities to detect it. Effectively they operate in a dimension of time that exceeds our own abilities to measure it. Therefore it relates precisely to the ‘dark’ energy that has been measured by our astrophysicists.

As this relates to your own system, the proposal is that these fields are responsible for binding coalesced matter. Read the appendix to the second part of that two-part paper. In a chaotic state which is when the particle is NOT in an orbital field formation – then the particles become as hot and as big and as slow as they were previously cold and small and fast. But in their ‘hot’ state, they are no longer ‘binding’ that coalesced material. Therefore the bound condition becomes compromised. This would enable the contamination of anything within range of those chaotic particles. For example, should copper be proximate – then the copper atoms would decouple from their coalesced condition and loosen from the structure.

The thing is this. If there is an intrinsic molecular imbalance which occurs when more binding fields are available than required to ‘bind’ that material - then the condition of chaos can be perpetuated to become self sustaining. Our test 3 of the 1st part of that paper refers. As, indeed, do the results in your own experimental evidence. Then the requirement is to continually apply more material to reduce the rate of that interaction which, otherwise, will become catastrophically hot. We both applied water. You did this to much greater force and effect. LOL

But here’s the thing Andrea. We have only defined a magnetic field as being ‘structured’ from a magnetic dipole. I’ve presumed to call this a ‘zipon’ because it sort of relates to a required function to ‘zip’ on and off atoms – or to ‘zip’ in and out of a field condition. And then it links to the thing that it IS, which is related to ‘zero point’ energy. But call it what you will. The minute you apply a particle to the magnetic field – then all those unanswered questions of our Greats – fall into place. It explains the existence of that ‘other’ dimension – which is required to explain many paradoxes including questions of ‘locality’. It also marries those diverse branches of physics including quantum and classical – dark forces and string theories. And it is ONLY based on an extension to Faraday’s Lines of Force. It is better explained in the appendix to our second paper.

Incidentally – we have been able to reconcile the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron – using this field. And this was managed, through the simple means of analysing stable particles as composites of these fundamental magnetic dipoles. And, more to the point – it localises that ‘dark energy’ that our astrophysicists require. I suspect that they may be pleased to hear of this – as it explains so much.

But most significantly – this explanation does NOT deviate – in any way – from the standard model. It’s only an extension. And the minute you apply this ‘extension’ then, as mentioned, everything sort of falls into place.

Let me know if you want to discuss this further.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary