Dear Reader,
This is my challenge to Poynty Point and Professor Steven E Jones.
We are more than willing to engage in a test that will be designed to compare comparative 'draw down rates' between our own test and a control. Of the 9 batteries that we started with we only have 6 remaining that have not been recharged through standard conventional recharging methods. We will use those batteries - 3 applied to the control and 3 applied to our own circuit. The heat dissipated at the loads of both the control and our experiment will be as close as dammit. We will then monitor the voltages of both tests until the one or the other battery bank has discharged to 10 volts. Then we will RECHARGE both batteries - through standard conventional recharging methods - to a full state of charge. Then we will SWAP those batteries. The control batteries will now be used for our test. The test batteries will be applied to the control. We will rerun those tests. We will carefully monitor their voltages until one or other of those sets of batteries discharges to 10 volts.
With the caveat - that this test carries the open and acknowledged acceptance that this proof will be considered definitive - by not less than 2 academics (our own esteemed Professor Jones, excepted as he has a vested interest in the outcome). Then we will be able to organise some means of securing that the test results cannot be tampered with - possibly by including a 3rd academic from this end.
Now again to the claim. We are able to generate a continual current flow that is enabled during the period that our battery is ENTIRELY disconnected. It results in a negative wattage that has no relevance to known physical paradigms. At its least it points to the existence of an alternate energy supply from the circuit material. We have resolved this by proposing that magnetic fields comprise tachyons that structure themselves in fields, along Faraday's Lines of Force. This would have the further merit of resolving Quantum and Classical dichotomies and is in line with proposals advanced by our String Theorists.
Should Professor Jones not be able to rally the required academics - then I put it to you all, that there is an impassable hurdle to over unity claims - when our esteemed and revered are not prepared to evaluate the evidence. It means that they've committed the unpardonable disgrace against the noble art of science - which FIRST AND FOREMOST requires theory to be PROVED OR DISPROVED against experimental evidence. And ever thereafter it will be IMPOSSIBLE for them to salvage their own credibility. All those who work for evidence of over unity will then be entirely justified in denying them the respect that is ONLY afforded to SCIENCE. You cannot claim to be a scientist without acknowledging that experimental evidence TRUMPS theory.
And with the utmost respect to Poynty Point and his minions - LET ME ASSURE YOU - that while your vaunted prize is MOST desirable - it would hardly compensate for the required acknowledgement by our experts. Because without that acknowledgement then our science CANNOT be progressed. Which is why the test REQUIRES academic engagement.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
