Dear Reader,
I've just looked in at Sterling Allen's extensive coverage of free energy. Very interesting. Especially as it relates to that SA company's development of a motor. In fact it seems that all kinds of confirmation of energy abundance is soon to explode all over the place. How good is that?
Regarding our own contributions. As ever, our technology is just a small token - compared to what's on offer. But I also believe that our modest little thesis may also be required to explain all this. Certainly one would not then have to rely on the rather unscientific and confusing concepts of 'lead out lead in' or spinning electrons - or indeed anything at all that I have EVER read - advanced by any engineer, ever. Or even those 'theories' if such they are - that are proposed by some who 'purport' to have a degree in physics. Hopefully he reads this. They're all, no doubt, brilliant engineers. But as a rule they're ALL somewhat lacking - when it come computation of power measurements - and equally lacking when it comes to theoretical physics. Certainly this applies to our forum members.
I have to wait for confirmation about the potential publication of our papers. Another whole week. And I feel this wait - rather keenly. I'm afraid our Good Lord did not equip me with much patience. As I often explain. It's my only fault. LOL. In any event, I've been trying to fill in the time by trying to tackle our thesis on gravity. It's all the more difficult as my training in physics is severely lacking. And it's about now that I feel the lack. But frankly - I can't wait for that publication. It will leave more than one academic with the rather awkward requirement to justify his/their determined rejection of our claims - in the face of the evidence. All that evidence. Which they either refused to look at - or, alternatively, to acknowledge. Retrospectively everyone will be accountable. Especially those that actively worked to diminish the evidence. Their rejections will look increasingly absurd as these technologies 'roll out' with all the dependability of advanced technology and efficient production of those devices.
Essentially what will be seen is this simple truth. An electric current can be recycled. Just that. Because that also means that ENERGY itself can be recycled. Which means that energy need not be transferred OUT of any system at all. And that has amazing implications when it comes to using energy efficiently. What I'm anxious to define is how 'gravity' fits into all this. Because then we'll also be able to use it's 'other half' which is when gravity is no longer purely 'attractive'. Like James Clerk Maxwell's equations - everyone forgot to factor in that required symmetry. And NATURE IS ALWAYS SYMMETRICAL. She tolerates everything except IMBALANCE. LOL.
It's all very exciting. And I see vindication around the corner. I do hope so, or we're going to be exploiting the benefits of LENR and now CEMF - on a 'haphazard' rather than 'predictive' basis. And that never makes for dependable science. And, as I also keep assuring you all. We've discovered NOTHING NEW. It's all in there - in the standard model. It's just that the standard model has never really been that 'standard'. What's happened is that the 'standard model' was standardised by our energy monopolists through the convenience of their research funding aimed at promoting an irreversible dependency on pollutant or inefficient energy systems. Thank God they ultimately priced themselves out the market. Else we probably would never have revisited our theories.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
