Dear Reader,
I've had an uncharacterically critical email from one of my readers here. I'm advised that there's no 'substance' in my blog and I suspect he's right. I've been holding back on the information mainly to ensure that the news is fresh for our demonstration - and to ensure that those insufferable trolls don't get an early handle on this that they can then blast the information to bits with their irrelevancies and their poorly considered pseudo scientific pontifications. I am continually amazed to read - even today - that there is still any serious attempt to evaluate the energy dissipated on a switching circuit in terms of any voltage measurement across those loads - regardless. I know that Harvey attempted this analysis - very ill advisedly on EF.com. And he used the most extraordinary averaging that I've ever come across. And to compound the farce he has now been appointed as a moderator for LT's results and is giving all and sundry the option of applying any standard that they require. I am glad that I've been spared that confusion but am hugely amused that Poynty apparently considers an average as 'correct' where Lawrence apparently doesn't. My own opinion - for what it's worth - is that both points are spurious. But it seems that I am outnumbered. God forbid that science ever becomes determined by concensus opinion. Then we'd really be dead in the water. And while this debate rages, Grumpy still looks to enable the electrons on the surface of materials and others support him and so it goes. The relief is that Humbugger appears to have gone to sleep. I trust he'll hibernate for the rest of the season. He's certainly earned his rest. I've had more fun on this forum than any other. And one does not need to participate to get that enjoyment. It's interesting reading and I strongly recommend you dip in there.
Now. To get back on topic. I've been distracted by an entirely new waveform. I won't here go into how to find this - as I'm not that anxious to share the know how until it's officially been demonstrated. But what it does is deliver more energy than was ever supplied by the battery. The ratios are extraordinary. The mean average delivered by the battery is a negative 24 watts or thereby. NEVER does the average default to a positive mean average. And yet the resistor cooks - but at 50 degrees centigrade as opposed to our previous 100 degrees at the cost of 1.47 watts. I am having great difficulty in getting my mind around the former result here. It's defintely NOT an erroneous measurement as it's evident on both DSO's and they are more than able to cope with the frequencies associated with both. Both are relatively fast and both have that characteristic component where the resonance somehow overrides the predetermined duty cycle. What really intrigues me about this new waveform is that there is unquestionably an increase in battery voltage over a 3 hour run. But I am not able to run it for longer periods - yet. I'll try again over the weekend. Certainly very promising. I shall probably incorporate both waveforms in our demonstration and in the report being prepared that will precede that demo. It's all really interesting. I hope that this much information will serve to whet the appetite. And that this is the kind of substance that Acme was looking for. Not long now guys and gals.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
44 - on the use of prejudice - opinion and assumption - in the advancement of science
Dear Reader,
I've been busy. I have been trying to find a single reporter who I can get to attend that demo and report on it. This has been really problematic. I hinted at Mr Yeld's attitude. Here's more on the subject.
Hello again Natasha,
Clearly you are as confused as your Mr John Yeld. Let me see if I can explain things more simply. In order to evaluate a scientific claim one first needs to have scientific accreditation. It is required that the accreditation is by those experts in the art that the accreditation is reliable. To the best of my knowledge there has never been any other requirement to the release of any scientific news. I am not sure where and why your requirement is now centered on publication in a peer reviewed journal. If this were ever a requirement either for the development of applications based on that science - or for the release of any news related to that science then - for example - the fact of the Wright Brothers' miracles of flight would never have been reported - and nor would there be any report on the bomb blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Neither were preceded by any publication in any peer reviewed journal. And both were done in defiance of known science. I wonder if you can get your head around this point? It's not really that obtuse. I am not sure of the number of discoveries that are ONLY exposed in patents - but I assure you that ALL progress of science is absolutely NOT always reported to or by our revered academics. Indeed, if the progress of science depended only on the opinion and prior publication in reviewed journals - then quantum physics itself would have been buried - along with the then strong and vociferous objections by our classicists. Science does NOT need endorsement in prior peer reviewed publication. It ONLY needs accreditation. Unless, of course, both you and Mr John Yeld now wish to impose some new qualifying criteria - before scientific fact be allowed. In which case I think you would both need to establish this criteria globally and in terms of some kind of 'charter'. And even then I very much doubt that you'd be able to carry global opinion. The simple fact is that many prefer to expose their discoveries only after patenting them. And others will implement applications in defiance of known physics for no better reason than that the application is required - for whatever reason. And yet others will - for example - design and build 'heavier than air' craft and then fly them - in defiance of expert or popular opinion. The most of it pre-eminently newsworthy.
Fortunately, our technological progress remains substantially 'unhampered' by prior scientific endorsement or popular belief. It ONLY requires accreditation. In other words - is the 'claim' experimentally evident? If so then - no matter prior opinion - it's automatically incorporated into that great and diverse body of science. And very often the 'thinking' related to that new fact - is then only established retrospectively. I wonder if you'd both do better to stick to the 'news' interest of accredited results than try and impose some kind of 'standard' that you seem to think is required to render any scientific fact 'newsworthy'. I suspect that you are both appropriating a kind of authority here that exceeds standard protocol and far exceeds your expertise. And I would earnestly suggest that you both defer to expert opinion - especially as it relates to science and scientific protocols. With respect, I wonder if you're both rather out of your depth when you presume to determine WHAT or WHY something scientific can be considered newsworthy. After all, your reading public rather depend on your impartial assessment of these or any facts. And I see very little that is impartial. I suppose what I'm asking is this. By what authority do you determine that something scientific is first newsworthy? And do you have the moral authority or even technological knowledge to impose your own standards of authorisation over that of experts? I very much doubt it.
The purpose of this demonstration is to show that it is possible to dissipate heat without the discharge of energy - or without the loss of voltage - from a battery supply source. This rather disproves a host of fondly held beliefs by our mainstream scientists. It's widely considered to be impossible. In order to refute this 'belief' one would need to show experimental evidence. Our experts themselves acknowledge this required standard. To evaluate that evidence one would first need to see that evidence and that's the purpose of that demonstration. It is a fact that has already carried wide accreditation by our experts in industry. For instance, BP, Sasol, ABB research, Spescom and others have already seen and attested to these results. Sasol went so far as to offer UCT a bursary award to take the study further - which offer was declined. The fact is that it is ONLY our academics who have, to date, been rather reluctant to associate themselves with this claim. Fortunately as time marches on - all of a decade later - then opinions change. And it seems that the requirement of 'evidence' is now, again considered paramount. In other words opinion will be deferred in favour of the facts. Always a good scientific criterion to judge anything at all. Else we're doomed to progress nothing that does not first carry the endorsement of 'opinion' and opinion has never really played any part in science.
You say I have threatened your Mr Yeld? Would you please be explicit. I indeed advised him that I'd be reporting his rudeness to you or to some of the editors. But that's not a threat. It's born out in the fact. But it seems I need not have bothered. You seem entirely satisfied that his rudeness is somehow required. Would you mind elaborating on this. I would be glad to understand why it is that any reporter is entitled to parade this rudeness when I simply challenge - as I do here - his right to determine that this science that we're dealing with is 'nonsense'. In fact - I'm rather concerned that anyone's rudeness is ever endorsed. But when it comes to our media - one rather hopes for the occasional evidence of an open mind - and a search for the truth. I'm not sure whose interests you are serving by prejudging anything at all. In fact - I would have thought that you'd rather spend some time in looking for the 'truth' of any situation - rather than impose your own opinions on this. It would, in the main, be considered more in line with the disciplines of good journalism that you take this trouble. So. My questions stand. What rights do you or Mr Yeld have that you can - determine the facts of an experiment outside of expert advisement - and then determine the required standard of accreditation by imposing the requirement of publication in peer reviewed journal - and then when has the refusal to look for the facts or listen to the argument ever served the interests of good journalism or even good manners?
Yours sincerely
Rosemary
I've been busy. I have been trying to find a single reporter who I can get to attend that demo and report on it. This has been really problematic. I hinted at Mr Yeld's attitude. Here's more on the subject.
Hello again Natasha,
Clearly you are as confused as your Mr John Yeld. Let me see if I can explain things more simply. In order to evaluate a scientific claim one first needs to have scientific accreditation. It is required that the accreditation is by those experts in the art that the accreditation is reliable. To the best of my knowledge there has never been any other requirement to the release of any scientific news. I am not sure where and why your requirement is now centered on publication in a peer reviewed journal. If this were ever a requirement either for the development of applications based on that science - or for the release of any news related to that science then - for example - the fact of the Wright Brothers' miracles of flight would never have been reported - and nor would there be any report on the bomb blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Neither were preceded by any publication in any peer reviewed journal. And both were done in defiance of known science. I wonder if you can get your head around this point? It's not really that obtuse. I am not sure of the number of discoveries that are ONLY exposed in patents - but I assure you that ALL progress of science is absolutely NOT always reported to or by our revered academics. Indeed, if the progress of science depended only on the opinion and prior publication in reviewed journals - then quantum physics itself would have been buried - along with the then strong and vociferous objections by our classicists. Science does NOT need endorsement in prior peer reviewed publication. It ONLY needs accreditation. Unless, of course, both you and Mr John Yeld now wish to impose some new qualifying criteria - before scientific fact be allowed. In which case I think you would both need to establish this criteria globally and in terms of some kind of 'charter'. And even then I very much doubt that you'd be able to carry global opinion. The simple fact is that many prefer to expose their discoveries only after patenting them. And others will implement applications in defiance of known physics for no better reason than that the application is required - for whatever reason. And yet others will - for example - design and build 'heavier than air' craft and then fly them - in defiance of expert or popular opinion. The most of it pre-eminently newsworthy.
Fortunately, our technological progress remains substantially 'unhampered' by prior scientific endorsement or popular belief. It ONLY requires accreditation. In other words - is the 'claim' experimentally evident? If so then - no matter prior opinion - it's automatically incorporated into that great and diverse body of science. And very often the 'thinking' related to that new fact - is then only established retrospectively. I wonder if you'd both do better to stick to the 'news' interest of accredited results than try and impose some kind of 'standard' that you seem to think is required to render any scientific fact 'newsworthy'. I suspect that you are both appropriating a kind of authority here that exceeds standard protocol and far exceeds your expertise. And I would earnestly suggest that you both defer to expert opinion - especially as it relates to science and scientific protocols. With respect, I wonder if you're both rather out of your depth when you presume to determine WHAT or WHY something scientific can be considered newsworthy. After all, your reading public rather depend on your impartial assessment of these or any facts. And I see very little that is impartial. I suppose what I'm asking is this. By what authority do you determine that something scientific is first newsworthy? And do you have the moral authority or even technological knowledge to impose your own standards of authorisation over that of experts? I very much doubt it.
The purpose of this demonstration is to show that it is possible to dissipate heat without the discharge of energy - or without the loss of voltage - from a battery supply source. This rather disproves a host of fondly held beliefs by our mainstream scientists. It's widely considered to be impossible. In order to refute this 'belief' one would need to show experimental evidence. Our experts themselves acknowledge this required standard. To evaluate that evidence one would first need to see that evidence and that's the purpose of that demonstration. It is a fact that has already carried wide accreditation by our experts in industry. For instance, BP, Sasol, ABB research, Spescom and others have already seen and attested to these results. Sasol went so far as to offer UCT a bursary award to take the study further - which offer was declined. The fact is that it is ONLY our academics who have, to date, been rather reluctant to associate themselves with this claim. Fortunately as time marches on - all of a decade later - then opinions change. And it seems that the requirement of 'evidence' is now, again considered paramount. In other words opinion will be deferred in favour of the facts. Always a good scientific criterion to judge anything at all. Else we're doomed to progress nothing that does not first carry the endorsement of 'opinion' and opinion has never really played any part in science.
You say I have threatened your Mr Yeld? Would you please be explicit. I indeed advised him that I'd be reporting his rudeness to you or to some of the editors. But that's not a threat. It's born out in the fact. But it seems I need not have bothered. You seem entirely satisfied that his rudeness is somehow required. Would you mind elaborating on this. I would be glad to understand why it is that any reporter is entitled to parade this rudeness when I simply challenge - as I do here - his right to determine that this science that we're dealing with is 'nonsense'. In fact - I'm rather concerned that anyone's rudeness is ever endorsed. But when it comes to our media - one rather hopes for the occasional evidence of an open mind - and a search for the truth. I'm not sure whose interests you are serving by prejudging anything at all. In fact - I would have thought that you'd rather spend some time in looking for the 'truth' of any situation - rather than impose your own opinions on this. It would, in the main, be considered more in line with the disciplines of good journalism that you take this trouble. So. My questions stand. What rights do you or Mr Yeld have that you can - determine the facts of an experiment outside of expert advisement - and then determine the required standard of accreditation by imposing the requirement of publication in peer reviewed journal - and then when has the refusal to look for the facts or listen to the argument ever served the interests of good journalism or even good manners?
Yours sincerely
Rosemary
42 - them thar paradigms - they's shiftin
Dear Reader,
I've been testing the waters and it seems that I need not have concerned myself. There is considerably more interest in this device technology than was evident some 10 years ago. It seems that our experts will, indeed, be prepared to evaluate that evidence. This is a great comfort. We must tidy up the test procedures and give a written record as required. Thereafter we'll send this out together with formal invitations and see if we can convene those demonstrations. It does seem that we may have to repeat those demos - possibly three such - to fit into everyone's required schedules. But there is substantial agreement to attend. And now it is up to us to ensure that there is a strong argument and equally strong evidence to justify that attendance. I'm more than ready for the challenge and welcome it. And I'm particularly pleased to see that, at least in South Africa, our experts still allow science to be led by experimental evidence. I am also entirely satisfied that if there is a flaw in the measurement protocols or in the evidence itself that this will be quickly identified - even prior to that demonstration. And then all that will be required is to prove the repeatability of the experiment at those demonstrations. That will, I hope, be enough to get an academic paper to review and, hopefully, publication in a reviewed journal. I think it is really important that these results be presented to as wide an academic audience as possible to be thoroughly evaluated.
Timewise - I am hoping to have those demonstrations held towards the end of February. That should give us the time needed to present a report on the results and firm up on the controls required for that demonstration. Such good news everyone. I'm feeling more than a little frightened at this reach. The more so as it's the culmination of some 12 years of effort. It's been a long delay - but I've learned much since those early days and - as in all things - timing is everything. I do feel it in my waters that the time is now right. And I'll post on progress and firm up on dates here on the blog.
This demo will not be for the general public. But one of our television stations has indicated that they may film the proceedings to make due record. Hopefully I'll be able to also include the involvement of a local newspaper. It seems that our science reporter at one of the papers is on record as saying that he will not be associated under any circumstances whatsoever. A Mr Yeld. He is not an expert in the field of engineering nor physics. But, for some reason, he considers himself better qualified than our own experts to determine this claim. And he has, with a characteristic flair for assumption, independantly and on behalf of his readers and without ever having seen the experiment - determined that it's all bogus. Golly. I'm only glad that neither science nor scientists rely on his opinion.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
I've been testing the waters and it seems that I need not have concerned myself. There is considerably more interest in this device technology than was evident some 10 years ago. It seems that our experts will, indeed, be prepared to evaluate that evidence. This is a great comfort. We must tidy up the test procedures and give a written record as required. Thereafter we'll send this out together with formal invitations and see if we can convene those demonstrations. It does seem that we may have to repeat those demos - possibly three such - to fit into everyone's required schedules. But there is substantial agreement to attend. And now it is up to us to ensure that there is a strong argument and equally strong evidence to justify that attendance. I'm more than ready for the challenge and welcome it. And I'm particularly pleased to see that, at least in South Africa, our experts still allow science to be led by experimental evidence. I am also entirely satisfied that if there is a flaw in the measurement protocols or in the evidence itself that this will be quickly identified - even prior to that demonstration. And then all that will be required is to prove the repeatability of the experiment at those demonstrations. That will, I hope, be enough to get an academic paper to review and, hopefully, publication in a reviewed journal. I think it is really important that these results be presented to as wide an academic audience as possible to be thoroughly evaluated.
Timewise - I am hoping to have those demonstrations held towards the end of February. That should give us the time needed to present a report on the results and firm up on the controls required for that demonstration. Such good news everyone. I'm feeling more than a little frightened at this reach. The more so as it's the culmination of some 12 years of effort. It's been a long delay - but I've learned much since those early days and - as in all things - timing is everything. I do feel it in my waters that the time is now right. And I'll post on progress and firm up on dates here on the blog.
This demo will not be for the general public. But one of our television stations has indicated that they may film the proceedings to make due record. Hopefully I'll be able to also include the involvement of a local newspaper. It seems that our science reporter at one of the papers is on record as saying that he will not be associated under any circumstances whatsoever. A Mr Yeld. He is not an expert in the field of engineering nor physics. But, for some reason, he considers himself better qualified than our own experts to determine this claim. And he has, with a characteristic flair for assumption, independantly and on behalf of his readers and without ever having seen the experiment - determined that it's all bogus. Golly. I'm only glad that neither science nor scientists rely on his opinion.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
41 - mental blocks and bloch walls
Dear Reader,
This submission is to see if it's possible to get some semblance of sanity back into science. It seems that there are those who are now seriously proposing that the 'Bloch wall' is 'the door' to our aether energies. I wonder if all and sundry have not perhaps just taken leave of their senses together with their faculties of logic. If the 'Bloch wall' means anything at all - it is simply that point in a magnetic field where the charge of a magnetic field becomes neutral.
I'm afraid that there are certain assumptions required to explain what is meant here. The first assumption is that charge is determined by the direction in which a particle moves in relation to a magnetic field. Whether or not the field itself moves is not here considered. The field does, unquestionably have both a positive and negative condition or a - 'north and south pole' as it's commonly referred to. And - both poles or charges are locally divergent. And particles are seen to 'spin' predictably and consistently - in relation to that charge exposure.
When iron filings are exposed to a magnetic field they trace what is commonly referred to as Faraday's lines of force. Iron filings are not particles. They're atoms. Iron atoms are ferromagnetic which simply means that they can respond strongly to a magnetic field. They can reflect the condition of the magnetic field and trace the those lines of force in the field itself.
Now consider the lines of force as they appear from those iron traces. It appears that the north moves in one direction and the south moves in another direction. We are widely encouraged to believe experimental evidence. If we are to believe this evidence then there is a distinction between that north and south that is PROVEN by the 'pattern' of filings that are precisely determined and precisely at the 'equator' or midway point, so to speak. Here the filings 'break' that simple line that is traced above and below. Therefore it can be considered as a 'neutral' zone where the lines are neither positive nor negative. And we can rely on this evidence as those iron tracings defintely reflect the 'charge' condition of the magnetic field.
Therefore - as it relates to the 'field' one may conclude that the filings 'above the equator' so to speak - have moved in one direction in response to the field thereby representing one charge. And that below that 'equator' they have moved in an opposite direction thereby representing an opposite charge. And at the 'equator' they have simply not moved towards either extremity thereby indicating that there is this required 'neutral zone' that divides the field into its two charged conditions.
Now. Consider those lines of force. This means that the line of filings that is traced from the north is diametrically opposite to the line that is traced from the south. Therefore does the 'equator' - which is identified as that 'Bloch wall' - simply confirm that the field itself has two distinct and varying charges the north being geographically and locally and in terms of it's charge potential - distinct from the south. Therefore one may conclude that the North may be described as - for example - a charge that moves out and away from the body of the magnet. And the south, correspondingly moves in and towards the body of the magnet. One can call it a positive pole as opposed to a negative. Or an 'on and an off'. Or anything at all. It's irrelevant. They're different charges that are also apparent at different locations in the body of the magnet. And at the equator - which is mid way between both extremities - there is a substantially neutral condition consistent with that line where the field moves neither towards nor away. Without that distinction - without that 'neutral zone' to the magnetic field - there would be no apparent distinction between the two extremities of the magnet and their two varying charges.
I'm afraid the 'Bloch Wall' is just further obfuscation and I seriously suggest that we move towards 'demystifying' science. We've been drowning in ever increasing levels of mental muddles - that are doing our science no good at all. There is magic in the field. But it is not accessed through the Bloch wall. This wall is simply that area where the field is neither positive nor negative. It's neutral.
Rosemary
This submission is to see if it's possible to get some semblance of sanity back into science. It seems that there are those who are now seriously proposing that the 'Bloch wall' is 'the door' to our aether energies. I wonder if all and sundry have not perhaps just taken leave of their senses together with their faculties of logic. If the 'Bloch wall' means anything at all - it is simply that point in a magnetic field where the charge of a magnetic field becomes neutral.
I'm afraid that there are certain assumptions required to explain what is meant here. The first assumption is that charge is determined by the direction in which a particle moves in relation to a magnetic field. Whether or not the field itself moves is not here considered. The field does, unquestionably have both a positive and negative condition or a - 'north and south pole' as it's commonly referred to. And - both poles or charges are locally divergent. And particles are seen to 'spin' predictably and consistently - in relation to that charge exposure.
When iron filings are exposed to a magnetic field they trace what is commonly referred to as Faraday's lines of force. Iron filings are not particles. They're atoms. Iron atoms are ferromagnetic which simply means that they can respond strongly to a magnetic field. They can reflect the condition of the magnetic field and trace the those lines of force in the field itself.
Now consider the lines of force as they appear from those iron traces. It appears that the north moves in one direction and the south moves in another direction. We are widely encouraged to believe experimental evidence. If we are to believe this evidence then there is a distinction between that north and south that is PROVEN by the 'pattern' of filings that are precisely determined and precisely at the 'equator' or midway point, so to speak. Here the filings 'break' that simple line that is traced above and below. Therefore it can be considered as a 'neutral' zone where the lines are neither positive nor negative. And we can rely on this evidence as those iron tracings defintely reflect the 'charge' condition of the magnetic field.
Therefore - as it relates to the 'field' one may conclude that the filings 'above the equator' so to speak - have moved in one direction in response to the field thereby representing one charge. And that below that 'equator' they have moved in an opposite direction thereby representing an opposite charge. And at the 'equator' they have simply not moved towards either extremity thereby indicating that there is this required 'neutral zone' that divides the field into its two charged conditions.
Now. Consider those lines of force. This means that the line of filings that is traced from the north is diametrically opposite to the line that is traced from the south. Therefore does the 'equator' - which is identified as that 'Bloch wall' - simply confirm that the field itself has two distinct and varying charges the north being geographically and locally and in terms of it's charge potential - distinct from the south. Therefore one may conclude that the North may be described as - for example - a charge that moves out and away from the body of the magnet. And the south, correspondingly moves in and towards the body of the magnet. One can call it a positive pole as opposed to a negative. Or an 'on and an off'. Or anything at all. It's irrelevant. They're different charges that are also apparent at different locations in the body of the magnet. And at the equator - which is mid way between both extremities - there is a substantially neutral condition consistent with that line where the field moves neither towards nor away. Without that distinction - without that 'neutral zone' to the magnetic field - there would be no apparent distinction between the two extremities of the magnet and their two varying charges.
I'm afraid the 'Bloch Wall' is just further obfuscation and I seriously suggest that we move towards 'demystifying' science. We've been drowning in ever increasing levels of mental muddles - that are doing our science no good at all. There is magic in the field. But it is not accessed through the Bloch wall. This wall is simply that area where the field is neither positive nor negative. It's neutral.
Rosemary
Monday, January 31, 2011
40 - a quick poynt
Guys,
It seems that my illustration has been understood - but spare me any more lessons on rms. As I had to point out - it's simply NOT appropriate for calculating the energy dissipated in a switching circuit.
Rosemary
It seems that my illustration has been understood - but spare me any more lessons on rms. As I had to point out - it's simply NOT appropriate for calculating the energy dissipated in a switching circuit.
Rosemary
39 - how to tell the difference between fantasy and fact
Dear Reader,
I read - all over the place - that I apparently suffer from paranoia and sundry delusions of attack. It is hugely amusing. I think I must be the only person in the world who is deluded by so much evidence. My comfort is that it's a really small minority who seem to find my thinking offensive. I just wish they weren't quite that noisy. And to those of you who have written of your support - many, many thanks. I think I owe you all what little is left of my sanity.
In any event - I'd like to get back on topic. There's been a rush of 'thinking' that is offered to justify aether energy for these over unity results. The explanations are wide ranging and I'm simply not qualified to comment. Truth is I barely understand the most of them. Indeed I'd be amazed if anyone can. But having said that - I always assumed that my own thinking was a clear as daylight. It seems that many of you struggle. And here the fault is unquestionably my own. I do not have the skills to explain things as those experts amongst you require - and nor do I seem to promote an understanding to those who are not expert. Here and there I get a breakthrough And that's encouraging. But in the main I've achieved very little considering the enormous effort I've put into this. I'm not sure if the most of you are simply not interested - or if it is because I am that obtuse - or possibly both.
I must however make due record. I have been warned by a colleague of Harvey Gramm that Harvey is developing his own thesis based on mine. I now understand why he was so anxious to prevent my referencing the thesis in that paper and would alert you all to the fact that he is, in all likelihood, attempting to steal that thesis from me. His friend was required to do a graphic illustration of the electron's interaction inside the environment of the atom. He showed me this. I'm delighted to see that the concept is grossly flawed and will be easily refuted. But I nonetheless feel that I need to alert you to this new event and would insist that Harvey has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to attempt to appropiate my thinking in any context whatsoever. That would be plagiarism writ large.
I will, hopefully and in due course, make my own thesis more easily understandable. But I've been advised by many of you - especially those experts amongst you - that there will be ample opportunity for this to be promoted and expanded when we've finally completed our demonstration. I can't wait as I assure you the thesis is of considerably more interest than these experiments, Possibly not as immediately useable. But they point to far greater potentials than has been exposed thus far.
Kindest regard,
Rosemary
I read - all over the place - that I apparently suffer from paranoia and sundry delusions of attack. It is hugely amusing. I think I must be the only person in the world who is deluded by so much evidence. My comfort is that it's a really small minority who seem to find my thinking offensive. I just wish they weren't quite that noisy. And to those of you who have written of your support - many, many thanks. I think I owe you all what little is left of my sanity.
In any event - I'd like to get back on topic. There's been a rush of 'thinking' that is offered to justify aether energy for these over unity results. The explanations are wide ranging and I'm simply not qualified to comment. Truth is I barely understand the most of them. Indeed I'd be amazed if anyone can. But having said that - I always assumed that my own thinking was a clear as daylight. It seems that many of you struggle. And here the fault is unquestionably my own. I do not have the skills to explain things as those experts amongst you require - and nor do I seem to promote an understanding to those who are not expert. Here and there I get a breakthrough And that's encouraging. But in the main I've achieved very little considering the enormous effort I've put into this. I'm not sure if the most of you are simply not interested - or if it is because I am that obtuse - or possibly both.
I must however make due record. I have been warned by a colleague of Harvey Gramm that Harvey is developing his own thesis based on mine. I now understand why he was so anxious to prevent my referencing the thesis in that paper and would alert you all to the fact that he is, in all likelihood, attempting to steal that thesis from me. His friend was required to do a graphic illustration of the electron's interaction inside the environment of the atom. He showed me this. I'm delighted to see that the concept is grossly flawed and will be easily refuted. But I nonetheless feel that I need to alert you to this new event and would insist that Harvey has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to attempt to appropiate my thinking in any context whatsoever. That would be plagiarism writ large.
I will, hopefully and in due course, make my own thesis more easily understandable. But I've been advised by many of you - especially those experts amongst you - that there will be ample opportunity for this to be promoted and expanded when we've finally completed our demonstration. I can't wait as I assure you the thesis is of considerably more interest than these experiments, Possibly not as immediately useable. But they point to far greater potentials than has been exposed thus far.
Kindest regard,
Rosemary
Sunday, January 30, 2011
38 - the abuse of logic
Dear Reader,
I cannot get my head around the term 'radiant energy' unless whoever's using the term is referring to the energy in photons. I think it's widely used by our free energy thinkers as it's associated with aether energy. But I'm not sure that the term is required. And the continued confusion then is that 'light' presumably is the source of this great hidden energy pool. Hardly likely - else it would, at it's least, be visible. In my humble opinion it's an unfortunate misnomer. One thing is certain. This energy has NOTHING to do with photons.
Then there's the endless reference to the 'spike' which is pointed out by our enthusiasts as some sort of 'evidence' of this radiant energy. Yet more confusions. That spike is only associated with and the direct consequence of back electromotive force. And there is no mystery to it. What is interesting is only that it's been somewhat underused as a potential energy supply source. It is usually very big - indicative of high voltage - and high voltage is usually also a measure of high current flow. But - that flow of current times the short time in which it manifests is still only equal to the energy first applied to those components. In other words the energy that is delivered may be returned - subject only to the availability of some path for that current to flow.
Ten years ago when I was still arguing the fact - I was widely assured that one could NEVER return significant quantities of energy 'back to itself'. Therefore would it be absurd to try and return energy to its source - be it a battery or a plug. Our evidence puts paid to that - and it is with some pleasure that I read EVERYWHERE that no-one challenges this fact anymore. Clearly there has been some progress in this gradual unfolding. Nor do I still read, except here and there, that the current flow from a battery is from the negative rail - albeit that the negative rail is still referred to as the 'source'. Hopefully this term too, will disappear. It cannot happen too soon.
I wonder if everyone is trying to complicate the matter to death. It's really, really simple. Apply Inductive Laws - and acknowledge that inductive/conductive components can, themselves become energy supply sources, and ALL confusions will then be obviated. Not only that - but we'll be able to restore Faraday's Inductive Laws in their pristine excellence together with Einstein's mass/energy equivalences. And we'll be saved the tedious and fruitless intellectual endeavour of supplanting this with some kind of tribute to 'stored energy' and it's fallacious 2nd Law of Thermodynamics' debacle. The justification for any requirement related to stored energy represents a monumental error of logic that has dogged our progress for way too long.
Now. As a final and simple exercise to those rather combative readers from Poynty's forum - let me ask you to toy with the following simplified circuit - either theoretically or on your bench. Put ONLY a 1 Ohm inductive resistor in series with a battery supply and a switch with a body diode. And ensure that the battery supply is rechargeable. Then do the math. You will see that the amount of energy that is delivered by the battery is the sum of that spike which is evident below zero and the voltage above zero that was supplied from the source. The sum implies that the one value is is deducted from the other. Then calculate the energy dissipated across that same resistor using simple Ohm's Law. It's still the same waveform. But now you will need to use the product and NOT the sum of both cycles of that switching cycle. The voltage is evident both above and below the zero crossing. There are no complicated phases shifts to account for. Then tell me which value of energy will be the greater? The sum? Or the product?
That example is NOT offered as correct protocol. It is only meant to remind you that any such assessment of energy calculated from a measure of the voltage across that resistor and as it relates to dissipated energy - is SPURIOUS - FAULTED - INCORRECT. I'm not sure how to state this more strongly. I am also really sorry that it is, yet again, me that needs to point this out. Especially as those that have argued this with me are anxious to advise their readers that I have no knowledge of this - or indeed - any power measurements at all.
While I predict that this poynt will never be openly acknowledged - along with so much that is never acknowledged - certainly not by those few who so LOUDLY proclaim my ignorance - one hopes, nonetheless, that maybe the penny may yet drop.
And that's my tuppence worth.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I cannot get my head around the term 'radiant energy' unless whoever's using the term is referring to the energy in photons. I think it's widely used by our free energy thinkers as it's associated with aether energy. But I'm not sure that the term is required. And the continued confusion then is that 'light' presumably is the source of this great hidden energy pool. Hardly likely - else it would, at it's least, be visible. In my humble opinion it's an unfortunate misnomer. One thing is certain. This energy has NOTHING to do with photons.
Then there's the endless reference to the 'spike' which is pointed out by our enthusiasts as some sort of 'evidence' of this radiant energy. Yet more confusions. That spike is only associated with and the direct consequence of back electromotive force. And there is no mystery to it. What is interesting is only that it's been somewhat underused as a potential energy supply source. It is usually very big - indicative of high voltage - and high voltage is usually also a measure of high current flow. But - that flow of current times the short time in which it manifests is still only equal to the energy first applied to those components. In other words the energy that is delivered may be returned - subject only to the availability of some path for that current to flow.
Ten years ago when I was still arguing the fact - I was widely assured that one could NEVER return significant quantities of energy 'back to itself'. Therefore would it be absurd to try and return energy to its source - be it a battery or a plug. Our evidence puts paid to that - and it is with some pleasure that I read EVERYWHERE that no-one challenges this fact anymore. Clearly there has been some progress in this gradual unfolding. Nor do I still read, except here and there, that the current flow from a battery is from the negative rail - albeit that the negative rail is still referred to as the 'source'. Hopefully this term too, will disappear. It cannot happen too soon.
I wonder if everyone is trying to complicate the matter to death. It's really, really simple. Apply Inductive Laws - and acknowledge that inductive/conductive components can, themselves become energy supply sources, and ALL confusions will then be obviated. Not only that - but we'll be able to restore Faraday's Inductive Laws in their pristine excellence together with Einstein's mass/energy equivalences. And we'll be saved the tedious and fruitless intellectual endeavour of supplanting this with some kind of tribute to 'stored energy' and it's fallacious 2nd Law of Thermodynamics' debacle. The justification for any requirement related to stored energy represents a monumental error of logic that has dogged our progress for way too long.
Now. As a final and simple exercise to those rather combative readers from Poynty's forum - let me ask you to toy with the following simplified circuit - either theoretically or on your bench. Put ONLY a 1 Ohm inductive resistor in series with a battery supply and a switch with a body diode. And ensure that the battery supply is rechargeable. Then do the math. You will see that the amount of energy that is delivered by the battery is the sum of that spike which is evident below zero and the voltage above zero that was supplied from the source. The sum implies that the one value is is deducted from the other. Then calculate the energy dissipated across that same resistor using simple Ohm's Law. It's still the same waveform. But now you will need to use the product and NOT the sum of both cycles of that switching cycle. The voltage is evident both above and below the zero crossing. There are no complicated phases shifts to account for. Then tell me which value of energy will be the greater? The sum? Or the product?
That example is NOT offered as correct protocol. It is only meant to remind you that any such assessment of energy calculated from a measure of the voltage across that resistor and as it relates to dissipated energy - is SPURIOUS - FAULTED - INCORRECT. I'm not sure how to state this more strongly. I am also really sorry that it is, yet again, me that needs to point this out. Especially as those that have argued this with me are anxious to advise their readers that I have no knowledge of this - or indeed - any power measurements at all.
While I predict that this poynt will never be openly acknowledged - along with so much that is never acknowledged - certainly not by those few who so LOUDLY proclaim my ignorance - one hopes, nonetheless, that maybe the penny may yet drop.
And that's my tuppence worth.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
37 - on the practical side of things
Dear Reader
One of the many questions put to me is 'why do I not just go out there and manufacture the device?' I actually don't know the answer here. And in the light of the recent commercial interest that this technology seems to be generating I have even less excuse. But it seems that I need not worry. Applications will be available - and never can this be too soon.
My only concern is that those manufacturers are not accused of doing what our scientists claim can't be done. But since the Wright Brothers had an articulate argument against their critics by simply flying their planes - then perhaps there is real merit in going this route. So. Good luck to all who put up those hot water cylinders and the rest. It is indeed relatively simple and relatively inexpensive and - more importantly - will give everyone some much needed relief to that ever increasing cost of living. Conservatively speaking there will be the requirement of a 60 - 80 volt battery supply source, a stack of IRFPG50's to share the load of those voltage spikes - some software to deal with that switching requirement and then, indeed - we should be able to unplug.
But I'm afraid my actual interest is absolutely NOT in line with this. It should be. But I am simply not pragmatic enough. This last week I've been trying to find some way to reconcile the enormous amount of energy returned to the amount of energy delivered by the supply. And - more to the point - I'm now looking at a variation in this waveform that I have never seen before. It's fascinating stuff.
Anyway I am not in a position to make any of this public yet. This coming week I'll be testing the waters to see if we can get some experts to a demonstration and when. We have now got the apparatus that it can be tuned to two - hopefully there will be a third - variations of the waveform that show the required benefits. All of it blow away material. And all of it very good news. This time - hopefully - that news will stick. For once I won't have to bat away the jealous denials by those many who purport to want to find the truth in the claim - but who - in fact - only want to deny it. Unfortunately they proliferate our so called 'free energy research forums'. You'll notice them. They're always the most verbose.
And again - a very real tribute to our own university. Such a rare academy. To the best of my knowledge the only institution in the world that will decide on the validity of a claim AFTER a review of the evidence. Anything less than this is of interest but is certainly NOT of interest to science.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
One of the many questions put to me is 'why do I not just go out there and manufacture the device?' I actually don't know the answer here. And in the light of the recent commercial interest that this technology seems to be generating I have even less excuse. But it seems that I need not worry. Applications will be available - and never can this be too soon.
My only concern is that those manufacturers are not accused of doing what our scientists claim can't be done. But since the Wright Brothers had an articulate argument against their critics by simply flying their planes - then perhaps there is real merit in going this route. So. Good luck to all who put up those hot water cylinders and the rest. It is indeed relatively simple and relatively inexpensive and - more importantly - will give everyone some much needed relief to that ever increasing cost of living. Conservatively speaking there will be the requirement of a 60 - 80 volt battery supply source, a stack of IRFPG50's to share the load of those voltage spikes - some software to deal with that switching requirement and then, indeed - we should be able to unplug.
But I'm afraid my actual interest is absolutely NOT in line with this. It should be. But I am simply not pragmatic enough. This last week I've been trying to find some way to reconcile the enormous amount of energy returned to the amount of energy delivered by the supply. And - more to the point - I'm now looking at a variation in this waveform that I have never seen before. It's fascinating stuff.
Anyway I am not in a position to make any of this public yet. This coming week I'll be testing the waters to see if we can get some experts to a demonstration and when. We have now got the apparatus that it can be tuned to two - hopefully there will be a third - variations of the waveform that show the required benefits. All of it blow away material. And all of it very good news. This time - hopefully - that news will stick. For once I won't have to bat away the jealous denials by those many who purport to want to find the truth in the claim - but who - in fact - only want to deny it. Unfortunately they proliferate our so called 'free energy research forums'. You'll notice them. They're always the most verbose.
And again - a very real tribute to our own university. Such a rare academy. To the best of my knowledge the only institution in the world that will decide on the validity of a claim AFTER a review of the evidence. Anything less than this is of interest but is certainly NOT of interest to science.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Saturday, January 29, 2011
36 - a pretender
Dear Reader,
Sadly, I've deregistered from Poynty's forum. It was the inevitable consequence of yet another orchestrated troll attack this time from Humbugger - who assures us he is not TK. I know we can entirely rest on his advices in this regard. These identity confusions are the inevitable result of our forums where one can adopt any personality that anyone requires. Never is one expected to be accountable on a forum. But I'll give more on this later.
For now I'd like to illustrate the kind of person that is this Humbugger. It was a pure co-incidence that he chose one of TK's videos to educate us. The intention was to warn us about the dangers of faulty 'readings' from our DSO's. But it was an unfortunate choice. I say 'unfortunate' because TK states that he's referencing two points on a single line when, in fact, he's referencing an entirely different line at an entirely different junction. But there again - we need not have worried. He, Humbugger, has connections. Lots of them. This time he referred to the CIA Forensic Labs and to the Jet Propulsion Labs and they rallied. At speed. They must have dropped all their other work. Irrelevant by comparison to this issue. Within the space of a short half day, Humbugger was able to get both to thoroughly investigate this problem. They did a detailed search. A full investigation of the video at hand. You see for yourself that the question was of National Importance. Well deserving of this skilled and expert investigation. And in the light of those many that required an IMMEDIATE answer - it shows an appropriate and democratic response to a question that was far from trivial.
Thankfully, they found that there was, indeed, no error at all. Unbeknownst to us, there was a wire attached directly to the 'blue line' in question. This could never be detected through the video itself or with the simple use of one's eyes. And again, thankfully the question was put to bed with the personal assurance of Humbugger himself, that THERE was NO NEED TO CONCERN OURSELVES. Golly. Had I not had such a detailed investigation into this matter I'd have been inclined to think that TK could have made a mistake - compounded by Humbugger's oversight of this. God forbid. To think that this God of a Man could have mere feet of clay. That would not have given me my required restful sleep nor peace of mind.
I intend writing to both laboratories to thank them for their efforts in this regard.
Rosemary
Here's the video in question...Sorry - he's disabled this. Can't think why? Such an excellent video. I think I can still give a link to the link. Here's hoping. And one also hopes that it will remain accessible to all. It would be a crying shame if he saw fit to withdraw this or EMBED it.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=538.msg9471#msg9471
And here's the link to that assurance given us by Humbugger.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=538.msg9527#msg9527
Sadly, I've deregistered from Poynty's forum. It was the inevitable consequence of yet another orchestrated troll attack this time from Humbugger - who assures us he is not TK. I know we can entirely rest on his advices in this regard. These identity confusions are the inevitable result of our forums where one can adopt any personality that anyone requires. Never is one expected to be accountable on a forum. But I'll give more on this later.
For now I'd like to illustrate the kind of person that is this Humbugger. It was a pure co-incidence that he chose one of TK's videos to educate us. The intention was to warn us about the dangers of faulty 'readings' from our DSO's. But it was an unfortunate choice. I say 'unfortunate' because TK states that he's referencing two points on a single line when, in fact, he's referencing an entirely different line at an entirely different junction. But there again - we need not have worried. He, Humbugger, has connections. Lots of them. This time he referred to the CIA Forensic Labs and to the Jet Propulsion Labs and they rallied. At speed. They must have dropped all their other work. Irrelevant by comparison to this issue. Within the space of a short half day, Humbugger was able to get both to thoroughly investigate this problem. They did a detailed search. A full investigation of the video at hand. You see for yourself that the question was of National Importance. Well deserving of this skilled and expert investigation. And in the light of those many that required an IMMEDIATE answer - it shows an appropriate and democratic response to a question that was far from trivial.
Thankfully, they found that there was, indeed, no error at all. Unbeknownst to us, there was a wire attached directly to the 'blue line' in question. This could never be detected through the video itself or with the simple use of one's eyes. And again, thankfully the question was put to bed with the personal assurance of Humbugger himself, that THERE was NO NEED TO CONCERN OURSELVES. Golly. Had I not had such a detailed investigation into this matter I'd have been inclined to think that TK could have made a mistake - compounded by Humbugger's oversight of this. God forbid. To think that this God of a Man could have mere feet of clay. That would not have given me my required restful sleep nor peace of mind.
I intend writing to both laboratories to thank them for their efforts in this regard.
Rosemary
Here's the video in question...Sorry - he's disabled this. Can't think why? Such an excellent video. I think I can still give a link to the link. Here's hoping. And one also hopes that it will remain accessible to all. It would be a crying shame if he saw fit to withdraw this or EMBED it.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=538.msg9471#msg9471
And here's the link to that assurance given us by Humbugger.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=538.msg9527#msg9527
35 - comments
Dear Reader,
I'm not sure what's going on but for some reason I've not been getting any comments at all this last month. Nor can I find them when I look in my 'comments file'. All's just blank. I think these have been disabled - somehow.
In any event, until I get this fixed, please just reach me at my email address. It's ainslie@mweb.co.za
Thanks,
Rosemary
I'm not sure what's going on but for some reason I've not been getting any comments at all this last month. Nor can I find them when I look in my 'comments file'. All's just blank. I think these have been disabled - somehow.
In any event, until I get this fixed, please just reach me at my email address. It's ainslie@mweb.co.za
Thanks,
Rosemary
Saturday, January 22, 2011
34 - a tribute to our chauvinists
Dear Reader,
I feel that what's long overdue is some tribute to the masculine flavour of this 'club science'. It's an 'old school' requirement that women's role in any such field of endeavour is relegated to 'second place'. With good reason. We all know that women are not inclined to logic, reason, critical observation, good sense, or indeed, any kind of worthwhile contribution outside our roles as housewife. We're the illogical half of the human equation. And man is its logical half. His is the muscle and brain. Our's is a secondary role of meek acceptance and deference and quiet compliance.
That's why, for instance, when a woman discovers anything at all men, all men, any men, can assume the right to appropriate ownership of that discovery. Or ignore that it was ever discovered. Or both. That's why if she presumes to explain the thinking behind the discovery - that explanation can be entirely dismissed. That's also the reason that when a women points out some critical error in a man's thinking that - correctly - those points are dismissed out of hand - with the appropriate accusation of 'how crass is such a thought' - or words to that effect.
Let me give some examples of this excellent code of practice as it applies to general forum discussion. MileHigh - an engaging personality on Poynty's forum - will argue - at length - on the fact that particles are subject to the Laws of Gravity. And he will apply techniques of 'scoff and scorn' if a woman dares question this. And why not? All men, everywhere, will see the sense of it. That's also why - notwithstanding the evidence - Humbugger (TK's new (and much needed) forum identity) can advise all and sundry that we may ignore the effect of a junction on a 'line' when making a voltage measurement. If a woman references the need for an integrated rather than an averaged power analysis - it is 'gobbledygook' and redundant. If a woman points out inconsistencies in test parameters - it's to be ignored and set aside. No MAN will come to the defense of her observation. Indeed not. It is excessively presumptuous to question any man - ever - on any point. Unless, of course, one is first a MAN.
Commendable indeed Gentlemen. Really commendable. I am personally looking forward to the much needed acknowledgement of some measure of over unity. And I agree. It is ONLY to be accepted if the claimant is of the right gender. Else what good is there of this elite 'gentleman's club'. No good at all. You do right by ignoring the manifold evidence from published papers and the rest. Deny them. On whatever grounds you can fabricate. There is no worse sin than for a mere female to ever say anthing at all - unless of course it's related to the good and orderly running of the household.
Meanwhile - I also thoroughly endorse your general desire to diminish and belittle any efforts by us poor presumptuous females. We have no right to upturn anything at all - let alone the foundations of physics. And certainly we have no right to find any answers - no matter how simple. In fact - least of all - if they're simple. Science involves matters of grave and earnest consideration. I get it we must not burden our little heads with anything short of observations about butterflies - or bread making - or children.
So. Indeed. Roll on another huge chapter of our history - to be dominated by this impeccable reach at masculine authority. We don't have to look far to find how effective is the 'alpha male' syndrome. It's taken the gorilla to where he is today. It's surely got to be commendable.
Rosemary
I feel that what's long overdue is some tribute to the masculine flavour of this 'club science'. It's an 'old school' requirement that women's role in any such field of endeavour is relegated to 'second place'. With good reason. We all know that women are not inclined to logic, reason, critical observation, good sense, or indeed, any kind of worthwhile contribution outside our roles as housewife. We're the illogical half of the human equation. And man is its logical half. His is the muscle and brain. Our's is a secondary role of meek acceptance and deference and quiet compliance.
That's why, for instance, when a woman discovers anything at all men, all men, any men, can assume the right to appropriate ownership of that discovery. Or ignore that it was ever discovered. Or both. That's why if she presumes to explain the thinking behind the discovery - that explanation can be entirely dismissed. That's also the reason that when a women points out some critical error in a man's thinking that - correctly - those points are dismissed out of hand - with the appropriate accusation of 'how crass is such a thought' - or words to that effect.
Let me give some examples of this excellent code of practice as it applies to general forum discussion. MileHigh - an engaging personality on Poynty's forum - will argue - at length - on the fact that particles are subject to the Laws of Gravity. And he will apply techniques of 'scoff and scorn' if a woman dares question this. And why not? All men, everywhere, will see the sense of it. That's also why - notwithstanding the evidence - Humbugger (TK's new (and much needed) forum identity) can advise all and sundry that we may ignore the effect of a junction on a 'line' when making a voltage measurement. If a woman references the need for an integrated rather than an averaged power analysis - it is 'gobbledygook' and redundant. If a woman points out inconsistencies in test parameters - it's to be ignored and set aside. No MAN will come to the defense of her observation. Indeed not. It is excessively presumptuous to question any man - ever - on any point. Unless, of course, one is first a MAN.
Commendable indeed Gentlemen. Really commendable. I am personally looking forward to the much needed acknowledgement of some measure of over unity. And I agree. It is ONLY to be accepted if the claimant is of the right gender. Else what good is there of this elite 'gentleman's club'. No good at all. You do right by ignoring the manifold evidence from published papers and the rest. Deny them. On whatever grounds you can fabricate. There is no worse sin than for a mere female to ever say anthing at all - unless of course it's related to the good and orderly running of the household.
Meanwhile - I also thoroughly endorse your general desire to diminish and belittle any efforts by us poor presumptuous females. We have no right to upturn anything at all - let alone the foundations of physics. And certainly we have no right to find any answers - no matter how simple. In fact - least of all - if they're simple. Science involves matters of grave and earnest consideration. I get it we must not burden our little heads with anything short of observations about butterflies - or bread making - or children.
So. Indeed. Roll on another huge chapter of our history - to be dominated by this impeccable reach at masculine authority. We don't have to look far to find how effective is the 'alpha male' syndrome. It's taken the gorilla to where he is today. It's surely got to be commendable.
Rosemary
33 - in general and in particular
Dear Reader,
We've officially just slipped over to the other side of our summer equinox. The good news is that there seems to be an ever increasing interest in the Lawrence Tseung's device and appropriate reference being made to similar claims elsewhere. Clearly those paradigms are shifting along with our seasons. And by the looks of it - somewhat more rapidly.
Not such good news is Lawrence Tseung's thread where he's established a 'teaching' monologue to explain the phenomenon of Over Unity. My advice to him would be to desist. His device is deserving of every respect. His thesis is not. He assures us that God Himself has endorsed his thinking - and I'm a little concerned that God should, perhaps, put that in writing. He took the trouble to do so when he instructed Moses. And anything short of God's signature blessing - will incline me to doubt any such claim. Surely - at this late stage of our history we should give some due respect to God's gift to us of the faculty of reasoning. Unless the general evolutionary requirement is that our brains are redundant and and needs must grow small again. I for one would be sorry.
The simple truth is that our scientists - our Greats - have actually unravelled all that ever needs to be unravelled. That's where the true genius lies. What transpired from their 'unravelling' was unfortunately corrupted by 'assumption' and it's the errors of assumption that need to be addressed. The acid test of any scientific claim is in its experimental evidence. And when scientists deny the right to show proof - or where the deny the opportunity to even consider alternate opinion - then science itself will be corrupted by bigotry and belief. Then indeed we can deny any need for any critical faculties whatsoever. No need for any further questions. Just a simple 'Then make it so' to paraphase an esteemed Captain in his search for those far frontiers.
The fact is that Inductive Laws are well known and very well applied. There is no Law of Stored energy which, somehow, has been required to supplant our pristine Inductive Laws. What our alternative experimentalists are showing - all over the place - is precisely the fact that the Law is indeed a Law - to be universally applied. Then too Einstein's equivalence is required. There is indeed energy trapped in matter. And inductive and conductive material can release their inductive and/or conductive potentials to become an electric supply source - all on their own. Then - as a tribute to our astrophysicists - there is all that energy around. Everywhere. Even in all visible matter. And even in non-visible matter. In the vacuum itself. Then as tribute to our String theorists - there is indeed the proof of those multiple dimensions and a potential structuring of the vacuum where all this energy seems to reside. And on and on. Our scientists are right. In general and in particular. And we'd be rather foolish to question all the evidence that was required to forge our technological progress to where it is today.
But with one small caveat. Our scientists are NOT God - any more than Lawrence Tseung is God or even God's representative spokesperson. And it would be foolhardy to propose that they are right in EVERY particular. I think there is still some onus of responsibility on us all to keep our questions alive. Because without questions - then where are we? We're presuming that we're God - knowing everything - or denying that there is more to be learned. God forbid. And dare I say it? It seems that our Thermodynamic Laws are due to be revised. That's a good thing.
Rosemary
We've officially just slipped over to the other side of our summer equinox. The good news is that there seems to be an ever increasing interest in the Lawrence Tseung's device and appropriate reference being made to similar claims elsewhere. Clearly those paradigms are shifting along with our seasons. And by the looks of it - somewhat more rapidly.
Not such good news is Lawrence Tseung's thread where he's established a 'teaching' monologue to explain the phenomenon of Over Unity. My advice to him would be to desist. His device is deserving of every respect. His thesis is not. He assures us that God Himself has endorsed his thinking - and I'm a little concerned that God should, perhaps, put that in writing. He took the trouble to do so when he instructed Moses. And anything short of God's signature blessing - will incline me to doubt any such claim. Surely - at this late stage of our history we should give some due respect to God's gift to us of the faculty of reasoning. Unless the general evolutionary requirement is that our brains are redundant and and needs must grow small again. I for one would be sorry.
The simple truth is that our scientists - our Greats - have actually unravelled all that ever needs to be unravelled. That's where the true genius lies. What transpired from their 'unravelling' was unfortunately corrupted by 'assumption' and it's the errors of assumption that need to be addressed. The acid test of any scientific claim is in its experimental evidence. And when scientists deny the right to show proof - or where the deny the opportunity to even consider alternate opinion - then science itself will be corrupted by bigotry and belief. Then indeed we can deny any need for any critical faculties whatsoever. No need for any further questions. Just a simple 'Then make it so' to paraphase an esteemed Captain in his search for those far frontiers.
The fact is that Inductive Laws are well known and very well applied. There is no Law of Stored energy which, somehow, has been required to supplant our pristine Inductive Laws. What our alternative experimentalists are showing - all over the place - is precisely the fact that the Law is indeed a Law - to be universally applied. Then too Einstein's equivalence is required. There is indeed energy trapped in matter. And inductive and conductive material can release their inductive and/or conductive potentials to become an electric supply source - all on their own. Then - as a tribute to our astrophysicists - there is all that energy around. Everywhere. Even in all visible matter. And even in non-visible matter. In the vacuum itself. Then as tribute to our String theorists - there is indeed the proof of those multiple dimensions and a potential structuring of the vacuum where all this energy seems to reside. And on and on. Our scientists are right. In general and in particular. And we'd be rather foolish to question all the evidence that was required to forge our technological progress to where it is today.
But with one small caveat. Our scientists are NOT God - any more than Lawrence Tseung is God or even God's representative spokesperson. And it would be foolhardy to propose that they are right in EVERY particular. I think there is still some onus of responsibility on us all to keep our questions alive. Because without questions - then where are we? We're presuming that we're God - knowing everything - or denying that there is more to be learned. God forbid. And dare I say it? It seems that our Thermodynamic Laws are due to be revised. That's a good thing.
Rosemary
Friday, January 21, 2011
32 - and yet more on where we're at
Dear Readers,
I've got some relatively good news. It seems that it may be possible to get a public demonstration of our device - and, provided that it includes enough experts - then this could be a feasible means of advancing this entire project. At its worst it will be taking the bull by the horns - assuming that the bull first allows itself to get that close.
I've been alerted to a new danger. There's enough in this technology that is new - and even yet to be tested - that may indeed be patentable. Frankly - I think that will be an inevitable consequence. But there's enough without any improvements to be directly applied - so it's not actually of that much cosequence. In other words - what's patented can only improve on what's evident already. And even where we're at - the results are pointing to a required decoupling from that supply grid. Never a bad thing.
Then too - even at this early stage - it seems that there are those who are introducing this 'nascent' technology at some relatively high Government levels - here and there. The proposal that has been advanced is that they - the investors - act as a licensing authority - that the manufacturers or users or both - pay some kind of licensing fee. No doubt there would be some kind of 'back hander' to that 'approving authority' - presumably the license grantor. This is absolutely not tenable. Especially if the technology cannot be patented. All the more do I see the need for Open Source. I can see that patenting it would allow some kind of graduated control to the implementation - that things don't become too chaotic. But to try and operate this simply by allowing a Government to control either those manufacturers or the end users - simply through financial considerations - then we're back to the monopolistic controls that we've been subjected to since that supply grid was ever first designed.
All the more reason to get this onto those academic work benches that our experts can see what is needed and how to apply it - in everyone's best interests. Frankly - I suspect that this 'first evidence' will be buried by far more interesting applications. I have a few ideas here myself. And if I can think it through then how much better would all those experts and all those skilled engineers around the globe. We indeed live in exciting times.
However. More to the point - I have lost our little waveform. Not sure where it's gone to. I think it's taken fright at the level of interest that seems to be coming forward - and just decided to withdraw until it's recovered from that fright. Nor do I blame it. I feel a bit frightened myself.
I'm going to get a stable demonstration designed and developed and will then conclude that report that was interrupted. The interruption, incidentally was due to my not getting access to the lab during the Christmas break. Then too I'll post out some invitations and trust to God that there will be a few who will come to that party. That should, at it's least, get the questions started. Which is a good thing. I've been looking forward to the time when I can share some of my own questions here.
So. Dear Reader. Now is the time to start talking. There's much that is developing. Poynty's forum - I'll post the link - has an ongoing discussion with an esteemed and worthy academic - a Professor Emeritus - who's kindly and bravely, showing anamolies on Lawrence Tseung's device which is a Joule Thief variant. Wonderful stuff - compelling evidence - and really good news. Other developments are on Overunity.com - but I'm not sure of the link. You'll need to check it out. It seems that all is HOTTING UP. Thank you God.
Kindet regards,
Rosemary
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=538.msg9582;topicseen#msg9582
I think that's the link.
I've got some relatively good news. It seems that it may be possible to get a public demonstration of our device - and, provided that it includes enough experts - then this could be a feasible means of advancing this entire project. At its worst it will be taking the bull by the horns - assuming that the bull first allows itself to get that close.
I've been alerted to a new danger. There's enough in this technology that is new - and even yet to be tested - that may indeed be patentable. Frankly - I think that will be an inevitable consequence. But there's enough without any improvements to be directly applied - so it's not actually of that much cosequence. In other words - what's patented can only improve on what's evident already. And even where we're at - the results are pointing to a required decoupling from that supply grid. Never a bad thing.
Then too - even at this early stage - it seems that there are those who are introducing this 'nascent' technology at some relatively high Government levels - here and there. The proposal that has been advanced is that they - the investors - act as a licensing authority - that the manufacturers or users or both - pay some kind of licensing fee. No doubt there would be some kind of 'back hander' to that 'approving authority' - presumably the license grantor. This is absolutely not tenable. Especially if the technology cannot be patented. All the more do I see the need for Open Source. I can see that patenting it would allow some kind of graduated control to the implementation - that things don't become too chaotic. But to try and operate this simply by allowing a Government to control either those manufacturers or the end users - simply through financial considerations - then we're back to the monopolistic controls that we've been subjected to since that supply grid was ever first designed.
All the more reason to get this onto those academic work benches that our experts can see what is needed and how to apply it - in everyone's best interests. Frankly - I suspect that this 'first evidence' will be buried by far more interesting applications. I have a few ideas here myself. And if I can think it through then how much better would all those experts and all those skilled engineers around the globe. We indeed live in exciting times.
However. More to the point - I have lost our little waveform. Not sure where it's gone to. I think it's taken fright at the level of interest that seems to be coming forward - and just decided to withdraw until it's recovered from that fright. Nor do I blame it. I feel a bit frightened myself.
I'm going to get a stable demonstration designed and developed and will then conclude that report that was interrupted. The interruption, incidentally was due to my not getting access to the lab during the Christmas break. Then too I'll post out some invitations and trust to God that there will be a few who will come to that party. That should, at it's least, get the questions started. Which is a good thing. I've been looking forward to the time when I can share some of my own questions here.
So. Dear Reader. Now is the time to start talking. There's much that is developing. Poynty's forum - I'll post the link - has an ongoing discussion with an esteemed and worthy academic - a Professor Emeritus - who's kindly and bravely, showing anamolies on Lawrence Tseung's device which is a Joule Thief variant. Wonderful stuff - compelling evidence - and really good news. Other developments are on Overunity.com - but I'm not sure of the link. You'll need to check it out. It seems that all is HOTTING UP. Thank you God.
Kindet regards,
Rosemary
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=538.msg9582;topicseen#msg9582
I think that's the link.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
31 - a little more on where we're at
Dear Reader
I am being hounded by an anonymous poster who demands an immediate disclosure of our full report and who's somewhat annoyed at the continued delays. The point is this. Until recently I have seen it as some kind of social imperative that I release a full update on all experiments. I have been given some good advice. It does not help mine or any cause to freely submit anything at all on the Internet. Not only is the information then subject to arbitrary criticism and evaluation - but there is the real danger of outright theft of the technology by anyone at all who wishes to do so. Therefore am I being circumspect. I know, for a fact, that there are those who are attempting to claim this technology as their own. And while I have no intrinsic objections to this - it carries with it a danger of intellectual property right claims that I would rather not enable. And to give the news freely only results in a degradation of the novelty itself - the more so as it is then systematically and further degraded or contaminated by unsolicited and irrelevant opinion that seldom carries any kind of qualified expertise. Nor am I under any obligation to disclose anything at all - least of all 'on demand'. I am not sure what 'anonymous' considers as a basis for his/her demands. But he/she does not even give the courtesy of his/her full identity. And the nature of a contract is reciprocity. Anonymous has given me nothing in return. And yet he/she demands access to all the information I have at my disposal that is now the culmination of something like 12 years of dedicated work. What is he/she thinking?
I am afraid that I must beg your patience. In or around the 23rd of this month I may be in a position to know how this project of mine is to be progressed. Until then I will be doing nothing but advancing the conceptual understanding related to the thesis. I hope to post more of that work here. Just know that the results are better than anything I had hoped for and that the news is all good. But I cannot afford to rush into this again. I've said it before. The internet carries with it more dangers than otherwise. And I unfortunately know this as I have been its victim.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I am being hounded by an anonymous poster who demands an immediate disclosure of our full report and who's somewhat annoyed at the continued delays. The point is this. Until recently I have seen it as some kind of social imperative that I release a full update on all experiments. I have been given some good advice. It does not help mine or any cause to freely submit anything at all on the Internet. Not only is the information then subject to arbitrary criticism and evaluation - but there is the real danger of outright theft of the technology by anyone at all who wishes to do so. Therefore am I being circumspect. I know, for a fact, that there are those who are attempting to claim this technology as their own. And while I have no intrinsic objections to this - it carries with it a danger of intellectual property right claims that I would rather not enable. And to give the news freely only results in a degradation of the novelty itself - the more so as it is then systematically and further degraded or contaminated by unsolicited and irrelevant opinion that seldom carries any kind of qualified expertise. Nor am I under any obligation to disclose anything at all - least of all 'on demand'. I am not sure what 'anonymous' considers as a basis for his/her demands. But he/she does not even give the courtesy of his/her full identity. And the nature of a contract is reciprocity. Anonymous has given me nothing in return. And yet he/she demands access to all the information I have at my disposal that is now the culmination of something like 12 years of dedicated work. What is he/she thinking?
I am afraid that I must beg your patience. In or around the 23rd of this month I may be in a position to know how this project of mine is to be progressed. Until then I will be doing nothing but advancing the conceptual understanding related to the thesis. I hope to post more of that work here. Just know that the results are better than anything I had hoped for and that the news is all good. But I cannot afford to rush into this again. I've said it before. The internet carries with it more dangers than otherwise. And I unfortunately know this as I have been its victim.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Monday, January 10, 2011
delays - and more delays - 30
Dear Friends,
It's been hectic. Sorry I've neglected this side of my life. But all's well. We're still debating the 'final show' and how to do this. We're also upgrading that bread board to give us a few more options.
Regarding your comments. Loved them all. Including the question as to which year we intend publishing. Just by the way - the intended year is still this year. The month - not so sure. We've finding things on the circuit that I've never actually seen. Only predicted. We're still trying to find out if this may be 'new evidence' or if it conforms to the old. Booya, Oompa, and the rest. Thanks very, very much. All support is heartening. But. Again. Please don't 'spread the news'. It seems I've grossely underestimated the time required. Still ever hopeful that something will move here before the close of this month.
Thanks again guys - especially to those who are giving such unequivocal support.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
It's been hectic. Sorry I've neglected this side of my life. But all's well. We're still debating the 'final show' and how to do this. We're also upgrading that bread board to give us a few more options.
Regarding your comments. Loved them all. Including the question as to which year we intend publishing. Just by the way - the intended year is still this year. The month - not so sure. We've finding things on the circuit that I've never actually seen. Only predicted. We're still trying to find out if this may be 'new evidence' or if it conforms to the old. Booya, Oompa, and the rest. Thanks very, very much. All support is heartening. But. Again. Please don't 'spread the news'. It seems I've grossely underestimated the time required. Still ever hopeful that something will move here before the close of this month.
Thanks again guys - especially to those who are giving such unequivocal support.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)