Dear Reader,
We have been debating how to do the demonstration planned for month end. The idea is to present unequivocal proof of what classically would be seen as an anomalous result. Our options are fairly wide. We can show a very high wattage dissipated. But the values off our data dump vary from between any extreme of negative loss from the battery to 11 watts for the 44 watts dissipated. This is in line with our previous test results and more specifically in line with that well publicised replication. It's the fact that it varies at all that worries me. It will, possibly, become contended - and I would prefer it that the results are unequivocally anomalous. Surprisingly, or perhaps because the wattage dissipated is higher - there's also evidence of a quicker recharge to the batteries which, as measured drifted north - to end up about 1 volt higher after a little over a 2 hour run. But it is also a fact that the one reading varies from another and I'm not sure that I want to spend time debating the measurements.
I think what we will do is simply set the parameters to show the mean average of power delivered where all measurements relating to the delivery of the energy from the supply show negative values. This includes the mean average, the integral, and the math trace. These values are also consistently born out in the data dumps off our 200 MHz bandwidth and our 500 MHz bandwidth DSO's.
I'll be posting some preliminary updates here for that report. The down side is that we're dealing with smaller wattage levels again. But what I can do, after the demo, is show them the fuller range of benefits. I just want accreditation to be unarguable. And then - perhaps - just point at what still needs to be researched.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
54 - FLUKE 190-104 4CH 100MHz 1,25GS/s
Dear Reader,
Just a quick note. I had a few day's loan on a really wonderful little Fluke DSO that could show the waveform across the load and the shunt resistor simultaneously. What a wonderful little instrument. It is not compatible with my flash drive and unfortunately I was unable to give you copies of that waveform.
What was evident was a small phaseshift between the two but their essential shape is the same - both moving above and below zero. I'm hoping I can secure another one for our demo. Meanwhile I'll post the photos that I did - unfortunately also not that clear. I still need to upload them to photobucket.
Sorry we can't give more info here.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Just a quick note. I had a few day's loan on a really wonderful little Fluke DSO that could show the waveform across the load and the shunt resistor simultaneously. What a wonderful little instrument. It is not compatible with my flash drive and unfortunately I was unable to give you copies of that waveform.
What was evident was a small phaseshift between the two but their essential shape is the same - both moving above and below zero. I'm hoping I can secure another one for our demo. Meanwhile I'll post the photos that I did - unfortunately also not that clear. I still need to upload them to photobucket.
Sorry we can't give more info here.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
53 - on resonance on our circuit
Dear Reader,
This is an attempt to explain the resonating cndition that is evident on our circuit. I'm not sure how 'classical' is this explanation. But it is certainly in line with what is seen and measured. And it is also in line with the 'thinking' which is now the preferred euphemism for 'thesis'. LOL.
The 'diagram' schematic has been included now. Technically the schematic should include a resistor and inductor in series but, as we're addressing the properties of inductance will leave it as it is.
Also, the waveform samples show a a triggering on the negative cycle. When this is combined with that resonating frequency it has very beneficial results to the co-efficient of performance. I'll add more on this later.
KIndest regards,
Rosemary
ON RESONANCE AND THE CIRCUIT CONFIGURATION TO ALLOW THIS AND AS IT RELATES TO THE POLARITY OF ELECTRIC CURRENT
The following assumptions are made. Magnetic fields comprise the material property of magnetic dipoles that are hidden from view as they exceed light speed and therefore, in a field condition, they are invisible. All magnetic fields obey an immutable imperative to move to a condition of best charge balance. Voltage is the measure of the potential difference in magnetic fields that are in a transitional stage of imbalance. Current flow comprises magnetic fields that move at 90 degrees to the applied voltage. Current flow moves to discharge potential difference from a voltage or supply source. Both current and voltage comprise magnetic dipoles in fields that are aligned in a sympathetic charge relationship to secure a balanced charge condition in their field.
Therefore, voltage is a measure of localised potential difference or magnetic imbalance. Current flow is a non-localised measure of the rate at which the voltage or potential difference is able to discharge that potential difference through a circuit. Therefore current flow relies on the material inductive and conductive conditions of a circuit path to enable its flow. Conversely voltage, as a localised measure of the material charge imbalance, can be regarded as a store of potential difference of electromagnetic energy.
FIGURE 1
Voltage can either be positive or negative depending on its orbital justification around circuit material components. Convention has determined that this is measured in relation to a zero reference where positive, above zero, would generate a current flow in a clockwise direction and, conversely, negative, below zero, would generate a current flow in an anti-clockwise direction. Therefore there is a consistency in the field distribution of charge, where the positive clockwise will lead with the positive of the field. And conversely, the negative anti-clockwise will lead with the negative of the field.
The function of the transistor in this circuit is to allow a small charge from a signal generator (or similar) onto the gate sufficient to block the path of current flow in the circuit. Therefore, if the flow of current from the signal generator to the gate is positive then, when a positive signal of sufficient strength is introduced to the circuit path, the transistor will block the positive flow of current from the supply battery. During this period the positive voltage supply source can no longer deliver a current flow and the circuit is, effectively open relative to that supply.
FIGURE 2
If the signal applied to the transistor gate is then changed to negative or neutral it will allow the flow of a positive current in the circuit. Conversely the gate will block any flow of current that leads with a negative charge. However, in this circuit configuration the transistor used has an internal body diode that allows the passage of current that is negative or that leads in an anti-clockwise direction with a negative charge. Effectively therefore the circuit is configured that it is intermittently open to a positive charge as is determined by the applied positive charge at the gate of the transistor. And it is permanently closed to allow all conditions of negative current flow through its body diode.
Therefore, provided only that there is a negative voltage induced as a consequence of the prior discharge of a positive current from a positive voltage then there will always be a path for the flow of that negative current enabled by that Zener body diode at the transistor switch.
When the applied signal charge at the gate defaults to negative charge, then there is nothing to prevent the flow of positive current from the potential difference across the circuit components. These collapsing, positive voltage fields generate a clockwise current flow that moves through the gate to complete their orbit at their respective localised terminals.
The amount of discharge relates precisely to the amount of current that, in turn, relates to the level of voltage that was first applied by the positive voltage supply sources including the supply and the inductive/conductive material of the circuit components. But when that potential difference is discharged it again collapses to zero and in changing it induces a reverse voltage or potential difference measured as a negative voltage. This is determined in line with Inductive Laws where changing electric fields induce a magnetic field. And changing magnetic fields induce an electric field.
A voltage collapsing to zero represents a changing magnetic field. This, in turn, develops an opposing voltage that is generated in anti phase and can be seen as a negative voltage. And this, in turn, induces an anti clockwise current flow that is able to move through the internal body diode, which, as mentioned, is sympathetically charged to permanently enable this current flow polarity.
The signal at the transistor gate changes to allow positive clockwise current flow from the battery through the circuit. A corresponding positive voltage is developed across the conductive and inductive circuit components. And this persists until the circuit is again opened by the imposition of a blocking positively biased charge at the gate. And so the cycle is repeated.
Therefore the resonance that is evident during the period when the gate signal is negative (bidirectional current flow) is also allowed only if there is the assumption of a dual charge property in the material of both voltage and current and if there is also a prior assumption of a material property in those magnetic fields. Only on the basis of this assumption can one then explain the evidence of resonance where the voltage is seen to persistently induce a counter phase voltage and its consequent current flow to discharge that voltage.
The level of resonance would be determined by the availability and size of path that is provided by the body diode during the discharge of negative current and by the resistance provided in circuit components. The negative path through the body diode would need to be sufficiently wide to allow for the unrestricted flow of current in the negative or anti-clockwise direction to secure that resonating condition. With this proviso, then the rate at which voltage collapses and regenerates, would be determined by the material where the voltage is localised. In the samples referenced it is evident that this occurs at approximately 1 MHz.
When the voltage on circuit components collapses, they induce a corresponding current flow that is seen in anti phase to the initiating supply source. In this circuit example the supply is a lead acid battery. Therefore, while open circuit conditions apply then a negative anti clockwise current flow will increase the potential difference at the supply thereby representing a recharge cycle. And the consequent and induced positive voltage will decrease the supply thereby representing a decrease of voltage to the supply. If the amount of current flow delivered during the negative cycle is in excess of the amount of current flow delivered during the positive cycle then there will be a net recharge to the battery supply source commensurate with that measured excess.
This is an attempt to explain the resonating cndition that is evident on our circuit. I'm not sure how 'classical' is this explanation. But it is certainly in line with what is seen and measured. And it is also in line with the 'thinking' which is now the preferred euphemism for 'thesis'. LOL.
The 'diagram' schematic has been included now. Technically the schematic should include a resistor and inductor in series but, as we're addressing the properties of inductance will leave it as it is.
Also, the waveform samples show a a triggering on the negative cycle. When this is combined with that resonating frequency it has very beneficial results to the co-efficient of performance. I'll add more on this later.
KIndest regards,
Rosemary
ON RESONANCE AND THE CIRCUIT CONFIGURATION TO ALLOW THIS AND AS IT RELATES TO THE POLARITY OF ELECTRIC CURRENT
The following assumptions are made. Magnetic fields comprise the material property of magnetic dipoles that are hidden from view as they exceed light speed and therefore, in a field condition, they are invisible. All magnetic fields obey an immutable imperative to move to a condition of best charge balance. Voltage is the measure of the potential difference in magnetic fields that are in a transitional stage of imbalance. Current flow comprises magnetic fields that move at 90 degrees to the applied voltage. Current flow moves to discharge potential difference from a voltage or supply source. Both current and voltage comprise magnetic dipoles in fields that are aligned in a sympathetic charge relationship to secure a balanced charge condition in their field.
Therefore, voltage is a measure of localised potential difference or magnetic imbalance. Current flow is a non-localised measure of the rate at which the voltage or potential difference is able to discharge that potential difference through a circuit. Therefore current flow relies on the material inductive and conductive conditions of a circuit path to enable its flow. Conversely voltage, as a localised measure of the material charge imbalance, can be regarded as a store of potential difference of electromagnetic energy.
FIGURE 1
Voltage can either be positive or negative depending on its orbital justification around circuit material components. Convention has determined that this is measured in relation to a zero reference where positive, above zero, would generate a current flow in a clockwise direction and, conversely, negative, below zero, would generate a current flow in an anti-clockwise direction. Therefore there is a consistency in the field distribution of charge, where the positive clockwise will lead with the positive of the field. And conversely, the negative anti-clockwise will lead with the negative of the field.
The function of the transistor in this circuit is to allow a small charge from a signal generator (or similar) onto the gate sufficient to block the path of current flow in the circuit. Therefore, if the flow of current from the signal generator to the gate is positive then, when a positive signal of sufficient strength is introduced to the circuit path, the transistor will block the positive flow of current from the supply battery. During this period the positive voltage supply source can no longer deliver a current flow and the circuit is, effectively open relative to that supply.
FIGURE 2
If the signal applied to the transistor gate is then changed to negative or neutral it will allow the flow of a positive current in the circuit. Conversely the gate will block any flow of current that leads with a negative charge. However, in this circuit configuration the transistor used has an internal body diode that allows the passage of current that is negative or that leads in an anti-clockwise direction with a negative charge. Effectively therefore the circuit is configured that it is intermittently open to a positive charge as is determined by the applied positive charge at the gate of the transistor. And it is permanently closed to allow all conditions of negative current flow through its body diode.
Therefore, provided only that there is a negative voltage induced as a consequence of the prior discharge of a positive current from a positive voltage then there will always be a path for the flow of that negative current enabled by that Zener body diode at the transistor switch.
When the applied signal charge at the gate defaults to negative charge, then there is nothing to prevent the flow of positive current from the potential difference across the circuit components. These collapsing, positive voltage fields generate a clockwise current flow that moves through the gate to complete their orbit at their respective localised terminals.
The amount of discharge relates precisely to the amount of current that, in turn, relates to the level of voltage that was first applied by the positive voltage supply sources including the supply and the inductive/conductive material of the circuit components. But when that potential difference is discharged it again collapses to zero and in changing it induces a reverse voltage or potential difference measured as a negative voltage. This is determined in line with Inductive Laws where changing electric fields induce a magnetic field. And changing magnetic fields induce an electric field.
A voltage collapsing to zero represents a changing magnetic field. This, in turn, develops an opposing voltage that is generated in anti phase and can be seen as a negative voltage. And this, in turn, induces an anti clockwise current flow that is able to move through the internal body diode, which, as mentioned, is sympathetically charged to permanently enable this current flow polarity.
The signal at the transistor gate changes to allow positive clockwise current flow from the battery through the circuit. A corresponding positive voltage is developed across the conductive and inductive circuit components. And this persists until the circuit is again opened by the imposition of a blocking positively biased charge at the gate. And so the cycle is repeated.
Therefore the resonance that is evident during the period when the gate signal is negative (bidirectional current flow) is also allowed only if there is the assumption of a dual charge property in the material of both voltage and current and if there is also a prior assumption of a material property in those magnetic fields. Only on the basis of this assumption can one then explain the evidence of resonance where the voltage is seen to persistently induce a counter phase voltage and its consequent current flow to discharge that voltage.
The level of resonance would be determined by the availability and size of path that is provided by the body diode during the discharge of negative current and by the resistance provided in circuit components. The negative path through the body diode would need to be sufficiently wide to allow for the unrestricted flow of current in the negative or anti-clockwise direction to secure that resonating condition. With this proviso, then the rate at which voltage collapses and regenerates, would be determined by the material where the voltage is localised. In the samples referenced it is evident that this occurs at approximately 1 MHz.
When the voltage on circuit components collapses, they induce a corresponding current flow that is seen in anti phase to the initiating supply source. In this circuit example the supply is a lead acid battery. Therefore, while open circuit conditions apply then a negative anti clockwise current flow will increase the potential difference at the supply thereby representing a recharge cycle. And the consequent and induced positive voltage will decrease the supply thereby representing a decrease of voltage to the supply. If the amount of current flow delivered during the negative cycle is in excess of the amount of current flow delivered during the positive cycle then there will be a net recharge to the battery supply source commensurate with that measured excess.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
52 - the poynt of no return
Dear Readers,
Greatly amused at the even greater nonsense being referenced on our old 'erstwhile' locked thread. I see that the all the license of the 'rant room' is now liberally extended to any reference to me or my work. One would almost think that Poynty still intends to 'debunk' this circuit rather than submit it to serious analysis. I'm glad of this evidence of partiality. It reminds me that I must never actually refer to them in any serious context whatsoever.
And it also seems that the only reason that the thread was locked was because I dared defend myself against Glen - aka Fuzzy. He's that well known dyslexic that tried so hard to steal the invention by multiple unsubstantiated allegations against my good name. He struggles on - with a rather ham fisted attempt at wit. And now with the full endorsement of Poynty the Partial. And because they're all just nasty old men they all cackle away. Quite endearing in a sort of twisted way. Anyway - they may all post - apparently - in as defamatory a tone as they require. Just as long as I don't defend myself. Also just as well as it seems that this technology is progressed as much by notoriety as by serious research. And I only care that it's progressed.
And this is for that short but noisy list of toothless 3rd school 'nay sayers'. You guys have got a serious problem. You still need to explain how it is that we're getting all that 'ringing' if that's how you want to refer to it. I'm looking forward to an explanation that is not couched in such ponderous attempts at wit.
And Poynty. I think the public generally would appreciate it if you could 'debunk' the LT Joule Thief variant by showing similar waveforms - at LEAST. Anything short of that and we're all rather inclined to think that your experimental aptitudes are bereft. You've been posed some questions by Harvey the Wooly Worder - who has presented you with some uncharacteristically articulate posers. Let's see you wriggle your way around them. And PLEASE. Give us some relief in CLEAR SCHEMATICS. Where are your probes positioned and ON WHAT CIRCUIT and around what components? If you need to learn how it's done ask Harvey. Your references are somewhat confusing - compounded by your liberal use of inappropriate acronyms. Not good Poynty Point. Not good at all.
Kindest regards notwithstanding
Rosie
Greatly amused at the even greater nonsense being referenced on our old 'erstwhile' locked thread. I see that the all the license of the 'rant room' is now liberally extended to any reference to me or my work. One would almost think that Poynty still intends to 'debunk' this circuit rather than submit it to serious analysis. I'm glad of this evidence of partiality. It reminds me that I must never actually refer to them in any serious context whatsoever.
And it also seems that the only reason that the thread was locked was because I dared defend myself against Glen - aka Fuzzy. He's that well known dyslexic that tried so hard to steal the invention by multiple unsubstantiated allegations against my good name. He struggles on - with a rather ham fisted attempt at wit. And now with the full endorsement of Poynty the Partial. And because they're all just nasty old men they all cackle away. Quite endearing in a sort of twisted way. Anyway - they may all post - apparently - in as defamatory a tone as they require. Just as long as I don't defend myself. Also just as well as it seems that this technology is progressed as much by notoriety as by serious research. And I only care that it's progressed.
And this is for that short but noisy list of toothless 3rd school 'nay sayers'. You guys have got a serious problem. You still need to explain how it is that we're getting all that 'ringing' if that's how you want to refer to it. I'm looking forward to an explanation that is not couched in such ponderous attempts at wit.
And Poynty. I think the public generally would appreciate it if you could 'debunk' the LT Joule Thief variant by showing similar waveforms - at LEAST. Anything short of that and we're all rather inclined to think that your experimental aptitudes are bereft. You've been posed some questions by Harvey the Wooly Worder - who has presented you with some uncharacteristically articulate posers. Let's see you wriggle your way around them. And PLEASE. Give us some relief in CLEAR SCHEMATICS. Where are your probes positioned and ON WHAT CIRCUIT and around what components? If you need to learn how it's done ask Harvey. Your references are somewhat confusing - compounded by your liberal use of inappropriate acronyms. Not good Poynty Point. Not good at all.
Kindest regards notwithstanding
Rosie
Saturday, February 12, 2011
52 - resonance on an open circuit
Dear Reader,
For those who are interested - here's a close-up of some of the ringing. Of possible interest is some explanation that this can happen during the period when the circuit is ostensibly open. The clue is in the negative triggering at the gate.
I'll be including that explanation in my report.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
YELLOW TRACE CHANNEL 1 SHUNT @ 0.25 Ohm
PINK TRACE CHANNEL 2 BATTERY
BLUE TRACE GATE OF MOSFET IRFPG50
For those who are interested - here's a close-up of some of the ringing. Of possible interest is some explanation that this can happen during the period when the circuit is ostensibly open. The clue is in the negative triggering at the gate.
I'll be including that explanation in my report.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
YELLOW TRACE CHANNEL 1 SHUNT @ 0.25 Ohm
PINK TRACE CHANNEL 2 BATTERY
BLUE TRACE GATE OF MOSFET IRFPG50
Friday, February 11, 2011
51 - on a question of teachers - team players - and questions generally
Dear Reader
We are in the process of re-doing the heat profiling on our resistor/element. Tedious work but much required. I'll post the schedule when it's completed.
We have many new 'team players'. I"ll photograph them all later on today. Much thanks required all over the place. And with that much expertise - who will dare argue the results?
I'm a little concerned that our final objection will be along the following lines. 'I can't yet see the error. There is one. I don't have the time nor interest to try and find it.' I do hope not. I do hope - that for once, there will be an acknowledgement. Even if it's only to acknowledge an anomaly. I just pray that there will be enough residual questions after that demonstration - that they can be tabled and addressed. It so needs that well disciplined academic mind to get this subject onto a respectable work bench
I am so privileged to find real teachers. I think they're our angels in this world. A very rare and special gene. I think we owe just about everything of value to these great souls. One day I intend paying a full tribute. For now I think it would be preferred that I don't.
Regarding the 'resonance' - or 'noise' I think was Poynty's term. You really need to ask how it's possible that this can manage a path through the switch without any restrictions from the body diode or the FET itself. There's evidence here that defies classical explanation. I'll post a close up of that so called noise - hopefully later today. And it seems that the noise does all that's required to conserve the potential difference in that battery supply. To my way of thinking that 'noise' is proof that our current flow has two optional charges.
It's all happening and happening at pace. Great fun.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
By the way - many thanks again to Coast to Coast. We've got a WONDEFUL little portable DSO to determine our waveforms across the shunt and the load resistor simultaneously. I'll post shots of that too.
We are in the process of re-doing the heat profiling on our resistor/element. Tedious work but much required. I'll post the schedule when it's completed.
We have many new 'team players'. I"ll photograph them all later on today. Much thanks required all over the place. And with that much expertise - who will dare argue the results?
I'm a little concerned that our final objection will be along the following lines. 'I can't yet see the error. There is one. I don't have the time nor interest to try and find it.' I do hope not. I do hope - that for once, there will be an acknowledgement. Even if it's only to acknowledge an anomaly. I just pray that there will be enough residual questions after that demonstration - that they can be tabled and addressed. It so needs that well disciplined academic mind to get this subject onto a respectable work bench
I am so privileged to find real teachers. I think they're our angels in this world. A very rare and special gene. I think we owe just about everything of value to these great souls. One day I intend paying a full tribute. For now I think it would be preferred that I don't.
Regarding the 'resonance' - or 'noise' I think was Poynty's term. You really need to ask how it's possible that this can manage a path through the switch without any restrictions from the body diode or the FET itself. There's evidence here that defies classical explanation. I'll post a close up of that so called noise - hopefully later today. And it seems that the noise does all that's required to conserve the potential difference in that battery supply. To my way of thinking that 'noise' is proof that our current flow has two optional charges.
It's all happening and happening at pace. Great fun.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
By the way - many thanks again to Coast to Coast. We've got a WONDEFUL little portable DSO to determine our waveforms across the shunt and the load resistor simultaneously. I'll post shots of that too.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
50 - things are hotting up nicely
Dear Reader,
Just a quick note. Tempus fugit and I've got a rather stringent schedule to follow this month which leaves me little time for updates.
Just to let you know - we've made another breakthrough to get the resistor temperature at 170 degrees centigrade - and some. And still at no cost of energy from the battery.
I have a lot of writing to do to get that report of mine finished. But the news is all good. I'll give more reports if we break through any more of those barriers. 170 degrees centigrade is probably at the maximum we can manage without inserting the element in water. I'm entirely confident that our MOSFETs will manage 300 degrees and would like to see if I can get there before our demo even if only for a brief moment.
The mosfets are running cool, by the way, at 170 degrees from the resistor. NO EVIDENT OR MEASURED DISCHARGE AT ALL FROM THE BATTERY SUPPLY. So. It's all good news.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Channel 1 shunt voltage
Channel 2 Battery voltage
Channel 3 Gate voltage
MATH TRACE PRODUCT OF CHANNEL 1 AND 2
Just a quick note. Tempus fugit and I've got a rather stringent schedule to follow this month which leaves me little time for updates.
Just to let you know - we've made another breakthrough to get the resistor temperature at 170 degrees centigrade - and some. And still at no cost of energy from the battery.
I have a lot of writing to do to get that report of mine finished. But the news is all good. I'll give more reports if we break through any more of those barriers. 170 degrees centigrade is probably at the maximum we can manage without inserting the element in water. I'm entirely confident that our MOSFETs will manage 300 degrees and would like to see if I can get there before our demo even if only for a brief moment.
The mosfets are running cool, by the way, at 170 degrees from the resistor. NO EVIDENT OR MEASURED DISCHARGE AT ALL FROM THE BATTERY SUPPLY. So. It's all good news.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Channel 1 shunt voltage
Channel 2 Battery voltage
Channel 3 Gate voltage
MATH TRACE PRODUCT OF CHANNEL 1 AND 2
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
49 - the poynted argument
Dear Reader,
How often and how clamorously have our dissenters argued our evidence? Not enough data, no clear measurements - wrong assumptions based on lack of evidence - or wrong assumptions based on bad measurement protocols. It's been a gathering of the forces that counters every claim with a complete dismissal of the evidence.
Therefore have I waited with bated breath - to see how does Poynty Point get LT's experiment replicated. And lo and behold. No clear points at which measurements are taken. No clear labelling of the resistors used - no clear indication of where the probes are positioned. And on and on. But. Surprisingly. No-one objects. On the contrary - all are clapping their hands and MileHigh is in a frenzy of delight that Poynty is pointedly computing everything that he chooses - as arbitrarily as is required. While he, the great MileHigh - dizzy from altitude sickness - chases each and every one of Poynty's posts with yet another tribute - in the rich tradition of a 'praise singer'.
I see a gathering of the forces of dark trying their best to hide the clear evidence of unity breaches - everywhere. Nothing quite as clear as ever increasing evidence happening at pace. Our latest - presented by Dr Stiffler - is quite simply amazing. He has powered his circuit without the use of any batteries at all. How's that for energy from the vacuum? And far from evoking 'de light' - he's ignored on EF.com and referenced in slanderous terms on OUR.com. I will spare him the posting of the video link as Dr Stiffler has been hounded by mainstream and it hurt. I feel if he wanted to state his news more loudly - then he would have taken the required steps.
No relief in sight yet - guys. But in the light of this latest orchestrated denial of the evidence - then I'd strongly recommend that you look past all that denial and check out the truth for yourselves. This uncovering of these universal energy fields is happening and happening at pace. I strongly believe that our own evidence - as extraordinary as it is - will be entirely 'outpaced' by even more extraordinary applications - in no time at all.
It is wonderful stuff.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
How often and how clamorously have our dissenters argued our evidence? Not enough data, no clear measurements - wrong assumptions based on lack of evidence - or wrong assumptions based on bad measurement protocols. It's been a gathering of the forces that counters every claim with a complete dismissal of the evidence.
Therefore have I waited with bated breath - to see how does Poynty Point get LT's experiment replicated. And lo and behold. No clear points at which measurements are taken. No clear labelling of the resistors used - no clear indication of where the probes are positioned. And on and on. But. Surprisingly. No-one objects. On the contrary - all are clapping their hands and MileHigh is in a frenzy of delight that Poynty is pointedly computing everything that he chooses - as arbitrarily as is required. While he, the great MileHigh - dizzy from altitude sickness - chases each and every one of Poynty's posts with yet another tribute - in the rich tradition of a 'praise singer'.
I see a gathering of the forces of dark trying their best to hide the clear evidence of unity breaches - everywhere. Nothing quite as clear as ever increasing evidence happening at pace. Our latest - presented by Dr Stiffler - is quite simply amazing. He has powered his circuit without the use of any batteries at all. How's that for energy from the vacuum? And far from evoking 'de light' - he's ignored on EF.com and referenced in slanderous terms on OUR.com. I will spare him the posting of the video link as Dr Stiffler has been hounded by mainstream and it hurt. I feel if he wanted to state his news more loudly - then he would have taken the required steps.
No relief in sight yet - guys. But in the light of this latest orchestrated denial of the evidence - then I'd strongly recommend that you look past all that denial and check out the truth for yourselves. This uncovering of these universal energy fields is happening and happening at pace. I strongly believe that our own evidence - as extraordinary as it is - will be entirely 'outpaced' by even more extraordinary applications - in no time at all.
It is wonderful stuff.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Monday, February 7, 2011
48 - a slippery poynt
This is for you Poynty.
That argument on power analysis is hopelessly flawed. What are you thinking? I wouldn't write here except that I'm rather shocked at the liberal applause that you seem to have generated from your 'followers'.
If we put a power meter in series with a plug and then light a light - then that power meter will register a wattage. Our utility suppliers depend on this.
If we look at the voltage through that wire in series with that light - using your average DSO we will see a perfectly sinusoidal waveform. The power trace is developed from that voltage. You claim that the net power dissipated is zero based on the sum of both traces above and below zero. But. If I was to agree with your argument then I'd be left with the evidence of power dissipated that refutes your argument. I'd see it in the lit light - and I'd read it on the watt meter.
Poor Lawrence simply agrees because his FLEET is widely seen as usurping the technology progressed by others. Therefore is his tenure on other forums denied. You allow it? Why? Because you intend refuting his evidence and thereby all the evidence of the Joule Thief researchers?
If you refute it on the argument that you've presented it's wrong. You'll need to find another argument Poynty Point. The power dissipated is based on the voltage from a preceding sinusoidal voltage trace. The power delivered is greater than zero. Therefore too is the power dissiapted greater than zero. Power is NEVER based on the sum of any voltage at all. It's the product - however you wish to factor that product. However - there's no simple factor in the application of RMS on a simple switching circuit. I wonder how often I'll need to say this? It reminds me of the time when I had to repeatedly point out that back electromotive force could, indeed, recharge a battery. Do you remember that argument Poynty?
What are you thinking?
Rosie
btw - it seems that there are three schools of thought - not two. The third school borrows any fallacious argument it wants to deny any evidence it chooses. That school is definitely going to win every argument - provided only that they're ever given any kind of credibility at all. If this is an example of that argument then neither of the other two schools need worry too much.
That argument on power analysis is hopelessly flawed. What are you thinking? I wouldn't write here except that I'm rather shocked at the liberal applause that you seem to have generated from your 'followers'.
If we put a power meter in series with a plug and then light a light - then that power meter will register a wattage. Our utility suppliers depend on this.
If we look at the voltage through that wire in series with that light - using your average DSO we will see a perfectly sinusoidal waveform. The power trace is developed from that voltage. You claim that the net power dissipated is zero based on the sum of both traces above and below zero. But. If I was to agree with your argument then I'd be left with the evidence of power dissipated that refutes your argument. I'd see it in the lit light - and I'd read it on the watt meter.
Poor Lawrence simply agrees because his FLEET is widely seen as usurping the technology progressed by others. Therefore is his tenure on other forums denied. You allow it? Why? Because you intend refuting his evidence and thereby all the evidence of the Joule Thief researchers?
If you refute it on the argument that you've presented it's wrong. You'll need to find another argument Poynty Point. The power dissipated is based on the voltage from a preceding sinusoidal voltage trace. The power delivered is greater than zero. Therefore too is the power dissiapted greater than zero. Power is NEVER based on the sum of any voltage at all. It's the product - however you wish to factor that product. However - there's no simple factor in the application of RMS on a simple switching circuit. I wonder how often I'll need to say this? It reminds me of the time when I had to repeatedly point out that back electromotive force could, indeed, recharge a battery. Do you remember that argument Poynty?
What are you thinking?
Rosie
btw - it seems that there are three schools of thought - not two. The third school borrows any fallacious argument it wants to deny any evidence it chooses. That school is definitely going to win every argument - provided only that they're ever given any kind of credibility at all. If this is an example of that argument then neither of the other two schools need worry too much.
47 - on marriage counselling and repairing the rift
Dear Reader,
It doesn't often happen that we're presented with evidence that precisely and completely contradicts known physics. And certainly it is not expected in the field of electromagnetics. The fact is that - of all scientific disciplines - it's our electrical engineers who have, unquestionably, made the greatest progress. They have been largely, very largely, responsible for launching us into this new technological era and it's explorations on both the small and large scale. Their applications are, indeed, well used and well applied. Everywhere. And everywhere it's based on the knowledge of electricity.
At the foundation to this knowledge is the concept of the electron as the 'charge carrier' and with the flow of electrons as the basic property of electric current. Also well known and well understood are switching circuits and their myriad applications. So. To use a simple switching circuit to defy known electromagnetic technology? It's a double whammy. Typically I see reactions of outraged denial. And then - possibly understandably - a complete rejection of the proposal and, needless the say - the rejection of the proposer of that proposal.
There are two schools of thought. The one determines that the conservation of energy outlaws any possible breach of those Laws of Thermodynamics. And since electromagnetic forces are incorporated into the 2nd Law - then the delivery of this energy can never exceed 1. In other words - you can't get more work out of a circuit than the amount of energy first applied. Mainstream science and scientists belong to this school. It carries a global concensus. Then there's the second school. Not such a big following. In fact, here a small eccentric group defy any constraints to the potential in electromagnetic energy and justify this variously in terms of photonic energy - or radiant energy - or both. Their thinking is rather confusing. And their outrageous claims are considered to be somewhat eccentric and rather naively optimistic. What is not so fully appreciated is that both schools rely on muddled thinking - the former less so than the latter. And what has not been clearly evidenced, yet, is that our 'free energy thinkers' have not managed to prove their claims to our 'not so free thinkers'. In other words the 'nays' still have the edge based on the evidence or lack of it.
But both schools enjoy a kind of license in their foundational conceptual constructs that has everything to do with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. In effect what this says, in a rather circuitous way, is this. 'If it works - then use it'. And this - indeed - was the basic justification of quantum theories which have, unquestionably, forged our progress in all technology at a compounded and accelerating pace. Which, in the final arguement is 'not so bad at all'. Far from it. Mainstream progress of matters scientific has, quite simply been awesome.
The role I've played here is as an outsider. I am seriously hampered by a very literal turn of mind. When I read of a Law, then I assume it is meant to be universally applied, like our Inductive Laws. When I read of the energy trapped in matter, then I assume that energy is literally available in that matter. Which also means that when I read or see contradictions to these laws and then learn of restrictions superimposed on their applications - then I'm floored.
As I see it when we follow an argument in the abstract, we develop a kind of mental model to support that argument. Not unlike the concept of electrons flowing in a shared parth - which is the widely applied concept of current flow. That's more or less what I do. But because of the rather stringent requirements of this literal turn of mind with which I'm afflicted - then I need to develop those concepts that fit the whole picture. I don't live that easy with those contradictions that both our mainstream scientists and our free energy thinkers manage. And this also means that I subscribe to the ideals of both schools of thought and yet I belong to neither. And yet. I think I may possibly have found the 'link' that marries both schools. Which may yet prove to be a good thing. Indeed, thus far I seem to have managed little more than alienate both schools, as can be seen by my rather confrontational history on representative forums from both sides of this argument. I have not been sheltered because I do not subcribe to either philosophy. And nor can I. I have my own argument. And I'm not sure that I need to win a popularity contest. The issue is way too important.
Which brings me back to the point. It is one thing to disprove a known principle. But it is an entirely different matter to prove it easily and with the simplest of simplest circuits that is absolutely well known and well used and well measured and EVERYWHERE applied. It may have helped the cause, generally, if it were something more hidden - where the evidence was more ponderous, the rendition of the evidence more learned, more obtuse, more befuddled. It would have helped if I'd been schooled in traditional science, and learned the tactful subtle art of counterproposal and tedious debate. But I didn't. Nor could I. And that speaks to my lack of formal training.
But there is one thing that I do know. Evidence, experimental evidence, is way more articulate than any argument. And that evidence is there - repeatedly. Therefore, when we finally can show that evidence then, hopefully, these facts can be seen as a marriage of these two disparate schools. And maybe then I'll be seen as a marriage broker rather than as an unschooled dissident. It would be nice to be considered in a more constructive role - in any event. I'm tired of being considered confrontational - when all I'm actually trying to do is to confront the weakness in two arguments and thereby make them both stronger. I'm tired of being considered the antagonist. I'm really, at heart, a kind of marriage counsellor. But I've never really learned the art of tact. And I may be a little too old to learn anything more at all. I hope not.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
It doesn't often happen that we're presented with evidence that precisely and completely contradicts known physics. And certainly it is not expected in the field of electromagnetics. The fact is that - of all scientific disciplines - it's our electrical engineers who have, unquestionably, made the greatest progress. They have been largely, very largely, responsible for launching us into this new technological era and it's explorations on both the small and large scale. Their applications are, indeed, well used and well applied. Everywhere. And everywhere it's based on the knowledge of electricity.
At the foundation to this knowledge is the concept of the electron as the 'charge carrier' and with the flow of electrons as the basic property of electric current. Also well known and well understood are switching circuits and their myriad applications. So. To use a simple switching circuit to defy known electromagnetic technology? It's a double whammy. Typically I see reactions of outraged denial. And then - possibly understandably - a complete rejection of the proposal and, needless the say - the rejection of the proposer of that proposal.
There are two schools of thought. The one determines that the conservation of energy outlaws any possible breach of those Laws of Thermodynamics. And since electromagnetic forces are incorporated into the 2nd Law - then the delivery of this energy can never exceed 1. In other words - you can't get more work out of a circuit than the amount of energy first applied. Mainstream science and scientists belong to this school. It carries a global concensus. Then there's the second school. Not such a big following. In fact, here a small eccentric group defy any constraints to the potential in electromagnetic energy and justify this variously in terms of photonic energy - or radiant energy - or both. Their thinking is rather confusing. And their outrageous claims are considered to be somewhat eccentric and rather naively optimistic. What is not so fully appreciated is that both schools rely on muddled thinking - the former less so than the latter. And what has not been clearly evidenced, yet, is that our 'free energy thinkers' have not managed to prove their claims to our 'not so free thinkers'. In other words the 'nays' still have the edge based on the evidence or lack of it.
But both schools enjoy a kind of license in their foundational conceptual constructs that has everything to do with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. In effect what this says, in a rather circuitous way, is this. 'If it works - then use it'. And this - indeed - was the basic justification of quantum theories which have, unquestionably, forged our progress in all technology at a compounded and accelerating pace. Which, in the final arguement is 'not so bad at all'. Far from it. Mainstream progress of matters scientific has, quite simply been awesome.
The role I've played here is as an outsider. I am seriously hampered by a very literal turn of mind. When I read of a Law, then I assume it is meant to be universally applied, like our Inductive Laws. When I read of the energy trapped in matter, then I assume that energy is literally available in that matter. Which also means that when I read or see contradictions to these laws and then learn of restrictions superimposed on their applications - then I'm floored.
As I see it when we follow an argument in the abstract, we develop a kind of mental model to support that argument. Not unlike the concept of electrons flowing in a shared parth - which is the widely applied concept of current flow. That's more or less what I do. But because of the rather stringent requirements of this literal turn of mind with which I'm afflicted - then I need to develop those concepts that fit the whole picture. I don't live that easy with those contradictions that both our mainstream scientists and our free energy thinkers manage. And this also means that I subscribe to the ideals of both schools of thought and yet I belong to neither. And yet. I think I may possibly have found the 'link' that marries both schools. Which may yet prove to be a good thing. Indeed, thus far I seem to have managed little more than alienate both schools, as can be seen by my rather confrontational history on representative forums from both sides of this argument. I have not been sheltered because I do not subcribe to either philosophy. And nor can I. I have my own argument. And I'm not sure that I need to win a popularity contest. The issue is way too important.
Which brings me back to the point. It is one thing to disprove a known principle. But it is an entirely different matter to prove it easily and with the simplest of simplest circuits that is absolutely well known and well used and well measured and EVERYWHERE applied. It may have helped the cause, generally, if it were something more hidden - where the evidence was more ponderous, the rendition of the evidence more learned, more obtuse, more befuddled. It would have helped if I'd been schooled in traditional science, and learned the tactful subtle art of counterproposal and tedious debate. But I didn't. Nor could I. And that speaks to my lack of formal training.
But there is one thing that I do know. Evidence, experimental evidence, is way more articulate than any argument. And that evidence is there - repeatedly. Therefore, when we finally can show that evidence then, hopefully, these facts can be seen as a marriage of these two disparate schools. And maybe then I'll be seen as a marriage broker rather than as an unschooled dissident. It would be nice to be considered in a more constructive role - in any event. I'm tired of being considered confrontational - when all I'm actually trying to do is to confront the weakness in two arguments and thereby make them both stronger. I'm tired of being considered the antagonist. I'm really, at heart, a kind of marriage counsellor. But I've never really learned the art of tact. And I may be a little too old to learn anything more at all. I hope not.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Friday, February 4, 2011
46 - another appeal
Dear Reader,
I've followed up on my previous communication to Natasha. Hopefully this will earn a response.
Dear Natasha,
I have not yet had the benefit of your answers to my questions. Presumably they'll be to hand - eventually. Meanwhile let me - yet again, address some very real concerns I have related to this technology.
As I see it - there is a great deal invested in the 'belief' that one can never get more energy out of a battery or a plug supply than was first delivered. I'm afraid that our utility supply sources and our petrol suppliers rather depend on this. Governments benefit from the delivery of their utilities - no matter their efficiencies, and our petrol suppliers are anxious to enjoy their considerable revenues for as long as their supplies last. Both represent billion dollar enterprises. And both are able to fund whole departments at our global academies to further their best interests. And both have rather squandered the best interests of our Earth's good health in exploiting this energy with its poisonous consequences of nuclear waste and carbon pollution. But we're all to blame. We all use that energy to the limit of our pockets. That there is this belated movement to challenge that constraint to the supply of energy - is probably a consequence of this fact. There is now a dearly held hope - certainly by a huge majority of the population - that we will find a solution to this 'energy crisis'. I am not that certain that it's a hope shared by either the oil producers nor our utility suppliers.
Now. It is evident that man is highly inventive. At the risk of overworking this example, may I remind you about the facts related to 'heavier than air' flight. It seemed that in defiance of all academic opinion related to this, there were those eccentrics who took the trouble to test the fact. The early efforts were scoffed and the media had their share of the fun as they reported on those sad but brave efforts where our pioneers offered themselves and their devices up for ridicule very often together with their lives. But they persisted. And eventually, it was our Wright brothers who eventually 'cracked the puzzle'. In the same way do many people try and challenge our Laws of Conservation of Energy. But with far greater urgency. But again. Their best efforts are ridiculed. Some of our best players have simply disappeared. Others have been impoverished or discredited - deservedly or not. History is yet to judge. And others, such as myself, persist. It is hard not to. In my defense I see repeated evidence on tests that are replicated around the world - and I have my own apparatus on my own work bench on campus - where the evidence is that our Second Law of Thermodynamics is somewhat less than appropriate or required.
What is true is that unless this technology is first evaluated by our academics then it is unlikely to progressed. Thus far have these esteemed and revered - entirely ignored these many claims of breach that proliferate on our internet and that are discussed in depth at our many different forums. But what I know and what is nowhere reported is the fact that these same academics have, thus far, refused to even look at a demonstration. This is excepting the Steorn device which seems to have been largely discredited. In any event, this lack of accreditation by our academics is not in the interests of good science. I will append the introduction to the report that I'm preparing which covers this point. However, it is a matter of great good fortune that there are still academies and academics who believe that scientific fact must be established by experimental evidence rather than assumption. And I'm immensely proud to be associated with one such - in all likelihood - the only such in the world. If the evidence is not available then they will have the real prestige of being able to assert this as a fact rather than as a belief. And if, conversely the evidence is that it is possible to generate energy at far less cost than convention allows - then the prestige, I hope, will still be theirs. Either way they will have conformed to the base requirement of all science - that a claim is first experimentally evident and that it is then established - or not - by that evidence.
But - having said that - it's also required that the public be made aware of this fact. You see the progress of energy has always depended on a financial transaction. The one side will sell an energy product and the other side will buy the rights to use it. The question then is - what happens if one can simply access an energy supply that costs nothing or next to nothing? The upheavals in our financial and social structures would be a given. And we have not yet established that this energy is that clean or that non-pollutant - that it won't perhaps harm the health of either the users or the planet. It needs research. And lots of it. At the same time - the hope is that, in as much as it does appear to be freely available - then it will not ever be appropriated by some kind of monopolistic control. I don't think that this last concern is actually a danger but that would depend on the public being widely alerted to the technology itself. It needs to be understood that anyone can apply it as required. And that, again, depends on the simplicity with which the technology is advanced. It does not need to be wrapped and structured in the obscurities that now seems to be a required and standard expression of science. Sadly.
So. To avoid sensationalism and to ensure accurate reporting and to establish some kind of sound foundation to understanding what is going on here - my hope was to find a single reporter that I could enter into a dialogue. Clearly it will never be your Mr Yeld. But there must, surely, be someone in your organisation with whom I could speak and who could do the background work that is here required. I would be very sorry to read a banner headline that claims 'perpetual motion' or 'a discovery of a new source of energy' - or anything along those lines. We have found NOTHING NEW. All has already been found by our Greats in science. What we have uncovered is that the dark energy - which is the discovery of our astrophysicists - is possibly available in all matter. That has already been proposed. And proposed widely. The tribute here would go to Ellis et al at Caltech. That our Inductive Laws are right. Here the tribute would go to Faraday and possibly Maxwell. And that the our mass/eneregy equivalence is right. And here the tribute goes to Einstein. Then we'd need to revise the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But that's hardly a new event. Those laws are forever being amended. The last amendment related to a required revision exposed by nuclear energy.
At the same time - without fair and objective reporting there would be the danger of burying the evidence. If this is not reported then how can our public be alerted to this potential? It's a story that needs telling. But it needs to be told quietly. And it needs to be carefully progressed. Which also means that one needs to find a reporter who is equal to this. I'm still hoping that you can recommend someone.
Kind regards,
Rosemary
I've followed up on my previous communication to Natasha. Hopefully this will earn a response.
Dear Natasha,
I have not yet had the benefit of your answers to my questions. Presumably they'll be to hand - eventually. Meanwhile let me - yet again, address some very real concerns I have related to this technology.
As I see it - there is a great deal invested in the 'belief' that one can never get more energy out of a battery or a plug supply than was first delivered. I'm afraid that our utility supply sources and our petrol suppliers rather depend on this. Governments benefit from the delivery of their utilities - no matter their efficiencies, and our petrol suppliers are anxious to enjoy their considerable revenues for as long as their supplies last. Both represent billion dollar enterprises. And both are able to fund whole departments at our global academies to further their best interests. And both have rather squandered the best interests of our Earth's good health in exploiting this energy with its poisonous consequences of nuclear waste and carbon pollution. But we're all to blame. We all use that energy to the limit of our pockets. That there is this belated movement to challenge that constraint to the supply of energy - is probably a consequence of this fact. There is now a dearly held hope - certainly by a huge majority of the population - that we will find a solution to this 'energy crisis'. I am not that certain that it's a hope shared by either the oil producers nor our utility suppliers.
Now. It is evident that man is highly inventive. At the risk of overworking this example, may I remind you about the facts related to 'heavier than air' flight. It seemed that in defiance of all academic opinion related to this, there were those eccentrics who took the trouble to test the fact. The early efforts were scoffed and the media had their share of the fun as they reported on those sad but brave efforts where our pioneers offered themselves and their devices up for ridicule very often together with their lives. But they persisted. And eventually, it was our Wright brothers who eventually 'cracked the puzzle'. In the same way do many people try and challenge our Laws of Conservation of Energy. But with far greater urgency. But again. Their best efforts are ridiculed. Some of our best players have simply disappeared. Others have been impoverished or discredited - deservedly or not. History is yet to judge. And others, such as myself, persist. It is hard not to. In my defense I see repeated evidence on tests that are replicated around the world - and I have my own apparatus on my own work bench on campus - where the evidence is that our Second Law of Thermodynamics is somewhat less than appropriate or required.
What is true is that unless this technology is first evaluated by our academics then it is unlikely to progressed. Thus far have these esteemed and revered - entirely ignored these many claims of breach that proliferate on our internet and that are discussed in depth at our many different forums. But what I know and what is nowhere reported is the fact that these same academics have, thus far, refused to even look at a demonstration. This is excepting the Steorn device which seems to have been largely discredited. In any event, this lack of accreditation by our academics is not in the interests of good science. I will append the introduction to the report that I'm preparing which covers this point. However, it is a matter of great good fortune that there are still academies and academics who believe that scientific fact must be established by experimental evidence rather than assumption. And I'm immensely proud to be associated with one such - in all likelihood - the only such in the world. If the evidence is not available then they will have the real prestige of being able to assert this as a fact rather than as a belief. And if, conversely the evidence is that it is possible to generate energy at far less cost than convention allows - then the prestige, I hope, will still be theirs. Either way they will have conformed to the base requirement of all science - that a claim is first experimentally evident and that it is then established - or not - by that evidence.
But - having said that - it's also required that the public be made aware of this fact. You see the progress of energy has always depended on a financial transaction. The one side will sell an energy product and the other side will buy the rights to use it. The question then is - what happens if one can simply access an energy supply that costs nothing or next to nothing? The upheavals in our financial and social structures would be a given. And we have not yet established that this energy is that clean or that non-pollutant - that it won't perhaps harm the health of either the users or the planet. It needs research. And lots of it. At the same time - the hope is that, in as much as it does appear to be freely available - then it will not ever be appropriated by some kind of monopolistic control. I don't think that this last concern is actually a danger but that would depend on the public being widely alerted to the technology itself. It needs to be understood that anyone can apply it as required. And that, again, depends on the simplicity with which the technology is advanced. It does not need to be wrapped and structured in the obscurities that now seems to be a required and standard expression of science. Sadly.
So. To avoid sensationalism and to ensure accurate reporting and to establish some kind of sound foundation to understanding what is going on here - my hope was to find a single reporter that I could enter into a dialogue. Clearly it will never be your Mr Yeld. But there must, surely, be someone in your organisation with whom I could speak and who could do the background work that is here required. I would be very sorry to read a banner headline that claims 'perpetual motion' or 'a discovery of a new source of energy' - or anything along those lines. We have found NOTHING NEW. All has already been found by our Greats in science. What we have uncovered is that the dark energy - which is the discovery of our astrophysicists - is possibly available in all matter. That has already been proposed. And proposed widely. The tribute here would go to Ellis et al at Caltech. That our Inductive Laws are right. Here the tribute would go to Faraday and possibly Maxwell. And that the our mass/eneregy equivalence is right. And here the tribute goes to Einstein. Then we'd need to revise the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But that's hardly a new event. Those laws are forever being amended. The last amendment related to a required revision exposed by nuclear energy.
At the same time - without fair and objective reporting there would be the danger of burying the evidence. If this is not reported then how can our public be alerted to this potential? It's a story that needs telling. But it needs to be told quietly. And it needs to be carefully progressed. Which also means that one needs to find a reporter who is equal to this. I'm still hoping that you can recommend someone.
Kind regards,
Rosemary
Thursday, February 3, 2011
45 - a look in on our trump card
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)