81 - here's that test sample example

Dear Reader,

Here's an example of that earlier reference where the math trace product and the mean averages differ so widely that the the one can be positive where the other is negative.

Note also, in this example, the level of that spike over the shunt. It's huge.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

BTW at this level we're dissipating in the region of 40 watts or thereby at the load. It is, nonetheless, not the waveform that will be disclosed at the demonstration. It will only be shown as one example of many more that need to be fully evaluated and fully researched. What we need, most urgently, is academic evaluation of all these anomalies - if such they are.

80 - the offset to the mosfet

Dear Reader

Another point for our Poynty. You ask if we change the offset. Yes - is the short answer. That's needed to explore the variations in the resonance. Each change will give a new result.

On a personal and entirely irrelevant matter - I suffer from insomnia. And I cannot tell you how often those sleepless nights have been filled by trawling through the internet to find supporting evidence of our own rather exotic 'over unity' claims. Then - like a tongue to a sore tooth - I read of the counter claims. Those tedious arguments against the evidence - argued from the use of protocols that are hard to understand - couched as they are with jargon and acronyms that are presented as scientific. And - precisely because they are not explicit - they are also so much less than what is required. It may yet surprise the Ions and the Humbuggers of this world that their own descriptions of circuit peformance is sub-standard. Loose jargon is NOT scientific. It's what it is. Jargon. To his credit MileHigh does not indulge in this. He's explicit. Tedious - but explicit. Always a pleasure to read your posts MileHigh. Not their substance. Just their clarity.

But - be that as it may. I had long come to the conclusion that there was some kind of agenda to Poynty's forum. And that agenda was to deny the evidence - come what may. It is therefore - with considerable pleasure that I read that Poynty not only defined his protocols but that he came up with a number that exceeds what was previously denied. It may be a fleeting moment. It may be denied or even yet proved wrong. But right now I actually don't even care. I'm over the moon to see that he is that intellectually honest that he openly acknowledges this new result.

So. For me this is momentous news.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

79 - CONGRATULATIONS POYNTY POINT

Dear Reader,

AT LAST it seems that Poynty is exploring some values on the LT Joule Thief circuit variant - that ACTUALLY challenge those classical restraints required for the transfer of electromagnetic energy. I'll ask my friend to post a link for me later on today.

The tribute is to the intellectual honesty required in applying classical measurement protocols and then reporting on that result - that elusive efficiency number that is doing all that it really should NOT do. It is an enormous comfort to see that he is looking into this with the required rigour.

I confess that I had come to the opinion that any result would be deliberately skewed to deny the evidence. I am DELIGHTED to be proved wrong. He and Professor are breaking new ground here and, in the process, are making history.

Now dare I ask? What price Kirchhoff's rules now? I think that Mr Faraday will yet win this argument. It also seems that this value results from precisely the same protocols that we apply to our own tests.

You're opening doors here Poynty. What a pleasure.

The very kindest and the very best of my regards to you
Rosemary

78 - what spurious oscillations?

Dear Reader,

If the correct method to compute wattage is in the instantaneous analysis of the shunt and the battery voltage then school classical has a big problem. I want to be very clear what I'm referring to here. I take the first one sample of the voltage across the shunt and then the first one sample of the voltage across the battery. Then I multiply those two values together and divide that product with the Ohm's value of the shunt. Then. I copy that equation to each of those 500 000 plus samples. Then I take the sum of those samples and divide it by that sample number. That's what I do, and that, I believe, is in line with what the math function does and what it shows in the math trace.

Then we have ALWAYS have a negative value - indicating that nothing is being discharged at the battery. Then too, the battery voltage first drops - dramatically - and then it consistently climbs back to a steady high voltage. So MileHigh. If this is the correct analysis then - again - school classical has a problem.

Regarding that 'short' positive spike at the drain. There is no question that this is not breaching the resistance at the MOSFET where, I presume, it would be blocked. It's the fact that it still generates those really high oscillations at all - after the discharge of this small spike - that is of interest. Surely? Because what is also self-evident is that the voltages at the battery and the voltages at the resistor - ramp up to a higher and higher value until the point that it 'levels out'. How does that energy influence the battery voltage? It clearly goes through the battery and through the load as it's also evident at the drain. And the voltage at the drain shows a waveform that is consistent with the battery voltage.

And again. The kicker. One can adjust the offset or the duty cycle - or both - and one can then get the clean 'on time' that you're all looking for. At which stage - depending on the level it's tuned to - one sees the voltage rise, correspondingly, across the shunt. I've shown this but will post this again - later today. Then here's what happens. The mean average and the cycle mean average MAY SOMETIMES default to a positive value. But the product shown by the math trace ALWAYS STAYS NEGATIVE. And this is born out in the close analysis of the instantaneous wattage that you all have determined is the CORRECT analysis. And it certainly does not result in any evident loss of charge to the battery supply source.

THEN. We have the negative oscillation persisting - during the off time. No matter what. There has been prior evidence of a negative triggering - evidenced by Aaron Murakami. If it is the result of stray capacitance then so what? I understand that stray capacitance is seen as a kind of residual charge. On my side, I see it as an induced voltage over circuit material. But stray or spurious oscillations are not expected to be that strong that they can be returned to both the supply source and then back to the load - repeatedly. And every return ADDS to the charge conservation from that supply - a little more with each osciallation.

That it has not been evident before is due to a variation of the circuit. What is enabled is that there is sufficient path made available to the circuit to ensure that the full benefit of the current induced by that negative spike is able to flow. I suspect that all prior circuit configurations blocked this courtesy some resistance in that Zener diode. Access the full range of it's value and it most certainly returns a net energy gain to the system.

This is what we intend showing. However. It is absolutely NOT the only way to 'skin this cat'. One can achieve precisely the same thing as has been shown on previous test replications. But the net return is then more modest. That negative spike invariably rang 'down' not up. COP >1 rather than COP infinity.

And for those who have read it - the explanation is only in line with known Inductive Laws. I keep saying this. What is evident is almost prosaic in it's essence. All that aether energy - and all it turns out to be is the full and proper use of the negative potentials in induced voltages. Which does not minimise this application. The implications are mind bending. It points to the possibility that there is far more potential locked in inductive/conductive material - than has, heretofore, been fully exploited. And that points to the 'thinking' that initiated this circuit design in the first place.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

77 - which value is right?

Dear Reader,

I have a problem which I'm hoping will be addressed. It's this. Energy measurement is based on the product of voltage and amperage over time. And energy is measured in Joules which, in turn, is based on wattage which, as mentioned, is vi*dt.

Now. We've been the happy recipient of the use of some really zut DSO's. The one gives us data dumps in the half million and the other in the million sample range. Hugely detailed. Each sample range under observation is really thoroughly accounted. And the dumps are right out of the moment that the sample was captured. How the different DSO's measure their mean averages, or anything else, depends on that initial sample capture. It's that dump that represents an actual record. And we can access that record of samples - right out of the DSO.

Typically on the multiple channels that these instruments provide - it's possible to measure the different points on each circuit. So it is that the battery voltage and the shunt voltage are shown simultaneously. Therefore is it possible to measure them both - to estabish vi - in real time. As they occurred. So. One can take a record of that sample range and then transpose it to the spreadsheet for analysis and do a moment by moment computation of those measurements. For example, one can take the voltage across the shunt, divide it by the resistive value of the shunt and get the instantaneous current measurement. Then one can multiply that current by the measured voltage and that will give the actual measure of that instantaneous sample as it happens, so to speak. And one can do that sum for each of those 500 000, or 1 million samples - as required.

Alternatively, one can take the sum of all those voltages over that entire sample range and divide it by the number of samples to get a mean average of the current flow and a mean average of the applied source voltage and one will then get the average of the amount of energy applied over that time period related to the sample range.

Here's the kicker. The sum of the instantaneous wattage computed against each sample is never the same as the mean average. Those numbers never relate to each other.

I do have an answer - but I'm not sure if it's classical. Poynty, - if you're reading here - or anyone. I'd be glad of some kind of explanation. Which of those two systems is right? Certainly they're NEVER in agreement with each other.

Why this is relevant is because the math trace is the instantaneous product of both the shunt and the battery voltage. At higher wattage outputs the mean average of the shunt voltage defaults to positive but not that instantaneous product - not that math's trace. This remains negative. Interestingly - possibly because of the higher voltages, the battery voltage first dips by a half a volt or thereby and then steadily climbs back to its previous value.

It's puzzling.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

76 - on negative triggering and its implications

Dear Reader,

This is a very generalised description of the negative triggering and it's results on the waveform that is proposed to be demonstrated.

It is established that current moves through conductive and inductive material. Above zero voltage induces a clockwise directional flow and below zero, conversely, induces an anti-clockwise flow. The direction of current flow then induces a voltage across circuit material that is established in counterphase to that applied voltage.

From a detailed analysis of the data taken from our two digital storage oscilloscopes it is evident that the amount of voltage applied to the element/resistor - from the battery and during that brief 'on' period - is consistent with the amount of wattage that is measured to be dissipated as heat at the resistor.

But it is also evident that the current resulting from that applied voltage did not flow to the negative terminal of the battery as there would be some corresponding evidence of an applied above zero voltage at the shunt resistor. It is proposed that because the gate signal immediately defaults to zero the passage of this current flow is interrupted that it cannot flow through the circuit path to reach the negative terminal of the supply. Again. The time during which the circuit is closed, to enable this flow, is brief. And the resistance from the circuit is sufficient to prevent a 'through flow' of that current.

The voltage applied to the resistor, albeit small, is now in antiphase to the source voltage. And it is consistent with the amount of voltage applied during that brief 'on' period enabled by the duty cycle. The voltage across the element then discharges that small negative voltage through the closed circuit path, through the battery, then through the Zener body diode of the MOSFET and back to the source of that negative voltage being the element/resistor. This results in a discharge of that voltage at the resistor. It is also consistent with a small negative voltage spike measured at the shunt.

But in moving through the circuit that anti-clockwise current flow has increased the battery voltage and it has simultaneously established an opposite positive voltage in the conductive/inductive properties of the circuit material. This postive voltage now has no restriction to enable a current flow path from the circuit as the signal at the gate is now negative. And negative charge signal at the gate of the MOSFET will not repel a postive charge. The source battery voltage is now marginally higher as a result of that brief anti-clockwise current flow. And it is then able to discharge a marginally greater current flow. This combines with the discharge of positive voltage from the circuit material all of it moving as current flow in a clockwise direction. And this, in turn, establishes a marginally greater current flow and a marginally greater negative voltage is again establshed on the circuit components. This then discharges that voltage as current flow in an anti-clockwise. This then again increases the level of voltage in the battery. And so it goes, ramping up to higher and higher voltages in a resonating condition. Until the level of voltage in that resonating condition exactly equals the limit to the amount of voltage induced in those circuit components. At that point it reaches the limit in the level of it's resonance. Then the switch defaults to present an brief closed condition to the supply. And so the cycle is repeated.

In effect, the osciallations that result from the negative triggering are the result of - and limited to - the sum of the voltages induced from the circuit material and not from the source. In the discharge of that voltage there is a resulting conservation of charge at the initial supply source.

What may be proved by this is that potential difference can be transferred to passive circuit components that they, in turn, can become an energy supply source. Certainly the fact that the battery voltage is in antiphase to the voltage measured across the shunt - is indicative of this. As the only way that this antiphase voltage condition across the shunt and the supply, can otherwise be generated is with the application of an alternative energy supply source to the circuit.

There are subtleties in that resonating condition that need fuller explanation. But I think it is outside the scope of this explanation. There are also certain questions that relate to closed circuit conditions that are not here fully explored. These will be partially covered in that report that will result from that demonstration.

Hope that helped.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

75 - more detail at the gate

Dear Reader,

Here's a shot of the gate with a small resistor (0.5 Ohm) in series. This to determine if there was perhaps some current moving from the circuit back through the Functions Generator. All looks as it should.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

PS - I should have clarified this point. Channel 3 the gate and Channel 4 the shunt in series with the gate - both waveforms are superimposed - one on the other. I show both.

74 - on accreditation

Dear Reader,

I need to disabuse you all of the impression that any of these results of ours are - in any way - accredited by any academic experts at all. All that is available to us is to have our measurements closely analysed by those experts as they unfold. If there is to be any kind of accreditation then it must be from a fairly wide group of academics. Else this accreditation will lack a required representative value.

Also. I need to disabuse you of the idea that these results are comfortably accepted. They are not. They are closely scrutinised and closely evaluated - as it should be. In fact, just about every aspect of this has been challenged and subjected to more and more detailed analysis. We use more than one DSO - and with all those data dumps - I have done very little but test the displayed results against the actual data for some months now. Bear in mind that we now do our dumps from samples ranging from 100 000 to 1 million - then that analysis has been close.

The difference is this. The challenge from those experts is on the results. It has nothing to do with the thesis. And it has even less to do with me as a person. That's the aspect of this that I have, personally, found to be very comforting. And refreshingly so. It seems that the forum invariably confuses the experiment with the experimenter and comments - rather liberally - on both. Fortunately, here, it is only the science that is under scrutiny.

Where tribute is required - and frankly, where I'm enduringly and eternally grateful, is that it's being analysed at all. It is a tribute to the science that it will NOT rest on assumption - but on experimental evidence. And on an entirely personal level - I've been guided into the significance of some of these measurements - as seen by school classical. You must remember that with my own 'concepts' these results were largely self-evident. I have been on a pretty steep learning curve. I also have Poynty and sundry - to thank for some of this. Very grateful guys. To all of you. But I'm deeply indebted to those academics who are looking into this. That's a debt of gratitude that I will never be able to repay. Hopefully we'll all be the beneficiaries.

But again. No-one has accredited anything at all. All that has happened, thus far, is that the measurements and their accuracies are being closely monitored and closely scrutinised. And all that is under consideration is whether there is, in fact, any anomaly at all. And thus far there is simply the need to look at more and more aspects of the experimental data. And as a reminder. I have NEVER claimed that this 'effect' is frequency dependent. There are many, many ways of skinning this cat. Frankly, I'm seeing new waveforms on a daily basis - all variations to the previous. There's a world of variety in this resonance. It's entirely engrossing.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

73 - voltage taken at the drain

Dear Reader,

This is for Poynty who wanted to see the voltage at the drain. Hope it helps.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

Channel 1 shunt
Channel 2 battery
Channel 3 Gate
Channel 4 Drain

72 - yet more on those elusive electromagnetic properties

Dear Reader,

The only thing that I predicted - in terms of the thesis - was that current from the supply would induce a counter electromagnetic effect in a resistor. This could, theoretically, be routed back to the supply to recharge that supply. To my way of thinking this would result in some level of charge conservation at the supply. I am afflicted, as mentioned, with a rather literal turn of mind. Therefore, as I saw it, if current flow is at 90 degrees to the voltage - and if current from the supply induces a corresponding but opposite voltage in the inductive/resistive components of the circuit - then current flow is the electric moment of the electromagnetic interaction and voltage the magnetic moment. As I understood it, as there is a measurable voltage induced in that inductive/conductive resistor then allow that resistor voltage to 'equalise' by interrupting the current from the supply. And it, in turn, will induce an electric moment at 90 degrees - but in counterphase to the energy supplied from the source or initiating supply. And then? Obviously in as much as current is then returned to the supply then the supply would be recharged to the extent that it was first discharged.

What I did not realise is that mainstream were very well aware of this. But the difference was this. They NEVER returned that energy to its source. For some reason this was seen to be of no value - no net gain to the system. I sort of saw it as a recycled current. They didn't. To this day I battle with mainstream concepts and I know that I am barely beginning to understand it. But there are huge differences - obviously. The main one being that I also saw current and voltage as having material properties. In other words, to me, current comprised the same magnetic dipolar particles that voltage comprised. They were the same fields - but separated from ech other by a critical spatial distance. Circuit conditions allowing, then current simply moved to establish a charge balance that first initiated that measurable voltage imbalance.

So. In my book current is the movement of imbalanced fields of magnetic dipoles that are first measured as voltage. But when that current induces other opposite voltages in sundry circuit material - then that material also needs to move to a 'balance' and it, in turn, will discharge current to resolve that imbalance. Therefore that circuit material - that circuit component - is as capable of being an energy supply source as is the energy from the initial supply both being evidently capable of inducing the electromagnetic interaction.

And I know that it's round about now that I've lost the most of my readers. The point is critical but subtle. Voltage is always a measure of potential difference. And current is the means whereby potential difference is discharged. Voltage is localised to sundry components. Current flow is not localised but requires a current path. Both fields are structured from one dimensional fields. These discrete and orbiting fields were previously binding sundry atomic material into solid or liquid three dimensional amalgams. If the valence condition of that amalgam is sufficiently imbalanced and extreme, such as is found in the electrolytic condition of batteries - then these fields split apart. They literally become spatially separate. This partially resolves that experienced imbalance. But it is at the expense of the bound condition of that amalgam. The other half - the remaining fields that have not structured themselves into magnetic fields - are no longer able to bind those atoms. This induces a cascading condition of disorder where those remaining magnetic dipoles - the other half of all those discrete binding fields, then come out of 'orbit' - out of their balanced condition. Their thermal properties are then locally evident and measurable.

However, if there are circuit paths to enable the discharging voltage/current to be returned to that localised voltage imbalance - then that imbalanced 'hot' condition can resolve itself back to it's cooler bound condition at the expense of voltage imbalance. The magnetic dipoles, moving as current, can then resolve themselves by losing that imbalanced 'field condition' to split back into discrete parcels of one dimensional strings that re-establish their orbital interaction with the atoms - specifically, with the atomic energy levels. In effect voltage is the measure of imbalance. As a field it can move as current flow. If it can do this it can then recombine a more balanced bound condition with the atoms. Magnetic fields always move to promote a condition of balance.

I keep saying all this. I just wish it could be understood. I keep hoping I'll stumble on the right way of explaining it.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Added. Perhaps this image will explain it better. Imagine that voltage is a continual line of magnetic dipoles that arrange themselves in a series of concentric rings around a specific component. Then imagine that this spring is released into a long line that moves through the circuit to effectively reach back to itself. That spring is the voltage. That dispersion through the circuit is current flow. But that spring is actually only the sum of one half of another field that is not able to 'orbit' or structure itself as a 'field'. The material in that spring and their other halves need to 'join up'. If they can do this then they can again split into discrete little orbits - join up with those separated isolated packets that are hot and bothered without their other half. When they join up they can then go about their work of binding atoms together. Then they again become balanced orbits and then they're again invisible and cold - both.

71 - the actual anomaly that we're hoping will be addressed

Dear Reader,

BP's accreditations of these tests, back in 2001 or thereby - were based on the draw down rate of batteries against a control. In effect they required us to run two sets of tests simultaneously - then recharge the batteries - swap the control to the test - and run the same experiment again. This to ensure that battery vargaries weren't the cause. The first was to evaluate the amount of energy required to heat the resistor to an equivalent value. The second was to run the control at the equivalent current that we were measuring. The second gave a draw down commensurate with the experiment. The first depeleted long before there was any kind of significant discharge from our supply battery. These tests took forever to complete. The good news here is that this actually generated a report. But I cannot, for the life of me, find it.

Notwithstanding I used this protocol in our COP>17 experiment. We always ran the control with the experiment. But - for reasons which I have never fully understood, we were not allowed to reference those controls. Therefore did our schedule of results simply hold what was seemingly an arbitrary test duration period. That duration related to the time it took to run the control to below 10 volts per battery used. At which stage the batteries on the test experiment had barely lost a fraction of a volt.

However, having said that - I must acknowledge that, to the best of my knowledge, I have never run any tests with zero discharge from the battery. I have certainly seen battery voltage climb but then it drops. And with these new results - technically we should only ever be showing a recharge or, alternatively, a stable voltage. In fact, I'm reasonably sure that this is the case. We have never used any kind of battery charger on the bank of batteries that we're using. And they've been operational daily for the last 3 months or so. Today was the first time that I actually looked at the effect on the battery voltage and saw that it continually swings between 0.5 volts up and down. No evident entirely 'upward' swing. But by the same token nor was there a downward swing. On some resonances there's a wild swing and an immediate drop to plus/minus 10 volts each from the 12 volts that should be available. But under these circumstances there's a steady climb back to the start voltage - so I assume it's some kind of charge balance that kicks in when the resonating condition is established. Under 12 volts is certainly not representative of the battery's actual charge.

We will be using an hydrometer to test the actual battery condition - just to see if there's any evidence of recharge through our system. But. And here's the caveat. I absolutely do not depend on the battery condition to assert our claim. We would first need to evaluate whether the recharge can be reasonably accomplished at all - at the high frequencies that we use. I just don't know. I've never studied the process closely enough to know what's required.

The claim is only this. We have both a negative mean and cycle mean average over our shunt that indicates that there is more energy returned to a supply than was first delivered. This is unequivocal. And it's a result that can be found at multiple frequencies and with a variety of settings from the functions generator. And this while the temperature over the resistor reaches a level indicative of 5 watts or greater being dissipated - depending on the frequency and setting at the switch. This result is absolutely NOT in line with classical prediction. If this can be acknowledged as an anomaly - then the questions - those many many questions that we've all be asking for so long - may well get the attention they both need and deserve. In other words - if we had a pure DC supply source - then what's evident is that we could return enough energy to that supply that would be measurable. In effect, if we used our grid supply and rectified the current to DC - then we could return enough energy that we could bill our utility suppliers - subject to them allowing this through their watt meters. It will - at its least, require a revision to the protocols applied to standard measurements. There is nothing exceptional on our circuit. Nothing out of the ordinary. It is only these results that need a full investigation and full analysis.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

70 - infinite co-efficient of performance

Dear Reader,

Lest anyone - especially MileHigh - missed this. Please note that the point at which these results move away from all classical prediction is when the mean average, the integral and the cycle mean averages of the shunt voltage shows a negative voltage. This is the moment when there is also clear evidence that the supply source is - at its least - conserving its charge. Proof is in the math trace that computes the product of the battery and shunt voltages.

Just to remind you. Here it is again. And given that this is 50 seconds worth of data - then it also appears that this is not an accidental result of some momentary aberration in the data capture. Again. Mainstream require that power comes only from the supply - in this case - from our batteries. How then can more energy be returned to that supply than was first delivered?

And Poynty - to answer your questions - our probe is unquestionably across the shunt. (added) B is connected to ground - and we have a short wire to enable the probe connection at the FET.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

69 - This is for MileHigh

Dear Reader,

I really need to say something about the propensity of some sad forum personalities to continually see the need to belittle or deride this technology.

The fact that their comments are so ill considered and the fact that they indulge in a level of criticism that is entirely inappropriate - is also my comfort. Clearly they have all forgotten that all new discoveries depend on that early derision. It goes something like this. First the idea is scoffed - then it's denied - then it's considered to be self-evident. Fortunately - there are those who are already at the 'self evident' stage of this development. The scoffers are way behind.

What is particularly sad is that this is certainly NOT a new discovery. It depends on those very Laws that have been forged by our Giants in physics. All I have done is suggested that these Laws are, indeed, universally applied. To add to this point is the fact that I would never have been able to progress any part of this had it not been for the impeccable standards of some academicians to apply themeselves to all that experimental evidence. It is an enduring comfort to still find evidence of that pristine level of intellectual integrity - largely missing from the egocentric clamour of the 'forum'. Would that they exercised some kind of professional constraint and then their denials would be so much more credible. As it is their criticisms are discounted, precisely because of their excess.

May I remind those noisy detractors. I have done no-one any harm. I have simply proposed a new perspective on a really old truth. Why is there this need then to mock the idea? There are ideas out there in the world of science that are promoted by experts that are far, far, stranger than anything that I have ever proposed. And if you do not want to be associated with that thinking or any eccentric thinking - then there is always the very real option of dismissing the idea. That's it. Just let it go and move on.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

68 - a partial replication of that earlier surprise

Dear Reader,

Here's that spike that I mentioned earlier. We've at least got this one on a semi-stable setting. The data dump taken off the multiple waveform screen shows a mean average current flow of -0.49amps (negative ie. back to the battery) Not as dramatic as was seen yesterday.

I have not managed to get a repeat on that runaway number. But I'll try again tomorrow.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

67 - something about Einstein's mass/energy equivalence

Dear Reader,

Just a quick reminder about the thesis. This, because one of the questions that was posed is 'how can the energy exceed the supply?'. I need to remind you all that I do not propose that there's any extra energy at all. I'm fully in synch with our classicists. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The difference is this. All matter has potential energy locked in its structure. That's Einstein's E = MC^2. What is proposed here is that if that structure is largely inductive or conductive - then those inductive and conductive properties can be exploited in the electromagnetic interaction. That way the material of the circuit components then becomes an energy supply source. This because the applied electric current flow 'releases' that locked energy.

Where in that structure this energy is located is then easily answered. Clearly it is NOT in the atoms themselves as they are not themselves 'changed' by that interaction. Therefore it must be outside the atomic structure. And since the only things that become 'changed' in an electromagnetic interaction - are the bound conditions of the molecules in the battery supply and the the bound conditions of the resistor and sundry circuit components - then one may propose that the binding of those material structures - molecular or atomic - is where this energy is actually located. Since we are not aware of anything other than the induced magnetic fields measured as voltage - then perhaps these fields are responsible for that bound condition. And then too, in as much as the atomic structures remain precisely as they were before that interaction, then perhaps they're extraneous to the atom itself. Surely from that premise to the proposal of 'hidden' or 'dark' energy is just a small but logical forward step? That, in any event, is where my own thinking leads.

So. Let's look at an example. We can burn a piece of wood and yet we would not alter any single atom in that entire structure. We'd only effect it's bound condition. We'd be left with a heap of ash - at best. Perhaps - in burning - those binding fields, like Elvis, just 'left the building'. Maybe they are just fields of 'binding matter' - hidden material that has moved from the wood into something else. Maybe they just dispersed in space to find some new 'home' or 'abode'? Some new atoms to 'bind'?

The difference in the electromagnetic interaction - is that these fields don't seem to go too far from the circuit itself. There is no actual 'conflagration' unless the applied current is that extreme. In which case the bound condition of that circuit component can be entirely compromised. But under usual conditions, our filaments - elements - all last a predetermined amount of time. At least long enough to justify their use.

But I do seriously propose that both that 'fire' and that heated element are indeed the consequence of change - not to the atom - but to something outside that atom that has, itself a material property. But these are hidden in a field condition. They're measurable and visible outside a field condition. And then they're experienced as 'fire' - in varying intensities and degrees - depending on the circuit material.

So. Back to that one overriding question. Are we simply referring to 'dark energy'? It would explain much that has been seen and measured by our astrophysicists. And it would certainly explain those questions raised by our string theorists. All that required matter. All those many dimensions. And all of it - entirely invisible.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary