Dear Reader,
For the purists among you - here's more detail on the correspondence with one of our local editors. It's a mild variation on others and therefore relevant. It's all so sad.
.....THIS TO THE NIGHT EDITOR
Dear *****,
This is the 'write up' that I'm offering just to help you all focus on the appropriate points. Obviously you are free to use any or all of this as you wish. My overriding interest that this news is put out there. It will put paid to any need for nuclear expansion which may be a good thing.
I'm systematically sending it out to all our local papers in the interest of spreading the word.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie
COLD FUSION – AT LAST
(I'll spare you all a reprint of this. It's already posted here)Focardi and Rossi are producing generators for sale that are capable of delivering Megawatts of energy – at a fraction of the cost of our grid suppliers......
.....THEN THIS REPLY FROM THE DAY EDITOR
Hello Rosemary
Thanks for your mail.
The reluctance of the media more or less reflects the scepticism which cold fusion has generated.
I don’t count on Wikipedia to deliver unremitting veracity, but I think it is a good guide and the following does, I think, provide the context for understanding this scepticism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
....WHICH WAS ANSWERED HERE
Hello *****,
I actually took the trouble to forward that precise link to *******. I'm well aware of it. May I, by the same token, refer you to the work of our Nobel Laureate Professor Emeritus - David Josephsson. He and many other academics are in open support of cold fusion.
Here's the thing. The minute you have a technology that is available for sale - as is this e-cat - then you have achieved the following. It's efficacy and safety must be established - unequivocally - and it falls under the protection of global consumer acts all over the world. Therefore it cannot be a 'scam'. Then too - there is a published paper on a replication of an earlier (pre-production) by some highly respected academics at the universities of Bologna and Siena - respectively.
The only thing that mitigates against this is technology is that it hasn't been incorporated into the standard model. It is not strictly nuclear as there's no evidence of that required radioactive waste that would prove this. And there is no chemical interaction known that can account for it. But bear in mind. Our Wright brothers were flying their planes when our academics were publishing the 'impossibility of heavier than air flight'. The Wright brothers won that argument. Hands down. It won't be the first time that - historically - our academics have 'limped' behind a new technology.
But - more to the point is this. Eskom claim they are unaware of it. I've also taken the trouble to phone those many academics that I keep pestering. They have none of them heard of this. Isn't that the job of the media? To offer up the news and then afford the expert comment. It seems that the relationship has now changed somewhat. The media are electing to promote the news that they prefer without any reference to the expert at all. It makes perfect sense to publish both sides of the story. It makes no sense to publish neither. The more so as - in the very real likelihood that this technology actually works as claimed - then we've got a solution to the rather toxic wastes of our conventional energy supplies. At it's least the entire future of the planet rather depends on this kind of story being told. Golly.
I am well aware of the fact that this is not likely to advance the best interests of those in Eskom and those in our Government who are actively advancing that nuclear expansion program. But again. They too need to be alerted to this development. Else we'll all be gridlocked into an antiquated technology before it's even started. Frankly I can see no justifications AT ALL in refusing to publish on this subject. And at the risk of regressing into an inappropriate moral high ground - on this matter - it has the general appearance of a conspiracy to co-operate with that appalling intention of our Department of Energy to squander our tax money and our futures on something that is quite simply NOT required.
And may I refer you to my blogspot where the last few posts are exclusively about this.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
....HIS ANSWER TO MY ANSWER
Hello Rosemary
I hear you … but, various things.
First, conspiracy theory always fails on the grounds of its essential optimism, the optimism that the world is explicable and functions rationally. It doesn’t.
Newspapers are incurably fractious institutions in which it is almost impossible to guarantee agreement on anything. Universally, newspapers function by what I am almost inclined to think of as a natural law, and it is simply stated: news is what is new. Thus, for instance, a Fresnaye child winning a violin competition in Salzburg would merit page three or page five. A Khayelitsha child winning the same competition would be guaranteed front page treatment. A gang shoot-out in Lavender Hill that claims three men’s lives would be page three; a gang shoot-out in Bishops Court would be the front page lead. Ten thousand die in a monsoon … a filler on the world page. Twenty five Londoners die in Thames flood – front page.
And so it goes.
These general rule frustrates the best efforts of the journalist or editor of proprietor who wishes to propound a view or back an industry or silence a line of reasoning.
But, importantly, a newspaper, because it is only really reflecting what is new or old hat in the society in which it functions will also broadly reflect the values of the society it serves. A good idea has to be a generally accepted good idea for it to gain any traction as news. We could suggest, for instance, that pubs be closed on weekends, the speed limit reduced to 40km/h and driving licences issued only to people of 30 and up – which all might be excellent ideas for reducing the appalling carnage on our roads – and they will rejected as laughable.
I know this last is not a good analogy … but there is actually something hugely complex in the fact that a revolutionary idea has to be thoroughly workable, proven and – this is important – accessible before it can hope to gain news traction.
As things stand, cold fusion does not meet these requirements. It will enjoy some attention once every three years – and whenever someone important does something related to it, or says something newsworthy – but the mere existence of a putative alternative electricity source with untold benefits is not going to generate much public excitement.
A few years ago – a decade ago, actually – an uncle of mine berated me for the fact that the ***** was not reporting Aids and its dangers on the front page every day, with banner headlines. It’s that important, he kept telling me. And my answer? My answer was, it would be the front page lead every day if this society believed it was that important. But this society doesn’t. We all get on with our lives. We yawn at the very thought of a well-meaning 1 000-word opinion piece on HIV/Aids.
So the real issue is not Eskom and its profits, or the government, or the media … the real issue is the public, the society. I can tell you, if ordinary people were really exercised about cold fusion, this would register in our politics, in our media and in our marketplace. The fact that some promising experiments have been carried out with extraordinary results has been reported on; if nothing further comes of it, there’s not a lot newspapers can do about that.
I hope this helps explain how we react the way we do. (Most people in any given newsroom lean to the left; they are generally ill-disposed to the powerful, in the market as much as in politics – they lost no opportunity to knock the mighty. But they have an acute intuition about what the battle amounts to, and how it’s fought and – rarely – won).
All best
.....AND FINALLY MY ANSWER TO HIS ANSWER TO MY ANSWER ????? - WHICH FINAL LETTER IS NOT ANSWERABLE
Here's your own criterion - ENTIRELY SATISFIED.
"… but there is actually something hugely complex in the fact that a revolutionary idea has to be thoroughly workable, proven and – this is important – accessible before it can hope to gain news traction."
Therefore, your argument is somewhat spurious. Had it not been available for sale - with the required contractual agreements - determined and well defined - then it would be an entirely different matter.
It would be nice if you could actually even put this to the vote with your own staff. I know that those I've spoken to are more than sympathetic to getting this news out. Else the day will come, with respect, that your own readers will want to know why you've put a gag on this.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
188 - another attempt at alerting the public despite a media embargo
Dear Reader,
This is another variation on the previous which letter to the editor was simply ignored. lol. Can't think why. Perhaps this will fare better.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Dear Sir,
The following links to cold fusion technology that is available for sale to the public. It is a tried and tested method of generating energy with results that have been independently verified by S Focardi, V Gabbani, V Montalbano, F Piantelli and S Verones of the universities of Bologna and Siena, respectively in a collaborative published paper. The unit itself is capable of delivering megawatts of energy at the cost of a few grams of nickel and hydrogen.
The difficulties associated with this technology is that there is no explanation within the standard model to explain the extraordinary levels of efficiency at which this technology operates. Efficiencies compete with nuclear energy. Yet there is no attendant radioactive waste. This makes for a clean and highly desirable technology and it will, inevitably, put paid to any need for grid supplies. This, in turn, will obviate any need for Eskom’s proposed nuclear expansion program.
The point is that this technology is now available for sale in units that can be shipped anywhere in the world. Therefore our heavy industrial users can opt to move off Eskom’s supply grid supply – in short order and as they require and at a cost that is estimated to repay the capital within a year's use. My question is why then are Eskom forging ahead with their nuclear expansion programs when the evidence is that, as of now, this rather toxic technology is already outmoded? It will simply gridlock us into the use of a technology that is antiquated even before it’s installed. Surely we deserve to have our futures better planned by our Energy Department? And surely we can make better use of our tax revenues?
What is alarming is that our editors are resolved NOT to report on this discovery, which, in truth, is in the light of a revolutionary discovery. That fact is puzzling – the more so as this technology will entirely resolve the global problems of the atrocious pollution resulting from all conventional means of distributing energy. One would assume that all news would be objectively reported – regardless of its appeal to Eskom.
Regards,
Rosemary Ainslie
This is another variation on the previous which letter to the editor was simply ignored. lol. Can't think why. Perhaps this will fare better.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Dear Sir,
The following links to cold fusion technology that is available for sale to the public. It is a tried and tested method of generating energy with results that have been independently verified by S Focardi, V Gabbani, V Montalbano, F Piantelli and S Verones of the universities of Bologna and Siena, respectively in a collaborative published paper. The unit itself is capable of delivering megawatts of energy at the cost of a few grams of nickel and hydrogen.
The difficulties associated with this technology is that there is no explanation within the standard model to explain the extraordinary levels of efficiency at which this technology operates. Efficiencies compete with nuclear energy. Yet there is no attendant radioactive waste. This makes for a clean and highly desirable technology and it will, inevitably, put paid to any need for grid supplies. This, in turn, will obviate any need for Eskom’s proposed nuclear expansion program.
The point is that this technology is now available for sale in units that can be shipped anywhere in the world. Therefore our heavy industrial users can opt to move off Eskom’s supply grid supply – in short order and as they require and at a cost that is estimated to repay the capital within a year's use. My question is why then are Eskom forging ahead with their nuclear expansion programs when the evidence is that, as of now, this rather toxic technology is already outmoded? It will simply gridlock us into the use of a technology that is antiquated even before it’s installed. Surely we deserve to have our futures better planned by our Energy Department? And surely we can make better use of our tax revenues?
What is alarming is that our editors are resolved NOT to report on this discovery, which, in truth, is in the light of a revolutionary discovery. That fact is puzzling – the more so as this technology will entirely resolve the global problems of the atrocious pollution resulting from all conventional means of distributing energy. One would assume that all news would be objectively reported – regardless of its appeal to Eskom.
Regards,
Rosemary Ainslie
Monday, November 14, 2011
187 - the dogs are biting
Dear Reader,
click here and then go to the last few posts - to read why I keep referring to all that drivel from our trolls
Well. FINALLY they caught up on overunity research.com. I wondered how long it would take. The conversation is between Physics Prof and MilesEverSoHigh. Physics Prof is that apparently kindly Professor Emeritus who has offered some coins in exchange for perpetual motion. He shuffles between two or three forums and for reasons best known to himself - insists on using Poynty's "PIN POUT' references. This, coupled with his preferred use of acronyms - makes one giddy with confusion after reading his analyses. Perhaps it's only me. In any event, he has most certainly taken a stand against the 'standard' of our learned and revered who prefer clarity and precision of expression. He's opted to use that confused and confusing 'Poynty speak' which is intended to give the general impression of advanced intelligence without the attendant dangers of advancing any information at all. lol
What a lot of pretentious nonsense. Thankfully the most of us are aware of it. And the only possible benefit of all that confusion that he spins with such reckless abandon - is that he could then, perhaps, keep custody of that prize that he flaunts. Frankly I'm not sure that a perpetual motor would be adequately rewarded if his coins are all that's on offer. Golly. I would rather suggest that the inventor simply show that motor to a journalist. That should work. Rather well. I'll put my own money on a small wager that the reward for a perpetual motor would be well in excess of the value of those coins. And it would not need any complicated analysis to prove.
The follow up post is from MileHigh. To those with a longer memory than is usually evident on those forums - he's the gentleman who insisted that particles are moved by a gravitational force which prompted the following doggerel.
A man once said that he found
That particles don't move around.
Said 'You bet your ass
if a thing has got mass
then it's going to fall to the ground'.
Which is only intended to remind you all that his expertise is not in physics but in the well developed - and indeed, well articulated - 'art of denial' of all over unity claims. Unlike Physics Prof - his style of writing is commendably clear. But his posts are sadly repetitive. He does, however, have the occasional appropriate complaint against bad measurements. Unfortunately he tends to overlook the fact that most of those flaws are from the efforts of his own team. And the team? It's mostly just Grumpy the Poison Dwarf - who thinks that electrons respond to pressure - and some others whose names escape me at the moment. They are all well able to feed off their own vanity and the atmosphere of mutual congratulation. This is engendered as a reward for the absurd reaches of their improbable theories. And these, in turn, are flaunted all over the place. Their 'theories' if such they are, are a mishmash of the standard model and their own evident confusion imposed on that poor abused model. Just look at the PIN POUT terminology for a kick off. Golly.
So, dear reader - no doubt you are questioning why it is that I pay any attention at all to these 'trolls' whose overriding intention is clearly to diminish and deny any clear evidence of 'breach of unity'. I'll try and explain this. It is because we have here a text book example of how these trolls work and with it, the rather incontestable proof of their agenda - that conspiracy thing - that dogs these poor efforts of ours. And for once I can see the 'conspiracy' in action - the actual tried and tested methodology that is used. I've said it - often. Goebbels would have been proud to see how his young art has blossomed into full blown maturity.
For those with enough interest in this - here's the breakdown.
Posts: 431
PHYSICS PROF
"I do see where you're coming from, MH, and agree that a careful "energy audit" would be needed to check any claims of "Thane effect" or OU. Same problem occurred with the claims of Pons and Fleischmann, years ago, regarding large amounts of "excess heat" (energy) produced by "cold fusion."
That 'same problem'? The one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. Nothing could be quite as diverse as the level of heat and energy produced by the E-Cat as Thane's work, Nor is their any similarity at all in their technologies. This is that 'sideways' swipe to introduce a subject that is otherwise entirely irrelevant to that thread topic. And, of course, it has the real merit of tarnishing the manifold doubts about Thane's technology with any hope of credibility for Rossi.
PHYSICS PROF
"I say we should make careful measurements, be skeptical yes -- but also open-minded while the measurements are being made and experiments run."
Here I would point out that Physics Prof would be justified in this if he were able to give us some accurate measurements ever, on anything at all. It seems that his best efforts simply get snarled in confusion every time he references that PIN AND POUT terminology. No matter how careful ones measurements - they're meaningless in that context.
PHYSICS PROF
"Which brings me to Rossi's e-cat claims -- and bold claims they are (see PESN for example). I've been following this and asking questions. I would be very glad to be able to test a "Rossi device" -- I would look for gamma's from isotopes of copper allegedly produced in the reaction."
Stop right there. Here's the first bit of 'propaganda' - the first 'hint' at that agenda, the first 'allegation'. Rossi has NEVER claimed the presence of anything at all. He simply presented a sample for analysis. And he need not have bothered. Soon they'll have their own samples to test. So. Dear Physics Prof - please be informed. Rossi DID NOT make those 'bold claims' that you now allege are his. You are now promulgating, dare I say it - a lie? Or, if you prefer - a distortion of the truth. When and IF Rossi claims that there is copper in the 'mix' then - by all means - check it out. Until then, dear Reader, be advised. The evidence of copper and/or iron are NOT part of Rossi's claims. It is Kullander who is reporting on their results. NOT ROSSI
THE FOLLOWING QUOTED EXCERPT
'Ny Teknik: How do you interpret the results?
Kullander: Provided that copper is not one of the additives used as catalyst, the copper isotopes 63 and 65 can only have been formed during the process. Their presence is therefore a proof that nuclear reactions took place in the process. However, it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%). This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. However, there are two stable isotopes of nickel with low concentration, nickel-62 and nickel-64, which could conceivably contribute to copper production. According to Rossi copper is not among the additives. 100 grams of nickel had been used during 2.5 months of continuous heating with 10 kW output power. A straightforward calculation shows that a large proportion of the nickel must have been consumed if it was ‘burned’ in a nuclear process. It’s then somewhat strange that the isotopic composition doesn’t differ from the natural."
Here is the same argument that bedeviled the early Fleischmann Pons claim of cold fusion. The point is this. There is no evidence of any radioactive waste. That's the beauty of this technology. Who cares if it's a chemical or nuclear reaction. Fleischmann and Pons rather depended on it being attributed to a nuclear interaction as there was and is, otherwise, no explanation within the standard model for all that excess energy. And no-one was going to accredit an ANOMALY. But with a working model - a full blow technology - WHO CARES? You don't need an explanation. You just need to use all that abundant energy. Certainly the E-CAT proves the result. Rather in the same way as the Wright brothers put their planes in the sky well in advance of the theory that limped behind. Our academics were utterly disgraced by all their flaunted assumption proceeding all that evidence. Again. WHO CARES? Any user of electricity will be largely indifferent to the explanations.
PHYSICS PROF
"Indeed -- VERY strange that the copper in the "ash" after 2.5 months of running (with no copper initially) -- strange that the ash shows produced-copper in the "NATURAL isotopic composition"."
Are you, dear Physics Prof - trying to imply that the 'waste' sample was fudged? Tampered with? Surely not! That would be a blow below the belt! And surely you are above insinuating anything at all? Isn't that somewhat unprofessional? Regardless of which, we poor members of the public are sublimely indifferent to whether copper was added - deliberately or otherwise - by anyone at all. Rossi himself is surely indifferent. Unlike you he's got a working technology that can deliver a HUGE amount of energy at ridiculously low cost. And as you emphasise and as he claims - there is ABSOLUTELY NO RADIOACTIVE POISONOUS PRODUCTS from all that energy. That's a really good thing. Yet it seems that without having all that poisonous waste you're prepared to deny the experimental evidence of a really efficient energy source? That's hardly scientific. I would have thought that the thing to do is to research the explanation - not the results. They're unequivocal.
PHYSICS PROF
"it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%). This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. .
Right -- naturally-occurring nickel, as in the initial powder -- has this isotopic composition:
Quote
Ni-58 ( 68.077% ) Ni-60 ( 26.223% ) Ni-61 ( 1.140% ) Ni-62 ( 3.634% ) Ni-64 ( 0.926% )
http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/"
Up to this point we're engaged in a science lecture. Then comes the double whammy.
PHYSICS PROF
"Adding ONE proton to a Nickel nucleus as claimed by Rossi and Focardi.... "
No Professor of Physics. NOT AS CLAIMED BY ROSSI AND FOCARDI. As claimed by someone else - ENTIRELY. And as for this presumptuous piece of nonsense that follows.
PHYSICS PROF
"I wrote Rossi months ago and challenged him to allow gamma-detection during operation of his e-cat device. NO positive response from him yet. "
My question is quite simply - why should he engage in any discourse with a retired professor who busies himself in denying over unity claims, while he pretends to support the possibility? I'm reasonably satisfied that Rossi has more sense than to be sidetracked by someone with such obvious intentions to discredit a much required technology. He would rather look to those who are anxious to advance its applications. I know I would.
PHYSICS PROF
"But now we learn that the end products are NOT Cu-59 ... blah blah". Then... "Now how do you explain THAT? easy -- its CONTAMINATION of natural copper into his device. That's my preliminary conclusion. This conclusion is supported by the observed IRON (11%) in the final powder, see scientists' data released above. If there is NO contamination, then where did all that IRON come from?" THEN " BUT-- If its proton capture on nickel, as claimed by Rossi....."
There it is again. IT WAS NOT CLAIMED BY ROSSI. And then for this fabrication - where his early modest doubts are orchestrated into a sense of outrage ....
PHYSICS PROF
"-- then he's got some EXPLAINING TO DO." !!!!!
Well? What exactly? I don't actually think that Rossi owes you a brass dime - let alone an explanation. It is his research that you're attacking. He is NOT attacking you. Such absurd posturing Physics Prof. Whatever next? Golly.
And so the drivel continues.
PHYSICS PROF
"Do you grasp the problem? One more time: proton capture on the predominant isotope of NICKEL, Nickle-58 (68%) would produce Copper-59, not the observed Cu-63 (and Cu-65).
You have to add FOUR more NEUTRONS (not protons) to Cu-59 to get to stable Cu-63, and do it in less time than it takes for Cu-59 to decay away (half life of Cu-59 is only 81.5 seconds)."
Who cares? Really. Who gives a damn? For some reason you seem to think that your opinion matters?
PHYSICS PROF
"Which makes the balance of this just more unsubstantiated absurd nonsense. C'mon-- we're not that gullible... IMHO, we should be skeptical. Rossi is claiming a very specific process, proton capture on nickel, but the experimental RESULTS do not support his claims. Sorry."
We're all rather sorry - actually. But not about the E-cat. Just that you've stooped this low. The nice thing though is that your cards are now on the table and open to view. Dear Physics Professor - it is rather unseemly and decidedly unprofessional and certainly deceptive - to make so many allegations against anyone at all - on such obviously contradictory evidence. Then to try and substantiate it by referencing the equally unsubstantiated allegations and suspicions of Steven Krivit - who has half the academic stature of those associated with Rossi - is a little more than any of us can stomach. We are embarrassed for you Professor. One would have thought that - if you must cast your aspersions that you do it with a little more finesse than you seem to have managed. As it is - its an embarrassment of reckless abuse on the good name and hard work of a fellow scientist.
If I didn't know better I'd suspect that you are jealous of such startling brilliance. And for you to require a power measurement - without the total energy balance - is just a joke. I would refer you to that extraordinary nonsense when you attempted to analyse some of your work on that forum. I've copied the most of it as a record of how NOT TO DO A POWER ANALYSIS.
And as for this.
"A power measurement – without the total energy balance – is virtually meaningless. Without answers to these questions, this experiment and demonstration could easily be a scam. Sadly, I have been a first-hand witness to deceptions."
What deceptions? You are committing the folly of allegation. Give us facts. Then we can all pay attention. The only comfort is this. If he did not get this attack then it would be more than likely that he has nothing of interest to offer. Thank you, therefore, for alerting us to this technology and for giving us a clear indication of its value.
PHYSICS PROF
"The red flags with Rossi have been up for months."
NO PROFESSOR. THE RED FLAGS THAT HAVE BEEN FLYING HAVE BEEN FLYING AGAINST YOUR NAME - NOT ROSSI's.
click here and then go to the last few posts - to read why I keep referring to all that drivel from our trolls
Well. FINALLY they caught up on overunity research.com. I wondered how long it would take. The conversation is between Physics Prof and MilesEverSoHigh. Physics Prof is that apparently kindly Professor Emeritus who has offered some coins in exchange for perpetual motion. He shuffles between two or three forums and for reasons best known to himself - insists on using Poynty's "PIN POUT' references. This, coupled with his preferred use of acronyms - makes one giddy with confusion after reading his analyses. Perhaps it's only me. In any event, he has most certainly taken a stand against the 'standard' of our learned and revered who prefer clarity and precision of expression. He's opted to use that confused and confusing 'Poynty speak' which is intended to give the general impression of advanced intelligence without the attendant dangers of advancing any information at all. lol
What a lot of pretentious nonsense. Thankfully the most of us are aware of it. And the only possible benefit of all that confusion that he spins with such reckless abandon - is that he could then, perhaps, keep custody of that prize that he flaunts. Frankly I'm not sure that a perpetual motor would be adequately rewarded if his coins are all that's on offer. Golly. I would rather suggest that the inventor simply show that motor to a journalist. That should work. Rather well. I'll put my own money on a small wager that the reward for a perpetual motor would be well in excess of the value of those coins. And it would not need any complicated analysis to prove.
The follow up post is from MileHigh. To those with a longer memory than is usually evident on those forums - he's the gentleman who insisted that particles are moved by a gravitational force which prompted the following doggerel.
A man once said that he found
That particles don't move around.
Said 'You bet your ass
if a thing has got mass
then it's going to fall to the ground'.
Which is only intended to remind you all that his expertise is not in physics but in the well developed - and indeed, well articulated - 'art of denial' of all over unity claims. Unlike Physics Prof - his style of writing is commendably clear. But his posts are sadly repetitive. He does, however, have the occasional appropriate complaint against bad measurements. Unfortunately he tends to overlook the fact that most of those flaws are from the efforts of his own team. And the team? It's mostly just Grumpy the Poison Dwarf - who thinks that electrons respond to pressure - and some others whose names escape me at the moment. They are all well able to feed off their own vanity and the atmosphere of mutual congratulation. This is engendered as a reward for the absurd reaches of their improbable theories. And these, in turn, are flaunted all over the place. Their 'theories' if such they are, are a mishmash of the standard model and their own evident confusion imposed on that poor abused model. Just look at the PIN POUT terminology for a kick off. Golly.
So, dear reader - no doubt you are questioning why it is that I pay any attention at all to these 'trolls' whose overriding intention is clearly to diminish and deny any clear evidence of 'breach of unity'. I'll try and explain this. It is because we have here a text book example of how these trolls work and with it, the rather incontestable proof of their agenda - that conspiracy thing - that dogs these poor efforts of ours. And for once I can see the 'conspiracy' in action - the actual tried and tested methodology that is used. I've said it - often. Goebbels would have been proud to see how his young art has blossomed into full blown maturity.
For those with enough interest in this - here's the breakdown.
Posts: 431
PHYSICS PROF
"I do see where you're coming from, MH, and agree that a careful "energy audit" would be needed to check any claims of "Thane effect" or OU. Same problem occurred with the claims of Pons and Fleischmann, years ago, regarding large amounts of "excess heat" (energy) produced by "cold fusion."
That 'same problem'? The one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. Nothing could be quite as diverse as the level of heat and energy produced by the E-Cat as Thane's work, Nor is their any similarity at all in their technologies. This is that 'sideways' swipe to introduce a subject that is otherwise entirely irrelevant to that thread topic. And, of course, it has the real merit of tarnishing the manifold doubts about Thane's technology with any hope of credibility for Rossi.
PHYSICS PROF
"I say we should make careful measurements, be skeptical yes -- but also open-minded while the measurements are being made and experiments run."
Here I would point out that Physics Prof would be justified in this if he were able to give us some accurate measurements ever, on anything at all. It seems that his best efforts simply get snarled in confusion every time he references that PIN AND POUT terminology. No matter how careful ones measurements - they're meaningless in that context.
PHYSICS PROF
"Which brings me to Rossi's e-cat claims -- and bold claims they are (see PESN for example). I've been following this and asking questions. I would be very glad to be able to test a "Rossi device" -- I would look for gamma's from isotopes of copper allegedly produced in the reaction."
Stop right there. Here's the first bit of 'propaganda' - the first 'hint' at that agenda, the first 'allegation'. Rossi has NEVER claimed the presence of anything at all. He simply presented a sample for analysis. And he need not have bothered. Soon they'll have their own samples to test. So. Dear Physics Prof - please be informed. Rossi DID NOT make those 'bold claims' that you now allege are his. You are now promulgating, dare I say it - a lie? Or, if you prefer - a distortion of the truth. When and IF Rossi claims that there is copper in the 'mix' then - by all means - check it out. Until then, dear Reader, be advised. The evidence of copper and/or iron are NOT part of Rossi's claims. It is Kullander who is reporting on their results. NOT ROSSI
THE FOLLOWING QUOTED EXCERPT
'Ny Teknik: How do you interpret the results?
Kullander: Provided that copper is not one of the additives used as catalyst, the copper isotopes 63 and 65 can only have been formed during the process. Their presence is therefore a proof that nuclear reactions took place in the process. However, it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%). This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. However, there are two stable isotopes of nickel with low concentration, nickel-62 and nickel-64, which could conceivably contribute to copper production. According to Rossi copper is not among the additives. 100 grams of nickel had been used during 2.5 months of continuous heating with 10 kW output power. A straightforward calculation shows that a large proportion of the nickel must have been consumed if it was ‘burned’ in a nuclear process. It’s then somewhat strange that the isotopic composition doesn’t differ from the natural."
Here is the same argument that bedeviled the early Fleischmann Pons claim of cold fusion. The point is this. There is no evidence of any radioactive waste. That's the beauty of this technology. Who cares if it's a chemical or nuclear reaction. Fleischmann and Pons rather depended on it being attributed to a nuclear interaction as there was and is, otherwise, no explanation within the standard model for all that excess energy. And no-one was going to accredit an ANOMALY. But with a working model - a full blow technology - WHO CARES? You don't need an explanation. You just need to use all that abundant energy. Certainly the E-CAT proves the result. Rather in the same way as the Wright brothers put their planes in the sky well in advance of the theory that limped behind. Our academics were utterly disgraced by all their flaunted assumption proceeding all that evidence. Again. WHO CARES? Any user of electricity will be largely indifferent to the explanations.
PHYSICS PROF
"Indeed -- VERY strange that the copper in the "ash" after 2.5 months of running (with no copper initially) -- strange that the ash shows produced-copper in the "NATURAL isotopic composition"."
Are you, dear Physics Prof - trying to imply that the 'waste' sample was fudged? Tampered with? Surely not! That would be a blow below the belt! And surely you are above insinuating anything at all? Isn't that somewhat unprofessional? Regardless of which, we poor members of the public are sublimely indifferent to whether copper was added - deliberately or otherwise - by anyone at all. Rossi himself is surely indifferent. Unlike you he's got a working technology that can deliver a HUGE amount of energy at ridiculously low cost. And as you emphasise and as he claims - there is ABSOLUTELY NO RADIOACTIVE POISONOUS PRODUCTS from all that energy. That's a really good thing. Yet it seems that without having all that poisonous waste you're prepared to deny the experimental evidence of a really efficient energy source? That's hardly scientific. I would have thought that the thing to do is to research the explanation - not the results. They're unequivocal.
PHYSICS PROF
"it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%). This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. .
Right -- naturally-occurring nickel, as in the initial powder -- has this isotopic composition:
Quote
Ni-58 ( 68.077% ) Ni-60 ( 26.223% ) Ni-61 ( 1.140% ) Ni-62 ( 3.634% ) Ni-64 ( 0.926% )
http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/"
Up to this point we're engaged in a science lecture. Then comes the double whammy.
PHYSICS PROF
"Adding ONE proton to a Nickel nucleus as claimed by Rossi and Focardi.... "
No Professor of Physics. NOT AS CLAIMED BY ROSSI AND FOCARDI. As claimed by someone else - ENTIRELY. And as for this presumptuous piece of nonsense that follows.
PHYSICS PROF
"I wrote Rossi months ago and challenged him to allow gamma-detection during operation of his e-cat device. NO positive response from him yet. "
My question is quite simply - why should he engage in any discourse with a retired professor who busies himself in denying over unity claims, while he pretends to support the possibility? I'm reasonably satisfied that Rossi has more sense than to be sidetracked by someone with such obvious intentions to discredit a much required technology. He would rather look to those who are anxious to advance its applications. I know I would.
PHYSICS PROF
"But now we learn that the end products are NOT Cu-59 ... blah blah". Then... "Now how do you explain THAT? easy -- its CONTAMINATION of natural copper into his device. That's my preliminary conclusion. This conclusion is supported by the observed IRON (11%) in the final powder, see scientists' data released above. If there is NO contamination, then where did all that IRON come from?" THEN " BUT-- If its proton capture on nickel, as claimed by Rossi....."
There it is again. IT WAS NOT CLAIMED BY ROSSI. And then for this fabrication - where his early modest doubts are orchestrated into a sense of outrage ....
PHYSICS PROF
"-- then he's got some EXPLAINING TO DO." !!!!!
Well? What exactly? I don't actually think that Rossi owes you a brass dime - let alone an explanation. It is his research that you're attacking. He is NOT attacking you. Such absurd posturing Physics Prof. Whatever next? Golly.
And so the drivel continues.
PHYSICS PROF
"Do you grasp the problem? One more time: proton capture on the predominant isotope of NICKEL, Nickle-58 (68%) would produce Copper-59, not the observed Cu-63 (and Cu-65).
You have to add FOUR more NEUTRONS (not protons) to Cu-59 to get to stable Cu-63, and do it in less time than it takes for Cu-59 to decay away (half life of Cu-59 is only 81.5 seconds)."
Who cares? Really. Who gives a damn? For some reason you seem to think that your opinion matters?
PHYSICS PROF
"Which makes the balance of this just more unsubstantiated absurd nonsense. C'mon-- we're not that gullible... IMHO, we should be skeptical. Rossi is claiming a very specific process, proton capture on nickel, but the experimental RESULTS do not support his claims. Sorry."
We're all rather sorry - actually. But not about the E-cat. Just that you've stooped this low. The nice thing though is that your cards are now on the table and open to view. Dear Physics Professor - it is rather unseemly and decidedly unprofessional and certainly deceptive - to make so many allegations against anyone at all - on such obviously contradictory evidence. Then to try and substantiate it by referencing the equally unsubstantiated allegations and suspicions of Steven Krivit - who has half the academic stature of those associated with Rossi - is a little more than any of us can stomach. We are embarrassed for you Professor. One would have thought that - if you must cast your aspersions that you do it with a little more finesse than you seem to have managed. As it is - its an embarrassment of reckless abuse on the good name and hard work of a fellow scientist.
If I didn't know better I'd suspect that you are jealous of such startling brilliance. And for you to require a power measurement - without the total energy balance - is just a joke. I would refer you to that extraordinary nonsense when you attempted to analyse some of your work on that forum. I've copied the most of it as a record of how NOT TO DO A POWER ANALYSIS.
And as for this.
"A power measurement – without the total energy balance – is virtually meaningless. Without answers to these questions, this experiment and demonstration could easily be a scam. Sadly, I have been a first-hand witness to deceptions."
What deceptions? You are committing the folly of allegation. Give us facts. Then we can all pay attention. The only comfort is this. If he did not get this attack then it would be more than likely that he has nothing of interest to offer. Thank you, therefore, for alerting us to this technology and for giving us a clear indication of its value.
PHYSICS PROF
"The red flags with Rossi have been up for months."
NO PROFESSOR. THE RED FLAGS THAT HAVE BEEN FLYING HAVE BEEN FLYING AGAINST YOUR NAME - NOT ROSSI's.
186 - the relevance of cold fusion
Dear Reader,
I need to explain this. Cold fusion was the term that was finally chosen to explain how experimental evidence could result in more energy being dissipated than delivered. This, as we all know - is the Holy Grail of science and has long been considered to be impossible.
Well. The truth is that there is no proof yet that cold fusion or the low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) is indeed based on a nuclear interaction of any sort at all. This because there's no evidence of radioactive waste which is a required attendant to the fusion of two atoms into any new elements at all. Nor is there evidence of the creation of a new element as the composite of fusion. Certainly NOT in the experimental results of either Fleischmann and Pons - nor in this e-cat technology.
It is my contention that this overunity result is a galvanic or chemical interaction and that allows for a breach in our thermodynamic laws. And all this, simply due to the fact that Nature, indeed, has ALWAYS allowed for over unity - notwithstanding the rather anxious denial of this by by our learned and revered. Which denial is also rather neurotically referenced by our conventional energy producers. One could almost suppose that they are promoting their own monopolisitic interests. Golly.
I have said this 'ad nauseum' and will tax your patience - to say it again. There is absolutely nothing here that defies Einstein's mass energy equivalence. If one assumes that the actual 'exchange' is taken place not from an interaction between atoms and atoms - but between a hidden material binding those atoms - then over unity results are not only possible - but required.
To which end I am again linking you to the appendix on our paper on this. Please read it carefully. It is all very simple and ALL WITHIN THE STANDARD MODEL. NOTHING NEW. It's just that it trivialises all those pretentious muttering on current flow relying on the flow of electrons. I'll give that link too.
I have also said this before. Also rather repetitiously. Bear with me. The fact is that we are only now beginning to touch on the full potential of this energy source. And it's going to launch us into the stratosphere of knowledge that has entirely eluded us to date. Which is all very encouraging.
Click here and then just read the appendix which refers to this.
Here's that link.
and if you've got the stomach for rant - then click here to read about mainstream confusions related to theory
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I need to explain this. Cold fusion was the term that was finally chosen to explain how experimental evidence could result in more energy being dissipated than delivered. This, as we all know - is the Holy Grail of science and has long been considered to be impossible.
Well. The truth is that there is no proof yet that cold fusion or the low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) is indeed based on a nuclear interaction of any sort at all. This because there's no evidence of radioactive waste which is a required attendant to the fusion of two atoms into any new elements at all. Nor is there evidence of the creation of a new element as the composite of fusion. Certainly NOT in the experimental results of either Fleischmann and Pons - nor in this e-cat technology.
It is my contention that this overunity result is a galvanic or chemical interaction and that allows for a breach in our thermodynamic laws. And all this, simply due to the fact that Nature, indeed, has ALWAYS allowed for over unity - notwithstanding the rather anxious denial of this by by our learned and revered. Which denial is also rather neurotically referenced by our conventional energy producers. One could almost suppose that they are promoting their own monopolisitic interests. Golly.
I have said this 'ad nauseum' and will tax your patience - to say it again. There is absolutely nothing here that defies Einstein's mass energy equivalence. If one assumes that the actual 'exchange' is taken place not from an interaction between atoms and atoms - but between a hidden material binding those atoms - then over unity results are not only possible - but required.
To which end I am again linking you to the appendix on our paper on this. Please read it carefully. It is all very simple and ALL WITHIN THE STANDARD MODEL. NOTHING NEW. It's just that it trivialises all those pretentious muttering on current flow relying on the flow of electrons. I'll give that link too.
I have also said this before. Also rather repetitiously. Bear with me. The fact is that we are only now beginning to touch on the full potential of this energy source. And it's going to launch us into the stratosphere of knowledge that has entirely eluded us to date. Which is all very encouraging.
Click here and then just read the appendix which refers to this.
Here's that link.
and if you've got the stomach for rant - then click here to read about mainstream confusions related to theory
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
185 - more on cold fusion
Dear Reader,
I've confronted our local editors with a letter alerting them to this science. What's doubly intriguing is that I spoke to one of them to discover that they were entirely unaware of this development. Not an embargo on the news but simply that they did not know.
In any event I've written the following - surprisingly restrained account - in the fond hopes that he can use any or all of it to report on this as required.
COLD FUSION – AT LAST
Focardi and Rossi are producing generators for sale that are capable of delivering Megawatts of energy – at a fraction of the cost of our grid suppliers. This remarkable technology is already in production and orders can be placed that may liberate heavy duty, industrial production from any dependency on grid supplies.
The technology is based on what is commonly referred to as ‘cold fusion’ or alternatively low energy nuclear reaction or LENR. Both terms are misnomers as there is no scientific evidence of the poisonous radioactive waste products, which would be evidence of a nuclear reaction. Indeed the principles behind this technology are as little understood as they were during the late 1980’s when Fleischmann and Pons first introduced this concept based on experimental evidence of tests conducted with heavy water and palladium. Those tests sparked a debate that raged through the scientific community resulting in an outright denial of the claim. Indeed the entire field of study was relegated to a pathological science, which, today, is more broadly and tolerantly referred to as alternative science. Surprisingly there are some overt supporters of this science from highly respected academicians including Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson.
What is significant is that cold fusion, or LENR produces an energy efficiency that is cheaper than nuclear energy, does not run the risk of runaway catastrophic heat production potentials that bedevil nuclear production and has no radioactive or, indeed, any toxic waste products. It can take water to ‘steam’ to power generators – or it can be applied directly to the mains water supply to heat for production purposes. And it is all done at a fraction of the cost of our grid suppliers whether they be fuelled by nuclear or fossil fuel.
It has long been the ‘Holy Grail’ of science to find this level of efficiency in the transfer of energy – and it has also been widely considered to be impossible. This technology therefore is revolutionary and will entirely negate our pollutant excesses in our rather prodigal use of conventional energy supplies.
Links
www.ecat.com
http://www.leonardoecat.com/fp/Products/1MW_Plant/index.htm
I've confronted our local editors with a letter alerting them to this science. What's doubly intriguing is that I spoke to one of them to discover that they were entirely unaware of this development. Not an embargo on the news but simply that they did not know.
In any event I've written the following - surprisingly restrained account - in the fond hopes that he can use any or all of it to report on this as required.
COLD FUSION – AT LAST
Focardi and Rossi are producing generators for sale that are capable of delivering Megawatts of energy – at a fraction of the cost of our grid suppliers. This remarkable technology is already in production and orders can be placed that may liberate heavy duty, industrial production from any dependency on grid supplies.
The technology is based on what is commonly referred to as ‘cold fusion’ or alternatively low energy nuclear reaction or LENR. Both terms are misnomers as there is no scientific evidence of the poisonous radioactive waste products, which would be evidence of a nuclear reaction. Indeed the principles behind this technology are as little understood as they were during the late 1980’s when Fleischmann and Pons first introduced this concept based on experimental evidence of tests conducted with heavy water and palladium. Those tests sparked a debate that raged through the scientific community resulting in an outright denial of the claim. Indeed the entire field of study was relegated to a pathological science, which, today, is more broadly and tolerantly referred to as alternative science. Surprisingly there are some overt supporters of this science from highly respected academicians including Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson.
What is significant is that cold fusion, or LENR produces an energy efficiency that is cheaper than nuclear energy, does not run the risk of runaway catastrophic heat production potentials that bedevil nuclear production and has no radioactive or, indeed, any toxic waste products. It can take water to ‘steam’ to power generators – or it can be applied directly to the mains water supply to heat for production purposes. And it is all done at a fraction of the cost of our grid suppliers whether they be fuelled by nuclear or fossil fuel.
It has long been the ‘Holy Grail’ of science to find this level of efficiency in the transfer of energy – and it has also been widely considered to be impossible. This technology therefore is revolutionary and will entirely negate our pollutant excesses in our rather prodigal use of conventional energy supplies.
Links
www.ecat.com
http://www.leonardoecat.com/fp/Products/1MW_Plant/index.htm
Sunday, November 13, 2011
184 - Fleischmann and Pons - VINDICATED
Dear Reader
Here's where it's all happening
Please click on that link. An Italian team have ignored the academic argument against 'free energy' and simply gone ahead and manufactured their generators in defiance of mainstream prejudice. This is all rather in the spirit of the Wright Brothers who flew their planes while sundry academicians were publishing their theses on the 'impossibility of heavier than air flight'.
What is significant here is not the news so much as that there's no news about this at all. Where are our media? Where are those investigative reporters? What is happening to us all - boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen - that the most significant energy breakthrough EVER - is on the market - and is yet entirely UNHERALDED?
The news is wonderful indeed. What is alarming is that not our universities nor our media are dealing with this. If this situation persists - then I'm afraid that both these bodies will lose both their credibility with the public forever.
I think the only way to counter this news embargo is to please - whoever reads here - just forward that link to as many people as possible. Sooner or later there must be enough pressure from the public to insist that they address this.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Here's where it's all happening
Please click on that link. An Italian team have ignored the academic argument against 'free energy' and simply gone ahead and manufactured their generators in defiance of mainstream prejudice. This is all rather in the spirit of the Wright Brothers who flew their planes while sundry academicians were publishing their theses on the 'impossibility of heavier than air flight'.
What is significant here is not the news so much as that there's no news about this at all. Where are our media? Where are those investigative reporters? What is happening to us all - boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen - that the most significant energy breakthrough EVER - is on the market - and is yet entirely UNHERALDED?
The news is wonderful indeed. What is alarming is that not our universities nor our media are dealing with this. If this situation persists - then I'm afraid that both these bodies will lose both their credibility with the public forever.
I think the only way to counter this news embargo is to please - whoever reads here - just forward that link to as many people as possible. Sooner or later there must be enough pressure from the public to insist that they address this.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Friday, November 11, 2011
183 - so much to do - so little time
Dear Reader,
Tempus is fugitting and I'm in a mild state of panic that I have not yet written the paper on gravity. I'm now starting this - and am just trying to structure the argument that I can make use of our experimental evidence. I have a friend who has kindly agreed to do the illustrations - as required.
Which means that I'll be putting in very little time here. I'll try and dip in daily - as this blog of mine has a way of 'clearing the head' so to speak. It keeps my focus on the big picture.
And one part of that picture that needs highlighting is that our 'TROLLS' are moving away. What a pleasure. Personally I suspect it's because the dare not comment on our papers lest ever more of you notice it - read it - and then, God forbid, actualy get to understand it. lol. What fun.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Tempus is fugitting and I'm in a mild state of panic that I have not yet written the paper on gravity. I'm now starting this - and am just trying to structure the argument that I can make use of our experimental evidence. I have a friend who has kindly agreed to do the illustrations - as required.
Which means that I'll be putting in very little time here. I'll try and dip in daily - as this blog of mine has a way of 'clearing the head' so to speak. It keeps my focus on the big picture.
And one part of that picture that needs highlighting is that our 'TROLLS' are moving away. What a pleasure. Personally I suspect it's because the dare not comment on our papers lest ever more of you notice it - read it - and then, God forbid, actualy get to understand it. lol. What fun.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Thursday, November 10, 2011
182 - the soft underbelly of the forum and, indeed, of google
Dear Reader
With all that good news I challenged my own best efforts and managed to get a new thread started on overunity.com. I'll give a link hereunder.
Of interest is that - in no time at all - I was visited by a certain 'evolving ape' as he calls himself. Trolls come in many shapes and sizes. There are those who motivated by stupidity, those by jealousy and those by greed. And there are those who are kept in some considerable comfort by 'billing' our energy suppliers against the 'word count' of their posts - and, presumably, on their effectiveness. lol Some fall into all those categories. And all have varying levels of effectiveness. The point is that they confer. I see it in my minds eye as a kind of witches coven - where these self-serving entities live in the dark corners of the world. They contact each other and 'whisper'. Golly. A coven that has no fixed abode - no identifiable address and no accountable personalities. Which brings me back to evolving ape.
Clearly, as his name suggests, he's still at the 'brute' stage of evolution. A genetic 'throw back'. Low of brow - strong of tooth - long in the arms - short in the leg. But. He also has that primitive awareness of accountability. Loosely this means that he knows he could be made responsible for his comments. Therefore he follows the good example of all trolls and takes the precaution of hiding behind an avatar - an internet personality. And that's the point. They all do.
The only time that anyone can be taken with any degree of seriousness is when they are also able to put their names, addresses and full identities behind their statements. Else, dear trolls - to all of you - your statements are entirely discounted and simply read for their amusement value. Which is a good thing. Would that there was more wit and less ham fisted efforts at it.
And that is the soft underbelly of both Google and our forums. When the traducers are prepared to own up to their true indenties - then only will their comments carry any vestige of credibility. And this is where we are all likely to win this argument in the long run. The troll has no credibility until he's prepared to own up to his real identity.
So. Onwards and upwards. We're getting all that free publicity - from a handful of rather discredited and discreditable personalities. They are too ashamed of their statements to own them.
click here to go to that thread
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
With all that good news I challenged my own best efforts and managed to get a new thread started on overunity.com. I'll give a link hereunder.
Of interest is that - in no time at all - I was visited by a certain 'evolving ape' as he calls himself. Trolls come in many shapes and sizes. There are those who motivated by stupidity, those by jealousy and those by greed. And there are those who are kept in some considerable comfort by 'billing' our energy suppliers against the 'word count' of their posts - and, presumably, on their effectiveness. lol Some fall into all those categories. And all have varying levels of effectiveness. The point is that they confer. I see it in my minds eye as a kind of witches coven - where these self-serving entities live in the dark corners of the world. They contact each other and 'whisper'. Golly. A coven that has no fixed abode - no identifiable address and no accountable personalities. Which brings me back to evolving ape.
Clearly, as his name suggests, he's still at the 'brute' stage of evolution. A genetic 'throw back'. Low of brow - strong of tooth - long in the arms - short in the leg. But. He also has that primitive awareness of accountability. Loosely this means that he knows he could be made responsible for his comments. Therefore he follows the good example of all trolls and takes the precaution of hiding behind an avatar - an internet personality. And that's the point. They all do.
The only time that anyone can be taken with any degree of seriousness is when they are also able to put their names, addresses and full identities behind their statements. Else, dear trolls - to all of you - your statements are entirely discounted and simply read for their amusement value. Which is a good thing. Would that there was more wit and less ham fisted efforts at it.
And that is the soft underbelly of both Google and our forums. When the traducers are prepared to own up to their true indenties - then only will their comments carry any vestige of credibility. And this is where we are all likely to win this argument in the long run. The troll has no credibility until he's prepared to own up to his real identity.
So. Onwards and upwards. We're getting all that free publicity - from a handful of rather discredited and discreditable personalities. They are too ashamed of their statements to own them.
click here to go to that thread
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
181 - what price flat batteries? and how good is this?
Dear Reader,
The paper claims that the battery is a passive component to that extraordinary oscillation. I think the guys have now comprehensively proved this. We use wonderful batteries - a gift from First National Battery Supplies. They have a 50 watt hour rating. Well - in very nearly 2 years now - we have not been able to get their voltage below their fully charged condition - notwithstanding repeated efforts.
In order to test the 'passive' nature of that supply to the technology - the guys ran lights off three batteries to flatten them down to about 10 volts each. At this level they produced no light at all - as expected. Then we ran the experiment - off those 3 x 10 volts each giving a total voltage - notwithstanding their charge status - of plus 30 volts. The oscillation is ROBUST - the element too hot to touch - and the batteries sublimely unaware that they could not be delivering any energy at all.
We're going to tweak this to higher frequencies and then test this to the duration. But it's a breakthrough of no small order. It proves that current flow from the supply is not required for this effect - that the battery supply is secondary to this effect. It seems that an imbalanced voltage condition is enough to perpetuate that oscillation.
Which puts paid to the need for fully charged batteries to ignite your car's starters - to run your electric appliances - or any application whatsoever. It's amazing news. I'm going to try and alert the forum to this news. It needs to be better known.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
The paper claims that the battery is a passive component to that extraordinary oscillation. I think the guys have now comprehensively proved this. We use wonderful batteries - a gift from First National Battery Supplies. They have a 50 watt hour rating. Well - in very nearly 2 years now - we have not been able to get their voltage below their fully charged condition - notwithstanding repeated efforts.
In order to test the 'passive' nature of that supply to the technology - the guys ran lights off three batteries to flatten them down to about 10 volts each. At this level they produced no light at all - as expected. Then we ran the experiment - off those 3 x 10 volts each giving a total voltage - notwithstanding their charge status - of plus 30 volts. The oscillation is ROBUST - the element too hot to touch - and the batteries sublimely unaware that they could not be delivering any energy at all.
We're going to tweak this to higher frequencies and then test this to the duration. But it's a breakthrough of no small order. It proves that current flow from the supply is not required for this effect - that the battery supply is secondary to this effect. It seems that an imbalanced voltage condition is enough to perpetuate that oscillation.
Which puts paid to the need for fully charged batteries to ignite your car's starters - to run your electric appliances - or any application whatsoever. It's amazing news. I'm going to try and alert the forum to this news. It needs to be better known.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Monday, November 7, 2011
180 - golly. I think this may be verging on propaganda. Bear with me.
Dear Reader,
I have been thinking to what extent this technology could - in fact - be dangerous, in the sense that knowledge of atomic energy could be dangerous. It's a tricky question to answer - on so many levels.
Firstly - if and when this news were to break - there'd be a movement to decouple from our grid suppliers. That could be catastrophic to the best interests of some rather powerful monopolistic energy suppliers. Then there'd be the real potential to run our transport from self-charging battery supplies. And that would confront the best interests of some equally powerful oil cartels. Both our utility suppliers and our oil producers would also then be less able to supply the huge revenues that our centralised governments require. That would confront them with a need to impose an alternative control. Tricky. Then. As with the evolving realities of lights that have a durability measured in terms of generations rather than days - we'd systematically move away from our 'disposable' mindset - and the need to keep 'spending' for general maintenance - will thereby be negated.
Then to more benefits - more pluses. lol. We should be able to lower the cost of all manufactured goods. That will bring down the cost of living. And with easy access to knowledge that is electronically available - then the privilege of schooling will be better shared - that everyone can then develop their intellectual potential as required. That's got to be a good thing. Surely. There is nothing more satisfying than developing one's intellectual muscle.
Then - as I see it - there will be a two way growth. On the one side there will be those whose lives are committed to hedonistic pleasures and the pleasure of material acquisitions. And on the other hand there will be those who are committed to learning ever more about this hidden force field. And I fondly predict that our materialists will grow increasingly bored with all that readily available 'material' - while those that search for more answers will be forever and entirely engrossed in their quest. It's an inexhaustible field of knowledge.
All of which is a good thing. George Lucas you said it well. 'May the force be with you'. lol. BUT. Between that potential and our current austere realities - there's this front of denial that's absolutely at its last gasp. That, indeed is the real war. It is ARMAGEDDON - written large and everywhere. And, as prophesied - the forces of good must prevail lest we all commit social suicide as we co-operate with the disorderly - 'order' of things that currently prevails and that benefits such a small minority of our populations.
I don't think it's an easy road. But if and when we get to this required destiny of ours? Then I think that we will finally have found a sustainable and exciting evolutionary reach. All things are possible. This much is the only truth.
And regarding the dangers? What dangers? The fact is that when the 'have's' have as much as the 'have nots' then there's no further argument - anywhere. It will do wonders to promote tolerance between our various 'tribes'. It's that inequitable master/slave relationship that needs addressing - that is carefully disguised as the freedom to choose one's work - one's slave guild, one's religion. In truth there are no real choices available. There's got to be something better out there. And indeed there is. It's dangerously close - and it's the reality of free and abundant and clean energy. We've got all the proof we need. We just need that proof to be better known.
Kindest as ever
Rosemary
I have been thinking to what extent this technology could - in fact - be dangerous, in the sense that knowledge of atomic energy could be dangerous. It's a tricky question to answer - on so many levels.
Firstly - if and when this news were to break - there'd be a movement to decouple from our grid suppliers. That could be catastrophic to the best interests of some rather powerful monopolistic energy suppliers. Then there'd be the real potential to run our transport from self-charging battery supplies. And that would confront the best interests of some equally powerful oil cartels. Both our utility suppliers and our oil producers would also then be less able to supply the huge revenues that our centralised governments require. That would confront them with a need to impose an alternative control. Tricky. Then. As with the evolving realities of lights that have a durability measured in terms of generations rather than days - we'd systematically move away from our 'disposable' mindset - and the need to keep 'spending' for general maintenance - will thereby be negated.
Then to more benefits - more pluses. lol. We should be able to lower the cost of all manufactured goods. That will bring down the cost of living. And with easy access to knowledge that is electronically available - then the privilege of schooling will be better shared - that everyone can then develop their intellectual potential as required. That's got to be a good thing. Surely. There is nothing more satisfying than developing one's intellectual muscle.
Then - as I see it - there will be a two way growth. On the one side there will be those whose lives are committed to hedonistic pleasures and the pleasure of material acquisitions. And on the other hand there will be those who are committed to learning ever more about this hidden force field. And I fondly predict that our materialists will grow increasingly bored with all that readily available 'material' - while those that search for more answers will be forever and entirely engrossed in their quest. It's an inexhaustible field of knowledge.
All of which is a good thing. George Lucas you said it well. 'May the force be with you'. lol. BUT. Between that potential and our current austere realities - there's this front of denial that's absolutely at its last gasp. That, indeed is the real war. It is ARMAGEDDON - written large and everywhere. And, as prophesied - the forces of good must prevail lest we all commit social suicide as we co-operate with the disorderly - 'order' of things that currently prevails and that benefits such a small minority of our populations.
I don't think it's an easy road. But if and when we get to this required destiny of ours? Then I think that we will finally have found a sustainable and exciting evolutionary reach. All things are possible. This much is the only truth.
And regarding the dangers? What dangers? The fact is that when the 'have's' have as much as the 'have nots' then there's no further argument - anywhere. It will do wonders to promote tolerance between our various 'tribes'. It's that inequitable master/slave relationship that needs addressing - that is carefully disguised as the freedom to choose one's work - one's slave guild, one's religion. In truth there are no real choices available. There's got to be something better out there. And indeed there is. It's dangerously close - and it's the reality of free and abundant and clean energy. We've got all the proof we need. We just need that proof to be better known.
Kindest as ever
Rosemary
179 - 'the headwinds are ferocious'
Dear Reader,
I've taken the liberty of copying some correspondence which has the real merit of giving an over-view and update both. I've edited out names as I do not wish to compromise anyone.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Dear ****
if you ever intended reading everything on this subject you'd be at it for a month. The whole thing is perfectly summarised by Professor **** who said 'the headwinds are ferocious'. That's it. In a nutshell. And I'm actually not that strong. If I'm committed to the cause, so to speak, it's because I've seen the full picture. And it takes the breath away. It needs sharing.
You're right about the need for sophisticated oscilloscopes to show up that waveform and to give the measurements. I'm reasonably sure that this is one of the reasons that this has stayed hidden for so long. Your standard oscilloscopes don't operate at fast enough speeds. I think I mentioned something about this in the first part of that two part paper. Professor ***** at Boston - knows of my paper. He has already advised me that I've got a wrong equation. I've written P = vi dt - when it's watts - vi dt. But that's in the light of a typo as I've given it correctly else-where in that paper. So. It's not serious. He has never written back to me. But there are other Professors who are aware of this work at Harvard and at Cavendish. And they're intrigued - I think. I suspect that ***** himself is also. We'll see. But he won't come out in support of these findings. No-one will. Not until it's published. Otherwise their good names will be associated with 'eccentric philosophies' - which is not a good thing.
One day I'll write a book on the 'interventions' of our trolls. There are those among them that are frighteningly well able to manipulate people and opinion. They leave Goebbels far behind - a mere preschooler by comparison. It's an art that is alive and well and growing at pace.
I'm not into getting financial rewards - or indeed any reward - from this work. That - happily - immunizes me against their best efforts. But I'm sorry for their efficacy against the work itself. That's inexcusable. But truth has a way of getting heard. Sooner or later. And I rather depend on that fact. And on the unwavering support of my wonderful family and my courageous collaborators. You see this, I trust. I'm very blessed. Just not that popular. lol
Golly. This email correspondence is getting very long. I've re-read some of it and see that I've already breached my solemn promise not to keep bothering you.
I blame you entirely. It's not often that I can indulge in a correspondence with someone so capable of seeing the big picture. You're a rare find. I've told you this already.
Again. As ALWAYS. Take very good care of yourself.
Kindest and best regards,
Rosemary
I've taken the liberty of copying some correspondence which has the real merit of giving an over-view and update both. I've edited out names as I do not wish to compromise anyone.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Dear ****
if you ever intended reading everything on this subject you'd be at it for a month. The whole thing is perfectly summarised by Professor **** who said 'the headwinds are ferocious'. That's it. In a nutshell. And I'm actually not that strong. If I'm committed to the cause, so to speak, it's because I've seen the full picture. And it takes the breath away. It needs sharing.
You're right about the need for sophisticated oscilloscopes to show up that waveform and to give the measurements. I'm reasonably sure that this is one of the reasons that this has stayed hidden for so long. Your standard oscilloscopes don't operate at fast enough speeds. I think I mentioned something about this in the first part of that two part paper. Professor ***** at Boston - knows of my paper. He has already advised me that I've got a wrong equation. I've written P = vi dt - when it's watts - vi dt. But that's in the light of a typo as I've given it correctly else-where in that paper. So. It's not serious. He has never written back to me. But there are other Professors who are aware of this work at Harvard and at Cavendish. And they're intrigued - I think. I suspect that ***** himself is also. We'll see. But he won't come out in support of these findings. No-one will. Not until it's published. Otherwise their good names will be associated with 'eccentric philosophies' - which is not a good thing.
One day I'll write a book on the 'interventions' of our trolls. There are those among them that are frighteningly well able to manipulate people and opinion. They leave Goebbels far behind - a mere preschooler by comparison. It's an art that is alive and well and growing at pace.
I'm not into getting financial rewards - or indeed any reward - from this work. That - happily - immunizes me against their best efforts. But I'm sorry for their efficacy against the work itself. That's inexcusable. But truth has a way of getting heard. Sooner or later. And I rather depend on that fact. And on the unwavering support of my wonderful family and my courageous collaborators. You see this, I trust. I'm very blessed. Just not that popular. lol
Golly. This email correspondence is getting very long. I've re-read some of it and see that I've already breached my solemn promise not to keep bothering you.
I blame you entirely. It's not often that I can indulge in a correspondence with someone so capable of seeing the big picture. You're a rare find. I've told you this already.
Again. As ALWAYS. Take very good care of yourself.
Kindest and best regards,
Rosemary
Sunday, November 6, 2011
178 - an emerging art - but still in adolescence
Dear Reader,
We have a beautiful poplar from our neighbour's garden, hanging low over our fish pond in our courtyard. Every spring, for the last three years - as soon as the tree breaks out with its young leaves, we've had a little weaver bird come and build his nest there. He always selects that branch closest to the pond water.
It's been a saga. He was always a beautiful little fellow. But this last year I see that he's bigger and more entirely bedecked with yellow. The colour of butter - but shot through with the glow of phosphorous. And I certainly am not his only admirer. Because this year he found two equally charming - though less colourful - little girlfriends - who condescended to check out his handiwork for themselves. They flew around for a short half day - but never returned.
My poor little weaver was ever optimistic. He straddled his feet across the branches above his handiwork - that precarious little nest - and quivered and called - for the best part of 3 weeks. Every now and then he would dash off and find yet another blade of grass - or a thread pulled from our palm tree leaves, and he'd 'tweak' his creation - to bring it to perfection. Then he'd repeat those extraordinary long low clicks - by way of a song - and then flutter his wings in a kind of quivering excitement - hoping to get noticed, hoping to get some interest in his handiwork.
Well. The day came when he must have simply given up. I came back to find his nest shattered into hundreds of pieces of grass - and fallen into the pond and around it. I am not sure if this was done by himself or by his girlfriends. But that's been his history now for the last three years. And he's now, nowhere to be found.
I'll keep my fingers crossed that he'll be back again next year. And who knows? Perhaps next year he'll manage that perfect little nest that someone will want to share with him.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
We have a beautiful poplar from our neighbour's garden, hanging low over our fish pond in our courtyard. Every spring, for the last three years - as soon as the tree breaks out with its young leaves, we've had a little weaver bird come and build his nest there. He always selects that branch closest to the pond water.
It's been a saga. He was always a beautiful little fellow. But this last year I see that he's bigger and more entirely bedecked with yellow. The colour of butter - but shot through with the glow of phosphorous. And I certainly am not his only admirer. Because this year he found two equally charming - though less colourful - little girlfriends - who condescended to check out his handiwork for themselves. They flew around for a short half day - but never returned.
My poor little weaver was ever optimistic. He straddled his feet across the branches above his handiwork - that precarious little nest - and quivered and called - for the best part of 3 weeks. Every now and then he would dash off and find yet another blade of grass - or a thread pulled from our palm tree leaves, and he'd 'tweak' his creation - to bring it to perfection. Then he'd repeat those extraordinary long low clicks - by way of a song - and then flutter his wings in a kind of quivering excitement - hoping to get noticed, hoping to get some interest in his handiwork.
Well. The day came when he must have simply given up. I came back to find his nest shattered into hundreds of pieces of grass - and fallen into the pond and around it. I am not sure if this was done by himself or by his girlfriends. But that's been his history now for the last three years. And he's now, nowhere to be found.
I'll keep my fingers crossed that he'll be back again next year. And who knows? Perhaps next year he'll manage that perfect little nest that someone will want to share with him.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Saturday, November 5, 2011
177 - that light at the end of the tunnel - it's getting really, really bright
Dear Reader,
At LAST. Our news - our technology - our desirable science - is finally getting to the right people. Just know that the news is all good.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
At LAST. Our news - our technology - our desirable science - is finally getting to the right people. Just know that the news is all good.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Friday, November 4, 2011
176 - overunity.com - where are you?
Dear Reader,
It seems that overunity.com has disappeared. Golly. Hopefully it's a glitch rather than the entire annihilation of the forum.
I need to stress something. There was a clamorous requirement by many members of overunity.com for us to run our batteries ad infinitum to prove our claim. I would remind you all. Our very first paper - the only paper that was ever published - and that in a technical journal rather than a reviewed journal - included battery draw down tests. We ran controls in conjunction with our experiment. The control batteries were FLAT where our own barely lost a quarter of volt. Those schedules were carefully recorded. Yet the reviewing editor - a certain Professor Jandrell - insisted that we remove that information as being irrelevant.
The actual test for those draw downs are tedious in the extreme. They involved us in continuous testing over a 17 hour period - then a recharge of the batteries - then a repeat run of the tests with the control batteries to the experiment and vice versa. I was disgusted at required removal of this data as I felt it was conclusive proof. Thereafter I realised that the battery draw down rate - albeit of interest - and indeed some significant interest - was irrelevant. The only appropriate results required were the actual measurements of the energy to and from the battery supply.
So. Here's the thing. We now have even more conclusive proof that there is more energy being returned to the battery supply than delivered. This is evident in about 220 different settings resulting in varying waveforms - and also shown in a little more than 350 individual screen downloads. These numbers are also proved when those screenshots are downloaded to spreadsheets for detailed analysis. We have that exotic negative wattage result that has little if any relevance to the standard model. The anomaly here is that extraordinary that there are no known protocols that can interpret the actual dissipation of wattage from the supply nor the actual delivery of energy from the supply. All is anomalous. And all is carefully measured.
Then there's another significant point. The oscillation moves above and below zero and - again according to the standard model - the circuit is open and the battery cannot be delivering any energy during one half of that waveform. Another anomaly that requires consideration.
And finally. I am on record. I would have been more than happy to run those tests for the duration - provided only that our learned and revered go on record that this test would represent conclusive proof of our overunity claim. It's tricky monitoring these tests when the output is in excess of 100 watts or thereby as the setting often slips and the amount of energy then delivered can get out of control. To finance that required monitoring was doable - but would have been pointless if it did not first carry that assurance from our academics.
So. What we've done is submitted the papers based exclusively on the numbers that have also been very carefully extrapolated. And we've attempted to show how the 'thinking' related to that current flow - is accommodated in our thesis. That's enough for the start of what should become a hotly debated, and I hope, widely tested experiment.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
It seems that overunity.com has disappeared. Golly. Hopefully it's a glitch rather than the entire annihilation of the forum.
I need to stress something. There was a clamorous requirement by many members of overunity.com for us to run our batteries ad infinitum to prove our claim. I would remind you all. Our very first paper - the only paper that was ever published - and that in a technical journal rather than a reviewed journal - included battery draw down tests. We ran controls in conjunction with our experiment. The control batteries were FLAT where our own barely lost a quarter of volt. Those schedules were carefully recorded. Yet the reviewing editor - a certain Professor Jandrell - insisted that we remove that information as being irrelevant.
The actual test for those draw downs are tedious in the extreme. They involved us in continuous testing over a 17 hour period - then a recharge of the batteries - then a repeat run of the tests with the control batteries to the experiment and vice versa. I was disgusted at required removal of this data as I felt it was conclusive proof. Thereafter I realised that the battery draw down rate - albeit of interest - and indeed some significant interest - was irrelevant. The only appropriate results required were the actual measurements of the energy to and from the battery supply.
So. Here's the thing. We now have even more conclusive proof that there is more energy being returned to the battery supply than delivered. This is evident in about 220 different settings resulting in varying waveforms - and also shown in a little more than 350 individual screen downloads. These numbers are also proved when those screenshots are downloaded to spreadsheets for detailed analysis. We have that exotic negative wattage result that has little if any relevance to the standard model. The anomaly here is that extraordinary that there are no known protocols that can interpret the actual dissipation of wattage from the supply nor the actual delivery of energy from the supply. All is anomalous. And all is carefully measured.
Then there's another significant point. The oscillation moves above and below zero and - again according to the standard model - the circuit is open and the battery cannot be delivering any energy during one half of that waveform. Another anomaly that requires consideration.
And finally. I am on record. I would have been more than happy to run those tests for the duration - provided only that our learned and revered go on record that this test would represent conclusive proof of our overunity claim. It's tricky monitoring these tests when the output is in excess of 100 watts or thereby as the setting often slips and the amount of energy then delivered can get out of control. To finance that required monitoring was doable - but would have been pointless if it did not first carry that assurance from our academics.
So. What we've done is submitted the papers based exclusively on the numbers that have also been very carefully extrapolated. And we've attempted to show how the 'thinking' related to that current flow - is accommodated in our thesis. That's enough for the start of what should become a hotly debated, and I hope, widely tested experiment.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
175 - riding a tsumani
Dear Reader,
Thank you to all you well wishers. It's been a very pleasant sojourn with my insomnia - for once. It seems that these small efforts of ours are possibly adding to the those rising tides of knowledge.
I've said this before. Bear with me. I think we can be forgiven everything if we had not also simply based our insights on something that our boffins have overlooked. But there it is. It's all very simple. And yet it's not simple at all. Science has rather depended on increasing the complexities of its mathematical structures to move to the weighty abstractions of our string theorists. But when the final analysis is simply shown to depend on an understanding of charge - plus, minus and neutral - then math itself rather falls by the way and is replaced with the digital structures that your average preschool toddler could manage to count on one hand. Mildly amusing but nonetheless rather sad. It puts paid to intellectual pretension - and it should elevate the understanding of physics - particle physics - that we, the lay public, the non expert, can entirely understand.
This is important. I'll see if I can explain it. Knowledge - historically, has been the exclusive property of the expert. And the expert - by definition - is the minority. That resulted in a kind of relationship where we not only followed our leaders but allowed them the exclusive rights to comment. It is thanks to the laudable skills of those few excellent physicists - the Gary Zukov's et al - who worked to take this knowledge to the public through interpretations of physics into their understandable and conceptual forms of layman's literature - that the public were ever given the opportunity to engage. And that engagement - of necessity - broadened the dialogue - exponentially. Essentially it means that insights are not the exclusive property of the expert. Indeed - they are well within the intellectual grasp of us mere mortals. And unlike the expert - we have no axe to grind - no pet theory to advance. We simply want to reconcile all those muddles that standard physics promotes.
It is increasingly comforting to know that those simple concepts that we've included in our second paper - are, indeed, both understandable and unarguable. That's a good basis for a conversation. The question now is whether our boffins will actually even talk to us.
lol
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Thank you to all you well wishers. It's been a very pleasant sojourn with my insomnia - for once. It seems that these small efforts of ours are possibly adding to the those rising tides of knowledge.
I've said this before. Bear with me. I think we can be forgiven everything if we had not also simply based our insights on something that our boffins have overlooked. But there it is. It's all very simple. And yet it's not simple at all. Science has rather depended on increasing the complexities of its mathematical structures to move to the weighty abstractions of our string theorists. But when the final analysis is simply shown to depend on an understanding of charge - plus, minus and neutral - then math itself rather falls by the way and is replaced with the digital structures that your average preschool toddler could manage to count on one hand. Mildly amusing but nonetheless rather sad. It puts paid to intellectual pretension - and it should elevate the understanding of physics - particle physics - that we, the lay public, the non expert, can entirely understand.
This is important. I'll see if I can explain it. Knowledge - historically, has been the exclusive property of the expert. And the expert - by definition - is the minority. That resulted in a kind of relationship where we not only followed our leaders but allowed them the exclusive rights to comment. It is thanks to the laudable skills of those few excellent physicists - the Gary Zukov's et al - who worked to take this knowledge to the public through interpretations of physics into their understandable and conceptual forms of layman's literature - that the public were ever given the opportunity to engage. And that engagement - of necessity - broadened the dialogue - exponentially. Essentially it means that insights are not the exclusive property of the expert. Indeed - they are well within the intellectual grasp of us mere mortals. And unlike the expert - we have no axe to grind - no pet theory to advance. We simply want to reconcile all those muddles that standard physics promotes.
It is increasingly comforting to know that those simple concepts that we've included in our second paper - are, indeed, both understandable and unarguable. That's a good basis for a conversation. The question now is whether our boffins will actually even talk to us.
lol
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)