comments from the public

25

Dear Reader,

I notice - with some alarm - that there are considerably more readers than I hoped for at this stage.  And I'm getting questions from you.  If I knew how to answer you all off this blog - then I'd do this.  I have no idea how.  I only know how to publish in this blog.  In any event - if you're reading here - then here's my answer to questions.

Anonymous - What's so special is that we're getting a COP greater 17 and have had 4 hours of run at COP INFINITY.  We're trying to get back this latter result.

Sheldon - the parts will be available when we publish the report.  Not sure where that publication will come but it's unlikely to be on forums.  I'll explain this later.  It's the same circuit that we've always used - except that we're using a standard immersion element as our load resistor and we're driving the MOSFET with a functions generator.  It seems to afford us much better control than the 555.

Meanwhile I am still debating where to report and how public to make that report.  I'll share some concerns about this in due course.

Kindest regards,

Rosemary

Strange Glue - Brick Chokers and Diamonds

24

Dear Reader,

This is another email to a friend - in another attempt to explain some of the concepts of that proposal.  Hopefully it helps.

Only 3 potential valence conditions of atoms - and the material bonding those atoms
There are only three types of bricks.  They're either blue or they're red or they're a mix of both colours.  And then they're purple.  The bricks are 'glued' together by Strange Glue. Strange Glue is plastic.  It's made up of thin strands of hollowed out plastic marbles.  They're just small threads.  But they orbit so they then become loops.  Just single stranded, individual packages of small necklaces.  And each necklace keeps spinning or orbiting.

The atomic energy levels

Now.  Spinning on the surface of those bricks are similar strands of necklaces.  But unlike Strange Glue - they're multi stranded.  They're the Brick Choker.  And studded between those chokers are pure diamonds.  When the number of diamonds on the outside of the brick can be divisible by 2 then the bricks are coloured Purple. When the number of diamonds outside the brick can't be divisible by 2 then those bricks are coloured red or blue.  Red bricks have less strands of chokers than Blue bricks and therefore less diamonds are studded between those strands.  

Strange Glue does a dance with these outside chokers.  One step forwards for every one step back by the Brick Choker. They orbit each other with the precision of articulated gears and being shorter in length - Strange Glue also has a smaller circumference.  Therefore it completes one entire orbit when the Brick Choker has hardly turned at all. 

The immutable imperative to move to a condition of balance
And through this dance step - in this way - Strange Glue holds those bricks together.  If the bricks are red - then Strange Glue spins clockwise.  If the bricks are blue then Strange Glue spins anti clockwise.  So for every two red bricks you get a clockwise, say, spinning necklace of Strange Glue.  And - for every two blue bricks you get an anti clockwise spinning necklace.  But what Strange Glue actually wants is purple bricks.  That way they can have two spins one being clockwise and another being anticlockwise - both.  And Strange Glue really needs to spin in both directions.

Although each necklace of Strange Glue is smaller than the length of the Brick Chokers - and considerably smaller than the brick itself - it can, nonetheless, move those bricks around to arrange them.  And it can even unglue one brick from another and then move it towards or away from another brick.  And when they do this - when they manage to change the location of the one or both bricks then they also change the colour of both bricks to that preferred shade of purple.  And then that necklace of Strange Glue is perfectly content because it's joined both bricks and it can, itself, then move both clockwise and anticlockwise. Which is its preferred orbit. 

The current that flows as a field
BUT.  There's a caveat.  Just like one permanent magnet can't change it's poles but has to adjust it's entire position to align with another magnet - so Strange Glue first has to alter it's position in space to change its spin or its orbit.  Now Strange Glue senses what's in the environment because it's everywhere.  And it can quickly read the colour of the bricks that are surrounding it.   In the electromagnetic interaction it first makes a bullet run of all those little necklaces.  Here what they do is break their orbits - break ranks -  and turn into long threads that then they join up in a single line or many single lines made up of these smaller little Strange Glue packages.  That means they they simply move into really long lines of little plastic hollowed out marbles and then they do another very big orbit.

But the minute they break away to form these long lines they also 'UNGLUE' the bricks that they were holding together.  But just for a brief moment - because they can move very quickly and very intelligently.  They read what's around them - and then they make a run for it.  Their goal is to get back to that finish line which is on the other side of the start line.  That's their new orbit.  And, when they get back there, then only can they adjust their orbits - as required.  They can break off again back into those little separated packages of threads that orbit.  And having given themselves this wide, wide orbit through the circuit they can then make good use of any blue or red bricks in that environment to re-assemble those bricks as purple bricks or as close to 'purple' as they can manage.  They can now vary their individual little necklace orbits as required.

The energy of that hidden dark matter in circuit components themselves
But to get to the finish line they have to first 'run the course' - and the 'course' in our example could be a circuit.  And that circuit is also made up of bricks.  And they too have these outer Brick Chokers with their preferred number of studded diamonds.  The copper wire is made up of purple bricks.  That presents no real obstruction.  If that long necklace in that bullet run is moving clockwise through the copper in the circuit  - it simply kicks out the clockwise spinning necklaces that are holding those bricks together.  Then it does a sort of a dance with the anti clockwise spinning necklaces and gradually progresses through those purple bricks until it gets to the other side.

The valence condition of those circuit components 
But then it comes across a resistance (our resistor or element).  Here the bricks are either red or blue.  They're all spinning in the same direction  - and that does present a problem.  But it's not insuperable. Here's what Strange Glue knows.  One half of any spin - of any orbit - always opposes the other half.  Strange Glue takes advantage of this.  Therefore - with some nimble footwork - Strange Glue knocks out one half of some of those orbiting necklaces holding those Red bricks or Blue bricks - and simply does it's 'dance' with what's remaining. And so it also passes through those brick structures.

Which is when Strange Glue becomes ever stranger.  What is left behind inside the circuit now COMES OUT OF ORBIT.  Where before they managed to orbit at a lickerty split rate - due to their interaction with the bigger Brick chokers - they now become slow.  They're not orbiting with anything at all.  And then they become as big as they first were small.  They become hot as they first were cold.  They become as slow as they were first fast.  And they're absolutely no longer able to hold those bricks together.  They've lost their 'field' condition.  They're in a state of chaos.  Very uncomfortable.  And they get ever bigger and ever hotter and ever slower as the state of chaos compounds.  BUT NOTE. The bricks don't get hot.  Nothing changes in the condition of their Brick Chokers.  Only Strange Glue gets hot.  And being bigger it also forces those bricks further and further apart.  The brick structure itself then appears to EXPAND.

The applied switching cycle
BUT. Thankfully - the bullet run is momentarily halted.  That's when we stop that current flow from the source - that first bullet run.  Then those necklaces that were 'kicked out' of the resistive structure are able to get back into the structure.  They're still there - orbiting.  Still in a field condition.  And.  Just like the first bullet run - they too have to join forces - join ranks - and find a path back to their own 'finish line'.  As with Strange Glue's first bullet run - the finish line is still on the other side of the resistor's own start line.  They still have to do an orbit.  Another wide, wide orbit.  And because there's still some sense of order in those parts of Strange Glue that was forced out of the brick structure they can still do this.  So.  They now join ranks - line up - hold hands - and then go back into the circuit.  And they then move in the opposite direction to that first bullet run. They also need a path. And they find a path (the body diode of the MOSFET) to allow them also to move through the circuit.  So.  They join ranks and move back but in the OPPOSITE direction.  And then they find their own finish line on the other side of their own start line - those resistor bricks which they had glued and which they want to re-glue.

The methodology
What we do is give repeated bullet shots so that the necklaces in that resistor never get back to their previous comfortable orbits.  And the glue strandes that were broken and  kicked out of orbit then stay hot and big.  I'm simply pointing out that the atoms - those bricks - can only be red or blue or purple.  And what these 'strings' do is move to neutralise NOT the bricks/atoms - but their arrangement in that brick/atomic construction.  And when their orbits are interrupted, when their strings are broken - for whatever reason - then they become visible and measurable as heat.  If they rejoin those 'bricks' or atoms then they re-arrange them to find - not the atom's comfort zones - but their own.  And they know exactly what they're dealing with because they interact with those bricks or those atoms by interacting with the atoms' atomic energy levels - which are also made up of spinning orbiting necklaces which here form a big multi stranded choker.  And they only interact with those atoms' outer energy levels. And when and if these 'fields of glue' are finally and completely 'out of orbit' - when the disturbance is that extreme - when they're that hot - then they can entirely evacuate the area of those bricks.  This can be seen as sparks and flames that leave that previously 'bricked' structure.  Then these strings can move away from the atom - thereby compromising the BOUND state of those bricks/atoms.  They never actually change the atom itself.  Just it's bound condition.  And they're plastic.  They can change their position in space.  They only look for things to 'glue' together.  They look for those bricks that they can paint purple.

The bricks are our atoms.  The Brick choker are it's outer energy levels.  The studded diamonds are the valence electrons.  Strange Glue simply holds those bricks together by interacting with the plastic beads in the bricks'/atoms' chokers.  The interaction of Strange Glue with the Brick Chokers is our 'weak nuclear force'.  The big orbit of Strange Glue - is current flow.

edited

Perhaps this makes it easier.  Hopefully.

on carrier particles

 22

Dear Reader,

I am keeping some information off this blog for a variety of reasons - but will give you all a follow up - on those experiments, possibly as soon as later on today - or tomorrow.  I started posting on Overunity Research.com. (OUR.com) having being banned from Overunity.com.  Confusing similarity of names - they're actually different forums and different owners.   But that forum seems to have been withdrawn - without any kind of notification to it's members.  Hopefully we'll hear more in due course.  What I'm doing in a few follow up posts is to try and recover the sense of some of my contributions there as I am not able to access the original posts.

By the way.  Stefan Hartman at Overunity.com (where I'm banned) assured us that he would be more than happy to post results as and when they come.  I've written to him in 2 separate emails and he conveniently ignores both.  My suspicion is that he had no intention of posting those results.  My question remains.  Why is there is forum that is apparently anxious to advance overunity research when it also denies experimenters the right to publish that proof.  Could it be that they are not actually committed to advance all this new science?  Are they in fact suppressing this when all that evidence becomes too clear?  Not sure yet.  In fairness I think I should first wait and hear from him.  Not sure what's considered to be a reasonable time.  But right now we're only talking 1 week.

This first one is about the carrier particle.  Just a brief overview.  It does not justify it's use.  It only explains why it used at all.   Thereafter I intend explaining why it's entirely inappropriate.

INTRODUCTION

The rule is that for any physical object to interact with another or other physical objects – then they must share a co-incident timeframe and a co-incident position in space.  And they must also share three dimensional properties of volume that allow them to be localised in a shared space. 

This is the essential puzzle of the forces.  How do nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational fields impact directly on visible and measurable matter when they do not appear to have the material properties associated with the visible three dimensional objects that are influenced by these forces?  The interaction of gravity, for example, appears to be immediate and co-incident on anything the size of an atom or larger.  Yet there is no apparent material object to transfer that energy as a ‘carrier’ in the sense that air would be the carrier of wind to move the trees, or in the sense that a ball is the carrier of the energy that moves it.

To get around this problem mainstream has proposed that there are ‘carrier’ particles.  And to get this solution to ‘fit the facts’ - to answer the variety of problems posed by this question  – their solution is to point to a variety of particles some of which are known and some of which must needs be purely speculated.   But the idea is this.  The force moves the particle that then moves the atom that then moves the object that binds that atom.   It’s logically an extension of what is observed.  Something along the lines of the wind that blows the balloon.  The wind would be the force.  The balloon would be the particle. 

Effectively all that’s actually been proposed is that the pervasive influence of the forces is just something that communicates itself on the very small scale of the particle.  Then that interaction, that movement – that exchange of energy on the particle level between the hidden force and the carrier particle - then unfolds to become manifest in our measurable dimensions.  But fundamental to this concept is the idea that this interaction still depends on a coincident timeframe.  Effectively that carrier particle is able to move as a result of an interaction with the invisible forces.  Then it communicates that interaction with the atom and with entire manifest material object that are made up of those atoms.  There’s no time lag.  It’s casual and it’s sequential – but that time scale is so subtle that it's also, to all intents and purposes, immediate.   The moment that the particle is moved by the force – is virtually also the same moment that all the atoms adjust to that movement in a sympathetic response.  Effectively, like the impact or interaction of three dimensional objects, it is here proposed that the forces rely on a coincident timeframe and a shared locality.  In this sense they are assumed to share our own timeframe and our own spatial dimensions.  And they impart their energy by interacting with these small particles that then share that interaction with the macrocosmic material that comprises these atoms.  

The electron is widely assumed to be the 'carrier particle' of the electromagnetic force.  The 'graviton' is assumed to be responsible for the gravitational force.  Unlike the electron this has never actually been seen.  The quark is proposed for the strong nuclear force - and it has the rare distinction of being required to answer questions of symmetry.  Nothing yet proposed for the 'dark' force - but the majority of our theorists don't actually subscribe to this force at all.  Surprising when you consider that it's been experimentally proven.  But I also think that our scientists are somewhat selective with what evidence they're prepared to accept or not.  This truth would be amusing if it weren't also quite so sad.  In any event our experts here are looking for a particle that is - by definition - invisible and thereby undetectable.  I'm not sure of the logic to justify this search.  But I think logic has long ago departed from mainstream theory.  It's now a kind of soup - a bouillabaisse comprising mostly fishy thinking and any 'spice of the month' for added flavour.

Regards,

Rosemary

Btw. I'm just reposting this picture as it's again referred to.  And it has the very real merit of making me smile.  Would that I could be as contented as that.  LOL

problems and problems solved

21

Dear Reader,

We're having problems with the instruments to record waveforms.  It may take a while to get this fixed or replaced.  I'll get back here asap.

Regards,
Rosemary

And again readers, all,

I've decided to keep this information here.  Problems are fixed and all is very much on track and results more amazing than ever.  Just a quick view of our wonderful little rig - here it is.  And at the moment it's cooking from a 12 volt supply with zero discharge from that battery.  A full report to follow.

Kindest regards and may you all be as happy as we are
Rosemary

Sorry.  Yet another qualification.  I will NOT have the report ready for tomorrow or even today.  More likely by the end of next week or sometime before Christmas.  It needs to be perfectly presented.  And perfection takes time.  I'm only certain that it will 'rock'.   So for those that need some good news - take heart. 

another upbeat update and more to come

20

Dear Reader - anyone who's following this blog - I have some preliminary and very good news and will post the data here tomorrow morning.  Right now I need sleep.

It seems that we've got an extraordinary coefficient of performance - as there's zero discharge measured from the battery and a 'too hot to handle' condition on our resistor.  On the morrow we'll be posting up all the graphs on the control wattages and the data from these last tests.   Still to rerun these and similar tests - but it all does appear to be very repeatable.  Still need some overview from our experts but I suspect that will still be some time in the offing as we're to submit a more comprehensive set of data than I'll be posting in the morning.

It's blown me away.  There were early indications of this - some week ago - but the numbers are being firmed up and it seems that we really do not need to stray too far from standard elements and standard technology.  Always was a concern.  It seems that we just need to switch that current and switch it fast.  What a pleasure.  More to the point - there appears to be no NOISE.  I actually am beginning to think that this may yet be easily applied to standard technologies using standard components.  The students are brilliant.

Watch this space.  LOL

Kindest regards,

Rosemary

BTW I'll be goig 'public' tomorrow - when and if I find the right threads and forums.  Not sure where to go but presumably OU.com will be happy to post either the data or a link.  And then there's OU.org.uk - and OUR.com.  Anyway I'll ask around.  Meanwhile let your friends know.  This is a replication with a vengeance - and everyone dedicated to open source this knowledge will be able to exploit it as and where they can.  SO EASY TO REPLICATE.  Thank you God.

a universal structure

19 Script 3 (draft)

We know the forces as the strong and weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force and gravity.  What this study will show is that one only needs the magnetic field and it's three potential dimensions to explain all those forces.  But to do this one first needs to locate that area of space where those dimensions would be manifest.  Where - in space - do we find these fields of magnetic dipoles?

Picture, if you will, in your mind's eye, a great big torus.  That torus comprises strings upon strings - necklaces of these very small and very fast and very cold magnetic dipoles.  They are so long that they wrap themselves around the entire universe.  They are so numerous that they fill the smallest regions and corners of space.  They are so fast that they are entirely invisible.  Yet this is the background, the scaffolding, the woof and weft of an almost solid cloth that holds the tapestry of matter.  It is invisible to light.  But it is the thing that moves and carries light inside its perfectly geometrical shape.  Put your finger on any part of that vacuum of space and it will be entirely undetectable except that it will be cold.  Very, very cold.  And in essense it is simply a jolly big toroidal magnetic field defining the shape and boundaries of the known universe.

Now picture God reaching into that structure with a pair of scissors and He then cuts one of those strings.  The necklace unravels, tumbles out of that orderly structure and it becomes a pile of beads that fall together - attracted to each other as would any magnets be attracted.  But tumbling.  They fall out of that orderly formation, that string.  And they then tumble into a localised area of space.  It puts one in mind of nebulae.  Those fast cloud structures that are seen to give birth to stars and possibly whole star structures and galaxies. 

We need to go back to Bell's requirement for symmetry.  If in the breaking of one indescribably long string - all those little beads fell out of their cold fast small state to become hot and slow and big - then an equal number of those little beads would have become equally colder and smaller and faster than the beads in the magnetic field itself.  So.  Here's the thing.  We have one level of size that we can relate to - and that's determined by light and whether or not light can interact with that 'thing'.  When it can't we have a second level of size that we can only speculate about - as it remains hidden and invisible.  Then we have a third level of size that is just so small that it cannot be reached by the hidden fields of the magnetic dipoles and it can hardly occupy any space at all as all of that space has been defined by magnetic fields.  It would share the same dimensions of time as the hot, big dipoles that we can see.  But it would be entirely out of reach of either our own reality of the reality of the magnetic fields.  Having no volume and occupying no space, it would, nevertheless share a time dimension with our own time dimensions - a kind of momentary co-incidence with our own realities.  

So.  Potentially we have these dimensions.  We have our own reality which has the three dimensions of length, breadth and depth and it's own relative time reference.  Then we have the magnetic fields that share our spatial dimensions but they have an entirely different time frame which, being faster than light would be in advance of our own time frame.  Then we have this third dimension that, curiously has only one  dimension of space in that it's extant at all, and another more certain dimension of time, and that time frame co-incident with our own.  Four dimensions to our realities, four dimensions to the magnetic field - and two dimensions to this third reality and one has a total of 10 dimensions that would then describe that entirety.  And all share a co-incidence with space but none share an identical time frame.

In effect this would then suggest that the universe may be a 10 dimension binary system - entirely described by our string theorists - but here pointing to varying properties of scale in speed and size and temperature.  The rule being that potentially the dipole itself can reach any extreme of three distinct properties being heat, velocity and volume.  The correspondence is this.  It is as hot and big - or as cold and small - as is determined by its velocity.  In the same way it is as big and fast  or small and slow as is determined by its temperature.  And therefore it's also as fast and hot or slow and cold as determined by it's volume.  Know any one of it's poperties and it describes the others.  Just, bear  this in mind.  In a field condition it would not be manifest in our own dimensions.  But outside a field condition it would indeed be evident.  It is proposed that it's evident when things glow with warmth or simply catch alight. 

2 the structure of the field

18 Script 2

The questions then are this.  What shape would the field take and what precisely would be the type and kind of particles that make up the field?  Here the solution was found in a simple rule of correspondence.  In effect everything is the sum of it's parts.  Take any three dimensional object, be it a brick or a stick of wood - then what we see and measure of the object itself is simply a collection or congregation of atoms and molecules that that are somehow bound together to create the visible, identifiable object itself.  Break down the object, grind it down to its very smallest parts and we'd be left with a puddle of atoms that were previously assembled and bound into that shape.  In the same way the proposal is that we take our 'clues' from what is known of the magnetic field and build from there.

The first point is that the field seems to comprise what Faraday referred to as 'lines of force'.  In effect the proposal was that the magnetic field comprises lines that move from one side of a permanent magnet to the other side, north to south.  If the field comprises particles then these lines of force would, in turn comprise particles.  And if there is a distinct north and south pole to each permanent magnet - then in the same way, following that same correspondence, then the particles would each have a north and south pole.  Effectively they'd be a magnetic dipole.

As to their shape?  We know that we only need to look to symmetry and this because of the conclusions to Bell's theorems which, loosely paraphrased, state that 'the statistical predictions of the quantum theories ... cannot be upheld with local hidden variables'.  All he was pointing to is this.  On a deep, a profound and fundamental level there has to be absolute correspondence - absolute symmetry.  Else matter would not be able to manifest in a stable and coherent way.  In effect he proved that if nature was not that economical and exact with all her rules - if she was not that precise on the very, very small scale - then we would not have this manifest assembly of our structured universe and its miracles of matter presented as it is - one thing distinct from another.  If all was variable then all would be chaos. The most perfectly structured, the most perfectly symmetrical shape is a sphere.  So.  I modestly propose that, just perhaps the basic particle, many of which make up a field, is also shaped as a sphere.  A perfectly round bead.  A ball.  And one half of that ball would be a north and the other half a south. That way the two charge potentials would be locked in a single particle forever married and neutral - but having the precise differences in charge to respond to each other and to all the other particles in the field.

Then the assembly of those particles is relatively straight forward.  They would align as magnets align.  Head to toe.  North to south.  That would form a long string.  And for absolute balance and symmetry, those strings would then close its open ends to form a circle.  I have no idea how long each string needs to be to then form that closed loop or that necklace.  Nor how many necklaces would then make up a field.  But I am reasonably satisfied that to fill all that 'space' that volume of the field itself, it would probably require a variety of lengths and those lengths would logically correspond to the shape of the field as a whole.  (2 Riaan's picture of the single to multiple lines of force from a magnet) And when one introduces differing lengths to the strings then one also introduces a partial imbalance.  One string is marginally different to an associated string.  This would inevitably result in 'like charge' aligning with like charge.  And this, in turn would induce a repulsive moment when the two particles would move apart from each other.  And that movement would induce a 'like movement' in the entire string.  One particle cannot simply move in space if it's fixed inside a line of like particles.  They would all move, one step forward, say.  And this would therefore result in an orbit of the entire necklace.  And in the process of describing that orbit, then other particles in that necklace would move towards other like charges in neighbouring strings.  And the same repulsions would induce more and more movements through more and more necklaces throughout the field.  Eventually all those strings would orbit - all in a shared direction or with a shared justification - and this then would account for the extraordinary velocity of the particles in the magnetic field.  Everything would be spinning at pace and in one direction.

But to analyse the basic properties of the string it is evident that there are various potential spatial dimensions of this.  A single string in the form of a necklace would be one dimensional having only  length.  (1 Riaan's picture of the necklace) Many strings forming a series of concentric circles - something like a saucer - would be a two dimensional field having width and breadth but no depth.

Many saucers piled, one on top the other, would be a three dimensional field.  (Riaan's picture of the torus)

So here's the thing.  Each particle is neutral comprising as is here proposed a magnetic dipole.  Each particle has a field justification which then proposes that the particle itself has one of its two potential charges.  But each orbit cancels out the potential charge in the field making the entire field absolutely neutral.  One can then say that a neutral particle has a justification in a neutral field determined by the orbit of that entire field.

an aside

17

Dear Reader,

It's been an absolute pleasure to write here on this blog of mine.  Not only am I not defending my corner and getting bogged down and delayed by endless irrelevancies but I'm actually enjoying the sheer creativity of this exercise, it's varied aspects of theorising and testing - and then the pleasure in composing this blog itself.  It's drifting between this and that - and no doubt will test everyone's tolerance when it is finally made public.  But it has the advantage of catching what's appropriate albeit it in a rather eccentric sequence.

Perhaps what I need to explain is the delays in that heat 'profiling' which, apparently is better explained as the heating characteristics of the element that we're studying at the moment.  Those poor students' time is heavily constrained in the bureaucratic demands to give them permission and license to study in this country of ours - as they are not South African Residents.  This is halting progress to a certain extent.  But the data for those 'characteristics' have now been captured and we're simply getting them put into a graphic form for easy reference.  We've also started on the switching circuit - but early steps.  At this stage we're simply trying to determine the optimised frequency for that particular element.  When we have a better handle on this then we'll download all that data against all those tests and - hopefully, those who are sufficiently interested, will be able to double check our numbers.

Meanwhile - I'll spend these long and wakeful nights of mine developing the script for that video.  It will also be a guide into the thesis for those of you who are interested.  And, by the way, I have not forgotten the need to transpose either the TIE paper or the Quantum paper onto this blog.  But I'll need to get someone to do that for me and - so far - have not found the right person.

Kindest regards,

Rosemary

1 the boundary constraint

16  - Script

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&q=PICTURES+OF+TPU%27s+Toroidal+Power+Units

The intention in the following series of videos is to share some aspects of a magnetic field model.  Hopefully then it can be better understood and its concepts more widely applied.  It is proposed that this may assist those many experimentalists who proliferate our free energy forums.  Hopefully it may give some kind of theoretical framework.  And if this is presumptuous then the defense is that all those efforts are seemingly advanced on a haphazard basis and are variously confused by overly complex coils and coil windings that daily, grow ever more complex.  It seems that all are searching for some elusive and magic properties assumed to be associated with the Toroidal Power Unit.  Perhaps this may help to return that focus back to some simple fundamental concepts that appear to have been overlooked.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&q=magnetic+lines+of+force
Faraday's 'lines of force' from a magnetic field are evident when the magnetic force from a permanent magnet is exposed to iron filings.  The filings then adjust their positions to describe a linear array that is understood to correspond to that field alignment.  What is clear is that the filings are induced to alter their position which implies that energy has been transferred from the field to the filings.  What is not so clear are the actual properties in both the filings and the magnetic field that enable that energy exchange.  It's here proposed that this exchange is managed in a hidden dimension and that this same hidden force is the agent of all energy interactions.

To get a clearer picture of this one must first propose that all that is visible or measurable in our four dimensions of space and time are only made visible and measurable through the properties of light.  Light is known to move at a velocity of a little under 300 000 kilometres per second.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light If anything at all exceeded that velocity then light itself would not find it.  The analogy is this.  We can see the balloon being blown by the wind.  We cannot see the wind.

 In effect, there may be something hidden, some particle or field of particles that moves light itself.  In which case, if there is an interaction between light and a field then that interaction may be evident but the actual agent of that interaction will remain as hidden as the properties of wind itself.  In as much as it's proposed that this field may move the particle, then the field itself may move faster than the particle in the same way that the wind moves faster than the balloon that it blows.  Therefore one can propose that there may be those particles or those fields that exceed light speed.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon  But if there were such particles or such fields then they would remain invisible - or dark.  So.  It is proposed that there may be particles that exceed light speed.  But.  If such particles existed then they would be beyond our frame of reference - a theoretical possibility - at best.  The object here is to argue the existence of that field and the particle that comprises that field.

Imagine that we've got a machine that can propel stones and it throws stones inside a vacuum so there are no possible disturbances to that throw other than the pull of gravity.  Then assume that the machine throws those stones with a set and predetermined force.  Then the rule is this. The smaller the stone the further the throw.  And correspondingly, the bigger the stone the nearer the throw.  That's logical.  But what if the stone was too small to be detected by that machine - or too big to be thrown at all?  Either extreme and the machine can no longer interact with that stone.  That's proposed as a boundary constraint.  In other words - we need a certain size to enable any kind of interaction at all.  We know that light can interact with atoms.  We rely on that interaction to make our universe visible.  Therefore one can conclude that light itself is within the boundary constraint of the atom.  But.  If there were forces that were moving light itself - then we know nothing of those forces or their particles to determine their own boundary constraints.

Now.  Our scientists have actually photographed an electron.  It looks something like this.

 In other words it's discontinuous. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&q=discontinuous+state+of+particls%3F  Apparently the particle itself dips in and out of the focus.  It first dies and then gets reborn.  It appears from nothing and then disappears into nothing.  It comes and goes.  And the question is where in space does it come from and where in space does it then go to?  And could it be that it has two innate potentials?  The one is when it is manifest in our measurable dimensions to be photographed at all?  And then a second state when it's not manifest?  When it can't even be reached by light?  The one moment it's visible.  The next moment it's dark.

It's that dark - that non manifest - condition when it's proposed to interact with a background field.  And it's also suggested that this field - this hidden force - moves the particle - all particles - but in a different time frame or a different time dimension to that which we can either see or measure.  Effectively - when it disappears, then the particle would be moving at a greater velocity - or it would have reached a smaller size - or both - that would then put it within the reach or influence of the boundary constraints of that field.  And it seems that this hidden field must also share our dimensions of space as both the particle's appearance and disappearance are also localised in space. 

Our time frame is therefore determined by the speed of light. Any velocity greater than 300 000 KPS or 'C' as it's referred to - and it becomes invisible to light - or it becomes 'dark'.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy  And anything within or slower than C and it would, inevitably, be visible to light.  So.  Light is simply the boundary limit to our measurable dimensions.  This in turn, suggests that there may be more than one time frame albeit that those different time frames share the same dimensions of space.

With this in mind then the idea is to somehow unravel the properties of a magnetic field - based on the following assumptions.  The field has material properties or is particulate.  Those particles move at a velocity that exceed light speed.  The field is the agent or 'carrier' of all energy.  The actual energy exchange is determined outside our time frame and it precedes our own.  The effect of that exchange is measurable and visible in our own time frame. 

general update

 15

OK Readers, all,  I'm nearly there.  All I need to do is get the TIE paper scanned and posted here and then I think I've made the most of the 'due record' and historical events that are appropriate.  The students have nearly completed the heat profiling on that 'standard immersion heater' element and our hope, during the coming week - is to complete the switching tests.  We need to find a means of recording that data and where - but the hope is that I'll be able to give links here - if I can't actually download the data directly.  We also need to establish a format for that presentation.  Maybe on or around the 26th?  I see a busy week ahead. 

I will then post those test results onto two forums - subject to the permission of their owners.  And then too, I'll go public with this blog of mine.  There is a danger however.  Our 'base line' tests were started on a standard element - simply to establish how far away from 'standard' one would need to move to get a realistic application established.  No sooner had we posted a picture of that first element than Glen posted an identical picture and predated that post by 2 days.  My concern is that he'll do the same with this published data of ours.  If he does, then I will have to call a halt to the public display of this and simply keep it under wraps until the work is entirely finished.

I now need to develop a script for the 3D video presentation of the thesis - that I've been detailed to do.  Fortunately I've found a narrator.  A last.  One of our students.  With his voice in mind - it should be easier to compose that script.  I've had a case of 'writer's block' - sort of.  I just needed to find that diction and voice to find the appropriate style of text.  And I think I'm there.  I'm going to develop that script on this blog of mine.  So.  It's likely to be changed and much edited.  But working this publicly also forces me to apply stricter editing standards - which are much needed.

So.  Onwards and Upwards.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

BTW - the thread that was due for 'deletion'.  It seems that it will NOT be deleted after all.  Just locked.  This is much appreciated.  Also.  In case that decision is ever reversed CLaNZeR has allowed this to be on record on his own forum of Overunity.org.uk.  Not sure how to access that link but hopefully you all can manage it - should it ever be required.

And there's that link to my thread that has definitely survived the week.  LOL
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg263687#msg263687

good reason for great hopes

15

So, dear Reader,  that's the evidence.  It was firstly my own thesis - albeit rough and raw and confined to concepts.  I had to find a means to expose all that energy that I know is there.  The only way I could do this, definitively, was to prove it against electric current flow - because that much was doable.  Twelve years ago - I discussed this with two expert theoretical physicists.  They agreed that the proposed circuit would determine that thesis.  They even suggested their lab technician do the test.  He declined.  He was not prepared to get involved with that test. 

And here again - at the risk of boring you all - is the thinking.  In classical power analysis the assumption is made that energy is only available from a supply source - like a battery.  So.  In terms of classical prediction then - the heat that is dissipated throughout the circuit will exactly correlate to the energy supplied.  If the heat that is measured is less than the heat that is supplied then that difference may be considered to be 'stored' energy.  Yet these experiments show that SO MUCH energy is stored that it can return it all back to the battery that supplied it - and yet it can cook those resistors and transistors and sundry components in that circuit.  Clearly there's some error in classical prediction.  And clearly there is energy being generated rather than stored - else so much MORE energy would not be available to recharge the supply.

And for those of you who, like me, are unschooled in the sciences - then this is what it means.  It means that provided you have a voltage supply source, some kind of battery or some kind of link to a utility supplier - then you can make jolly good use of all that voltage - and simply 'give it back' without it actually costing you anything at all.  But here's the thing.  It's hardly fair to expect our utility suppliers to supply all that voltage in the first instance without charging you something.  That's fair cop.  However, if you simply apply batteries to substitute that supply source then...?  Indeed you could manage to heat your homes, cook your food, light your lights - with your OWN battery supply source.

As I see it - all that is needed is a continual trickle charge to the batteries from the supply grid - and then let your batteries pump all that potential to 'heat your hearths' and do the necessary.  They'll pretty well do all that with just the smallest amount of energy required to keep up their voltage potential.  That's certainly the evidence in these tests.  If your utility bill cost you say 100 dollars, pounds, whatever, then that trickle charge will barely cost you 10.  And if you used a solar panel to substitute that utility supplier for that small trickle charge - then you'd need only one small panel.  Then you could unhook yourself from that utility supplier - and kiss that dependency 'good bye'.  What a pleasure.

In terms of the fuller requirements here?  We're exploring them.  One thing that is clearly evident is that we need to 'switch' the current - in order to give all that returning energy a chance to 'do it's thing'.  That switch is called a transistor.  And right now - there is no transistor that is robust enough to handle all that returning voltage.  It spikes and it spikes big.  It's the difference between lighting a slow burning fuse and the explosion that then launches a rocket.  Or it's the difference between an early rumble from a volcano and the 'blast' that comes from it's subsequent explosion.  We need that transistor.  And we need our manufacturers to make it.  And right now - they see no reason for all that extra research expense.  Hopefully our own research will be enough to motivate them.

But all looks promising.

Kindest regards,

Rosemary

test objectives outlined by Harvey Gramm

14

Dear Reader,

The following extract was authored by Harvey Gramm.  It was included in the introduction to the first paper submitted to the IEEE and was added as an appendix 1 in the paper that was subsequently submitted to TIE.

I am including it here for three reasons.  The one reason is that Harvey claims that he simply does not understand the thesis.  Yet this extract shows a remarkable level of understanding.   If he does not or did not understand it - then he, notwithstanding, was able to give an exceptionally articulate account of it.  Here is that evidence

The second reason that I'm publishing it is because Harvey is on record as denying that the spirit of collaboration was ever there.   It is true that the text of those papers was variously written only by myself, Donovan and himself.  But that early spirit of collaboration was always there - alive and well - and if Harvey was  intending to harm that effort then that intention was well hidden.  The inclusion of A Gardiner, A Palise and S Windisch to the collaboration, was simply intended to broaden that global open source representation. I trusted that they would support the objects of the paper and invited them to join.   In retrospect it was an appalling decision to invite them at all.  So much say for so little contribution.  What was I thinking?

The third reason is a chapter all on it's own.  This extract - this introduction - was absolutely in the opening paragraphs of that earlier submission - loud and clear and in full view.  It's the required proof that the thesis was always in the main body of the work that was submitted to the IEEE.  In other words - here is the evidence.  For those readers who eventually get here and who don't know of this relevance - it is this.  The thesis was also in the introduction to that second, much contended paper, submitted to TIE.  But while the thesis was more fully explained in the appendix to that first paper, we were obliged to take out the appendix in our TIE submission as it referenced the actual name of one of the authors, being myself.  This was NOT allowed - when submitting for review.  Therefore I had to give a more comprehensive overview of the thinking that required this predicted result in all that experimental evidence.  The absurdity is this.  Those contenders, being H Gramm, G Lettenmaier, A Palise, Gardiner, Windisch ALL agreed to what was written.  What's more they gave their written approval.  I submitted that they could leave my name off the paper - in which case they could include the reference.  Or they could include my name in which case we had to add that explanation in the revised introduction.  They unanimously stated that they preferred me to leave my name in the paper with its required amendment. 

The paper was NEVER designed as an account of an anomaly - but rather as a result of a prediction in the context or frame of that thesis.  It is every theorist's dream that there is a definitive prediction in terms of a thesis.  I had that evidence.  And they all effectively  and publicly denied me this right.  Under the spurious pretext of preferring to consider it an anomaly.  And THAT after the event.  God alone knows why.  And all those shouts, all that denial, is not only a breach of their undertaking  but  is a breach of good faith towards the advancement of aether energy and technology.  It is the theme of the thesis and the dream of many of us enthusiasts.  Since the thesis is considerably more significant than these 'effects' which are somewhat crude considering the potential inherent in that 'field model' - then indeed - they have all been rather prodigal both with my early trust and with this potential benefit.  Certainly there is an apparent indifference to concerns for the furtherance of this study in 'dark energy' applications.  What may well have launched us into an early advancement and recognition of that model resulted in a fiasco.  And the advancement of the thesis is really required - on just so many levels - not least of which - being that it appears to be correct.

What I need to add is this.  My rights to publish this extract and any part of the work in that paper are protected.  In terms of the rules applied to all collaborative works - any or all the authors may publish where they will - provided only that they compensate all authors in the event that there is a payment for that publication.

Regards,

Rosemary

The following exercise is intended as a broad brushstroke description of the non classical properties of current flow that was tested in the experiment described herein.

The classical approach to current flow recognizes that charge motion is predominately that of electric charge. The aspect of this thesis that is considered appropriate to this submission relates to current flow. It proposes that current flow comprises the motion of magnetic charge which, in turn comprises elementary magnetic bipolar particles. In classical terms, these particles would align with Faraday’s Lines of Force and therefore the number of lines that exist through a particular  real or imaginary surface, would still be represented as magnetic flux while the particles themselves, in distribution along those lines, represent the magnetic field.

It is proposed that these fields are extraneous to the atomic structure of matter and are thought to play a critical part in binding atoms and molecules into gross identifiable matter. Further, the particles obey an immutable imperative to move towards a condition of balance or zero net magnetic charge. Given a source material with an ionized charge imbalance which is measured as a potential difference, and given a closed circuit electromagnetic material path, these particles will return to the source material with the necessary charge to neutralize that imbalance. in anti-phase or opposite polarity to the first cycle.

While this is substantially in line with classical assumption as it relates to the transfer of charge, the distinction is drawn that the energy that is then transferred to such electromagnetic components, is able to regenerate a secondary cycle of current flow in line with electromagnetic laws. This energy is then not limited to the quotient of stored energy delivered during the first cycle and as presumed by classical theory. Instead it is dependent on the circuit component’s material characteristics and the means by which those materials balance a charge put upon them. Therefore there is a real energy potential in the secondary cycle which would reflect in a measured improvement to the performance coefficient of the circuit arrangement. This enhanced performance coefficient may be at the expense of the bonding of the material in the circuit components. In a worst case condition, this energy may be released as is observed in an exploding wire that is put under extreme charge conditions due to excessive current flow. In a best case condition, the energy is released gradually over time and results in fatigue to those components. This paper addresses an application of the gradual release.

Harvey Gramm - author

the eternal dilemma

13

Dear Reader,

I don't know how to describe what little insights I have.  I get deeply embarrassed when I think of my presumptions in trying to explain anything at all -  let alone something of such profound importance  as this field.  And all with so little evident schooling or ability.  And then I'm caught up again in the beauty and simplicity of all those patterns that I'm compelled to make yet another attempt to describe it all.   The solutions are classical. Yet it seems that I can do this vision, this solution, no justice at all.  This is my Hell.  It is holds me locked in a dilemma that has doggged my best efforts for all these many years. 

The real problem is this.  I know of no-one who has proposed such eccentric properties to a single particle that it can have a field condition distinct with properties that are entirely reversed from it's 'out of field' condition.  It's not the same thing as holding an electron bound in a bubble chamber.  It's far, far stranger than that.  The proposal is that the particle in the field is cold and fast and small - and out of the field it becomes hot and slow and big.  And then there are other required eccentricities.  Correspondences.  Synchronicities.  It needs must sustain a field condition that is mathematically perfect.  Yet that very perfection intrinsically generates its required imperfection.  It repels and attracts - both.  The strings are held bound - locked in a formation as strong as Sydney Harbour Bridge.  South to North, head to toe, in an uncompromising military formation.  And in a line that can be as short as the space between two atoms or as long as the entire length and breadth of our universe.  And all sizes in between.  In that head to toe formation - that necklace - that linear formation, it is propelled into an orbit at extraordinary velocities by the sheer repulsion to all those other strings in that field formation.  Yet within that repulsion is enough attraction to hold the field bound.  Perfect charge distribution in whole and in part.  Those long necklaces group together.  Chokers of pearls piled against more chokers of pearls.  Break those strings and the entire formation collapses in a cascading miracle of matter made manifest in our own time frame.  We see this as sparks from a fire,  the glow in flux,  the vast clouds of our nebulae.  And then that glow fades - the fire cools, the nebulae recongregate - all against varying times that span infinity itself.  Those miraculous little pearls cool.  They regain their formation and their velocities.  They again dip back to enjoy a field condition where they simply hide outside our time frame and disappear from our world.  No longer  are they in our dimensions.  And then they busily engage with each other in that field condition.  A structured background as perfectly assembled as a sonnet - and as breathtakingly economical as a haiku.  As classical as is required for perfect conservation of energy.

So.  How does one reduce such a vision into the dry and accurate language of applied physics?  The concept itself may very well be reduced to a mathematical formula.  But at what price?  I would hope that the field itself can be conceptualised.  That way it can be better shared by many.  Else it may drift into the dry abstractions that our physicists require - which will devolve and damage this vision and condemn it to obscurity.  And it is a classical solution.  It seems that Einstein did well to object to our quantum resolutions.  If any of these insights are correct then God indeed does not play dice.

Regards,

Rosemary

abstract and introduction to the paper authored in open source collaboration and submitted to TIE

12

Dear Reader,  

Again for the record, I am here intending to copy some parts of the that paper submitted to TIE - that was so heavily contended.  What follows is the text that was authored by myself and Donovan Martin and which was open for edit and comment by all the authors including Harvey Gramm.  In point of fact none of the the remaining authors outside of Harvey Gramm - and this includes includes Glen Lettenmaier -  made any material contribution to the text.  Glen simply conducted the tests under mine and Donovan's guidance and according to the requirements proposed by both Open Source members and Harvey Gramm.   I will give a copy of paper to TIE representing a full replication of our earlier published tests published in QUANTUM October edition 2002 - when this has been scanned and can be reproduced together with the details of the collaborators' names.  The following posts are intended to represent that part of the text of that paper that represented my own contributions.  It is not intended or implied that this is the entire text of the entire paper, missing as it will do, the  text and contributions of Harvey Gramm. 

The paper is lengthy and will be added to here - but I'm not sure of the limitations to these post lengths and will have to determine this on a 'trial by error' basis. 

Kind regards,

Rosemary

Abstract
This experiment is designed to test the predictions of a thesis that determines material hidden properties of charge in circuit components. A MOSFET switching circuit is applied in series with an inductive resistive load and an interactively tuned duty cycle on the gate then enables an aperiodic, self oscillating frequency.  Subject to overlying harmonics this is seen to improve the circuit’s coefficient of performance above four.  The thesis proposes that this level of efficiency is due to the induced transients where the resultant current flow emanates from the circuit components. It is proposed that these have an alternate material source of charge to that of the supply. This energy is further proposed to be the source of the anomalous heat signatures as the circuit components enable this charge flow through the battery supply thereby also enabling a conservation of charge.

Introduction

THE following tests were designed to evaluate a thesis that predicted anomalous heat signatures on an inductive resistor placed in series with a switching circuit. The thesis is developed from a non classical magnetic field model but a full description of this falls outside the scope of this submission. What is pertinent here is some overview of that thesis as it applies to current flow. The following paragraph is intended as a broad brushstroke description of this and is further clarified as described in the Appendix I.

The model proposes that charge has the property of mass with the material properties of velocities and thermal capacities associated with that mass. These particles do not conform to the standard model and remain hidden within three dimensional solid or liquid objects or amalgams. They are extraneous to the atom itself and only interact with the atomic energy levels that, in turn, comprise independent fields of the same fundamental particle. These extraneous fields are responsible for the bound condition of the amalgam. This interaction between the fields and the atoms’ energy levels results in a balanced distribution of charge throughout the amalgam. Measurable voltage reflects a transitional state of imbalance throughout these binding fields that, subject to circuit conditions, then move that charge through available conductive and inductive paths to reestablish a charge balance. In effect the circuit components that enable the flow of charge from a supply source are, themselves able to generate a flow of current depending on the strength of that applied potential difference and the material properties of the circuit components. Therefore both inductive and conductive circuit components have a potential to generate current flow in line with Inductive Laws.

(This reference to the thesis was included because TIE would not allow reference to any of the author's names prior to review to ensure absolute impartiality in that review process.  The previous submissions of this paper to IEEE included a direct link to that thesis, and my name associated, as it is, with this  - as the IEEE do NOT have this preclusion in their review process.   In other words, the thesis had ALWAYS been a part of every submission.  And much required.  We needed to show that the results of these tests were not of an anomalous nature.  Lest the reviewers assumed that we were pointing to a 'freak of nature' rather than to something that was both predicted and indeed repeatable.  This was an essential part of our submission as it was not expected that any reviewed journal would publish a mere anomaly.   We therefore had to rewrite the paper to TIE to include a synopsis of that thesis else the paper would otherwise have lost this advantage.  This inclusion of the thesis became the 'theme' of Harvey Gramm's complaint to all the collaborators where he seriously proposed to them that  I was hijacking Glen's replication to promote my own work.  And what followed were those mutterings - both loud and public by  both S Windisch and A Palise, added to the excessive parade of injury and indiganation by Glen Lettenmaier  - that the work SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROMOTED AS AN ANOMALY. 

Sadly and unfortunately none of them, none of these so called promoters of clean green,  and with the entire exception of Harvey Gramm realised this.  And Harvey Gramm was careful to advise all the collaborators that he could convince - that the paper COULD indeed be published as an anomaly.  And it seemed an easy task to convince them and thereby achieve the required alienation of myself in that collaboration as they none of them seemed to realise that it was ALWAYS referenced in the introduction of our previous submissions.  I often wonder if those collaborators even understood the most of the text in either paper.  Certainly, on the face of it, it seems not.)

Classical assumption requires an equivalence in the transfer of electric energy based as it is on the concept of a single supply source. Therefore voltage measured away from the supply on circuit components is seen to be stored energy delivered during closed circuit conditions of a switching cycle. The distinction is drawn that if indeed, the circuit components are themselves able to generate a current flow from potential gradients, then under open circuit conditions, that energy may be added to the sum of the energy on the circuit thereby exceeding the limit of energy available from the supply. Therefore if more energy is measured to be dissipated at a load than is delivered by the supply, then that evidence will be consistent with this thesis. The experimental evidence does indeed, conform to this prediction.

This submission details the experimental apparatus, the applied measurements protocol and the data from a test that is designed to adequately assess the data as it relates to the thesis. It is considered that this submission of the experimental results will allow a wide dissemination both of the experiment and some consideration of questions relating to these anomalies, as being preferred and required.

The circuit is designed to enable a secondary, current flow that is induced from the collapsing fields over the resistor during the ‘off’ period of the duty cycle as a result of counter electromotive force (CEMF). This induces a flow of current in anti phase to the initial current from the source and this is seen to return to the battery supply source to recharge it. The performance coefficient is enhanced through an applied duty cycle that allows the circuit components to oscillate at a naturally recurring frequency. This is referred to herein, as a preferred mode of oscillation which, in turn, results in an aperiodic, self-regulated, resonating frequency. Distinctive harmonics are evident in the waveform and these are seen to be a required condition to the circuit’s enhanced performance as it relates to the efficiency of the recharge cycle over the battery. However the precise parameters of the duty cycle, determined by adjustment of the potentiometer at the gate of the MOSFET transistor, are found to be both critical and elusive.

The fact that these benefits to an enhanced coefficient may have been overlooked under usual applications can be attributed to the narrowness of the range required for this setting. Under usual applications such aperiodicity is considered undesirable and therefore systematically factored out of standard switched applications.

Also included is a discussion on ‘meshed currents’ that are evident and a detailed account of the data analysis that was applied to all measurements. A series of related tests are appended that variously record the progress of the applied test parameters and the improved methods of measurements as the knowledge of the application unfolded. This schedule includes an evaluation of the inductance required on the load resistor to optimize the effect, as well as an evaluation of the comparative diameters of that resistor to determine optimized conditions. Other tests include the measurements that were performed to address a variety of concerns including grounding problems, voltage differentials and applied high frequencies without the required harmonics. These have been appended, together with an overview of the thesis relating to this effect, for both purposes of record and to afford a fuller evaluation as required.

The test that is described herein has results that appear to be consistent with the predictions of that thesis. The returning current from CEMF is seen to reduce the battery discharge rate while sustaining a higher level of energy dissipated at the load. This has a resulting advantage to the coefficient of performance. Indeed, the actual measurements indicate a potential for an absolute conservation of charge at the supply. The conclusions to the tests include a broad discussion of the potential of this technology and indicate a need for expert evaluation of both the results and the theoretical paradigms that predicted the results.

thank you Coast to Coast - and David Davey for your help

11

Dear Reader,

I need to pay tribute to our team member - this marvelous LeCroy - which is making due record of all our test results.  Many thanks for your contribution here to all our efforts to David, to Coast to Coast and to LeCroy.  All are very much appreciated.

Kindest regards
Rosemary