Dear Reader,
Still at the same levels. I'm hoping to hear from various people today to see if I can get the funds to get this filmed on the internet on a continual basis.
I think a reasonable target would be to get the battery running for 10 days or so with a zero loss of energy. And then conclude it by doing a repeat of the water to boil test.
Anyway. So far we're into the 5th day. Such fun. I had no idea I'd be able to tolerate such a boring test. But actually it's great. I may yet become an experimentalist. lol
It's aether rising guys and gals. Just so nice.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Monday, August 1, 2011
135 - still cooking with gas
Dear Reader,
Frankly I didn't have the heart to stop the test last night. It's getting a personality all of it's own. Defiant - springs to mind. Like it's showing the finger to all those smug physics predictions. It's still at precisely 74.2 then 74.3 then 74.4 then 74.3. 74.2 - 74.1 - 70.0 - 73.9 and then back up. And so it goes. Every now and then it drops as low as 73.6. That's the lowest I've seen. Heart stopping moments. And then it just quietly reverses direction again.
The batteries have now doubled their performance capacity. I was rather hoping to move this test out of my cottage and into the main house. I'll get hold of Raylite and see if they - perhaps - could make use of this publicity. That way they I may be able to get a a decent filming of this and wider accreditation.
Very nice.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
BTW. Just bear in mind that these are the same batteries that have been used continuously for over 11 months now and the only two recharged were recharged some months back because they caught fire.
Frankly I didn't have the heart to stop the test last night. It's getting a personality all of it's own. Defiant - springs to mind. Like it's showing the finger to all those smug physics predictions. It's still at precisely 74.2 then 74.3 then 74.4 then 74.3. 74.2 - 74.1 - 70.0 - 73.9 and then back up. And so it goes. Every now and then it drops as low as 73.6. That's the lowest I've seen. Heart stopping moments. And then it just quietly reverses direction again.
The batteries have now doubled their performance capacity. I was rather hoping to move this test out of my cottage and into the main house. I'll get hold of Raylite and see if they - perhaps - could make use of this publicity. That way they I may be able to get a a decent filming of this and wider accreditation.
Very nice.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
BTW. Just bear in mind that these are the same batteries that have been used continuously for over 11 months now and the only two recharged were recharged some months back because they caught fire.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
134 - more results - this is getting a bit boring
Dear Reader,
Here's the thing. I don't want to risk leaving the oscilloscope on for the duration of the tests. It's a delicate instrument and I'd hate it if the experiment went out of control. So I turn it off during the course of the test. Then I turn it on to download a test result. It invariably starts off at 73.something - and then immediately climbs to 74.3 or 74.4. Then it drops to 74.1 and then just moves between these values. The test start voltage was 72.something. Can't remember it but I've got the download. That made me think that it was 'recharging'. But it really isn't. It is simply retaining its charge...I think.
In any event it has now been running for 67 hours. Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this. It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours. Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.
I'll let it run for the duration of the day. But this is really getting absurd. By rights the batteries should, by now, have completely depleted. In fact they're fully charged.
I'll download the waveforms later today when I conclude the test. So. I'll let it run for another 12 hours or more. But I think this has now been conclusively proven.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
It's mildly amusing to me that Stefan has assured me that my membership will be re-instated when I've run this test. I've advised him but notice that he's rather anxiously pretending that he's not aware of these tests or of my notification. But nor will I do anything about it. I've got a battle ahead of me if these papers of ours are to get published. And I rather prefer it that it's not done in the face of those horribly flamed threads. And as for Poynty et al. That doesn't even bear mention. They're promoting Romero's tests LOL - because that has the very real benefit to them of being INCONCLUSIVE and substantially not replicable. LOL. To those of you who want to know about agenda on our forums - look no further. The last thing that either of them want is finality to these claims. It's sad but true.
Here's the thing. I don't want to risk leaving the oscilloscope on for the duration of the tests. It's a delicate instrument and I'd hate it if the experiment went out of control. So I turn it off during the course of the test. Then I turn it on to download a test result. It invariably starts off at 73.something - and then immediately climbs to 74.3 or 74.4. Then it drops to 74.1 and then just moves between these values. The test start voltage was 72.something. Can't remember it but I've got the download. That made me think that it was 'recharging'. But it really isn't. It is simply retaining its charge...I think.
In any event it has now been running for 67 hours. Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this. It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours. Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.
I'll let it run for the duration of the day. But this is really getting absurd. By rights the batteries should, by now, have completely depleted. In fact they're fully charged.
I'll download the waveforms later today when I conclude the test. So. I'll let it run for another 12 hours or more. But I think this has now been conclusively proven.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
It's mildly amusing to me that Stefan has assured me that my membership will be re-instated when I've run this test. I've advised him but notice that he's rather anxiously pretending that he's not aware of these tests or of my notification. But nor will I do anything about it. I've got a battle ahead of me if these papers of ours are to get published. And I rather prefer it that it's not done in the face of those horribly flamed threads. And as for Poynty et al. That doesn't even bear mention. They're promoting Romero's tests LOL - because that has the very real benefit to them of being INCONCLUSIVE and substantially not replicable. LOL. To those of you who want to know about agenda on our forums - look no further. The last thing that either of them want is finality to these claims. It's sad but true.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
133 - interim test results
Dear Reader,
I ran the tests on 5 batteries but was getting next to no heat albeit a steady rise in battery voltage - from 60.5 to 62.3. That test ran for 10 hours. I then added another battery - now 6 of them - and reduced the switch to its slowest - just to get the measure of what happens to the temperature over that long 'off' period which at this setting is almost 20 seconds. The test has been running - again from 8 o'clock last night until now. The battery climbed from 72.6 to where it is now at 74.2, over the last 8 hours or thereby. I'll down load waveforms later on. Right now I want to see if there's an upper limit to the level it will climb or if it's just getting back to it's 'kick off' or 'rest state' voltage. Heat dissipation is negligible at about 12 watts.
It seems I was wrong. I stated that there is no evident recharge from the oscillation in our paper. I should have done these tests before. Very interesting - in any event.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I ran the tests on 5 batteries but was getting next to no heat albeit a steady rise in battery voltage - from 60.5 to 62.3. That test ran for 10 hours. I then added another battery - now 6 of them - and reduced the switch to its slowest - just to get the measure of what happens to the temperature over that long 'off' period which at this setting is almost 20 seconds. The test has been running - again from 8 o'clock last night until now. The battery climbed from 72.6 to where it is now at 74.2, over the last 8 hours or thereby. I'll down load waveforms later on. Right now I want to see if there's an upper limit to the level it will climb or if it's just getting back to it's 'kick off' or 'rest state' voltage. Heat dissipation is negligible at about 12 watts.
It seems I was wrong. I stated that there is no evident recharge from the oscillation in our paper. I should have done these tests before. Very interesting - in any event.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Friday, July 29, 2011
132 - SUBMITTED - now the wait - meanwhile more test results
Dear Reader,
We've just completed our submission - first journal - first attempt. If it's rejected I'll post the paper here and then try a whole lot more journals.
Meanwhile - I'm running that much asked for test to the duration of the batteries. I've got it at ridiculously low settings. The good news it's been running for the last 5 hours and battery voltage has climbed from a steady 60.4 to where it is now which is 62.3 volts. I'll let you know how it goes. And next post I'll download some of the those screen shots. I'm using 5 batteries only and deliberately including the two that caught fire as I think they've been compromised. It'll be interesting.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
We've just completed our submission - first journal - first attempt. If it's rejected I'll post the paper here and then try a whole lot more journals.
Meanwhile - I'm running that much asked for test to the duration of the batteries. I've got it at ridiculously low settings. The good news it's been running for the last 5 hours and battery voltage has climbed from a steady 60.4 to where it is now which is 62.3 volts. I'll let you know how it goes. And next post I'll download some of the those screen shots. I'm using 5 batteries only and deliberately including the two that caught fire as I think they've been compromised. It'll be interesting.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
131 - a small glitch on our submission - and yet more on the problems of assumption
Dear Reader,
We've got a glitch on the submissions which is being attended to. Therefore a small delay.
Meanwhile, one of the editors has written to me to explain that editors are, as a rule, inundated with papers that claim to have discovered a violation of conservation of energy and that, to date, they have all been uniformly incorrect, 'regardless of the degree of evidence asserted'. That phrase is worrisome. One would have thought that the validity of the claim would be established or not 'in line with the evidence asserted'. If the evidence is in the results then it cannot be deemed to be incorrect. Correspondingly, if the evidence is not in the results then it can be deemed to be incorrect. In any event, we none of us know about those 'hundreds if not thousands of submissions' precisely because they are never published. One hopes, therefore, that they are not being rejected on the basis of assuming that they are uniformly incorrect.
The problems here are manifold. In the first instance I know of many claims to have breached over unity. The most dependable are usually related to small wattage values and therefore the results themselves become debated. Then too there are many where the circuitry and sundry components are so complex that it's almost impossible to isolate or identify the single cause of that over unity result - as claimed. And to compound the problems there have been hoaxes and duplicitous promotions that have rather sullied the pure drive to knowledge that is required in any scientific endeavor. It's a minefield - fraught with fraud and deception. Not a happy springboard to launch any new drives to new knowledge.
All I know, with absolute certainty, is that these questions need to be openly discussed and addressed. And to get it to the forum for discussion it first requires publication. There are not one of us collaborators in this paper would not be relieved to discover the errors in our results that are merely 'assumed' by our academics. But that quest cannot be answered without due consideration of the evidence. It is entirely inappropriate to science to simply ignore the evidence and deem them incorrect 'regardless' of that evidence. Actually that's not even science. It's philosophy.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
We've got a glitch on the submissions which is being attended to. Therefore a small delay.
Meanwhile, one of the editors has written to me to explain that editors are, as a rule, inundated with papers that claim to have discovered a violation of conservation of energy and that, to date, they have all been uniformly incorrect, 'regardless of the degree of evidence asserted'. That phrase is worrisome. One would have thought that the validity of the claim would be established or not 'in line with the evidence asserted'. If the evidence is in the results then it cannot be deemed to be incorrect. Correspondingly, if the evidence is not in the results then it can be deemed to be incorrect. In any event, we none of us know about those 'hundreds if not thousands of submissions' precisely because they are never published. One hopes, therefore, that they are not being rejected on the basis of assuming that they are uniformly incorrect.
The problems here are manifold. In the first instance I know of many claims to have breached over unity. The most dependable are usually related to small wattage values and therefore the results themselves become debated. Then too there are many where the circuitry and sundry components are so complex that it's almost impossible to isolate or identify the single cause of that over unity result - as claimed. And to compound the problems there have been hoaxes and duplicitous promotions that have rather sullied the pure drive to knowledge that is required in any scientific endeavor. It's a minefield - fraught with fraud and deception. Not a happy springboard to launch any new drives to new knowledge.
All I know, with absolute certainty, is that these questions need to be openly discussed and addressed. And to get it to the forum for discussion it first requires publication. There are not one of us collaborators in this paper would not be relieved to discover the errors in our results that are merely 'assumed' by our academics. But that quest cannot be answered without due consideration of the evidence. It is entirely inappropriate to science to simply ignore the evidence and deem them incorrect 'regardless' of that evidence. Actually that's not even science. It's philosophy.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Thursday, July 28, 2011
131 - the cover letter with our submissions
Dear Reader,
Here's the cover letter with our submissions. It's some small record of the difficulties that we've experienced. And, as it's been described - we've possibly initiated some 'strong headwinds'. What is good news is that we've been invited to nominate the reviewers. Not sure if this is standard or what. But it may very well help in this drive to get this to the academic forum.
Herewith the cover letter.
The following two papers refer. The experimental results appear to fly in the face of classical prediction but nowhere do we assert that there is a contradiction in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. What is detailed is the proposal that the source of the extra energy measured in the experiments is due to magnetic properties that are located within that circuit material but extraneous to its atomic structures. This is required in terms of a non-classical magnetic field model that predicted these results. Our second paper refers. Also, we have gone to some lengths to explain that the measured results, albeit anomalous, comply with predictions required by the standard model. The modification relates exclusively to the proposed material properties of the magnetic field which modification is then able to fully account for the path required for induced CEMF during the discharge half of each cycle of the oscillation. We would presume to suggest that the purpose of academic publication is not for endorsement or otherwise of the thesis related to this research, but to circulate the findings in order to provide opportunity for a broad assessment of the claim by actively proving or disproving these results and their conclusions. Therefore, by submitting the paper we are initiating precisely this engagement. And, therefore too, disagreement with any or all of these proposals is not only inevitable but required. The following is a synopsis of the difficulties we’ve experienced in trying to get these results into the public domain.
We have, for a period of 10 years, been trying to get these results to the academic forum. We all live within easy reach of four highly respectable academies and in 10 years, have not been able to get a single academic expert to even witness a demonstration. When these efforts failed we turned to industry to do the accreditation of the results. This included BP (SA), SASOL (SA), ABB Research in North Carolina, Spescom (SA), Power Engineers (part of the Alstom group) and many other smaller industries. Those referenced above are listed companies. SASOL (SA) offered UCT a bursary award to take the study further, which offer was declined. ABB Research was sent a prototype model to do their own independent testing. All those listed gave us written permission to quote their names as accreditors in a paper that we published in October 2002 edition of Quantum magazine, which followed a prior rejection from our submission of a paper to the IET. To date that is the only publication of these tests and their results and Quantum is not an academic journal. What followed from this publication was a small flurry of media interest and the directors at MTN ScienCentre then asked us to do a demonstration of the artifact at their center for an international conference of scientists. Not one scientist came to that demonstration which was available for the duration of that conference.
My son eventually put the information onto a blogspot for us and that did attract attention. We were then variously engaged with sundry replicators all over the world and it eventually caught the attention of some of the lecturers at Cape Peninsular University of Technology. At the beginning of 2010 we were invited us to develop another prototype in their labs, where we worked for the last 16 months or thereby. We were fortunate in getting the loan of some sophisticated oscilloscopes, and were then able to even improve on our earlier results. Those results were the subject of yet another report that was circulated, this time to every university in South Africa - with an invitation to attend a public demonstration of the device in March of this year. Not one expert attended. That was when we decided, again, to try and get this technology published.
We are well aware of the contentious nature of the claim. If the results are flawed then we can, none of us, find that flaw. What has been suggested is that it may be due to grounding errors. But the oscilloscope that we use shows us the same numbers as a Tektronix that was loaned to us, which is not earthed. It has also been suggested that the functions generator that we use is responsible for the extra energy. But we get the same results with a simple 'flip flop' circuit. The only reason that we used the Functions generator is that it gives us a better handle on the switching cycle. Then too is the fact that these results are easily replicated on simulation software which, at its least, suggests that our classical algorithms allow for these results.
It is difficult to compute exactly how many hours have been spent on these latest tests. We have more than 230 tests on the database at different settings that all show variations to these waveforms and the results. But what does not vary is the consistent evidence of more energy being dissipated than delivered by the supply source. It is this evidence that needs to be evaluated by our academics - preferably by replicating that experiment. And preferably it needs to be widely disseminated that many different academies and experts evaluate this to enable the checks and balances required in the promotion of new technologies and to then prove or disprove it as required.
Therefore we cannot do more than submit the evidence and the thesis that predicted these results. We are not claiming finality in these proofs but asking that these results be evaluated through those required checks and balances that are available to the discipline when the experimental evidence is widely disseminated. And it will not get exposure without prior publication. It may be that the experiments are not clearly explained, or that the language in the paper is obtuse or confusing. But those are editing functions and can be corrected. The results are what they are. And they have been variously filmed, downloaded on flash drives, recorded in these and other reports and papers, accredited, witnessed and publicly demonstrated. The proof has been overwhelming. Only the credibility is still heavily taxed.
Here's the cover letter with our submissions. It's some small record of the difficulties that we've experienced. And, as it's been described - we've possibly initiated some 'strong headwinds'. What is good news is that we've been invited to nominate the reviewers. Not sure if this is standard or what. But it may very well help in this drive to get this to the academic forum.
Herewith the cover letter.
The following two papers refer. The experimental results appear to fly in the face of classical prediction but nowhere do we assert that there is a contradiction in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. What is detailed is the proposal that the source of the extra energy measured in the experiments is due to magnetic properties that are located within that circuit material but extraneous to its atomic structures. This is required in terms of a non-classical magnetic field model that predicted these results. Our second paper refers. Also, we have gone to some lengths to explain that the measured results, albeit anomalous, comply with predictions required by the standard model. The modification relates exclusively to the proposed material properties of the magnetic field which modification is then able to fully account for the path required for induced CEMF during the discharge half of each cycle of the oscillation. We would presume to suggest that the purpose of academic publication is not for endorsement or otherwise of the thesis related to this research, but to circulate the findings in order to provide opportunity for a broad assessment of the claim by actively proving or disproving these results and their conclusions. Therefore, by submitting the paper we are initiating precisely this engagement. And, therefore too, disagreement with any or all of these proposals is not only inevitable but required. The following is a synopsis of the difficulties we’ve experienced in trying to get these results into the public domain.
We have, for a period of 10 years, been trying to get these results to the academic forum. We all live within easy reach of four highly respectable academies and in 10 years, have not been able to get a single academic expert to even witness a demonstration. When these efforts failed we turned to industry to do the accreditation of the results. This included BP (SA), SASOL (SA), ABB Research in North Carolina, Spescom (SA), Power Engineers (part of the Alstom group) and many other smaller industries. Those referenced above are listed companies. SASOL (SA) offered UCT a bursary award to take the study further, which offer was declined. ABB Research was sent a prototype model to do their own independent testing. All those listed gave us written permission to quote their names as accreditors in a paper that we published in October 2002 edition of Quantum magazine, which followed a prior rejection from our submission of a paper to the IET. To date that is the only publication of these tests and their results and Quantum is not an academic journal. What followed from this publication was a small flurry of media interest and the directors at MTN ScienCentre then asked us to do a demonstration of the artifact at their center for an international conference of scientists. Not one scientist came to that demonstration which was available for the duration of that conference.
My son eventually put the information onto a blogspot for us and that did attract attention. We were then variously engaged with sundry replicators all over the world and it eventually caught the attention of some of the lecturers at Cape Peninsular University of Technology. At the beginning of 2010 we were invited us to develop another prototype in their labs, where we worked for the last 16 months or thereby. We were fortunate in getting the loan of some sophisticated oscilloscopes, and were then able to even improve on our earlier results. Those results were the subject of yet another report that was circulated, this time to every university in South Africa - with an invitation to attend a public demonstration of the device in March of this year. Not one expert attended. That was when we decided, again, to try and get this technology published.
We are well aware of the contentious nature of the claim. If the results are flawed then we can, none of us, find that flaw. What has been suggested is that it may be due to grounding errors. But the oscilloscope that we use shows us the same numbers as a Tektronix that was loaned to us, which is not earthed. It has also been suggested that the functions generator that we use is responsible for the extra energy. But we get the same results with a simple 'flip flop' circuit. The only reason that we used the Functions generator is that it gives us a better handle on the switching cycle. Then too is the fact that these results are easily replicated on simulation software which, at its least, suggests that our classical algorithms allow for these results.
It is difficult to compute exactly how many hours have been spent on these latest tests. We have more than 230 tests on the database at different settings that all show variations to these waveforms and the results. But what does not vary is the consistent evidence of more energy being dissipated than delivered by the supply source. It is this evidence that needs to be evaluated by our academics - preferably by replicating that experiment. And preferably it needs to be widely disseminated that many different academies and experts evaluate this to enable the checks and balances required in the promotion of new technologies and to then prove or disprove it as required.
Therefore we cannot do more than submit the evidence and the thesis that predicted these results. We are not claiming finality in these proofs but asking that these results be evaluated through those required checks and balances that are available to the discipline when the experimental evidence is widely disseminated. And it will not get exposure without prior publication. It may be that the experiments are not clearly explained, or that the language in the paper is obtuse or confusing. But those are editing functions and can be corrected. The results are what they are. And they have been variously filmed, downloaded on flash drives, recorded in these and other reports and papers, accredited, witnessed and publicly demonstrated. The proof has been overwhelming. Only the credibility is still heavily taxed.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
130 - a discursive analysis to justify the existence of the magnetic dipole
Dear Reader,
I've been busy on the second paper. It's FINALLY completed. This is the the text for the appendix in our second paper. If the paper is NOT accepted for publication then I'll post it here.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
It seems that much is known about the conditions required to sustain a fire or flame, while little is actually understood about its material properties. For instance, it is known that fire requires oxygen in the atmosphere for it to burn, but a nuclear fire, such as in the sun, does not require this. The following simplistic and hypothetical experiment is used to explore the property of fire and, by extension, the material property of the magnetic field.
Place a pile of wood under a ceramic pot holding iron filings. Then set the wood alight. Flames would heat the ceramic pot and this heat would then transfer to the environment inside that pot. With a required sufficiency, the heat would then melt the filings to form a liquid. This experiment would conclude precisely when the fire extinguishes which, in this theorized example, would also be precisely when the filings will have coalesced into a liquid. Then the ceramic pot would cool and the liquid iron solidify, and in the process of solidifying it would also shrink in volume compared to its liquid state.
Assume also that, at the beginning of that experiment, a detailed account is made of the number and type of atoms and molecules in the wood, in the ceramic pot and in the iron filings. Then at the end of that experiment all those atoms and molecules associated with that energy exchange during the fire, would still be fully accounted for. For instance, some of the carbon atoms in the wood may have combined with oxygen in the atmosphere to form carbon dioxide. Yet other exotic gas molecules may have escaped. The small volumes of moisture in the wood may be vaporized into steam. But the structure and weight of the ceramic pot would remain substantially the same except that it may show evidence of cracking and heat fatigue. The amount of the iron would match its quantity as filings. And the most of the carbon atoms in the wood would be there in the loose ash condition of its burnt out state.
Which begs the question, what actually has changed as a result of that fire if the atoms themselves remain inviolate? And the answer is evident in the wood that will have lost its bound condition. Conversely, the previously unbound condition of the iron filings would have become bound. And other than a few escaping gas atoms and molecules, all those atoms involved in and associated with that fire, may not only be entirely accounted for, but they would and do remain substantially unchanged. The actual atoms comprising all parts of that experiment and its experimental apparatus remain exactly as they were prior to their exposure to those flames. It is only their bound condition that would have been altered.
In as much as the atoms are known to remain unchanged as a result of the fire, then the material source of fire may have little, if anything, to do with an interaction between those atoms. The fire itself may have a material cause that is extraneous to the atomic material from its source. If so, and as it results in an unbinding in that transfer of its heat from the material of the wood to a binding of the material of the filings then, what is actually being transferred in that exchange of energy, may be that binding material. By extension, therefore, this binding material may also be the material property of that flame. Which suggests that three-dimensional bound structures, be they liquid, solid, or molecular, may be bound by something that is extraneous to the atom.
It is this ‘something’, this binding material, which is here proposed to be the hidden material structure not only responsible for binding matter into its identifiable structures, but also the structure behind all the forces. A magnetic field model identifies this binding field as a single discrete, one-dimensional closed string of orbiting magnetic dipoles structured as a Line of Force (Fig 5). And this precise one-dimensional field is identified as the fundamental structure upon which all the Lines of Force are developed because it is, in fact, all that is needed. It is the essential and profoundly elementary structure required to potentialize and interact with the three valence conditions of atomic charge. For ease of reference this orbiting string of dipoles will be called a ‘binding field’.
Lines of Force that are closed therefore balanced.
The single line of force as the proposed link between atoms
proposed source of the Casimir effect
The assumption is made that these binding fields are magnetic and that they are constrained to only interact with other magnetic fields. They obey an immutable imperative to move to a condition of charge balance. And this actual atomic binding could, therefore, be managed by an orbit of these strings, which can be seen, in the mind’s eye, as a small cog, (the binding field), interacting with the boundary of a bigger cog, (the atom’s outer energy levels). Both fields are proposed to comprise Lines of Force. And, being closed strings, then the charge of both the atom’s energy levels and the binding fields are perfectly balanced and thereby rendered undetectable. The difference in these two fields is proposed to be only that of size. The atomic energy levels are proposed to be more complex, two-dimensional magnetic Lines of Force, having length and breadth.
But the question remains. Why are these fields undetectable? And the proposed answer to this is that they are indeed detectable. They are seen every time we light a fire. In effect, flame itself is proposed to be the hot material property of magnetic dipoles that have moved out of their field condition as a coherent Line of Force into a chaotic imbalanced mass of conflicting raw charge. As there is also a proposed and immutable imperative for these dipoles to structure themselves into an orderly field then they needs must search out material in their immediate environment to reassemble into those discrete and structured fields. In effect, they are looking for something to ‘bind’. And having found the required disassociated atoms or molecules they can then transfer through space to reassemble into those discrete packages of their coherent field condition, by binding disassociated atomic material.
A variation of this ‘binding’ and ‘unbinding’ is proposed to be the motor that drives the electromotive force. But to explain this first requires a close analysis of the closed Line of Force. One half of each of those closed strings will oppose the other half. And if they orbit, then one half of every orbit will still oppose the other half. The orbit itself is a composite of a potential bi-directional path through space. And whether the orbit is clockwise or a counter-clockwise, then whole of the field would be neutral. In effect, each Line of Force, whether or not it is orbiting, would be balanced by its own innate structure, which would render the binding field neutral. Therefore, in summary, the field would essentially comprise the sum of two opposite potential spins and therefore, two opposite charges. Each part of each field would be charged, determined by the alignment and/or the justification of those magnetic dipoles. Yet the field itself would be neutral.
Current flow, on the other hand, is proposed to be the dynamic condition of voltage that comprises open strings. And its movement through the circuit is led by a single justification or direction or charge. This is here further proposed to be either the negative or positive half of each dipole leading the string that also leads the current. See figures 7, 9 & 10. And unlike the proposed binding fields, current is known to be mono directional therefore it only has one charge. The binding fields would be located in that circuit material that is presenting a path for the flow of current. Therefore when current flows through the circuit material it would repel that half of each of those binding fields in its path that present a ‘like’ charge. And this force of repulsion is then proposed to break the symmetry of that orbit of these binding fields. Broken Lines of Force would also be open Lines of Force. And unlike their closed condition, open Lines of force have an identifiable charge. In terms of the Laws of Charge, like charges repel. So one half of that field would, of necessity, be repelled by the current charge. And having been repelled it would also then restructure as an open field outside that circuit material, and would be measured as voltage. This is proposed to be the source of the voltage that results from EMF.
Open Lines of Force proposed to be measured as voltage
The remaining half of those Lines of Force, are now no longer able to attach or to orbit. These fields remain within the structure of the circuit material. But they have lost that interaction with the atom’s valence energy levels, which thereby become unbound. It is proposed that these broken Lines of Force then tumble out of their coherent field condition and, like the sparks in the flame, they get bigger and hotter as more and more of these fields move into this shared state of chaos. These broken strings then lose their orbital momentum. This unbinding, or unbundling of the field string structure, represents a chaotic condition where the level of binding of the circuit material becomes compromised. The early evidence of this is that the material itself expands to accommodate the increased volume of these, now big, hot and slow, magnetic dipoles. So it is that the magnetic dipoles themselves are here proposed to be the source of heat, which is exploited in electrical applications.
The magnetic field model referenced hereunder, has proposed that these Lines of Force comprise magnetic dipoles. It further proposes that all particles are composites of these tachyons. And as the model is able to resolve the mass/size ratios of the proton to the electron, it may thereby constitute some proof of postulate. The objective of this appendix is to summarize these concepts relating to the electromotive force. It is stressed, however, that there is no material departure of these concepts to mainstream physics other than in the proposal of a magnetic dipole being the fundamental construct or ‘building block’ both of the magnetic field and of matter. The significant and further departure from mainstream is that these dipoles are here identified as the material structure of ‘flame’. This, in turn, begs the ratio that in the field condition the particles are as fast and cold and invisible as, out of a field condition they are as hot and slow and visible. And their quantized value of spin and charge is required to be intimately variable depending on the atoms that they bind.
Also of significance is that these fields may be the source of the ‘dark force’ that has been proved by astrophysicists. And on a broader scale it may also be the source of the strings that are required by our string theorists. But, as it is based on Faraday’s Lines of Force, then there are no significant departures from mainstream thinking. The hope is that it will resolve some outstanding questions related to those many paradoxes that are identified by mainstream.
I've been busy on the second paper. It's FINALLY completed. This is the the text for the appendix in our second paper. If the paper is NOT accepted for publication then I'll post it here.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
It seems that much is known about the conditions required to sustain a fire or flame, while little is actually understood about its material properties. For instance, it is known that fire requires oxygen in the atmosphere for it to burn, but a nuclear fire, such as in the sun, does not require this. The following simplistic and hypothetical experiment is used to explore the property of fire and, by extension, the material property of the magnetic field.
Place a pile of wood under a ceramic pot holding iron filings. Then set the wood alight. Flames would heat the ceramic pot and this heat would then transfer to the environment inside that pot. With a required sufficiency, the heat would then melt the filings to form a liquid. This experiment would conclude precisely when the fire extinguishes which, in this theorized example, would also be precisely when the filings will have coalesced into a liquid. Then the ceramic pot would cool and the liquid iron solidify, and in the process of solidifying it would also shrink in volume compared to its liquid state.
Assume also that, at the beginning of that experiment, a detailed account is made of the number and type of atoms and molecules in the wood, in the ceramic pot and in the iron filings. Then at the end of that experiment all those atoms and molecules associated with that energy exchange during the fire, would still be fully accounted for. For instance, some of the carbon atoms in the wood may have combined with oxygen in the atmosphere to form carbon dioxide. Yet other exotic gas molecules may have escaped. The small volumes of moisture in the wood may be vaporized into steam. But the structure and weight of the ceramic pot would remain substantially the same except that it may show evidence of cracking and heat fatigue. The amount of the iron would match its quantity as filings. And the most of the carbon atoms in the wood would be there in the loose ash condition of its burnt out state.
Which begs the question, what actually has changed as a result of that fire if the atoms themselves remain inviolate? And the answer is evident in the wood that will have lost its bound condition. Conversely, the previously unbound condition of the iron filings would have become bound. And other than a few escaping gas atoms and molecules, all those atoms involved in and associated with that fire, may not only be entirely accounted for, but they would and do remain substantially unchanged. The actual atoms comprising all parts of that experiment and its experimental apparatus remain exactly as they were prior to their exposure to those flames. It is only their bound condition that would have been altered.
In as much as the atoms are known to remain unchanged as a result of the fire, then the material source of fire may have little, if anything, to do with an interaction between those atoms. The fire itself may have a material cause that is extraneous to the atomic material from its source. If so, and as it results in an unbinding in that transfer of its heat from the material of the wood to a binding of the material of the filings then, what is actually being transferred in that exchange of energy, may be that binding material. By extension, therefore, this binding material may also be the material property of that flame. Which suggests that three-dimensional bound structures, be they liquid, solid, or molecular, may be bound by something that is extraneous to the atom.
It is this ‘something’, this binding material, which is here proposed to be the hidden material structure not only responsible for binding matter into its identifiable structures, but also the structure behind all the forces. A magnetic field model identifies this binding field as a single discrete, one-dimensional closed string of orbiting magnetic dipoles structured as a Line of Force (Fig 5). And this precise one-dimensional field is identified as the fundamental structure upon which all the Lines of Force are developed because it is, in fact, all that is needed. It is the essential and profoundly elementary structure required to potentialize and interact with the three valence conditions of atomic charge. For ease of reference this orbiting string of dipoles will be called a ‘binding field’.
The single line of force as the proposed link between atoms
proposed source of the Casimir effect
The assumption is made that these binding fields are magnetic and that they are constrained to only interact with other magnetic fields. They obey an immutable imperative to move to a condition of charge balance. And this actual atomic binding could, therefore, be managed by an orbit of these strings, which can be seen, in the mind’s eye, as a small cog, (the binding field), interacting with the boundary of a bigger cog, (the atom’s outer energy levels). Both fields are proposed to comprise Lines of Force. And, being closed strings, then the charge of both the atom’s energy levels and the binding fields are perfectly balanced and thereby rendered undetectable. The difference in these two fields is proposed to be only that of size. The atomic energy levels are proposed to be more complex, two-dimensional magnetic Lines of Force, having length and breadth.
But the question remains. Why are these fields undetectable? And the proposed answer to this is that they are indeed detectable. They are seen every time we light a fire. In effect, flame itself is proposed to be the hot material property of magnetic dipoles that have moved out of their field condition as a coherent Line of Force into a chaotic imbalanced mass of conflicting raw charge. As there is also a proposed and immutable imperative for these dipoles to structure themselves into an orderly field then they needs must search out material in their immediate environment to reassemble into those discrete and structured fields. In effect, they are looking for something to ‘bind’. And having found the required disassociated atoms or molecules they can then transfer through space to reassemble into those discrete packages of their coherent field condition, by binding disassociated atomic material.
A variation of this ‘binding’ and ‘unbinding’ is proposed to be the motor that drives the electromotive force. But to explain this first requires a close analysis of the closed Line of Force. One half of each of those closed strings will oppose the other half. And if they orbit, then one half of every orbit will still oppose the other half. The orbit itself is a composite of a potential bi-directional path through space. And whether the orbit is clockwise or a counter-clockwise, then whole of the field would be neutral. In effect, each Line of Force, whether or not it is orbiting, would be balanced by its own innate structure, which would render the binding field neutral. Therefore, in summary, the field would essentially comprise the sum of two opposite potential spins and therefore, two opposite charges. Each part of each field would be charged, determined by the alignment and/or the justification of those magnetic dipoles. Yet the field itself would be neutral.
Current flow, on the other hand, is proposed to be the dynamic condition of voltage that comprises open strings. And its movement through the circuit is led by a single justification or direction or charge. This is here further proposed to be either the negative or positive half of each dipole leading the string that also leads the current. See figures 7, 9 & 10. And unlike the proposed binding fields, current is known to be mono directional therefore it only has one charge. The binding fields would be located in that circuit material that is presenting a path for the flow of current. Therefore when current flows through the circuit material it would repel that half of each of those binding fields in its path that present a ‘like’ charge. And this force of repulsion is then proposed to break the symmetry of that orbit of these binding fields. Broken Lines of Force would also be open Lines of Force. And unlike their closed condition, open Lines of force have an identifiable charge. In terms of the Laws of Charge, like charges repel. So one half of that field would, of necessity, be repelled by the current charge. And having been repelled it would also then restructure as an open field outside that circuit material, and would be measured as voltage. This is proposed to be the source of the voltage that results from EMF.
The remaining half of those Lines of Force, are now no longer able to attach or to orbit. These fields remain within the structure of the circuit material. But they have lost that interaction with the atom’s valence energy levels, which thereby become unbound. It is proposed that these broken Lines of Force then tumble out of their coherent field condition and, like the sparks in the flame, they get bigger and hotter as more and more of these fields move into this shared state of chaos. These broken strings then lose their orbital momentum. This unbinding, or unbundling of the field string structure, represents a chaotic condition where the level of binding of the circuit material becomes compromised. The early evidence of this is that the material itself expands to accommodate the increased volume of these, now big, hot and slow, magnetic dipoles. So it is that the magnetic dipoles themselves are here proposed to be the source of heat, which is exploited in electrical applications.
The magnetic field model referenced hereunder, has proposed that these Lines of Force comprise magnetic dipoles. It further proposes that all particles are composites of these tachyons. And as the model is able to resolve the mass/size ratios of the proton to the electron, it may thereby constitute some proof of postulate. The objective of this appendix is to summarize these concepts relating to the electromotive force. It is stressed, however, that there is no material departure of these concepts to mainstream physics other than in the proposal of a magnetic dipole being the fundamental construct or ‘building block’ both of the magnetic field and of matter. The significant and further departure from mainstream is that these dipoles are here identified as the material structure of ‘flame’. This, in turn, begs the ratio that in the field condition the particles are as fast and cold and invisible as, out of a field condition they are as hot and slow and visible. And their quantized value of spin and charge is required to be intimately variable depending on the atoms that they bind.
Also of significance is that these fields may be the source of the ‘dark force’ that has been proved by astrophysicists. And on a broader scale it may also be the source of the strings that are required by our string theorists. But, as it is based on Faraday’s Lines of Force, then there are no significant departures from mainstream thinking. The hope is that it will resolve some outstanding questions related to those many paradoxes that are identified by mainstream.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
129 - AT LAST SOME BELATED MODERATION
Dear Reader,
I am delighted to see that Stefan has FINALLY deleted the most of those flaming posts. It is also most unfortunate that it took so long before he actually intervened.
I still have an outstanding quarrel with the results of allowing those posts - but I will get back there when I'm ready. As of now I will not be posting anywhere at all until I've completed those papers.
kindest regards,
Rosemary
HERE'S THAT LINK
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg294073#new
I am delighted to see that Stefan has FINALLY deleted the most of those flaming posts. It is also most unfortunate that it took so long before he actually intervened.
I still have an outstanding quarrel with the results of allowing those posts - but I will get back there when I'm ready. As of now I will not be posting anywhere at all until I've completed those papers.
kindest regards,
Rosemary
HERE'S THAT LINK
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg294073#new
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
128 - history just repeating itself
Dear Reader,
Here's an email from Stefan Hartman and my response. For those who are NOT aware of the significance of this I'll explain more tomorrow.
Hi Rosemary,
there are too many problems now.
Please go to a different forum with your work.
I will close all the treads tommorow about it.
You can deceide, if I should leave the material on there or should
delete it all.
Thanks.
Stefan -
I have long wondered to what extent one can make a forum owner ACCOUNTABLE to his members. Through nothing more than your irresponsible lack of protection you have passively assisted in harming the work that we're trying to advance. I call on you here to REVERSE THAT.
If you lock my thread and thereby refuse me a chance to UNDO THAT DAMAGE THAT YOU HAVE ALLOWED - then I have a contractual complaint against you that I will address. So. It's not my choice. It's yours. If you DELETE my work then I will most CERTAINLY hold you to account.
And in either instance I will simply hold up your PROTECTION offered to RomeroUK to the the COMPLETE LACK OF PROTECTION offered to me. And I would remind you that YOU opened that thread and that YOU invited me to post there. And I would draw your attention to the MANY ATTEMPTS I MADE TO ASK YOU TO INTERVENE and your ENTIRE LACK OF RESPONSE. The time that I've spent on that thread speaks for itself. It has been a DEDICATED effort by me to advance this work against an ENTIRELY unmoderated attack.
The ONLY appropriate intervention is to put Cat under moderation and to delete two remaining references that I have pointed to. I would have thought that - retrospectively - that would take up very little of your time and that it is, perhaps, the LEAST you could do to correct the harm that you have seemed not only to ALLOW but to actively ADVANCE. Why have you not considered that simple solution?
You more than ANYONE knows that any SUCCESSFUL CLAIM of a unity breach brings out an attack and that it is orchestrated and probably paid for by those with vested interests in denying this. I have asked this publicly. Do you share those interests?
Regards,
Rosemary
Here's an email from Stefan Hartman and my response. For those who are NOT aware of the significance of this I'll explain more tomorrow.
Hi Rosemary,
there are too many problems now.
Please go to a different forum with your work.
I will close all the treads tommorow about it.
You can deceide, if I should leave the material on there or should
delete it all.
Thanks.
Stefan -
I have long wondered to what extent one can make a forum owner ACCOUNTABLE to his members. Through nothing more than your irresponsible lack of protection you have passively assisted in harming the work that we're trying to advance. I call on you here to REVERSE THAT.
If you lock my thread and thereby refuse me a chance to UNDO THAT DAMAGE THAT YOU HAVE ALLOWED - then I have a contractual complaint against you that I will address. So. It's not my choice. It's yours. If you DELETE my work then I will most CERTAINLY hold you to account.
And in either instance I will simply hold up your PROTECTION offered to RomeroUK to the the COMPLETE LACK OF PROTECTION offered to me. And I would remind you that YOU opened that thread and that YOU invited me to post there. And I would draw your attention to the MANY ATTEMPTS I MADE TO ASK YOU TO INTERVENE and your ENTIRE LACK OF RESPONSE. The time that I've spent on that thread speaks for itself. It has been a DEDICATED effort by me to advance this work against an ENTIRELY unmoderated attack.
The ONLY appropriate intervention is to put Cat under moderation and to delete two remaining references that I have pointed to. I would have thought that - retrospectively - that would take up very little of your time and that it is, perhaps, the LEAST you could do to correct the harm that you have seemed not only to ALLOW but to actively ADVANCE. Why have you not considered that simple solution?
You more than ANYONE knows that any SUCCESSFUL CLAIM of a unity breach brings out an attack and that it is orchestrated and probably paid for by those with vested interests in denying this. I have asked this publicly. Do you share those interests?
Regards,
Rosemary
Saturday, July 2, 2011
127 - SOME LOGIC
Dear Reader,
For those of you who are into this kind of thing - here's my LOGIC to justify the magnetic dipole. Let me know if there's an error. I'm using a variation of this for our second paper.
Faraday proposed that magnetic fields are structured along lines of force. The voltage across a magnet or an induced magnetic field has two distinct poles or charges. Therefore lines of force also have two distinct charges. This field condition can be sustained if there is a further proposal made that the lines of force comprise magnetic dipoles, as this would satisfy the required 180-degree alignment of those lines of force. Current is widely ascribed to the movement of charge and it is known to induce electromotive force on circuit material. Electromotive force is measured as potential difference or voltage. And voltage, in turn, is a measure of an imbalance where the negative and positive charges are separated at the terminals of a supply source or across circuit components including the wire. This negative and positive charge imbalance is reduced, proportional to the rate of current flow. As electromotive force is known to be proportional to the rate of change of magnetic flux, and as current flow is proportional to the rate of change of the electromotive force then it may be proposed that both voltage and current flow may have this material magnetic property. Therefore, both current and voltage can, in turn, be modeled along Faraday’s lines of force. Current flow would then vary the distribution of that material throughout a circuit, which would then result in a redistribution of charge. In effect, a magnetic field in a condition of voltage imbalance, would be in a dynamic condition to redistribute that charge provided it is able to generate current flow through circuit material in order to enable that redistribution
For those of you who are into this kind of thing - here's my LOGIC to justify the magnetic dipole. Let me know if there's an error. I'm using a variation of this for our second paper.
Faraday proposed that magnetic fields are structured along lines of force. The voltage across a magnet or an induced magnetic field has two distinct poles or charges. Therefore lines of force also have two distinct charges. This field condition can be sustained if there is a further proposal made that the lines of force comprise magnetic dipoles, as this would satisfy the required 180-degree alignment of those lines of force. Current is widely ascribed to the movement of charge and it is known to induce electromotive force on circuit material. Electromotive force is measured as potential difference or voltage. And voltage, in turn, is a measure of an imbalance where the negative and positive charges are separated at the terminals of a supply source or across circuit components including the wire. This negative and positive charge imbalance is reduced, proportional to the rate of current flow. As electromotive force is known to be proportional to the rate of change of magnetic flux, and as current flow is proportional to the rate of change of the electromotive force then it may be proposed that both voltage and current flow may have this material magnetic property. Therefore, both current and voltage can, in turn, be modeled along Faraday’s lines of force. Current flow would then vary the distribution of that material throughout a circuit, which would then result in a redistribution of charge. In effect, a magnetic field in a condition of voltage imbalance, would be in a dynamic condition to redistribute that charge provided it is able to generate current flow through circuit material in order to enable that redistribution
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
126 - submission around the corner
Dear Reader,
I'm holding back on submission to hear some comments from someone who has kindly offered to read our efforts. When that's to hand I'll correct - if and as required and then send it in.
It's decidedly my last efforts here. I am utterly disheartened by the absurdly inadequate critiques that have followed on from my report that was distributed to the most of our SA academics. The one study that was offered proposed that the simulation be modified to AVERAGE the battery voltage. That's an absurd proposal for so many reasons. The battery voltage is NEVER stable during the oscillation phase. It's a veritable roller-coaster. And no-one has picked up on the significance of that anti phase relationship between the battery and the shunt voltages. They're weird. Just to re-cap for those who are following this - here's the thing.
The battery discharges from a current flow that is measured above zero. Correspondingly it recharges from a current flow that is measured below zero. The conventional 'take' is that above zero the flow is clockwise. Below zero the flow is anti clockwise. So. What does one then do with our own evidence - both in the measured voltages and in the simulations. Because the above zero, clockwise current flow results in a REDUCTION of the battery voltage. And the below zero anti clockwise current flow results in an INCREASE in the battery voltage. It's quite literally back to front - upside down.
What's needed here is such a profound revision to the thinking of current flow and its properties that there's going to be a howl of protest. Any editor who is brave enough to publish is DEFINITELY going to need some caveat to justify it as - the content cannot be evaluated against prior work. There are no CITATIONS applicable. And the 'due diligence' from any reviewers if it even gets that far - will need to be confined to the evidence of simulations - which is hardly satisfactory. But it should help.
And then I have found - to my horror - that the level of expertise amongst some otherwise skilled engineers - is entirely lacking when it comes to the evaluation of what I would have thought was rather elementary power analysis. There seems to be a kind of mismash of confusing terms and confused concepts and utterly absurd equations. For some reason - everyone seems to think they can change the established protocols to just about anything they require. Poynty, for example, has seriously proposed that since one can expect the battery to 'discharge' it's enough to ASSUME that it is discharging. Under usual conditions it may show a ripple. Therefore, all that is needed is to disregard the ripple and assume a 'FLAT LINE'? Some easy and utterly illogical steps that have no bearing on anything experimentally evident. And that averaging of the battery voltage is then seriously proposed to be multiplied by amperage of the shunt in real time. So. It's not evident. It's INCORRECT protocols. So? Why then use it?
The answer is obvious. It's the only route left to FUDGE the evidence. It takes the attention away from that glaring anomaly of a battery's voltage climbing HUGELY in the process of delivering a really strong current flow. And by the same token it takes away the advantage of the reducing battery voltage precisely while the amperage is climbing in what is expected to result in a reduction in that voltage. A product of this in real time would INEVITABLY be to the benefit of a retained potential difference at the supply - to that COP infinity - that we keep referencing.
But I've now been in some discussion with some really clever academics. It's no accident that they also gravitate to the better universities. A real pleasure to see the questing mind. It's rare. And more to the point - when it can finally get to that forum - which it will do if it's published - then I'm reasonably certain that these questions will get 'sorted'. It needs mathematical clarification. And that is way beyond our own capabilities.
So. A few more days and we'll submit. Hopefully there's enough evidence to justify publication. Because, after all, it's the experimental evidence that - in fact - determines our science.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Just some doggerel for the amusement.
If philosophy is logical
And logic mathematical
Then the argument that follows this would be
That philosophy is measurable
Quantifiably numerical
And all determined unequivocally
While numbers metaphysical
Would then become nonsensical
A gross dimensional absurdity.
While these thoughts are just conceptual
It may perhaps be practical
To twine these branches from a single tree
Of knowledge. And though questionable
It may yet be more than reasonable
To let the thought conceive reality.
I'm holding back on submission to hear some comments from someone who has kindly offered to read our efforts. When that's to hand I'll correct - if and as required and then send it in.
It's decidedly my last efforts here. I am utterly disheartened by the absurdly inadequate critiques that have followed on from my report that was distributed to the most of our SA academics. The one study that was offered proposed that the simulation be modified to AVERAGE the battery voltage. That's an absurd proposal for so many reasons. The battery voltage is NEVER stable during the oscillation phase. It's a veritable roller-coaster. And no-one has picked up on the significance of that anti phase relationship between the battery and the shunt voltages. They're weird. Just to re-cap for those who are following this - here's the thing.
The battery discharges from a current flow that is measured above zero. Correspondingly it recharges from a current flow that is measured below zero. The conventional 'take' is that above zero the flow is clockwise. Below zero the flow is anti clockwise. So. What does one then do with our own evidence - both in the measured voltages and in the simulations. Because the above zero, clockwise current flow results in a REDUCTION of the battery voltage. And the below zero anti clockwise current flow results in an INCREASE in the battery voltage. It's quite literally back to front - upside down.
What's needed here is such a profound revision to the thinking of current flow and its properties that there's going to be a howl of protest. Any editor who is brave enough to publish is DEFINITELY going to need some caveat to justify it as - the content cannot be evaluated against prior work. There are no CITATIONS applicable. And the 'due diligence' from any reviewers if it even gets that far - will need to be confined to the evidence of simulations - which is hardly satisfactory. But it should help.
And then I have found - to my horror - that the level of expertise amongst some otherwise skilled engineers - is entirely lacking when it comes to the evaluation of what I would have thought was rather elementary power analysis. There seems to be a kind of mismash of confusing terms and confused concepts and utterly absurd equations. For some reason - everyone seems to think they can change the established protocols to just about anything they require. Poynty, for example, has seriously proposed that since one can expect the battery to 'discharge' it's enough to ASSUME that it is discharging. Under usual conditions it may show a ripple. Therefore, all that is needed is to disregard the ripple and assume a 'FLAT LINE'? Some easy and utterly illogical steps that have no bearing on anything experimentally evident. And that averaging of the battery voltage is then seriously proposed to be multiplied by amperage of the shunt in real time. So. It's not evident. It's INCORRECT protocols. So? Why then use it?
The answer is obvious. It's the only route left to FUDGE the evidence. It takes the attention away from that glaring anomaly of a battery's voltage climbing HUGELY in the process of delivering a really strong current flow. And by the same token it takes away the advantage of the reducing battery voltage precisely while the amperage is climbing in what is expected to result in a reduction in that voltage. A product of this in real time would INEVITABLY be to the benefit of a retained potential difference at the supply - to that COP infinity - that we keep referencing.
But I've now been in some discussion with some really clever academics. It's no accident that they also gravitate to the better universities. A real pleasure to see the questing mind. It's rare. And more to the point - when it can finally get to that forum - which it will do if it's published - then I'm reasonably certain that these questions will get 'sorted'. It needs mathematical clarification. And that is way beyond our own capabilities.
So. A few more days and we'll submit. Hopefully there's enough evidence to justify publication. Because, after all, it's the experimental evidence that - in fact - determines our science.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Just some doggerel for the amusement.
If philosophy is logical
And logic mathematical
Then the argument that follows this would be
That philosophy is measurable
Quantifiably numerical
And all determined unequivocally
While numbers metaphysical
Would then become nonsensical
A gross dimensional absurdity.
While these thoughts are just conceptual
It may perhaps be practical
To twine these branches from a single tree
Of knowledge. And though questionable
It may yet be more than reasonable
To let the thought conceive reality.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
125 - just for the record
Dear Reader,
I've finally 'run out of space' on my computer. I need to clean out a lot of work and am simply making due record of it here before deleting it.
Please don't bother to reader here unless you're that interested.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
REPORT ON A NEW DISCOVERY RELATED TO ENERGY AND THE APPLICATION OF ENERGY
1
A little about the background and problems related to the structures available to progress new discoveries.
It is evident that a simple switching circuit is able to dissipate more heat at a load than the amount of energy supplied by a battery supply source. This was first recorded in an article published in the October edition of Quantum magazine in 2002 – and subsequently widely reported on the internet in a test replication completed at the end of 2009. Both tests gave evidence of a co-efficient of performance in excess of 1, the first by a factor of 17 and the second by a factor of 7.
The essential design of both tests was a simple battery supply source placed in series with an inductive resistive load and a MOSFET transistor driven by a 555 circuit. Measurements were confined to a calorimetric evaluation of the energy dissipated at the load compared to a control. And the measure of the energy delivered by the battery supply was based on the voltage measured across a non-inductive shunt resistor placed in series with the negative rail of the battery to determine the rate of current flow.
The question is why either test generated so little public interest given the extraordinary nature of the claim? The reason for this is that our application to publish in a reviewed journal was denied. The rejection of the first paper may possibly have been excused on the bases of insufficient data and possible inadequacy of the measuring instruments used. But the second paper detailing these results rather erred on the side of excess. And the instrument that recorded this data was a Tektronix TDS3054C that was more than adequate both in terms of its rated bandwidth and the sophistication of the software that enables due record.
The actual reasons given for the rejection of the second paper, even prior to review, was that the technology was based on a thesis that was outside the expertise of the reviewers. The suggestion was made that it would, therefore, be more appropriate for publication in a physics journal. But, in as much as electrical measurement falls outside the expertise of our physicists, it seems that the paper may forever remain profoundly and fundamentally unpublishable. In the light of the extraordinary nature of the claim one hopes not. The more so as the results show a technological potential that may address those manifold concerns related to pollution. These concerns dog our burgeoning energy needs and our somewhat profligate use of this.
The fact is that our Thermodynamic Laws are that entrenched in our general and mainstream physics paradigms that it is now entirely impossible to give a reasonable account of breach of this through any respectable medium whatsoever. Claims of breach are met with rank scepticism and dismissed on the basis of ‘assumption of error’. And all solicitations, to either attend a demonstration or to comment after such attendance, were only ever met with a blunt refusal accompanied by a parade of contempt and condescension. And it is unlikely that such an attitude can be considered appropriate to science. Science is only ever progressed through experimental evidence. To deny that evidence, or more appropriately, the careful evaluation of that evidence, serves nothing but prejudice. And neither prejudice nor assumption can ever serve the truth.
As it applies to an evaluation of our own experimental evidence, this less than satisfactory attitude is entirely unacceptable. The circuit is simple. The component parts are easily identifiable. The measurements are instantaneously available subject only to the use of an appropriate oscilloscope. And to compare each and every aspect of the test claim as it relates to the dissipation of heat against a control, then a short half hour would suffice. To refute the claim would take a matter of minutes for any expert qualified in power engineering. The numbers are neither elusive nor marginal. The results are unambiguous and repeatable. And they consistently point to a breach in Thermodynamic constraints that merits considerably more attention than they have actually, historically managed.
As mentioned, the review process allows publication of experimental evidence that interested parties can then evaluate the experiment to progress it or to use it as required. But, historically, this progress has been confined to incremental improvements and small variations where results remain substantially within thermodynamic constraints. The only vehicle available for publication of results that defy these limitations are through Open Source and the internet.
But herein lies a second danger that rather exceeds the risk of test evidence being merely overlooked. Internet communication is by individuals who, more often than not, hide behind an avatar or an assumed identity. There is an overriding lack of accountability and, not being accountable allows contributors the freedom of expression that is as unrestrained as ‘road rage’ and often as destructive. Opinion, unsubstantiated allegation, calumny and rank unprofessionalism abound. Technology is promoted or destroyed with far less effort and far less merit than the carefully composed chapters of those many papers submitted through traditional channels. And where claims of unity breach are actively encouraged through multiple forums they are also as readily dismissed due to the flagrantly self-serving opinions of those many who subscribe. While the facts of any issue are recorded for posterity, the memory of its readers and contributors is short. Open source is indeed vulnerable to gross and even to criminal abuse. And it can, therefore never be considered a reasonable alternative to progress new knowledge.
In conclusion therefore, it is evident that there is no vehicle, no procedural blue print, where new thinking and new discoveries can be appropriately addressed. Scientific merit is only ever attributed within the tight confines of popular opinion be it learned or otherwise - be it through the channels of academic publication or through free internet publication. Either way is fraught. The hope here is to forge some system, some method that can breach these barriers. The thinking now is that demonstrations should be limited to a prepared audience and that their subsequent evaluation carry the required accreditation to merit publication in a reviewed journal. Publication would then, hopefully, satisfy mainstream that the experiment requires fuller research. There is more than enough experimental proof to of concept. What is now required is that these tests be put up at multiple benches through many different laboratories and institutions that the full extent of the claim can be carefully evaluated and verified or refuted as that knowledge grows.
References
Reference 1 - http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/12/finally-our-tie-paper.html
I've finally 'run out of space' on my computer. I need to clean out a lot of work and am simply making due record of it here before deleting it.
Please don't bother to reader here unless you're that interested.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
REPORT ON A NEW DISCOVERY RELATED TO ENERGY AND THE APPLICATION OF ENERGY
1
A little about the background and problems related to the structures available to progress new discoveries.
It is evident that a simple switching circuit is able to dissipate more heat at a load than the amount of energy supplied by a battery supply source. This was first recorded in an article published in the October edition of Quantum magazine in 2002 – and subsequently widely reported on the internet in a test replication completed at the end of 2009. Both tests gave evidence of a co-efficient of performance in excess of 1, the first by a factor of 17 and the second by a factor of 7.
The essential design of both tests was a simple battery supply source placed in series with an inductive resistive load and a MOSFET transistor driven by a 555 circuit. Measurements were confined to a calorimetric evaluation of the energy dissipated at the load compared to a control. And the measure of the energy delivered by the battery supply was based on the voltage measured across a non-inductive shunt resistor placed in series with the negative rail of the battery to determine the rate of current flow.
The question is why either test generated so little public interest given the extraordinary nature of the claim? The reason for this is that our application to publish in a reviewed journal was denied. The rejection of the first paper may possibly have been excused on the bases of insufficient data and possible inadequacy of the measuring instruments used. But the second paper detailing these results rather erred on the side of excess. And the instrument that recorded this data was a Tektronix TDS3054C that was more than adequate both in terms of its rated bandwidth and the sophistication of the software that enables due record.
The actual reasons given for the rejection of the second paper, even prior to review, was that the technology was based on a thesis that was outside the expertise of the reviewers. The suggestion was made that it would, therefore, be more appropriate for publication in a physics journal. But, in as much as electrical measurement falls outside the expertise of our physicists, it seems that the paper may forever remain profoundly and fundamentally unpublishable. In the light of the extraordinary nature of the claim one hopes not. The more so as the results show a technological potential that may address those manifold concerns related to pollution. These concerns dog our burgeoning energy needs and our somewhat profligate use of this.
The fact is that our Thermodynamic Laws are that entrenched in our general and mainstream physics paradigms that it is now entirely impossible to give a reasonable account of breach of this through any respectable medium whatsoever. Claims of breach are met with rank scepticism and dismissed on the basis of ‘assumption of error’. And all solicitations, to either attend a demonstration or to comment after such attendance, were only ever met with a blunt refusal accompanied by a parade of contempt and condescension. And it is unlikely that such an attitude can be considered appropriate to science. Science is only ever progressed through experimental evidence. To deny that evidence, or more appropriately, the careful evaluation of that evidence, serves nothing but prejudice. And neither prejudice nor assumption can ever serve the truth.
As it applies to an evaluation of our own experimental evidence, this less than satisfactory attitude is entirely unacceptable. The circuit is simple. The component parts are easily identifiable. The measurements are instantaneously available subject only to the use of an appropriate oscilloscope. And to compare each and every aspect of the test claim as it relates to the dissipation of heat against a control, then a short half hour would suffice. To refute the claim would take a matter of minutes for any expert qualified in power engineering. The numbers are neither elusive nor marginal. The results are unambiguous and repeatable. And they consistently point to a breach in Thermodynamic constraints that merits considerably more attention than they have actually, historically managed.
As mentioned, the review process allows publication of experimental evidence that interested parties can then evaluate the experiment to progress it or to use it as required. But, historically, this progress has been confined to incremental improvements and small variations where results remain substantially within thermodynamic constraints. The only vehicle available for publication of results that defy these limitations are through Open Source and the internet.
But herein lies a second danger that rather exceeds the risk of test evidence being merely overlooked. Internet communication is by individuals who, more often than not, hide behind an avatar or an assumed identity. There is an overriding lack of accountability and, not being accountable allows contributors the freedom of expression that is as unrestrained as ‘road rage’ and often as destructive. Opinion, unsubstantiated allegation, calumny and rank unprofessionalism abound. Technology is promoted or destroyed with far less effort and far less merit than the carefully composed chapters of those many papers submitted through traditional channels. And where claims of unity breach are actively encouraged through multiple forums they are also as readily dismissed due to the flagrantly self-serving opinions of those many who subscribe. While the facts of any issue are recorded for posterity, the memory of its readers and contributors is short. Open source is indeed vulnerable to gross and even to criminal abuse. And it can, therefore never be considered a reasonable alternative to progress new knowledge.
In conclusion therefore, it is evident that there is no vehicle, no procedural blue print, where new thinking and new discoveries can be appropriately addressed. Scientific merit is only ever attributed within the tight confines of popular opinion be it learned or otherwise - be it through the channels of academic publication or through free internet publication. Either way is fraught. The hope here is to forge some system, some method that can breach these barriers. The thinking now is that demonstrations should be limited to a prepared audience and that their subsequent evaluation carry the required accreditation to merit publication in a reviewed journal. Publication would then, hopefully, satisfy mainstream that the experiment requires fuller research. There is more than enough experimental proof to of concept. What is now required is that these tests be put up at multiple benches through many different laboratories and institutions that the full extent of the claim can be carefully evaluated and verified or refuted as that knowledge grows.
References
Reference 1 - http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/12/finally-our-tie-paper.html
124 - hope springs eternal
Dear Reader,
We're nearly there. I'm still struggling with the introduction to the paper - but that's only because I'm trying to get it simplified yet comprehensive. No easy task. I know now that the battle with our trolls is nearly over. A few coming forward with the occasional blunt swipe - but their arguments are stale and grounded in gross misconception.
When I look back at all those posts and all those objections - I feel I've climbed Everest - four or five times - only to reach the precipice to tumble down again. But this time I think we've forged a better path through all those previous climbs. Certainly it's one that others can now walk - without getting altitude sickness - or vertigo.
Whatever happens - published or not - these experimental results are profoundly significant. And I think they'll survive me - as required - if they're to be advanced. And that's all thanks to the internet. It is a sad truth that there is very little support for these findings - most significantly lacking by our 'free energy enthusiasts'. One would have expected them to rally. But the news is not palatable when it's advanced by an old woman - least of all one who is untrained. I think the hope or expectation was that such exciting news should have been advanced by someone with charisma - another Tesla. So. What can I say? And the most of those members do their own experiments within the constraints of budgets and available testing equipment. And to disclose the full benefit here one actually needs the super sophisticated measuring tools that I have been privileged to use. It is a truth that if our paper is published - then our instrument manufacturers will have to up the anti in their software to let these facts be more readily accessible.
Anyway - our target for submission is mid month. Everyone's rallying. And it's all good news. I have cautious reason to expect a genuine investigation by our reviewers - which will be a first. And I think the evidence will now be considered on its own merits. Which is a very good thing. I'm afraid that our South African academics have still not rallied. Perhaps that'll change prior to publication. One can only hope.
Kind regards
Rosemary
We're nearly there. I'm still struggling with the introduction to the paper - but that's only because I'm trying to get it simplified yet comprehensive. No easy task. I know now that the battle with our trolls is nearly over. A few coming forward with the occasional blunt swipe - but their arguments are stale and grounded in gross misconception.
When I look back at all those posts and all those objections - I feel I've climbed Everest - four or five times - only to reach the precipice to tumble down again. But this time I think we've forged a better path through all those previous climbs. Certainly it's one that others can now walk - without getting altitude sickness - or vertigo.
Whatever happens - published or not - these experimental results are profoundly significant. And I think they'll survive me - as required - if they're to be advanced. And that's all thanks to the internet. It is a sad truth that there is very little support for these findings - most significantly lacking by our 'free energy enthusiasts'. One would have expected them to rally. But the news is not palatable when it's advanced by an old woman - least of all one who is untrained. I think the hope or expectation was that such exciting news should have been advanced by someone with charisma - another Tesla. So. What can I say? And the most of those members do their own experiments within the constraints of budgets and available testing equipment. And to disclose the full benefit here one actually needs the super sophisticated measuring tools that I have been privileged to use. It is a truth that if our paper is published - then our instrument manufacturers will have to up the anti in their software to let these facts be more readily accessible.
Anyway - our target for submission is mid month. Everyone's rallying. And it's all good news. I have cautious reason to expect a genuine investigation by our reviewers - which will be a first. And I think the evidence will now be considered on its own merits. Which is a very good thing. I'm afraid that our South African academics have still not rallied. Perhaps that'll change prior to publication. One can only hope.
Kind regards
Rosemary
Monday, May 30, 2011
123 - the cover letter to be circulated with the revised report
Dear Reader,
The following is the letter that will now be circulated to all the major academies in England together with the revised report.
FROM
Rosemary Ainslie
Donovan Martin
Mario Human
Evan Robinson
Alan Macey
Dear Professor
MEASURED BREACH OF THERMODYNAMIC CONSTRAINTS IN A SIMPLE SWITCHING CIRCUIT RESULTING IN AN INFINITE CO-EFFICIENT OF PERFORMANCE
Between 2001 and 2002, a co-efficient of performance (COP) greater than 1 was measured on various configurations of the circuit apparatus that is referred to in the attached report. These results were witnessed and accredited by many companies including BP (SA), ABB Research (NC USA), POWER ENGINEERING (SA), (a subsidiary of ALSTOM), CSIR (SA) and SASOL (SA). SASOL also offered UCT a scholarship to take this study further. That offer was declined. With the exception of Power Engineers, all those companies allowed their names to be referenced as accrediting authorities in a paper that was published in the October 2002 edition of Quantum Magazine. That publication detailed the experimental evidence of COP>17. This research has now progressed where a variation of the transistor configurations now results in measurements of an infinite COP. The attached report refers.
It is an incontestable truth that science can only be progressed by experimental evidence. And where a claim confronts mainstream prediction then such experimental evidence is essential. Standard protocols require the publication of a paper detailing the test and its results in a reviewed journal. Then subscribing experts can evaluate the paper and any claims related to those experiments. But it is also an unfortunate reality that - notwithstanding repeated efforts to publish - all submissions resulted in outright rejection of that paper, even prior to review of the paper itself. This prescriptive editorial comment has mitigated against the academic advancement of this technology over a period of 10 years including 5 separate submission attempts. In the light of our escalating global energy crisis it may, possibly, be considered an inappropriate response. The more so as each submission included greater measurement accuracy and, latterly, even more compelling experimental evidence.
A second route to the advancement of contentious science would be public demonstration of the experiment and its results. To this end and in a further effort to promote this technology, electrical engineering experts from all the major universities in South Africa, were invited to a public demonstration held on the 12th March, 2011 at Cape Peninsular University of Technology, Cape Town, South Africa. The intention of that demonstration was to show these latest results of a unity breach in the transfer of electric energy more fully detailed in the attached report. This has also failed because, unhappily none of the invited experts attended that demonstration. Because of this, an eccentric transistor configuration was not fully disclosed at that demonstration. A full disclosure is now incorporated in the attached revised report. There have been repeated solicitations to all our South African academic experts, spanning a period of 10 years, to evaluate the experimental results for themselves. No academic has been prepared to both attend a demonstration and, or comment.
In order to circumvent any further interventions by Journal editorial staff and to promote a wide dissemination of these results, we are now forwarding the report of this experiment to a wide range of academies including your own. This will be followed by yet another paper submission that - if it is also rejected - will be open sourced on-line. We would appeal to all experts in related fields to simulate the results contained in this report or to replicate the experiment, as preferred. If there are any hidden flaws to the argument then this can be resolved through that evidence. The intention here is to advance this experimental evidence to a wide range of experts that the subject may then garner the close scrutiny and overview that it so clearly requires.
While the results themselves confront mainstream prediction it is clearly allowed within classical paradigms as the results can be replicated experimentally as well as simulated on software programs. The results were predicted in a thesis related to a non-classical magnetic field model. They point to the fact that Kirchhoff’s requirements for equivalence, in the transfer of electric energy, does not take the potentials of inductive and conductive circuit components into consideration. This would, nonetheless, be required in terms of Einstein’s mass energy equivalences. The test results indicate that inductive laws do, indeed, release this potential that the circuit material effectively becomes a second energy supply source. This potential has not, hitherto, been factored into our standard electrical applications.
This technology has been widely disclosed in the public domain and is, therefore, not patentable.
Kind regards,
Rosemary Ainslie
On behalf of New Energy Research Development
The following is the letter that will now be circulated to all the major academies in England together with the revised report.
FROM
Rosemary Ainslie
Donovan Martin
Mario Human
Evan Robinson
Alan Macey
Dear Professor
MEASURED BREACH OF THERMODYNAMIC CONSTRAINTS IN A SIMPLE SWITCHING CIRCUIT RESULTING IN AN INFINITE CO-EFFICIENT OF PERFORMANCE
Between 2001 and 2002, a co-efficient of performance (COP) greater than 1 was measured on various configurations of the circuit apparatus that is referred to in the attached report. These results were witnessed and accredited by many companies including BP (SA), ABB Research (NC USA), POWER ENGINEERING (SA), (a subsidiary of ALSTOM), CSIR (SA) and SASOL (SA). SASOL also offered UCT a scholarship to take this study further. That offer was declined. With the exception of Power Engineers, all those companies allowed their names to be referenced as accrediting authorities in a paper that was published in the October 2002 edition of Quantum Magazine. That publication detailed the experimental evidence of COP>17. This research has now progressed where a variation of the transistor configurations now results in measurements of an infinite COP. The attached report refers.
It is an incontestable truth that science can only be progressed by experimental evidence. And where a claim confronts mainstream prediction then such experimental evidence is essential. Standard protocols require the publication of a paper detailing the test and its results in a reviewed journal. Then subscribing experts can evaluate the paper and any claims related to those experiments. But it is also an unfortunate reality that - notwithstanding repeated efforts to publish - all submissions resulted in outright rejection of that paper, even prior to review of the paper itself. This prescriptive editorial comment has mitigated against the academic advancement of this technology over a period of 10 years including 5 separate submission attempts. In the light of our escalating global energy crisis it may, possibly, be considered an inappropriate response. The more so as each submission included greater measurement accuracy and, latterly, even more compelling experimental evidence.
A second route to the advancement of contentious science would be public demonstration of the experiment and its results. To this end and in a further effort to promote this technology, electrical engineering experts from all the major universities in South Africa, were invited to a public demonstration held on the 12th March, 2011 at Cape Peninsular University of Technology, Cape Town, South Africa. The intention of that demonstration was to show these latest results of a unity breach in the transfer of electric energy more fully detailed in the attached report. This has also failed because, unhappily none of the invited experts attended that demonstration. Because of this, an eccentric transistor configuration was not fully disclosed at that demonstration. A full disclosure is now incorporated in the attached revised report. There have been repeated solicitations to all our South African academic experts, spanning a period of 10 years, to evaluate the experimental results for themselves. No academic has been prepared to both attend a demonstration and, or comment.
In order to circumvent any further interventions by Journal editorial staff and to promote a wide dissemination of these results, we are now forwarding the report of this experiment to a wide range of academies including your own. This will be followed by yet another paper submission that - if it is also rejected - will be open sourced on-line. We would appeal to all experts in related fields to simulate the results contained in this report or to replicate the experiment, as preferred. If there are any hidden flaws to the argument then this can be resolved through that evidence. The intention here is to advance this experimental evidence to a wide range of experts that the subject may then garner the close scrutiny and overview that it so clearly requires.
While the results themselves confront mainstream prediction it is clearly allowed within classical paradigms as the results can be replicated experimentally as well as simulated on software programs. The results were predicted in a thesis related to a non-classical magnetic field model. They point to the fact that Kirchhoff’s requirements for equivalence, in the transfer of electric energy, does not take the potentials of inductive and conductive circuit components into consideration. This would, nonetheless, be required in terms of Einstein’s mass energy equivalences. The test results indicate that inductive laws do, indeed, release this potential that the circuit material effectively becomes a second energy supply source. This potential has not, hitherto, been factored into our standard electrical applications.
This technology has been widely disclosed in the public domain and is, therefore, not patentable.
Kind regards,
Rosemary Ainslie
On behalf of New Energy Research Development
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)