Dear Reader,
Here's another hopeful submission.
AN EMBARGO ON THE TRUTH ABOUT ABUNDANT CLEAN ENERGY
Science is determined by experimental evidence. Nothing else cuts it. If you have got the demonstrable evidence – then the claim associated with that evidence becomes incontrovertible. The Wright brothers, for example, were flying their machines at a time when our academics were teaching the impossibility of heavier than air flight. And the Wright brothers won that argument.
We all know that claims associated with the liberation of clean free and abundant energy – although a topic that proliferates our internet – is also unhappily associated with the profligate high hopes of eccentric scientists who are variously dupes or duped – banging on about the possibility or the reality of free and abundant and clean electric energy. These dreamers claim that conspiracies abound – that suppress this information.
Mainstream has determined that energy is limited by the amount of energy delivered. A limitless supply of energy would require that more energy is returned to a supply source than delivered. And that much is impossible. Therefore any claims to ‘exceed unity’, as it’s called, are considered to be fallacious at best. They are, therefore, not worth investigating.
Both of which arguments are flawed. Experimental proof – if it is conclusive enough – is not arguable. Therefore those energy cooks must produce the required evidence. And by the same token those mainstream adherents, our academics, must evaluate that evidence – if and when it’s produced. That’s only reasonable and fair.
And here’s where the truth of experimental evidence becomes a victim of pure prejudice that has no part in any science at all. We have incontrovertible proof of more energy being returned to a battery supply source than was delivered by the battery, which in science parlance is known of as a co-efficient of performance that exceeds 1. In fact it is INFINITE COP. This evidence is open sourced and well documented – has been publicly displayed, has been carefully measured, was required in terms of a field model that does not deviate from classical principles – has been submitted for publication 5 times in reviewed journals – and that is entirely ignored by our academics. And we all know. We require academic accreditation to progress this knowledge. Yet those academics – to a man – REFUSE to evaluate that experimental evidence.
So. Be informed. There is carefully documented evidence that our Thermodynamic Laws need to be re-assessed as they relate to the electromagnetic interaction. The proof of this claim has been accredited by companies including, BP (SA), SASOL (SA), ABB Research (NC USA), among others. SASOL even offered a bursary award to advance this study. That award was declined by UCT. Those companies have allowed reference to their accreditation in the publication of early tests in a technical (un-reviewed) paper. The final tests for this evidence, has been submitted for publication to a reviewed journal. This is the fourth attempt at publication. We are still to hear if the paper is to be accepted. We have been struggling for over a decade to get this evidence to the academic workbenches. But we are gravely hampered as it is only the prejudice in those institutions that mitigates against a fair or, indeed, ANY evaluation, of this scientific experiment.
This refusal to acknowledge experimental evidence confounds what would otherwise be a desirable solution to the pollutant consequences of our conventional energy usage. It is this author’s opinion that there is an active conspiracy that is keeping this knowledge from the public. It is a conspiracy that, unhappily, is greatly assisted by the prejudice of our learned and revered. Should this ‘truth’ be liberated from its embargo – then the whole world would benefit from this abundant source of energy which would put paid to our concerns related to our own responsibility for carbon pollution.
The piece de resistance – the final flourish of this experimental evidence - is that the model and the consequences – are required in terms of the standard model. Therefore there is nothing within known science that conflicts with this result. Which is extraordinary – considering the weight of all that academic prejudice.
Golly. I must be ever and excessively hopeful. lol
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
172 - more on those foundational concepts
Dear Reader,
Those last two posts of mine have reminded me that I really need to write that paper on gravity. It is the penultimate challenge - the final challenge being to also write a paper on the strong nuclear force.
Broadly - the field model proposes that our magnetic force is a primary force. The argument in support of this is simple. A changing electric field induces a magnetic field. A changing magnetic field induces an electric field. But a changing magnetic field can interact with another magnetic field without inducing an electric field. In other words - a magnet on magnet interaction does not result in any measurable evidence of an electric field. Therefore the electric field is - at best - a secondary force that relies on the prior existence of that magnetic field - which, in turn, needs to be 'changing' or 'moving in time' in order to induce that electric interaction.
Now. Here's the thing. You can fill all known space with those highly structured magnetic fields - which it is argued - structure themselves along Faraday's Lines of Force. Start with the biggest space. That's the entire universe and its boundaries. It comprises these strings that are as broad as a whisper and as long as the boundaries of the universe. And each string comprises magnetic dipoles that are simply tiny little spherical magnets that are joined head to toe - hand in hand - south to north. Each string closes up that it forms a necklace. Well. That's the biggest all encompassing field. Then inside that field are smaller structured fields - two dimensional (saucer shaped) - that lock whole galaxies into formation. Then inside the stars of those galaxies are further two dimensional fields that lock planets into an orbit. And inside yet more localised two dimensional magnetic fields are the moons of those planets - also locked in an orbital formation.
Large blocks of coalesced matter forming those planets and moons and stars are relatively random. But the atoms that form the material of those structures are again, those two dimensional magnetic fields that hold it's particles in an orbit as fixed and predictable as the stars in the galaxies that are also held in formation.
That's the 'pattern' that is best expressed in fractals. But what is actually being proposed is that ALL is encompassed in a magnetic field. Whether it's the particles in the atom or the atoms in the planet and moons - of star structures that, in turn are in their galaxies. All is HELD within a bath of magnetic particles that form a structured coherent field of particles that are entirely invisible.
Now here's the thing. Those long strings - those great loops - those necklaces comprising the magnetic dipoles as its beads, they are always enclosing coalesced matter in whatever form that matter takes. In other words - the material is inside the magnet. Therefore, being smaller than the 'field of influence' of the magnet - the material itself only ever experiences one part of that bigger magnetic field.
Now again. The question is this? What actually is that bigger magnetic field doing? Well. It's argued that it is possible to get a perfect charge alignment of each string - that north/south alignment of the magnetic dipoles. But it is impossible to get a coherent charge distribution of each dipole with the dipoles in adjacent strings. Therefore. There would be a continual and PERPETUAL interaction of each dipole to another to either repel or attract to a neighbouring dipole - which would result in a movement towards or away. That's in line with our Laws of Charge. Then in moving towards or away from a neighbouring string, then each movement would displace an adjoined dipole in each string. Which would displace that dipole, which, being inside a string, would then displace every dipole in that entire string to describe the first step of an orbit. Many such steps and we get an orbiting string, propelling the neighbouring strings into an orbit - and so on - throughout the field. That means that the entire field would orbit. And, if the field is as coherent as is proposed, then that orbit would share a single justification. It would spin left to right. Or right to left.
But if matter is held inside that string then the matter inside it would only experience a single justification. Think of it like this. We on earth have only ever experienced a single direction - one half of - the entire orbit of our earths' magnetic field. The second half of each orbit is inside the material of the earth itself moving from the south pole to the north. Outside - the surface of the planet - correspondingly - has only experienced the north/south justification. That's a single direction. Which is also just a single charge. In other words - to the best of our knowledge - nothing on earth has had the dubious pleasure of experiencing the both charges from our contained magnetic field.
I'll get back to this. But - nota bene - if charge is determined by direction within a magnetic field and if the magnetic field has a justification - which is unarguable - then, in truth, all the material on the earth has only ever interacted with one half of the orbit of the entire magnetic field - or only 1 half of it's magnetic field's potential charge.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Those last two posts of mine have reminded me that I really need to write that paper on gravity. It is the penultimate challenge - the final challenge being to also write a paper on the strong nuclear force.
Broadly - the field model proposes that our magnetic force is a primary force. The argument in support of this is simple. A changing electric field induces a magnetic field. A changing magnetic field induces an electric field. But a changing magnetic field can interact with another magnetic field without inducing an electric field. In other words - a magnet on magnet interaction does not result in any measurable evidence of an electric field. Therefore the electric field is - at best - a secondary force that relies on the prior existence of that magnetic field - which, in turn, needs to be 'changing' or 'moving in time' in order to induce that electric interaction.
Now. Here's the thing. You can fill all known space with those highly structured magnetic fields - which it is argued - structure themselves along Faraday's Lines of Force. Start with the biggest space. That's the entire universe and its boundaries. It comprises these strings that are as broad as a whisper and as long as the boundaries of the universe. And each string comprises magnetic dipoles that are simply tiny little spherical magnets that are joined head to toe - hand in hand - south to north. Each string closes up that it forms a necklace. Well. That's the biggest all encompassing field. Then inside that field are smaller structured fields - two dimensional (saucer shaped) - that lock whole galaxies into formation. Then inside the stars of those galaxies are further two dimensional fields that lock planets into an orbit. And inside yet more localised two dimensional magnetic fields are the moons of those planets - also locked in an orbital formation.
Large blocks of coalesced matter forming those planets and moons and stars are relatively random. But the atoms that form the material of those structures are again, those two dimensional magnetic fields that hold it's particles in an orbit as fixed and predictable as the stars in the galaxies that are also held in formation.
That's the 'pattern' that is best expressed in fractals. But what is actually being proposed is that ALL is encompassed in a magnetic field. Whether it's the particles in the atom or the atoms in the planet and moons - of star structures that, in turn are in their galaxies. All is HELD within a bath of magnetic particles that form a structured coherent field of particles that are entirely invisible.
Now here's the thing. Those long strings - those great loops - those necklaces comprising the magnetic dipoles as its beads, they are always enclosing coalesced matter in whatever form that matter takes. In other words - the material is inside the magnet. Therefore, being smaller than the 'field of influence' of the magnet - the material itself only ever experiences one part of that bigger magnetic field.
Now again. The question is this? What actually is that bigger magnetic field doing? Well. It's argued that it is possible to get a perfect charge alignment of each string - that north/south alignment of the magnetic dipoles. But it is impossible to get a coherent charge distribution of each dipole with the dipoles in adjacent strings. Therefore. There would be a continual and PERPETUAL interaction of each dipole to another to either repel or attract to a neighbouring dipole - which would result in a movement towards or away. That's in line with our Laws of Charge. Then in moving towards or away from a neighbouring string, then each movement would displace an adjoined dipole in each string. Which would displace that dipole, which, being inside a string, would then displace every dipole in that entire string to describe the first step of an orbit. Many such steps and we get an orbiting string, propelling the neighbouring strings into an orbit - and so on - throughout the field. That means that the entire field would orbit. And, if the field is as coherent as is proposed, then that orbit would share a single justification. It would spin left to right. Or right to left.
But if matter is held inside that string then the matter inside it would only experience a single justification. Think of it like this. We on earth have only ever experienced a single direction - one half of - the entire orbit of our earths' magnetic field. The second half of each orbit is inside the material of the earth itself moving from the south pole to the north. Outside - the surface of the planet - correspondingly - has only experienced the north/south justification. That's a single direction. Which is also just a single charge. In other words - to the best of our knowledge - nothing on earth has had the dubious pleasure of experiencing the both charges from our contained magnetic field.
I'll get back to this. But - nota bene - if charge is determined by direction within a magnetic field and if the magnetic field has a justification - which is unarguable - then, in truth, all the material on the earth has only ever interacted with one half of the orbit of the entire magnetic field - or only 1 half of it's magnetic field's potential charge.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Saturday, October 29, 2011
171 - when energy does not equal mass x the speed of light squared
Dear Reader,
The next point is this. We're all familiar with the equation that E=mc^2. That knowledge is also courtesy Einstein and is, therefore, 'classical'. Now. Here's the thing. A photon has zero mass. That 'c' is the definitive constant that correlates to the speed of light. In effect the equation stipulates that if you want to find out the amount of potential energy in any given material - then establish its mass and multiply it by that constant - which is the speed of light. There it is again. That - HUGE light speed number. And then. Multiply that product by the speed of light AGAIN. Well. Who am I to argue? I can barely get my head around light speed - let alone a squared product. It's all a bit mind bending.
However. What do we do with this puzzle? Photons, according to my understanding - have NO MASS. Yet their velocity is light speed. So. If you then take the speed of light and multiply it with the mass of a photon - ZERO - then the product is ZERO - whether or not it's Squared or Cubed - or Quadrupled - or multiplied by any number at all. How then does one explain the energy in a photon? In truth, unless the photon has a mass of something marginally greater than zero - then it has no energy in itself to travel at any speed at all.
It's a question that - presumably - our boffins have addressed. But the explanation for this is not in layman's literature - and it is, therefore, outside of my own reference. But here's what I do know. IF light were, in fact, without any energy at all - and IF it were simply moved by some hidden force - then it would appear to be very energetic and yet it would not, necessarily, and of itself - have any innate velocity to move anywhere at all. In other words - light may, indeed be MOVED by a hidden force - and that may, by the same token account for it's extraordinary velocity. I use this analogy. We live in a box with a window and no doors. Then one day we see a balloon drift past the window - being blown by the wind. Without knowing about the wind we'd be inclined to think that the balloon has it's own energy to move it across the sky. We'd be wrong of course. In the same way? Just maybe we're also wrong about the photon. Perhaps it is moved by a hidden force. We just don't know about that force.
These comments are not meant to be frivolous. The question is out there. How do the forces interact with material and yet remain entirely hidden? Well - it all goes back to that boundary constraint 'thing'. If a photon or anything at all - responds to the hidden forces - then there must be some shared 'dimension' in space and in time - where they interact that they can respond to the forces.
That's the next subject. Hopefully I can explain it.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
The next point is this. We're all familiar with the equation that E=mc^2. That knowledge is also courtesy Einstein and is, therefore, 'classical'. Now. Here's the thing. A photon has zero mass. That 'c' is the definitive constant that correlates to the speed of light. In effect the equation stipulates that if you want to find out the amount of potential energy in any given material - then establish its mass and multiply it by that constant - which is the speed of light. There it is again. That - HUGE light speed number. And then. Multiply that product by the speed of light AGAIN. Well. Who am I to argue? I can barely get my head around light speed - let alone a squared product. It's all a bit mind bending.
However. What do we do with this puzzle? Photons, according to my understanding - have NO MASS. Yet their velocity is light speed. So. If you then take the speed of light and multiply it with the mass of a photon - ZERO - then the product is ZERO - whether or not it's Squared or Cubed - or Quadrupled - or multiplied by any number at all. How then does one explain the energy in a photon? In truth, unless the photon has a mass of something marginally greater than zero - then it has no energy in itself to travel at any speed at all.
It's a question that - presumably - our boffins have addressed. But the explanation for this is not in layman's literature - and it is, therefore, outside of my own reference. But here's what I do know. IF light were, in fact, without any energy at all - and IF it were simply moved by some hidden force - then it would appear to be very energetic and yet it would not, necessarily, and of itself - have any innate velocity to move anywhere at all. In other words - light may, indeed be MOVED by a hidden force - and that may, by the same token account for it's extraordinary velocity. I use this analogy. We live in a box with a window and no doors. Then one day we see a balloon drift past the window - being blown by the wind. Without knowing about the wind we'd be inclined to think that the balloon has it's own energy to move it across the sky. We'd be wrong of course. In the same way? Just maybe we're also wrong about the photon. Perhaps it is moved by a hidden force. We just don't know about that force.
These comments are not meant to be frivolous. The question is out there. How do the forces interact with material and yet remain entirely hidden? Well - it all goes back to that boundary constraint 'thing'. If a photon or anything at all - responds to the hidden forces - then there must be some shared 'dimension' in space and in time - where they interact that they can respond to the forces.
That's the next subject. Hopefully I can explain it.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
170 - clarification on foundational concepts
Dear Reader,
I get it that there are those of you who are trying to get into the thesis. And I also know that this is really badly explained - except, I hope - in the summary of the electromagnetic interaction that's been included in our paper.
Well - the foundational concepts are - themselves - not the easiest to express. I'm going to try and make them clearer in a series of posts here. This being the first. And the kick off must therefore relate to what is termed the 'boundary constraint'. Here's what is meant.
The analogy is this. We have a machine that throws stones. It throws this in a tunnel. There is a vacuum in the tunnel. So there's no drag from atmospheric material. But the tunnel itself is somewhere on our planet - so it's subject to the Earth's gravitational pull. Now. The machine always applies the same force to each throw. Therefore we can confidently predict that the bigger the stone then the shorter the distance of the throw. And the smaller the stone then the further the distance of the throw. And within the constraints of a standard applied force to each throw we can, eventually, determine the distance of each throw from the weight/size of that stone. That's simple.
BUT. If the stone was too big or too heavy to throw - or if the stone was too small to detect - then the machine would 'fail'. The interactive material - those stones - would now be out of range of that machine. In effect all those bigger/heavier or the smaller/lighter stones - would remain outside the boundary constraint of the machine. That's the boundary constraint. It's simply out of reach of an interactive association.
Now. Let's consider the three dimensions of our world. There is nothing that is out of reach. We can tangibly touch and interact with all its solid and liquid and gaseous material states. And, more to the point, photons can also interact with those materials that they can be made visible - again within the constraints of our eyesight which has evolved to discern a certain limited spectrum of frequency and colour. But - generally speaking - we're fairly familiar with the three dimension of our earth and its myriad forms of matter. And we can most certainly interact with it. And light can certainly define the shape, size, and even the material comprising the most of it.
Now. We also know this. A photon travels at about 186 000 miles a second. Actually it's slightly more than this but I forget the exact value. It's possibly closer to 186,300 m.p.s. It doesn't matter. The point is this. That's pretty jolly quick. In point of fact there is NOTHING that we know of that can move through space FASTER than the speed of light. Indeed. Classical physics is structured and developed around this concept as Einstein stipulated that NOTHING can exceed the speed of light. By NOTHING he included, accretions of matter, atoms and the constituent parts of the atom being the atomic particles. That's EVERYTHING. It's everything that we know or can touch, or that we can interact with. And it's most assuredly all that we can see - even through the aid of sophisticated digital equipment. For some reason - not sure why - it was determined that NOTHING CAN EXCEED THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
Here's my question. IF anything moved at faster than light speed - then HOW WOULD WE KNOW OF IT? 186 000 m.p.s is FAST. Mind boggling quick. Lickerty split. Amazing. BUT - by the same token - IF anything moved at faster than light speed - then LIGHT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FIND IT NOR INTERACT WITH IT. It would thereby be out of range. Outside the BOUNDARY CONSTRAINTS of light itself.
Now. We know this much. Our forces are INVISIBLE. No-one to date - with the best will in the world - and with all the benefit of all that respectable and well-funded research - has found the 'graviton' that is required to account for gravity - nor the quark that is required for the strong nuclear force - nor particle that is required for the transfer of simple charge in the electromagnetic interaction. Actually I need to say this quick. Lest I hear that HOWL of protest where all our engineers shout that the electron is the carrier particle of the electromagnetic force. My answer is simple. IT IS NOT. And my justification for this? I'll append a link to my argument - hereunder. You don't need to read all of it. Just the first page or so. It is a little known fact, but nonetheless a 'truth', that no-one can account for the forces. They have only mastered the miracle of its predictable measurements. They have not found THE THING ITSELF. They have never found 'the particle' to account for any of the measurable manifestations of the forces.
So. Back to the question. Could it be that the speed of light is actually ONLY the limit to our own measurable dimensions? We have three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. And time is intimately related to our measure of the speed of light. That's somehow satisfying. Because the minute we postulate this - then it begs another question. Could it be that there are other dimensions that remain outside of the boundary constraint of light speed? Could it be that the forces themselves operate in different dimensions of space and time? Could it be, in fact, that the forces - which we know interact with our own space/time dimensions - may, in fact interact at speeds that exceed the speed of light?
And that's the start of another rats nest of questions. But I'll leave it there for now. Just know that the speed of light has been entirely proven - is well understood and widely used in the interpretation of many science questions. It is not an arbitrary number and it is most assuredly correct - in general. It's the implications of this that perhaps need to be looked at more closely. Because the implications take us into the realm of magic which happens when we exceed light speed. And proof that light speed can be exceeded is already with us - in well tested experimental evidence from our particle wizards in their studies of particle interactions at nuclear accelerators - all over the place.
In summary, therefore, I propose that the speed of light is ONLY the boundary constraint to our own dimensions. BUT. Light speed is also a constraint that has no relevance to anything outside our own dimensions of space (3) and time (1). And as the forces are invisible to 'light' then it's possible that the forces themselves operate in alternate dimensions that are not constrained to light speed. Something greater than light speed? But- again. If the 'boundary constraint' argument is to hold - then there must be an interactive moment where the forces 'reach' our own dimensions. Else there would be no interaction. And matter - most certainly interacts with the forces. This model proposes that the 'interactive moment' occurs outside our time frame - in a time frame that precedes our own - but in a shared 'spatial' dimension. I'll get to that argument next.
And if any of this is not clear - then apologies. Let me know and I'll write it again. It's actually very, very simple. But my rendition may yet be too complex. And I really do want to make all this as clear as possible.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
here's that link - for those who are prepared to read some confrontational truths. lol
Click here for some 'inconvenient truths'
I get it that there are those of you who are trying to get into the thesis. And I also know that this is really badly explained - except, I hope - in the summary of the electromagnetic interaction that's been included in our paper.
Well - the foundational concepts are - themselves - not the easiest to express. I'm going to try and make them clearer in a series of posts here. This being the first. And the kick off must therefore relate to what is termed the 'boundary constraint'. Here's what is meant.
The analogy is this. We have a machine that throws stones. It throws this in a tunnel. There is a vacuum in the tunnel. So there's no drag from atmospheric material. But the tunnel itself is somewhere on our planet - so it's subject to the Earth's gravitational pull. Now. The machine always applies the same force to each throw. Therefore we can confidently predict that the bigger the stone then the shorter the distance of the throw. And the smaller the stone then the further the distance of the throw. And within the constraints of a standard applied force to each throw we can, eventually, determine the distance of each throw from the weight/size of that stone. That's simple.
BUT. If the stone was too big or too heavy to throw - or if the stone was too small to detect - then the machine would 'fail'. The interactive material - those stones - would now be out of range of that machine. In effect all those bigger/heavier or the smaller/lighter stones - would remain outside the boundary constraint of the machine. That's the boundary constraint. It's simply out of reach of an interactive association.
Now. Let's consider the three dimensions of our world. There is nothing that is out of reach. We can tangibly touch and interact with all its solid and liquid and gaseous material states. And, more to the point, photons can also interact with those materials that they can be made visible - again within the constraints of our eyesight which has evolved to discern a certain limited spectrum of frequency and colour. But - generally speaking - we're fairly familiar with the three dimension of our earth and its myriad forms of matter. And we can most certainly interact with it. And light can certainly define the shape, size, and even the material comprising the most of it.
Now. We also know this. A photon travels at about 186 000 miles a second. Actually it's slightly more than this but I forget the exact value. It's possibly closer to 186,300 m.p.s. It doesn't matter. The point is this. That's pretty jolly quick. In point of fact there is NOTHING that we know of that can move through space FASTER than the speed of light. Indeed. Classical physics is structured and developed around this concept as Einstein stipulated that NOTHING can exceed the speed of light. By NOTHING he included, accretions of matter, atoms and the constituent parts of the atom being the atomic particles. That's EVERYTHING. It's everything that we know or can touch, or that we can interact with. And it's most assuredly all that we can see - even through the aid of sophisticated digital equipment. For some reason - not sure why - it was determined that NOTHING CAN EXCEED THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
Here's my question. IF anything moved at faster than light speed - then HOW WOULD WE KNOW OF IT? 186 000 m.p.s is FAST. Mind boggling quick. Lickerty split. Amazing. BUT - by the same token - IF anything moved at faster than light speed - then LIGHT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FIND IT NOR INTERACT WITH IT. It would thereby be out of range. Outside the BOUNDARY CONSTRAINTS of light itself.
Now. We know this much. Our forces are INVISIBLE. No-one to date - with the best will in the world - and with all the benefit of all that respectable and well-funded research - has found the 'graviton' that is required to account for gravity - nor the quark that is required for the strong nuclear force - nor particle that is required for the transfer of simple charge in the electromagnetic interaction. Actually I need to say this quick. Lest I hear that HOWL of protest where all our engineers shout that the electron is the carrier particle of the electromagnetic force. My answer is simple. IT IS NOT. And my justification for this? I'll append a link to my argument - hereunder. You don't need to read all of it. Just the first page or so. It is a little known fact, but nonetheless a 'truth', that no-one can account for the forces. They have only mastered the miracle of its predictable measurements. They have not found THE THING ITSELF. They have never found 'the particle' to account for any of the measurable manifestations of the forces.
So. Back to the question. Could it be that the speed of light is actually ONLY the limit to our own measurable dimensions? We have three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. And time is intimately related to our measure of the speed of light. That's somehow satisfying. Because the minute we postulate this - then it begs another question. Could it be that there are other dimensions that remain outside of the boundary constraint of light speed? Could it be that the forces themselves operate in different dimensions of space and time? Could it be, in fact, that the forces - which we know interact with our own space/time dimensions - may, in fact interact at speeds that exceed the speed of light?
And that's the start of another rats nest of questions. But I'll leave it there for now. Just know that the speed of light has been entirely proven - is well understood and widely used in the interpretation of many science questions. It is not an arbitrary number and it is most assuredly correct - in general. It's the implications of this that perhaps need to be looked at more closely. Because the implications take us into the realm of magic which happens when we exceed light speed. And proof that light speed can be exceeded is already with us - in well tested experimental evidence from our particle wizards in their studies of particle interactions at nuclear accelerators - all over the place.
In summary, therefore, I propose that the speed of light is ONLY the boundary constraint to our own dimensions. BUT. Light speed is also a constraint that has no relevance to anything outside our own dimensions of space (3) and time (1). And as the forces are invisible to 'light' then it's possible that the forces themselves operate in alternate dimensions that are not constrained to light speed. Something greater than light speed? But- again. If the 'boundary constraint' argument is to hold - then there must be an interactive moment where the forces 'reach' our own dimensions. Else there would be no interaction. And matter - most certainly interacts with the forces. This model proposes that the 'interactive moment' occurs outside our time frame - in a time frame that precedes our own - but in a shared 'spatial' dimension. I'll get to that argument next.
And if any of this is not clear - then apologies. Let me know and I'll write it again. It's actually very, very simple. But my rendition may yet be too complex. And I really do want to make all this as clear as possible.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
here's that link - for those who are prepared to read some confrontational truths. lol
Click here for some 'inconvenient truths'
Thursday, October 27, 2011
169 - a double whammy
Dear Reader,
If it weren't sad it would be funny. I've been advised by a highly respected nuclear physicist that Dark Energy is an entirely unproved theory. What gives? Our classical and quantum scientists are closing their eyes to the evidence of dark energy that has been measured to proliferate our universe. It seems that the thinking related to an expanding universe can be 'condoned' but all that hard work applied by our astrophysicists that relates to 'dark energy'? That, apparently, can be entirely ignored? Not sure why. Possibly because it's not yet found a foothold in conventional thinking
Frankly I'm entirely unconvinced that the universe is expanding at all. Indeed I'd only be surprised if there was NO evidence of a variable shift - that red shift thing. But I'm possibly not the best authority to argue this. lol. In any event, what I do know is this. If galaxies collide - yet the universe is expanding - then that rate of expansion must be both VARIABLE and LOCALISED. Not the best premise for any arguments at all. Bear in mind our own authority of all things quantum is from John Stewart Bell who states that the 'statistical predictions of the quantum theories.....cannot be upheld by local hidden variables'. Here's how I see it. Galaxies are moving through space at variable velocities. Which means that their velocity must exceed the rate of spatial expansion else they would NEVER connect with each other. If some move at the required velocity and others do not - then we're introducing precisely those variables that are discounted by Bell. The universe would then be entirely chaotic. And that will put paid to our quantum theories. Quite apart from which - where we may see galaxies colliding - we're looking back into history that very often precedes the birth of our own galaxy. What definitive proof is there that those galaxies are even still 'extant'? I don't think anyone has found an argument for absolute proof of this. It's all theoretical. So far - in any event.
What is NOT arguable - however, is the fact that those galaxies are exceeding the gravitational pull required by our Newtonian physicists. For some reason this is 'swept under the carpet' and there are no attempts - ANYWHERE - to resolve this.
Except my own. LOL
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
If it weren't sad it would be funny. I've been advised by a highly respected nuclear physicist that Dark Energy is an entirely unproved theory. What gives? Our classical and quantum scientists are closing their eyes to the evidence of dark energy that has been measured to proliferate our universe. It seems that the thinking related to an expanding universe can be 'condoned' but all that hard work applied by our astrophysicists that relates to 'dark energy'? That, apparently, can be entirely ignored? Not sure why. Possibly because it's not yet found a foothold in conventional thinking
Frankly I'm entirely unconvinced that the universe is expanding at all. Indeed I'd only be surprised if there was NO evidence of a variable shift - that red shift thing. But I'm possibly not the best authority to argue this. lol. In any event, what I do know is this. If galaxies collide - yet the universe is expanding - then that rate of expansion must be both VARIABLE and LOCALISED. Not the best premise for any arguments at all. Bear in mind our own authority of all things quantum is from John Stewart Bell who states that the 'statistical predictions of the quantum theories.....cannot be upheld by local hidden variables'. Here's how I see it. Galaxies are moving through space at variable velocities. Which means that their velocity must exceed the rate of spatial expansion else they would NEVER connect with each other. If some move at the required velocity and others do not - then we're introducing precisely those variables that are discounted by Bell. The universe would then be entirely chaotic. And that will put paid to our quantum theories. Quite apart from which - where we may see galaxies colliding - we're looking back into history that very often precedes the birth of our own galaxy. What definitive proof is there that those galaxies are even still 'extant'? I don't think anyone has found an argument for absolute proof of this. It's all theoretical. So far - in any event.
What is NOT arguable - however, is the fact that those galaxies are exceeding the gravitational pull required by our Newtonian physicists. For some reason this is 'swept under the carpet' and there are no attempts - ANYWHERE - to resolve this.
Except my own. LOL
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
168 - forward planning
Dear Reader,
I sort of feel guilty making two posts in the same day. lol. But I really need to mention this. I'm learning about more and more of you who are actually preparing for some catastrophic weather patterns as well as doing whatever's required to get off grid. It's so heartening. Progress - but exponential. It's amazing how these movements are happening outside the glare of the media and yet they're happening at pace.
The other good news is this. We're going to actively progress a battery operated steam generator. I think what's needed is ONLY an imbalanced voltage source to elicit the required resonance for this current flow. If we can prove that - then, theoretically, we don't even need fully charged batteries. My personal concern is that I can't get my batteries flat to test this. lol. I'll need to make a plan here. By 'flat' I mean that a 12 volt battery need only show 10 volts which is TECHNICALLY flat - but it would, nonetheless, show a potential difference. That's all that's needed.
I know of one experimenter who has put this onto LED's and started with a flat battery. I'll post more when I know for sure - but I understand that the battery has simply recharged. Also of interest is that the LED's stay lit notwithstanding that two way oscillation. That speaks volumes as it relates to the thesis - as this claims that the current has a 'charge' bias. We all know that an LED will NOT allow current flow in both directions. The question is whether this actually sustains that oscillation. If it's there - notwithstanding - then ONWARDS AND UPWARDS. It may indicate that current flow has a CHARGE. lol.
But kudos to those forward planners. We're only about two generations away from potential catastrophe. That's scarey. Hopefully those that take the trouble to build their 'arcs' may also survive the risks that our reckless energy consumption entertains.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
I sort of feel guilty making two posts in the same day. lol. But I really need to mention this. I'm learning about more and more of you who are actually preparing for some catastrophic weather patterns as well as doing whatever's required to get off grid. It's so heartening. Progress - but exponential. It's amazing how these movements are happening outside the glare of the media and yet they're happening at pace.
The other good news is this. We're going to actively progress a battery operated steam generator. I think what's needed is ONLY an imbalanced voltage source to elicit the required resonance for this current flow. If we can prove that - then, theoretically, we don't even need fully charged batteries. My personal concern is that I can't get my batteries flat to test this. lol. I'll need to make a plan here. By 'flat' I mean that a 12 volt battery need only show 10 volts which is TECHNICALLY flat - but it would, nonetheless, show a potential difference. That's all that's needed.
I know of one experimenter who has put this onto LED's and started with a flat battery. I'll post more when I know for sure - but I understand that the battery has simply recharged. Also of interest is that the LED's stay lit notwithstanding that two way oscillation. That speaks volumes as it relates to the thesis - as this claims that the current has a 'charge' bias. We all know that an LED will NOT allow current flow in both directions. The question is whether this actually sustains that oscillation. If it's there - notwithstanding - then ONWARDS AND UPWARDS. It may indicate that current flow has a CHARGE. lol.
But kudos to those forward planners. We're only about two generations away from potential catastrophe. That's scarey. Hopefully those that take the trouble to build their 'arcs' may also survive the risks that our reckless energy consumption entertains.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
167 - in defense of numbers
Dear Reader,
In science - measurement is EVERYTHING. Regardless of theory - regardless of prediction - the story of science is actually only the STORY OF MEASUREMENT.
Therein lies the truth. If anything is to get any credence at all - then it must be MEASURABLY EVIDENT. Now. Scientific protocols have also defined WHERE to measure - and HOW to measure. And that's been rooted in the bedrock of science and defined its progress. In other words - if it can't be measured - then it can't be true.
Regarding the measurement of our own claims - here's the thing. The measurements were taken appropriately with instruments that are well able to record the data and are also able to compute those traces - to a remarkable degree of accuracy. IF indeed - they're wrong - then we must throw away our measuring instruments and START AGAIN. And I don't think that's required.
And the simple fact is that the measurements SHOW that there is more energy being returned to the battery supply source than the battery ever delivered. And what we show - in well in excess of 300 screen downloads and in more than 200 individual tests - and with careful analysis of ALL those data samples - is that we have precisely this. In other words - the computation of wattage shows a negative wattage value delivered by the battery. That's definitively INFINITE CO-EFFICIENT OF PERFORMANCE.
What has transpired is that certain TROLLs have gone to some considerable efforts to DENY that evidence. I cannot comment on their motives. But I leave that to you all to assess.
You see this - I hope. There are multiple claims of overunity on the forums. But ours is the only one that has been subjected to rigorous analysis - as required by the most exacting measurement standards - AND YET THOSE RESULTS ARE DENIED by this small vociferous band of trolls. And it is no co-incidence - that it is ONLY our own evidence that solicits this unbridled and unfettered attack. All others are discussed and tolerated. It is the PROOF which we show in those EXACT MEASUREMENTS - that puts them on the defense. They will accept any claim provided ONLY that it does not result in conclusive proof. Which we have. No wonder they unleash those claws.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
In science - measurement is EVERYTHING. Regardless of theory - regardless of prediction - the story of science is actually only the STORY OF MEASUREMENT.
Therein lies the truth. If anything is to get any credence at all - then it must be MEASURABLY EVIDENT. Now. Scientific protocols have also defined WHERE to measure - and HOW to measure. And that's been rooted in the bedrock of science and defined its progress. In other words - if it can't be measured - then it can't be true.
Regarding the measurement of our own claims - here's the thing. The measurements were taken appropriately with instruments that are well able to record the data and are also able to compute those traces - to a remarkable degree of accuracy. IF indeed - they're wrong - then we must throw away our measuring instruments and START AGAIN. And I don't think that's required.
And the simple fact is that the measurements SHOW that there is more energy being returned to the battery supply source than the battery ever delivered. And what we show - in well in excess of 300 screen downloads and in more than 200 individual tests - and with careful analysis of ALL those data samples - is that we have precisely this. In other words - the computation of wattage shows a negative wattage value delivered by the battery. That's definitively INFINITE CO-EFFICIENT OF PERFORMANCE.
What has transpired is that certain TROLLs have gone to some considerable efforts to DENY that evidence. I cannot comment on their motives. But I leave that to you all to assess.
You see this - I hope. There are multiple claims of overunity on the forums. But ours is the only one that has been subjected to rigorous analysis - as required by the most exacting measurement standards - AND YET THOSE RESULTS ARE DENIED by this small vociferous band of trolls. And it is no co-incidence - that it is ONLY our own evidence that solicits this unbridled and unfettered attack. All others are discussed and tolerated. It is the PROOF which we show in those EXACT MEASUREMENTS - that puts them on the defense. They will accept any claim provided ONLY that it does not result in conclusive proof. Which we have. No wonder they unleash those claws.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
166 - chauvinism capping those ivory towers
Dear Reader,
The reason that our academics - feel free to ignore or dismiss our claims is that it is, unfortunately associated with my name. And my identity is unquestionably 'female'. That's the real reason that they refuse to entertain these results. They're chauvinists. How sad is that? They'll assess any controversial claim - any equipment - any test apparatus - by anyone in the world - provided only that they are NOT female.
That - in the final analysis - is what I think is going on. Else how does one explain how Steorn and indeed ANYONE can get academic assessment - and I cannot. It's the only explanation that will wash.
And I might add that publication is denied on the same basis. Here it is again. When the benchmark is moved - then it needs wide accreditation. That can only be managed through academic publication. This to ensure that anyone with vested interests to deny the experimental results - or anyone without the competence to replicate the experimental results - are filtered out by those who can, indeed, find that new benchmark trace. And to get there you need a wide experimentation. That's the whole point of academic publication precisely because it does encourage that invetigation. It's worrisome that - for some reason - there are way too many individuals who comment with all kinds of assumed and pretended authority - without actually attending a demonstration or replicating that physical apparatus and reporting on their findings. The best that's been managed - to the best of my knowledge - is Poynty Point and his heavily fudged simulation results that - notwithstanding - show that waveform oscillation that theoretically and in terms of the standard model - SHOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE. Golly.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
The reason that our academics - feel free to ignore or dismiss our claims is that it is, unfortunately associated with my name. And my identity is unquestionably 'female'. That's the real reason that they refuse to entertain these results. They're chauvinists. How sad is that? They'll assess any controversial claim - any equipment - any test apparatus - by anyone in the world - provided only that they are NOT female.
That - in the final analysis - is what I think is going on. Else how does one explain how Steorn and indeed ANYONE can get academic assessment - and I cannot. It's the only explanation that will wash.
And I might add that publication is denied on the same basis. Here it is again. When the benchmark is moved - then it needs wide accreditation. That can only be managed through academic publication. This to ensure that anyone with vested interests to deny the experimental results - or anyone without the competence to replicate the experimental results - are filtered out by those who can, indeed, find that new benchmark trace. And to get there you need a wide experimentation. That's the whole point of academic publication precisely because it does encourage that invetigation. It's worrisome that - for some reason - there are way too many individuals who comment with all kinds of assumed and pretended authority - without actually attending a demonstration or replicating that physical apparatus and reporting on their findings. The best that's been managed - to the best of my knowledge - is Poynty Point and his heavily fudged simulation results that - notwithstanding - show that waveform oscillation that theoretically and in terms of the standard model - SHOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE. Golly.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Monday, October 24, 2011
165 - the actual reply
Dear Reader,
I'll not post the letter from our esteemed Professor lest I breach his trust. But here's my response. I believe if may help clarify the situation.
Dear Professor,
Clearly you have mastered the art of the 'inoffensive' insult. lol. My ideas are NOT fantastic theories. Indeed they're not a theory at all. That would be absurd. I have no training. How in God's name could I promulgate a theory? All that I've pointed to is that the magnetic force possibly underlies the known forces. And I've explained it - I thought rather well - in that second paper that I forwarded to you.
You mention your fond memories of lengthy telephonic discussions. I wish I could recall them. I remember only your rather urgent requirement that I refer this 'problem' to your colleagues. Your opinion related to these 'ideas' may very well be correct. But you see this I trust. If, indeed, I am talking a lot of nonsense - then I and an awful lot of highly qualified engineers - including those at SASOL, BP, ABB RESEARCH, and many other - are also seeing that nonsense proven experimentally. Therein lies the puzzle. Why are those results co-operating with all that theoretical nonsense? I wish I could resolve this.
And if you indeed promote the use of 'models and visualization' as indicated on your profile - then may I ask this? Where exactly do I deviate from this practice that you otherwise commend? I would have thought - at it's least - that I have certainly managed this much. I am reasonably certain that you have not bothered to read those papers. When you do and when you can comment on them and not on your impression of them - then we'll definitely be on the same page.
Until then, unfortunately, I must conclude that you are denying the evidence of what you propose conflicts with the standard model. They do not conflict. And nor do the results - nor for that matter does the 'thesis' - deviate from the standard model.
Kind regards,
Rosemary
I'll not post the letter from our esteemed Professor lest I breach his trust. But here's my response. I believe if may help clarify the situation.
Dear Professor,
Clearly you have mastered the art of the 'inoffensive' insult. lol. My ideas are NOT fantastic theories. Indeed they're not a theory at all. That would be absurd. I have no training. How in God's name could I promulgate a theory? All that I've pointed to is that the magnetic force possibly underlies the known forces. And I've explained it - I thought rather well - in that second paper that I forwarded to you.
You mention your fond memories of lengthy telephonic discussions. I wish I could recall them. I remember only your rather urgent requirement that I refer this 'problem' to your colleagues. Your opinion related to these 'ideas' may very well be correct. But you see this I trust. If, indeed, I am talking a lot of nonsense - then I and an awful lot of highly qualified engineers - including those at SASOL, BP, ABB RESEARCH, and many other - are also seeing that nonsense proven experimentally. Therein lies the puzzle. Why are those results co-operating with all that theoretical nonsense? I wish I could resolve this.
And if you indeed promote the use of 'models and visualization' as indicated on your profile - then may I ask this? Where exactly do I deviate from this practice that you otherwise commend? I would have thought - at it's least - that I have certainly managed this much. I am reasonably certain that you have not bothered to read those papers. When you do and when you can comment on them and not on your impression of them - then we'll definitely be on the same page.
Until then, unfortunately, I must conclude that you are denying the evidence of what you propose conflicts with the standard model. They do not conflict. And nor do the results - nor for that matter does the 'thesis' - deviate from the standard model.
Kind regards,
Rosemary
164 - NEITHER THE THESIS NOR THE RESULTS DEVIATE FROM THE STANDARD MODEL
Dear Reader,
I'm more than a little exasperated. I've had one particular response to my circular - from an estimable and - I'm reasonably certain - otherwise kindly and approachable academic - that advises me that he is entirely indifferent to my 'fantastic theories'. WHAT - in God's Good name is that 'THEORY'? I have none.
Here are the facts. A changing electric field induces a magnetic field. And a changing magnetic field induces an electric field. But unlike an electric field a changing magnetic field DOES NOT NECESSARILY INDUCE AN ELECTRIC FIELD. You can get one permanent magnet interacting with another permanent magnet through space and in time - where there is NO MEASURABLE EVIDENCE OF AN ELECTRIC FIELD. NOTA BENE - This is a scientific fact. I have looked and looked and looked through as much scientific literature as I could access. There is absolutely NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS ANY ELECTRIC FIELD IN A MAGNET ON MAGNET INTERACTION. This is HUGE. If this is right then WHAT DOES THIS IMPLY?
Well. At it's least it suggests that a magnetic field MAY INDEED be a PRIMARY FORCE. If so, then WHAT COMPRISES A MAGNETIC FIELD? That's all I've proposed to ask - and, actually, attempted to answer. And when you start on that line of questioning - then the answers WILL COME. Fast and furious. But with them it also destablises that smug understanding of our classical and quantum theorists. Like Humpty Dumpty - but more so. No only will that smug shell 'shatter' but actually the whole wall will collapse. But that's a good thing. The more so as when you start putting that wall back up - its foundations may be more solid. All those inherent flaws in its structure will be eliminated.
It is an absolute truth that neither quantum nor classical physics can reconcile all the known paradoxes with which our theorists grapple. And this is because our astrophysicists have PROVED the existence of DARK MATTER from what is known of as a DARK FORCE. What I have presumed to suggest is that this force is actually in a magnetic field and that the field itself may comprise a particle. That's MODEST. I've left it out there for the thinking to be validated by those EXPERTS and we have offered nothing more than the PROOF which is in our experimental results. And an explanation which is simply a revival of Faraday's brilliant insights.
But Dear God. Don't give me that my theories are FANTASTICAL. If they are and as they're based on the standard model - then they are ONLY an extension of known theory. Then somewhat circuitously - you are criticising your own theories. Which is possibly a good thing. But I know that's not what was intended. My theories are absolutely NOT FANTASTICAL. NOR ARE THEY A THEORY. THEY'RE ONLY THE REQUIRED PROOF TO INDICATE THAT THE STANDARD MODEL IS FAR FROM BEING COMPLETE. And herein may lie the final link to COMPLETE THE STANDARD MODEL. No biggie. Just a proposal based on experimental evidence. That's got to count. SURELY? How many ways can that monkey see, say and hear NOTHING? That attitude should have been permanently defeated with the transition from our medieval mindset. It's inappropriate.
Kind regards,
Rosemary
I'm more than a little exasperated. I've had one particular response to my circular - from an estimable and - I'm reasonably certain - otherwise kindly and approachable academic - that advises me that he is entirely indifferent to my 'fantastic theories'. WHAT - in God's Good name is that 'THEORY'? I have none.
Here are the facts. A changing electric field induces a magnetic field. And a changing magnetic field induces an electric field. But unlike an electric field a changing magnetic field DOES NOT NECESSARILY INDUCE AN ELECTRIC FIELD. You can get one permanent magnet interacting with another permanent magnet through space and in time - where there is NO MEASURABLE EVIDENCE OF AN ELECTRIC FIELD. NOTA BENE - This is a scientific fact. I have looked and looked and looked through as much scientific literature as I could access. There is absolutely NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS ANY ELECTRIC FIELD IN A MAGNET ON MAGNET INTERACTION. This is HUGE. If this is right then WHAT DOES THIS IMPLY?
Well. At it's least it suggests that a magnetic field MAY INDEED be a PRIMARY FORCE. If so, then WHAT COMPRISES A MAGNETIC FIELD? That's all I've proposed to ask - and, actually, attempted to answer. And when you start on that line of questioning - then the answers WILL COME. Fast and furious. But with them it also destablises that smug understanding of our classical and quantum theorists. Like Humpty Dumpty - but more so. No only will that smug shell 'shatter' but actually the whole wall will collapse. But that's a good thing. The more so as when you start putting that wall back up - its foundations may be more solid. All those inherent flaws in its structure will be eliminated.
It is an absolute truth that neither quantum nor classical physics can reconcile all the known paradoxes with which our theorists grapple. And this is because our astrophysicists have PROVED the existence of DARK MATTER from what is known of as a DARK FORCE. What I have presumed to suggest is that this force is actually in a magnetic field and that the field itself may comprise a particle. That's MODEST. I've left it out there for the thinking to be validated by those EXPERTS and we have offered nothing more than the PROOF which is in our experimental results. And an explanation which is simply a revival of Faraday's brilliant insights.
But Dear God. Don't give me that my theories are FANTASTICAL. If they are and as they're based on the standard model - then they are ONLY an extension of known theory. Then somewhat circuitously - you are criticising your own theories. Which is possibly a good thing. But I know that's not what was intended. My theories are absolutely NOT FANTASTICAL. NOR ARE THEY A THEORY. THEY'RE ONLY THE REQUIRED PROOF TO INDICATE THAT THE STANDARD MODEL IS FAR FROM BEING COMPLETE. And herein may lie the final link to COMPLETE THE STANDARD MODEL. No biggie. Just a proposal based on experimental evidence. That's got to count. SURELY? How many ways can that monkey see, say and hear NOTHING? That attitude should have been permanently defeated with the transition from our medieval mindset. It's inappropriate.
Kind regards,
Rosemary
Sunday, October 23, 2011
163 - on theory
Dear Reader,
It seems that the the elusive 'unified' theory - abounds with as many variations as there are promoters. The problem with all of them is that they're obtuse and complex. And they defy Occams requirement for 'parsimony, economy and succinctness'. Personally I think we can add nothing to the standard model. Nor need we. Our experts have already got it right. It's just that - to date - they've overlooked the fact that the magnetic field may, indeed, be a primary force. Then everything falls into place and theory stays sharp.
So. It's just a minor modification and a small adjustment to the focus - so to speak. What beggars the mind is that - having made that small adjustment - then the abundance of available energy becomes mind boggling.
The downside to all this, of course, is that we'll need to re-evaluate our requirements for centralised grid suppliers. That's likely to be disruptive. Very much so. So. Here's the thing. Not only will our Governments dislike the promise of this technology - but so will our energy suppliers. Not sure what's going to happen. But fasten your seat belts everyone. Because it's a ride that's going to get very bumpy.
And if I'm overstating the 'bleeding obvious' - it's to remind you all that it is virtually impossible to suppress a desirable technology forever. It's going to be tested - eventually. And then? God alone knows what will happen. Personally I think that the transition to move off grid may be made smooth provided only that there's some control over the standards of implementation.
And then? The question is which technology to apply. We're all at the 'crawling stage' of this development. Our personal best in the wattage we dissipated was in the region of something in excess of 200 watts. That's not likely to cut it. And it's not likely to change until we can get hold of more robust transistors. But here's my dream. I know that there's a far better way of generating this energy. So. If our academics can validate the results that - in themselves are anomalous, then they will give this technology some kind of respectability. That should justify funding for research. And that funding should make it possible to shape those magnets to make that 'perpetual' motor that is required in terms of that model.
Now. I need to point something out - lest it's been overlooked. When there's a breakthrough in technology - then it needs to be validated. The whole point in publishing experimental evidence in papers is that the claim is WIDELY assessed. One representative authority is just NOT enough. It's that benchmark thing. Here's the theoretical analogy. No-one can jump higher than 4ft - say. Technical experts have established that this is the limit possible within the constraints of human muscle power. Then someone uses certain artifices and scales 10 feet. There are those who will try this and fail. And there are those who have a vested interest in denying this result. And there are those that will follow suit and also jump that 10 feet. Which is true? Well. The minute that the first person replicates or even betters that first result - then those that deny this evidence fall by the wayside. It only needs one independent replication to establish that truth. And to get that replication needs as wide an audience as possible - precisely to filter out the failures and the nay sayers. That's the beauty of the journal review process. It unequivocally establishes the truth or otherwise - of any scientific claim.
Which is why I keep knocking on the academic doors.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
It seems that the the elusive 'unified' theory - abounds with as many variations as there are promoters. The problem with all of them is that they're obtuse and complex. And they defy Occams requirement for 'parsimony, economy and succinctness'. Personally I think we can add nothing to the standard model. Nor need we. Our experts have already got it right. It's just that - to date - they've overlooked the fact that the magnetic field may, indeed, be a primary force. Then everything falls into place and theory stays sharp.
So. It's just a minor modification and a small adjustment to the focus - so to speak. What beggars the mind is that - having made that small adjustment - then the abundance of available energy becomes mind boggling.
The downside to all this, of course, is that we'll need to re-evaluate our requirements for centralised grid suppliers. That's likely to be disruptive. Very much so. So. Here's the thing. Not only will our Governments dislike the promise of this technology - but so will our energy suppliers. Not sure what's going to happen. But fasten your seat belts everyone. Because it's a ride that's going to get very bumpy.
And if I'm overstating the 'bleeding obvious' - it's to remind you all that it is virtually impossible to suppress a desirable technology forever. It's going to be tested - eventually. And then? God alone knows what will happen. Personally I think that the transition to move off grid may be made smooth provided only that there's some control over the standards of implementation.
And then? The question is which technology to apply. We're all at the 'crawling stage' of this development. Our personal best in the wattage we dissipated was in the region of something in excess of 200 watts. That's not likely to cut it. And it's not likely to change until we can get hold of more robust transistors. But here's my dream. I know that there's a far better way of generating this energy. So. If our academics can validate the results that - in themselves are anomalous, then they will give this technology some kind of respectability. That should justify funding for research. And that funding should make it possible to shape those magnets to make that 'perpetual' motor that is required in terms of that model.
Now. I need to point something out - lest it's been overlooked. When there's a breakthrough in technology - then it needs to be validated. The whole point in publishing experimental evidence in papers is that the claim is WIDELY assessed. One representative authority is just NOT enough. It's that benchmark thing. Here's the theoretical analogy. No-one can jump higher than 4ft - say. Technical experts have established that this is the limit possible within the constraints of human muscle power. Then someone uses certain artifices and scales 10 feet. There are those who will try this and fail. And there are those who have a vested interest in denying this result. And there are those that will follow suit and also jump that 10 feet. Which is true? Well. The minute that the first person replicates or even betters that first result - then those that deny this evidence fall by the wayside. It only needs one independent replication to establish that truth. And to get that replication needs as wide an audience as possible - precisely to filter out the failures and the nay sayers. That's the beauty of the journal review process. It unequivocally establishes the truth or otherwise - of any scientific claim.
Which is why I keep knocking on the academic doors.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Saturday, October 22, 2011
162 - On trollmanship. An art in the making.
Dear Reader,
I have finally dipped into that blogspot which, as I understand it, was intended to give a balanced view against my claims. Golly. I'll give a link hereunder for those who may not know about it.
Well. What can I say? I've been hugely amused. I might add that I actually made a formal complaint about it to Google when I learned of it. Now, however, I've finally learned the trick of finding those comments. I needn't have bothered to complain and will withdraw it. It's a remarkable tribute to the mentality of of those anonymous posters and I fondly predict it will go some way to advancing this technology of ours.
In any event. I've said it all before. I absolutely do not mind what anyone thinks of me. But what is important is to either DENY or ACCEPT those amazing results that are experimentally evident. A mere indifference is entirely inappropriate. And indeed, I am gratified to see that much DENIAL. So passionately expressed. It's a a fair measure and tribute to the importance of what's being disclosed. So. To all of you anonymous posters. Thank you very much. Indeed. Any publicity is good publicity.
For those of you who post there to defend the technology - or me - don't bother. Your comments are edited out.
For those more balanced readers - here's the thing. I'm old. And I'm tired. And these efforts of all of us to bring this to the academic table have, to date, been somewhat fruitless. Hopefully that will change. But the experimental evidence is not something that I can fudge. I don't have the required skills. Nor the intelligence. The results have all been 'double checked' by all of us - through a close analysis of the data from those multiple data dumps. And there is unequivocal proof of a negative wattage - which has absolutely no relevance to any known standard models. At it's least - its anomalous. AND - this is important - it is easily replicated on simulation software. Of course, you can do what Poynty did - and fudge those numbers to death. But what you can't do is deny the existence of that waveform. And one half of that waveform is simply NOT POSSIBLE - not within any standard model, framework or reference. Smaller and diminishing values have been seen. But a sustained oscillation? And with so much energy? And always resulting in a 'negative' wattage - which, in itself has no standard reference? That definitively defies conventional predictions and certainly it defies conventional explanations. And the truth is that it can be replicated on simulation software. It's a delicious irony that Poynty Point - who has vested so much time and trouble in discrediting my work - has actually been instrumental in making this so publicly available. So. Again. Thank you Poynty.
I'm not sure how much of the 'character' of a poster becomes evident through their writings. And when one assess oneself - it's rather difficult to be entirely impartial. But I absolutely would not promote this device if I did not also know that this technology was not both desirable and feasible. But it is absolutely NOT the full benefit that this potential allows. I am reasonably certain that even this much will be 'old hat' before very long. I keep looking out for that 'breakthrough'. But it's eluding us all. Meanwhile what we offer here is a good start. It has the merit of being replicable, easily so - and measurable. And - more to the point - if our transistor manufacturers were to co-operate - then it would also be IMMEDIATELY applicable to every possible electric application. That will put paid to our reach into nuclear energy as a grid supply source. And that cannot happen soon enough. No wonder our grid suppliers have gone to so much trouble to besmirch my good name.
But with regard to that blogspot. It's fine. For every opinion - there's always an opposite. And either are entirely irrelevant. It's the technology that matters. Not it's promoters. So. If you learn of it from denials or not - at least the word is spreading.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
added
For those who are interested. Here's that link. I am continually intrigued with the extraordinary license to 'free expression' that is enjoyed by anonymous posters. It seems that they also require that 'anonymity' lest they be accountable for all that nonsense that they allege. Also greatly amused at the reach of their inventiveness. It does - however, become rather repetitive.
http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/
(sorry I pasted over the wrong link)
I have finally dipped into that blogspot which, as I understand it, was intended to give a balanced view against my claims. Golly. I'll give a link hereunder for those who may not know about it.
Well. What can I say? I've been hugely amused. I might add that I actually made a formal complaint about it to Google when I learned of it. Now, however, I've finally learned the trick of finding those comments. I needn't have bothered to complain and will withdraw it. It's a remarkable tribute to the mentality of of those anonymous posters and I fondly predict it will go some way to advancing this technology of ours.
In any event. I've said it all before. I absolutely do not mind what anyone thinks of me. But what is important is to either DENY or ACCEPT those amazing results that are experimentally evident. A mere indifference is entirely inappropriate. And indeed, I am gratified to see that much DENIAL. So passionately expressed. It's a a fair measure and tribute to the importance of what's being disclosed. So. To all of you anonymous posters. Thank you very much. Indeed. Any publicity is good publicity.
For those of you who post there to defend the technology - or me - don't bother. Your comments are edited out.
For those more balanced readers - here's the thing. I'm old. And I'm tired. And these efforts of all of us to bring this to the academic table have, to date, been somewhat fruitless. Hopefully that will change. But the experimental evidence is not something that I can fudge. I don't have the required skills. Nor the intelligence. The results have all been 'double checked' by all of us - through a close analysis of the data from those multiple data dumps. And there is unequivocal proof of a negative wattage - which has absolutely no relevance to any known standard models. At it's least - its anomalous. AND - this is important - it is easily replicated on simulation software. Of course, you can do what Poynty did - and fudge those numbers to death. But what you can't do is deny the existence of that waveform. And one half of that waveform is simply NOT POSSIBLE - not within any standard model, framework or reference. Smaller and diminishing values have been seen. But a sustained oscillation? And with so much energy? And always resulting in a 'negative' wattage - which, in itself has no standard reference? That definitively defies conventional predictions and certainly it defies conventional explanations. And the truth is that it can be replicated on simulation software. It's a delicious irony that Poynty Point - who has vested so much time and trouble in discrediting my work - has actually been instrumental in making this so publicly available. So. Again. Thank you Poynty.
I'm not sure how much of the 'character' of a poster becomes evident through their writings. And when one assess oneself - it's rather difficult to be entirely impartial. But I absolutely would not promote this device if I did not also know that this technology was not both desirable and feasible. But it is absolutely NOT the full benefit that this potential allows. I am reasonably certain that even this much will be 'old hat' before very long. I keep looking out for that 'breakthrough'. But it's eluding us all. Meanwhile what we offer here is a good start. It has the merit of being replicable, easily so - and measurable. And - more to the point - if our transistor manufacturers were to co-operate - then it would also be IMMEDIATELY applicable to every possible electric application. That will put paid to our reach into nuclear energy as a grid supply source. And that cannot happen soon enough. No wonder our grid suppliers have gone to so much trouble to besmirch my good name.
But with regard to that blogspot. It's fine. For every opinion - there's always an opposite. And either are entirely irrelevant. It's the technology that matters. Not it's promoters. So. If you learn of it from denials or not - at least the word is spreading.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
added
For those who are interested. Here's that link. I am continually intrigued with the extraordinary license to 'free expression' that is enjoyed by anonymous posters. It seems that they also require that 'anonymity' lest they be accountable for all that nonsense that they allege. Also greatly amused at the reach of their inventiveness. It does - however, become rather repetitive.
http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/
(sorry I pasted over the wrong link)
Thursday, October 20, 2011
161 - them paradigms they's shift'n
Dear Reader,
What a pleasure. I see a small but perceptible movement towards a wider investigation into our claims - BY OUR LEARNED AND REVERED. I am feeling cautiously optimistic.
Not only that but it seems that there are also some rare members of our media that do not rely on 'popularity' to promote a story or not. WHAT A PLEASURE. Perhaps this academic and media boycott may yet disintegrate. It's been tough.
I'll keep you posted. The good news is this. Subject to that wide investigation into this claim, then our trolls - that have hounded my every step through the internet - will simply become utterly discredited overnight. Hopefully there may yet be some cursory investigation into who dominated and pioneered that attack - together with some much needed exposure as their motives. That's the part that defeats me. Why should this desirable technology elicit that poisonous and disproportionate attack? I just don't get it. God knows. It's not as if we've invented anything. It's all within mainstream science. Just a very, very small variation to the standard model. And what a difference it will make to our future and our hopes for some kind of solution to our energy concerns.
Then - hopefully - those clever academics and those much, much cleverer engineers - will take all this seriously and take it to where it needs must go. I'm looking forward to the time when this struggle of ours will be old news and the technology itself old hat - replaced by some excellent and inventive variations for those much needed applications. I'll be able to relax when these small contributions of ours are as obsolete as the dodo is to evolution. We've done nothing miraculous. It's all been required by physics. Just that it seems to depend on that much maligned zipon. Hopefully they'll find a more respectable name for it. It's that particle that 'zips' our atoms into infinitely variable coalesced matter. That's the real miracle.
Golly. I'm actually beginning to see daylight. It's been a dark place this - that I've been obliged to endure. But there's a light. Just a glimmer. But NOT imperceptible. (LOL. I had to edit this. A double negative always stronger than a simple positive. I'm getting way too old.)
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
What a pleasure. I see a small but perceptible movement towards a wider investigation into our claims - BY OUR LEARNED AND REVERED. I am feeling cautiously optimistic.
Not only that but it seems that there are also some rare members of our media that do not rely on 'popularity' to promote a story or not. WHAT A PLEASURE. Perhaps this academic and media boycott may yet disintegrate. It's been tough.
I'll keep you posted. The good news is this. Subject to that wide investigation into this claim, then our trolls - that have hounded my every step through the internet - will simply become utterly discredited overnight. Hopefully there may yet be some cursory investigation into who dominated and pioneered that attack - together with some much needed exposure as their motives. That's the part that defeats me. Why should this desirable technology elicit that poisonous and disproportionate attack? I just don't get it. God knows. It's not as if we've invented anything. It's all within mainstream science. Just a very, very small variation to the standard model. And what a difference it will make to our future and our hopes for some kind of solution to our energy concerns.
Then - hopefully - those clever academics and those much, much cleverer engineers - will take all this seriously and take it to where it needs must go. I'm looking forward to the time when this struggle of ours will be old news and the technology itself old hat - replaced by some excellent and inventive variations for those much needed applications. I'll be able to relax when these small contributions of ours are as obsolete as the dodo is to evolution. We've done nothing miraculous. It's all been required by physics. Just that it seems to depend on that much maligned zipon. Hopefully they'll find a more respectable name for it. It's that particle that 'zips' our atoms into infinitely variable coalesced matter. That's the real miracle.
Golly. I'm actually beginning to see daylight. It's been a dark place this - that I've been obliged to endure. But there's a light. Just a glimmer. But NOT imperceptible. (LOL. I had to edit this. A double negative always stronger than a simple positive. I'm getting way too old.)
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
160 - Golly Mookie!
Dear Reader,
Certain utterly unsubstantiated allegations have been made by a variety of 'trolls' or 'free energy traducers' against my good name. Slanderous indeed. lol This is my message to Mookie.
Here's the thing. It's fine to hide behind an avatar or an internet personality - and then, apparently, you can say more or less what you like. But the rule is this. Keep your identity ENTIRELY HIDDEN - LEST YOU BECOME ACCOUNTABLE FOR those ACTIONABLE STATEMENTS. I now know where you're from Mookie. And I know your name. And I even know where you work. No wonder you could bring influence to bear on that demonstration of ours where you persuaded a certain Professor to attend. No doubt his mandate was to disrupt proceedings. My personal regret is that I ever tried to persuade you to attend that public demonstration in the first instance. What was I thinking? Eskom are not likely to advance this knowledge.
Anyway. Justice is very patient. But that long reach of the law? That's irreversible.
And here's an explanation of all this for our readers. The only academic who attended that meeting was mandated by our friend MOOKIE. I don't think it's advisable to give a full transcript of his statements at the meeting here. Nor is it advisable to give a full disclosure of his expertise. But it is decidedly NOT electrical engineering. But what I am prepared to disclose is this. Eskom are in the process of concluding - alternatively - have concluded - some valuable contracts to expand their nuclear facilities. There would be no justification for this if this technology were to reach the light of day. The plot thickens. And for those readers who are not in our country. Eskom are our utility suppliers.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Certain utterly unsubstantiated allegations have been made by a variety of 'trolls' or 'free energy traducers' against my good name. Slanderous indeed. lol This is my message to Mookie.
Here's the thing. It's fine to hide behind an avatar or an internet personality - and then, apparently, you can say more or less what you like. But the rule is this. Keep your identity ENTIRELY HIDDEN - LEST YOU BECOME ACCOUNTABLE FOR those ACTIONABLE STATEMENTS. I now know where you're from Mookie. And I know your name. And I even know where you work. No wonder you could bring influence to bear on that demonstration of ours where you persuaded a certain Professor to attend. No doubt his mandate was to disrupt proceedings. My personal regret is that I ever tried to persuade you to attend that public demonstration in the first instance. What was I thinking? Eskom are not likely to advance this knowledge.
Anyway. Justice is very patient. But that long reach of the law? That's irreversible.
And here's an explanation of all this for our readers. The only academic who attended that meeting was mandated by our friend MOOKIE. I don't think it's advisable to give a full transcript of his statements at the meeting here. Nor is it advisable to give a full disclosure of his expertise. But it is decidedly NOT electrical engineering. But what I am prepared to disclose is this. Eskom are in the process of concluding - alternatively - have concluded - some valuable contracts to expand their nuclear facilities. There would be no justification for this if this technology were to reach the light of day. The plot thickens. And for those readers who are not in our country. Eskom are our utility suppliers.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
159 - and yet another approach to our learned and revered.
Dear Reader,
I am slowly but systematically forwarding this circular to every academic with whom I've been in contact. Hopefully we'll get feedback, sooner rather than later.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Dear Professors,
There are some of you included in this circulation that reside in South Africa and were invited to a public demonstration of this device in March this year. Further to that invitation and to my prior communication with you all, the attached are the first and second part of a 2-part paper now submitted for publication in a reviewed journal within the IEEE.
You will note that the results do not fall in line with classical prediction as there is an apparent breach in Thermodynamic constraints. The thesis argues that there is, in fact, no breach. The claims are, nonetheless controversial and the likelihood of publication therefore somewhat sorely taxed. The technology is fragile and it would not be in the best interests of science that this is dismissed due to lack of credibility. Belief has nothing to do with science, resting as it does on experimental proof. We hare happy to demonstrate that proof as required.
To this end we are taking the trouble to circulate these papers to as many academics as we can reach. We would be grateful, therefore, if you could read those papers and ideally, circulate it to those colleagues and experts in your department for their perusal and discussion. Yu will see that it is relatively easy to replicate that experiment and its resulting oscillation on simulation software. And according to the standard model that oscillation should not be possible. This in itself represents an anomaly and it has the real merit of being relatively easy to prove.
I have been in written communication with experts in the art who have commended the clarity of the papers or variously suggested that they need to be published in a review journal. I am awaiting word of that submission.
If you have the time we would all be very grateful for your overview of these papers and equally grateful for some feedback. I have taken the liberty of including my blogspot link which may give you a fuller picture of our general concerns here. It is an enduring shame that there are no recognised protocols for the evaluation of claims such as this - when those experts who are required simply refuse to evaluate the evidence based on an assumption of measurement errors. We refute that assumption.
Kindest regards
Rosemary Ainslie
I am slowly but systematically forwarding this circular to every academic with whom I've been in contact. Hopefully we'll get feedback, sooner rather than later.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Dear Professors,
There are some of you included in this circulation that reside in South Africa and were invited to a public demonstration of this device in March this year. Further to that invitation and to my prior communication with you all, the attached are the first and second part of a 2-part paper now submitted for publication in a reviewed journal within the IEEE.
You will note that the results do not fall in line with classical prediction as there is an apparent breach in Thermodynamic constraints. The thesis argues that there is, in fact, no breach. The claims are, nonetheless controversial and the likelihood of publication therefore somewhat sorely taxed. The technology is fragile and it would not be in the best interests of science that this is dismissed due to lack of credibility. Belief has nothing to do with science, resting as it does on experimental proof. We hare happy to demonstrate that proof as required.
To this end we are taking the trouble to circulate these papers to as many academics as we can reach. We would be grateful, therefore, if you could read those papers and ideally, circulate it to those colleagues and experts in your department for their perusal and discussion. Yu will see that it is relatively easy to replicate that experiment and its resulting oscillation on simulation software. And according to the standard model that oscillation should not be possible. This in itself represents an anomaly and it has the real merit of being relatively easy to prove.
I have been in written communication with experts in the art who have commended the clarity of the papers or variously suggested that they need to be published in a review journal. I am awaiting word of that submission.
If you have the time we would all be very grateful for your overview of these papers and equally grateful for some feedback. I have taken the liberty of including my blogspot link which may give you a fuller picture of our general concerns here. It is an enduring shame that there are no recognised protocols for the evaluation of claims such as this - when those experts who are required simply refuse to evaluate the evidence based on an assumption of measurement errors. We refute that assumption.
Kindest regards
Rosemary Ainslie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)