Dear Reader,
I've just been reading the following link. Very interesting it is too.
click here. It may take a few moments to download as it comes with a 'must see' video at the end of that script
It's a commendable piece of reporting as it gives every side of this story unfolding. I'm of the opinion that this is most certainly NOT a galvanic - nor a nuclear - reaction and that it may very easily be the same thing as we've uncovered - albeit to a less robust level. In a word it's - 'dark energy'. Actually that's two words.
Comments in that link, are made by Professors Sergio Focardi, Emilio Del Guidice, Francesco Celani, Christos Stremmenos, and Dr Guiliano Preparata - who all attest to the clear evidence of energy being dissipated at the 10's to the 100's of Megawatt levels. Clearly too, there is something in that 'powder mix' catalyst that Rossi is anxious to keep to himself. He's not frustrating the research but is first looking to adequate protections to cover his patent concerns. Understandable - but irritating if one wants to reverse engineer this - which is always the challenge to those of us who are interested.
But the evidence is that it is not a fusion reaction. Or, at best, it's some variation of a fusion reaction - as there are no toxic emissions. If you recall, it was this lack that buried Fleischmann Pons's claims in the late 1980's. Curiouser and curiouser. Because it is precisely the lack of gamma ray emissions that makes this technology so thoroughly desirable. The truth is that our standard model does not have an explanation. And, at the risk of promoting a rather preposterous piece of presumption (couldn't resist the alliteration) - I am entirely satisfied that we do.
I'm going to forward our paper to those esteemed academics and cross my fingers that one or more will actually read it. If they do - then they'll be in the rather rare and exalted company of a very few academics who have done so. I might add that I've had no unfavourable and 'some' favourable comments on that thesis. But here's why I'm going to advance it.
What they've got is the application of HEAT ONLY. We, on the other hand, have sorted out the electrical application. Now all we need is the motor. And that - frankly - is easily resolved with the judicious application of some of that 'steam' that both our technologies manage. Although, obviously, Rossi does it with considerably more competence than ourselves.
IT IS ALL VERY GOOD NEWS. ROLL ON DARK ENERGY. It's still just a shadow at the opening door. But it's also beginning to take shape.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
And here, yet again, is that link to our paper.
click here. And read this carefully. We also have those anomalous heat signatures - at over 100 watts - from the electromagnetic interaction. Just from the simple application of Faraday's Inductive Laws. It must surely give pause for thought
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Friday, November 18, 2011
193 - definitely just for the record.
Dear Reader,
I'm just keeping this here for the record - as it's likely to be deleted from the forum where it was posted.
2:02:59 AM »
Dear JouleSeeker
I wonder if you could advise us if you are one and the same person as our member who variously identifies himself as Physics Prof and Steven E Jones? Surprisingly I'm in receipt of a personal message from B**** - who also, apparently, shares the same name. Such an extraordinary co-incidence. Regarding this post of yours.
Quote from: JouleSeeker on November 13, 2011, 11:55:55 PM
There is some recent information -- .....Adding ONE proton to a Nickel nucleus as claimed by Rossi and Focardi will produce Copper isotopes, predominately Cu-59 and Cu-61, since the predominate isotopes of nickel are Ni-58 (68%) and Ni-60 (26.2%). {Add one proton to Ni-58, becomes Cu-59; add proton to Ni-60, becomes Cu-61.) Furthermore, both of these copper isotopes are highly radioactive (releasing gammas) and easily detectable! And detecting their presence via decay products would conclusively demonstrate the occurrence of the proton-capture reaction on Nickel.
Where exactly have either Rossi and/or Focardi claimed this? I believe this was a claim made by a 3rd party and is entirely unsubstantiated. Nor do I find any support of this finding - by anyone at all. Then. I'm merely a member of that 'vulnerable' public who, thankfully, you're anxious to 'protect'. The copper that was found was, as I understood it, 'stable' - is that the right term? Presumably this means that it had no 'isotopic'? - again terminology - help me out here - imbalance? Which, again as I understand it - means that it would not, therefore emit that 'radioactive' decay. Those 'gammas'. Golly. One's alarm bells start ringing. Without any kind of schooling - even I know that 'gamma rays' are somewhat toxic if not lethal. IF, indeed, this E-Cat was emitting Gamma Rays - then SURELY? We should do our level best to resist any further progress of this technology?
Unless, of course, there isn't actual PROOF of this or, indeed, any toxic emission. Poor Rossi. Neither he nor Focardi - nor any of those academics who actually REPLICATED his E-Cat findings - were able to find any emissions at all. Which just goes to show. Give a sample to an independent laboratory for analysis - and God alone knows what they'll find. One hopes that sample wasn't tampered with. The comfort is this. If was - then it was not by Rossi et al. They're on record. They can find ABSOLUTELY no toxicity in this technology AT ALL. Possibly it was simply 'claimed' by whoever it was that's 'claiming' this. My vote would be to get a second independent laboratory onto the job. It could be that there's an over zealous detractor at the laboratory who's trying to discredit cold fusion. We need to look out for such people. They're those dedicated 'disinformants' who are trying to keep over unity evidence out of the eye of our public. God forbid that they succeed. We need to beware.
But there's another point to this. If, indeed, the E-Cat is able to transmute nickle to copper and iron - and if it comes out in such copious quantities - then - frankly - why bother with using the E-cat as a generator? I would have thought that Rossi's time would be far better spent in manufacturing copper. HUGELY profitable. One should alert him to this potential. It seems that he's overlooked it. I'm absolutely satisfied that he would make considerably more money in this way than in trying to sell those working units of his to the needy public.
Actually, come to think of it - even our academics would know this - and they're not renowned, as a rule, for their business acumen. Perhaps - after all - it was simply 'contaminated' - as you propose. But then I wonder if Rossi would have contaminated it. It rather works against his claim - and simply confuses the issue. No. On the whole I would suggest that the contamination was from that 'plant' at the plant. lol. Probably he's in the pocket of our rich oil or grid supply monopolists. Golly. This is all giving me a headache.
Anyway - in conclusion - and as a rule - I think we should rather desist from alleging anything at all. It's like any speculation. It just goes around in circles. The best thing to do here is to support any MEASURED EVIDENCE of over unity - in the E-cat - and leave it at that. And, happily, that evidence is incontestable. Being, as I am, a member of the vulnerable public - I'm glad there are those such as you to protect our best interests in all things. Clearly we can hardly assess anything at all - for ourselves. But actually, I for one would not care if Rossi was a Christian, a Buddhist, an ultruist - or even an outright capitalist. Golly. I would just love to see his technology available to us all without any further gossip mongering. Unless - of course - there are proven FACTS against his good name.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
By the by. This post of yours has nothing to do with your thread topic. I notice it's been copied on yet another thread of yours. Something to do with coins that you're offering as a prize for a perpetually running motor. Just as an aside - I think a perpetual motor may just earn even more than the value of those coins. But is is nonetheless, excessively generous of you to offer anything at all. If you check out the board here you'll see that we have a member who has dedicated a thread to the promotion of the E-Cat. You may find some answers to those 'allegations' that you're promoting.
Golly. And I also see that it's the identical post copied at Overunity Research.com. You've clearly been rather busy. ;D
Kindest again,
R
I took out B**** 's name to protect his identity. Sorry about that.
I'm just keeping this here for the record - as it's likely to be deleted from the forum where it was posted.
2:02:59 AM »
Dear JouleSeeker
I wonder if you could advise us if you are one and the same person as our member who variously identifies himself as Physics Prof and Steven E Jones? Surprisingly I'm in receipt of a personal message from B**** - who also, apparently, shares the same name. Such an extraordinary co-incidence. Regarding this post of yours.
Quote from: JouleSeeker on November 13, 2011, 11:55:55 PM
There is some recent information -- .....Adding ONE proton to a Nickel nucleus as claimed by Rossi and Focardi will produce Copper isotopes, predominately Cu-59 and Cu-61, since the predominate isotopes of nickel are Ni-58 (68%) and Ni-60 (26.2%). {Add one proton to Ni-58, becomes Cu-59; add proton to Ni-60, becomes Cu-61.) Furthermore, both of these copper isotopes are highly radioactive (releasing gammas) and easily detectable! And detecting their presence via decay products would conclusively demonstrate the occurrence of the proton-capture reaction on Nickel.
Where exactly have either Rossi and/or Focardi claimed this? I believe this was a claim made by a 3rd party and is entirely unsubstantiated. Nor do I find any support of this finding - by anyone at all. Then. I'm merely a member of that 'vulnerable' public who, thankfully, you're anxious to 'protect'. The copper that was found was, as I understood it, 'stable' - is that the right term? Presumably this means that it had no 'isotopic'? - again terminology - help me out here - imbalance? Which, again as I understand it - means that it would not, therefore emit that 'radioactive' decay. Those 'gammas'. Golly. One's alarm bells start ringing. Without any kind of schooling - even I know that 'gamma rays' are somewhat toxic if not lethal. IF, indeed, this E-Cat was emitting Gamma Rays - then SURELY? We should do our level best to resist any further progress of this technology?
Unless, of course, there isn't actual PROOF of this or, indeed, any toxic emission. Poor Rossi. Neither he nor Focardi - nor any of those academics who actually REPLICATED his E-Cat findings - were able to find any emissions at all. Which just goes to show. Give a sample to an independent laboratory for analysis - and God alone knows what they'll find. One hopes that sample wasn't tampered with. The comfort is this. If was - then it was not by Rossi et al. They're on record. They can find ABSOLUTELY no toxicity in this technology AT ALL. Possibly it was simply 'claimed' by whoever it was that's 'claiming' this. My vote would be to get a second independent laboratory onto the job. It could be that there's an over zealous detractor at the laboratory who's trying to discredit cold fusion. We need to look out for such people. They're those dedicated 'disinformants' who are trying to keep over unity evidence out of the eye of our public. God forbid that they succeed. We need to beware.
But there's another point to this. If, indeed, the E-Cat is able to transmute nickle to copper and iron - and if it comes out in such copious quantities - then - frankly - why bother with using the E-cat as a generator? I would have thought that Rossi's time would be far better spent in manufacturing copper. HUGELY profitable. One should alert him to this potential. It seems that he's overlooked it. I'm absolutely satisfied that he would make considerably more money in this way than in trying to sell those working units of his to the needy public.
Actually, come to think of it - even our academics would know this - and they're not renowned, as a rule, for their business acumen. Perhaps - after all - it was simply 'contaminated' - as you propose. But then I wonder if Rossi would have contaminated it. It rather works against his claim - and simply confuses the issue. No. On the whole I would suggest that the contamination was from that 'plant' at the plant. lol. Probably he's in the pocket of our rich oil or grid supply monopolists. Golly. This is all giving me a headache.
Anyway - in conclusion - and as a rule - I think we should rather desist from alleging anything at all. It's like any speculation. It just goes around in circles. The best thing to do here is to support any MEASURED EVIDENCE of over unity - in the E-cat - and leave it at that. And, happily, that evidence is incontestable. Being, as I am, a member of the vulnerable public - I'm glad there are those such as you to protect our best interests in all things. Clearly we can hardly assess anything at all - for ourselves. But actually, I for one would not care if Rossi was a Christian, a Buddhist, an ultruist - or even an outright capitalist. Golly. I would just love to see his technology available to us all without any further gossip mongering. Unless - of course - there are proven FACTS against his good name.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
By the by. This post of yours has nothing to do with your thread topic. I notice it's been copied on yet another thread of yours. Something to do with coins that you're offering as a prize for a perpetually running motor. Just as an aside - I think a perpetual motor may just earn even more than the value of those coins. But is is nonetheless, excessively generous of you to offer anything at all. If you check out the board here you'll see that we have a member who has dedicated a thread to the promotion of the E-Cat. You may find some answers to those 'allegations' that you're promoting.
Golly. And I also see that it's the identical post copied at Overunity Research.com. You've clearly been rather busy. ;D
Kindest again,
R
I took out B**** 's name to protect his identity. Sorry about that.
192 - perhaps this explains things better
Dear Reader,
The following is a question from one of the readers here. I'm hoping it may help any others of you who are asking the same thing.
Dear *****,
is that your name? And are you aware that there's a Professor ***** on the forum? It's an extraordinary co-incidence.
In any event. Here's the concept. We know that there's an abundance of energy that is responsible for 'binding' our galaxies together. There is no explanation for this. We only know of the forces of 'gravity' - electromagnetism - and the strong and weak nuclear force. Well. The force of gravity is such that those galaxies should not be able to stay together. And they do. By rights - and according to the Laws of Gravity - the galaxies should, by rights, be UNRAVELLING. Falling apart. Our astophysicists therefore proposed that the thing keeping them together is the 'dark force'. They then applied gravitational lensing - a measurement technique - and discovered that INDEED - there is something there that is not directly able to interact with light - or photons - or whatever. Yet it is, INDEED measurable and is holding those great star structures together.
Therefore they called this Dark Matter from Dark Energy. And being a new kind of energy then it - in turn - has a 'FORCE' or, alternatively, it IS a force. Which means that this force has NOT been factored in to the 'standard model' as they call it. It's an entirely NEW discovery. Well. It's also shown to be EVERYWHERE. Our model is based on the proposal that magnetic fields are the source of all the forces and is therefore a PRIMARY force. So. If this model is right - then what we're proposing is that the magnetic force is this very thing. The dark force. The "FORCE behind the FORCES" - so to speak.
Now. The next point is this. Fusion and fission are the means by which atoms are transmuted into different elements - or different atoms. It needs extraordinary levels of heat to effect that 'transmutation'. In fact, the only known 'factories' to manufacture this huge variety of atoms are the stars themselves when they're in the process of exploding. Super novas - I think they're called. Which is the point at which they cannot - themselves - contain all that energy, all that heat. The thinking is that - at this critical and catastrophic moment - they explode. This is also when these explosions then seed or saturate space with the all the elements or atoms - in all their varieties. And these gradually 'accrete' into the planetary structures that then orbit those or alternative star structures in those or even other distant galaxies.
It's that 'accretion' that is the foundational concept of our model. What we propose is that it is these entirely separate 'binding fields' of small or discrete packages of magnetic fields - that are responsible for that 'accretion'. We propose that these are sourced from the energy levels (magnetic fields) of stars and that they are dispersed - quite literally as 'hot flame' at the point when those stars explode. And they can only cool down and separate into discrete packages - when they can find two or more atoms to bind together. So. First they're in a chaotic slow - relatively localised condition and seen as 'flame'. And then this flame 'separates' into discrete parcels to form a necklace - a ring - an orbit - that interacts with the energy levels of two or more of those atoms. But they become invisible to light because, when they orbit, they orbit at twice the velocity of light. Light is that slow, by comparison, that it can never find these little fields to actually interact with them. So. They become as cold and fast and invisible as they were previously hot and slow and visible.
All of which only means this. All matter - everything that we can see - or that has a visible or discernible or 'real' boundary is simply some composite of those atoms that are 'held together' or 'bound' by these binding fields. And the point is this. When we manufacture our heating elements - or indeed any circuit material - then those atoms are also bound by these binding fields. As is everything that is tangible in our visible dimensions of time and space. So. It's not the atoms that are held together by a gravitational force - but these binding fields that hold those atoms together. That's a small departure from the standard model. But it resolves certain paradoxes related to the 'Casimir Effect' - and, I suspect, that it's also the source of Plank's constant.
Be that as it may - if, indeed, this is the source of the 'dark force' then it should be provable. Because it means that the energy in 'bound material' should be accessible provided only that we can induce those fields to break that orbit which will then compromise the bound condition of that material. Well. There's nothing new here. Our contention is that we do this every time we induce an 'electric' field in the electromagnetic interaction. We're claiming that those binding fields are being disrupted - and that - in inductive and conductive circuit material - these fields can 'liberate' their potential energy - provided only that there's some initialising imbalance to induce that interaction. In other words - we're using that dark matter - every time we run an electric current. But if this is correct - then we've not been using this electric energy - this force - to its potential. It also means that if we induce ONLY the force in the circuit material - then unity will be exceeded. The more so if we don't heat those elements to a catastrophic level.
Which is all - probably - more than you wanted to know. The reason that this does not 'leak' out of the system in the sense that you mean it - is better explained in our paper on the subject. I'll attach it here. It may make things clearer. I hope your mailbox can accommodate such a big file.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
The following is a question from one of the readers here. I'm hoping it may help any others of you who are asking the same thing.
Dear *****,
is that your name? And are you aware that there's a Professor ***** on the forum? It's an extraordinary co-incidence.
In any event. Here's the concept. We know that there's an abundance of energy that is responsible for 'binding' our galaxies together. There is no explanation for this. We only know of the forces of 'gravity' - electromagnetism - and the strong and weak nuclear force. Well. The force of gravity is such that those galaxies should not be able to stay together. And they do. By rights - and according to the Laws of Gravity - the galaxies should, by rights, be UNRAVELLING. Falling apart. Our astophysicists therefore proposed that the thing keeping them together is the 'dark force'. They then applied gravitational lensing - a measurement technique - and discovered that INDEED - there is something there that is not directly able to interact with light - or photons - or whatever. Yet it is, INDEED measurable and is holding those great star structures together.
Therefore they called this Dark Matter from Dark Energy. And being a new kind of energy then it - in turn - has a 'FORCE' or, alternatively, it IS a force. Which means that this force has NOT been factored in to the 'standard model' as they call it. It's an entirely NEW discovery. Well. It's also shown to be EVERYWHERE. Our model is based on the proposal that magnetic fields are the source of all the forces and is therefore a PRIMARY force. So. If this model is right - then what we're proposing is that the magnetic force is this very thing. The dark force. The "FORCE behind the FORCES" - so to speak.
Now. The next point is this. Fusion and fission are the means by which atoms are transmuted into different elements - or different atoms. It needs extraordinary levels of heat to effect that 'transmutation'. In fact, the only known 'factories' to manufacture this huge variety of atoms are the stars themselves when they're in the process of exploding. Super novas - I think they're called. Which is the point at which they cannot - themselves - contain all that energy, all that heat. The thinking is that - at this critical and catastrophic moment - they explode. This is also when these explosions then seed or saturate space with the all the elements or atoms - in all their varieties. And these gradually 'accrete' into the planetary structures that then orbit those or alternative star structures in those or even other distant galaxies.
It's that 'accretion' that is the foundational concept of our model. What we propose is that it is these entirely separate 'binding fields' of small or discrete packages of magnetic fields - that are responsible for that 'accretion'. We propose that these are sourced from the energy levels (magnetic fields) of stars and that they are dispersed - quite literally as 'hot flame' at the point when those stars explode. And they can only cool down and separate into discrete packages - when they can find two or more atoms to bind together. So. First they're in a chaotic slow - relatively localised condition and seen as 'flame'. And then this flame 'separates' into discrete parcels to form a necklace - a ring - an orbit - that interacts with the energy levels of two or more of those atoms. But they become invisible to light because, when they orbit, they orbit at twice the velocity of light. Light is that slow, by comparison, that it can never find these little fields to actually interact with them. So. They become as cold and fast and invisible as they were previously hot and slow and visible.
All of which only means this. All matter - everything that we can see - or that has a visible or discernible or 'real' boundary is simply some composite of those atoms that are 'held together' or 'bound' by these binding fields. And the point is this. When we manufacture our heating elements - or indeed any circuit material - then those atoms are also bound by these binding fields. As is everything that is tangible in our visible dimensions of time and space. So. It's not the atoms that are held together by a gravitational force - but these binding fields that hold those atoms together. That's a small departure from the standard model. But it resolves certain paradoxes related to the 'Casimir Effect' - and, I suspect, that it's also the source of Plank's constant.
Be that as it may - if, indeed, this is the source of the 'dark force' then it should be provable. Because it means that the energy in 'bound material' should be accessible provided only that we can induce those fields to break that orbit which will then compromise the bound condition of that material. Well. There's nothing new here. Our contention is that we do this every time we induce an 'electric' field in the electromagnetic interaction. We're claiming that those binding fields are being disrupted - and that - in inductive and conductive circuit material - these fields can 'liberate' their potential energy - provided only that there's some initialising imbalance to induce that interaction. In other words - we're using that dark matter - every time we run an electric current. But if this is correct - then we've not been using this electric energy - this force - to its potential. It also means that if we induce ONLY the force in the circuit material - then unity will be exceeded. The more so if we don't heat those elements to a catastrophic level.
Which is all - probably - more than you wanted to know. The reason that this does not 'leak' out of the system in the sense that you mean it - is better explained in our paper on the subject. I'll attach it here. It may make things clearer. I hope your mailbox can accommodate such a big file.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Thursday, November 17, 2011
191 - a rally call
Dear Reader,
I was rather hoping to have the final say on this argument. It seems not. Here's more on the subject and - again - my response.
On 16 Nov 2011, at 11:33 AM, ***** ***** wrote:
Rosemary, I think you’re being a bit silly. There’s no gag, and never has been.
The following are some of the stories we have carried in recent years. If you can detect a conspiratorial thread running through them or proof that we are determined to gag discussion about cold fusion, I’ll eat my words.
We don’t have agendas. Where the news is is where the focus is … and I am afraid to say cold fusion has gone cold. You can’t keep news down, genuine news. It never works – as the Iranians and Egyptians have discovered, as the old Nationalists found, as the Americans know. But you also can’t make news out of nothing.
Best
*****
Dear *****,
I was hoping to speak to you. In the very real likelihood that you'll not phone - then let me see if I can, yet again, marshal the argument.
The facts relating to that article by Usha Lee McFarling - are incorrect.
In 1989, two scientists at the University of Utah said they had found a way to extract energy from room-temperature water - cold fusion. Their claim was quickly disproved after a month-long frenzy of news conferences, wild claims and sudden retractions. The episode is one that physicist David Goodstein of the California Institute of Technology now calls "science gone berserk''.
What actually happened is that Pons was surprised by the evidence of more energy being dissipated in a reaction between hard water and hydrogen. He took this to Fleischmann who was an expert in the field. Fleishmann came on board as the experimental results were repeatable. But there was no explanation. They surmised that it may have been a cold fusion reaction because there was no other explanation for those anomalous results. They then booked to perform a public demonstration in 1989 and were not able to repeat that experiment. Conjecture has it that there was some menace that intervened prior to that demo. But that's not proven. What IS fact is this. There is no disgrace in not being to replicate on demand. It does not thereby disprove the claim. But by the time the experiments were more widely tested - then too the disgrace of faulty postulates could not be lived down. A fusion reaction - any fusion reaction requires the emission of some kind of radioactive waste. This is the incontestable proof. And it was the lack of this evidence - this waste product - that buried the science. You see this I trust. Added to which both Fleischmann and Pons claimed that there was an emission. Had they proved the emission then they would have had no difficulty in proving their claim. Clearly they could not prove this.
But the real issue was this. If that over unity result could not be attributed to either fusion or fission - then there was and is no other explanation within the current paradigms - within the standard model. Which is a complicated way of saying that our scientists could not account for it. And because the vast body of our academia are not unduly hampered by any immodest doubts as to their knowledge of all things - to a man they were satisfied that there there could, therefore, be nothing to the initial claim. The alternative explanation - being that there was an explanation 'YET TO BE FOUND' - never entered their heads. And because this mindset has infected the vast majority of our learned and revered - then the vast majority sided 'against'. Which is where science has regressed. It seems that experimental evidence is to be determined by majority opinion rather than by measurement.
Fortunately - while the most of our scientists are reasonably certain that they can prescribe what nature can and can't do - there are those who are more inclined to let Nature Herself guide them. This is rather more wholesome. Which includes those remarkable names that I've already mentioned to you as well as to a small and rather less vocal group of academics. I'm fortunate to be in correspondence with some of them. However, not a one of them will come out openly in support of any scientific evidence until it's been published. Which is the real miracle. This work has, indeed been published. I've already advised you. But it was reported as anomalous. It's that problem again with the standard model. There's still no explanation. And without an explanation then that vast majority of academics - to whom I've already referred - prefer to refute the evidence IN THE FACE OF THAT EVIDENCE. It's extraordinary - and UTTERLY illogical and does nothing other than protect their pride and belief in Thermodynamic Laws. They'd do better to revise those laws. They had to do this once before to accommodate nuclear energy. Then they should do so again. Actually - by now - they should be a dab hand at revisionist theory.
Which brings me back to the point. If these results claimed by Rossi - were not experimentally evident - then we'd have a problem. Our scientists' belief in those results are irrelevant. Rossi has got the technology to a viable level of production. We need no further proof. And, frankly, if I were in your shoes I'd have a field day with our academics. It will be impossibly difficult for them to say that this is 'nonsense' or 'pathological' unless they're prepared to run the risk of a damages claim supported by the evidence of a working generator. In any event they won't dare say that. Even they realise that their own credibility will be called to question in the face of that evidence.
I need to tell you this as well. Rossi himself has clearly determined that the best way to advance this technology is by simply selling working models. But he is also, very obviously, doing this on a low key. My own interests in making this public is because it's the most eloquent reason that I know of to object to Nelly Magubane's investment in that nuclear expansion program. I've yet to forward this information to her. I was hoping I could cut out a report from our local papers. But, *****, there is absolutely no justification to doubt those results. They're irrefutable.
And I'm not being silly about this. That trivialises the issue. The fact is that we'll have those nuclear contracts written in stone if we don't get this news out. There's otherwise no reason to stall that expansion program. We really need the media to rally.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
So. The fact is that our editor claims that there's NOTHING TO THIS SCIENCE. It is incontestable proof of the efficiency of that disinformation program that is orchestrated by our energy suppliers and their troops of well funded trolls. Dear Reader, we are not here talking about the possibility or otherwise of the UFO's - or time travel - or, indeed, anything that is debatable. What we've got is EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. But our academics have, unfortunately, set a precedent. They've allowed 'opinion' to determine the veracity of any scientific claim - when, in the past, it was only required to produce experimental proof. This is a tragedy of no mean proportion.
We URGENTLY need to ask this of our academic scientists. "WHAT EARTHLY RIGHT DO YOU HAVE TO DENY WHAT IS EXPERIMENTALLY EVIDENT - AND THEREBY PERPETUATE THE CATASTROPHIC CONDITIONS THAT PUTS OUR FUTURE AT RISK?"
That's the rally call. Would that everyone could hear it. And all we can do is our very best to spread the word. Dear Reader, do advise all and sundry. Every bit helps.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I was rather hoping to have the final say on this argument. It seems not. Here's more on the subject and - again - my response.
On 16 Nov 2011, at 11:33 AM, ***** ***** wrote:
Rosemary, I think you’re being a bit silly. There’s no gag, and never has been.
The following are some of the stories we have carried in recent years. If you can detect a conspiratorial thread running through them or proof that we are determined to gag discussion about cold fusion, I’ll eat my words.
We don’t have agendas. Where the news is is where the focus is … and I am afraid to say cold fusion has gone cold. You can’t keep news down, genuine news. It never works – as the Iranians and Egyptians have discovered, as the old Nationalists found, as the Americans know. But you also can’t make news out of nothing.
Best
*****
Dear *****,
I was hoping to speak to you. In the very real likelihood that you'll not phone - then let me see if I can, yet again, marshal the argument.
The facts relating to that article by Usha Lee McFarling - are incorrect.
In 1989, two scientists at the University of Utah said they had found a way to extract energy from room-temperature water - cold fusion. Their claim was quickly disproved after a month-long frenzy of news conferences, wild claims and sudden retractions. The episode is one that physicist David Goodstein of the California Institute of Technology now calls "science gone berserk''.
What actually happened is that Pons was surprised by the evidence of more energy being dissipated in a reaction between hard water and hydrogen. He took this to Fleischmann who was an expert in the field. Fleishmann came on board as the experimental results were repeatable. But there was no explanation. They surmised that it may have been a cold fusion reaction because there was no other explanation for those anomalous results. They then booked to perform a public demonstration in 1989 and were not able to repeat that experiment. Conjecture has it that there was some menace that intervened prior to that demo. But that's not proven. What IS fact is this. There is no disgrace in not being to replicate on demand. It does not thereby disprove the claim. But by the time the experiments were more widely tested - then too the disgrace of faulty postulates could not be lived down. A fusion reaction - any fusion reaction requires the emission of some kind of radioactive waste. This is the incontestable proof. And it was the lack of this evidence - this waste product - that buried the science. You see this I trust. Added to which both Fleischmann and Pons claimed that there was an emission. Had they proved the emission then they would have had no difficulty in proving their claim. Clearly they could not prove this.
But the real issue was this. If that over unity result could not be attributed to either fusion or fission - then there was and is no other explanation within the current paradigms - within the standard model. Which is a complicated way of saying that our scientists could not account for it. And because the vast body of our academia are not unduly hampered by any immodest doubts as to their knowledge of all things - to a man they were satisfied that there there could, therefore, be nothing to the initial claim. The alternative explanation - being that there was an explanation 'YET TO BE FOUND' - never entered their heads. And because this mindset has infected the vast majority of our learned and revered - then the vast majority sided 'against'. Which is where science has regressed. It seems that experimental evidence is to be determined by majority opinion rather than by measurement.
Fortunately - while the most of our scientists are reasonably certain that they can prescribe what nature can and can't do - there are those who are more inclined to let Nature Herself guide them. This is rather more wholesome. Which includes those remarkable names that I've already mentioned to you as well as to a small and rather less vocal group of academics. I'm fortunate to be in correspondence with some of them. However, not a one of them will come out openly in support of any scientific evidence until it's been published. Which is the real miracle. This work has, indeed been published. I've already advised you. But it was reported as anomalous. It's that problem again with the standard model. There's still no explanation. And without an explanation then that vast majority of academics - to whom I've already referred - prefer to refute the evidence IN THE FACE OF THAT EVIDENCE. It's extraordinary - and UTTERLY illogical and does nothing other than protect their pride and belief in Thermodynamic Laws. They'd do better to revise those laws. They had to do this once before to accommodate nuclear energy. Then they should do so again. Actually - by now - they should be a dab hand at revisionist theory.
Which brings me back to the point. If these results claimed by Rossi - were not experimentally evident - then we'd have a problem. Our scientists' belief in those results are irrelevant. Rossi has got the technology to a viable level of production. We need no further proof. And, frankly, if I were in your shoes I'd have a field day with our academics. It will be impossibly difficult for them to say that this is 'nonsense' or 'pathological' unless they're prepared to run the risk of a damages claim supported by the evidence of a working generator. In any event they won't dare say that. Even they realise that their own credibility will be called to question in the face of that evidence.
I need to tell you this as well. Rossi himself has clearly determined that the best way to advance this technology is by simply selling working models. But he is also, very obviously, doing this on a low key. My own interests in making this public is because it's the most eloquent reason that I know of to object to Nelly Magubane's investment in that nuclear expansion program. I've yet to forward this information to her. I was hoping I could cut out a report from our local papers. But, *****, there is absolutely no justification to doubt those results. They're irrefutable.
And I'm not being silly about this. That trivialises the issue. The fact is that we'll have those nuclear contracts written in stone if we don't get this news out. There's otherwise no reason to stall that expansion program. We really need the media to rally.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
So. The fact is that our editor claims that there's NOTHING TO THIS SCIENCE. It is incontestable proof of the efficiency of that disinformation program that is orchestrated by our energy suppliers and their troops of well funded trolls. Dear Reader, we are not here talking about the possibility or otherwise of the UFO's - or time travel - or, indeed, anything that is debatable. What we've got is EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. But our academics have, unfortunately, set a precedent. They've allowed 'opinion' to determine the veracity of any scientific claim - when, in the past, it was only required to produce experimental proof. This is a tragedy of no mean proportion.
We URGENTLY need to ask this of our academic scientists. "WHAT EARTHLY RIGHT DO YOU HAVE TO DENY WHAT IS EXPERIMENTALLY EVIDENT - AND THEREBY PERPETUATE THE CATASTROPHIC CONDITIONS THAT PUTS OUR FUTURE AT RISK?"
That's the rally call. Would that everyone could hear it. And all we can do is our very best to spread the word. Dear Reader, do advise all and sundry. Every bit helps.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
190 - an argument that cold fusion may be proof of dark energy
Dear Reader,
Every 10th post or so is the 'flag' I set to give an overview of this technology of ours. And I see that I've now got to that 10th post. Golly. Time flies.
There is a reason that I plug this cold fusion technology. It's widely considered to be a pathological science - which only means that there's no explanation for these experimental results within the standard model. This, in turn, is in line with our own experimental evidence. Our scientists have to explain how it is that more energy can be generated than is evident in the 'fuel' required to generate it. As regards cold fusion - they've breached a barrier that we have not yet reached. They're able to generate megawatts - where we cannot. Certainly not yet. We can barely dissipate 200 watts.
BUT - here's the thing. We also know that our own technology is based on a small variation to Standard Model. In effect we have proposed that magnetic fields are structured along Faraday's Lines of Force (standard model) but that they comprise tachyons (theorised particles that exceed light speed). These, in turn, are proposed to be magnetic dipoles which would be an entire explanation for the magnetic field structure as it interacts with all matter and, as proposed, all particles. Think of it like the weft and woof of material that holds the visible tapestry of life that we see. It's the background structure that supports everything.
However, regardless of the structure of that field - which is the subject of the field model related to this, our own experimental evidence is, in fact, the 'unfolding' evidence of 'dark matter'. This is the entire theme of this blog. And we have presumed to localise this dark matter in three dimensions of length, breadth and depth. Our own, and I suspect, cold fusion, rely on the operation of that first dimension. This is a 'simple' field - a single 'necklace' of dipoles that structures in fields of precisely 6 and any numbers divisible by six. It is proposed that, as this is relates to that 'discrete package', it is a loop - a simple circular structure - a golden ring. And it's one dimensional. In precisely any combination of 6 dipoles to a package - these 'rings' are self supporting. And they are responsible for binding matter. They're invisible. BUT. Break that string through the electromagnetic interaction or even through the simple means of applying friction to material - and the string becomes visible as 'sparks' that can then become flame. In other words, provided that the obit of that ring is broken into one or more lines or strings - then the particles lose their 'field structure'. they no longer orbit at twice the speed of light - but become slow and HOT. That's the point. In this hot chaotic state they are able to transfer into our visible dimensions. They transfer their material property of heat. And they are that slow and that localised that light can find it and show it up for what it is.
And here's the thing. It is NOT in the atom. It is not even part of the atom. It is outside the atom and it binds those atoms together. And the proposal is that we are using these broken strings to reach the efficiencies that are evident in our own experiments. In the same way it's proposed that cold fusion is another, chemical - or glavanic way of transferring this same energy - those same fields. Bear in mind that the evidence, according to the the experiments by Rossi and by those academics who replicated Rossi's tests, the core nickle needs must first be made HOT to enable that sustained interaction. And also bear in mind that, thus far, there is no evidence from them that there is any radioactive waste at all that is dispersed and lost to the environment. Which means that it is unlikely to be a nuclear reaction.
Which - hopefully - explains why I am plugging the use of and the scientific justification for cold fusion. Quite apart from which, dear Reader, it's a MOST desirable technology. We need to explore any such evidence. It gives the real promise of an abundant energy supply source that is absolutely green and clean.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
click here and scroll down to the appendix. It may describe all this better than I've managed here
Every 10th post or so is the 'flag' I set to give an overview of this technology of ours. And I see that I've now got to that 10th post. Golly. Time flies.
There is a reason that I plug this cold fusion technology. It's widely considered to be a pathological science - which only means that there's no explanation for these experimental results within the standard model. This, in turn, is in line with our own experimental evidence. Our scientists have to explain how it is that more energy can be generated than is evident in the 'fuel' required to generate it. As regards cold fusion - they've breached a barrier that we have not yet reached. They're able to generate megawatts - where we cannot. Certainly not yet. We can barely dissipate 200 watts.
BUT - here's the thing. We also know that our own technology is based on a small variation to Standard Model. In effect we have proposed that magnetic fields are structured along Faraday's Lines of Force (standard model) but that they comprise tachyons (theorised particles that exceed light speed). These, in turn, are proposed to be magnetic dipoles which would be an entire explanation for the magnetic field structure as it interacts with all matter and, as proposed, all particles. Think of it like the weft and woof of material that holds the visible tapestry of life that we see. It's the background structure that supports everything.
However, regardless of the structure of that field - which is the subject of the field model related to this, our own experimental evidence is, in fact, the 'unfolding' evidence of 'dark matter'. This is the entire theme of this blog. And we have presumed to localise this dark matter in three dimensions of length, breadth and depth. Our own, and I suspect, cold fusion, rely on the operation of that first dimension. This is a 'simple' field - a single 'necklace' of dipoles that structures in fields of precisely 6 and any numbers divisible by six. It is proposed that, as this is relates to that 'discrete package', it is a loop - a simple circular structure - a golden ring. And it's one dimensional. In precisely any combination of 6 dipoles to a package - these 'rings' are self supporting. And they are responsible for binding matter. They're invisible. BUT. Break that string through the electromagnetic interaction or even through the simple means of applying friction to material - and the string becomes visible as 'sparks' that can then become flame. In other words, provided that the obit of that ring is broken into one or more lines or strings - then the particles lose their 'field structure'. they no longer orbit at twice the speed of light - but become slow and HOT. That's the point. In this hot chaotic state they are able to transfer into our visible dimensions. They transfer their material property of heat. And they are that slow and that localised that light can find it and show it up for what it is.
And here's the thing. It is NOT in the atom. It is not even part of the atom. It is outside the atom and it binds those atoms together. And the proposal is that we are using these broken strings to reach the efficiencies that are evident in our own experiments. In the same way it's proposed that cold fusion is another, chemical - or glavanic way of transferring this same energy - those same fields. Bear in mind that the evidence, according to the the experiments by Rossi and by those academics who replicated Rossi's tests, the core nickle needs must first be made HOT to enable that sustained interaction. And also bear in mind that, thus far, there is no evidence from them that there is any radioactive waste at all that is dispersed and lost to the environment. Which means that it is unlikely to be a nuclear reaction.
Which - hopefully - explains why I am plugging the use of and the scientific justification for cold fusion. Quite apart from which, dear Reader, it's a MOST desirable technology. We need to explore any such evidence. It gives the real promise of an abundant energy supply source that is absolutely green and clean.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
click here and scroll down to the appendix. It may describe all this better than I've managed here
189 - yet more correspondence
Dear Reader,
For the purists among you - here's more detail on the correspondence with one of our local editors. It's a mild variation on others and therefore relevant. It's all so sad.
.....THIS TO THE NIGHT EDITOR
Dear *****,
This is the 'write up' that I'm offering just to help you all focus on the appropriate points. Obviously you are free to use any or all of this as you wish. My overriding interest that this news is put out there. It will put paid to any need for nuclear expansion which may be a good thing.
I'm systematically sending it out to all our local papers in the interest of spreading the word.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie
COLD FUSION – AT LAST
(I'll spare you all a reprint of this. It's already posted here)Focardi and Rossi are producing generators for sale that are capable of delivering Megawatts of energy – at a fraction of the cost of our grid suppliers......
.....THEN THIS REPLY FROM THE DAY EDITOR
Hello Rosemary
Thanks for your mail.
The reluctance of the media more or less reflects the scepticism which cold fusion has generated.
I don’t count on Wikipedia to deliver unremitting veracity, but I think it is a good guide and the following does, I think, provide the context for understanding this scepticism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
....WHICH WAS ANSWERED HERE
Hello *****,
I actually took the trouble to forward that precise link to *******. I'm well aware of it. May I, by the same token, refer you to the work of our Nobel Laureate Professor Emeritus - David Josephsson. He and many other academics are in open support of cold fusion.
Here's the thing. The minute you have a technology that is available for sale - as is this e-cat - then you have achieved the following. It's efficacy and safety must be established - unequivocally - and it falls under the protection of global consumer acts all over the world. Therefore it cannot be a 'scam'. Then too - there is a published paper on a replication of an earlier (pre-production) by some highly respected academics at the universities of Bologna and Siena - respectively.
The only thing that mitigates against this is technology is that it hasn't been incorporated into the standard model. It is not strictly nuclear as there's no evidence of that required radioactive waste that would prove this. And there is no chemical interaction known that can account for it. But bear in mind. Our Wright brothers were flying their planes when our academics were publishing the 'impossibility of heavier than air flight'. The Wright brothers won that argument. Hands down. It won't be the first time that - historically - our academics have 'limped' behind a new technology.
But - more to the point is this. Eskom claim they are unaware of it. I've also taken the trouble to phone those many academics that I keep pestering. They have none of them heard of this. Isn't that the job of the media? To offer up the news and then afford the expert comment. It seems that the relationship has now changed somewhat. The media are electing to promote the news that they prefer without any reference to the expert at all. It makes perfect sense to publish both sides of the story. It makes no sense to publish neither. The more so as - in the very real likelihood that this technology actually works as claimed - then we've got a solution to the rather toxic wastes of our conventional energy supplies. At it's least the entire future of the planet rather depends on this kind of story being told. Golly.
I am well aware of the fact that this is not likely to advance the best interests of those in Eskom and those in our Government who are actively advancing that nuclear expansion program. But again. They too need to be alerted to this development. Else we'll all be gridlocked into an antiquated technology before it's even started. Frankly I can see no justifications AT ALL in refusing to publish on this subject. And at the risk of regressing into an inappropriate moral high ground - on this matter - it has the general appearance of a conspiracy to co-operate with that appalling intention of our Department of Energy to squander our tax money and our futures on something that is quite simply NOT required.
And may I refer you to my blogspot where the last few posts are exclusively about this.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
....HIS ANSWER TO MY ANSWER
Hello Rosemary
I hear you … but, various things.
First, conspiracy theory always fails on the grounds of its essential optimism, the optimism that the world is explicable and functions rationally. It doesn’t.
Newspapers are incurably fractious institutions in which it is almost impossible to guarantee agreement on anything. Universally, newspapers function by what I am almost inclined to think of as a natural law, and it is simply stated: news is what is new. Thus, for instance, a Fresnaye child winning a violin competition in Salzburg would merit page three or page five. A Khayelitsha child winning the same competition would be guaranteed front page treatment. A gang shoot-out in Lavender Hill that claims three men’s lives would be page three; a gang shoot-out in Bishops Court would be the front page lead. Ten thousand die in a monsoon … a filler on the world page. Twenty five Londoners die in Thames flood – front page.
And so it goes.
These general rule frustrates the best efforts of the journalist or editor of proprietor who wishes to propound a view or back an industry or silence a line of reasoning.
But, importantly, a newspaper, because it is only really reflecting what is new or old hat in the society in which it functions will also broadly reflect the values of the society it serves. A good idea has to be a generally accepted good idea for it to gain any traction as news. We could suggest, for instance, that pubs be closed on weekends, the speed limit reduced to 40km/h and driving licences issued only to people of 30 and up – which all might be excellent ideas for reducing the appalling carnage on our roads – and they will rejected as laughable.
I know this last is not a good analogy … but there is actually something hugely complex in the fact that a revolutionary idea has to be thoroughly workable, proven and – this is important – accessible before it can hope to gain news traction.
As things stand, cold fusion does not meet these requirements. It will enjoy some attention once every three years – and whenever someone important does something related to it, or says something newsworthy – but the mere existence of a putative alternative electricity source with untold benefits is not going to generate much public excitement.
A few years ago – a decade ago, actually – an uncle of mine berated me for the fact that the ***** was not reporting Aids and its dangers on the front page every day, with banner headlines. It’s that important, he kept telling me. And my answer? My answer was, it would be the front page lead every day if this society believed it was that important. But this society doesn’t. We all get on with our lives. We yawn at the very thought of a well-meaning 1 000-word opinion piece on HIV/Aids.
So the real issue is not Eskom and its profits, or the government, or the media … the real issue is the public, the society. I can tell you, if ordinary people were really exercised about cold fusion, this would register in our politics, in our media and in our marketplace. The fact that some promising experiments have been carried out with extraordinary results has been reported on; if nothing further comes of it, there’s not a lot newspapers can do about that.
I hope this helps explain how we react the way we do. (Most people in any given newsroom lean to the left; they are generally ill-disposed to the powerful, in the market as much as in politics – they lost no opportunity to knock the mighty. But they have an acute intuition about what the battle amounts to, and how it’s fought and – rarely – won).
All best
.....AND FINALLY MY ANSWER TO HIS ANSWER TO MY ANSWER ????? - WHICH FINAL LETTER IS NOT ANSWERABLE
Here's your own criterion - ENTIRELY SATISFIED.
"… but there is actually something hugely complex in the fact that a revolutionary idea has to be thoroughly workable, proven and – this is important – accessible before it can hope to gain news traction."
Therefore, your argument is somewhat spurious. Had it not been available for sale - with the required contractual agreements - determined and well defined - then it would be an entirely different matter.
It would be nice if you could actually even put this to the vote with your own staff. I know that those I've spoken to are more than sympathetic to getting this news out. Else the day will come, with respect, that your own readers will want to know why you've put a gag on this.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
For the purists among you - here's more detail on the correspondence with one of our local editors. It's a mild variation on others and therefore relevant. It's all so sad.
.....THIS TO THE NIGHT EDITOR
Dear *****,
This is the 'write up' that I'm offering just to help you all focus on the appropriate points. Obviously you are free to use any or all of this as you wish. My overriding interest that this news is put out there. It will put paid to any need for nuclear expansion which may be a good thing.
I'm systematically sending it out to all our local papers in the interest of spreading the word.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie
COLD FUSION – AT LAST
(I'll spare you all a reprint of this. It's already posted here)Focardi and Rossi are producing generators for sale that are capable of delivering Megawatts of energy – at a fraction of the cost of our grid suppliers......
.....THEN THIS REPLY FROM THE DAY EDITOR
Hello Rosemary
Thanks for your mail.
The reluctance of the media more or less reflects the scepticism which cold fusion has generated.
I don’t count on Wikipedia to deliver unremitting veracity, but I think it is a good guide and the following does, I think, provide the context for understanding this scepticism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
....WHICH WAS ANSWERED HERE
Hello *****,
I actually took the trouble to forward that precise link to *******. I'm well aware of it. May I, by the same token, refer you to the work of our Nobel Laureate Professor Emeritus - David Josephsson. He and many other academics are in open support of cold fusion.
Here's the thing. The minute you have a technology that is available for sale - as is this e-cat - then you have achieved the following. It's efficacy and safety must be established - unequivocally - and it falls under the protection of global consumer acts all over the world. Therefore it cannot be a 'scam'. Then too - there is a published paper on a replication of an earlier (pre-production) by some highly respected academics at the universities of Bologna and Siena - respectively.
The only thing that mitigates against this is technology is that it hasn't been incorporated into the standard model. It is not strictly nuclear as there's no evidence of that required radioactive waste that would prove this. And there is no chemical interaction known that can account for it. But bear in mind. Our Wright brothers were flying their planes when our academics were publishing the 'impossibility of heavier than air flight'. The Wright brothers won that argument. Hands down. It won't be the first time that - historically - our academics have 'limped' behind a new technology.
But - more to the point is this. Eskom claim they are unaware of it. I've also taken the trouble to phone those many academics that I keep pestering. They have none of them heard of this. Isn't that the job of the media? To offer up the news and then afford the expert comment. It seems that the relationship has now changed somewhat. The media are electing to promote the news that they prefer without any reference to the expert at all. It makes perfect sense to publish both sides of the story. It makes no sense to publish neither. The more so as - in the very real likelihood that this technology actually works as claimed - then we've got a solution to the rather toxic wastes of our conventional energy supplies. At it's least the entire future of the planet rather depends on this kind of story being told. Golly.
I am well aware of the fact that this is not likely to advance the best interests of those in Eskom and those in our Government who are actively advancing that nuclear expansion program. But again. They too need to be alerted to this development. Else we'll all be gridlocked into an antiquated technology before it's even started. Frankly I can see no justifications AT ALL in refusing to publish on this subject. And at the risk of regressing into an inappropriate moral high ground - on this matter - it has the general appearance of a conspiracy to co-operate with that appalling intention of our Department of Energy to squander our tax money and our futures on something that is quite simply NOT required.
And may I refer you to my blogspot where the last few posts are exclusively about this.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
....HIS ANSWER TO MY ANSWER
Hello Rosemary
I hear you … but, various things.
First, conspiracy theory always fails on the grounds of its essential optimism, the optimism that the world is explicable and functions rationally. It doesn’t.
Newspapers are incurably fractious institutions in which it is almost impossible to guarantee agreement on anything. Universally, newspapers function by what I am almost inclined to think of as a natural law, and it is simply stated: news is what is new. Thus, for instance, a Fresnaye child winning a violin competition in Salzburg would merit page three or page five. A Khayelitsha child winning the same competition would be guaranteed front page treatment. A gang shoot-out in Lavender Hill that claims three men’s lives would be page three; a gang shoot-out in Bishops Court would be the front page lead. Ten thousand die in a monsoon … a filler on the world page. Twenty five Londoners die in Thames flood – front page.
And so it goes.
These general rule frustrates the best efforts of the journalist or editor of proprietor who wishes to propound a view or back an industry or silence a line of reasoning.
But, importantly, a newspaper, because it is only really reflecting what is new or old hat in the society in which it functions will also broadly reflect the values of the society it serves. A good idea has to be a generally accepted good idea for it to gain any traction as news. We could suggest, for instance, that pubs be closed on weekends, the speed limit reduced to 40km/h and driving licences issued only to people of 30 and up – which all might be excellent ideas for reducing the appalling carnage on our roads – and they will rejected as laughable.
I know this last is not a good analogy … but there is actually something hugely complex in the fact that a revolutionary idea has to be thoroughly workable, proven and – this is important – accessible before it can hope to gain news traction.
As things stand, cold fusion does not meet these requirements. It will enjoy some attention once every three years – and whenever someone important does something related to it, or says something newsworthy – but the mere existence of a putative alternative electricity source with untold benefits is not going to generate much public excitement.
A few years ago – a decade ago, actually – an uncle of mine berated me for the fact that the ***** was not reporting Aids and its dangers on the front page every day, with banner headlines. It’s that important, he kept telling me. And my answer? My answer was, it would be the front page lead every day if this society believed it was that important. But this society doesn’t. We all get on with our lives. We yawn at the very thought of a well-meaning 1 000-word opinion piece on HIV/Aids.
So the real issue is not Eskom and its profits, or the government, or the media … the real issue is the public, the society. I can tell you, if ordinary people were really exercised about cold fusion, this would register in our politics, in our media and in our marketplace. The fact that some promising experiments have been carried out with extraordinary results has been reported on; if nothing further comes of it, there’s not a lot newspapers can do about that.
I hope this helps explain how we react the way we do. (Most people in any given newsroom lean to the left; they are generally ill-disposed to the powerful, in the market as much as in politics – they lost no opportunity to knock the mighty. But they have an acute intuition about what the battle amounts to, and how it’s fought and – rarely – won).
All best
.....AND FINALLY MY ANSWER TO HIS ANSWER TO MY ANSWER ????? - WHICH FINAL LETTER IS NOT ANSWERABLE
Here's your own criterion - ENTIRELY SATISFIED.
"… but there is actually something hugely complex in the fact that a revolutionary idea has to be thoroughly workable, proven and – this is important – accessible before it can hope to gain news traction."
Therefore, your argument is somewhat spurious. Had it not been available for sale - with the required contractual agreements - determined and well defined - then it would be an entirely different matter.
It would be nice if you could actually even put this to the vote with your own staff. I know that those I've spoken to are more than sympathetic to getting this news out. Else the day will come, with respect, that your own readers will want to know why you've put a gag on this.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
188 - another attempt at alerting the public despite a media embargo
Dear Reader,
This is another variation on the previous which letter to the editor was simply ignored. lol. Can't think why. Perhaps this will fare better.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Dear Sir,
The following links to cold fusion technology that is available for sale to the public. It is a tried and tested method of generating energy with results that have been independently verified by S Focardi, V Gabbani, V Montalbano, F Piantelli and S Verones of the universities of Bologna and Siena, respectively in a collaborative published paper. The unit itself is capable of delivering megawatts of energy at the cost of a few grams of nickel and hydrogen.
The difficulties associated with this technology is that there is no explanation within the standard model to explain the extraordinary levels of efficiency at which this technology operates. Efficiencies compete with nuclear energy. Yet there is no attendant radioactive waste. This makes for a clean and highly desirable technology and it will, inevitably, put paid to any need for grid supplies. This, in turn, will obviate any need for Eskom’s proposed nuclear expansion program.
The point is that this technology is now available for sale in units that can be shipped anywhere in the world. Therefore our heavy industrial users can opt to move off Eskom’s supply grid supply – in short order and as they require and at a cost that is estimated to repay the capital within a year's use. My question is why then are Eskom forging ahead with their nuclear expansion programs when the evidence is that, as of now, this rather toxic technology is already outmoded? It will simply gridlock us into the use of a technology that is antiquated even before it’s installed. Surely we deserve to have our futures better planned by our Energy Department? And surely we can make better use of our tax revenues?
What is alarming is that our editors are resolved NOT to report on this discovery, which, in truth, is in the light of a revolutionary discovery. That fact is puzzling – the more so as this technology will entirely resolve the global problems of the atrocious pollution resulting from all conventional means of distributing energy. One would assume that all news would be objectively reported – regardless of its appeal to Eskom.
Regards,
Rosemary Ainslie
This is another variation on the previous which letter to the editor was simply ignored. lol. Can't think why. Perhaps this will fare better.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Dear Sir,
The following links to cold fusion technology that is available for sale to the public. It is a tried and tested method of generating energy with results that have been independently verified by S Focardi, V Gabbani, V Montalbano, F Piantelli and S Verones of the universities of Bologna and Siena, respectively in a collaborative published paper. The unit itself is capable of delivering megawatts of energy at the cost of a few grams of nickel and hydrogen.
The difficulties associated with this technology is that there is no explanation within the standard model to explain the extraordinary levels of efficiency at which this technology operates. Efficiencies compete with nuclear energy. Yet there is no attendant radioactive waste. This makes for a clean and highly desirable technology and it will, inevitably, put paid to any need for grid supplies. This, in turn, will obviate any need for Eskom’s proposed nuclear expansion program.
The point is that this technology is now available for sale in units that can be shipped anywhere in the world. Therefore our heavy industrial users can opt to move off Eskom’s supply grid supply – in short order and as they require and at a cost that is estimated to repay the capital within a year's use. My question is why then are Eskom forging ahead with their nuclear expansion programs when the evidence is that, as of now, this rather toxic technology is already outmoded? It will simply gridlock us into the use of a technology that is antiquated even before it’s installed. Surely we deserve to have our futures better planned by our Energy Department? And surely we can make better use of our tax revenues?
What is alarming is that our editors are resolved NOT to report on this discovery, which, in truth, is in the light of a revolutionary discovery. That fact is puzzling – the more so as this technology will entirely resolve the global problems of the atrocious pollution resulting from all conventional means of distributing energy. One would assume that all news would be objectively reported – regardless of its appeal to Eskom.
Regards,
Rosemary Ainslie
Monday, November 14, 2011
187 - the dogs are biting
Dear Reader,
click here and then go to the last few posts - to read why I keep referring to all that drivel from our trolls
Well. FINALLY they caught up on overunity research.com. I wondered how long it would take. The conversation is between Physics Prof and MilesEverSoHigh. Physics Prof is that apparently kindly Professor Emeritus who has offered some coins in exchange for perpetual motion. He shuffles between two or three forums and for reasons best known to himself - insists on using Poynty's "PIN POUT' references. This, coupled with his preferred use of acronyms - makes one giddy with confusion after reading his analyses. Perhaps it's only me. In any event, he has most certainly taken a stand against the 'standard' of our learned and revered who prefer clarity and precision of expression. He's opted to use that confused and confusing 'Poynty speak' which is intended to give the general impression of advanced intelligence without the attendant dangers of advancing any information at all. lol
What a lot of pretentious nonsense. Thankfully the most of us are aware of it. And the only possible benefit of all that confusion that he spins with such reckless abandon - is that he could then, perhaps, keep custody of that prize that he flaunts. Frankly I'm not sure that a perpetual motor would be adequately rewarded if his coins are all that's on offer. Golly. I would rather suggest that the inventor simply show that motor to a journalist. That should work. Rather well. I'll put my own money on a small wager that the reward for a perpetual motor would be well in excess of the value of those coins. And it would not need any complicated analysis to prove.
The follow up post is from MileHigh. To those with a longer memory than is usually evident on those forums - he's the gentleman who insisted that particles are moved by a gravitational force which prompted the following doggerel.
A man once said that he found
That particles don't move around.
Said 'You bet your ass
if a thing has got mass
then it's going to fall to the ground'.
Which is only intended to remind you all that his expertise is not in physics but in the well developed - and indeed, well articulated - 'art of denial' of all over unity claims. Unlike Physics Prof - his style of writing is commendably clear. But his posts are sadly repetitive. He does, however, have the occasional appropriate complaint against bad measurements. Unfortunately he tends to overlook the fact that most of those flaws are from the efforts of his own team. And the team? It's mostly just Grumpy the Poison Dwarf - who thinks that electrons respond to pressure - and some others whose names escape me at the moment. They are all well able to feed off their own vanity and the atmosphere of mutual congratulation. This is engendered as a reward for the absurd reaches of their improbable theories. And these, in turn, are flaunted all over the place. Their 'theories' if such they are, are a mishmash of the standard model and their own evident confusion imposed on that poor abused model. Just look at the PIN POUT terminology for a kick off. Golly.
So, dear reader - no doubt you are questioning why it is that I pay any attention at all to these 'trolls' whose overriding intention is clearly to diminish and deny any clear evidence of 'breach of unity'. I'll try and explain this. It is because we have here a text book example of how these trolls work and with it, the rather incontestable proof of their agenda - that conspiracy thing - that dogs these poor efforts of ours. And for once I can see the 'conspiracy' in action - the actual tried and tested methodology that is used. I've said it - often. Goebbels would have been proud to see how his young art has blossomed into full blown maturity.
For those with enough interest in this - here's the breakdown.
Posts: 431
PHYSICS PROF
"I do see where you're coming from, MH, and agree that a careful "energy audit" would be needed to check any claims of "Thane effect" or OU. Same problem occurred with the claims of Pons and Fleischmann, years ago, regarding large amounts of "excess heat" (energy) produced by "cold fusion."
That 'same problem'? The one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. Nothing could be quite as diverse as the level of heat and energy produced by the E-Cat as Thane's work, Nor is their any similarity at all in their technologies. This is that 'sideways' swipe to introduce a subject that is otherwise entirely irrelevant to that thread topic. And, of course, it has the real merit of tarnishing the manifold doubts about Thane's technology with any hope of credibility for Rossi.
PHYSICS PROF
"I say we should make careful measurements, be skeptical yes -- but also open-minded while the measurements are being made and experiments run."
Here I would point out that Physics Prof would be justified in this if he were able to give us some accurate measurements ever, on anything at all. It seems that his best efforts simply get snarled in confusion every time he references that PIN AND POUT terminology. No matter how careful ones measurements - they're meaningless in that context.
PHYSICS PROF
"Which brings me to Rossi's e-cat claims -- and bold claims they are (see PESN for example). I've been following this and asking questions. I would be very glad to be able to test a "Rossi device" -- I would look for gamma's from isotopes of copper allegedly produced in the reaction."
Stop right there. Here's the first bit of 'propaganda' - the first 'hint' at that agenda, the first 'allegation'. Rossi has NEVER claimed the presence of anything at all. He simply presented a sample for analysis. And he need not have bothered. Soon they'll have their own samples to test. So. Dear Physics Prof - please be informed. Rossi DID NOT make those 'bold claims' that you now allege are his. You are now promulgating, dare I say it - a lie? Or, if you prefer - a distortion of the truth. When and IF Rossi claims that there is copper in the 'mix' then - by all means - check it out. Until then, dear Reader, be advised. The evidence of copper and/or iron are NOT part of Rossi's claims. It is Kullander who is reporting on their results. NOT ROSSI
THE FOLLOWING QUOTED EXCERPT
'Ny Teknik: How do you interpret the results?
Kullander: Provided that copper is not one of the additives used as catalyst, the copper isotopes 63 and 65 can only have been formed during the process. Their presence is therefore a proof that nuclear reactions took place in the process. However, it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%). This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. However, there are two stable isotopes of nickel with low concentration, nickel-62 and nickel-64, which could conceivably contribute to copper production. According to Rossi copper is not among the additives. 100 grams of nickel had been used during 2.5 months of continuous heating with 10 kW output power. A straightforward calculation shows that a large proportion of the nickel must have been consumed if it was ‘burned’ in a nuclear process. It’s then somewhat strange that the isotopic composition doesn’t differ from the natural."
Here is the same argument that bedeviled the early Fleischmann Pons claim of cold fusion. The point is this. There is no evidence of any radioactive waste. That's the beauty of this technology. Who cares if it's a chemical or nuclear reaction. Fleischmann and Pons rather depended on it being attributed to a nuclear interaction as there was and is, otherwise, no explanation within the standard model for all that excess energy. And no-one was going to accredit an ANOMALY. But with a working model - a full blow technology - WHO CARES? You don't need an explanation. You just need to use all that abundant energy. Certainly the E-CAT proves the result. Rather in the same way as the Wright brothers put their planes in the sky well in advance of the theory that limped behind. Our academics were utterly disgraced by all their flaunted assumption proceeding all that evidence. Again. WHO CARES? Any user of electricity will be largely indifferent to the explanations.
PHYSICS PROF
"Indeed -- VERY strange that the copper in the "ash" after 2.5 months of running (with no copper initially) -- strange that the ash shows produced-copper in the "NATURAL isotopic composition"."
Are you, dear Physics Prof - trying to imply that the 'waste' sample was fudged? Tampered with? Surely not! That would be a blow below the belt! And surely you are above insinuating anything at all? Isn't that somewhat unprofessional? Regardless of which, we poor members of the public are sublimely indifferent to whether copper was added - deliberately or otherwise - by anyone at all. Rossi himself is surely indifferent. Unlike you he's got a working technology that can deliver a HUGE amount of energy at ridiculously low cost. And as you emphasise and as he claims - there is ABSOLUTELY NO RADIOACTIVE POISONOUS PRODUCTS from all that energy. That's a really good thing. Yet it seems that without having all that poisonous waste you're prepared to deny the experimental evidence of a really efficient energy source? That's hardly scientific. I would have thought that the thing to do is to research the explanation - not the results. They're unequivocal.
PHYSICS PROF
"it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%). This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. .
Right -- naturally-occurring nickel, as in the initial powder -- has this isotopic composition:
Quote
Ni-58 ( 68.077% ) Ni-60 ( 26.223% ) Ni-61 ( 1.140% ) Ni-62 ( 3.634% ) Ni-64 ( 0.926% )
http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/"
Up to this point we're engaged in a science lecture. Then comes the double whammy.
PHYSICS PROF
"Adding ONE proton to a Nickel nucleus as claimed by Rossi and Focardi.... "
No Professor of Physics. NOT AS CLAIMED BY ROSSI AND FOCARDI. As claimed by someone else - ENTIRELY. And as for this presumptuous piece of nonsense that follows.
PHYSICS PROF
"I wrote Rossi months ago and challenged him to allow gamma-detection during operation of his e-cat device. NO positive response from him yet. "
My question is quite simply - why should he engage in any discourse with a retired professor who busies himself in denying over unity claims, while he pretends to support the possibility? I'm reasonably satisfied that Rossi has more sense than to be sidetracked by someone with such obvious intentions to discredit a much required technology. He would rather look to those who are anxious to advance its applications. I know I would.
PHYSICS PROF
"But now we learn that the end products are NOT Cu-59 ... blah blah". Then... "Now how do you explain THAT? easy -- its CONTAMINATION of natural copper into his device. That's my preliminary conclusion. This conclusion is supported by the observed IRON (11%) in the final powder, see scientists' data released above. If there is NO contamination, then where did all that IRON come from?" THEN " BUT-- If its proton capture on nickel, as claimed by Rossi....."
There it is again. IT WAS NOT CLAIMED BY ROSSI. And then for this fabrication - where his early modest doubts are orchestrated into a sense of outrage ....
PHYSICS PROF
"-- then he's got some EXPLAINING TO DO." !!!!!
Well? What exactly? I don't actually think that Rossi owes you a brass dime - let alone an explanation. It is his research that you're attacking. He is NOT attacking you. Such absurd posturing Physics Prof. Whatever next? Golly.
And so the drivel continues.
PHYSICS PROF
"Do you grasp the problem? One more time: proton capture on the predominant isotope of NICKEL, Nickle-58 (68%) would produce Copper-59, not the observed Cu-63 (and Cu-65).
You have to add FOUR more NEUTRONS (not protons) to Cu-59 to get to stable Cu-63, and do it in less time than it takes for Cu-59 to decay away (half life of Cu-59 is only 81.5 seconds)."
Who cares? Really. Who gives a damn? For some reason you seem to think that your opinion matters?
PHYSICS PROF
"Which makes the balance of this just more unsubstantiated absurd nonsense. C'mon-- we're not that gullible... IMHO, we should be skeptical. Rossi is claiming a very specific process, proton capture on nickel, but the experimental RESULTS do not support his claims. Sorry."
We're all rather sorry - actually. But not about the E-cat. Just that you've stooped this low. The nice thing though is that your cards are now on the table and open to view. Dear Physics Professor - it is rather unseemly and decidedly unprofessional and certainly deceptive - to make so many allegations against anyone at all - on such obviously contradictory evidence. Then to try and substantiate it by referencing the equally unsubstantiated allegations and suspicions of Steven Krivit - who has half the academic stature of those associated with Rossi - is a little more than any of us can stomach. We are embarrassed for you Professor. One would have thought that - if you must cast your aspersions that you do it with a little more finesse than you seem to have managed. As it is - its an embarrassment of reckless abuse on the good name and hard work of a fellow scientist.
If I didn't know better I'd suspect that you are jealous of such startling brilliance. And for you to require a power measurement - without the total energy balance - is just a joke. I would refer you to that extraordinary nonsense when you attempted to analyse some of your work on that forum. I've copied the most of it as a record of how NOT TO DO A POWER ANALYSIS.
And as for this.
"A power measurement – without the total energy balance – is virtually meaningless. Without answers to these questions, this experiment and demonstration could easily be a scam. Sadly, I have been a first-hand witness to deceptions."
What deceptions? You are committing the folly of allegation. Give us facts. Then we can all pay attention. The only comfort is this. If he did not get this attack then it would be more than likely that he has nothing of interest to offer. Thank you, therefore, for alerting us to this technology and for giving us a clear indication of its value.
PHYSICS PROF
"The red flags with Rossi have been up for months."
NO PROFESSOR. THE RED FLAGS THAT HAVE BEEN FLYING HAVE BEEN FLYING AGAINST YOUR NAME - NOT ROSSI's.
click here and then go to the last few posts - to read why I keep referring to all that drivel from our trolls
Well. FINALLY they caught up on overunity research.com. I wondered how long it would take. The conversation is between Physics Prof and MilesEverSoHigh. Physics Prof is that apparently kindly Professor Emeritus who has offered some coins in exchange for perpetual motion. He shuffles between two or three forums and for reasons best known to himself - insists on using Poynty's "PIN POUT' references. This, coupled with his preferred use of acronyms - makes one giddy with confusion after reading his analyses. Perhaps it's only me. In any event, he has most certainly taken a stand against the 'standard' of our learned and revered who prefer clarity and precision of expression. He's opted to use that confused and confusing 'Poynty speak' which is intended to give the general impression of advanced intelligence without the attendant dangers of advancing any information at all. lol
What a lot of pretentious nonsense. Thankfully the most of us are aware of it. And the only possible benefit of all that confusion that he spins with such reckless abandon - is that he could then, perhaps, keep custody of that prize that he flaunts. Frankly I'm not sure that a perpetual motor would be adequately rewarded if his coins are all that's on offer. Golly. I would rather suggest that the inventor simply show that motor to a journalist. That should work. Rather well. I'll put my own money on a small wager that the reward for a perpetual motor would be well in excess of the value of those coins. And it would not need any complicated analysis to prove.
The follow up post is from MileHigh. To those with a longer memory than is usually evident on those forums - he's the gentleman who insisted that particles are moved by a gravitational force which prompted the following doggerel.
A man once said that he found
That particles don't move around.
Said 'You bet your ass
if a thing has got mass
then it's going to fall to the ground'.
Which is only intended to remind you all that his expertise is not in physics but in the well developed - and indeed, well articulated - 'art of denial' of all over unity claims. Unlike Physics Prof - his style of writing is commendably clear. But his posts are sadly repetitive. He does, however, have the occasional appropriate complaint against bad measurements. Unfortunately he tends to overlook the fact that most of those flaws are from the efforts of his own team. And the team? It's mostly just Grumpy the Poison Dwarf - who thinks that electrons respond to pressure - and some others whose names escape me at the moment. They are all well able to feed off their own vanity and the atmosphere of mutual congratulation. This is engendered as a reward for the absurd reaches of their improbable theories. And these, in turn, are flaunted all over the place. Their 'theories' if such they are, are a mishmash of the standard model and their own evident confusion imposed on that poor abused model. Just look at the PIN POUT terminology for a kick off. Golly.
So, dear reader - no doubt you are questioning why it is that I pay any attention at all to these 'trolls' whose overriding intention is clearly to diminish and deny any clear evidence of 'breach of unity'. I'll try and explain this. It is because we have here a text book example of how these trolls work and with it, the rather incontestable proof of their agenda - that conspiracy thing - that dogs these poor efforts of ours. And for once I can see the 'conspiracy' in action - the actual tried and tested methodology that is used. I've said it - often. Goebbels would have been proud to see how his young art has blossomed into full blown maturity.
For those with enough interest in this - here's the breakdown.
Posts: 431
PHYSICS PROF
"I do see where you're coming from, MH, and agree that a careful "energy audit" would be needed to check any claims of "Thane effect" or OU. Same problem occurred with the claims of Pons and Fleischmann, years ago, regarding large amounts of "excess heat" (energy) produced by "cold fusion."
That 'same problem'? The one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. Nothing could be quite as diverse as the level of heat and energy produced by the E-Cat as Thane's work, Nor is their any similarity at all in their technologies. This is that 'sideways' swipe to introduce a subject that is otherwise entirely irrelevant to that thread topic. And, of course, it has the real merit of tarnishing the manifold doubts about Thane's technology with any hope of credibility for Rossi.
PHYSICS PROF
"I say we should make careful measurements, be skeptical yes -- but also open-minded while the measurements are being made and experiments run."
Here I would point out that Physics Prof would be justified in this if he were able to give us some accurate measurements ever, on anything at all. It seems that his best efforts simply get snarled in confusion every time he references that PIN AND POUT terminology. No matter how careful ones measurements - they're meaningless in that context.
PHYSICS PROF
"Which brings me to Rossi's e-cat claims -- and bold claims they are (see PESN for example). I've been following this and asking questions. I would be very glad to be able to test a "Rossi device" -- I would look for gamma's from isotopes of copper allegedly produced in the reaction."
Stop right there. Here's the first bit of 'propaganda' - the first 'hint' at that agenda, the first 'allegation'. Rossi has NEVER claimed the presence of anything at all. He simply presented a sample for analysis. And he need not have bothered. Soon they'll have their own samples to test. So. Dear Physics Prof - please be informed. Rossi DID NOT make those 'bold claims' that you now allege are his. You are now promulgating, dare I say it - a lie? Or, if you prefer - a distortion of the truth. When and IF Rossi claims that there is copper in the 'mix' then - by all means - check it out. Until then, dear Reader, be advised. The evidence of copper and/or iron are NOT part of Rossi's claims. It is Kullander who is reporting on their results. NOT ROSSI
THE FOLLOWING QUOTED EXCERPT
'Ny Teknik: How do you interpret the results?
Kullander: Provided that copper is not one of the additives used as catalyst, the copper isotopes 63 and 65 can only have been formed during the process. Their presence is therefore a proof that nuclear reactions took place in the process. However, it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%). This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. However, there are two stable isotopes of nickel with low concentration, nickel-62 and nickel-64, which could conceivably contribute to copper production. According to Rossi copper is not among the additives. 100 grams of nickel had been used during 2.5 months of continuous heating with 10 kW output power. A straightforward calculation shows that a large proportion of the nickel must have been consumed if it was ‘burned’ in a nuclear process. It’s then somewhat strange that the isotopic composition doesn’t differ from the natural."
Here is the same argument that bedeviled the early Fleischmann Pons claim of cold fusion. The point is this. There is no evidence of any radioactive waste. That's the beauty of this technology. Who cares if it's a chemical or nuclear reaction. Fleischmann and Pons rather depended on it being attributed to a nuclear interaction as there was and is, otherwise, no explanation within the standard model for all that excess energy. And no-one was going to accredit an ANOMALY. But with a working model - a full blow technology - WHO CARES? You don't need an explanation. You just need to use all that abundant energy. Certainly the E-CAT proves the result. Rather in the same way as the Wright brothers put their planes in the sky well in advance of the theory that limped behind. Our academics were utterly disgraced by all their flaunted assumption proceeding all that evidence. Again. WHO CARES? Any user of electricity will be largely indifferent to the explanations.
PHYSICS PROF
"Indeed -- VERY strange that the copper in the "ash" after 2.5 months of running (with no copper initially) -- strange that the ash shows produced-copper in the "NATURAL isotopic composition"."
Are you, dear Physics Prof - trying to imply that the 'waste' sample was fudged? Tampered with? Surely not! That would be a blow below the belt! And surely you are above insinuating anything at all? Isn't that somewhat unprofessional? Regardless of which, we poor members of the public are sublimely indifferent to whether copper was added - deliberately or otherwise - by anyone at all. Rossi himself is surely indifferent. Unlike you he's got a working technology that can deliver a HUGE amount of energy at ridiculously low cost. And as you emphasise and as he claims - there is ABSOLUTELY NO RADIOACTIVE POISONOUS PRODUCTS from all that energy. That's a really good thing. Yet it seems that without having all that poisonous waste you're prepared to deny the experimental evidence of a really efficient energy source? That's hardly scientific. I would have thought that the thing to do is to research the explanation - not the results. They're unequivocal.
PHYSICS PROF
"it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%). This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. .
Right -- naturally-occurring nickel, as in the initial powder -- has this isotopic composition:
Quote
Ni-58 ( 68.077% ) Ni-60 ( 26.223% ) Ni-61 ( 1.140% ) Ni-62 ( 3.634% ) Ni-64 ( 0.926% )
http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/"
Up to this point we're engaged in a science lecture. Then comes the double whammy.
PHYSICS PROF
"Adding ONE proton to a Nickel nucleus as claimed by Rossi and Focardi.... "
No Professor of Physics. NOT AS CLAIMED BY ROSSI AND FOCARDI. As claimed by someone else - ENTIRELY. And as for this presumptuous piece of nonsense that follows.
PHYSICS PROF
"I wrote Rossi months ago and challenged him to allow gamma-detection during operation of his e-cat device. NO positive response from him yet. "
My question is quite simply - why should he engage in any discourse with a retired professor who busies himself in denying over unity claims, while he pretends to support the possibility? I'm reasonably satisfied that Rossi has more sense than to be sidetracked by someone with such obvious intentions to discredit a much required technology. He would rather look to those who are anxious to advance its applications. I know I would.
PHYSICS PROF
"But now we learn that the end products are NOT Cu-59 ... blah blah". Then... "Now how do you explain THAT? easy -- its CONTAMINATION of natural copper into his device. That's my preliminary conclusion. This conclusion is supported by the observed IRON (11%) in the final powder, see scientists' data released above. If there is NO contamination, then where did all that IRON come from?" THEN " BUT-- If its proton capture on nickel, as claimed by Rossi....."
There it is again. IT WAS NOT CLAIMED BY ROSSI. And then for this fabrication - where his early modest doubts are orchestrated into a sense of outrage ....
PHYSICS PROF
"-- then he's got some EXPLAINING TO DO." !!!!!
Well? What exactly? I don't actually think that Rossi owes you a brass dime - let alone an explanation. It is his research that you're attacking. He is NOT attacking you. Such absurd posturing Physics Prof. Whatever next? Golly.
And so the drivel continues.
PHYSICS PROF
"Do you grasp the problem? One more time: proton capture on the predominant isotope of NICKEL, Nickle-58 (68%) would produce Copper-59, not the observed Cu-63 (and Cu-65).
You have to add FOUR more NEUTRONS (not protons) to Cu-59 to get to stable Cu-63, and do it in less time than it takes for Cu-59 to decay away (half life of Cu-59 is only 81.5 seconds)."
Who cares? Really. Who gives a damn? For some reason you seem to think that your opinion matters?
PHYSICS PROF
"Which makes the balance of this just more unsubstantiated absurd nonsense. C'mon-- we're not that gullible... IMHO, we should be skeptical. Rossi is claiming a very specific process, proton capture on nickel, but the experimental RESULTS do not support his claims. Sorry."
We're all rather sorry - actually. But not about the E-cat. Just that you've stooped this low. The nice thing though is that your cards are now on the table and open to view. Dear Physics Professor - it is rather unseemly and decidedly unprofessional and certainly deceptive - to make so many allegations against anyone at all - on such obviously contradictory evidence. Then to try and substantiate it by referencing the equally unsubstantiated allegations and suspicions of Steven Krivit - who has half the academic stature of those associated with Rossi - is a little more than any of us can stomach. We are embarrassed for you Professor. One would have thought that - if you must cast your aspersions that you do it with a little more finesse than you seem to have managed. As it is - its an embarrassment of reckless abuse on the good name and hard work of a fellow scientist.
If I didn't know better I'd suspect that you are jealous of such startling brilliance. And for you to require a power measurement - without the total energy balance - is just a joke. I would refer you to that extraordinary nonsense when you attempted to analyse some of your work on that forum. I've copied the most of it as a record of how NOT TO DO A POWER ANALYSIS.
And as for this.
"A power measurement – without the total energy balance – is virtually meaningless. Without answers to these questions, this experiment and demonstration could easily be a scam. Sadly, I have been a first-hand witness to deceptions."
What deceptions? You are committing the folly of allegation. Give us facts. Then we can all pay attention. The only comfort is this. If he did not get this attack then it would be more than likely that he has nothing of interest to offer. Thank you, therefore, for alerting us to this technology and for giving us a clear indication of its value.
PHYSICS PROF
"The red flags with Rossi have been up for months."
NO PROFESSOR. THE RED FLAGS THAT HAVE BEEN FLYING HAVE BEEN FLYING AGAINST YOUR NAME - NOT ROSSI's.
186 - the relevance of cold fusion
Dear Reader,
I need to explain this. Cold fusion was the term that was finally chosen to explain how experimental evidence could result in more energy being dissipated than delivered. This, as we all know - is the Holy Grail of science and has long been considered to be impossible.
Well. The truth is that there is no proof yet that cold fusion or the low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) is indeed based on a nuclear interaction of any sort at all. This because there's no evidence of radioactive waste which is a required attendant to the fusion of two atoms into any new elements at all. Nor is there evidence of the creation of a new element as the composite of fusion. Certainly NOT in the experimental results of either Fleischmann and Pons - nor in this e-cat technology.
It is my contention that this overunity result is a galvanic or chemical interaction and that allows for a breach in our thermodynamic laws. And all this, simply due to the fact that Nature, indeed, has ALWAYS allowed for over unity - notwithstanding the rather anxious denial of this by by our learned and revered. Which denial is also rather neurotically referenced by our conventional energy producers. One could almost suppose that they are promoting their own monopolisitic interests. Golly.
I have said this 'ad nauseum' and will tax your patience - to say it again. There is absolutely nothing here that defies Einstein's mass energy equivalence. If one assumes that the actual 'exchange' is taken place not from an interaction between atoms and atoms - but between a hidden material binding those atoms - then over unity results are not only possible - but required.
To which end I am again linking you to the appendix on our paper on this. Please read it carefully. It is all very simple and ALL WITHIN THE STANDARD MODEL. NOTHING NEW. It's just that it trivialises all those pretentious muttering on current flow relying on the flow of electrons. I'll give that link too.
I have also said this before. Also rather repetitiously. Bear with me. The fact is that we are only now beginning to touch on the full potential of this energy source. And it's going to launch us into the stratosphere of knowledge that has entirely eluded us to date. Which is all very encouraging.
Click here and then just read the appendix which refers to this.
Here's that link.
and if you've got the stomach for rant - then click here to read about mainstream confusions related to theory
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I need to explain this. Cold fusion was the term that was finally chosen to explain how experimental evidence could result in more energy being dissipated than delivered. This, as we all know - is the Holy Grail of science and has long been considered to be impossible.
Well. The truth is that there is no proof yet that cold fusion or the low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) is indeed based on a nuclear interaction of any sort at all. This because there's no evidence of radioactive waste which is a required attendant to the fusion of two atoms into any new elements at all. Nor is there evidence of the creation of a new element as the composite of fusion. Certainly NOT in the experimental results of either Fleischmann and Pons - nor in this e-cat technology.
It is my contention that this overunity result is a galvanic or chemical interaction and that allows for a breach in our thermodynamic laws. And all this, simply due to the fact that Nature, indeed, has ALWAYS allowed for over unity - notwithstanding the rather anxious denial of this by by our learned and revered. Which denial is also rather neurotically referenced by our conventional energy producers. One could almost suppose that they are promoting their own monopolisitic interests. Golly.
I have said this 'ad nauseum' and will tax your patience - to say it again. There is absolutely nothing here that defies Einstein's mass energy equivalence. If one assumes that the actual 'exchange' is taken place not from an interaction between atoms and atoms - but between a hidden material binding those atoms - then over unity results are not only possible - but required.
To which end I am again linking you to the appendix on our paper on this. Please read it carefully. It is all very simple and ALL WITHIN THE STANDARD MODEL. NOTHING NEW. It's just that it trivialises all those pretentious muttering on current flow relying on the flow of electrons. I'll give that link too.
I have also said this before. Also rather repetitiously. Bear with me. The fact is that we are only now beginning to touch on the full potential of this energy source. And it's going to launch us into the stratosphere of knowledge that has entirely eluded us to date. Which is all very encouraging.
Click here and then just read the appendix which refers to this.
Here's that link.
and if you've got the stomach for rant - then click here to read about mainstream confusions related to theory
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
185 - more on cold fusion
Dear Reader,
I've confronted our local editors with a letter alerting them to this science. What's doubly intriguing is that I spoke to one of them to discover that they were entirely unaware of this development. Not an embargo on the news but simply that they did not know.
In any event I've written the following - surprisingly restrained account - in the fond hopes that he can use any or all of it to report on this as required.
COLD FUSION – AT LAST
Focardi and Rossi are producing generators for sale that are capable of delivering Megawatts of energy – at a fraction of the cost of our grid suppliers. This remarkable technology is already in production and orders can be placed that may liberate heavy duty, industrial production from any dependency on grid supplies.
The technology is based on what is commonly referred to as ‘cold fusion’ or alternatively low energy nuclear reaction or LENR. Both terms are misnomers as there is no scientific evidence of the poisonous radioactive waste products, which would be evidence of a nuclear reaction. Indeed the principles behind this technology are as little understood as they were during the late 1980’s when Fleischmann and Pons first introduced this concept based on experimental evidence of tests conducted with heavy water and palladium. Those tests sparked a debate that raged through the scientific community resulting in an outright denial of the claim. Indeed the entire field of study was relegated to a pathological science, which, today, is more broadly and tolerantly referred to as alternative science. Surprisingly there are some overt supporters of this science from highly respected academicians including Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson.
What is significant is that cold fusion, or LENR produces an energy efficiency that is cheaper than nuclear energy, does not run the risk of runaway catastrophic heat production potentials that bedevil nuclear production and has no radioactive or, indeed, any toxic waste products. It can take water to ‘steam’ to power generators – or it can be applied directly to the mains water supply to heat for production purposes. And it is all done at a fraction of the cost of our grid suppliers whether they be fuelled by nuclear or fossil fuel.
It has long been the ‘Holy Grail’ of science to find this level of efficiency in the transfer of energy – and it has also been widely considered to be impossible. This technology therefore is revolutionary and will entirely negate our pollutant excesses in our rather prodigal use of conventional energy supplies.
Links
www.ecat.com
http://www.leonardoecat.com/fp/Products/1MW_Plant/index.htm
I've confronted our local editors with a letter alerting them to this science. What's doubly intriguing is that I spoke to one of them to discover that they were entirely unaware of this development. Not an embargo on the news but simply that they did not know.
In any event I've written the following - surprisingly restrained account - in the fond hopes that he can use any or all of it to report on this as required.
COLD FUSION – AT LAST
Focardi and Rossi are producing generators for sale that are capable of delivering Megawatts of energy – at a fraction of the cost of our grid suppliers. This remarkable technology is already in production and orders can be placed that may liberate heavy duty, industrial production from any dependency on grid supplies.
The technology is based on what is commonly referred to as ‘cold fusion’ or alternatively low energy nuclear reaction or LENR. Both terms are misnomers as there is no scientific evidence of the poisonous radioactive waste products, which would be evidence of a nuclear reaction. Indeed the principles behind this technology are as little understood as they were during the late 1980’s when Fleischmann and Pons first introduced this concept based on experimental evidence of tests conducted with heavy water and palladium. Those tests sparked a debate that raged through the scientific community resulting in an outright denial of the claim. Indeed the entire field of study was relegated to a pathological science, which, today, is more broadly and tolerantly referred to as alternative science. Surprisingly there are some overt supporters of this science from highly respected academicians including Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson.
What is significant is that cold fusion, or LENR produces an energy efficiency that is cheaper than nuclear energy, does not run the risk of runaway catastrophic heat production potentials that bedevil nuclear production and has no radioactive or, indeed, any toxic waste products. It can take water to ‘steam’ to power generators – or it can be applied directly to the mains water supply to heat for production purposes. And it is all done at a fraction of the cost of our grid suppliers whether they be fuelled by nuclear or fossil fuel.
It has long been the ‘Holy Grail’ of science to find this level of efficiency in the transfer of energy – and it has also been widely considered to be impossible. This technology therefore is revolutionary and will entirely negate our pollutant excesses in our rather prodigal use of conventional energy supplies.
Links
www.ecat.com
http://www.leonardoecat.com/fp/Products/1MW_Plant/index.htm
Sunday, November 13, 2011
184 - Fleischmann and Pons - VINDICATED
Dear Reader
Here's where it's all happening
Please click on that link. An Italian team have ignored the academic argument against 'free energy' and simply gone ahead and manufactured their generators in defiance of mainstream prejudice. This is all rather in the spirit of the Wright Brothers who flew their planes while sundry academicians were publishing their theses on the 'impossibility of heavier than air flight'.
What is significant here is not the news so much as that there's no news about this at all. Where are our media? Where are those investigative reporters? What is happening to us all - boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen - that the most significant energy breakthrough EVER - is on the market - and is yet entirely UNHERALDED?
The news is wonderful indeed. What is alarming is that not our universities nor our media are dealing with this. If this situation persists - then I'm afraid that both these bodies will lose both their credibility with the public forever.
I think the only way to counter this news embargo is to please - whoever reads here - just forward that link to as many people as possible. Sooner or later there must be enough pressure from the public to insist that they address this.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Here's where it's all happening
Please click on that link. An Italian team have ignored the academic argument against 'free energy' and simply gone ahead and manufactured their generators in defiance of mainstream prejudice. This is all rather in the spirit of the Wright Brothers who flew their planes while sundry academicians were publishing their theses on the 'impossibility of heavier than air flight'.
What is significant here is not the news so much as that there's no news about this at all. Where are our media? Where are those investigative reporters? What is happening to us all - boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen - that the most significant energy breakthrough EVER - is on the market - and is yet entirely UNHERALDED?
The news is wonderful indeed. What is alarming is that not our universities nor our media are dealing with this. If this situation persists - then I'm afraid that both these bodies will lose both their credibility with the public forever.
I think the only way to counter this news embargo is to please - whoever reads here - just forward that link to as many people as possible. Sooner or later there must be enough pressure from the public to insist that they address this.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Friday, November 11, 2011
183 - so much to do - so little time
Dear Reader,
Tempus is fugitting and I'm in a mild state of panic that I have not yet written the paper on gravity. I'm now starting this - and am just trying to structure the argument that I can make use of our experimental evidence. I have a friend who has kindly agreed to do the illustrations - as required.
Which means that I'll be putting in very little time here. I'll try and dip in daily - as this blog of mine has a way of 'clearing the head' so to speak. It keeps my focus on the big picture.
And one part of that picture that needs highlighting is that our 'TROLLS' are moving away. What a pleasure. Personally I suspect it's because the dare not comment on our papers lest ever more of you notice it - read it - and then, God forbid, actualy get to understand it. lol. What fun.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Tempus is fugitting and I'm in a mild state of panic that I have not yet written the paper on gravity. I'm now starting this - and am just trying to structure the argument that I can make use of our experimental evidence. I have a friend who has kindly agreed to do the illustrations - as required.
Which means that I'll be putting in very little time here. I'll try and dip in daily - as this blog of mine has a way of 'clearing the head' so to speak. It keeps my focus on the big picture.
And one part of that picture that needs highlighting is that our 'TROLLS' are moving away. What a pleasure. Personally I suspect it's because the dare not comment on our papers lest ever more of you notice it - read it - and then, God forbid, actualy get to understand it. lol. What fun.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Thursday, November 10, 2011
182 - the soft underbelly of the forum and, indeed, of google
Dear Reader
With all that good news I challenged my own best efforts and managed to get a new thread started on overunity.com. I'll give a link hereunder.
Of interest is that - in no time at all - I was visited by a certain 'evolving ape' as he calls himself. Trolls come in many shapes and sizes. There are those who motivated by stupidity, those by jealousy and those by greed. And there are those who are kept in some considerable comfort by 'billing' our energy suppliers against the 'word count' of their posts - and, presumably, on their effectiveness. lol Some fall into all those categories. And all have varying levels of effectiveness. The point is that they confer. I see it in my minds eye as a kind of witches coven - where these self-serving entities live in the dark corners of the world. They contact each other and 'whisper'. Golly. A coven that has no fixed abode - no identifiable address and no accountable personalities. Which brings me back to evolving ape.
Clearly, as his name suggests, he's still at the 'brute' stage of evolution. A genetic 'throw back'. Low of brow - strong of tooth - long in the arms - short in the leg. But. He also has that primitive awareness of accountability. Loosely this means that he knows he could be made responsible for his comments. Therefore he follows the good example of all trolls and takes the precaution of hiding behind an avatar - an internet personality. And that's the point. They all do.
The only time that anyone can be taken with any degree of seriousness is when they are also able to put their names, addresses and full identities behind their statements. Else, dear trolls - to all of you - your statements are entirely discounted and simply read for their amusement value. Which is a good thing. Would that there was more wit and less ham fisted efforts at it.
And that is the soft underbelly of both Google and our forums. When the traducers are prepared to own up to their true indenties - then only will their comments carry any vestige of credibility. And this is where we are all likely to win this argument in the long run. The troll has no credibility until he's prepared to own up to his real identity.
So. Onwards and upwards. We're getting all that free publicity - from a handful of rather discredited and discreditable personalities. They are too ashamed of their statements to own them.
click here to go to that thread
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
With all that good news I challenged my own best efforts and managed to get a new thread started on overunity.com. I'll give a link hereunder.
Of interest is that - in no time at all - I was visited by a certain 'evolving ape' as he calls himself. Trolls come in many shapes and sizes. There are those who motivated by stupidity, those by jealousy and those by greed. And there are those who are kept in some considerable comfort by 'billing' our energy suppliers against the 'word count' of their posts - and, presumably, on their effectiveness. lol Some fall into all those categories. And all have varying levels of effectiveness. The point is that they confer. I see it in my minds eye as a kind of witches coven - where these self-serving entities live in the dark corners of the world. They contact each other and 'whisper'. Golly. A coven that has no fixed abode - no identifiable address and no accountable personalities. Which brings me back to evolving ape.
Clearly, as his name suggests, he's still at the 'brute' stage of evolution. A genetic 'throw back'. Low of brow - strong of tooth - long in the arms - short in the leg. But. He also has that primitive awareness of accountability. Loosely this means that he knows he could be made responsible for his comments. Therefore he follows the good example of all trolls and takes the precaution of hiding behind an avatar - an internet personality. And that's the point. They all do.
The only time that anyone can be taken with any degree of seriousness is when they are also able to put their names, addresses and full identities behind their statements. Else, dear trolls - to all of you - your statements are entirely discounted and simply read for their amusement value. Which is a good thing. Would that there was more wit and less ham fisted efforts at it.
And that is the soft underbelly of both Google and our forums. When the traducers are prepared to own up to their true indenties - then only will their comments carry any vestige of credibility. And this is where we are all likely to win this argument in the long run. The troll has no credibility until he's prepared to own up to his real identity.
So. Onwards and upwards. We're getting all that free publicity - from a handful of rather discredited and discreditable personalities. They are too ashamed of their statements to own them.
click here to go to that thread
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
181 - what price flat batteries? and how good is this?
Dear Reader,
The paper claims that the battery is a passive component to that extraordinary oscillation. I think the guys have now comprehensively proved this. We use wonderful batteries - a gift from First National Battery Supplies. They have a 50 watt hour rating. Well - in very nearly 2 years now - we have not been able to get their voltage below their fully charged condition - notwithstanding repeated efforts.
In order to test the 'passive' nature of that supply to the technology - the guys ran lights off three batteries to flatten them down to about 10 volts each. At this level they produced no light at all - as expected. Then we ran the experiment - off those 3 x 10 volts each giving a total voltage - notwithstanding their charge status - of plus 30 volts. The oscillation is ROBUST - the element too hot to touch - and the batteries sublimely unaware that they could not be delivering any energy at all.
We're going to tweak this to higher frequencies and then test this to the duration. But it's a breakthrough of no small order. It proves that current flow from the supply is not required for this effect - that the battery supply is secondary to this effect. It seems that an imbalanced voltage condition is enough to perpetuate that oscillation.
Which puts paid to the need for fully charged batteries to ignite your car's starters - to run your electric appliances - or any application whatsoever. It's amazing news. I'm going to try and alert the forum to this news. It needs to be better known.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
The paper claims that the battery is a passive component to that extraordinary oscillation. I think the guys have now comprehensively proved this. We use wonderful batteries - a gift from First National Battery Supplies. They have a 50 watt hour rating. Well - in very nearly 2 years now - we have not been able to get their voltage below their fully charged condition - notwithstanding repeated efforts.
In order to test the 'passive' nature of that supply to the technology - the guys ran lights off three batteries to flatten them down to about 10 volts each. At this level they produced no light at all - as expected. Then we ran the experiment - off those 3 x 10 volts each giving a total voltage - notwithstanding their charge status - of plus 30 volts. The oscillation is ROBUST - the element too hot to touch - and the batteries sublimely unaware that they could not be delivering any energy at all.
We're going to tweak this to higher frequencies and then test this to the duration. But it's a breakthrough of no small order. It proves that current flow from the supply is not required for this effect - that the battery supply is secondary to this effect. It seems that an imbalanced voltage condition is enough to perpetuate that oscillation.
Which puts paid to the need for fully charged batteries to ignite your car's starters - to run your electric appliances - or any application whatsoever. It's amazing news. I'm going to try and alert the forum to this news. It needs to be better known.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Monday, November 7, 2011
180 - golly. I think this may be verging on propaganda. Bear with me.
Dear Reader,
I have been thinking to what extent this technology could - in fact - be dangerous, in the sense that knowledge of atomic energy could be dangerous. It's a tricky question to answer - on so many levels.
Firstly - if and when this news were to break - there'd be a movement to decouple from our grid suppliers. That could be catastrophic to the best interests of some rather powerful monopolistic energy suppliers. Then there'd be the real potential to run our transport from self-charging battery supplies. And that would confront the best interests of some equally powerful oil cartels. Both our utility suppliers and our oil producers would also then be less able to supply the huge revenues that our centralised governments require. That would confront them with a need to impose an alternative control. Tricky. Then. As with the evolving realities of lights that have a durability measured in terms of generations rather than days - we'd systematically move away from our 'disposable' mindset - and the need to keep 'spending' for general maintenance - will thereby be negated.
Then to more benefits - more pluses. lol. We should be able to lower the cost of all manufactured goods. That will bring down the cost of living. And with easy access to knowledge that is electronically available - then the privilege of schooling will be better shared - that everyone can then develop their intellectual potential as required. That's got to be a good thing. Surely. There is nothing more satisfying than developing one's intellectual muscle.
Then - as I see it - there will be a two way growth. On the one side there will be those whose lives are committed to hedonistic pleasures and the pleasure of material acquisitions. And on the other hand there will be those who are committed to learning ever more about this hidden force field. And I fondly predict that our materialists will grow increasingly bored with all that readily available 'material' - while those that search for more answers will be forever and entirely engrossed in their quest. It's an inexhaustible field of knowledge.
All of which is a good thing. George Lucas you said it well. 'May the force be with you'. lol. BUT. Between that potential and our current austere realities - there's this front of denial that's absolutely at its last gasp. That, indeed is the real war. It is ARMAGEDDON - written large and everywhere. And, as prophesied - the forces of good must prevail lest we all commit social suicide as we co-operate with the disorderly - 'order' of things that currently prevails and that benefits such a small minority of our populations.
I don't think it's an easy road. But if and when we get to this required destiny of ours? Then I think that we will finally have found a sustainable and exciting evolutionary reach. All things are possible. This much is the only truth.
And regarding the dangers? What dangers? The fact is that when the 'have's' have as much as the 'have nots' then there's no further argument - anywhere. It will do wonders to promote tolerance between our various 'tribes'. It's that inequitable master/slave relationship that needs addressing - that is carefully disguised as the freedom to choose one's work - one's slave guild, one's religion. In truth there are no real choices available. There's got to be something better out there. And indeed there is. It's dangerously close - and it's the reality of free and abundant and clean energy. We've got all the proof we need. We just need that proof to be better known.
Kindest as ever
Rosemary
I have been thinking to what extent this technology could - in fact - be dangerous, in the sense that knowledge of atomic energy could be dangerous. It's a tricky question to answer - on so many levels.
Firstly - if and when this news were to break - there'd be a movement to decouple from our grid suppliers. That could be catastrophic to the best interests of some rather powerful monopolistic energy suppliers. Then there'd be the real potential to run our transport from self-charging battery supplies. And that would confront the best interests of some equally powerful oil cartels. Both our utility suppliers and our oil producers would also then be less able to supply the huge revenues that our centralised governments require. That would confront them with a need to impose an alternative control. Tricky. Then. As with the evolving realities of lights that have a durability measured in terms of generations rather than days - we'd systematically move away from our 'disposable' mindset - and the need to keep 'spending' for general maintenance - will thereby be negated.
Then to more benefits - more pluses. lol. We should be able to lower the cost of all manufactured goods. That will bring down the cost of living. And with easy access to knowledge that is electronically available - then the privilege of schooling will be better shared - that everyone can then develop their intellectual potential as required. That's got to be a good thing. Surely. There is nothing more satisfying than developing one's intellectual muscle.
Then - as I see it - there will be a two way growth. On the one side there will be those whose lives are committed to hedonistic pleasures and the pleasure of material acquisitions. And on the other hand there will be those who are committed to learning ever more about this hidden force field. And I fondly predict that our materialists will grow increasingly bored with all that readily available 'material' - while those that search for more answers will be forever and entirely engrossed in their quest. It's an inexhaustible field of knowledge.
All of which is a good thing. George Lucas you said it well. 'May the force be with you'. lol. BUT. Between that potential and our current austere realities - there's this front of denial that's absolutely at its last gasp. That, indeed is the real war. It is ARMAGEDDON - written large and everywhere. And, as prophesied - the forces of good must prevail lest we all commit social suicide as we co-operate with the disorderly - 'order' of things that currently prevails and that benefits such a small minority of our populations.
I don't think it's an easy road. But if and when we get to this required destiny of ours? Then I think that we will finally have found a sustainable and exciting evolutionary reach. All things are possible. This much is the only truth.
And regarding the dangers? What dangers? The fact is that when the 'have's' have as much as the 'have nots' then there's no further argument - anywhere. It will do wonders to promote tolerance between our various 'tribes'. It's that inequitable master/slave relationship that needs addressing - that is carefully disguised as the freedom to choose one's work - one's slave guild, one's religion. In truth there are no real choices available. There's got to be something better out there. And indeed there is. It's dangerously close - and it's the reality of free and abundant and clean energy. We've got all the proof we need. We just need that proof to be better known.
Kindest as ever
Rosemary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)