Dear Reader,
This is way off topic. But indulge me. As you all know, by now, my sojourn on the internet has been dogged by the rather noisy intervention of some sad little creatures who prefer to remain anonymous. Well. They have been invaluable - on more than one level.
In the first place, courtesy all that hysterical denial - I am able to measure the extent of their panic which is proportionate to the efficacy of our technology. In the second place, they have given me a variety of personality and character that I'm working into a little book that I am writing for my grandchildren. It's about Petal - the fairy that brings flowers to the world.
Huff'n Puff is a dragon that lives in the clouds. He's a manic depressive who takes himself excessively seriously. He's got the intellectual reach of clay brick and the tempestuous nature of a typhoon. He's based on MileHigh.
Then there's Bogus the Bullfrog. He's particular genius is centered in the art of denial. But Bogus is hooked on diet of worms and the worms only come out when it rains. And Huff'n Puff brings the rain. Which means that this toad rather trails in the wake of Huff'n Puff. Unlike Huff'n Puff who who's got a roar like thunder - poor little Bogus can only croak. And it becomes tediously monotonous. That's Fuzzy.
Then there's an extraordinary little creature - part imp, part man. But mostly just moustache. Fillapint Wayward. He's an inappropriate little menace who draws way too much attention to himself. Forever scrambling up mountains. He's a 'low down' life form, literally and figuratively. And to look down on people he first has to climb high. But he suffers from vertigo which means he's in a continual state of hysteria. That's Humbugger.
Then there's a variation of Plod the Policeman who is, on the whole, one of my favorite literary characters. He's called Major Mownin-Mynah. He's particular genius is to rally the forces to kill 'hope' along with little old ladies and pretty butterflies and anything in pink. Unfortunately he suffers from a squint and shoots at a tangent. Off centre. Off the mark. Off the point. Just a sociopathic bully. That's our pointedly pointless Poynty.
Then there's the excessively rotund caterpillar - 'Catas Trophia'. Her vocabulary is as thin as her body is fat. And she lives on a diet of Major Mynah's victims. When she can find any. She has a propensity to theatrics and is loosely based on a combination of the Muppets' Mrs Piggy and a lump of pure lard. Needless to say that's our cat-lady.
Catas Trophia is married to Gloom'n Doom - who looks like Jabba the Hut. He's the menace of the story because, unlike all the others he's got a natural low animal cunning. Gloom'n Doom continually spouts sanctimonious platitudes which does nothing to hide his true nature. He's particular art is the art of calumny and intrigue. He sort of waddles around - and whispers in dark corners. And he's friends with dark shadowy creatures. All negatively phototropic.
And so it goes. It's a rich pool of personality to draw from. Such fun. As I've mentioned it's off topic. But it's going to fill my holiday and I'll have the real benefit of reading the stories to my grandchildren to test the register - so to speak. Who knows, The antics of our trolls may yet be elevated to an art form.
lol
Kindest regards
Rosemary
By the way. I'll ask my son to start another blogspot for me - if it's allowed and then transfer this post and sundry sketches together with some stories - as a pre-print trial. See how it goes. It'll be nice way to relax and indulge some of my artistic pretensions.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Sunday, December 4, 2011
205 - dear sir
Dear Reader,
Finally a small letter published in the Argus, Friday 02nd December, 2011.
Dear Sir,
A NEW SOURCE OF ENERGY
Cold Fusion or Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) has now been harnessed in Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat technology. Not only are his units available for sale to the public, but they also have been demonstrated to generate upwards of 500-kilo watts. The claim is that these units are ‘self running’ and that the results have all the benefits of a nuclear process with none of those dangerous toxic emissions that bedevil our nuclear plants.
If this is true, then it seems that our own proposed expansion into 2 new nuclear power stations may be somewhat redundant as I, and I’m reasonably certain, the most of us, would prefer to decouple from our national supply grid. Our history there is plagued with escalating supply costs that far exceed the normal inflation rates. Quite apart from which, the supply itself is brittle and unreliable.
It intrigues me that this news has not been covered by our media – except on the Internet and with the entire exception of this one short article in the Boston Globe. The link refers. I wonder if you could perhaps give your readers the benefit of some investigative reporting into this. It would be nice to learn of the actual status here. Indeed, I suspect our Government and our COP 17 movement would also be delighted to learn of this. And unless the media address it, then it's unlikely that they'll learn of it. Traditionally it's the media who lead with this kind of news. If there is no merit in the claim, then early exposure would be valued. And, on the other hand, if there is, indeed merit – then it would be a ‘revolution’ in the making – as suggested in that article.
http://bostonglobe.com/business/2011/11/28/hope-skepticism-for-cold-fusion/w7FgGyI9Zx432chxuD5BEL/story.html
Kind regards,
Rosemary Ainslie
Finally a small letter published in the Argus, Friday 02nd December, 2011.
Dear Sir,
A NEW SOURCE OF ENERGY
Cold Fusion or Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) has now been harnessed in Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat technology. Not only are his units available for sale to the public, but they also have been demonstrated to generate upwards of 500-kilo watts. The claim is that these units are ‘self running’ and that the results have all the benefits of a nuclear process with none of those dangerous toxic emissions that bedevil our nuclear plants.
If this is true, then it seems that our own proposed expansion into 2 new nuclear power stations may be somewhat redundant as I, and I’m reasonably certain, the most of us, would prefer to decouple from our national supply grid. Our history there is plagued with escalating supply costs that far exceed the normal inflation rates. Quite apart from which, the supply itself is brittle and unreliable.
It intrigues me that this news has not been covered by our media – except on the Internet and with the entire exception of this one short article in the Boston Globe. The link refers. I wonder if you could perhaps give your readers the benefit of some investigative reporting into this. It would be nice to learn of the actual status here. Indeed, I suspect our Government and our COP 17 movement would also be delighted to learn of this. And unless the media address it, then it's unlikely that they'll learn of it. Traditionally it's the media who lead with this kind of news. If there is no merit in the claim, then early exposure would be valued. And, on the other hand, if there is, indeed merit – then it would be a ‘revolution’ in the making – as suggested in that article.
http://bostonglobe.com/business/2011/11/28/hope-skepticism-for-cold-fusion/w7FgGyI9Zx432chxuD5BEL/story.html
Kind regards,
Rosemary Ainslie
204 - AT LAST
Dear Reader,
Today is a red letter day. I have finally managed to make contact with Rossi. Here's the letter that I wrote subsequent to sending him those two papers of ours.
What a pleasure. Hopefully we'll hear more from him in due course.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Dear Andrea,
This is – very broadly – the synopsis.
The thesis argues that magnetic fields are a primary force and that all the forces are the effects from varying dimensional structures of these magnetic fields. The fields themselves are structured from magnetic dipoles that naturally organise into ‘closed strings’. The fields are dynamic and they orbit at a velocity of 2C.
These fields come in three dimensions. So, a 1 dimensional field (a binding field) is responsible for the weak nuclear interaction including the electromagnetic and the galvanic processes. 2 dimensional fields, (having length and breadth) are responsible for the strong nuclear force. And finally, 3 dimensional fields (having length, breadth and depth) is the torus, which is associated with a complete magnetic field. This is responsible for gravity.
Where it deviates from the standard model is only in this. It proposes that magnetic fields comprise this non-standard dipole that has a velocity that exceeds light speed. It also proposes that a magnetic field is a primary force underpinning all the known forces. In all other respects it conforms ENTIRELY to the standard model. It would explain the existence and operation of the forces – and it would account for the Casimir effect. and it would be precisely related to Plank’s constant. Because – in a field – they orbit at velocities that exceed light speed, then light cannot find these particles. Therefore they remain ‘dark’ – outside our abilities to detect it. Effectively they operate in a dimension of time that exceeds our own abilities to measure it. Therefore it relates precisely to the ‘dark’ energy that has been measured by our astrophysicists.
As this relates to your own system, the proposal is that these fields are responsible for binding coalesced matter. Read the appendix to the second part of that two-part paper. In a chaotic state which is when the particle is NOT in an orbital field formation – then the particles become as hot and as big and as slow as they were previously cold and small and fast. But in their ‘hot’ state, they are no longer ‘binding’ that coalesced material. Therefore the bound condition becomes compromised. This would enable the contamination of anything within range of those chaotic particles. For example, should copper be proximate – then the copper atoms would decouple from their coalesced condition and loosen from the structure.
The thing is this. If there is an intrinsic molecular imbalance which occurs when more binding fields are available than required to ‘bind’ that material - then the condition of chaos can be perpetuated to become self sustaining. Our test 3 of the 1st part of that paper refers. As, indeed, do the results in your own experimental evidence. Then the requirement is to continually apply more material to reduce the rate of that interaction which, otherwise, will become catastrophically hot. We both applied water. You did this to much greater force and effect. LOL
But here’s the thing Andrea. We have only defined a magnetic field as being ‘structured’ from a magnetic dipole. I’ve presumed to call this a ‘zipon’ because it sort of relates to a required function to ‘zip’ on and off atoms – or to ‘zip’ in and out of a field condition. And then it links to the thing that it IS, which is related to ‘zero point’ energy. But call it what you will. The minute you apply a particle to the magnetic field – then all those unanswered questions of our Greats – fall into place. It explains the existence of that ‘other’ dimension – which is required to explain many paradoxes including questions of ‘locality’. It also marries those diverse branches of physics including quantum and classical – dark forces and string theories. And it is ONLY based on an extension to Faraday’s Lines of Force. It is better explained in the appendix to our second paper.
Incidentally – we have been able to reconcile the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron – using this field. And this was managed, through the simple means of analysing stable particles as composites of these fundamental magnetic dipoles. And, more to the point – it localises that ‘dark energy’ that our astrophysicists require. I suspect that they may be pleased to hear of this – as it explains so much.
But most significantly – this explanation does NOT deviate – in any way – from the standard model. It’s only an extension. And the minute you apply this ‘extension’ then, as mentioned, everything sort of falls into place.
Let me know if you want to discuss this further.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Today is a red letter day. I have finally managed to make contact with Rossi. Here's the letter that I wrote subsequent to sending him those two papers of ours.
What a pleasure. Hopefully we'll hear more from him in due course.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Dear Andrea,
This is – very broadly – the synopsis.
The thesis argues that magnetic fields are a primary force and that all the forces are the effects from varying dimensional structures of these magnetic fields. The fields themselves are structured from magnetic dipoles that naturally organise into ‘closed strings’. The fields are dynamic and they orbit at a velocity of 2C.
These fields come in three dimensions. So, a 1 dimensional field (a binding field) is responsible for the weak nuclear interaction including the electromagnetic and the galvanic processes. 2 dimensional fields, (having length and breadth) are responsible for the strong nuclear force. And finally, 3 dimensional fields (having length, breadth and depth) is the torus, which is associated with a complete magnetic field. This is responsible for gravity.
Where it deviates from the standard model is only in this. It proposes that magnetic fields comprise this non-standard dipole that has a velocity that exceeds light speed. It also proposes that a magnetic field is a primary force underpinning all the known forces. In all other respects it conforms ENTIRELY to the standard model. It would explain the existence and operation of the forces – and it would account for the Casimir effect. and it would be precisely related to Plank’s constant. Because – in a field – they orbit at velocities that exceed light speed, then light cannot find these particles. Therefore they remain ‘dark’ – outside our abilities to detect it. Effectively they operate in a dimension of time that exceeds our own abilities to measure it. Therefore it relates precisely to the ‘dark’ energy that has been measured by our astrophysicists.
As this relates to your own system, the proposal is that these fields are responsible for binding coalesced matter. Read the appendix to the second part of that two-part paper. In a chaotic state which is when the particle is NOT in an orbital field formation – then the particles become as hot and as big and as slow as they were previously cold and small and fast. But in their ‘hot’ state, they are no longer ‘binding’ that coalesced material. Therefore the bound condition becomes compromised. This would enable the contamination of anything within range of those chaotic particles. For example, should copper be proximate – then the copper atoms would decouple from their coalesced condition and loosen from the structure.
The thing is this. If there is an intrinsic molecular imbalance which occurs when more binding fields are available than required to ‘bind’ that material - then the condition of chaos can be perpetuated to become self sustaining. Our test 3 of the 1st part of that paper refers. As, indeed, do the results in your own experimental evidence. Then the requirement is to continually apply more material to reduce the rate of that interaction which, otherwise, will become catastrophically hot. We both applied water. You did this to much greater force and effect. LOL
But here’s the thing Andrea. We have only defined a magnetic field as being ‘structured’ from a magnetic dipole. I’ve presumed to call this a ‘zipon’ because it sort of relates to a required function to ‘zip’ on and off atoms – or to ‘zip’ in and out of a field condition. And then it links to the thing that it IS, which is related to ‘zero point’ energy. But call it what you will. The minute you apply a particle to the magnetic field – then all those unanswered questions of our Greats – fall into place. It explains the existence of that ‘other’ dimension – which is required to explain many paradoxes including questions of ‘locality’. It also marries those diverse branches of physics including quantum and classical – dark forces and string theories. And it is ONLY based on an extension to Faraday’s Lines of Force. It is better explained in the appendix to our second paper.
Incidentally – we have been able to reconcile the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron – using this field. And this was managed, through the simple means of analysing stable particles as composites of these fundamental magnetic dipoles. And, more to the point – it localises that ‘dark energy’ that our astrophysicists require. I suspect that they may be pleased to hear of this – as it explains so much.
But most significantly – this explanation does NOT deviate – in any way – from the standard model. It’s only an extension. And the minute you apply this ‘extension’ then, as mentioned, everything sort of falls into place.
Let me know if you want to discuss this further.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
202 - I am reminded
Dear Reader,
Do not, EVER, assume that there is not a conspiracy - ALIVE AND WELL - that is effectively denying the truth of 'free energy'. It constantly amazes me how effective is this counter information program. Our energy monopolists are well served by the following.
1
First and foremost is the happy truth that theoretical physics is COMPLICATED. It serves their cause well. Science is a subtle art that relies on conceptual understandings which, in turn, need advanced mathematics for its full description. That puts the intellectual knowledge out of the reach of public comment. And way outside the reach of mere public comprehension.
2
Then there's an even more pernicious arrow to their bow. It's the simple fact that all and sundry are well served in maintaining an attitude of 'judicious scepticism' or 'skepticism' as you Americans insist on misspelling it. Either way, we are considered adult and reasonable to dismiss rather accept evidence. So much more 'grown up' - so to speak. So much more REASONABLE.
3
Then there's all that evidence that abounds in those 'free energy forums'. The members are usually recklessly hopeful that they can, collectively, challenge anything at all - least of all with the mere proof in experimental results. Such absurd optimism. That hopefullness, that optimism, is, unfortunately thereby tarnished by a lack of - 'judicious scepticism'. Altogether too buoyant and too 'in your face' to be credible.
4
Then, when the truth rings out too clearly, there's an immediate solution. Employ the 'trolls' those well fed dogs - to come and DENY ALL. That part's easy. They not only display an excess of all that 'judicious scepticism' but they compound it with a welter of incomprehensible claptrap - disguised as 'advanced knowledge'. Effectively they dispute EVERYTHING - and disprove NOTHING AT ALL. But the readers at those forums are then somewhat confused. Who to believe? Who not to believe? Until the entire question is dismissed for want of an answer.
5
And if that evidence is still too GLARING - too CONSPICUOUS - then the solution is to attack the character of the claimant - and their reputation. That part's easy. It requires any reach into any allegations at all - without any attendant need to support that allegation with proof. That's the technique that was developed by Goebbels et al - refined to an art form during Hitlers sojourn with history.
6
And the trolls are in the pay of - God knows who? But since their efforts best serve the energy monopolists - who in turn serve the Governments - then? Still a tricky question to answer. One never knows if the Governments are in the pockets of those monopolists - or if the Governments license those monopolists. I'd say it's a symbiotic relationship - where the monopolists tend to better long term benefits.
7
But finally it's our media. That 'voice of the few' masquerading as the 'voice of the people'. God spare us from the effects of their work. It's where judicious scepticism is poisoned by the toxic requirements of the monopolists and our governments - to ENDORSE THEIR POLICIES. They can pretend to any kind of objection - unless and until it rocks the corner stone foundational structures that support the power of both. And when it comes to free energy then they're definitely applying a pick axe to all that support.
It's complex. I've barely touched on it all. But the good news - notwithstanding - is that 'TRUTH WILL OUT'. Whatever else history has shown us - where truth shines, however dimly - it eventually shines bright. And of all those listed here - hopefully it'll show up the rather 'red' faces of our editorial staff and their witting or unwitting cooperation with our monopolists' agendas.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
by the by. Here's what reminded me.
Click here. It's simply the previous post for those who missed it
Do not, EVER, assume that there is not a conspiracy - ALIVE AND WELL - that is effectively denying the truth of 'free energy'. It constantly amazes me how effective is this counter information program. Our energy monopolists are well served by the following.
1
First and foremost is the happy truth that theoretical physics is COMPLICATED. It serves their cause well. Science is a subtle art that relies on conceptual understandings which, in turn, need advanced mathematics for its full description. That puts the intellectual knowledge out of the reach of public comment. And way outside the reach of mere public comprehension.
2
Then there's an even more pernicious arrow to their bow. It's the simple fact that all and sundry are well served in maintaining an attitude of 'judicious scepticism' or 'skepticism' as you Americans insist on misspelling it. Either way, we are considered adult and reasonable to dismiss rather accept evidence. So much more 'grown up' - so to speak. So much more REASONABLE.
3
Then there's all that evidence that abounds in those 'free energy forums'. The members are usually recklessly hopeful that they can, collectively, challenge anything at all - least of all with the mere proof in experimental results. Such absurd optimism. That hopefullness, that optimism, is, unfortunately thereby tarnished by a lack of - 'judicious scepticism'. Altogether too buoyant and too 'in your face' to be credible.
4
Then, when the truth rings out too clearly, there's an immediate solution. Employ the 'trolls' those well fed dogs - to come and DENY ALL. That part's easy. They not only display an excess of all that 'judicious scepticism' but they compound it with a welter of incomprehensible claptrap - disguised as 'advanced knowledge'. Effectively they dispute EVERYTHING - and disprove NOTHING AT ALL. But the readers at those forums are then somewhat confused. Who to believe? Who not to believe? Until the entire question is dismissed for want of an answer.
5
And if that evidence is still too GLARING - too CONSPICUOUS - then the solution is to attack the character of the claimant - and their reputation. That part's easy. It requires any reach into any allegations at all - without any attendant need to support that allegation with proof. That's the technique that was developed by Goebbels et al - refined to an art form during Hitlers sojourn with history.
6
And the trolls are in the pay of - God knows who? But since their efforts best serve the energy monopolists - who in turn serve the Governments - then? Still a tricky question to answer. One never knows if the Governments are in the pockets of those monopolists - or if the Governments license those monopolists. I'd say it's a symbiotic relationship - where the monopolists tend to better long term benefits.
7
But finally it's our media. That 'voice of the few' masquerading as the 'voice of the people'. God spare us from the effects of their work. It's where judicious scepticism is poisoned by the toxic requirements of the monopolists and our governments - to ENDORSE THEIR POLICIES. They can pretend to any kind of objection - unless and until it rocks the corner stone foundational structures that support the power of both. And when it comes to free energy then they're definitely applying a pick axe to all that support.
It's complex. I've barely touched on it all. But the good news - notwithstanding - is that 'TRUTH WILL OUT'. Whatever else history has shown us - where truth shines, however dimly - it eventually shines bright. And of all those listed here - hopefully it'll show up the rather 'red' faces of our editorial staff and their witting or unwitting cooperation with our monopolists' agendas.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
by the by. Here's what reminded me.
Click here. It's simply the previous post for those who missed it
201 - for the record
Dear Reader,
just another one of those 'for the record' numbers. It's a letter I wrote to the editor of the *****.
Dear Sir,
Unlike most of your readers, I am in the happy position of being able to attest to the active role your newspaper played in keeping some critical information regarding Rossi’s E-Cat - out of the public eye. I tried to alert you to this technology. WHAT WAS I THINKING? I know better now. We understand NOTHING without your guidance.
I am also reminded about the critical role that the media engaged in denying that cold fusion technology of Fleischmann and Pons. They also managed the much needed and complete annihilation of their reputations. To this day and even as mentioned in the reference attached here, the technology is ‘haunted by previous “cold fusion’’ claims that have gone unproven’. In fact the technology WAS proven. Only the explanation was lacking. But, there again. Who cares? It was enough to bury the technology for a couple of decades or so – while our monopolists made us ever more gridlocked and themselves ever richer. That’s the real scoop.
Meanwhile, clearly, we are all indebted - quite literally. Far be it from anyone at all to frustrate the progress of our nuclear expansion program. While this will inevitably leave the entire South African population deep in the red - for generations to come, it will assuredly continue to enrich our utility suppliers. Which is a very a good thing. Without that indebtedness God knows where we’ll all squander our money? And who then will fund our Governments and our university research programs into the myriad ways to use conventional energy supplies?
And, in conclusion, and at its least, we have you, our dear editorial staff of this and many other ‘rags’ to thank for keeping this knowledge out of the public eye. Would that the Boston Herald would follow your good example. But even there, ALL IS NOT LOST. They have not written that the technology works. On the contrary. There's also no reference to the prior accreditation of Focardi, Del Gudice, Celani, Stremmenos and Preparta who are merely EXPERTS in the field. It’s a little worrisome though that so many academics attended that meeting. One hopes they know better than to speak out openly in support of that technology.
So. Again. Thank you, dear sir, for your extraordinary efforts at intervening in our reckless efforts to get this information known. And in the unlikely even that anyone wants to look up this Boston Globe article. Here it is.
http://bostonglobe.com/business/2011/11/28/hope-skepticism-for-cold-fusion/w7FgGyI9Zx432chxuD5BEL/story.html
Kindest regards
Rosemary Ainslie
click here for a direct link to that article.
the Boston Globe article
just another one of those 'for the record' numbers. It's a letter I wrote to the editor of the *****.
Dear Sir,
Unlike most of your readers, I am in the happy position of being able to attest to the active role your newspaper played in keeping some critical information regarding Rossi’s E-Cat - out of the public eye. I tried to alert you to this technology. WHAT WAS I THINKING? I know better now. We understand NOTHING without your guidance.
I am also reminded about the critical role that the media engaged in denying that cold fusion technology of Fleischmann and Pons. They also managed the much needed and complete annihilation of their reputations. To this day and even as mentioned in the reference attached here, the technology is ‘haunted by previous “cold fusion’’ claims that have gone unproven’. In fact the technology WAS proven. Only the explanation was lacking. But, there again. Who cares? It was enough to bury the technology for a couple of decades or so – while our monopolists made us ever more gridlocked and themselves ever richer. That’s the real scoop.
Meanwhile, clearly, we are all indebted - quite literally. Far be it from anyone at all to frustrate the progress of our nuclear expansion program. While this will inevitably leave the entire South African population deep in the red - for generations to come, it will assuredly continue to enrich our utility suppliers. Which is a very a good thing. Without that indebtedness God knows where we’ll all squander our money? And who then will fund our Governments and our university research programs into the myriad ways to use conventional energy supplies?
And, in conclusion, and at its least, we have you, our dear editorial staff of this and many other ‘rags’ to thank for keeping this knowledge out of the public eye. Would that the Boston Herald would follow your good example. But even there, ALL IS NOT LOST. They have not written that the technology works. On the contrary. There's also no reference to the prior accreditation of Focardi, Del Gudice, Celani, Stremmenos and Preparta who are merely EXPERTS in the field. It’s a little worrisome though that so many academics attended that meeting. One hopes they know better than to speak out openly in support of that technology.
So. Again. Thank you, dear sir, for your extraordinary efforts at intervening in our reckless efforts to get this information known. And in the unlikely even that anyone wants to look up this Boston Globe article. Here it is.
http://bostonglobe.com/business/2011/11/28/hope-skepticism-for-cold-fusion/w7FgGyI9Zx432chxuD5BEL/story.html
Kindest regards
Rosemary Ainslie
click here for a direct link to that article.
the Boston Globe article
Sunday, November 27, 2011
200 - the dogs have lost their teeth - thank God.
Dear Reader,
I am beginning to realise that we're winning the theoretical argument - probably based on that second part of our 2-part paper. The evidence is this. Where before I was hounded by detractors from hell at every post that I made - I now see none of those dogs snapping at my heels or even bothering to bark. Indeed. We're even in receipt of some rather qualified but, nonetheless, support and well wishes, from some highly esteemed academics - thus far 5. Which is a handful. lol. When we get to a round dozen - then we've got a full jury and, subject to their permission, I may even make their support public.
The fact is, nonetheless, that our own experimental evidence is already antiquated by Rossi's technology. And the further truth is that it will not be long before even his technology is outmoded and eclipsed. It's the nature of the beast. What Rossi has brought to the table is something that will rock our science at its foundations with a level of experimental evidence that will FINALLY gainsay all that prejudice against it. It's been insufferably difficult path for Rossi. Clearly the man has been flirting with mainstream prejudices for a while now. He was first hounded to hell from his Petroldragon ventures - and now, with this new discovery of his, I'm satisfied that the level of attack will be exponentially increased. But he's strong - and more to the point his evidence speaks way louder than his detractors. FOR ONCE. That's a very good thing.
Meanwhile, we hope that he'll be alert to our own explanations which I'm reasonably certain he could use to justify those values that are so hotly contended. It's easy to argue provided only that one proposes that little magnetic dipole to the magnetic field. How easy is that? Then everything really does just fall into place.
Roll of 2012. I know we've reached a very critical junction in our path. My own little contribution is to show all this in some readily understood pictures. Can't wait. Science made logical. It'll be a first. But, unfortunately for some - it will make this accessible to EVERYONE. Within easy intellectual reach. Needless to say it could be fueled for and against an orderly transition. But I'm satisfied that it'll be a good thing. It levels the playing fields for starters. That's likely to make it less confrontational for the most of us. And hopefully the good of the many will somehow prevail.
Just for the record though. We are also able to take water to boil at no apparent cost of any energy at all from a battery supply source. Smaller - much smaller (lol) quantities than Rossi. But it's there. Therefore, should Rossi's technology be effectively denied, or refused, or frustrated - then there's another string to the bow - or bullet to the gun - as required. So. My advice to anyone who is still trying to frustrate all that evidence. You're wasting your time. These truths are likely to leak out all over the place with some considerable discomfort to our energy monopolists. That's a discomfort that I'm happy to advance.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I am beginning to realise that we're winning the theoretical argument - probably based on that second part of our 2-part paper. The evidence is this. Where before I was hounded by detractors from hell at every post that I made - I now see none of those dogs snapping at my heels or even bothering to bark. Indeed. We're even in receipt of some rather qualified but, nonetheless, support and well wishes, from some highly esteemed academics - thus far 5. Which is a handful. lol. When we get to a round dozen - then we've got a full jury and, subject to their permission, I may even make their support public.
The fact is, nonetheless, that our own experimental evidence is already antiquated by Rossi's technology. And the further truth is that it will not be long before even his technology is outmoded and eclipsed. It's the nature of the beast. What Rossi has brought to the table is something that will rock our science at its foundations with a level of experimental evidence that will FINALLY gainsay all that prejudice against it. It's been insufferably difficult path for Rossi. Clearly the man has been flirting with mainstream prejudices for a while now. He was first hounded to hell from his Petroldragon ventures - and now, with this new discovery of his, I'm satisfied that the level of attack will be exponentially increased. But he's strong - and more to the point his evidence speaks way louder than his detractors. FOR ONCE. That's a very good thing.
Meanwhile, we hope that he'll be alert to our own explanations which I'm reasonably certain he could use to justify those values that are so hotly contended. It's easy to argue provided only that one proposes that little magnetic dipole to the magnetic field. How easy is that? Then everything really does just fall into place.
Roll of 2012. I know we've reached a very critical junction in our path. My own little contribution is to show all this in some readily understood pictures. Can't wait. Science made logical. It'll be a first. But, unfortunately for some - it will make this accessible to EVERYONE. Within easy intellectual reach. Needless to say it could be fueled for and against an orderly transition. But I'm satisfied that it'll be a good thing. It levels the playing fields for starters. That's likely to make it less confrontational for the most of us. And hopefully the good of the many will somehow prevail.
Just for the record though. We are also able to take water to boil at no apparent cost of any energy at all from a battery supply source. Smaller - much smaller (lol) quantities than Rossi. But it's there. Therefore, should Rossi's technology be effectively denied, or refused, or frustrated - then there's another string to the bow - or bullet to the gun - as required. So. My advice to anyone who is still trying to frustrate all that evidence. You're wasting your time. These truths are likely to leak out all over the place with some considerable discomfort to our energy monopolists. That's a discomfort that I'm happy to advance.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Thursday, November 24, 2011
199 - here's hoping our reviewers will 'put foot'
Dear Reader,
here's the letter to our editor.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Dear Professor,
It seems that these delays in publishing our paper have allowed the news of Rossi's E-CAT to advance our own news. Not that I mind - one little bit - as it's all grist to the mill.
I wonder if I can impose on you to please read that second part of that 2-part paper. You will see that it argues that so called 'over unity' is the inevitable consequence when one uses 'dark energy' which, we argue is simply 'magnetic energy' from the primary Magnetic Force.
This has the very real merit of reconciling some diverse branches of physics without a required revision to the standard model. I am reasonably satisfied that the argument is well articulated as I have comments on record about this from some very prestigious academics to whom I've shown that paper. I also understand that I've made an error - in the nature of a 'typo' where I reference Power = vi dt where I should have written 'energy'. It's correctly referenced elsewhere in both papers. And that error is correctible. Apart from that I've only had favourable comments - in those few instances where the recipients commented at all.
I wonder if I could impose on you to please advise us of the status of that paper. We have not managed to solicit a response to our earlier request on this.
And, in conclusion, dear Professor ******, I wonder if it would not be as well to at least put those questions out there. We are not being pedantic in our proposed solutions to this. It may initiate the required dialogue amongst those academics that they evaluate this energy as coming from an alternate force to those proposed in the standard model. And it may help to advance Rossi's technology which is so urgently required. Certainly the debate needs initiation and then our learned academics can argue the need for those emissions that are sorely lacking in the LENR technology. If this is, indeed, determined as 'dark energy' which is what we propose - then there is an immediate explanation and the standard model is entirely secured - notwithstanding.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary.
here's the letter to our editor.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Dear Professor,
It seems that these delays in publishing our paper have allowed the news of Rossi's E-CAT to advance our own news. Not that I mind - one little bit - as it's all grist to the mill.
I wonder if I can impose on you to please read that second part of that 2-part paper. You will see that it argues that so called 'over unity' is the inevitable consequence when one uses 'dark energy' which, we argue is simply 'magnetic energy' from the primary Magnetic Force.
This has the very real merit of reconciling some diverse branches of physics without a required revision to the standard model. I am reasonably satisfied that the argument is well articulated as I have comments on record about this from some very prestigious academics to whom I've shown that paper. I also understand that I've made an error - in the nature of a 'typo' where I reference Power = vi dt where I should have written 'energy'. It's correctly referenced elsewhere in both papers. And that error is correctible. Apart from that I've only had favourable comments - in those few instances where the recipients commented at all.
I wonder if I could impose on you to please advise us of the status of that paper. We have not managed to solicit a response to our earlier request on this.
And, in conclusion, dear Professor ******, I wonder if it would not be as well to at least put those questions out there. We are not being pedantic in our proposed solutions to this. It may initiate the required dialogue amongst those academics that they evaluate this energy as coming from an alternate force to those proposed in the standard model. And it may help to advance Rossi's technology which is so urgently required. Certainly the debate needs initiation and then our learned academics can argue the need for those emissions that are sorely lacking in the LENR technology. If this is, indeed, determined as 'dark energy' which is what we propose - then there is an immediate explanation and the standard model is entirely secured - notwithstanding.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary.
198 - breakthroughs - all over the place
Dear Reader,
There is the real promise FINALLY of getting the news of both ours and, more especially, Rossi's technology - to the public. NOT MUCH LONGER NOW. And possibly even before Christmas.
It's important. We need the public to know that there is information ABOUNDING that allows access to clean and abundant energy. And then that public can ask our very learned and revered - why the HELL they're ignoring all this evidence? Indeed. Our academics will need to rally because IF they don't - they'll finally lose all credibility and respect and with it - their authority on matters scientific. I'm sure they'll not put that to risk.
Then more good news. It may be possible to fund the required to interpret the model in terms of simple patterns that you can all better understand what I've been banging on about for so long. The model is EASILY explicable diagrammatically - pictorially, fractally? - if that's even a word? In any event, it's impossibly difficult to explain it with words. The diagrams are that simple and the fractals - so logical - that I promise you this. Your own children - or grandchildren - from the age of 7 years or younger, will be able to understand it - let alone the rest of us - regardless of our age. Science rendered as it should be - conceptually and logically. AND - it does not conflict with what our greats have been teaching us for so, SO long.
Then that will give a result that will make this technology so well understood - that absolutely no individual will be able to claim any recognition for 'leading' this - least of all - ourselves. It is our heritage and it is courtesy our Greats - but it will be rendered in terms that are understandable and purely conceptual. AT LAST. So when we reach into this elusive field to extract all that available energy - then we can do so with the required circumspection and modesty that this will require.
And all this is a consequence that is 'devoutly to be wished' because I am reasonably satisfied that it will re-awaken a sense of the 'orderliness' and 'permanence' of our universal order - and our need to assume better accountability for the role we play in it. Sorely lacking. All's well with God, and all's well with His universe. We, on the other hand, have been somewhat reckless and somewhat presumptuous in imposing our own fallible solutions onto His greater plan. Which possibly sounds insufferably sanctimonious. But please bear with me. One cannot look at even this very small part of such a beautiful pattern without acknowledging a sense of wonder and awe. Which is why I've been compelled to keep plugging all this.
Finally, Dear Reader, just know this. If you Google my name - the very first reference is to that claim that I am a fraud. THAT is the proof of the efficacy of our TROLLS. They engineered the 'hits' that this has now become the very first reference to any search into my name as it's associated with this technology. Please READ THE COMMENTS to make yourself UTTERLY familiar with the caliber of that handful of anonymous posters - to familiarise yourself with their toxic mindset. And then you will KNOW - that this is what we're up against. It has not made a blind bit of difference to the growth of this knowledge - nor to that small part that I play in this - and, it is there as EVIDENCE of the rather hysterical requirement of these competing interests to throw discredit in the face of this growing knowledge. That conspiracy thing - that is so vocally denied by those many that have themselves been seduced by those allegations - IT'S ALIVE AND WELL. We're fighting an insurgent war here guys. I just hope that I'll survive long enough to see this wonderful energy abundance brought to the world.
So. Very soon now you will, all of you, be able to understand the model - and then apply it in just so many ways that's on offer. I can't wait. All this news will be broadcast soon - and my article may yet be published. What a pleasure.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
by the by - PLEASE - let as many people as possible know about cold fusion. The word cannot be spread fast enough.
There is the real promise FINALLY of getting the news of both ours and, more especially, Rossi's technology - to the public. NOT MUCH LONGER NOW. And possibly even before Christmas.
It's important. We need the public to know that there is information ABOUNDING that allows access to clean and abundant energy. And then that public can ask our very learned and revered - why the HELL they're ignoring all this evidence? Indeed. Our academics will need to rally because IF they don't - they'll finally lose all credibility and respect and with it - their authority on matters scientific. I'm sure they'll not put that to risk.
Then more good news. It may be possible to fund the required to interpret the model in terms of simple patterns that you can all better understand what I've been banging on about for so long. The model is EASILY explicable diagrammatically - pictorially, fractally? - if that's even a word? In any event, it's impossibly difficult to explain it with words. The diagrams are that simple and the fractals - so logical - that I promise you this. Your own children - or grandchildren - from the age of 7 years or younger, will be able to understand it - let alone the rest of us - regardless of our age. Science rendered as it should be - conceptually and logically. AND - it does not conflict with what our greats have been teaching us for so, SO long.
Then that will give a result that will make this technology so well understood - that absolutely no individual will be able to claim any recognition for 'leading' this - least of all - ourselves. It is our heritage and it is courtesy our Greats - but it will be rendered in terms that are understandable and purely conceptual. AT LAST. So when we reach into this elusive field to extract all that available energy - then we can do so with the required circumspection and modesty that this will require.
And all this is a consequence that is 'devoutly to be wished' because I am reasonably satisfied that it will re-awaken a sense of the 'orderliness' and 'permanence' of our universal order - and our need to assume better accountability for the role we play in it. Sorely lacking. All's well with God, and all's well with His universe. We, on the other hand, have been somewhat reckless and somewhat presumptuous in imposing our own fallible solutions onto His greater plan. Which possibly sounds insufferably sanctimonious. But please bear with me. One cannot look at even this very small part of such a beautiful pattern without acknowledging a sense of wonder and awe. Which is why I've been compelled to keep plugging all this.
Finally, Dear Reader, just know this. If you Google my name - the very first reference is to that claim that I am a fraud. THAT is the proof of the efficacy of our TROLLS. They engineered the 'hits' that this has now become the very first reference to any search into my name as it's associated with this technology. Please READ THE COMMENTS to make yourself UTTERLY familiar with the caliber of that handful of anonymous posters - to familiarise yourself with their toxic mindset. And then you will KNOW - that this is what we're up against. It has not made a blind bit of difference to the growth of this knowledge - nor to that small part that I play in this - and, it is there as EVIDENCE of the rather hysterical requirement of these competing interests to throw discredit in the face of this growing knowledge. That conspiracy thing - that is so vocally denied by those many that have themselves been seduced by those allegations - IT'S ALIVE AND WELL. We're fighting an insurgent war here guys. I just hope that I'll survive long enough to see this wonderful energy abundance brought to the world.
So. Very soon now you will, all of you, be able to understand the model - and then apply it in just so many ways that's on offer. I can't wait. All this news will be broadcast soon - and my article may yet be published. What a pleasure.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
by the by - PLEASE - let as many people as possible know about cold fusion. The word cannot be spread fast enough.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
197 - this may yet be published in our local rag
Dear Reader,
I found myself embroiled in some rather confrontational letters exchanged between me and one of our more patient editors. He was actually surprisingly tolerant as, unlike most, he allowed me to argue the case at all. My usual diet is to be cut off mid sentence and mid argument.
In any event he has allowed me to 'tell the story' and may even publish it - obviously subject to any required editing. Hopefully he'll not be too liberal with those cutting shears.
Here's that article. It may still need some revision. But the Guys at overunity.com have more or less approved it.
What fun.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
COLD FUSION – OR A NEW FORCE UNFOLDING?
This year heralds the possibility of a solution to our global energy requirements and pollution concerns. An Italian company headed by a Mr Andrea Rossi, has held a series of demonstrations of the E-CAT technology that, if it works as claimed, will produce more heat than the fuel that is used to generate that heat. In effect Rossi is able to generate robust levels of energy measured in the Kilowatt range – at the cost of a small initialising electrical input. What was shown is that a current was applied to the reactor for about half an hour until it reached a temperature of about 170 degrees centigrade. Thereafter some operating process ‘kicked in’ and the system ran itself.
This extraordinary claim flies in the face of Thermodynamic Laws unless it can somehow be attributed to the nuclear force. For those of us who remember the event – it is similar to the claims of Cold Fusion, now more widely referred to as Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) that were advanced by Fleischmann and Pons in March of 1989. They too repeatedly demonstrated experiments that measured this same extraordinary heat signature in an interaction of heavy water (a water molecule comprising deuterium) and palladium. Rossi uses the more accessible materials of nickel and hydrogen and possibly some catalyst that has not yet been disclosed. The only way, within our standard model, that this amount of energy surplus can be explained is in terms of nuclear processes. But to prove that some kind of fusion was occurring there is also the required proof of ‘emissions’ – those radioactive waste materials that are the signature proof of a nuclear interaction. This was sorely lacking and it was precisely this lack that buried both the claims of Cold Fusion and the good names of both Professor Fleischmann and Dr Pons. Ironically, it is also precisely this lack of a toxic waste product that makes this energy technology so desirable.
The difference between Fleishmann and Pons and Andrea Rossi is that Rossi has taken this to the level of a working, saleable and patented product in units that can be ‘containerised’ and shipped anywhere in the world. And these units are designed to deliver 10’s and even 100’s of Kilowatts. The other glaring difference is that Rossi took the precaution of inviting only that public to his demonstrations, that are qualified to evaluate the measured energy surplus. It includes, among many, the august names of Professors Sergio Focardi, Emilio Del Giudice, Francesco Celeni, Christos Stremmenos and Dr Guiliano Preparata, all of whom are experts in the field. They have all publicly accredited these results that support the claims of efficiency. But none of them are able to explain the result, as the measured emissions do not fall in line with what is expected in a nuclear process. It is interesting to see that some highly reputable scientists, including Nobel Laureate Emeritus Professor Brian Josephsson, are speaking out in support of the ‘cold fusion’ results – regardless of the theoretical constructs required for this.
All of which means that, yet again, our theory may lag the experimental evidence. Perhaps there are new forces that are emerging – a new science in the making. But whatever the explanation, this certainly promises a potential and welcome freedom to all energy users from the gridlocked relationship with our utility monopolists. Nor are there the toxic waste products associated with nuclear energy production. And most significantly, it will also resolve the escalating problems associated with global pollution resulting from our prodigal over use of fossil fuels. As it’s described in the official link to Rossi’s work - this may be a revolution in the making.
http://ecat.com/inventor-andrea-rossi
I found myself embroiled in some rather confrontational letters exchanged between me and one of our more patient editors. He was actually surprisingly tolerant as, unlike most, he allowed me to argue the case at all. My usual diet is to be cut off mid sentence and mid argument.
In any event he has allowed me to 'tell the story' and may even publish it - obviously subject to any required editing. Hopefully he'll not be too liberal with those cutting shears.
Here's that article. It may still need some revision. But the Guys at overunity.com have more or less approved it.
What fun.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
COLD FUSION – OR A NEW FORCE UNFOLDING?
This year heralds the possibility of a solution to our global energy requirements and pollution concerns. An Italian company headed by a Mr Andrea Rossi, has held a series of demonstrations of the E-CAT technology that, if it works as claimed, will produce more heat than the fuel that is used to generate that heat. In effect Rossi is able to generate robust levels of energy measured in the Kilowatt range – at the cost of a small initialising electrical input. What was shown is that a current was applied to the reactor for about half an hour until it reached a temperature of about 170 degrees centigrade. Thereafter some operating process ‘kicked in’ and the system ran itself.
This extraordinary claim flies in the face of Thermodynamic Laws unless it can somehow be attributed to the nuclear force. For those of us who remember the event – it is similar to the claims of Cold Fusion, now more widely referred to as Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) that were advanced by Fleischmann and Pons in March of 1989. They too repeatedly demonstrated experiments that measured this same extraordinary heat signature in an interaction of heavy water (a water molecule comprising deuterium) and palladium. Rossi uses the more accessible materials of nickel and hydrogen and possibly some catalyst that has not yet been disclosed. The only way, within our standard model, that this amount of energy surplus can be explained is in terms of nuclear processes. But to prove that some kind of fusion was occurring there is also the required proof of ‘emissions’ – those radioactive waste materials that are the signature proof of a nuclear interaction. This was sorely lacking and it was precisely this lack that buried both the claims of Cold Fusion and the good names of both Professor Fleischmann and Dr Pons. Ironically, it is also precisely this lack of a toxic waste product that makes this energy technology so desirable.
The difference between Fleishmann and Pons and Andrea Rossi is that Rossi has taken this to the level of a working, saleable and patented product in units that can be ‘containerised’ and shipped anywhere in the world. And these units are designed to deliver 10’s and even 100’s of Kilowatts. The other glaring difference is that Rossi took the precaution of inviting only that public to his demonstrations, that are qualified to evaluate the measured energy surplus. It includes, among many, the august names of Professors Sergio Focardi, Emilio Del Giudice, Francesco Celeni, Christos Stremmenos and Dr Guiliano Preparata, all of whom are experts in the field. They have all publicly accredited these results that support the claims of efficiency. But none of them are able to explain the result, as the measured emissions do not fall in line with what is expected in a nuclear process. It is interesting to see that some highly reputable scientists, including Nobel Laureate Emeritus Professor Brian Josephsson, are speaking out in support of the ‘cold fusion’ results – regardless of the theoretical constructs required for this.
All of which means that, yet again, our theory may lag the experimental evidence. Perhaps there are new forces that are emerging – a new science in the making. But whatever the explanation, this certainly promises a potential and welcome freedom to all energy users from the gridlocked relationship with our utility monopolists. Nor are there the toxic waste products associated with nuclear energy production. And most significantly, it will also resolve the escalating problems associated with global pollution resulting from our prodigal over use of fossil fuels. As it’s described in the official link to Rossi’s work - this may be a revolution in the making.
http://ecat.com/inventor-andrea-rossi
Monday, November 21, 2011
196 - for the record
Dear Reader,
I know that many of you read here on a daily basis. I see the hit stats. Which also makes me feel guilty when I simply put things here that simply repeat what I've already said. But the truth is that one day I want to try and construct a book from this blog - so I 'keep record'. For those who want to 'skip' the 'records' I think, in future I'll just use that title. So if you see it - then just skip the reading. Perhaps that'll be less irritating? I do hope so. And I apologise for the repetitive nature of all this.
The following is - yet again - 'for the record'.
Hello *****,
It is interesting. Indeed. Many thanks for this.
But that unification number - it's already there. I think our own experimental evidence sort of proves that its in the magnetic field. Which only means that all this has already been discovered by our astrophysicists. The bottom line is this. The electromagnetic force was 'lumped' into one force. But magnets can interact with other magnets without any measurable electric field AT ALL. Which therefore indicates that the magnetic force must have come first - a PRIMARY and independent force. If one accepts that - and then assumes that the field comprises magnetic or dipolar particles - then the 'fields' follow on perfectly - in line with Faraday's Lines of Force. Again. Nothing new. Except that those pesky Thermodynamic Laws will need revision. Because with the advent of Dark Energy comes the advent of Free energy. That's the problem. It's all over the place. Ridiculously abundant. It sort of goes to the gullet of some heavily entrenched 'beliefs' in thinking that's been cemented in stone. lol
And the simple fact is that the magnetic field needs some respect and attention. It's also a fact that our academics are going to dance around for a while. Because with it will be a required admission that this was rather overlooked as an independent FORCE. But fortunately our need for clean green is now so critical - that they may indeed make that admission. And as soon as one puts the particle in that magnetic field - then you've found the SOURCE of that dark energy. And, conservatively speaking - that ENERGY IS EVERYWHERE. What's wonderful is that our academics are now confronting each other with the PROOF of this energy abundance. That's going to be a dynamic dialogue. Can't wait to see what happens. I'm entirely satisfied that they'll vindicate Ellis et al for their discovery - EVENTUALLY. Can you believe it that the most of these academics do NOT subscribe to their proof of this? It's extraordinary.
Unfortunately - the simple truth is that no-one has discovered anything at all. All that's happened is that the so called 'standard model' simply needs a small revision. Then it's all there. Very, very simple. Complete vindication for our Quantum, Classical, String and Dark Energy theorists. And with it the liberal access to some really clean energy. What could be better.
Kindest regards, and thanks again,
Rosemary
I know that many of you read here on a daily basis. I see the hit stats. Which also makes me feel guilty when I simply put things here that simply repeat what I've already said. But the truth is that one day I want to try and construct a book from this blog - so I 'keep record'. For those who want to 'skip' the 'records' I think, in future I'll just use that title. So if you see it - then just skip the reading. Perhaps that'll be less irritating? I do hope so. And I apologise for the repetitive nature of all this.
The following is - yet again - 'for the record'.
Hello *****,
It is interesting. Indeed. Many thanks for this.
But that unification number - it's already there. I think our own experimental evidence sort of proves that its in the magnetic field. Which only means that all this has already been discovered by our astrophysicists. The bottom line is this. The electromagnetic force was 'lumped' into one force. But magnets can interact with other magnets without any measurable electric field AT ALL. Which therefore indicates that the magnetic force must have come first - a PRIMARY and independent force. If one accepts that - and then assumes that the field comprises magnetic or dipolar particles - then the 'fields' follow on perfectly - in line with Faraday's Lines of Force. Again. Nothing new. Except that those pesky Thermodynamic Laws will need revision. Because with the advent of Dark Energy comes the advent of Free energy. That's the problem. It's all over the place. Ridiculously abundant. It sort of goes to the gullet of some heavily entrenched 'beliefs' in thinking that's been cemented in stone. lol
And the simple fact is that the magnetic field needs some respect and attention. It's also a fact that our academics are going to dance around for a while. Because with it will be a required admission that this was rather overlooked as an independent FORCE. But fortunately our need for clean green is now so critical - that they may indeed make that admission. And as soon as one puts the particle in that magnetic field - then you've found the SOURCE of that dark energy. And, conservatively speaking - that ENERGY IS EVERYWHERE. What's wonderful is that our academics are now confronting each other with the PROOF of this energy abundance. That's going to be a dynamic dialogue. Can't wait to see what happens. I'm entirely satisfied that they'll vindicate Ellis et al for their discovery - EVENTUALLY. Can you believe it that the most of these academics do NOT subscribe to their proof of this? It's extraordinary.
Unfortunately - the simple truth is that no-one has discovered anything at all. All that's happened is that the so called 'standard model' simply needs a small revision. Then it's all there. Very, very simple. Complete vindication for our Quantum, Classical, String and Dark Energy theorists. And with it the liberal access to some really clean energy. What could be better.
Kindest regards, and thanks again,
Rosemary
Sunday, November 20, 2011
195 - truth to tell
Dear Reader,
I suppose I keep banging on about 'cold fusion' because I'm hoping that, sooner or later, our academics will consider that - just perhaps - they're looking at that new dark force that has managed to stay hidden for these centuries past. The point is that there's no evidence - whatsoever - of those emissions. I've mentioned this ad nauseum. No emissions means that it's NOT the nuclear force. Not even a low energy nuclear reaction. There's no acceptable term for this energy - yet. In which case? Could it be that this is, indeed, that dark energy that's been lurking on the outskirts of our theoretical models - with rather less recognition and interest than it probably deserves. There's nothing else on offer. No other theoretical model to explain these anomalous heat signatures.
Also. We were hell bent on promoting our own evidence of surplus heat. Unequivocal proof. Careful measurements. Very repeatable. Only lacking expert accreditation. The difference here is that - unlike Rossi et al - we could not get ANY academic to a demonstration. Which also meant that there was no official stance - for or against. Just the rather toxic flavour of scepticism and opinion which has, historically never really played a constructive role in science. One is reminded of a kind of medieval mindset. A prejudice that values 'belief' above 'evidence'. Which really has nothing whatsoever to do with the proud bases of that noble art.
Now that Rossi's results are out there - now that we have this delicious proof of more energy available than can be reasonably explained in any context at all - then we're rather anxious to again remind you all that there is - indeed - a perfectly viable explanation for all of this. And that it falls within the standard model. One hopes that our learned and revered wake up to this before too much time is wasted in that tedious debate of the 'lack of evidence in emissions' or even in the reconstruction of our theories. If it IS dark energy - then there should be no emissions. That's a good thing.
Anyway. The simple truth is that this wonderful technology of Rossi's entirely eclipses our own - until such time as we can get this to the robust wattage levels that Rossi manages. But the nice thing is this. Unless they prove that cold fusion is a NUCLEAR reaction - then the chances are that those many of us who claim evidence of over unity - are also merely accessing the same thing. And that's enough for the time being.
Over these last 10 years or so, I've been in touch with a number of academics. There are those among them that are offensively bigoted. And there are those that are simply not interested. But there are, very obviously, only a small but growing number, who are prepared to look and even to ask questions with an open mind - as referenced by Dr Preparata. And that's the thing that is likely to actually get this ball rolling - get us moving, however gradually, to some kind of theoretical platform where these academics can stand together - more comfortably.
And frankly, I think they'll be delighted to find that there's very little that's wrong with the standard model. In fact, from where I sit, there's no difference at all - provided only that they impose the theoretical construct of a magnetic dipole as the basis of a magnetic field. That's just a modest variation. And it has the real merit of then vindicating all our theorists whether they're classical, quantum, string or dark energy subscribers.
Where our own tests merit some close attention is that unless one proposes the existence of this particle then there is absolutely no other explanation for the waveform that is evident from our own circuit performance. It thereby constitutes proof of postulate. I trust that, by now, I've given enough links to argument in our second part of that two-part paper. When I get back here I'll add the one link, nonetheless.
Kindest regards as ever,
Rosemary
Here's the link to that second paper for anyone with the appetite for an appraisal of the evidence that proposes this 'small variation' to the standard model.
I suppose I keep banging on about 'cold fusion' because I'm hoping that, sooner or later, our academics will consider that - just perhaps - they're looking at that new dark force that has managed to stay hidden for these centuries past. The point is that there's no evidence - whatsoever - of those emissions. I've mentioned this ad nauseum. No emissions means that it's NOT the nuclear force. Not even a low energy nuclear reaction. There's no acceptable term for this energy - yet. In which case? Could it be that this is, indeed, that dark energy that's been lurking on the outskirts of our theoretical models - with rather less recognition and interest than it probably deserves. There's nothing else on offer. No other theoretical model to explain these anomalous heat signatures.
Also. We were hell bent on promoting our own evidence of surplus heat. Unequivocal proof. Careful measurements. Very repeatable. Only lacking expert accreditation. The difference here is that - unlike Rossi et al - we could not get ANY academic to a demonstration. Which also meant that there was no official stance - for or against. Just the rather toxic flavour of scepticism and opinion which has, historically never really played a constructive role in science. One is reminded of a kind of medieval mindset. A prejudice that values 'belief' above 'evidence'. Which really has nothing whatsoever to do with the proud bases of that noble art.
Now that Rossi's results are out there - now that we have this delicious proof of more energy available than can be reasonably explained in any context at all - then we're rather anxious to again remind you all that there is - indeed - a perfectly viable explanation for all of this. And that it falls within the standard model. One hopes that our learned and revered wake up to this before too much time is wasted in that tedious debate of the 'lack of evidence in emissions' or even in the reconstruction of our theories. If it IS dark energy - then there should be no emissions. That's a good thing.
Anyway. The simple truth is that this wonderful technology of Rossi's entirely eclipses our own - until such time as we can get this to the robust wattage levels that Rossi manages. But the nice thing is this. Unless they prove that cold fusion is a NUCLEAR reaction - then the chances are that those many of us who claim evidence of over unity - are also merely accessing the same thing. And that's enough for the time being.
Over these last 10 years or so, I've been in touch with a number of academics. There are those among them that are offensively bigoted. And there are those that are simply not interested. But there are, very obviously, only a small but growing number, who are prepared to look and even to ask questions with an open mind - as referenced by Dr Preparata. And that's the thing that is likely to actually get this ball rolling - get us moving, however gradually, to some kind of theoretical platform where these academics can stand together - more comfortably.
And frankly, I think they'll be delighted to find that there's very little that's wrong with the standard model. In fact, from where I sit, there's no difference at all - provided only that they impose the theoretical construct of a magnetic dipole as the basis of a magnetic field. That's just a modest variation. And it has the real merit of then vindicating all our theorists whether they're classical, quantum, string or dark energy subscribers.
Where our own tests merit some close attention is that unless one proposes the existence of this particle then there is absolutely no other explanation for the waveform that is evident from our own circuit performance. It thereby constitutes proof of postulate. I trust that, by now, I've given enough links to argument in our second part of that two-part paper. When I get back here I'll add the one link, nonetheless.
Kindest regards as ever,
Rosemary
Here's the link to that second paper for anyone with the appetite for an appraisal of the evidence that proposes this 'small variation' to the standard model.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
194 - for cold fusion - think dark energy
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)