Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Now, again, I still don't understand why do you need experiments in overunity in order to promote your idea of what the nature of current is. One may consider your idea of current in conductors such as copper as being controversial enough to be supplemented by another controversial idea such as the claim for OU. It seems you can choose some well accepted system where current flows and work out your thesis there. Why do you need OU at all for sustaining your thesis?

Ominibus - I hope I don't have to repeat this.  We need the thesis to explain the measurement.  We can debate the measurement - if you choose to - for as long as you like.  But the measurements are NOWHERE at question outside your persistent desire to revisit these.  No expert has challenged our protocols.  There is an IMPLICIT acceptance based on the measuring instruments as being adequate and the protocols being sufficient.  NONE of our papers have been submitted for review and then rejected.  Don't you realise how anxious the academics are to disprove this result?  And can't you see that they would enjoy nothing better than an excuse to reject the paper as it's based on erroneous measurements?  If they saw such they would have submitted the paper and had it duly and permanently discredited.  They can't do this.  Therefore they do not even submit the paper for review.  SO.  The ONLY thing at question is why these measurements should be ever be possible. I've said it before - and will do so as often as is required.  The ONLY advantage of our little circuit is that the measurements are NO LONGER OPEN TO QUESTION.  That's not yet been managed elsewhere - to the best of my knowledge.  But I'm open to correction.  In any event this experiment and associated artifacts have been correctly and duly measured and recorded.  That's done and dusted.  We now need to develop it to application phase - include the academics in accreditation - and then?  Hopefully we'll get the kind of attention that all OU technology is looking for.  In any event.  Every bit helps.

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary, you sayL

And Omnibus - if I left it to the scientific community to explain it then they would first have to dismantle the entire structure of physics.

Not really. I have shown that the possibility to produce more energy out than in is inherent in the electrical phenomena but has been overlooked until now. So, it's not a matter of dismantling but adding to the existing physics.

@Rosemary : Will you transfer your knowledge to us, so that an average experienced electronic guy will be able to replicate your device, or will you simply bring it to market?

Hi TC.  Welcome to the discussion.  All that has been tested to proof of concept is best written up in our paper.  And certainly that is easily understood.  I'll add a link - gladly.

Regarding the appliance - there are some major concerns here.  I believe that our own developments are simply being duplicated by Harvey and Glenn on EF.com.  Then they predate their post to make it seem as if we're duplicating them.  Proof of that is with the element we designed for our first test.  This was put together by our resistor manufacturer - the only thing that was non-standard was the wiring inside it.  I had not yet got to the detailed explanations when I discovered Glen's picture of a totally standard element and some fatuous comments from CatLady (Harvey's wife) congratulating them on this development.  It's laughable.  So.  I actually think we need to keep some aspects of our tests entirely off forum until the appliance is ready to market.  But there is NOTHING to stop us posting those results as they develop.  It will be an interesting learning curve.  We've had long and arduous discussions regarding the switching required to retain that high voltage but also allow more current flow.  And, of course, endless discussions related to the control of the switch to generate the CEMF without swamping out the self-oscillation required.  It's very challenging.

Hope that helps. 
Kind regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

Rosemary, as far as I understand, you take the fact that your papers are not even being submitted for review as showing that these journals know they are really true but they don't want to accept it and they don't want your studies to become known. Sadly, there's another option and unfortunately it may be the more likely option--by not even submitting the papers for review these journals are not only rejecting them but are simply ignoring them. They simply "know" this is incorrect and don't even give it the time of day. Sad, indeed. It's not even preventing them from publication. Plain and simple ignoring.

This attitude of the journals has to be fought somehow and I'm willing to help in this respect as difficult as it is.

In the meantime, could you please tell me names of academics who have independently verified your experimental results so that I can contact them and even visit them -- here in the US or in Europe where I'm going to be in September.

I've highlighted the comment that I take extreme exception to Omnibus.  It shows me how little you understand about the publication of an academic paper.  In the first instance a paper is submitted to an editor.  The editor then submits the paper to an appropriate reviewer.  That is the standard process.  The reviewer then vets the paper to determine any errors.  If they are minor the author is offered an opportunity to amend.  If they are major the paper is rejected on the following basis - "REJECTED MAY NOT BE RE-SUBMITTED"

The prelude to our own paper included a discussion with two sub editors and the IEEE's main editor.  They had ample opportunity to read every aspect of that paper prior to its formal submission process.  They invited us, notwithstanding the unusual nature of the claim - to formally submit the paper.  We did so.  Then there was obviously some discussions.  They came back to us - literally within 5 minutes of formal submission - to ask us to submit it to a physics reviewed journal as they felt unable to comment on the results.  I have copies of all that correspondence and have made the most of it available on EF.com.  I can do the same here if required.  Our paper still bears the dubious distinction of NOT BEING REJECTED AFTER REVIEW.  That would have put paid to these our efforts - forever, as it would have required a discreditation of the measurents or the measurement protocols.  I am satisfied that this would have been the preferred course.  As it is they dropped the paper like the proverbial 'hot potato'.  They simply did not have the 'balls' to tackle it.

It concerns me that you rather refer to your own suspicions here than first seek clarification of the facts.  I hope I've now disabused you of these suspicions.

And regarding your requirement to speak to those academics that have accredited these results?  Exactly who are you referring to?  I have NEVER claimed academic accreditation.  That is precisely what has been lacking in this exercise.  And, btw I am in South Africa and accreditation by sundry industrial laboratories - was done here, with the entire exception of ABB.  If you ever do get to our country then advise me and I'll gladly introduce you to those who are now dealing with the subject.  But their names and the institution is DEFINITELY not available for public knowledge unless and until that application is up and running and proven.  This for obvious reasons. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Omnibus - this is exhausting me.  The Editor in Chief and the two editors of both journals under the IEEE banner were ENTIRELY familiar with the claim.  Every aspect of it.  There was a serious proposal to get the journal to review.  But it was quashed - at the last minute - obviously after some considerable discussion amongst themselves.

I'll dig up the email correspondence that preceded our submission.  It addressed the thesis and the required result.  It was CERTAINLY well understood as the theme of that paper.  There is one aspect that I've not written - which may be at a level of interest that exceeds the readers here.  But I may as well put it on record.  Harvey did the data analysis based on a rather eccentric 'averaging' of the results from different waveforms.  Tektronix only guarantee results that are from a certain required minimum sample range.  From memory I think it's about 120 or thereby.  In other words they need multiple samples to get the required mean average.  What Harvey Gramm did was to take a further average of these multiple samples and from graduated lesser sample ranges and then make a kind of bulk average.  I was very aware of this.  He would not allow this to be amended and I suspect he realised that this would have put paid to acceptance for publication. 

Just prior to review their admin asked me to correct a small error where we had submitted the illustrations without appending a number for reference.  Because I was first author they returned the paper to me to correct this.  I used that opportunity to add the following sentence.  "The data has been deliberately averaged to give a conservative value".  This  therefore gave justification to that 'average' which otherwise would have seemed an unintentional error.  In retrospect I'm inclined to believe that they were aware of that error and would have submitted it to get that 'reject may not be resubmitted' number.  By adding that qualification effectively lost them that excuse.  But that is purely speculative.  I will never know for certain.  What I do know is that all seemed 'safe' to submit.  And then - notwithstanding - it was almost immediately rejected.

But that's enough about this Omnibus.  I did not realise that you were an academic.  Very interesting.  You would know - more than most - how politically incorrect are all these endeavours.  Yes I think one needs to pull together.  I have found Open Source to be a very flawed medium - rendered all the more insecure by the rampant self-serving egos of many contributors.  My own experience here was almost terminal to this technology.  Had I not faught back I think this entire endeavour of mine would have been buried by now.  That - and, latterly, Stefan' kind indulgence in allowing this thread.  But I realise now how tenuous these posts are.  I am very aware of many readers here who don't post on the threads.  They've given me continual background support.  Without this I think I may very well have folded.  Thanks to them all.  But I would earnestly advise readers that there is no guarantee to the continuation of this topic.  I just hope that this one will survive until the outcome of those application tests.

Many competing interests here guys. 
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising

<This was put together by our resistor manufacturer - the only thing that was non-standard was the wiring inside it.>

So this non-standard wiring is described in this document?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
I think not.
If anyone convinced that following this link will lead to replication success, he /she should confirm this.
This thread is a promotion thread ,nothing else.

This post is so disappointing on so many levels.  In the first instance, someone  who signs himself Bob Potchen also uses the avatar 'The Cell'.  I assume it's the same poster here.  In which case I am rather a fan of yours and enjoy the acuity of your posts and the rap you had going with Farrah.  I admire Farrah - very much and have much to thank you, Farrah and HairBear for the high standard of posting and for the little I managed to learn about electrolysis.  Farrah also seems to have disappeared from EF.com.  But I think that was rather by choice.

One aspect of my disappointment is based on the fact that you discount the results of that replication.  I take it that you're familiar with the earlier paper and the history here?  In which case why is it that you doubt those results?  I am indeed using this thread to post results on the scaled up version of this 'proof of concept'.  But that's intended to be very much public - whether it fails or succeeds.  Hopefully the latter.  But proof of  concept is widely acknowledged.  I simply do not understand why I should try and promote this.  It's easily promoted on its own merits.  I'm only trying to keep public record of the results in the hopes of furthering OU.  And by keeping the results public - then that's very much in the interests of Open Source - surely?  If there's a learning curve associated with this - which is inevitable, given that we're trying to scale up the effect - then rather let the facts fall where they will.  It's better to be put on record than otherwise.  And I cannot be accused of holding back on disappointing results.  Nor will I.  Ever.

Then the second aspect of my disappointment is that I know you research your topics - if your posts at EF.com are your standard.  In which case - what gives?  Clearly there's some want of familiarity with the subject here.  The element in question has nothing to do with the proof of concept tests referred to.  These are designed for the scaled up version on the application.  And it's NOT standard - albeit that the element itself is.  There is absolutely NOTHING standard about the wire used inside that resistor.  But nor is it anything like the resistor we used in our proof of concept.  And NOR is it likely to be anything like the resistor we'll end up using in our application.  It was simply intended to see how the standard element effects the resonance that we require.  If it works then it'll take it to application phase that much more quickly.  If it does not work then we'll find that out too.

Finally - I'm 61 years old.  It would be absurdly ridiculous for me to waste what little time I have left to try and advance something - some technology - if I did not, at least, know that it works.  I am many things, from absurdly optimistic to absurdly pessimistic and all shades in between.  But Bob Potchen, if that's whom I'm actually addressing here - this thread is intended to advance my thesis - the concepts - and the proof of concept to application phase.  I suppose - in that way - it is, indeed, a promotion exercise.  In which case then I'm guilty.  But I take it that's not the sense in which you intended the term.  And please read this thread as it relates to that element.  Indeed it has ABSOLUTELY NO relevance to the paper published on Scribd.  But nor did I ever claim as much.  Not anywhere.

I think what's really disappointing here is that I rather admired your own efforts and am really sorry to discover the contempt you feel for mine.  But there you go.  One never really knows how one comes across.  This post of yours has certainly been a slap in the face.

Rosemary (aka witsend)

 

Follow your dream. Criticism means that you are going in the right direction.

Jesus

I certainly hope so Jesus.  MANY THANKS for this.  It's always nice to know that not everyone thinks that negatively about these my efforts.  But there's that about my claim, my postings - perhaps about the general threat to known paradigms - that seems to generate an enormous amount of confrontation.  It's followed me everywhere.  And by now I should be well used to it.  But the strange thing is this.  I'm always knocked for a six.  I have simply not learned to 'grow that thick skin'.  Maybe I'll get there - one day.     Bob W?  Are you reading here?  LOL.

kindest regards,
Rosemary

Hi Guys,  I decided to publish this as I think it gets to the heart of the problem we all share.  This as part of an ongoing dialogue.

Dear Doctor xxxxx,

The thesis that required this result is based on a concept of current flow from magnetic fields and not from the flow of electrons as it taught today.  I'll explain my thinking regarding the flow of electrons.  You must forgive the elementary nature of my argument.  But I think you may see the logic.

To begin with electrons have a 'like charge'.  Effectively therefore - and according to Pauli's exclusion principle - no electrons can 'share a path'.  Current flow, in its essence requires a 'shared path'.  If current flow comprised electrons then they would repel each other and this would not allow that 'shared' path.  The argument to qualify this concept is then advanced that valence electrons are 'nudged' one against the other in a kind of graduated adjustment of those electrons in the outer energy levels of atoms.  This allows for the systematic transfer of those particles.  But they also know the rate of that 'required' adjustment.  Effectively if one turned on a light switch and if the light was, say 1 meter away from the switch - then it would take about 10 minutes for this 'nudged' process of current flow to reach the light filament to make it shine.

Then there's another problem with the concept of electrons flowing anywhere at all.  Say one charges a flat battery from a wall plug.  Then the idea is that the battery will be replenished with electrons to reconstitute the charged property of the electrolytes.  But any chemist will assure you that there has been no loss of electrons in the mix.  They have just been re-ordered in the molecular arrangement through that electrolytic process.  Then, if indeed the plug replenished the electrons then the question is do electrons replenish the supply to produce light, motorised energy, heat from our stoves, our appliances, and on and on?  Clearly if your average utility supply grid had to supply all those electrons then there are simply not enough electrons from the source to enable that very big demand.  It would be quantifiably impossible for any average generator regardless of whether it's a nuclear or coal burning source to supply whole cities with that many electrons.  So the supporting theory is that there are 'free electrons' that are floating in the air and these are somehow 'borrowed' from the environment and these come into play.  Which is absurd - given that most wiring is insulated which would prevent electrons from entering the material.  And there are not - to the best of my knowledge - free floating electrons anywhere.  Nature is not that chaotic nor that liberal. 

Wiki incorporates both explanations as a definition of current flow.  But both options are mutually exclusive.

My own grounding in physics was based entirely on conceptual physics advanced by Gary Zukov in the 'dancing wu li masters' and by Paul Dyson in 'conceptual physics'.  Both authors assert that current flow cannot be based on the flow of electrons.  Dyson references the term 'charge'.  So - when I entered this field with my experiment I simply did not realise that most electrical engineers used the concept of 'electron' current flow.  But the simple fact remains.  Our electrical engineers still continue to use the concept of electron current flow.  And it must be acknowledged that our electrical engineers have developed the art of electromagnetic interactions more ably than any other field of physics.  So the 'electron' flow concept seems to work.  And it is only amongst the theoretical physicists that this is challenged - and apparently, not very loudly.

My thesis simply proposes that current flow comprises the movement of magnetic fields that are extraneous to the atoms.  They are invisible and I also propose that this is the dark energy that our astrophysicists require.  These bind atoms but their spin depends on the charge of the atoms.  If they are imbalanced - as would be the case in a predominantly acid or alkaline mix - then they too have an imbalanced spin.  Like all magnetic fields they move to a state of balance.  Therefore they order the electrolytic process by moving through the circuit components as current flow.  This allows them to change that spin.  This then neutralises the imbalance in the 'mix'.  It's more fully explained in the thesis that I sent you.  I see these fields as being responsible for the Casimir Effect.  And I also see these fields as being responsible for imparting 'weight' to an object - being a magnetic pull.

I would be very interested to hear your view of this.  I must say the reason I wrote to you at all is because I could see the rare ability to challenge conventional thought. 

.....that is most earnestly required to introduce these so called 'anomalous' results that are evident in our experiment.  You will see, I trust, that if the energy is then based on these fields - then the same fields are in our circuit's inductive components.  They too are 'bound' into a solid three dimensional amalgam.  Effectively they then also become an energy supply source - precisely because their own 'binding fields' are influenced by an applied voltage - and that influence is then in proportion to the applied current flow from the supply in the first instance.  Therefore it challenges the equivalence principle.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary