Crashing Through the Energy Barrier Final for DS-2

8/14/2019 Crashing Through the Energy Barrier Final for DS-2

1/16

CRASHING THROUGH THE ENERGY BARRIER

A discussion on the emergence of a dynamic new energy

source from dark energy

By Rosemary Ainslie 1-2010

Opinion is divided on the causes of Global Warming.

The question is whether this is entirely the result of carbon

dioxide being spewed into the atmosphere from our

profligate energy demands, or whether it is some cyclical

occurrence that has more to do with solar rhythms. Theconsensus, however, is that our manufacture and use of

energy is somewhat less than responsible. And the alarming

effects of Global Warming have precipitated a thinly

disguised global hysteria. These concerns were articulated

at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change that was concluded in mid December 2009. The

mandate endorsed the general requirements of the KyotoAccord with detailed proposals for implementation at this

accords expiry in 2012.

This convention was held in Copenhagen which,

through a curious quirk of coincidence, was also the birth

place of modern physics. Here, in 1941 Bohr and

Heisenberg formulated the principles of quantum

mechanics which, in turn, has systematically enabled the

unravelling of the structure of the atom and its particles. In

effect the expanding knowledge of quantum mechanics

introduced those very same modern technologies that,

today, are widely exploited in the manufacture of energy.


2/16

And while, at the time, the event was newsworthy, it did

not carry the banner headlines afforded to the UNFCCC.

The year is now 2010 and our need for clean and green

energy dominates our attentions. And this is the more so aswe learn of the fragilities associated with Natures need for

balance to ensure some continuity of our species.

Doomsayers abound and even the more moderate amongst

us are aware of that nervous inner reference which speaks

to possible annihilation of our entire species. It is seen as a

kind of Armageddon where the affront comes not so much

from an international assault but from some unstoppable

turbulence within Nature herself.

It is perhaps, as a consequence of this concern that a

fringe group of experimentalists have come into their own

and they use the vehicle of the Internet to test new forms of

energy. This is not a minor event, hidden within some small

chapter of Google. Rather it is a fast growing movement

spearheaded by some extraordinary talents in appliedelectrical engineering. And its growth seems exponential.

Some of the larger forums that are dedicated to these

discussions are Energetic Forum and Over Unity. Others

includeFree Energy, Rex Research, ZP Energy, and on and

on. The dot-com list is long and growing; and the

discussion threads varied and well subscribed. And the

readership of these topics is also growing at pace. So much

so that the forums have become a required advertising

medium and, in some instances very evidently and

profitably so. And the contributors to those threads, the

experimentalists themselves, take pride in the quality of

their presentations, the accuracy of their measurements and


3/16

the effectiveness of their devices to reduce pollution or to

enhance efficiency. The overriding theme, the need to

explore new energy and new ways of applying this energy.

But this, in turn brings ones focus back to those Laws

of Physics which tell us that we can never get more energy

out of an energy supply source than was first put in. It is

widely understood in the same context as what goes up

must come down, what goes in must come out. The

battery that supplies our starter motors cannot give more

energy than is available in the battery. The plug that feeds

power to our lights cannot give us more energy than the power available from that plug. And so it goes. These

principles are known as Thermodynamic Laws and they

constrain a maximum efficiency in the delivery of energy

to 1. For this reason its known as an equivalence

principle and its been a rule that has been tried and tested

since its inception when Sir Isaac Newton uncovered the

gravitational force at the turn of the 18th

Century. This wassubsequently expanded to include the forces from induction

and then the nuclear forces themselves. Always there is a

required conservation of energy and as always, there is this

restriction, this constrained value in the exchange of

energy, which is evident - - everywhere.

Or is it? Ten years prior to the Copenhagen

Convention, that historical meeting of the minds, that well

publicised confrontation between the charismatic Bohr and

the less than engaging Heisenberg, was the first quiet

announcement of yet another force. A full decade in

advance of the birth of quantum principles was the certain


4/16

evidence of a new force both proposed and located. It was

first called hidden matter and subsequently defined as dark

energy from dark matter. And it is now conservatively

proposed that this energy and its variously-proposed particles make up 96% of the entire universe. And

notwithstanding the search for this force, a search that has

now spanned four generations, no one has ever seen or

identified the particle that is understood to be the

foundation upon which visible matter rests. It is only

known by default. The fact is that according to

mainstreams knowledge of physical laws, our galaxies

should, by rights, be systematically unravelling. Somethingextraneous to those galaxies is also holding their star

structures together. This is also variously referred to as

zero point energy or the God particle and is measured

through the art of gravitational lensing. It is thought to

permeate the universe in considerable abundance. It is

entirely invisible to light. It responds to gravity. But in all

other ways its properties can only be determined by a bestguess exercise that our scientists themselves find less than

satisfactory. Consensus on its overarching description is

that its particle does not fall within the standard model.

And no textbook description of the particle is possible

because, quite simply, and notwithstanding extraordinary

efforts to do so, no one has ever seen it.

But there is absolute consensus on one thing. If the

source of this energy could be located, if the particle could,

indeed, be identified, then it promises an abundance of

energy that will more than satisfy the urgent demands of

our mushrooming energy requirements. Perhaps it is a


5/16

response to this challenge to discover or uncover this

energy that motivates those myriad threads in those

manifold Open Source Energy forums. Or perhaps it is

simply the desperate, last and earnest reach of a minorityinterest to salvage humanity from its own excesses. But

whatever it is that initiated this obsessive interest, it is now

fuelled by constantly growing claims that this energy can,

indeed, be accessed. The energy barriers that were

determined by that equivalence principle appear to be

crashing down with monotonous regularity. And many such

claims seem to show a signature transient spike, an

unusually large momentary voltage level induced across avariety of components in inductive switching circuitry. The

configuration of the circuits are as varied as the objectives.

But the constant theme is that whether it is heat or motion

that is required it is readily available and at a cost that has

blown the energy barrier into history together with those

rigid paradigms established by our mainstream scientists

and articulated in their Thermodynamic Laws.

A little over a decade ago this author developed a

magnetic field model using the atypical tools of dialectic

reasoning. While such is usually applied to philosophical

questions the application here was tested against observed

physical realities and were seen to conform to such. But

more to the point, the developed model was also able to

reconcile the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron.

The underlying proposal is that composites of a

superluminal magnetic dipole may comprise all visible

matter. But it is the conclusions to that model which is the

subject of this exercise rather than the model itself. It points


6/16

to the fact that the thing that binds our galaxies, that new

and dark force, is the same thing that binds all atomic

structures into three dimensional objects. In other words

everything that has a three dimensional property, bricks,stones, electric kettles, even the very ground of the earth, is

bound by fields of these particles that are referred to as

zipons. And the departure from mainstream thinking is

precisely that the atomic value of the atom remains

untouched in this exchange of energy, in this binding of

matter. The actual exchange of energy, be it thermal or

kinetic, is managed by these particles in their interaction

with atomic energy levels which in turn also comprise theirown fields of zipons. The binding fields are seen to be

extraneous to the atomic structure itself.

If these proposals are fundamentally correct then their

implications are profound. In effect the proposal is that

measurable mass has an energy quotient that is not in its

particles, those electrons and protons that we can and domeasure, but is actually in these fields of zipons that remain

outside the scope of our measuring instruments. It can only

been seen or measured when some applied imbalance alters

these fields and induces it to move outside that bound

condition. Then a chain reaction sets up a cascading series

of imbalances while these fields readjust and, in some

instances, entirely unravel that bound state. The result can

vary between a mild and evident fatigue in that structure,

all the way to a total atomic disassociation from its bound

condition. It can result in a break in the filament of a light

or in a heap of ash from burnt wood. And conversely, and

without that applied potential difference, the field is in a


7/16

state of balance. And then the atoms that it binds are in a

state of comparative rest. In this more quiet form the field

holds its position albeit that it continues to orbit.

It is proposed that the velocity of the particle in its

orbit is the reason that the field remains invisible. It moves

at superluminal speeds and light itself cannot find it. But

break those symmetries and one can either see or feel the

heat off its broken and cascading strings of zipons. Or we

can use and measure the voltage which then induces a

current flow. The model also proposes that the mass of the

zipon carries both a kinetic and a thermal property both ofwhich can vary. In a field it becomes cold and fast and

small. Outside the field it becomes hot and slow and big.

And the two manifestations are in a direct and inverse

proportional relationship to each other. But energy itself,

the thing that moves through space and in time, the thing

that varies the position and properties of the amalgams that

it binds, the thing that manifests as a flame to impart heator as a voltage to impart current flow, those things are also

proposed to be the source of all the energy that we use. The

questions then remaining is how true to observed realities

are these proposals? And what changes are introduced

regarding any new insights into the exchange of energy?

Heres the thing. It means that inductive components

in electrical circuitry, anything that can experience an

induced voltage, is also able to generate its own energy.

This thesis suggests that the filament in a light bulb is able

to generate as much energy as was fed to it by the plug

source. The element in an electric kettle can give back the


8/16

same amount of energy that was delivered to it to make it

hot. And this energy is dynamic. It can be as great or

greater than the amount of energy first supplied to it and it

only depends on the mass of that component to determinethe amount of energy that it is able to regenerate and on the

rate of the switch to determine the number of times it can

perform this cycle of regeneration. And in this way, and

always with the proviso that some switching system is

applied to give it a chance the model proposes that this

energy is useable, or better yet, reusable. It refunds the fund

of energy first applied and suggests that the cost of energy

is then the difference between what was first given andwhat was then put back. Within the approved system of

recycling all things, it is suggested that energy itself can be

recycled. And the model proposes that this is done by and

with courtesy from these very fields of invisible matter.

And then to the second question. How accurate are

these claims? Here opinion has been divided. The trainingwithin academia has traditionally denied the possibility of

breaching these thermodynamic constraints. This tradition

is long and well grounded in evidence. Switching circuits

are well known. All varieties of applications have been

tried and tested. And always results conform to the

required parameters of these equivalence principles.

However, a breach of these laws, as it applies to this model,

was proved in an experiment detailed and published in the

October edition of Quantum Magazine, in 2002, written by

this author in collaboration with Brian Buckley. Every

effort was first made to get this published in a reviewed

journal so that the information could get academic


9/16

attention. But those efforts were unsuccessful. The

published claim indicated a co-efficient of performance in

excess of 17. In other words the amount of energy

delivered by the battery supply source used, was exceeded17 times by the amount of energy dissipated at the load.

This co-efficient of performance is generally referred to as

COP and in this instance it is COP>17. It was an

extraordinary claim but it faded from a minor flurry of

South African media attention, probably because there was

no academic comment. The publication was subsequently

also posted on the Internet at

rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com. Various Open SourceEnergy forums then picked up on the information and their

evident desire to replicate the experiment was then

communicated to this author.

Which is where these forums experimentalists come

into their own. Glen Lettenmaier, also known by his avatar

as FuzzyTomCat, was the first to successfully replicatethe test detailed in that original quantum paper. He was

given the use of a Tektronix TDS3054C Digital Phosphor

Oscilloscope, which is state of the art measuring

equipment. Then through a series of well documented tests

he studied the required parameters to realise the gain using

the same experimental apparatus that was detailed in that

earlier paper. What he uncovered, largely due to the

sophistication of that measuring equipment, was that there

was a signature harmonic waveform required to establish

the gains. It appears that the circuit is able to establish a

preferred aperiodic oscillating condition that holds, within

it, a signature pattern. This can be pictured as a swing that


10/16

pushes in one way and is then pushed back in the opposite

direction. Then at a certain precise speed the swing will

move in both directions, the forward thrust giving enough

energy to secure the backward thrust. Then a short periodor a wobble where that harmonious pattern is lost and

then again, the cycle is repeated. Subject only to the

evidence of that harmonic the actual cost of energy

expended by the battery appears to be zero. But because the

harmonic pulses are intermittently lost, the actual

expenditure is slightly greater than zero. But always, when

properly tuned to resonance, it is less than the amount of

energy that is dissipated at the load. The ratio here isCOP>4 when one takes only the heat at the resistor into

account. If all the heat evident throughout the circuit is also

taken into account, then the value is more in the region of

COP>9, or thereby. In other words, the claim in the

original Ainslie / Buckley document was validated and the

particular requirement for the over-unity performance

definitively exposed.

It is important to give some explanation for the fact

that this effect has been overlooked by mainstream science

and for so long. In point of fact the real miracle is that this

condition was found at all. In the first instance applied

switching applications are designed to hold a frequency.

Any condition of aperiodicity, any evidence of a chaotic

waveform, would systematically be factored out of the

application as being corruptive to the objects of that

application. There are papers written on how to reduce this

chaos. Historically all such conditions were considered less

than satisfactory. It has never been encouraged. And


11/16

consequently nor has this innate advantage ever been seen

nor studied.

The implications of this are extraordinary. It points tothe real possibility that if the circuit were sufficiently finely

turned so that the resonating frequency could always

include that harmonic, then the indications are that energy

can be delivered by a supply source at absolutely no cost

from that supply. Yet this is not a perpetual motion

claim. The battery will lose mass to evaporation. The plates

will be corrupted over time. The battery supplying the

signal source will lose voltage. And the bound condition ofthe resistive element itself may systematically degrade. But

thats pocket change. The cost of supplying energy through

this technology remains seductive and promising and, in

truth, seems to answer the overriding need for an

inexhaustible supply of energy at a cost that Nature herself

can afford. Which is good news indeed.

However there are certain hurdles that need to be

crossed before this technology passes through to the

production lines and enters the world as a usable

technology. There is a radiated RF (radio frequency)

component in that resonance that will need proper shielding

in some applications. There is the need to develop circuitry

that is better able to maintain the signature harmonic. The

optimised shape and size of the various resistors need to be

tested. Different inductive and resistive materials need to

be considered. And all this will take a great deal of

research and with it, research funding. Traditionally such

funding is channelled to universities, technical institutions


12/16

and privately owned laboratories. This funding is usually

supplied by companies with a vested interest in exploiting

the technology and/or securing patent rights. But theres a

caveat to investment. This is that the research itself is notthat unrealistic, that exotic, that it flies in the face of

thermodynamic principles. And this is the very point at

which this application falls on its knees and dies. These

claims are indeed, that far out and that bazaar. No self-

respecting researcher will endorse such a study, nor a self-

respecting investor fund its research, unless and until the

claim has been published and closely scrutinised by a broad

range of academics.

So, for this technology to move forward, publication

in an academic medium is required. It must be understood

that there are two reputable sources of publication that,

between them, control the publication of virtually all

academic papers written in English. The first is the

Institute of Electrical Technologies, (IET) which is theEuropean arm and its sister body across the Atlantic being

The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers,

(IEEE). Between them they hold significant control over

nearly all academic paper submissions of this type. The

first application was submitted to the IET in January 2009.

This was rejected out of hand and was not even submitted

for review. The second was submitted shortly thereafter to

the IEEE. The editor here was evidently prepared to look to

the experimental evidence and the paper was submitted for

review but summarily rejected probably by consensus

vote from the reviewers themselves.


13/16

But by now the replication exercise on one of those

many Open Source forums had taken off. This was

energeticforum.com on a thread named COP 17 heater /

Rosemary Ainslie. The readership of that thread is in thethousands per day. And the postings have evolved to

evidence multiple replications. There are many

experimentalists who have done some variation of that

initial Quantum test as it is referred to. Two such players

are Aaron Murakami and Glen Lettenmaier. But it was

Lettenmaier who pipped everyone to the finish line with the

accurate and transparent evidence of the required and

unequivocal evidence of heat being dissipated at theresistive load at a cost that was singularly less than that

being supplied by the battery. His experimental aptitudes

were exemplary and his data and multiple YouTube

video demonstrations together with live streaming

broadcast of the actual waveforms was done without any

editing of the facts. This therefore proved that the circuit

was able to regenerate usable energy. More to the point,the measurements relating to that supply source was

determined by state of the art measuring equipment.

As a consequence of these efforts some of those

members decided to rally together, to collaborate and

submit an Open Source paper to the IEEE. This is possibly

a first of its kind, and is intended to confront those same

academic editors with the evidence of this new data based

on these carefully recorded tests. In evaluating the strength

of a thesis it is required that there is some experimental

proof and that the experiment itself is replicable. In other

words, a claim is never substantiated unless and until the


14/16

conditions of that claim can be tested and replicated and

proved. Then indeed the thesis may have merit. Here the

initial test was designed to prove that the circuit

components themselves were capable of producingregenerated energy. This first submission carried with it

the accreditation and endorsement of BP (South Africa),

SASOL (SA, who also offered a bursary award for its

advancement), ABB Research (North Carolina, USA) and

others. But the circuit was actually Replicated only by

ABB Research, the others being Verifications of the

existing built circuit. The Open Source replications proved

that the first tests were not an anomalous result from somefreak, co-incidental and haphazard assemblage of

experimental apparatus that produced a one-off effect.

And this is the point. That entire replication exercise is

usually and traditionally advanced within our academic

institutions who, in turn, are alerted to these technological

breakthroughs courtesy of the publication of papers in those

journals. But failure to publish prevented those sameacademics from knowing about this claim let alone testing

it. In effect, Open Source had filled the gap that had been

closed by a handful of editors and/or reviewers who

pontificated that, on the basis of probability, the

experimental evidence presented in that initial paper, was

erroneous.

Some talented members of the Open Source

community collaborated in this publication, including this

author, Harvey Gramm, Glen Lettenmaier, Ashtweth

Palise, Andrew Gardner, Donovan Martin and Steve

Windisch. Each contributor brought their own expertise


15/16

into the exercise. And this time the paper has not been

rejected but rather has been referred to a different journal

with a different emphasis. It has been deemed to more

appropriate to the journal devoted to renewable energyrather than power generation. Which may be good news.

The hope is that this recommendation was well considered.

Meanwhile the technological breakthroughs are happening

at pace. The latest feat is by Michael John Nunnerley who

has done a live broadcast of his own circuit variation of

these principles that shows the battery recharging over a 17

hour period while systematically running a compact

florescent lamp which is burning something in the region of11 watts.

All of which points to unequivocal evidence of over

unity results that challenging claim that goes to the throat

of our Thermodynamic Laws and calls to question its

applicability to the dark energy that the thesis claims as its

source. But to get this argument to mainstream, to thoseacademics who between them can evaluate the evidence in

that paper, it first needs to get through that rigid editorial

process. The hope is that, should that process fail, should

the sheer lack of credibility in the reviewers prove to be an

insuperable barrier to publication, then this article and

others like it can alert our public to these facts. Indeed the

good news is that energy is available and it is inexpensive

and it is clean and green. It will put paid to our dependency

on both utility supply sources and oil. It may thereby cause

a certain amount of social upheaval as the broader

populations rid themselves of their dependency on

traditional energy supply sources. But the good news is that


16/16

energy usage will be freed from the pollutant excesses that

have resulted from so many years and so many generations

of abuse. Nature herself will get a much deserved break.

And, whatever the causes of global warming, our ownculpabilities will then no longer be at question.

Documents

Crashing Through the Energy Barrier Final for DS-2