The publicity launched by the Australian magazine Nexus in introducing the "Free Energy Machine" developed by Robert G. Adams has triggered several independent researchers in several countries into replicating and confirming that we do have, at last, a demonstrable technology that operates in the `over-unity' mode.
This author has developed from U. K. a working association with Robert Adams in New Zealand and we will together be promoting both the science and the technology underlying this landmark invention.
In view of the excitement surrounding the Adams Pulsed Electric Generator an invited audience participated in a briefing meeting held on 14th September 1993 at the Reef Restaurant in Whatakane, New Zealand. The enthusiastic confirmation resulted in media publicity, one newspaper showing a photograph of Adams and the working machine that he had demonstrated. The article was headed `Sub- Atomic Energy', and ended with the announcement: "Two working generators will be on display at next week's Spring Show".
On the first day of the show, October 1st 1993, a further newspaper article reported that a Brisbane man, Bill McMurthy, had built an Adams machine based on details in the Nexus publication and confirmed the over-unity operation. A photograph of McMurthy with his machine was prominent in the article, where one reads:
`Mr. McMurthy said there were a lot of people in the world today claiming to have invented motors of all descriptions. "I have followed the work of various people in the past 10 years or so and I've attempted to produce their work," he said, "Quite often it is in error or quite fraudulent - they are writing fictional stories."'
After explaining his decision to build the Adams motor McMurthy then said:
"I have had remarkable results. All of Bob's claims have been proven to me in that the motor does exactly what he says.
The article ended with the words:
"Mr. McMurthy's model along with three developed by Mr. Adams, will be on display at the Whatakane Agricultural and Pastoral Show today and Saturday. Included will be one demonstrating actual work." "The Motor will be powering a motorized saw".
Robert Adams reports that the demonstration (October 1st and 2nd) was a success and was witnessed by hundreds of people. Pieces of wood were sawn by a machine having a power input of 22 watts!
Robert Adams will also be working with Bill McMurthy in developing production versions of the motor, well recognizing that the existing machine aims at proving a principle, namely that%he over-unity conversion of electricity into mechanical power is possible, notwithstanding the energy laws of orthodox science.
This author, now as a co-inventor with Robert Adams, has expedited the filing of a patent application covering such a potential development, and this was lodged at the U.K. Patent Office on September 30th 1993, one day ahead of that Whatakane Show.
to It is our intention, in view of our desire to see this technology advance for the world's benefit and in the spirit of `Power he People' (Nexus, December `92- January `93 issue), to be more open about disclosing developments than is usual in a commercial venture. In return, we hope to engender cooperation and a positive, rather than a hostile and negative reaction from the electrical industry that will be taking this new technology forward. We expect, of course, to encounter reaction and hostility from an academic establishment that has stood firmly opposed to the concept of `free energy' and now find themselves on shaking foundations.
In this regard, this report will open the door on a scientific question that emerges from the excitement of the Adams machine publicity. As may be expected Adams was inundated by many people expressing interest and, in communication to this writer, he said:
"I have read of other inventors with free energy devices experiencing unexplained phenomena - some of these strange phenomena that take place appear not to register correctly with established measurements. (Food for thought!) There was a recent occasion when I received a report of one person who replicated my machine and he reported, upon moving my machine from one locality to another its efficiency varied but remained over unity. Unfortunately I did not record who this fellow was - Nexus may possibly know. This came to my knowledge approximately 6 months or so ago. At this stage, primarily because I have been so busy out of the lab, I have not had time to give this phenomenon the attention it deserves and so have not yet been able to verify this activity. This would be an interesting aspect to keep an eye out for in future development."
So, here is a challenge pointing a way forward. We have to know what scientific reason there can be for this anomaly. Also, this writer hopes that, wherever this report is published, it will come to the attention of that person who contacted Robert Adams and revealed that news about locality dependence. In that event that person is requested to contact this author.
Now, whereas technologists in industry would, like Bill McMurthy and others who have replicated the Adams machine, rather build a motor and verify that it works, than worry unduly about the underlying science, those of a more academic mind have here a real question of cosmological signifance. They have had their day ridiculing the claims concerning cold fusion and now we wait for the case to be decided by those funding that technology. They can, therefore, either see the above Adams motor claims as an opportunity to probe the free energy potential of space itself and research the curious anisotropy effect suggested or they can try to laugh the proposals out of court and so create prejudice which makes it difficult to find funding or secure patent cover.
Therefore, the comments below may interest those who see events as following a course that sometimes defies normal chance of coincidence.
The source of the `free energy' in the Adams machine is the sub-atomic vacuum spins that activate Planek's quantum of action, the `empty space' scenario that tells energy how to package itself in electromagnetic units labelled by different frequencies.
There can be no doubt whatsoever on this point and academics cannot deny this assertion. They have no established explanation for the origin of the Planck quantum of action and cannot explain why it is that atoms, and especially atoms in a ferromagnetic material, have the same quantum properties, whether in Australia, USA or England or, for that matter, whether on Earth or on the Moon.
They can only question how it can be that we can expect to get something for nothing in energy terms, when their `experience' tells them otherwise. This author has pointed out repeatedly that the onset of the state of ferromagnetism as a piece of iron cools does take energy from the space background, proved simply by the fact that the heat released by normal cooling is augmented for some mysterious reason at the transition - there being no change of crystal structure at that transition.
In theorizing about this and about the energy responses and the subtle structural properties of the vacuum itself, which in fact behaves much as the fluid crystal activation by which numbers are displayed in a pocket computer, this author was inevitably challenged by academics who said that the vacuum had no inherent directional properties.
What they meant was that the physics they had been taught did not show evidence of any preferred direction in space. To understand why this is relevant, suppose the vacuum has a preferred spin direction. Then the reaction of whatever it is about electrons in atoms, as they respond in their spin-coupling with the Planek mediator in space, is possibly dependent upon orientation of the body affected. In a ferromagnet there is very good reason to believe that the axes of magnetization in different domains and at different moments are directed in a spread of directions. Therefore, one could understand why the local vacuum might have a preferred field direction and yet not reveal this property in our experiments. On the other hand, if such a preferred direction were to be sensed by scientists researching this question, then that must reinforce the vacuum energy proposition and help us to better understand why the Adams motor really works.
It was on 28th April 1993 that Dr. D. M. Eagles, with whom I had collaborated over twenty years ago in developing aether theory, unexpectedly contacted me to advise that Russian researchers had reported the `Experimental Observation of Space Ma~netic Anisotropy' (Baurov, Klimenko and Novikov, Physics Letters A, 162, pp.32-34; 1992).
A magnetically responsive test specimen located inside a superconducting electromagnetic solenoid was subjected to forces which varied with time of daily rotation and rotation about the sun.
This is not supposed to be possible, because it lies outside the logic relied upon by so many academic scientists who subscribe to relativistic teachings. Yet, here were the Russians in Moscow showing the world that, after all, the space we see as a vacuum has an intrinsic directional property connected with magnetism.
The author's writings had for many years propounded the case that the vacuum energy interaction was sensitive to direction of a spin reaction in relation to a preferred direction in space. What is involved is the strength of induced magnetic fields in spinning rotors that are of metal and so are electrically conductive. The direction of rotation and the orientation of the spin axis of the machine in relation to a space axis and the Earth's magnetic axis are parameters than can affect the interaction between space energy and the machine.
This may explain why some homopolar machine experiments, the so-called N-machines, are said to work over-unity and others have difficulty verifying such claims. It may simply be a question of orientation, time of day or location.
Having regard to this and the developing research interest in the feasibility of the N-machine, this author did wonder whether the Adams machine could possibly be sensitive to orientation and this was before hearing from him on the 16th October 1993 that someone had actually discovered that relocation of an Adams-type motor altered operational efficiency.
Indeed, in wondering how to propose to Robert Adams how the properties of his machine might be researched and lead to something patentable, the author took the bold step of gambling on filing a U.K. patent application dated July 19th 1993 addressing the solution to this orientation problem in a stationary generator.
From a practical viewpoint and concerning a mobile motor application, however, given a possible attitude-sensitivity of an Adams-type machine, the use of multiple pole magnets with different orientations would suffice and, indeed, the specific Adams machine demonstrated at that Whakatane Spring Show in New Zealand may well be of the right rotor design to avoid such problems.
These, therefore, are exciting issues to explore as the Adams motor technology progresses and it is, indeed, quite a coincidence to find that someone somewhere has discovered experimentally an efficiency dependence that bears so closely upon the conjecture suggested by the author's aether theory.
As more and mpre people now confirm the over-unity operability of the Adams-type machine, it is hoped that they will explore this possibility that the over-unity quality can be dependent upon where the machine is located and how it is orientated relative to the compass bearings and cosmological axes.
The author wishes to hear from any reader confirming the latter phenomenon, thereby to share informanon as ~o underlying scientific fundamentals and, to that end, the author will disclose to such persons on a non- confidential, private basis the reasoning fully documented in the author's U.K. Patent Application 9,314,939 of 10 July 1993, and prior to its eventual general publication.