Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in their structure

Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson,
Mario Human, Alan Macey, Riaan Theron

Abstract-A heat by product of an oscillation has an exploitable potential as this relates to the efficient use of energy, which is the subject of the first part of this two-part paper.
This second part looks at the implications of that oscillation as it confronts certain assumptions related to current flow.
An oscillation is induced on a circuit that then enables a reversing current flow that exceeds the circuit restrictions to this flow.
This is explained using an extension to Faraday’s model of Lines of Force to include a dual charge in the material property of current flow.
These explanations are nonstandard and form a small part of a magnetic field model that predicted and required these results.
The analysis concludes that energy can be sourced from the inductive and conductive circuit material.

165 comments to Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in their structure

  • Andrea Rossi

    To the Readers:
    I am continuing to find comments not to be spammed in the first page of the daily 30 pages or so of spam. For obvious reasons of time,I can only check the first page. This makes me suppose many comments are unduly spammed by the anti-spam robot. To make it worse, when a comment is spammed the robot puts automatically in the black list the address from which the comment arrives, so that if another comment arrives from the same address, it is automatically spammed again. I apologize for this, but without the robot I could not menage this blog: imagine to receive six, seven hundreds of comments per day and pick up the good ones…
    I invite all the Readers that find spammed their comments to send them again from another address, or inform us about the disfunction writing to
    If you send here your comment, it will be published.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Jamee Gamp:
    You can put all the questions you want to the Author.
    Warm Regards,

  • Hello Sir, would you mind if i ask you a few questions on these topics please?

  • Stella Nokia

    This paper, titled Proposed Variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force etc. by Rosemary Ainslie and Donovan Martin, is full of erroneous data. On June 29, 2013, the claimants themselves proved that they could not reproduce their own data, specifically Figure 3, Paper 1, when they are being watched so they cannot cheat. The recording of this demonstration is available on YouTube.

    Further, on August 10, in a comprehensive series of tests moderated by a professional EE power systems designer, Ainslie and Martin proved, and admitted, that ALL the data concerning power, current and voltage in these two papers are incorrect.

    Ainslie has admitted these errors (see her blog) and has indicated that she will be retracting this paper and the other one by her and Martin that appears here. She says that she will be issuing error statements, along with the retractions.

    She has been told for over 13 years that her data and her representations are wrong, but she _never actually checked_, while disseminating disrespect to those who tried to help her get straight.

    Kiss Kiss –
    –Stella Nokia

  • Rosemary Ainslie

    Bryan Little – or Stella Nokia

    Your comments related to any video representation that has NOT been referenced in the paper – are spurious and extraneous to any claims. Our experimental evidence detailed in both papers – is available for accreditation. Your colleagues need only contact me.

    Here are some video links that broadly describe the ‘field model’ referenced in the appendix to this second part of the two part paper. We propose that the magnetic field comprises a material structure that resolves as the Higgs Boson.

    Rosemary Ainslie


  • Stella Nokia

    The Ainslie paper and my previous comment refer.

    Thank you for approving my earlier comment.

    Ainslie has posted a YouTube video demonstration, on March 22 of 2011, of the apparatus and the trials described in the two manuscripts published here.

    This video purports to demonstrate the apparatus used in the present papers published here.

    Please note the following: There is a schematic displayed in the video, that shows only a single MOSFET. The narrator, at the same time, tells us that the apparatus has 5 MOSFETs in parallel. The closeup shots of the apparatus do indeed show 5 MOSFETs, but they are NOT in parallel… they are in the configuration given NOT in the paper above but rather in the first Ainslie paper here on JNP. But even this is not correct…. because the Black wire output from the Function Generator used is shown to be connected to the common circuit ground, and in BOTH the diagrams in the papers here it is shown connected on the opposite side of the current monitoring shunt resistor.

    The hookup used in the demonstration… and presumably _actually_ used in the present papers…. allows a major current pathway (through the FG) to bypass the current viewing resistor entirely. This would appear to invalidate all the data in these papers, if it was so connected during the actual experimental trials. But even the early photos of Ainslie’s single mosfet system show the FG black lead connected as in the video… in other words, invalidly.

    Thus, there have been 5 different schematics claimed or used for this one set of experiments: the one MOSFET version shown in the video; the 5 parallel MOSFET version claimed by the narrator of the video; the _actual_ nonparallel version used in the video; and the two different nonparallel versions in the two present papers with the black (marked “-“) FG lead in a different place than in the video.

    How can these discrepancies be resolved?

  • Stella Nokia

    The Rosemary Ainslie paper above refers.

    This present paper has a schematic diagram that is subtly different from that in the first Ainslie paper published here, yet both purport to describe the same experimental trials. The difference is subtle but makes a huge difference in interpretation of the papers. Which diagram…. IF ANY…. actually represents the circuit used, and WHY was this discrepancy not noted by the article reviewers?

    In addition, an examination of the present paper’s Figure 2 shows that there is a + 12 volt signal being applied to the Gate of the MOSFET designated “Q1” in the first paper, or “Q2x4” in the paper above, during a significant portion of the period. However… the current monitoring Shunt (the golden scope trace) shows absolutely no current through the load circuit flowing during these times.

    If the schematic being used is either of the two presented, this lack of current flow is impossible… if the MOSFET is functional, wired correctly and measured correctly. This too was apparently not noticed by the article’s peer reviewers.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear KD:
    It is not impossible, theoretically.
    Warm Regards,

  • K. D.

    Dir Mr.Rossi
    You answered to Bernie Koppenhofer:
    >>>> Another important achievement , we got today: we are able, now, to make the drive with gas instead of electric power.

    I understand that to start the working process, it will need outside heating with gas instead of electric power.
    Since you need to keep the core temperature at 400*C, and you already are getting temperature over 600*C, isn’t it possible in the future, to reuse the heat from the reactor
    as hot air or CO2, instead burning gas after reactor start work?
    Best Regards

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Eric Ashworth

    you may send me your work to my email:


  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in August 9th, 2012 at 11:40 AM

    “But the question remains, how do you define charge? What is it about an aether particle that makes it either positive or negative? What is the nature of the property that is known as charge?”

    Dear Joe,
    Eric Ashworth wrote in August 10th, 2012 at 12:02 AM

    My brief explanation to this is that life is an active binary system in every way. That is to say it requires two opposites to create a situation and thereby also degrees of.”

    Eric is right, and I will say it with other words:

    God created particles with some properties, as for instance: a negative particle has attraction with a positive particle.

    He created them with such sort of properties because He concluded that, if the pariticles should not have those properties, then the Universe could not work.

    Now, if you ask me how did He succeed to do it, I dont know to answer such question.

    Probably we will never have answer for many questions. For example: had the Universe an origin, or not?
    The physicists claim that the origin of the Universe is the Big-Bang.
    But what did exist before the Big-Bang? Where did the matter responsible for the occurrence of the Big-Bang come from?
    As you see, the Big-Bang theory is not a response.


  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Herb Gills,
    Good thinking, is an idea to work with.
    Warm Regards,

  • Herb Gillis

    Andrea Rossi:
    There are some large solar thermal-electric plants that use molten salt as a means for storing the solar energy so that electricity can be generated at night. If you can reach temperatures in the 600 C to 1000 C range then it stands to reason that the same idea could be used with the hot Ecat for generating electricity. As such; it seems to me that a molten salt reservoir could be used to provide the “drive” (either electrically or thermally). All one needs to do is heat up the initial reservoir of molent salt. This could be done using conventional heat sources, but after that the system should be able to operate independently of any external drive. The salt pool becomes the buffer, and Ecat could drive itself. Does this sound reasonable? Regards.

  • […] announced what would seem to be an important breakthrough in the development of the E-Cat. In a comment on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today, Rossi said: We are very close to a 1 MW plant with high […]

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steveta_uk:
    Of course you are right: temperature is one thing and power is another thing. Our Hot Cat has a power of 10 kW and reaches at the heat exchanger the temperature of 1000- 1200 Celsius degrees. The two data are indipendent: we could have as well a 1 kW power Hot Cat and still maintain the same temperature, or we could have a 10 kW E-Cat ( as we have also) which leads to the heat exchanger a temperature of 120 Celsius degrees.
    Warm Regards,

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>