ADAMS VERSUS O'LEARY

By Dr. Robert Adams

In this paper I wish to point out the shortcomings in O'Leary's "Miracle in the Void" published in August 1999 edition of Network Review, published by the Scientific and Medical Network Review.

My principal concern pertains to the disturbing report he has quoted in page 5 from Magnetic Power Inc. and his statements concerning some eminent and famous pioneers, inventors/scientists; i.e. Takahashi, Johnson, Tobias, Adams, Yassi, Werjefelt, Kawai, Sweet, Muller and Newman.

O'Leary goes on next to assume, and I quote:

The problem with these people who make these kind of sweeping statements is that they are totally ignorant of the fact that in many cases they are dealing with, or referring to devices that operate and manifest with a new dimension of energy where orthodox measurement practices, orthodox equipment and the application of OHMS LAW have become obsolete. Having spent some 65 years in electrical/electronic engineering and related sciences, I now speak from experience regarding the many discoveries surrounding my own inventions, (and those of others) pertaining to electromagnetic dynamics, the power of the aether and it's totally different kind of electricity. My efforts in the past ten years have been concerned with the harnessing of aether energy for electric power generation, and heat from my motor generators. Like Tesla I gave away pushing for greater mechanical power and instead put all efforts into tapping the massive gains to be had in deciphering the secrets of reducing input current and simultaneously increasing output power.

ADAMS DISCOVERS VIOLATION OF OHMS LAW

Adams technology contradicts the principles of OHMS LAW, and must therefore cause a fundamental shift in our understanding, in relation to this different kind of electricity.

It was due to my persistent endeavours to decipher the secrets of reducing the current flow in the machine inductances by empirical determination that I first discovered the signs of OHMS LAW failing to compute with facts. With further successful reductions in current flow the gap between OHMS LAW and reality became too wide to ignore, this then is my announcement of this remarkable discovery.

Now I have encouraging news for those inventors and scientists named in Magnetic power Inc's line-up as not yet having proven their devices to function over unity under load. The encouraging news I have is that I challenge Magnetic Power Inc. to prove that they used the CORRECT METHOD/S and equipment on testing those devices which are static or rotary/electromagnetic in action. I do not need test analyses figures from MPI because I KNOW from this report of theirs that conventional test procedures and conventional electrical testing equipment have been engaged in the test procedures carried out. What I am saying here to the inventors and scientists so listed, and this is something of paramount significance to you all, is that any of the above named magnetic devices exhibiting signs of excess energy CAN NOT be accurately analysed/tested by conventional methods or by using conventional testing equipment or the application of OHMS LAW.

Having kept up with the progress of many of those named, I venture to say that some of you could be in for a pleasant surprise if you take the above advice, and indulge in calorimetric calculations to ascertain true power.

It is in this time that we find ourselves embarking on yet another new stage of scientific and technological enlightenment. In these modern times of what we consider to be advanced technology, particularly in the sciences of electrical and electronic engineering, we find ourselves still using orthodox methods of testing electrical machines. Here, I refer to the bizarre methods of measuring power.

Why, as we head rapidly towards the 21st century, do we, in the calculation of input/output power of modern day new energy devices, such as electric motors, find ourselves stubbornly holding fast to the age old parameters, as used in the days of lore for the determination of efficiencies of the James Watt steam engine, horse-drawn carriages and Joule's water paddle experiments? I cannot help but consider the foregoing to be a grotesque travesty of our modern day science, where the majority are still persisting in doing themselves the injustice of hibernating their structure of thinking within the warm protective shell of such obsequious obsolescence. It seems almost obscene, that in this age our bastilles of learning still content themselves with such sublime occupance to so ancient a regime.