Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Replication of Dr. Ronald Stiffler's Near Infinity Light System

Replication of Dr. Ronald Stiffler's Near Infinity Light System

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,086|Likes:
Published by James Hammons

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Science
Published by: James Hammons on Oct 30, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less




Replication of Dr. Ronald Stiffler’sNear Infinity Light System
by James Hammons29 October 2009
Dr. Ronald Stiffler has created a technology, now patent pending, that he has dubbed
Spatial EnergyCoherence
(hereafter referred to as SEC) and circuits that utilize this technology that he calls
(hereafter referred to as Exciters). In this paper I used a slightly modified SEC18-1 Exciter (stillavailable at Stiffler Scientific as of this writing) to successfully replicate the
Near Infinity LightSystem
(hereafter referred to as NILS) as seen in Dr. Stiffler’s paper entitled
Near Infinity Spatial Coherence Light System
Method and Apparatus
A SEC18-1 board was obtained from Stiffler Scientific and modified as shown in the aforemention paperby Dr. Stiffler. A six volt, 4.5 amp-hour lead-acid battery was used to power the circuit. An LED lightboard similar to Dr. Stiffler’s was composed of twelve 7,000mcd bright white LEDs, each with aforward current of 25mA; only nine were actually powered by the Exciter.Once power was connected to the Exciter, the voltage of the battery was checked with a batterypowered Digital Multimeter approximately every eight hours; some variation to this schedule wasinevitable. The raw data is presented in Figure 1.
Observations and Discussion
No diminuition of brightness was observed in the LEDs throughout the duration of the experiment.Interesting, though not unexpected, was the fact that the battery voltage occasionally went up overthe course of the experiment instead of steadily sinking (see Figure 2). The wider swings in voltagewere most likely due to temperature variations where the apparatus was situated; indeed, the batterymanufacturer’s data sheet states that the capacity can vary from -15% at 0˚C to +5% at 40˚C. Also, someof the rise in voltage could have been due to a recharging effect from the Exciter. This raises aninteresting question: Is the battery really being recharged or is the battery only supplying a smallamount of power and the rest is being supplied by the Exciter? Either way you look at it, there seemsto be an excess of energy coming from the system.The discharge graph given in Figure 2 may seem to decline dramatically, but it is presented this way togive a better idea of the fluctuations in voltage. Figure 3 gives a clearer picture of what’s happening in
relation to the total capacity of the battery over time. Also of note is that the bottom scale in bothfigures is marked in hours; assuming the discharge curve follows the trend one could easily see thesystem continuing to operate for another 120 hours without any degradation in light output.The remarkable thing about this system is that by simply going by the current and voltage needed tocause the LEDs to glow at all, it is clear that the energy required to keep the system going is comingfrom somewhere other than the battery. Nine LEDs, at 3.3V forward bias and a 25mA current, wouldconsume 9 × 3.3V × 0.025A = 0.7425W. At six volts, that would require a current of ≈ 124mA; the batteryshould have been dead after 40 hours. In actuality, it should have been dead sooner as the Exciterconsumes power as well!
The Spatial Energy Coherence technology of Dr. Stiffler is quite remarkable, as the results of thisexperiment appear to violate conventional physics. It is important to keep in mind, however, thatconventional physics is woefully inadequate in its power to explain the results of experiments likethese. In spite of this lack, I believe that as our understanding of nature matures that the answer tohow such things operate will be well within our grasp—assuming that such understanding ispermitted!
2 Figure 1: Raw data
NILS Test Data
Date/TimeVΔT (Hours)ΔVCumulative TCumulative V
10/20/2009 11:15 6.3510/20/2009 11:15 6.31 0.00 -0.04 0.00 -0.0410/20/2009 12:15 6.31 1.00 0.00 1.00 -0.0410/20/2009 16:00 6.33 3.75 0.02 4.75 -0.0210/20/2009 23:00 6.28 7.00 -0.05 11.75 -0.0710/21/2009 08:00 6.28 9.00 0.00 20.75 -0.0710/21/2009 16:00 6.29 8.00 0.01 28.75 -0.0610/21/2009 23:45 6.25 7.75 -0.04 36.50 -0.1010/22/2009 08:00 6.23 8.25 -0.02 44.75 -0.1210/22/2009 16:30 6.26 8.50 0.03 53.25 -0.0910/22/2009 23:15 6.22 6.75 -0.04 60.00 -0.1310/23/2009 08:00 6.18 8.75 -0.04 68.75 -0.1710/23/2009 17:15 6.20 9.25 0.02 78.00 -0.1510/23/2009 23:30 6.20 6.25 0.00 84.25 -0.1510/24/2009 08:00 6.16 8.50 -0.04 92.75 -0.1910/24/2009 19:15 6.18 11.25 0.02 104.00 -0.1710/25/2009 00:00 6.15 4.75 -0.03 108.75 -0.2010/25/2009 08:00 6.16 8.00 0.01 116.75 -0.1910/25/2009 16:00 6.14 8.00 -0.02 124.75 -0.21

Activity (12)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
shubhamforme liked this
madnikhawaja liked this
James Hammons liked this
Mike Sotov liked this
dlsharp liked this
valicus liked this
terrybee liked this
V-Knows liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->