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

Replication of Dr. Ronald Stiffler’s Near Infinity Light System by James Hammons 29 October 2009 Summary Dr. Ronald Stiffler has created a technology, now patent pending, that he has dubbed Spatial Energy Coherence (hereafter referred to as SEC) and circuits that utilize this technology that he calls SEC Exciters (hereafter referred to as Exciters). In this paper I used a slightly modified SEC18-1 Exciter (still available at Stiffler Scientific as of this writing) to successfully replicate the Near Infinity Light System (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 paper by Dr. Stiffler. A six volt, 4.5 amp-hour lead-acid battery was used to power the circuit. An LED light board similar to Dr. Stiffler’s was composed of twelve 7,000mcd bright white LEDs, each with a forward 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 battery powered Digital Multimeter approximately every eight hours; some variation to this schedule was inevitable. 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 over the course of the experiment instead of steadily sinking (see Figure 2). The wider swings in voltage were most likely due to temperature variations where the apparatus was situated; indeed, the battery manufacturer’s data sheet states that the capacity can vary from -15% at 0˚C to +5% at 40˚C. Also, some of the rise in voltage could have been due to a recharging effect from the Exciter. This raises an interesting question: Is the battery really being recharged or is the battery only supplying a small amount of power and the rest is being supplied by the Exciter? Either way you look at it, there seems to 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 to give 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 both figures is marked in hours; assuming the discharge curve follows the trend one could easily see the system 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 to cause the LEDs to glow at all, it is clear that the energy required to keep the system going is coming from somewhere other than the battery. Nine LEDs, at 3.3V forward bias and a 25mA current, would consume 9 × 3.3V × 0.025A = 0.7425W. At six volts, that would require a current of ≈ 124mA; the battery should have been dead after 40 hours. In actuality, it should have been dead sooner as the Exciter consumes power as well!

Conclusion The Spatial Energy Coherence technology of Dr. Stiffler is quite remarkable, as the results of this experiment appear to violate conventional physics. It is important to keep in mind, however, that conventional physics is woefully inadequate in its power to explain the results of experiments like these. In spite of this lack, I believe that as our understanding of nature matures that the answer to how such things operate will be well within our grasp—assuming that such understanding is permitted!

NILS Test Data Date/Time 10/20/2009 11:15 10/20/2009 11:15 10/20/2009 12:15 10/20/2009 16:00 10/20/2009 23:00 10/21/2009 08:00 10/21/2009 16:00 10/21/2009 23:45 10/22/2009 08:00 10/22/2009 16:30 10/22/2009 23:15 10/23/2009 08:00 10/23/2009 17:15 10/23/2009 23:30 10/24/2009 08:00 10/24/2009 19:15 10/25/2009 00:00 10/25/2009 08:00 10/25/2009 16:00

V 6.35 6.31 6.31 6.33 6.28 6.28 6.29 6.25 6.23 6.26 6.22 6.18 6.20 6.20 6.16 6.18 6.15 6.16 6.14

ΔT (Hours)

ΔV

Cumulative T

Cumulative V

0.00 1.00 3.75 7.00 9.00 8.00 7.75 8.25 8.50 6.75 8.75 9.25 6.25 8.50 11.25 4.75 8.00 8.00

-0.04 0.00 0.02 -0.05 0.00 0.01 -0.04 -0.02 0.03 -0.04 -0.04 0.02 0.00 -0.04 0.02 -0.03 0.01 -0.02

0.00 1.00 4.75 11.75 20.75 28.75 36.50 44.75 53.25 60.00 68.75 78.00 84.25 92.75 104.00 108.75 116.75 124.75

-0.04 -0.04 -0.02 -0.07 -0.07 -0.06 -0.10 -0.12 -0.09 -0.13 -0.17 -0.15 -0.15 -0.19 -0.17 -0.20 -0.19 -0.21

Figure 1: Raw data

2

Voltage vs. Time 6.40 6.35 6.30

Voltage

6.25 6.20 6.15 6.10 6.05 6.00 0

24

48

72

96

120

144

96

120

144

Time (Hours)

Figure 2

Voltage vs. Time 7.00

6.00

5.00

Voltage

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00 0

24

48

72

Time (Hours)

Figure 3 3