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 V ΔT (Hours) ΔV Cumulative T Cumulative V
10/20/2009 11:15 6.35
10/20/2009 11:15 6.31 0.00 -0.04 0.00 -0.04
10/20/2009 12:15 6.31 1.00 0.00 1.00 -0.04
10/20/2009 16:00 6.33 3.75 0.02 4.75 -0.02
10/20/2009 23:00 6.28 7.00 -0.05 11.75 -0.07
10/21/2009 08:00 6.28 9.00 0.00 20.75 -0.07
10/21/2009 16:00 6.29 8.00 0.01 28.75 -0.06
10/21/2009 23:45 6.25 7.75 -0.04 36.50 -0.10
10/22/2009 08:00 6.23 8.25 -0.02 44.75 -0.12
10/22/2009 16:30 6.26 8.50 0.03 53.25 -0.09
10/22/2009 23:15 6.22 6.75 -0.04 60.00 -0.13
10/23/2009 08:00 6.18 8.75 -0.04 68.75 -0.17
10/23/2009 17:15 6.20 9.25 0.02 78.00 -0.15
10/23/2009 23:30 6.20 6.25 0.00 84.25 -0.15
10/24/2009 08:00 6.16 8.50 -0.04 92.75 -0.19
10/24/2009 19:15 6.18 11.25 0.02 104.00 -0.17
10/25/2009 00:00 6.15 4.75 -0.03 108.75 -0.20
10/25/2009 08:00 6.16 8.00 0.01 116.75 -0.19
10/25/2009 16:00 6.14 8.00 -0.02 124.75 -0.21
Figure 1: Raw data

2
 Voltage vs. Time
6.40

6.35

6.30

6.25
Voltage

6.20

6.15

6.10

6.05

6.00
0 24 48 72 96 120 144

Time (Hours)

Figure 2

Voltage vs. Time

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00
Voltage

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
0 24 48 72 96 120 144

Time (Hours)

Figure 3