"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by 547000


You're referring to the "sacred" of sacred geometry?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
They’re not the same.

Apparently you haven't figured out how ATS works yet. If the link you post has something in it ATS doesn't like, then when someone clicks the link you copied and pasted exactly from your source, then other ATS members who click the link won't go to the same page. If you copy and paste the link in your browser then it takes you to the site that was actually posted. You can often tell when ATS broke the link by observing there's some unhighlighted text immediately to the right of the highlighted part of the link.

I thought you might already know this considering you're not new to ATS but I guess now's as good a time as any to learn it if you didn't know that. So yeah, the link I posted is the same. But you won't see that if you don't copy and paste the link into your browser. If you don't like that ATS breaks the link you can always submit a complaint form, but I doubt they will do anything about it. Sorry if that confused you.

Due to its “heat pump” type operation, the MEG becomes a NESS system, freely receiving excess energy from its second (environmental) energy reservoir that is furnished “for free” by the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

You noticed he put "for free" in quotes right?

And there’s a lot of info about electromagnetism and Maxwell’s original equations, etc,. that Bearden provides and you don’t recognize as valid.

Right. If his contraption worked I might reconsider.

Are you saying that patent law has changed since 2002 when Bearden's patent was granted?

I don't know the exact date they changed their procedure, but if I had to guess I'd think it might have been sometime in the 1980s after they slipped in 1979 by issuing a patent for a perpetual motion machine to Howard R Johnson:

www.herebeanswers.com...

A perpetual motion machine is one which generates sufficient energy to continue operating, and does not require input of energy from an outside source. Thus it would go on operating perpetually. It means creating “Something out of nothing!”...

...only one patent has been granted for perpetual motion machine in 1979 to its inventor Howard R. Johnson who had claimed that his machine was self-powered which produced its own energy from ordinary magnets to keep its main wheel rotating.

The news of this patent caused a sensation throughout America....

after some time the bubble burst as it was bound to. American Patent Office acknowledged its blunder of having conferred the patent on the examination of blueprint only and regretted publicly. It also made a rule that the inventor must demonstrate a practical model of perpetual motion machine when applying for its patent. Howard Johnson had never made a model of that crucial wheel of permanent magnets. He tried later but failed condemned by fate to suffer ignominy for grandiose utterances.

And are you saying that Bearden's patent documentation shows that there was no working model?

I'm saying that Bearden has no working model of a perpetual motion machine/free energy device. I don't know if he submitted a model with his patent request or not, but since his patent doesn't appear to me to describe a perpetual motion machine, a model wouldn't have been required by the patent office. They only require working models for perpetual motion machines/free energy devices.

I think it was ingenious the way Bearden put "For Free" in quotes
That let the patent examiner know it wasn't really for free, and it looks good to investors who don't know any better.

By the way, very little of the power that comes to your residence travels through the transmission wires. The vast majority of the power is transmitted in the environment outside the wires, so this is not an unusual feature of electromagnetism. It's quite common for electromagnetic fields to extend into the environment beyond the device, and in fact it's so hard to stop them from doing that, we have all kinds of standards on electrical and electronic devices about how much excess energy they can put into the environment.

And there's no reason that energy from the environment can't be recovered. Here's an ATS thread about scientists working on this technology:

Printable antenna harvest ambient energy. Tesla quirks an eyebrow
The energy isn't really "free energy" in a perpetual motion machine sense, but it really does come out of thin air from the power that broadcast antennae put out.

In Bearden's case, the way I read his patent, the source of the energy it's recovering from the environment is his own device, when it's connected, before it's disconnected. (remember the bicycle wheel example?) That doesn't really violate any physical laws, and therefore the patent office could grant a patent without a working model.

Thanks for the how ATS works tutorial.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I think it was ingenious the way Bearden put "For Free" in quotes That let the patent examiner know it wasn't really for free, and it looks good to investors who don't know any better.

The "for free" expression comes from the wanttoknow.info/beardenmeg website in an article entitled "The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator: How It Works" by Bearden, dated August 26, 2003, under "Discussion 6: Operation of the MEG, Analogous to a Heat Pump."

I searched the patent documentation and the phrase does not appear in it. Nor does the phase "perpetual motion."

Under "SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION":

It is a first objective of the present invention to provide a magnetic generator which a need for an external power source during operation of the generator is eliminated.

It is a second objective of the present invention to provide a magnetic generator in which a magnetic flux path is changed without a need to overpower a magnetic field to change its direction.

It is a third objective of the present invention to provide a magnetic generator in which the generation of electricity is accomplished without moving parts.

From "EXPLANATION OF THE MOTIONLESS ELECTROMAGNETIC GENERATOR BY SACH'S THEORY OF ELECTRODYNAMICS", which was published in Foundations of Physics Letters, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2001, page 2:

It is shown that the principles of general relativity as developed by Sachs [1] can be used to explain the principles of the motionless electromagnetic generator (MEG), which takes electromagnetic energy from Riemannian curved space-time and in consequence outputs about twenty times more energy than inputted [2]. Therefore, it is shown in the most general manner that electromagnetic energy can be extracted from vacuum and used to power working devices such as the MEG, devices which are reproducible and repeatable. [2].

Key words: electromagnetic energy from curved spacetime; motionless electromagnetic generator.

"Extracted from vacuum" is not the same as "harvesting ambient energy," correct?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Extracted from vacuum" is not the same as "harvesting ambient energy," correct?

What do you think, Mary? Well, it can be construed the same (as vacuum is ambient), or not.

Either way, there is 0% proof of said extraction. Same as saying a dinosaur hatched from an egg I bought at the farmers market, but I can't show it to you because you know, it flew away. Pterosaurs do that.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Since you find Mendel Sachs to be an interesting read, I'm curious to know what your comments might be about the following, from Bearden's document

It's not the first time I see this document. Nonsense.

Also a lie -- there is no working generator built to Bearden's specifications, period. And it's very specious that he mentions that there is "20 times more energy extracted than inputted". If the device produces energy, why do you have to "input" anything? Ah, that magic "test battery" present in most charlatans designs, to keep things moving.

reply to post by buddhasystem


reply to post by Mary Rose


Exactly. Why put so much effort into explaining how a device can output 20 times more energy than is input, when apparently, it doesn't do that?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . they slipped in 1979 by issuing a patent for a perpetual motion machine to Howard R Johnson:

www.herebeanswers.com...

Personally, I prefer articles with bylines.

"After some time" is vague. When did this acknowledgment take place? How does the patent office regret something publicly? I went to the patent office website but I don't know how to search for this.

This patent is mentioned on Bearden's website. It's U.S. Patent No. 4,151,431 the "Permanent Magnet Motor" dated April 24, 1979.

Where in the public record is this alleged acknowledgement from the patent office?

reply to post by Mary Rose

I can confirm that the procedures now require a working nodel of perpetual motion machines, by providing the actual text:

Perpetual motion

Proposals for such inoperable machines have become so common that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model. The USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Practice states:

" With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device. If operability of a device is questioned, the applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the examiner, but he or she may choose his or her own way of so doing.[13]"

And, further, that:

"A rejection [of a patent application] on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility should not be based on grounds that the invention is frivolous, fraudulent or against public policy.[14]"

The filing of a patent application is a clerical task, and the USPTO won't refuse filings for perpetual motion machines; the application will be filed and then most probably rejected by the patent examiner, after he has done a formal examination.[15] Even if a patent is granted, it doesn't mean that the invention actually works; it just means that the examiner thinks that it works, or that he couldn't figure out why it wouldn't work.

And I can confirm the Howard Johnson patent.

But I can't confirm some of the other statements and yes the article doesn't mention a date that clause in the USPTO manual went into effect, so I acknowledged I was only guessing the 1980s. I really don't know.

If you find out the date that text in the USPTO manual went into effect, let me know. Regarding looking at the USPTO website for what happened in 1980s, they probably didn't even have a website in the 1980s. And it's possible that their change in procedure to require the working model is their only official action which "admits" that blueprints alone aren't enough for perpetual motion machines.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by 547000

 

You're referring to the "sacred" of sacred geometry?

He did not make any new math.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


My question was:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"After some time" is vague. When did this acknowledgment take place? How does the patent office regret something publicly? I went to the patent office website but I don't know how to search for this.

I want the public record of:

. . . after some time the bubble burst as it was bound to. American Patent Office acknowledged its blunder of having conferred the patent on the examination of blueprint only and regretted publicly. . . . Howard Johnson had never made a model of that crucial wheel of permanent magnets. He tried later but failed condemned by fate to suffer ignominy for grandiose utterances.

What I went to the patent office website for was a way to search for communiques from the patent office to the public which would have brought up such information about an alleged blunder discussed in the public arena regarding this 1979 patent.

Where's the news article? What kind of a website is this herebeanswers.com, with no byline, and no quotes from their reliable source?

reply to post by Mary Rose

So you're finally questioning a source?

You should get applause for that.

In fact you should do it more often.

I did respond to that question:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But I can't confirm some of the other statements

It's entirely possible that some of the claims in that article I can't confirm are completely false.

It's entirely possible that some of the claims in many of the sources you look at are false.

Now, just keep that great skeptical attitude you have regarding the source I posted, and apply that to all the other sources you look at.

Well done, Mary!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Howard Johnson had never made a model of that crucial wheel of permanent magnets. He tried later but failed condemned by fate to suffer ignominy for grandiose utterances.

Howard Johnson died in 2008 and there is a five page document on Bearden’s site entitled “In Memoriam” written by Bearden.

On page 1:

Twice to my personal knowledge he did successfully build a self-rotating permanent magnet machine, only to have it promptly stolen in professional break-ins to his laboratory. . . .

. . . According to Science & Mechanics, Johnson was and is directly connected with (and responsible for) more than 30 patents in significant chemistry and physics apparatuses and processes.

On pages 3 and 4:

So it is the severe crippling of our standard electrical engineering . . . the classical EM model must be corrected and seriously updated to add back the asymmetrical Maxwellian systems presently arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz.

Johnson’s epochal work was a very long example of his struggle to build just such long-neglected asymmetrical magnetic systems, which – permissibly – would then freely self-rotate and power the loads, continually and freely “energized” by virtual state energy freely received from the seething vacuum.

Howard had found several effects (notably the exchange force effect discussed in Nobelist Feynman’s three volumes of sophomore physics) which could be evoked and, if evoked with sufficient controlled precision of timing and direction, each could break the symmetry of his magnetic propulsion gates and his rotating machines precisely so as to allow self-powering.

Sadly, the major problem that Howard had all those years was the lack of the very substantial funds necessary to afford high precision machining and cutting of his nonlinear magnets used to make asymmetric assemblies and to evoke the necessary asymmetric forces and pulses. So he personally cut his magnetic materials with a diamond saw himself, which meant that it was nearly impossible for him to attain the “couple thousandths of an inch” precision necessary for the exact timing and directional control of the desired “symmetry-breaking” effects to be evoked.

Nonetheless, he did succeed on at least two occasions. One of those successful self-rotating Johnson machines (in the 1970s) had his magnetic assemblies mounted on a crude “Lazy Susan” turntable. He brought the operating machine down to Huntsville for me to see and examine closely. And I personally played with that machine, with the stator magnet assembly rigidly C-clamped to the table, and the little turntable rotor and rotor magnet just went around and around, slowly but continuously for about two hours – continuously doing real, free work by physically displacing air and overcoming the friction resistance of the crude bearings.

On Howard’s return to Blacksburg, very shortly a break-in occurred at his lab, and the only thing taken from the several hundred thousand dollars worth of assemblies, magnets, etc. was his successful rotary prototype device.

Here is a photo taken from Bearden's website page "Howard Johnson." It is a candid shot of Johnson examining one of his magnetic motors under construction, and it was taken for the documentary series Energy from the Vacuum :

As a teacher did you ever get excuses about why students didn't turn in their homework? You know, like "The dog ate my homework", etc?

I must admit that saying the model was stolen is at least more credible than Searl's claim that his model flew away into outer space!

And maybe Johnson's model WAS in fact stolen, who knows? But I can't give any of my students credit for their homework assignment if they don't turn it in, no matter what their excuse is, the best I could do is give them some extra time to re-do it (if they ever actually did it), and then have them turn it in at the next class. But if they just don't turn it in at all then they don't get credit for it, isn't that how you operated?

And if Johnson's model was stolen, or the dog ate it, or whatever, the only way he can get credit for it is to re-make it and this time maybe keep better security so it doesn't get "stolen". Of course, it's a little late for that now.

But what happened to the admirable skepticism you were exhibiting just a short while ago? You had doubts about the patent office admitting they were embarrassed about issuing a patent for a perpetual motion machine, but you have no such doubts about Johnson's claim his model was stolen, or about Bearden's claims? Isn't that kind of biased?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
“In Memoriam”

Other pertinent information from this document:

We also point out that in physics there are more than 200 named effects in magnetics. And only about half of them are understood. The other half range from “poorly understood a little bit” to “totally not understood at all”. For many of these effects, I strongly suggest the latest edition of Cullity’s original 1972 book. The new edition is B. D. Cullity and C. D. Graham, Introduction to Magnetic Materials, Wiley-IEEE Press, 2nd Edition, 2007. Howard Johnson used the original 1972 Cullity book for decades, and introduced me to it decades ago. The Cullity book gives these effects in very clear and simple manner, so the new user can readily understand and use them.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Mary, let's read into what you posted. The gentleman allegedly needed a "couple of thousands of an inch precision" in his machine. Let's look at the numbers.

One inch = 2.54.cm = 2.54x10-2m
A couple of thousandth of same:
5*10^-05m = 50*10^-6m = 50 um (fifty micron precision)

This is downright trivial, and has been for a long while. You can do that in any half decent shop. We had it done on some really old equipment.

Charlatans begone.

I've left aside the issue of why he needed this precision in the first place. And I don't care either. After digging through lies upon lies, one gets tired.

reply to post by buddhasystem


When I was an apprentice in the 1970's we used to have exercises to file things to withing 15 thousanths of an inch dimentsionally and have them perfectly square and flat.

A couple of decades earlier the tolerances for similar exercises had been tighter - 1 thousanth of an inch!!

That's using hand files.

Even with basic lathes you could usually get 2-3 thou' without any problem - if you tried hard then

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Thanks Aloysious for corroborating on what I presented from my experience.

But the circus in all these idiotic claims doesn't stop at this supposedly unachievable precision levels. Read further, and you find that the alleged prototype was a "crude" version of "Lazy Susan". Crude, like in "Crude".

How is supposed a CRUDE apparatus to keep super-tight precision?

I have an answer -- all of this is baloney.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Mary, let's read into what you posted. The gentleman allegedly needed a "couple of thousands of an inch precision" in his machine. Let's look at the numbers.

One of the shops I worked in had equipment so old we used to joke that it must have come over on the Mayflower! And unless the bearings were shot (in which case we replaced the bearings) it had no problem holding plus or minus 1 thousandth of an inch. The customer allowed us a tolerance of plus or minus 2 thousandths and meeting that wasn't hard if you paid the least bit of attention to what you were doing.

So yeah, it's kind of hard for me to imagine equipment that's not capable of holding plus or minus one thousandth, after seeing some ancient machines do it that could have been museum pieces. And of course there is newer much more capable equipment.

I guess the prototypes getting stolen excuse wasn't enough, so he had to make up more excuses? But that's what they sound like to me, excuses.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Here's more on Russell Blake: "Russell P Blake Endoresements and Papers".

I seem to recall Arbitrageur saying of Mr. Blake, "He could be delusional."

This is a poll. Russell Blake is:

a. delusional
b. a fraud
c. insane
d. other