"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by -PLB-

I noticed the power factor reading only dropped less than 5% and he was calculating a 15% power savings so I knew that didn't account for the 15%, but after reading your post I took a closer look at the video and his setup, and I think you're right that he actually put them in series! He has invented the wall dimmer!

So the while the coils do indeed induce a phase shift, I think you're right that the resistance of the wire in the coils is an even bigger problem with his setup.

To put it another way, if you measured the intensity of the light coming from the bulbs, they won't be as bright. Good catch PLB!

And you're right, that IS a much simpler problem than the phase shift.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by -PLB-

 

I noticed the power factor reading only dropped less than 5% and he was calculating a 15% power savings so I knew that didn't account for the 15%, but after reading your post I took a closer look at the video and his setup, and I think you're right that he actually put them in series! He has invented the wall dimmer!

Arb, I pointed this out in my first post on this video I just said that he "reduced current" (as is evident from the numbers on the PSU).

So the while the coils do indeed induce a phase shift, I think you're right that the resistance of the wire in the coils is an even bigger problem with his setup.

It would be interesting to increase the frequency -- the current should drop even further.

To put it another way, if you measured the intensity of the light coming from the bulbs, they won't be as bright. Good catch PLB!

And you're right, that IS a much simpler problem than the phase shift.

It a combination of both. There is less current through the circuit, and that current is used less efficiently.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Arb, I pointed this out in my first post on this video

I just said that he "reduced current" (as is evident from the numbers on the PSU).

And once again, you were right.

It a combination of both. There is less current through the circuit, and that current is used less efficiently.

Indeed that's true.

And actually it's kind of an insult to modern dimmer switches to even compare that experiment to a modern dimmer switch, which reduces the output of the light bulb somewhat efficiently.

The method used in the video is extremely inefficient, as heat will be given off by the coils, which in the middle of the summer would certainly be unwanted heat, and wasted energy.

reply to post by -PLB-


reply to post by Arbitrageur


From Jamie Buturff:

Yes, the more likely scenario is that the voltage drop across all of that 24ga wire is causing the 15% reduction on the Hioki. I don't have the equipment anymore and I never tested the voltage at the light bulbs. If the voltage at the bulbs was 100VAC or so this would account for the 15% drop and then I have indeed reinvented the light dimmer!!!

So, I would have to agree . . . This is probably what's happening.

He has deleted the video.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From Jamie Buturff:

Yes, the more likely scenario is that the voltage drop across all of that 24ga wire is causing the 15% reduction on the Hioki. I don't have the equipment anymore and I never tested the voltage at the light bulbs. If the voltage at the bulbs was 100VAC or so this would account for the 15% drop and then I have indeed reinvented the light dimmer!!!

So, I would have to agree . . . This is probably what's happening.

He has deleted the video.

Kudos to Jamie for retracting the video. He still doesn't get two things: it's not just the resistance of the wire that caused the extra impedance, it was the inductor. Also, power goes not as a linear function of the voltage/current, but as quadratic function (square). This sort of thing they teach you in school. Basically you can get 15% drop in power by trimming the current by 7%, I feel sorry for Jamie that he missed out on that.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Thanks for the follow-up.

I have to give the guy credit, for admitting that!

Some of the people we end up discussing will stick to their ideas no matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented!

So that was a refreshing change!

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Also, power goes not as a linear function of the voltage/current, but as quadratic function (square).

I'll bet you didn't even know that simple fact can solve the world's energy problems (at least according to studentofhistory)!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
Really? If that's the case, then the Earth's energy problems are solved! We just have to generate a small amount of electricty in two or more circuits, connected in parallel, and keep combining them to get this wonderful exponential gain out of nowhere!

I don't know if I ever convinced him that power increases with the square of the current. But he seems sure it will solve the world's energy problems if it's true!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I have to give the guy credit, for admitting that!

Yes, that's what honest people do.

Honesty has been quite important on this thread with all the charges of fraud being bandied about constantly. Bearden has been accused of being “criminal.”

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Carl Sagan, Robert Park, and Brian Dunning are quite different people but they appear to have one desire in common:

They want to help people separate fact from fiction, and they have a belief that using a fact-based approach and often some science, is a good way to do that.

I’d say “using a fact-based approach” requires honesty.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
. . . O'Leary shared his experience with Carl Sagan . . . "Dr Brian O'Leary: Interview transcript"

. . . Carl Sagan called me from Cornell and asked me to join the faculty . . .

KC: But isn’t there a time in which you and Carl Sagan sort of had a falling-out, or a distancing? Can you describe what happened there?

BO’L: Yes. Well, for one thing, Carl was very angry I left Cornell . . . It was only later, when I began to embrace the UFO phenomenon and the cover-up, studying all these organizations that were covering up, and having some direct experience, myself, as a researcher no longer beholden to funding from NASA or the university environment, that I began to double-check some of Carl’s work.

I saw, for example, the famous “Face” in Cydonia on Mars, photographed by Viking in 1975, which shows this gigantic mesa that resembles a human face, about a mile across. Carl and I debated this.

It was very, very disappointing to me, because not only was Carl wrong, he also fudged data. He published a picture of the “Face” in Parade Magazine, a popular article, saying that the “Face” was just a natural formation, but he doctored the picture to make it not look like a face.

I began to realize, just directly from the scientific point of view, not only hearsay, that this man was colluding with NASA, that there might be more to this than before. And then, when I started studying things like MJ12 and other organizations that were covering up the UFO phenomenon…

Carl was on a committee with a number of notable people. There was a report issued by the Brookings Institution in 1961 -- and that’s about when I knew Carl, during those years; the ’60s mostly was when I worked closely with him -- that he and this other group said: Well, if any ETs ever showed up on the Earth, it has to be covered up. That’s the only way we’re going to be able to manage this, because if we can’t, then it would be too much of a culture shock.

So their recommendation to the government in 1961 was to cover up the UFO phenomenon, and I think in a way that provided a justification for the ongoing cover-up way back in ’61 -- was to keep things secret. And of course they still are.

What about Sagan’s honesty?

reply to post by Mary Rose


I have O"Leary's word against Sagan's. It's not enough for me to conclude that Sagan is a fraud. But when somebody says a novel device they claim to have invented magically vanishes when it comes to life, I need to go and apply my common sense. Yup, that covers Bearden and Searl.

And back to Sagan -- O'Leary refers to some really old photos of "face on Mars". Since then, there have been numerous photos taken with immensely better precision (and that's an understatement). I don't know what "doctoring" O'Leary was referring to, what I see in pics taken at different times is same -- a heap of rubble. Oh, and there is a smiley on Mars -- look up the Galle crater.

When it comes to honesty, it behooves on to question non other than Mr.Rodin, who went on record to say that he has created a black hole in the lab. Right, Mary?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
O'Leary refers to some really old photos of "face on Mars".

Irrelevant entirely. Don't change the subject.

My post is about honesty, specifically, in this case, about Sagan's honesty, in view of how his persona has been raised as a reliable source during the discussion on this thread. He is also the person behind the"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" mantra that has been posted often.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Regarding Carl Sagan, from Brian O'Leary's The Energy Solution Revolution . . .

Myth #2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
. . . Popularized by the late Carl Sagan, this is the credo of skeptics enforcing scientific orthodoxy in this era of the (feared) deconstruction of mainstream physics. It is simply a defense mechanism to deter new ideas, in which the Occam's Razor goalpost is arbitrarily and politically moved ever more towards the skeptical view: "In the absence of countervailing evidence, the simplest explanation shall suffice." The countervailing evidence is more often ignored by many physicists, setting up lack of support for the research.

Such reasoning flies in the face of the search for the truth, sliding the scale of credibility to suit the political and economic agendas of those in charge. It is absurd to demand more experimental evidence according to whether the question to be asked happens to be important. Mr. Sagan was wrong. We must go where the evidence leads us regardless of our biases as to how ordinary or extraordinary the question might be.

Don't divert attention to the subjects that have been posted and re-posted on, ad nauseam.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
O'Leary refers to some really old photos of "face on Mars".

Irrelevant entirely. Don't change the subject.

Oh no, I'm not changing the subject, I'm addressing your own post. Mary, you published an excerpt with the "face on Mars" on page 124 of this thread. You obviously thought it was relevant. Now you insist it's not. There is a pattern, like you addressing Swerdlow and then saying he's irrelevant when it became inconvenient. Face up to your own posts.

He is also the person behind the"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" mantra that has been posted often.

Well I understand that you have a problem with scientific method and reason in general. You don't need evidence to accept claims. You freely admit that you believe something, well, because you want to, and facts be damned. You are entirely within your rights to live you life with only tenuous relation to reality.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
O'Leary refers to some really old photos of "face on Mars".

Irrelevant entirely. Don't change the subject.

My post is about honesty, specifically, in this case, about Sagan's honesty, in view of how his persona has been raised as a reliable source during the discussion on this thread.

Mary, how can you say this?

Buddhaststem is right, this is exactly the subject YOU brought up!!!

Now how can you accuse him of changing it. You're questioning Sagan's honesty with a quote about the face on Mars being doctored. Where is the evidence that it's been doctored?

Here's the evidence I've seen:

science.nasa.gov...


Now which photo was doctored? Show us the before and after versions, since you're promoting O'Leary's accusation against Sagan for doctoring the photo. The accusation about Sagan's honesty was largely based on his alleged doctoring of a photo. Show the evidence.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Mary, you published an excerpt with the "face on Mars" on page 124 of this thread.

The excerpt in question is regarding O’Leary’s account of his experience with Sagan doctoring a photo which was published in Parade magazine, which was within the context of O’Leary’s knowledge that:

Carl was on a committee with a number of notable people. There was a report issued by the Brookings Institution in 1961 -- and that’s about when I knew Carl, during those years; the ’60s mostly was when I worked closely with him -- that he and this other group said: Well, if any ETs ever showed up on the Earth, it has to be covered up. That’s the only way we’re going to be able to manage this, because if we can’t, then it would be too much of a culture shock.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You don't need evidence to accept claims.

An incorrect statement.

My evidence is different from your evidence. Your evidence is not necessarily a proclamation from God, as you seem to believe it is.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


From Hancock, Graham (2010-08-11). The Mars Mystery: The Secret Connection Between Earth and the Red Planet (p. 129). Random House, Inc. Kindle Edition.

Over the course of time, as individual citizens, having read such publications, began to ask questions of NASA, a long string of spurious arguments were put forward against the idea that the Face on Mars might be artificial. The services of that powerful propagandist, Carl Sagan, were evidently engaged in this task. Sagan went about writing and talking about psychological aberrations that make people see faces everywhere, whipping out a deformed eggplant at lectures and claiming it looked like Richard Nixon, thereby proving that the Face on Mars was natural. An amazing scientific feat.

Then, in 1985, published an article in Parade magazine debunking the Face, characterizing anyone who took it seriously as a kind of a “zealot,” and including a doctored version of one of the Viking frames that used false color to make it look as though the Face is actually not there.17 If NASA is so sure that the Face is merely an illusion or aberration of nature, then why resort to blatant fraud in order to convince the public of this? The doctoring of frame 70A13 in the Parade article—by overlaying the image with a color filter to obscure details that corroborate frame 35A72—is a particularly unscientific and indeed barbaric act. One cannot even defend Sagan by saying that this frame was supplied to him already doctored by NASA, for Richard Hoagland had personally shown Sagan the original frame prior to the publication of the Parade article.18 Sagan was well aware that 70A13 confirmed 35A72 and had told Hoagland that he found this intriguing.19 So why did Sagan lie?

Footnote 17 is: McDaniel, lecture delivered at Quest for Knowledge conference, Harpenden, England, 27 September 1997.

Footnote 18 is: Hoagland, Monuments of Mars, 206–8, and Carlotto, Martian Enigmas, 196.

Footnote 19 is: Hoagland, Monuments of Mars, 206–8.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What is needed is a reliable photo of the original Frame 70A13 and/or the photo that appeared in Parade magazine. Does anyone have such information?

Meanwhile there is the weight of evidence from personal testimony, provided the person(s) is/are considered reliable. That is a judgment call, of course.

If the only evidence you will consider is a photograph provided by NASA, then I would say you're limiting yourself considerably.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I just did a google search for "open-source R&D for the Rodin Coil."

Continuing my research regarding open-source R&D and how this could be practical for eventually getting devices into the hands of consumers, I've found a Red Ice Creations January 13, 2011 interview of Sterling Allan.

I like what he said about "a gentleman's agreement" that a manufacturer would provide 5% royalties to an inventor. Yes, some would abuse this, but others would not, and it would be worth the risk, all things considered.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The excerpt in question is regarding O’Leary’s account of his experience with Sagan doctoring a photo which was published in Parade magazine, which was within the context of O’Leary’s knowledge

Ah, so the excerpt was relevant, even as you were saying it was not! I see.

We don't have evidence of Sagan "doctoring" photos. If O'Leary says this, I would like to see the proof. And of course, with the benefit of having superior photos of that feature on Mars, it's abundantly clear that it's just a hill. So O'Leary with his certitude in claiming this is some evidence of extraterrestrials seems totally out of line.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You don't need evidence to accept claims.

An incorrect statement.

Is it, Mary? You specifically attacked Sagan's character because as you said yourself, he's a revered figure in science who also authored the phrase (which you sarcastically called a "mantra") about the necessity to actually PROVE claims instead of taking someone's word for it. It doesn't seem to sit well with you.

My evidence is different from your evidence.

Of course. You have no evidence of anything. I cannot accept hearsay as evidence. So yeah, it's way, way different.

Your evidence is not necessarily a proclamation from God, as you seem to believe it is.

I didn't mention God or divine guidance. On the other hand, Rodin specifically did on many occasions. And you believe Rodin, so there -- you are trying to blame me for practicing something that you do yourself. Hypocrisy once again. You accept religious proclamation as evidence? Sheesh.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Yes, we do have evidence of Sagan doctoring a photo. We have personal testimony.

There is nothing abundantly clear about the feature on Mars if you have done research into the history of NASA and if you have an understanding of who runs this world and their modus operandi.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Yes, we do have evidence of Sagan doctoring a photo. We have personal testimony.

Mary, there is a dinosaur that shows up in my backyard at 5 a.m. every morning. Here, you have a personal testimony. You also have my personal testimony that O'Leary developed a psychiatric disorder. Consider these on equal basis, if you would.

Oh man, how ridiculous.

There is nothing abundantly clear about the feature on Mars if you have done research into the history of NASA and if you have an understanding of who runs this world and their modus operandi.

So you don't believe the crispy clear photos that Arb has linked to?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Mary, there is a dinosaur that shows up in my backyard at 5 a.m. every morning.

You are the source of the testimony?

I would use my judgment.

I would also consider other information as it became available.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
So you don't believe the crispy clear photos that Arb has linked to?

The only relevant photos would be a reliable image of the original Frame 70A13 next to a reliable image of what appeared in Parade magazine in 1985.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Mary, there is a dinosaur that shows up in my backyard at 5 a.m. every morning.

You are the source of the testimony?

I would use my judgment.

So there. Evidence is evidence and not "judgement". When somebody says "I developed a novel device that extracts energy from vacuum", you want evidence and not judgement. Otherwise it's talk, talk talk and no substance.

The only relevant photos would be a reliable image of the original Frame 70A13 next to a reliable image of what appeared in Parade magazine in 1985.

Yeah, so please go ahead and fetch these.

From what I gather, Sagan used pseudo-colors which is a common technique in science to reveal details of grayscale images. There is nothing new or subversive about this technique, which utilizes human brain sensitivity to color to better see detail. Calling it "doctoring" is a blatant lie.

en.wikipedia.org...

A pseudo-color image is derived from a greyscale image by mapping each pixel value to a color according to a table or function. A familiar example is the encoding of altitude using hypsometric tints in physical relief maps, where negative values (below sea level) are usually represented by shades of blue, and positive values by greens and browns. Pseudo-coloring can make some details more visible, by increasing the distance in color space between successive gray levels. Pseudo-coloring can be used to store the results of image elaboration; that is, changing the colors in order to ease understanding the image. Alternatively, depending on the table or function used, pseudo-coloring may increase the information contents of the original image, for example adding geographic information, combining information obtained from infra-red or ultra-violet light, or MRI scans.

Pseudo-color images differ from false-color images in that they are made from only one original gray-scale image, rather than two or three.

False-color and pseudo-color images are frequently used for viewing satellite images, such as from weather satellites, the Hubble Space Telescope, and the Cassini-Huygens space probe's images of the rings of Saturn. Infrared cameras used for thermal imaging often show their image in false colors. In the notes for a toolkit called GIPSY that might be used for this application area (written in 2001) it is said:

The TrueColor visual lacks the capability of PseudoColor to modify the color representation of images after they have been put onto the display. In GIPSY this capability is used to offer the user a fast and convenient way to change contrast, brightness and colors of displayed images. In TrueColor this is not easily possible. There the image needs to be recalculated and reloaded.

You can also read most of Sagan's book "The demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark" right here.

Just click on chapters and enjoy the candle. Maybe you can still crawl out of darkness.