It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 154
39
<< 151  152  153    155  156  157 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Well i will ignore T.T. Brown for a moment, and add that i read somewhere that Podkletnov's results were far above 2%, more like 30% and this only limited by the bearings.
Searl's design is more or less friction-free.
There's still a whole lot of 'if;s' and i am still fascinated by Searl's approach.
I have the magnets, ready to go....

Here's something to consider; Both Podkletnov & Brown reported 'cold zones' around the machine, but did Searl????




posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
Well i will ignore T.T. Brown for a moment, and add that i read somewhere that Podkletnov's results were far above 2%, more like 30% and this only limited by the bearings.
Just search [podkletnov percent gravity reduction] and tell me if you see 2% or 30% in the search results. I've never seen Podkletnov claim 30%, and with no source, your claim that Podkletnov even claimed 30% reduction has zero credibility.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   
From americanantigravity.com, "Terry Moore on the Searl Effect" dated October 11, 2011:


For decades, John Searl has claimed that the Searl Effect Generator he invented is a self-powering free-energy generator capable of producing both free energy and powerful antigravity effects. Unfortunately, building a Searl Effect Generator is a costly, difficult process that’s left Searl’s claims unverified, at least until now. For the first time in decades, a new Searl Effect Generator replication led by Dr. Terry Moore is already producing valuable data being used to file patent claims on John Searl’s behalf.

The new Searl Effect Generator experiment is making rounds on YouTube and being met with excitement by a growing audience of enthusiasts, many of whom have been waiting decades to see footage of a Searl Effect Generator in operation. While replication efforts have been attempted in the past by inventors such as Dr. Paul Brown and the Godin & Roschin team in Russia, those efforts failed to provide video footage, verifiable results, and both attempts deviated from the strict construction guidelines established by Searl. While Moore’s replication also deviates from Searl’s classic design, this time it’s different, because John Searl himself has designed the modifications.

“I am very fortunate to have known John since 1988 and have remained in touch during an extended period of false partnerships from those more interested in money than the technology. The delay is simple, it wasn’t until last year that we found a sponsor to enable us to replicate the work Professor Searl carried out in the 60′s. The equipment and test gear needed is very expensive and some has to be custom built. Building the first improved SEG without automated equipment is also time consuming. This has been the main cause of a period of apparent inaction. Finally, limited funding made available by a sponsor to cover the basic materials and equipment, will allow John’s technology to be reconstructed sufficiently, to prove the science behind his work of the 1960′s and 1970′s.”

“John is very much involved in the reconstruction of the Searl Effect Generator. He is providing the entire technical backup and working out the alterations required for the updated version of the SEG. Fernando Morris has been interested in the technology for many years and in just over the past two years has been reconstructing the SEG under John’s guidance and instruction. He works full time in the Computer Industry and has funded much of the equipment himself.”

“In the Searl Effect Generator shown in the demonstration videos, the input excitation energy was around five volts at 600 milliamps (3 watts). From zero to 436 milliamps, the rollers remain stationary. However, if the voltage is increased by just two volts, the speed dramatically increases. These mock-up versions of the SEG were not designed for power output or electricity generation. They simply illustrate that continuous rotation is possible, and provide a model to evaluate why the rollers spin, why they stay on the plate, and what input power is necessary for operation.”

“I have no doubt that John will eventually be recognised along with Einstein, Marconi, and Tesla. John’s work has been made possible by the input of many contributors from all walks of life and correspondence is welcomed from anyone interested in this science. In the coming year we hope to complete the first redesigned Searl Effect Generator. The current demonstration is being sent to the UK for patent application and as soon as the new magnetic layer is machined and magnetised, we will be ready for another dynamic demonstration.” – Dr. Terry Moore


My understanding is that in The John Searl Story, it is pointed out that Searl's previous experience with applying for a patent was that he was told that what he had was "know-how" and it could not be patented - that what he would have to do is keep his technology secret until he could find a company to contract with to make his device for the marketplace.

I don't know what may have changed.
edit on 12/29/11 by Mary Rose because: Clarification



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I can't find the original article, so let's give this one the benefit of the doubt, the 2% variation was acheived using a superconducting magnet & a very high voltage, the so-called 'gravity impulse generator'.
This was not the same experiment as the spinning magnet one.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


That YooToob video is years old.
The coils on the outside are a dead giveaway, 3 years later & still no 2nd or 3rd rings.
If it was done in the '60's, why can't it be done now?



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 


There are two stumbling blocks that I know of: vested interests who do not want the SEG on the market, and Searl's insistence that funding not be obtained from those motivated only by profit-seeking.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
For those who are interested in details surrounding SEG technology, there is an 11 page .pdf available on americanantigravity.com dated March 20, 2007: "Searl on YouTube - Terry Moore on the 2007 Searl Replication Project."



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
. . . the 2% variation was acheived using a superconducting magnet & a very high voltage, the so-called 'gravity impulse generator'.


At americanantigravity.com, a 13 page .pdf entitled "The Impulse Generator - Dr. Evgeny Podkletnov on the Impulse Gravity-Generator," dated April 10, 2006, is available.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Thanks for the link, i've added it to my database


The main difference between Podkletnov & Searl is that Podkletnov has been very forthright and has shown his calculations, plans, everything.
IMO he is on to something, while Searl still has to show any kind of conclusive proof that his device works.
Since the 'gravity impulse generator' has been well documented, it should be easier to replicate.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
For those who are interested in details surrounding SEG technology, there is an 11 page .pdf available on americanantigravity.com dated March 20, 2007: "Searl on YouTube - Terry Moore on the 2007 Searl Replication Project."


Well you see Mary, either Podkletnov or Tesla must be completely wrong. The former claims to have warped space-time, whereas the latter says such very notion is idiocy. Who do you choose to be the fool du jour?



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
That YooToob video is years old.
The coils on the outside are a dead giveaway, 3 years later & still no 2nd or 3rd rings.
If it was done in the '60's, why can't it be done now?
Here's a recent youtube video of Searl's "apprentice" Fernando Morris, only posted Dec 15, 2011:



The beginning of that video mentions Rodin's math, and references i-Ching math and how Searl likes "sudoku" too but they call it something else. It looks like sudoku to me though; they machine a metal cube and write some numbers on it, and talk about how you can arrange the numbers to get them to add up a certain way.

Then, just like Rodin, they provide absolutely no relevance of this sudoku to the real world, and jump to some magnets.....so I'm wondering...what is the point in even mentioning it? This is really just as bizarre as Rodin.

At least Searl doesn't appear in this video, the last video I saw where Searl made an appearance he made such obvious blunders in what he said that his apprentice Fernando had to correct him. Fernando actually seems to be the one with knowledge which Searl lacks, but I'd like to be there to see the expression on Fernando's face when he figures out this thing doesn't really work....unless he's already figured it out.

The video also tries to explain how Searl was using Neodymium in the 1960s before neodymium magnets became available in the 1980s, and the explanation was as clear as mud to me. Something like now he's using neodymium magnets but back then he just used powder?? I didn't understand that, it still sounds quite different.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Searl disputes your mainstream science. That's the whole point of this thread. Open up your mind.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Fernando actually seems to be the one with knowledge which Searl lacks,


Absolute baloney. Fernando is a student of Searl. Fernando has had to study Searl's writings on the magic squares in order to do what he's doing.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Searl disputes your mainstream science. That's the whole point of this thread. Open up your mind.
It's your science too Mary. We are both using similar technology to post to this forum developed by the same mainstream, in fact that applies to every piece of technology you own. You don't have any technology from Searle, or Rodin, nobody does. You are using the very technology you claim Searl disputes, and as far as I can tell, it works, because I can read your posts.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Absolute baloney. Fernando is a student of Searl. Fernando has had to study Searl's writings on the magic squares in order to do what he's doing.
No it's not baloney, here's the video where it's obvious that Fernando Morris makes at least some sense, and Searl is completely wrong. Neither the electrical engineer interviewer, Rich, nor Fernando Morris agree with what Searl says regarding gravity being the force that holds the rollers in place:

Rich Planet Interviews Professor John Searl in Leeds 2010 Part 3




3:30-4:50

Fernando Morris:

There are two forces at work:
-the general attraction from a large magnetic field, and
-the opposing fields of the eddy currents
Between those two it finds an equilibrium which allows it to float and spin at the same time...
This is actually a decent explanation, that the rollers are held in place by a balance between magnetic attraction and magnetic repulsion.

Then the interviewer makes an analogy about the moon orbiting the Earth and he says it's not the same because it's gravity, which again seems like a reasonable statement:


Rich Planet: Very similar to the moon going around the Earth; similar, but not the same, because that's gravitation


And this is the point Searle goes completely off the rails and contradicts both of them, and claims it's actually gravity which is holding the rollers in place, he doesn't even mention magnetism like Fernando and Rich agreed was the cause of the roller "orbit":


Searle: To make it easy, if we say that the plate was the size of the planet Earth, the roller was the size of the moon, the distance at which that roller would go around is the same distance from the moon to the Earth. The same laws are applied. Because the plate is smaller and the moon is smaller we have a smaller orbit, but whatever happens, the same rules between the Earth and the moon is applying to this plate and this roller set. In other words, the plate is a heavy lump of gravity, and the roller is a smaller lump of gravity, and they're reacting the same as the planet and the moon are reacting, there's no difference.
Someone with an IQ of 60 might not know the difference between gravity and electromagnetism, but anyone with an IQ above 60 should be able to tell Searl is completely wrong just by looking at these two illustrations of what he says and determining they are not the same as Searl claims:

From my post on page 59:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
www.nasa.gov...


windturbineprice.info...

Thise are roughly scaled so the moon and the roller diameters are similar as Searl suggests, but as you can see the moon is much further away from the Earth than the rollers are from the plate.

Of course I can't promise everyone posting to this thread will have an IQ above 60 so some people might think the distance from the moon to the Earth looks similar as Searl says. But I suspect the vast majority of people can easily tell he's completely wrong about his description of scale, and by inference he's also completely wrong about gravity being the force that holds the roller in place. This isn't some genius challenging the mainstream status quo, it's some mentally unsound lunatic making insane claims that even his closest apprentice wouldn't acknowledge. Just look at the body language of Fernando at 4:24 while Searl goes on his binge of lunacy:

That's body language for "I just told him it's electromagnetism and now you're telling him it's gravity...I want to correct you but I'm biting my tongue to not correct you in front of Rich, and make you look like the doddering fool you are". Then a little while later Fernando starts to try to say something but Rich changes the subject.

So unless you think those diagrams look similar, Fernando obviously has the superior knowledge. Searl says they look the same, and they don't look the same, because it's not gravity holding the rollers in place as he claims.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Of course I can't promise everyone posting to this thread will have an IQ above 60 so some people might think the distance from the moon to the Earth looks similar as Searl says.


You are quite wise to not make this promise, Arb.


This isn't some genius challenging the mainstream status quo, it's some mentally unsound lunatic making insane claims that even his closest apprentice wouldn't acknowledge. Just look at the body language of Fernando at 4:24 while Searl goes on his binge of lunacy


In fact, if you look at 0:57 to 1:12, you'll see plenty of uneasiness on Fernando's part. I think it's obvious to him that Searl is sadly descending deeper and deeper into senility.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
In fact, if you look at 0:57 to 1:12, you'll see plenty of uneasiness on Fernando's part. I think it's obvious to him that Searl is sadly descending deeper and deeper into senility.
Fernando does look pretty uncomfortable in a number of places, in reaction to what Searl says.

But I'm not sure how much to blame on senility. Searl was talking about offering people rides to the moon over four decades ago, in "day trips" which even at 25,000 miles an hour the Apollo astronauts couldn't accomplish.

www.youtube.com... @3:00


But If Searl thought the moon was only 40-50 miles away which it would be if that example he gave in the above video was to scale with his rollers, it might be a lot easier to make a day trip than if it's a quarter of a million miles away or so. He mentioned those day trips to the moon when he was only 37 so I doubt he was senile then.
But you probably have a point...if senility is a factor, it's probably not helping, but I don't know how much of a factor it is.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Open up your mind.


And, don't be afraid of your intuition.

Too bad The John Searl Story is not on google. The only way to get his side of the story is to listen to it. The whole story.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

I'm not afraid of intuition, I just realize that it's extremely fallible...sometimes it's right and sometimes it's not. This applies to not just mine, but anybody's intuition, yours included.

Regarding Searl's story, he's one of the few people I know of who really got "free" energy by stealing it from the electric company. The other cases I know of were done by the Mexican drug cartels inside the US when they bought some houses in residential neighborhoods, blacked out the windows, and turned them into marijuana grow houses. They re-wired the incoming power to both steal power from the electric company and to not trigger a red flag as a grow house for unusually high usage rates. So this doesn't put Searl in very good company.

Regarding Searl's story and anecdotes:

Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science

If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence. Because anecdotes have a very strong emotional impact, they serve to keep superstitious beliefs alive in an age of science. The most important discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or antibiotics, it is the randomized double-blind test, by means of which we know what works and what doesn't.
Considering Searl's lack of experimental results, I suppose stories are about all he's got, like the story about his antigravity machine flying into outer space. That is a pretty funny story, and what's even funnier is that some people actually seem to believe it!

While these stories may have entertainment value (they made me smile
), they have no scientific value. Fernando does have a cube with sudoku numbers written on it, but he can't explain what it does. It looks like it makes a decent paperweight.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Correct.
His theory is highly esoteric, convoluted, and has never been proven to work,just like Rodin's
I do, however, oppose 'mainstream' or 'conventional' science in that they, too, make blunders.....
I still see the coils there, that should not be needed (if the theory is to be correct).
Next



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 151  152  153    155  156  157 >>

log in

join