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: 155
39
<< 152  153  154    156  157  158 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 


Very unscientific to write off a work in progress. Actually, it's stupid.




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
I do, however, oppose 'mainstream' or 'conventional' science in that they, too, make blunders...


They sure do. Yet, there is a plethora of demonstrable cases when it's apparent that it simply works.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
From a 95 page .pdf housed on the panaceauniversity.org website entitled "Joel McClain & Norman Wootan - The Magnetic Resonance Amplifier," page 8:


Ferroelectric Capacitors & the Magnetic Resonance Amplifier by Tom Bearden

In a nonlinear ferroelectric capacitor there are three major nonlinear processes involved, so it is possible to carefully choose and arrange conditions so that the current through the capacitor moves against the voltage across its terminals.

With adroit switching and timing, and some consideration for resonance effects, it is in theory possible to use such highly nonlinear effects in a circuit to allow (1) an overpotential at the terminals of the battery as a reaction from the ferroelectric capacitor, (2) consequent recharging of the battery via that back potential on the battery side, while the load is also being powered, (3) consequent driving of the load on the load side of the terminals, and (4) having a bypass ferroelectric capacitor across the terminals of the battery, where the capacitor is in the "current against the voltage" condition.

McLain and Wooten patented a great little MRA (Magnetic Resonance Amplifier) system, based on that application. Dr. Robert Bass, a very fine electrodynamicist of exceptional knowledge, experience, and ability wrote the patent for them, and assisted in their work. For that he was persecuted, unjustly attacked, and suffered financial difficulties. The "system" does not forgive highly qualified scientists who take a serious interest in "perpetual motion machines" -- as permissible Maxwellian open dissipative systems are erroneously and derogatorily labeled by the orthodox scientific community. Any scientist violating that inquisition suffers the consequences.

After technical discussions back and forth, the Patent Office even notified Wooten and McLain that the patent had been accepted and the patent would be issued. Within days, to their consternation the patent was rejected and that was the end of that.

In other words, the fix was in.


Wootan is featured at 30:37 in this video:




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Check out this video:


Google Video Link


Then check out Joseph Newman's website. Read about his patent battle: "The Origins of the Patent Battle."

Note what happened to his book. From the home page "The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman":


We regret to inform you that as of 11-11-2004 we can no longer fulfill any book orders
for Joseph Newman's book describing his revolutionary energy machine technology.

The 8th Edition of the book, "The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman" is currently sold out and a new Edition will not soon be issued since the original printer's negatives and plates were lost in a fire that destroyed the printing company in Baton Rouge, Louisiana..





edit on 12/31/11 by Mary Rose because: Punctuation



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   
I see Joseph Newman's endorser physicist Dr. Roger Hastings appreciates Maxwell's original work just like Col. Bearden. From "A New Paradigm":


As physicist Dr. Roger Hastings (who endorsed Joseph Newman's work) wrote regarding Maxwell's emphasis on the MECHANICAL nature of energy:

"This is stated in no uncertain terms in Maxwell's book A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field. In fact, Maxwell used a dynamical model to derive his famous equations. This fact has all but been lost in current books on electromagnetic theory. The quantity which Maxwell called 'electromagnetic momentum' is now referred to as the 'vector potential.'"



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
This guy Newman is every bit as fascinating as Rodin and Searl and Keely and Tesla. An independent thinker. That's what is takes:


Originally posted by Mary Rose
From "A New Paradigm":



It was approximately at this point in his studies that Joseph Newman came across Fleming's Rule. . . .

But accepting the limited paradigm of the Rule does not answer the more fundamental question:

What MECHANICALLY --- physically --- causes the Rule to be true?

That is the more fundamental question that occupied Joseph Newman's mind during the 1960s. He sought an honest answer to that more fundamental question as to what is the MECHANICAL cause of Fleming's Rule. He could not find an answer to that question in any of the books that he read on electromagnetics and electrical engineering. Yet he believed it was absolutely essential to answer that question, if he was to progress in a deeper understanding of the fundamental MECHANICAL nature of (electro)magnetic fields [per Faraday's and Maxwell's statements above].

It was about this time in his studies that he began studying the GYROSCOPE. . . .


One has to be curious about the cause. That curiosity has to be relentless.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


So because we give something a different name, it is lost? In the Feynman's lecture of physics the subject is attended, so nothing is lost. Read the following page: maxwellsociety.net...


Maxwell appears not to have appreciated the role of interactive forces in a current’s momentum, perhaps because the particulate nature of electricity hadn’t yet been discovered. In his mind, ‘momentum’ is an intrinsic property of a physical entity, independent of other entities in the environment. Thus he believed that the total momentum of a system is the sum of the momenta of its constituent parts. In Article 549 of his Treatise he states, "…if the phenomena are due to momentum, the momentum is certainly not that of the electricity in the wire, because the same wire, conveying the same current, exhibits effects which differ according to its form…"



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
So because we give something a different name, it is lost?


The Hastings quote references “electromagnetic momentum” vs. “vector potential.”

I believe my posts from pages 131 and 140 probably allude to what was lost.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Joel McClain & Norman Wootan - The Magnetic Resonance Amplifier,"


From the above, pages 10-11:


The Rule of Nines: Resonant Geometry and the Zero Point

by
Joel McClain


"Nest two tetrahedrons and you have the keys to the universe."

The word "rule" has several different meanings -- as a form of law, or as a form of dominion, or as a measuring standard. This text uses the word in all three contexts to define the effect of the supreme chord, the trinity of harmony, in the universe.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, independent researchers began to notice the "anomalous" effects of applying resonance to a controlled experiment. Then, as now, this area of "science" is far from the mainstream. The results of those early experiments, such as the lightning of Tesla and the motors of Keely, have been ignored both as science and as history...at least in America.

Elsewhere, the work of Tesla is revered and has been "amplified" by paid research. With the creation of the Magnetic Resonance Amplifier, or MRA, perhaps history and science will have to take a second look. The theories behind the MRA are the same as those of Tesla, Keely, Russell, Bearden, King and others. The application, however, in a closed-loop ZPE device, takes a sharp turn away from effect and into application.

Look at either a piece of quartz or a magnet, and you are looking at trapped energy. Tap the quartz, and you will get a spark as the electrical potential of the quartz instantaneously jumps. Spin a magnet relative to a coil of wire, and electrical current flows in the wire. How do we extract the power of these materials without the attendant physical energy required to either tap or spin them?

Matter = energy. To convert matter to energy, resonate the matter.

To achieve energy output which is above the energy applied at resonance, use three octaves, and there will be three harmonious notes in each octave, for a total of nine resonant frequencies.

These notes occur naturally when the base frequency applied is three octaves above the magnet's resonant frequency, and equal to the resonance of the quartz.

In this way, the potential applied to the quartz "taps" it, without the need to use physical force. The result is electrical output. Connect this output to a coil around a magnet, and the domains of the magnet, which comprise a tiny portion of its weight, and which do all of the "work" in a generator, will be forced to spin. This spin is called "virtual rotation", because it is the spin of energy without the spin of the matter. . . .


Hmmmm. The rule of nines...



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I believe my posts from pages 131 and 140 probably allude to what was lost.


Additionally:


Originally posted by Mary Rose
Included within the following video, Bearden talks about a clever phrase that has been used in relation to electrodynamics: "Has no physical significance..."



". . . They don't calculate the potential . . . The magnitude reaches through all space. So what's its magnitude? . . . Has no physical significance because it doesn't power anything. That's like saying I've got a sailboat on the ocean - big wind. And all the wind that misses my sail has no physical significance. That's true for my boat . . . a trick to integrate the whole energy flow vector around a closed surface around any volume element of interest at all. That throws away everything that goes in and comes out with no diversion. It throws away the Heaviside component . . . "



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Your source:


Look at either a piece of quartz or a magnet, and you are looking at trapped energy. Tap the quartz, and you will get a spark as the electrical potential of the quartz instantaneously jumps. Spin a magnet relative to a coil of wire, and electrical current flows in the wire. How do we extract the power of these materials without the attendant physical energy required to either tap or spin them?


Looks like that article was written by an imbecile. Case in point -- I pull the rubber band of a slingshot, and then I can shoot a ball bearing at a great velocity. "How do we extract the power of the rubber without the attendant physical energy required to pull the rubber band in the first place?"

Well, tough!



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Looks like that article was written by an imbecile.




Such calm, objective words from BS.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


In the words of Lewis Black, "I can't be kind about that. This is dead cold f- stupid".



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 



Originally posted by buddhasystem
In the words of Lewis Black, "I can't be kind about that. This is dead cold f- stupid".
Buddhasystem, you were more kind than I would be, to use the word imbecile. I would use the word "idiot".

The Words Moron, Imbecile, and Idiot Mean Different Things


those who have an IQ between 0 and 25 are idiots; IQs between 26 and 50 are considered imbeciles; and those who have an IQ between 51 and 70 are considered morons.

“Idiot” derives from the ancient Greek, “idio”, meaning “person lacking professional skill” or “mentally deficient person incapable of ordinary reasoning”.
Whoever wrote that is a mentally deficient person incapable of ordinary reasoning, so the historical meaning of the word fits. I'm not in a position to determine their exact IQ but my estimation from the illogical statements would be pretty low.

To phrase the idiotic statement another way, we can solve the world's energy needs with hybrid cars, because they can generate electricity while rolling downhill. All we need to do is figure out how to get the cars to the top of the hill without expending any energy.


You can't successfully argue that such an argument contains ordinary reasoning; it's obviously lacking. So whatever you call the person who wrote it, they're not too bright.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


In order to comprehend new knowledge, one must stop engaging in denial and obfuscation.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


I don't write things off, i study them.
I have studied Searl for years.
I quite like him, i admire his determination, but unless i see a fully functioning 3 ring SEG without the coils,
and delivering more power than is put in, it is just a very nice induction motor, like STEORN.
I even made a song for him




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
unless i see a fully functioning 3 ring SEG without the coils,
and delivering more power than is put in, it is just a very nice induction motor


I understand and do not dispute you. My belief is that people should stop calling him a fraud or delusional or other such use of ignorant ridicule and reserve judgment until Searl Magnetics completes its work, if it is allowed to complete its work.

I find it annoying as hell that people make flippant remarks about innovators such as Searl without taking the time to investigate the history of suppression of free energy technology that has been going on for decades. It's disgusting. And lazy.

There is no doubt in my mind that the technology is real and what's hiding it from the mainstream stems from pure evil.

Normal people (people who are not the "elite") have to decide whether they want to be part of the problem or the solution. If one is a minion of the elite, one is part of the problem.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Agreed



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by playswithmachines
unless i see a fully functioning 3 ring SEG without the coils,
and delivering more power than is put in, it is just a very nice induction motor


I understand and do not dispute you. My belief is that people should stop calling him a fraud or delusional or other such use of ignorant ridicule and reserve judgment until Searl Magnetics completes its work, if it is allowed to complete its work.

I find it annoying as hell that people make flippant remarks about innovators such as Searl without taking the time to investigate the history of suppression of free energy technology that has been going on for decades. It's disgusting. And lazy.

There is no doubt in my mind that the technology is real and what's hiding it from the mainstream stems from pure evil.

Normal people (people who are not the "elite") have to decide whether they want to be part of the problem or the solution. If one is a minion of the elite, one is part of the problem.


Ah, i can agree with that (in part).
Yes, there is a whole lot of amazing technology that IS being supressed, IMO.
Yes, people will always ridicule those that think outside the box. Searl's concept is unique (to say the least) and Rodin, etc.
But there has to be PROOF.
I debunked Steorn not long ago, because i really thought they had something.
But as i got into the theory versus results it became clear to me that Steon have done 3 things;
1 Built a highly efficient pulse motor using ideas borrowed from another OU inventor.
2 Managed to present this in such a way as to seem to be overunity.
3 Are making lots of money selling 'licences' to review this technology.
What they have not done however, is produce a motor that runs itself, it just has a very big battery behind it, & consumes so little power that it can run for 6 weeks, it has no useful output.
I have it from an insider that the whole 'knoweledge data base' is very shaky theory indeed

You see the similarity?
I wish Searl the best of luck, but he really should get a move on



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Just to add;
Bearden does have a very valid point.
However, there's a catch (there always is).
I have studied Bearden's MEG, even built 1 or 2, and, although i did not measure direct overunity, i did get some interesting results. His own MEG is still not on the market

These results have led me to further my research, which has led to even more results.
My opinion; ZPE or something like it, is very real.
There are a small number of professors who agree with Bearden, so i would not write HIM off so quickly.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 152  153  154    156  157  158 >>

log in

join