"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 59
39
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I am sorry, but answers to your questions can only be found in your own investigation. I don't think I can elaborate on it any more than I already have. Also, I am looking at its operations through my interpretation of physics, which is not necessarily the same as Searl's.

I do not have the time to transcribe an entire interview, there is like 6 parts - turn your speakers up. And it isn't just Searl talking, the other guys talk as well and are more clear.

I recommend the John Searl Story documentary for the basics of his life and the operations of the SEG... there might be a torrent out there somewhere.

The youtube account TheRealVerbz has quite a lot of material for you to study as well.




posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 



Out of many pieces of mindless mumbo-jumbo in this quote from Searl, this one stands out:


The radioactive particles are attracted to the neodymium core.


What are "radioactive particles"? Radioactive means having the potential to emit radiation. Does he mean radioactive dust? I doubt it. In his crippled mind, he actually thinks that his cool magnet will attract radiation.

It won't. Why should it?

Stuff meant for fools' consumption.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
All truth-seekers need to read Walter Russell's A New Concept of the Universe.

It is paradigm-shifting.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
I am sorry, but answers to your questions can only be found in your own investigation. I don't think I can elaborate on it any more than I already have. Also, I am looking at its operations through my interpretation of physics, which is not necessarily the same as Searl's.

I do not have the time to transcribe an entire interview, there is like 6 parts - turn your speakers up. And it isn't just Searl talking, the other guys talk as well and are more clear.

I recommend the John Searl Story documentary for the basics of his life and the operations of the SEG... there might be a torrent out there somewhere.

The youtube account TheRealVerbz has quite a lot of material for you to study as well.


I find this an very unsatisfying response. My answers can only be found by watching hours and hours of Youtube videos? I am not going to engage in that.

As for the interview, I don't want you to make a transcript yourself of course
. But maybe you knew one available somewhere. I may give it another try. But he has to come with something convincing real quick, I don't really care about his dreams to be honest.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
As for the interview, I don't want you to make a transcript yourself of course
.


I agree that Searl's diction is hard to follow.

Did you watch the whole video? Fernando Morris is easy to understand and perhaps his portion will answer your questions.

Please read the descriptions I posted about how the SEG works.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Bearden is featured in the first 5 1/2 minutes of this video (the rest is an ad for a DVD). He talks about the need for an overhaul of classical electrodynamics. He says that the EM wave in the vacuum flux is like a sound wave, that it's longitudinal, not transverse, and that Tesla knew this from his experiments.



Originally posted by Mary Rose
Science becoming dogma, among other things, is discussed in this 8 part interview of Tom Bearden taped in 2001: "Applied Scalar Wave Technology - Tom Bearden interview 1 of 8"



Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


In 4 of 8, Bearden mentions Sach's Unified Field Theory. Maybe this is it: "Unified Field Theory Mendel Sachs."


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




posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



I find this an very unsatisfying response. My answers can only be found by watching hours and hours of Youtube videos? I am not going to engage in that.

As for the interview, I don't want you to make a transcript yourself of course . But maybe you knew one available somewhere. I may give it another try. But he has to come with something convincing real quick, I don't really care about his dreams to be honest.


Well sorry mate, my answers have come from watching hours and hours of youtube, and hours and hours of reading and intense thought. I can only show you the door.

His dreams are a major stepping stone to understand his worldview, and the reasoning behind his SEG. I can understand your unwillingness to listen to dreamtalk, however you should understand that geniuses and dreams go together sometimes. You have to get in his mind, if you want to understand his physics. This was especially the case with Pauli, Tesla, Descartes, etc.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Out of many pieces of mindless mumbo-jumbo in this quote from Searl, this one stands out:


The radioactive particles are attracted to the neodymium core.
It's even worse in the interview.

I made a few notes. The most obvious problem anyone should see is when he says if a SEG were made the scale of the Earth and moon the electromagnetic SEG would be the same as the gravitational system because it's the same thing (ie gravity = electromagnetism). Gee I thought it EM was stronger than Earth's gravity by about 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times. If it really did scale the way he said, the moon would be much closer to Earth than it is. His claim is easily proven false just by looking at the scale of his demo unit and the scale of the moon revolving around the Earth. The moon is much, much further away, than his rotating magnets are from the center part of the SEG.

Beebs, can't you see how ridiculous that claim is? Or do I need to post pictures so you can see it?

Buddhasystem, you'll like the new particle physics they describe also, something about a pair of electrons being created from compressed photons but the pair of electrons really acts like photons but they are a "boson". How does that work, I thought electrons repelled each other? Is that some new research that a boson consists of a pair of electrons?

Beebs posted the link to part 1, these notes are from parts 2 and 3 of the Searl Interview, they're a little rough but essentially accurate I think:


Part 2 4:15 Fernando Morris
we're dealing with a different kind of electricity here...
With the SEG it actually forms a pair of electrons, or a boson

You still get the electric currents and all that, it's just that it behaves more like a photon.
When it does exit the machine, it splits up again and you see a little bit of a halo, because photons are being emitted"

They show a CGI halo effect graphic, why not a photo? Does it only show up in CGI?


Rich : Photons emerge?

Fernando:between material layers, using the hall effect

That's how photons are compressed
Once they become a pair of electrons it no longer behaves like an electron, it behaves like a photon
Therefore it creates high velocities, whereas with normal electricity you only have a drift current of a fraction of an inch per second.
By the time they exit, they could be going near the speed of light

Rich:It's kind of hard to get my head around because this wasn't included in my electrical engineering degree, it's merging into physics

Part 3 4:00
Searl: on scaling up the SEG to the size of the Earth/moon:
make plate size of planet earth
and roller size of moon
The distance at which that roller would go around is the same distance as the moon to the Earth
The same laws are applied.


He elaborates about how gravity and electromagnetic forces are the same.

I have little doubt that the other two guys in the interview with him know this is total bull, you can See Fernando's reaction is practically an eyeroll when Searl says this, and Rich is no idiot either, he's an electrical engineer so I suspect he also knows this is a ridiculous thing to say if he knows how much larger EM forces are than gravitational forces.


Part 3 continued
4:49 superconducting element of this, have you measured any change in temperature?
Fernando "I'm not at that stage yet, that's why we're looking for more funding and resources"

6:10 The SEG has Two modes, above superconductivity it becomes a generator, below it becomes a transportation device
This is almost as many breakthroughs at the same time as Marko Rodin, not only free energy, but superconducting with ordinary materials on top of it, not to mention antigravity, and solving the global warming problem, etc etc.

But of course they aren't at the stage of proving any of their claims yet, they need more funding for that, can you imagine? After how many decades?



edit on 5-4-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
All truth-seekers need to read Walter Russell's A New Concept of the Universe.


From pages 18 & 19:


IV
THE COULOMB LAW MISCONCEPTION


The Coulomb law statement that opposites attract and likes repel is not true to Natural law.

Opposite conditions ARE opposite conditions. Likewise. they are opposite effects caused by each thrusting in opposite directions. It is not logical to say that opposites fulfill any other office than to OPPOSE. Nor is it logical to say that opposing things attract each other.

In all this universe, like conditions seek like conditions. Gases and vapors seek gases and vapors by rising to find them. Liquids and solids seek liquids and solids by falling toward them.

Radiating matter seeks a radiating condition in the outward direction of radiation. Gravitating matter seeks the inward radial direction of condensation to find its like condition.

Opposite poles of a bar magnet thrust away from each other as far as they can go. That is the very purpose of the electric current which divides the universal equilibrium. If opposite poles attracted each other they would have to be together in the middle, instead of "pushing" away from each other to the very ends.

When depolarization takes place the poles seem to draw closer together, but that is because of their lessening vitality. They still thrust away from each other until devitalization is complete. When motion ceases, the matter which it manifests ceases to be.

Scientific observers have been deceived by their senses into thinking that opposites attract each other because of seeing the north pole of one magnet "pull" toward the south pole of another magnet.

The fact that opposite polarities void each other when thus contacted has not been considered as a factor in the matter. It is a fact, however, when two opposites are thus brought together by their seeming eagerness to contact each other, both poles cease to be. Each one has voided the other as completely as the chemical opposites sodium and chlorine void each other and leave no trace of either one after that contact.

If the Coulomb law were valid, it would not be possible to gather together one ounce of any one element.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Beebs do you agree that Searl is talking total nonsense in part 3 of his interview?


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Part 3 4:00
Searl: on scaling up the SEG to the size of the Earth/moon:
make plate size of planet earth
and roller size of moon
The distance at which that roller would go around is the same distance as the moon to the Earth
The same laws are applied.
Let's look at that claim, try to mentally scale the roller to the same size as the moon as Searl suggests, then what distance would the moon sized roller "orbit" at? The same distance as the moon from the Earth as Searl claims?

www.nasa.gov...


windturbineprice.info...

So make the roller the size of the moon and the distance at which that roller would go around is the same distance as the moon to the Earth?
Don't you agree that's totally nonsensical and obviously false? Wouldn't it be much, much closer than the moon is to the Earth?

Then he says "The same laws are applied"
Don't you agree that's totally nonsensical and obviously false?

Isn't the SEG using electromagnetism and the Earth-moon system using gravity?

I don't think even Fernando would agree with that or say something that stupid. In fact Fernando was explaining the counteracting electromagnetic effects on the rollers, but then Searl says it's a gravitational effect on the rollers, they contradict each other! And of course Fernando is right and Searl is wrong.
edit on 5-4-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Arb,

did you get the part where they say it would be good if the "magnetic bearings" were used in industry? Did they calculate how much energy would be dissipated in eddy currents they say would do the job?

There is one thing monumental about this -- the amount of ignorance spewed out for the enjoyment of the dim witted and therefore gullible audience, in that video. Fools...

I got to the part where the senile person in the video says "same laws are applied" and I couldn't watch it any further, sorry. Just tragic.

edit on 5-4-2011 by buddhasystem because: edit to add



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
did you get the part where they say it would be good if the "magnetic bearings" were used in industry? Did they calculate how much energy would be dissipated in eddy currents they say would do the job?


I did some reading on it (well, Wikipedia), and there is also a passive solution. The trick is that the eddy currents are inducted in a rotating conductor by permanent magnets. So the faster the rotation, the stronger the eddy currents.

See this Wiki: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by buddhasystem
did you get the part where they say it would be good if the "magnetic bearings" were used in industry? Did they calculate how much energy would be dissipated in eddy currents they say would do the job?


I did some reading on it (well, Wikipedia), and there is also a passive solution. The trick is that the eddy currents are inducted in a rotating conductor by permanent magnets. So the faster the rotation, the stronger the eddy currents.

See this Wiki: en.wikipedia.org...


That's all well, just try to calculate the power dissipated for an average load on the "bearing".
They aren't there for a reason.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

Yes I saw that part. Actually I have a small amount of knowledge regarding magnetic bearings from building PCs which I do as a hobby, since I'm too picky about components to buy preassembled PCs like I used to from Dell. There are several types of different bearings for PC fans, Wiki lists 5 types and magnetic bearings is one type, I've tried them:

en.wikipedia.org...

* Sleeve bearing fans use two surfaces lubricated with oil or grease as a friction contact. ..
* Rifle bearing fans are similar to sleeve bearing, but are quieter and have almost as much lifespan as ball bearings..
* Ball bearing fans use ball bearings. ..
* Fluid bearing fans have the advantages of near-silent operation and high life expectancy (comparable to ball bearing fans). However, these fans tend to be the most expensive..
* Magnetic bearing or maglev fans, in which the fan is repelled from the bearing by magnetism.


One of my builds used 3 of these 120mm fans with magnetic bearings:
www.newegg.com...
Actually they call it magnetic barometric whatever the heck that is. One of the three failed prematurely so I wasn't too happy about that, I saved it, I might take it apart with a cutting disc on a dremel to see what the bearing looks like inside, I haven't done that yet. I replaced it with a good old ball bearing style fan, noisier, but more reliable.

Regarding the eddy currents and power consumption, I didn't measure that, but the author of the following article did and it actually uses less power than a sleeve bearing they compare it to, about half a watt at 12V versus about 1.2 watts for the sleeve bearing at 12V. So if there are eddy currents, they can't be too bad in this application.

Here's a write-up on how they work:
www.silentpcreview.com...


the Enlobal bearing, which uses a magnetic field in place of balls or oil. The Enlobal bearing is like a maglev train, in which the train is suspended on a magnetic cushion above the track, with only air between the two. Thus, friction between the moving parts is greatly reduced, since most of the time they are only in contact with the air, not each other. (That said, it is worth pointing out that at least one SPCR user has found that oiling the Enlobal bearing improved both vibration and noise dramatically).

The advantages of reduced friction are not hard to recognize: Less wear, reduced power requirements, less heat produced — and less noise. And, indeed, these are exactly the benefits that Enermax uses to sell the fans that use Enlobal bearings, including the Marathon that we looked at. The question is, how much do these theoretical benefits actually come out in practice? Have Enermax' engineers done a good job implementing the technology? Is it cost effective?

All of these are open questions, and not all are easy to address in a short review. For example, we cannot evaluate longevity or reliability, and Enermax' documentation conspicuously omits any hard numbers in this respect. Even a ballpark MTBF number would be welcome here. What we can examine are things like power, airflow and noise, and our hands-on review showed the Marathon to be unusual in a number of ways.

One things that surprised us initially was how little power it required — and how little the power consumption changed when we adjusted the input voltage. In fact, it required less power per rotation than any other 120mm fan we've tested — and not by a small amount! This stands to reason; with less friction to deal with, the fan's electric motor would not need to work as hard.

Note that last comment about how unusually small the power usage was measured to be. I'm not as amazed as them about that because if you look at airflow it doesn't seem to be moving as much air either so that has to play a role in addition to the bearing type, but in any case, eddy currents must not be too bad in this application, though I expect the eddy currents must be bloody awful in Searl's contraption; it's totally different since the eddy currents are on the outer circumference and in the magnetic bearing it's probably just centered in a much smaller area at the shaft.

Anyway I was thinking it a little odd they were portraying them as not being used much at all when I'm using them, but I agree they aren't that common, you won't find them in commercial PCs like those from Dell or HP.

Edit to add, I checked the manufacturer's website and can't find the same fan that I bought which is in that review, but the newer fans have what's called a "twister bearing" which is also apparently some kind of magnetic bearing. They have a schematic of the design:

www.enermax.com.../product_a1_1_1&lv0=4&lv1=40&no=134

"Nano magnetic design"
That's a cross-sectional view so I suspect they have 4 coils, 90 degrees apart, but that's just a guess.
edit on 5-4-2011 by Arbitrageur because: added text and schematic



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Ah! Interesting. Thanks to you and Arb. I didn't know they made it work.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Dude, the way your mind works is so wacky.

His analogy is perfectly fine, especially in its whole until you oversimplify Searl's statements. You are getting your panties all up in a bunch over a simple analogy, one which is at least better than your gasoline one earlier.

Just because you won't admit that gravity and EM have to somehow be related, doesn't mean they aren't related in any way.

And I will repeat:


2. Consider the possibility that the current model is incorrect or incomplete, and the related possibility that perhaps a person not in your personal circle of friends has figured out something you didn't know/didn't think of already.
3. Research and familiarize yourself with context (yeah, like the other crazies and hoaxers).
4. Do not listen to that voice in your head which says we are all ignorant/crazy/hoaxers/brainsfallingout/etc.
5. Do not conflate the general term of 'free energy' with 'impossible violation of physics', but rather interpret the term as 'new, clean, renewable, different, etc.' with the perpetual motion already existing in the natural world.


And I don't necessarily agree with Searl's terminology, but I understand what he is trying to say - and that is all that matters.

You would get nowhere in life if all you do is nitpick peoples specific words, interpret them as literally as you can, and then blow the whole thing up into the most magnificent criticism of their ideas as a whole.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
but I understand what he is trying to say - and that is all that matters.


But if you and Searl are not able to communicate how it works, then everyone has to reinvent how it words all on their own. That makes it pretty much a useless invention, unless of course he can create working production models. Which, of course, he doesn't. Why don't you demystify the jargon he or you uses, so that others can also understand what is meant? Or don't you think it is important to communicate one of the most important inventions in the modern world to the rest of the world? Does it really only matter that you understand it?



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
You would get nowhere in life if all you do is nitpick peoples specific words, interpret them as literally as you can, and then blow the whole thing up into the most magnificent criticism of their ideas as a whole.


First of all, people you are talking to are doing fine in this life, thank you very much. Second, science (and especially hard science like physics) does depend on clear meaning of words and formulae. If what Searl says doesn't make sense, it needs to be stated. In most cases it's even worse than that, it's disgustingly stupid, like "radioactive particles are attracted to the rare earth magnet". What you do is subscribing to an idea that you can't demonstrate that you understand yourself. See where that takes you in life.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Dude, the way your mind works is so wacky...

Just because you won't admit that gravity and EM have to somehow be related, doesn't mean they aren't related in any way.

And I don't necessarily agree with Searl's terminology, but I understand what he is trying to say - and that is all that matters.

You would get nowhere in life if all you do is nitpick peoples specific words, interpret them as literally as you can, and then blow the whole thing up into the most magnificent criticism of their ideas as a whole.
First, I said that EM was stronger than Earth's gravity by about 100000000000000000000000000000000000000 times, so don't you understand this statement IS in fact claiming a relationship between them regarding their relative magnitudes? Yet you misrepresent what I wrote and said I won't admit that they are somehow related. So that is a claim of a relationship, which I think even your friend Nassim Haramein has stated. He references this website in his manifesto, have you read this?

scienceworld.wolfram.com...

My mind is wacky? What your mind is apparently doing is interpreting that relationship of "100000000000000000000000000000000000000 times larger" as no different than Searl's claim of "the same".

If you can take what somebody says, and ignore that but instead twist it to mean whatever you want it to mean, then you're now relying on your own mind, and not on what the other person said. Not that I don't make my own interpretations too but in this case I had to listen to that part of the interview several times because I literally couldn't believe what I was hearing Searl claim. Not only did he say the distance would be the same, when the two illustrations I posted shows is clearly not even close, but then he eliminated all doubt of his "wacky mind" as you put it, when he clarified that it was gravity at work in the Searl generator making the rollers be attracted, so that's why it's the same as the moon's gravity to the Earth.

Here's a thought experiment, complete a withdrawal slip at your bank, and then if the teller gives you an amount of money 100000000000000000000000000000000000000 times smaller than the amount on the slip (if that were possible), what would you think of the teller claiming "100000000000000000000000000000000000000 times smaller is really about the same, I knew what he meant", isn't this exactly what you're doing with your rationalization of the discrepancies in Searl's claims?

Look if he just made a single slip-up like I've done when writing the previous year's date on a check on January 2nd, I wouldn't be harping on it, but it was no inadvertent slip-up like that. He said it multiple times in multiple ways that the distance would be the same, the force would be the same, and that it was gravity attracting the rollers to the Searl generator.

Words have meanings, and moreover it's often the case in the fields of physics and engineering that words have very precise meanings. (For example, "force" to engineers and physicists means something like "mass times acceleration" and not some of the other definitions laypeople might use). People that fail to use the accepted meanings of words are at the least very ineffective communicators and aren't going to be able to get their ideas across to other people who if they aren't using the same dictionary, may each have their own different meaning attributed to those words, which may be different from the rest of us who actually do expect words to mean what the dictionary says they mean (or a physics book).

Let me put this dictionary thing in perspective. Using a dictionary and assigning specific meanings to specific words is relatively simple.

Compared to that, the observations we make of the universe we live in indicate that it's rather complex.

Therefore, a mind that appears to have great difficulty performing such a simple task of using words they way they are defined, seems unlikely to be able to master the much greater complexity involved in organizing and interpreting the much more complex nature of the universe. It's partly for this reason that people who use words inappropriately, may not be taken seriously when they propose to be solving the complex mysteries of the universe while at the same time are not performing a simple task like using defined meanings for words. Moreover, this lack of adherence to defined meanings for words seems to be a common trait in the perpetual motion field in the vein of "baffle them with BS" as the saying goes.

And your rationalization that you "don't necessarily agree with Searl's terminology, but I understand what he is trying to say - and that is all that matters" is really inappropriate. Unless you personally are going to provide all the funding he needs to bring the greatest invention of all time to fruition, your understanding is NOT all that matters. He has to be able to persuade not just you, but also an audience of potential investors. He's persuaded me to suspect that if he really thinks gravity and electromagnetism are the same as he says multiple times in multiple ways, he might suffer from some form of dementia, meaning a serious lack of cognitive ability.






top topics



 
39
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join