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: 77
39
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Nice post and analysis. The pinwheel contraption will be subject to a very similar periodicity
Thanks. I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps that would be so if the pinwheels were oriented in the same direction. But did you notice they are in opposing directions? I suspect that may cancel out most of the periodicity, perhaps to a degree that it might not even be measurable, though it may depend on the exact curvature and shape of the "spokes". In any case, the periodicity will certainly be far less pronounced with opposing pinwheels than it will be with the corrugated surfaces.




posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

At least that's my guess, you could ask a mod for an explanation but I suspect the answer would be something like that. I even censored the caption of the picture I posted to try to comply with this part of the site rules
Ok, thanks, that makes a bit more sense.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Nice post and analysis. The pinwheel contraption will be subject to a very similar periodicity
Thanks. I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps that would be so if the pinwheels were oriented in the same direction. But did you notice they are in opposing directions? I suspect that may cancel out most of the periodicity, perhaps to a degree that it might not even be measurable, though it may depend on the exact curvature and shape of the "spokes". In any case, the periodicity will certainly be far less pronounced with opposing pinwheels than it will be with the corrugated surfaces.


That's precisely what I meant.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

OK thanks for confirming that. I wasn't sure if you were acknowledging that the effect might be too small to measure. There's such a large deviation from the expected periodicity at the X-axis origin in the data of the graph I posted, that I suspect the pinwheel periodicity with significantly smaller amplitude might be hidden by anomalies like that and noise. (though I wonder about the cause of that anomaly, it doesn't look like random noise).

To conclude the answer to PLB's question, it really doesn't matter whether the effect is too small to measure or not. If it is indeed measurable, the pinwheels would still get stuck in a "force valley". In this case, it won't turn more than (360/the number of spirals per 360 degrees) degrees.

If the force is too small to measure, then effectively there is no lateral force, and it won't turn at all.

It really doesn't matter which is the case because in neither case will it spin more than a fraction of a turn.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   
"The keys to making a coil work is understanding implosion, resonance, and superconductivity."








posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"The keys to making a coil work is understanding implosion, resonance, and superconductivity.
Do share your understanding of these things and what they have to do with a non-superconducting non-imploding nineteenth century electromagnet.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Thank both Bobathon and Arbitrageur for their lengthy explanation. But still my question has not really answered yet. I understand the car/hill analogy, and that it is similar to displacing the plates laterally to each other. But what I do not understand it why there is also a force when you move the plates parallel to each other. I think my main problem is that I don't understand quantum mechanics well enough. This quote describes my problem best I think:


I think perhaps you want to visualise what is causing this force in classical terms, and I'm sorry but I can be pretty confident that there can be no straightforwardly intuitive answer to that, as it's not a classical effect. But one thing is undeniable: if you slide the plates parallel to each other, you're still sliding them apart – there's no getting out of it!


I tried visualize it as particles, which is where I think I went wrong. I think you will run into similar problems when you visualize it as waves. I just don't have a clue how to visualize it, and along with it, I just do not understand what is really going on. I can grasp the visualization that when there are less particles between the plates, there is more "nothing" and there is a lower pressure. Thus the plates are pushed toward each other. But when you compare it for example to a suction cup, you can easily move those parallel to the surface it is sucked on (given there is not too much friction). For some reason this is not the case with the plates. And I do not understand why that is.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"The keys to making a coil work is understanding implosion, resonance, and superconductivity.
Do share your understanding of these things and what they have to do with a non-superconducting non-imploding nineteenth century electromagnet.


And you're sharing your non-reasoning? My uncle is in contract negotiations to purchase a machine shop and 3D printer. I own a couple of thermoelectric plates. I already realize their potential for heating, cooling, collecting water vapor, and channeling radiant energy.

I'll keep checking back to witness your non-sense, so in the meantime... Muck it up.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Thank both Bobathon and Arbitrageur for their lengthy explanation.
You're welcome


Thus the plates are pushed toward each other. But when you compare it for example to a suction cup, you can easily move those parallel to the surface it is sucked on (given there is not too much friction). For some reason this is not the case with the plates. And I do not understand why that is.
I think you understand it better than you give yourself credit for. Look at figure 3 in this paper:

Demonstration of the Lateral Casimir Force

The X-axis is the distance between the plates. The Y axis is the force. A similar relationship can be established for both the lateral and the normal Casimir forces.

Now as you move the plates closer together, (going left on the X-axis), what happens to the lateral and normal Casimir forces? They both go up.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think your perception is the two plates won't get sucked together so that it's difficult to move them laterally. I think that's false. The experimenters are fixing the positions of the plates (actually a plate and a sphere in that experiment) a certain distance apart, and the 4 points plotted in figure 3 represent 4 such fixed distances. If they didn't fix the separation distance, they'd get sucked together just as you surmise. That's why I said I think you understand the effect better than you realize. I think it's just the details of how the experiment was conducted that you didn't quite grasp.

Note what the authors of that paper said about their investigation:

Also, adhesion and sticking of moving parts in micromachines due to the Casimir effect were investigated
I read somewhere that micromachines may need teflon coating to help keep them from getting stuck, sorry I don't recall the source. (Perhaps not only because of the Casimir effect but also due to other effects).


Originally posted by Americanist
I own a couple of thermoelectric plates.
I have a pretty good idea how the thermoelectric effect works and it doesn't have much to do with Rodin's numerology.

But if you think you can explain how it's related, that would be entertaining to me.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"The keys to making a coil work is understanding implosion, resonance, and superconductivity.
Do share your understanding of these things and what they have to do with a non-superconducting non-imploding nineteenth century electromagnet.


And you're sharing your non-reasoning? My uncle is in contract negotiations to purchase a machine shop and 3D printer. I own a couple of thermoelectric plates. I already realize their potential for heating, cooling, collecting water vapor, and channeling radiant energy.


My grandfather was a doctor. I recently bought a scalpel in a medical supply store. In the past week, I pretty much shredded my leather couch, and almost killed my dog. I already realize the tremendous potential that this thing has, and I'm considering making some money on the side, doing things like quadruple bypass surgery. I got a bottle of aspirin from Walmart as anesthetic, and some cotton balls. I also got a stapler from Office Depot so I'm ready to suture the wound. Do I need anything else? I think I have a good gut feeling to do it right.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"The keys to making a coil work is understanding implosion, resonance, and superconductivity.
Do share your understanding of these things and what they have to do with a non-superconducting non-imploding nineteenth century electromagnet.


And you're sharing your non-reasoning?
...
I'll keep checking back to witness your non-sense, so in the meantime... Muck it up.
I'm not the one making the claim. I'm disputing the claim. All of Rodin's claims, and all of the claims of those pretending to use his thing, are utterly empty. Show me a single claim for his coil that has any justification or reasoning or evidence behind it.

If you can't tell (or can't be bothered to think about) the potential differences between what's claimed and what's real, then we're not going to get very far in trying to communicate. Please try.

There is nothing to implode in a Rodin coil. It's a solenoid. Where has he given any indication that there could be anything to implode, or that any implosion has been observed? And there is nothing to superconduct either. Superconducting has never been observed in any material above 130K, and Rodin gives no indication that he's observed it in his coil; nor is there any reason to believe that it could under any circumstances short of cooling it with liquid helium, as it is a perfectly ordinary coil of wire. He doesn't cool it with liquid helium.

Show me what's nonsensical about that.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Oops, I confused the lateral force with the normal force. So that paper indeed exactly shows what happen when you move the plates parallel. I will read the paper when I have the time and hope I will be able to understand what causes this force. Thanks for the link (I had searched for it also but didn't find it).



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
And there is nothing to superconduct either. Superconducting has never been observed in any material above 130K, and Rodin gives no indication that he's observed it in his coil;


He said there is less resistance but he couldn't be bothered to actually demonstrate it. What a clown.

I made this point in the past, and I think I even suggested that Mary would invest $5 to buy a multimeter and verify Rodin's claim that the coil wound according to his recipe has less resistance than a similar coil wound in a different manner. It should be easy. So those people talking nonsense here about "superconductivity", "implosion", "quantum numbers 5=3+2=32", "fractals" and "vortices" -- they could go a long way in actually learning stuff if they did spend the $5 and did the experiment. Otherwise they just are... Bags of hot air.

edit on 29-4-2011 by buddhasystem because: typo



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
hope I will be able to understand what causes this force.
This might help:

picsus.eu...

Hold the bottom sheet stationary and try to move the red sheet to the right or the left. Even though gravity is pointing straight down, the angles of the corrugation cause this downward force of gravity to be translated into lateral forces, so the red sheet will always try to fall back into the position shown, when you try to push it away from that position.

Now do the same thing, except with much smaller sheets and using the Casimir force instead of gravity. That's a rough analogy of the experiment. I'm sure you can understand it based on applying the knowledge you wrote in the post before your last one.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And if any free energy technology is being suppressed, this certainly isn't it, with a picture of it openly displayed on his website, right?

A economy can't run without a energy source, can't you see the answer at what would cause the suppression of free energy technology. Well, what's your answer.
Actually I don't think the concept of people or businesses with money and power trying to suppress things that might work against them as far-fetched. Sometimes a big powerful company may buy out a small new upstart competitor if they have superior technology and or patents that the larger company can profitably utilize.

And I am accusing you of not reading my post very carefully. Didn't you notice I said "If any free energy technology is being suppressed..." meaning haven't ruled out the possibility. I look at claims of technology suppression the same way I look at claims that UFOs are being piloted by aliens...It may be possible, and I can't prove it's not. I certainly believe there's a good chance of other life in the universe and I certainly see the profit motive in wanting to prevent competitors from doing things that might harm a company's profits, in fact Microsoft was accused of breaking the law to suppress competition.

But "free energy" is an extraordinary claim, as is the claim that aliens out there are traveling faster than the speed of light to visit Earth. I won't say either of those claims is impossible, rather, I would characterize the claims as extraordinary. And as my signature says, extraordinary clams require extraordinary evidence and there is no extraordinary evidence for either free energy suppression or alien visitation. Richard Hoagland having a heart attack is NOT evidence of an assasination attempt on him as he claims, nor is Bearden's openly displaying his free energy machine on his website evidence of free energy suppression.

So even if nobody has any evidence of free energy technology suppression (I see claims about it but never any evidence other than things like people dying....and guess what? People die every day, most of them have nothing to do with free energy) let's assume for a moment there is some free energy technology somewhere that's being suppressed.

Are you arguing with me that the "suppressed" technology would be pictured openly on a website like that photo, for anybody to copy and make themselves? Wouldn't they buy the inventor's company and the patents, and/or just kill the inventor as some people claim? What's your answer?

My answer led me to say, if there's some real technology being suppressed somewhere, it's not Bearden's technology. Suppressed technology can't be openly available like this, because if it is, it's not being suppressed, right?


I accept the extraordinary claim and stuff, but my idea of suppression was different. How do you explain the suppression of cold fusion (I know cold fusion is not free energy) for so long until recently it has been rediscovered as credible. Obviously, my only explanation is phony scientist hired by Corporations to harm real scientist with good intention and discredit them, harming there career. Its happened. Do you really think the people controlling the money flow will allow free energy public when they control the economy and media. I think not. A guy with a website is still being suppressed if his message isn't allowed to get out through the controlled media. The internet can only do what it can to get the message out. Still, why wouldn't you believe in a electromagnetic generator that provides free energy. Okay, maybe not free energy but energy that utilizes potential energy like a pendulum swing utilizing gravity. I'm not a physics expert so you'll have to try to make out what I'm trying to get across.

Here is a site to look: peswiki.com...:Flynn_Parallel_Path_principle_device

This site discussed the pulse force farther below
www.rexresearch.com...
edit on 29-4-2011 by MIDNIGHTSUN because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-4-2011 by MIDNIGHTSUN because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I understand all those analogies, but what I do not understand what actually causes this force. How can the physical structure and forces be visualized without using any analogies? I am not sure if its possible though. I already figured the particle and wave models do not suffice, they don't explain it to me.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
I accept the extraordinary claim and stuff, but my idea of suppression was different. How do you explain the suppression of cold fusion (I know cold fusion is not free energy) for so long until recently it has been rediscovered as credible.
If you research what really happened with cold fusion, it wasn't really suppressed. Attempts were made to replicate the experiment with mixed results. More attempts failed than not. The few that seemed to show something seemed to depend on the source of the palladium, indicating the possibility of some kind of property, or impurity, or something related to the Palladium source, that wasn't understood. I still don't know if that's been identified. But if attempts to replicate the experiment fail, and because of that you decide not to continue conducting more failed experiments, is that suppression? It seems to me like it's moving on to the next experiment that's more likely to yield additional knowledge. Just running more failed experiments where no cold fusion is detected, won't add anything. The jury is still out on the US Navy's latest cold fusion research.



Do you really think the people controlling the money flow will allow free energy public when they control the economy and media. I think not.
As I said before, I have no objection to proposing this as a hypothesis. I understand the logic, and it seems possible that a company may buy up a competitor to avoid being harmed by its superior technology and patents. What I haven't seen, is any evidence that this hypothesis is true. If cold fusion is your example, that's certainly not convincing. Not only did that fail on its own, but the US navy is publicizing positive results so it certainly doesn't even seem to meet any hypothetical suppression profile.



Still, why wouldn't you believe in a electromagnetic generator that provides free energy. Okay, maybe not free energy but energy that utilizes potential energy like a pendulum swing utilizing gravity. I'm not a physics expert so you'll have to try to make out what I'm trying to get across.
You said you understood my argument about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. But in spite of your claim that you understand it, I'm not sure you really do. What would make me believe is it extraordinary evidence. There's not even ordinary evidence, just some claims that output energy is a hundred times input, or even a million times input.


Here is a site to look: peswiki.com...:Flynn_Parallel_Path_principle_device
I'm not familiar with that device, but I read enough to see the part that it claims it doesn't violate the laws of physics.


It's not true perpetual motion, because it doesn't violate laws of physics

If that is actually true, it's really not an extraordinary claim at all. In fact I'll tell you something about motor design, a topic I know something about.

Motors designed to go to Mars might place a much higher priority on efficiency, than on cost. And there are many ways to make motors more efficient by adding cost to them.

In contrast to that, motors used in consumer products, that run on AC, tend to place cost as a much higher priority than efficiency. Do you think people shopping for blenders, vacuum cleaners, and other motor operated consumer appliances are asking about efficiency? On the contrary, vacuum cleaners have even been marketed on their current draw which can be a measure of inefficiency. So someone claiming they can design more efficient motors is the easiest claim in the world to believe, since many motors are quite inefficient, especially the variety used in consumer products. In general, it's quite easy to add cost to a consumer product motor, and increase the efficiency. You might not be able to sell it in a competitive marketplace until consumers start paying more attention to energy efficiency, but you can make it more efficient at additional cost, no problem.

Industrial motor users pay a lot more attention to efficiency of motors, and the claims of that link you provided are completely impossible for industrial motors:


A motor built with this technology is at least 3.5 times more efficient than conventional motors, offers excellent torque, and high power to weight ratios.

3.5 times more efficient? OK let's look at some industrial motor efficiency figures:

www.ceere.org...


A typical standard motor has an efficiency of 90 %.(See table below for horsepower ratings and nominal efficiencies)

OK multiply 90% times 3.5 and what do you get?

315% efficient. Anything over 100% efficiency DOES violate the laws of physics so at least with industrial motors which are typically about 90% efficient, it's impossible to make them 3.5 times more efficient. 95% is the highest number on that efficiency graph and you might be able to eke out a little more, but you can't get even 100% because there are always some losses.

So your link set off the BS detector.

PS, you're supposed to trim the quote, not quote the entire post.
Trim Those Quotes!



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 
You're reinforcing the point I made earlier, which was that the macro world is often intuitive, because we have more experience with it. The quantum world is often not intuitive, because most of us don't have much experience with it. I only took one post-graduate level course in quantum mechanics and I haven't used it much since aside from reading papers like the one I linked you to. It may be a lot more intuitive to Buddhasystem than to me because he works with it frequently, and I don't.

en.wikipedia.org...

.. the subjective nature of intuition limits the objectivity of what to call counterintuitive because what is counter-intuitive for one may be intuitive for another. This might occur in instances where intuition changes with knowledge. For instance, many aspects of quantum mechanics may sound counterintuitive to a layman, while they may be intuitive to a particle physicist.


Buddhasystem, is that true? Does quantum mechanics become more intuitive the more you work with it?

Feynman left me with a different impression:
en.wikiquote.org...


Richard Feynman-
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics"
-The Character of Physical Law (1965) Ch. 6; also quoted in The New Quantum Universe (2003) by Tony Hey and Patrick Walters



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"The keys to making a coil work is understanding implosion, resonance, and superconductivity.
Do share your understanding of these things and what they have to do with a non-superconducting non-imploding nineteenth century electromagnet.


And you're sharing your non-reasoning? My uncle is in contract negotiations to purchase a machine shop and 3D printer. I own a couple of thermoelectric plates. I already realize their potential for heating, cooling, collecting water vapor, and channeling radiant energy.


My grandfather was a doctor. I recently bought a scalpel in a medical supply store. In the past week, I pretty much shredded my leather couch, and almost killed my dog. I already realize the tremendous potential that this thing has, and I'm considering making some money on the side, doing things like quadruple bypass surgery. I got a bottle of aspirin from Walmart as anesthetic, and some cotton balls. I also got a stapler from Office Depot so I'm ready to suture the wound. Do I need anything else? I think I have a good gut feeling to do it right.


My advice in this case... Cover your head.




posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


Not my problem, if you're unable to understand at least one application of teaming the coils with thermoelectric plates. My point is... I'll be able to build most anything to spec soon and report back.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join