"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

All he needs is a few hundred dollars for the independent test lab report. Why would he need $11 million before he has a test report? It makes no sense

Of course it makes sense....you're either too polite to say why it makes sense (nah...I didn't thnk so)....or you're hoping the "believers" will realise what it is you're "too polite" to say....which seems likely.

So you have led hhte horse to water.....I doubt this one will ever drink tho......the obvious answer woudl make them have to rethink their whole position, which seems way too entrenched.

This is really going nowhere. They will claim these charlatans are being "suppressed" when really they are being ignored because their ramblings are insane.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Dude, you know what you are talking about. Budget brands don't cut it when it comes to DVD blanks, I decided a while ago to buy only Verbatim (I think it's re-badged Taiko Yuden) because it rarely fails. The rest is a crap shoot.

To answer Americanist's slight: as an admittedly failed musician and sound engineer, I do know a few things about CD/DVD media.
Not an expert, but not new to replication.

And, did I say that Rodin et al are charlatans?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Dude, you know what you are talking about. Budget brands don't cut it when it comes to DVD blanks, I decided a while ago to buy only Verbatim (I think it's re-badged Taiko Yuden) because it rarely fails. The rest is a crap shoot.

I do actually. I pretty much stick to Verbatim and TDK which use a lot of the same suppliers. I've found that TDK is highly variable from batch to batch because they put their brand on discs from multiple manufacturers (as apparently does Verbatim, see below). You can find out who the manufacturer is by running this free program:

dvd.identifier.cdfreaks.com...

Some TDK were about as good as Verbatim (they should be since they come from the same suppliers) and some were marginal and would barely pass the burn quality test in Nero's toolkit (CD/DVD speed, which also has a burn quality test). Here's a CMC Magnetics disk that barely passed the test and I have no confidence it will play a year or more later with a quality score so low, it's only 18/100.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/616ed220711e.png[/atsimg]

A good burn usually scores in the 90s or at least the 80s, but any score above 0 will usually pass the Nero burn verification which gives you a false sense of security that you have a good burn, when you really don't, with a score of 18. I'm not sure what happened with that one, most CMCs test better. And if I had put less than 4GB on the DVD I probably wouldn't have detected any problem.

The Verbatims I have now say this in DVD Identifier:

Mitsubishi Chemical Corp. MCC-004

Those are working great so far, no complaints.

Even Verbatim might be a little bit of a crapshoot, like my experience with TDK. You're right that some Verbatims are Yuden, but there are other manufacturers for Verbatim as with TDK, such as the CMC and MCC I mentioned, along with Ricohjpn and Ritek. See about the 18th post from Manny Calavera in the link below. I don't know where he got this information but it accurately portrays the suppliers I've seen with TDK, though I've seen one other TDK type also, that DVD Identifier calls "DAXON":

forums.whirlpool.net.au...

TDK = TDK, RITEKG04, RICOHJPN, MXL, CMC, MCC
Verbatim = CMC, MCC, YUDEN, RICOHJPN, RITEKG03

So unless someone runs DVD Identifier, especially with TDK, and apparently also Verbatim, you don't know what they've got.

If anyone has one of Bearden's DVDs they can run DVD identifier on that and see what the disc type is. If it shows DVD +R then he's probably selling DVD volumes too small to make a master. If it doesn't show up as a burnable medium then it was probably made from a master which means he made a decent volume of discs, perhaps at least 1000. It's not critical, I'm just curious what volumes he's dealing with.

And, did I say that Rodin et al are charlatans?

The only people that heard you say that were those not doing this:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3334c069a2ca.jpg[/atsimg]
But I would hope that even the gullible would start getting suspicious by now, when Bearden said in 2001 that he should be in production within a year.
en.wikipedia.org...
But alas, I suspect my hope is misplaced. There is apparently no end to the patience of the gullible, which extends past the death of Keely, in the case of the Keely motor.

reply to post by Mary Rose


I've gotten no reply to this post, which is an attempt to focus on the question of whether or not the tapping of free energy from the vacuum is doable. The character of Rodin, Keely, or Bearden is of no consequence to anyone but themselves. Whether or not technology is being suppressed is important, but we're not going to agree on that.

So let's focus on something that perhaps we can be objective about: Does history show that the model we're using for engineering electromagnetics has removed the parts that would open up the technology for free energy devices to be designed?

reply to post by Mary Rose

I've gotten no reply to this post, which is an attempt to focus on the question of whether or not the tapping of free energy from the vacuum is doable. The character of Rodin, Keely, or Bearden is of no consequence to anyone but themselves. Whether or not technology is being suppressed is important, but we're not going to agree on that.

So let's focus on something that perhaps we can be objective about: Does history show that the model we're using for engineering electromagnetics has removed the parts that would open up the technology for free energy devices to be designed?

Only if you subscribe to conspiracy theories and ignore the fact that in science evidence is king and so experimental data is what you need to show new findings rather than just talking about vortices.

reply to post by 547000


From "Where Electrical Science Went Wrong" by Bruce DePalma

Rather than focusing on Bruce DePalma's character, let's discuss the information in the article.

After Michael Faraday performed the initial experiments resulting in the discovery of the one-piece homopolar generator of December 26, 1831, figure (1), he devoted considerable effort to reconcile the appearance of generated electrical potential in the apparatus with his conceptualization of the cutting of flux linkages by a moving conductor.

Is the above true or false?

Although Faraday never adduced an experiment to prove the cutting of flux linkages in the axially rotating magnet experiment, he was troubled to his last days about his interpretation of his experiment.

Again, true or false?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by 547000

 

From "Where Electrical Science Went Wrong" by Bruce DePalma

Rather than focusing on Bruce DePalma's character, let's discuss the information in the article.

After Michael Faraday performed the initial experiments resulting in the discovery of the one-piece homopolar generator of December 26, 1831, figure (1), he devoted considerable effort to reconcile the appearance of generated electrical potential in the apparatus with his conceptualization of the cutting of flux linkages by a moving conductor.

Is the above true or false?

It's simply bollocks.
Second line.

reply to post by buddhasystem


You expect an answer like that to suffice?? Absolutely ridiculous.

Hopefully, some people who are knowledgeable about the history of electromagnetism and electrical engineering will post. Hope springs eternal!!

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You expect an answer like that to suffice??

Absolutely ridiculous.

Hopefully, some people who are knowledgeable about the history of electromagnetism and electrical engineering will post. Hope springs eternal!!

Mary, what do you think about "cutting of flux linkages"? Please provide a paragraph or two.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I don't know what you're talking about and don't care.

Enough nonsense.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I don't know what you're talking about and don't care.

Wait Mary, what I said was an excerpt from your own post!

Now, you admit that you have no idea what you are posting.
And, that you don't care about what you post.
You act like an automaton copy-pasting on ATS w/o any clue about the content.

Do you think it's normal?

reply to post by buddhasystem


Putting the topic of Faraday's work in 1831 back on the table:

From "Where Electrical Science Went Wrong" by Bruce DePalma

After Michael Faraday performed the initial experiments resulting in the discovery of the one-piece homopolar generator of December 26, 1831, figure (1), he devoted considerable effort to reconcile the appearance of generated electrical potential in the apparatus with his conceptualization of the cutting of flux linkages by a moving conductor.

Is the above true or false?

Although Faraday never adduced an experiment to prove the cutting of flux linkages in the axially rotating magnet experiment, he was troubled to his last days about his interpretation of his experiment.

Again, true or false?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Putting the topic of Faraday's work in 1831 back on the table:

From "Where Electrical Science Went Wrong" by Bruce DePalma

After Michael Faraday performed the initial experiments resulting in the discovery of the one-piece homopolar generator of December 26, 1831, figure (1), he devoted considerable effort to reconcile the appearance of generated electrical potential in the apparatus with his conceptualization of the cutting of flux linkages by a moving conductor.

Is the above true or false?

Although Faraday never adduced an experiment to prove the cutting of flux linkages in the axially rotating magnet experiment, he was troubled to his last days about his interpretation of his experiment.

Again, true or false?

I'm guessing false. Where's the author's proof to any of these things?

reply to post by 547000


I don't know. But I think it's a worthwhile topic.

I suspect very few people have researched in detail Faraday's original work.

The problem is if there was anything strange he could observe it is bound to be noticed by scientists or engineers after him, you know people who build stuff and look for explanations for data. It's not like he had an atom smasher. Whatever may have bemused him then is probably explained now. The chances that nobody would have noticed it until now are laughable.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Although Faraday never adduced an experiment to prove the cutting of flux linkages in the axially rotating magnet experiment, he was troubled to his last days about his interpretation of his experiment.

Again, true or false?

While it's true that Faraday was troubled by his interpretation, he died in 1867. The electron wasn't discovered until about 30 years after his death and that helps explain the experiment:

Faraday Paradox

After the discovery of the electron and the forces that affect it, a microscopic resolution of the paradox became possible.

You don't want to discuss DePalma's character, but omission of things like this (and plenty more) does call his character into question.

Bruce Depalma & "Free Energy" - A Sad Story of Fraud and Delusion

An ME friend of mine went to work for DePalma in an effort to help him and worked for subsistance wages. This was after Bruce emigrated from the U.S. My friend concluded he was a fraud and was bilking investors. He left in disgust.

There seem to be endless efforts to find value in his work ever since his death. As far as I am aware, all have come to naught.
-Mark Goldes

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Surprise surprise.

DePalma's a fraud, too.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Surprise surprise.

DePalma's a fraud, too.

You have such skill in believing frauds.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Surprise surprise.

DePalma's a fraud, too.

Do we have any reason to believe otherwise?

He also never produced anything that works in the real world, right?