"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Maybe this is the Air Space America Convention in 1988 that Rodin says he gave a presentation to

Could be, but you're right it doesn't prove anything.

I don't know if this proves anything either, other than that you can get a little too obsessed with the number 9 (which might also be the case with Rodin), but it happened the previous year:

How Astrology Ruined Myanmar’s Economy

when told by his astrologer and numerologist that his lucky number was 9 and that he would live to be 90 if he “surrounded himself” with such auspicious digits, General Ne Win appeared before his country in 1987 and informed them that most of their money was now worthless. New money would be issued… not on the metric scale but rather in 45 and 90 kyat bills – since (for example) 45 is a product of and its digits add up to 9.

The result to the country was catastrophic. While 5 and 10 kyats remained legal tender, the now-invalid 50 and 100 kyats that were the mainstay of most of the middle class’s savings in the nation resulted in a collapse in purchasing power and Burma being named least developed nation in 1987.

Can anyone really be that obsessed with the number 9 and can this story really be true?


"Yes, it’s a real 90 kyat bill. General Win was really that f***ed up in real life."

Wow, people really do get that obsessed. Rodin should have asked General Win to become an endorser, how could he resist?

If Rodin runs for office, I'm not voting for him! I'd be too worried he might try something with the number 9 too!

Here is an interesting video about Rodin's coil.

That blog linked in the description is also interesting. On it I see that the YouTuber, Alex Petty, is evidently collaborating with the YouTuber Russ Gries who is posted earlier on this thread - "gries petty research - alexpetty.com | rwgresearch.com."

The description:

In this video I am spinning and levitating a 180 gram Neosphere with a 1" diameter. The beautiful coil shown in the video was hand crafted by my friend and colleague David Klingelhoefer. Also working closely with me on this series of testing is Jack Scholze. For more information check out www.alexpetty.com....

Edit to add: I forgot to search before posting. I already mentioned this video on page 36.

This YouTuber does not speak English and I see on his channel that he presented at Tesla Tech in 2011 with the assistance of an interpreter.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Mary, why do you think that magnetic levitation is news?

They have commercial rail system in Shanghai that runs on maglev. No, Rodin was not on the design team and the trains don't use his donut-shaped coils.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Hmmmm.

Do you agree with this How Stuff Works article "How Maglev Trains Work"?

reply to post by Mary Rose

That site is decent but it's not really a reliable source if you demand accuracy. One problem with that article is the implication that fossil fuels aren't used:

Instead of using fossil fuels, the magnetic field created by the electrified coils in the guideway walls and the track combine to propel the train.

That's misleading because I think China is something like 15% hydro, and a few percent nuclear, with the rest of their electric generation coming from other sources like fossil fuels. So, even though the fossil fuels aren't consumed on site by the train, and maybe 15% of the energy comes from hydroelectric power, I suspect that most of the energy does indeed come from fossil fuels like coal, that are just burned elsewhere.

Reading that article could give you a different impression.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Arb was keen to point out the misleading statement about fossil fuel. I would also note that "cushion of air" is misleading as well, because it's really a cushion of magnetic field.

In the sense that maglev is due to magnetic interaction, that part is pretty much correct. I'm sure there are much better articles out there. And Rodin has nothing to do with anything in that regard. I just used an electric shaver this morning, which works on broadly similar principles, but I don't have to thank Rodin for that, although I'll consider Maxwell and Philips.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Absolutely fascinating.

Researching Rodin's work and the work of people like him continues to fascinate me, despite the ridicule on this thread.

I've stumbled across a video this morning that I think is delightful.

Here's the beginning of the description:

DePalma conceived of the N-machine in 1978. In fact he reinvented a generator first discovered in 1831 by Michael Faraday. It is the one-piece Faraday Disk generator. Faraday discovered two methods of induction. On 17 October 1831 he discovered that a relative motion between a magnet and coiled conductor will produce a voltage and current in it. 11 days later on 28 October 1831 he discovered that a disk rotated between the poles of a magnet will likewise induce a voltage. However, unlike the coil-wound version the disk does not require a relative motion with the magnet - the disk and magnet may be co-rotated. When the disk is co-rotated the efficiency is more than when the magnet is kept stationary but, alas, Faraday did not have facility to measure this difference. . . .

reply to post by Mary Rose

New energy source eh?

I can think of at least three possibilities:
A) TPTB found out and suppressed the technology
B) 10 years after his discovery he went commercial with it
C) It's not really a new energy source

So what are the chances of each?
A) Since it's plastered all over the internet and posted here, a claim that it's somehow suppressed doesn't seem to fit.
B) You mentioned 1978, and this new energy source hasn't changed the world yet.
C) By process of elimination, even if you know nothing about physics or the technology, this would seem to be the most likely.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

New energy source eh?

I can think of at least three possibilities:
A) TPTB found out and suppressed the technology
B) 10 years after his discovery he went commercial with it
C) It's not really a new energy source

So what are the chances of each?
A) Since it's plastered all over the internet and posted here, a claim that it's somehow suppressed doesn't seem to fit.
B) You mentioned 1978, and this new energy source hasn't changed the world yet.
C) By process of elimination, even if you know nothing about physics or the technology, this would seem to be the most likely.

Hey, here's something new... You're not mentioning cheeseburgers, paying with cash, foreign currencies, or your friend with the fictitious spaghetti monster!

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

Arb was keen to point out the misleading statement about fossil fuel. I would also note that "cushion of air" is misleading as well, because it's really a cushion of magnetic field.

In the sense that maglev is due to magnetic interaction, that part is pretty much correct. I'm sure there are much better articles out there. And Rodin has nothing to do with anything in that regard. I just used an electric shaver this morning, which works on broadly similar principles, but I don't have to thank Rodin for that, although I'll consider Maxwell and Philips.

You left out Tesla who seemed to have his own take on 3,6,9...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
B) You mentioned 1978, and this new energy source hasn't changed the world yet.

To be precise, I posted someone else's text, using the outside source tags.

Anyway, you seem to make assumptions about free energy based on a confident opinion that if it were possible, we'd have it by now.

Yet when it's pointed out to you that people have been murdered in the quest to get free energy on the market, you seem to demand that all important figures be murdered - not just some - to make the information relevant.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Anyway, you seem to make assumptions about free energy based on a confident opinion that if it were possible, we'd have it by now.

No that's not really my position. I'm skeptical, but my mind is open enough to look at evidence. It's just not so open my brain falls out and I do recall that there have been hundreds of free energy claims before now, probably thousands, that have also proven to be false. While that doesn't prove all future claims will also be false, it's not a good track record so statistically the odds lie with the assumption that these claims are usually (so far ALWAYS) false. But I'm open to a possibility that an extraordinary energy claim will prove true in the future, however slim. But it will be accompanied by extraordinary evidence.

The specific claim you mentioned was introduced in 1978, and we see no more results from that claim in 2011 than we did then.

Yet when it's pointed out to you that people have been murdered in the quest to get free energy on the market, you seem to demand that all important figures be murdered - not just some - to make the information relevant.

That's a misrepresentation of my position and you know it since I already responded to you that I don't want to see ANYBODY murdered. I only asked a question about why some free energy inventors would be murdered and not others to get you to think about the consistency of your logic, or should I say, lack of consistency.

While I do observe that people die all the time for various causes, I'm very skeptical of claims that anyone has been murdered for their free energy inventions. I'm not claiming that corporations don't have corporate greed, they do. And they might even buy a competing technology from an inventor to either keep it off the market, or exploit it themselves. But I don't find the claims that anybody's been murdered over free energy inventions to be any more credible than the free energy claims themselves.

And as far as I can tell, DePalma wasn't suppressed in any way.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That's a misrepresentation of my position and you know it since I already responded to you that I don't want to see ANYBODY murdered.

When I saw your statement, I had to laugh. I didn't mention that I laughed because that would be ridicule and I try to avoid ridiculing both public figures and members of forums.

So I don't "know it."

To me, saying you don't want to see anyone murdered is a no-brainer, and non-statement and non-argument.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'm very skeptical of claims that anyone has been murdered for their free energy inventions.

Okay.

Maybe I'll go back and dig up all the reading I've done on the topic.

But if I post on it, I guess you'll go into ridicule mode and there will be a new round of here a fraud, there a fraud, everywhere a fraud, fraud...

We'll see.

This the most under rated thread on ATS .

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

Arb was keen to point out the misleading statement about fossil fuel. I would also note that "cushion of air" is misleading as well, because it's really a cushion of magnetic field.

In the sense that maglev is due to magnetic interaction, that part is pretty much correct. I'm sure there are much better articles out there. And Rodin has nothing to do with anything in that regard. I just used an electric shaver this morning, which works on broadly similar principles, but I don't have to thank Rodin for that, although I'll consider Maxwell and Philips.

You left out Tesla who seemed to have his own take on 3,6,9...

You would do well to try to use logic in your "replies".
I was talking about the maglev train system in Shanghai. If you have to stick your 3,6,9 somewhere, look for another place to do it.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Yet when it's pointed out to you that people have been murdered in the quest to get free energy on the market, you seem to demand that all important figures be murdered - not just some - to make the information relevant.

Rodin, Bearden and Searl -- these gentlemen have not been murdered, thank God. They have plans for their devices available hence they are not suppressed either. All of them have promised unlimited energy very, very soon -- they did decades ago. There is nothing even close to a tiny functional prototype.

Connect the dots.

reply to post by 23432


LOL!!

My sentiments exactly.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

Arb was keen to point out the misleading statement about fossil fuel. I would also note that "cushion of air" is misleading as well, because it's really a cushion of magnetic field.

In the sense that maglev is due to magnetic interaction, that part is pretty much correct. I'm sure there are much better articles out there. And Rodin has nothing to do with anything in that regard. I just used an electric shaver this morning, which works on broadly similar principles, but I don't have to thank Rodin for that, although I'll consider Maxwell and Philips.

You left out Tesla who seemed to have his own take on 3,6,9...

You would do well to try to use logic in your "replies".
I was talking about the maglev train system in Shanghai. If you have to stick your 3,6,9 somewhere, look for another place to do it.

Don't forget... Train system and electric shaver. All you have to do is read your own sentences.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I interpreted the post to be referring to the Maxwell and Philips portion.