"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by Mary Rose


certainly either a or b - his claim to be a senior researcher at MS is ,at best, unsupported - so if he really wrote that endorsement then 1 of those 2 fits - if not both.

there is a Russell Blake on Linked in claiming to be Senior REsearcher at MS, educated at Uni of Wisconsin, and currently Senior Consultant at Readify Pty in Brisbane, Australia.

But he is not listed on Readify's "our people page"

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
,at best, unsupported

What is the link to the outside text quoted?

reply to post by Mary Rose


You could just google "Russell P Blake microsoft" and see what you get......it will probably resemble this - and hte referenced text is up at the top......and the lack of anythign else to do with Mr Blake that isn't also about Rodin is furthe supporting evidence

I have emailed Readify asking them about his link to them. Edit: I have received apreliminary response from someone there asking another person to address my query.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Blake's endorsement of Rodin was 10 years ago. Maybe that's why a search brings up mostly Rodin results. People have been discussing Rodin but not Blake.

The scribd.com document I've linked has Russell P. Blake's entire resume listed on page 2. A list of his publications is on page 3. These could be checked for validity.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Russell P Blake Endoresements and Papers"

Reading this document I see that Blake uses the term "decimal parity." He says the decimal parity digit of 2048 is 5.

So, if you substitute an equal sign for the word "is," then 2048 = 5. This doesn't offend my ears. When I take notes I often use the equal sign for "is" or "means" or "is equivalent to."

I don't recall "decimal parity" as a term for Rodin's math being posted on this thread so far.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The scribd.com document I've linked has Russell P. Blake's entire resume listed on page 2. A list of his publications is on page 3. These could be checked for validity.

Under "Publications" Blake lists "Method and System for Automatic Bottleneck Detection," US Patent awarded November 1999, US Patent 6,067,412, May 2000.

For the benefit of the curious, here it is: US Patent 6,067,412

I don't know what the November 1999 date is referring to.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Russell P Blake Endoresements and Papers"

The above is dated September 9, 2001 and lists Blake as living in Woodbridge, Suffolk, United Kingdom. It lists his most recent job as President since January 99 of MoneyFacts, Inc. I see Moneyfacts Group plc in the UK and Our People but I can't find the title of President and I can't find Russell Blake there.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Two more patents that are listed under "Russell P. Blake Publications":

US Patent 5,752,038
US Patent 5,574,854

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here's more on Russell Blake: "Russell P Blake Endoresements and Papers".

From page 4, here is what Blake wrote in 2001:

The Rodin Coil
The Rodin Coil is a toroidal—or doughnut-shaped—form wound by wires in a pattern
consistent with the number patterns discovered by Mr. Rodin. Toroidal shapes wound
with wires are commonly used for inductors in electrical circuits, often for use in
transformers. However the pattern of winding in a Rodin Coil is radically different from
conventional toroidal coils. Experimenters have produced some samples of the Rodin
Coil to measure the effects of this new approach to winding wires around a torus.

To understand these effects it is necessary to review just a little electrical theory. When a
current is passing through a wire it creates a magnetic field around the wire. When a wire
is coiled like a cylindrical spring, as though wrapped around a pencil, the magnetic fields
from the turns of the coil reinforce each other to increase the strength of the magnetic
field. When the coil is bent into a circle, so that the ends meet, the majority of the
magnetic force is concentrated inside the coil. This is considered a benefit in electrical
circuit design, since stray magnetic fields can upset the operation of other parts of the
circuit.

In a conventional coil the windings lay one after another just like the windings of a
cylindrical spring. In a Rodin Coil, the windings lie on the surface of the torus, but do
not lie consecutively adjacent to each other. Instead they reach along the surface, through
the central, doughnut hole area, and 30 degrees short of directly across the torus. This
forms, in addition to the wires on the outer surface, a crisscrossing circle of wires in the
center of the torus. (The central figure formed by the wires in the doughnut hole is really
a polygon of 24 sides for each completed wrap of the coil: so many sides it is considered
a circle.)

Due to the central circle of wires in a Rodin Torus, it naturally creates a greatly increased
magnetic field in the center of the torus, when compared to a conventional coil wound
with the same amount of wire. In addition the field generated is much more coherent, in
the sense of being much more sensitive to a particular frequency of applied current.
These properties are the basis for useful applications of the Rodin Coil, as well as for any
limitations in its use.

All this having been said, it is worth noting that no one has as yet created a coil precisely
conforming to Mr. Rodin’s exacting recommendations, all of which derive from the
numerical patterns he has discovered in the decimal number system. The effects of a
really well constructed Rodin Coil remain untested.

I guess the key words are:

Due to the central circle of wires in a Rodin Torus, it naturally creates a greatly increased
magnetic field in the center of the torus, when compared to a conventional coil wound
with the same amount of wire. In addition the field generated is much more coherent, in
the sense of being much more sensitive to a particular frequency of applied current.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The above is dated September 9, 2001 and lists Blake as living in Woodbridge, Suffolk, United Kingdom. It lists his most recent job as President since January 99 of MoneyFacts, Inc. I see Moneyfacts Group plc in the UK and Our People but I can't find the title of President and I can't find Russell Blake there.

That could be a different moneyfacts.

Did you forget I posted his linkedin page back on page 41 of this thread showing his employment for the last three years since 2008?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Senior Consultant at Readify Pty Ltd

I don't have a linkedin account but if somebody did, it would be interesting to contact him and ask him whatever happened to his involvement with Rodin's math, sort of an open-ended question like that just to see what he says.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I seem to recall Arbitrageur saying of Mr. Blake, "He could be delusional."

This is a poll. Russell Blake is:

a. delusional
b. a fraud
c. insane
d. other

I also seem to recall saying something like that. Well he may not be delusional when it comes to his area of expertise, writing computer code. But he's definitely delusional about the ramifacations
of Rodin's work:

www.scribd.com...

This mathematical formulation is as yet incomplete, and the physical meaning of these numerical phenomena remain unexplored still.

OK if he had just stopped there, I wouldn't accuse him of being delusional. A bit overoptimistic perhaps, but that's not a completely delusional statement. But I believe this statement does confirm his delusion, at least as far as his expectations for Rodin's impact on the scientific world:

Now I am completely convinced that the Rodin Torus will likewise lead to new
and revolutionary advances in art and science. Mr. Rodin's work has suffered
from a lack of adequate scientific attention, and I am sure that as the research
momentum builds and the proper relationship between the Rodin Torus and
conventional science is fully understood, both areas of endeavor will attain new
heights. I am very much looking forward to playing a role in this adventure.

He may have been completely convinced this would happen, but sadly, it never did happen, and I think I can predict with a high level of confidence as judged by my own perception that it probably never will happen. So that is the basis for my statement he's probably delusional about the impact of rodin's work.

It's possible that just like MaryRose is still waiting for the Keely motor 130 years after he made his claim and a century after he was proven a fraud, some "Marko Rodin Enthusiast" living 130 years in the future might still be waiting for Russell Blake's prediction to come true, that someday Rodin's work will attain new heights based on its relationship with science.

Regarding D. other, it could be he's getting a little senile; that can happen to different people at different ages. Some people are as sharp as a tack at 80 years old and some start to lose it in their 40s. Whether it's delusion, senility, or some other psychological condition we're not aware of, he's obviously been completely wrong so far. There have been no revolutionary advances in science from Rodin's work. And I feel pretty confident in stating that I can't see how there ever will be any advances in science from his work, since it simply has no basis in, or relationship to, science.

But Russell Blake might have been a pretty good programmer in his day, and if he was I'm not trying to take that away from him. Likewise, I'm not ridiculing the computer programming skills of the computer programmers who gave Nassim Haramein's proton paper an award, I'm only pointing out they apparently know little about physics, which isn't surprising since they are computer nerds, not physicists. The analogy in the Russell Blake endorsing Marko Rodin case doesn't escape me.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I don't have a linkedin account but if somebody did, it would be interesting to contact him and ask him whatever happened to his involvement with Rodin's math, sort of an open-ended question like that just to see what he says.

That is a great idea. Any volunteers?

But we should keep in mind Rodin's statement that there is friction between him and Blake - something about Blake wanted his own patent.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Due to the central circle of wires in a Rodin Torus, it naturally creates a greatly increased
magnetic field in the center of the torus, when compared to a conventional coil wound
with the same amount of wire. In addition the field generated is much more coherent, in
the sense of being much more sensitive to a particular frequency of applied current.

That there is field in the center of the coil has been pointed out many times in this thread. It was often called "leaking" field and in that sense the paragraph you quoted has same meaning. I take objection, however, to liberal use of non-quantitative statements like "much more coherent" and "much more sensitive". They simply don't make sense. If you really know about coherence, define it and put in a ballpark number at least. What I'm rather confidently guessing is this: the use of "coherence" in that instance is a classic case of alphabet soup and pseudo-science trash talk.

As Arb said, Blake may have been a crack programmer in his prime years. That doesn't mean that he has any deep (or any) knowledge of physics.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
If you really know about coherence, define it and put in a ballpark number at least. What I'm rather confidently guessing is this: the use of "coherence" in that instance is a classic case of alphabet soup and pseudo-science trash talk.

Yes Blake's role is with the math and he is relying on others for the statement about coherence. He states:

A number of scientists and engineers have voluntarily joined with Mr. Rodin over recent years to explore the implications of his findings.

Bearden's endorsement is no "alphabet soup and pseudo-science trash talk," however - I don't care how many times you and others trash Bearden. It's posted on page 8.

Bearden lists several references at the end of the endorsement.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
If you really know about coherence, define it and put in a ballpark number at least. What I'm rather confidently guessing is this: the use of "coherence" in that instance is a classic case of alphabet soup and pseudo-science trash talk.

Yes Blake's role is with the math and he is relying on others for the statement about coherence. He states:

A number of scientists and engineers have voluntarily joined with Mr. Rodin over recent years to explore the implications of his findings.

And what exactly is the grand opus of these "scientists and engineers"? "Over the years" and all? What is the mathematical foundation that is implied here? What, nothing? Thought so.

Bearden's endorsement is no "alphabet soup and pseudo-science trash talk,"

How do you know it's not, Mary? Have you followed his explanation of what he thinks he knows about Rodin's coil?

What Bearden is saying goes against what Blake is saying and against the video demonstrations posted in this thread.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
And what exactly is the grand opus of these "scientists and engineers"? "Over the years" and all?

None that I know of.

Bearden mentions the name Ramsay in his endorsement, saying that Rodin and Ramsay should continue their research. But I can't find the name Ramsay as an endorser. I'm trying to find out who he is.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What is the mathematical foundation that is implied here?

What's your point? That Blake doesn't know anything?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
How do you know it's not, Mary?

I can discern who is competent and I can judge character.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What Bearden is saying goes against what Blake is saying and against the video demonstrations posted in this thread.

Be specific.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
And what exactly is the grand opus of these "scientists and engineers"? "Over the years" and all?

None that I know of.

Exactly. It's not really about an "endorsement" but the promised in-depth analysis (if this is applicable).

Frankly, "endorsement" should belong in politics or product advertisement. I've read a large number of science papers and not a single one needed an "endorsement" to hint that there is merit to it. You read and you can criticize it, or comment, by all means. However, Rodin's writings are essentially content free, hence he resorted to "endorsements" to give them the air of validity.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What is the mathematical foundation that is implied here?

What's your point? That Blake doesn't know anything?

I would say he does not know the subject. He can't point to any concrete model and/or connect same to phenomena. He's saying something vague about "coherence" and "sensitivity to a particular frequency", which strikes me as kindergarten sort of babbling. Saying that Spirit is emanating from the center of a Dunkin Donut does little to explain anything.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
How do you know it's not, Mary?

I can discern who is competent and I can judge character.

This thread amply demonstrates otherwise.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What Bearden is saying goes against what Blake is saying and against the video demonstrations posted in this thread.

Be specific.

Blake is saying magnetic field is leaking, Bearden says it's still contained in the torus. That the coil can work as a speaker and spin magnets etc is evidence that the magnetic field is indeed leaking, as many people commented and as it should.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I've read a large number of science papers and not a single one needed an "endorsement" to hint that there is merit to it.

They're all associated with mainstream university-educated scientists, correct?

Rodin is self-educated and unconventional. That doesn't mean his work does not have content. He is just unconventional.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I would say he does not know the subject.

Have you looked at the math beginning on page 9?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
This thread amply demonstrates otherwise.

No, it does not.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Rodin in self-educated and unconventional. That doesn't mean his work does not have content. He is just unconventional.

I suppose you could say Rodin's claim that the number 9 is the dark matter particle might be some sort of content, but what's lacking is any evidence or basis at all for making such a claim.

You've heard that "extraordinay claims demand extraordinary evidence" and claiming that dark matter is the particle known as the number 9 is beyond extraordinary,

But does he present any evidence at all to back up this irrational claim? No. Zero evidence. So I agree most of the content which would be needed to back up such a claim simply is not there. Even a non-scientist knows you're expected to back up claims with evidence, so Rodin's not exempt from that.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


He has given up on recruiting investors and has turned his information over to the public and has said go for it - for the good of humanity.

There are lots of enthusiastic young people working on Rodin's coil. It will be up to them to prove the technology, if it is going to be proven. Time will tell.

Meanwhile, disparaging people and making sarcastic remarks is not helpful.

The subject matter is fascinating and worth investigating, in my opinion. This can be done without having your brains fall out, as you love to say.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Rodin is self-educated and unconventional.

Since he failed to demonstrate any connection between his sudoku and physics, I would say his education proved insufficient.

That doesn't mean his work does not have content.

No, it doesn't mean that apriori. However, upon examination, this proves exactly to be the case.

He is just unconventional.

That is 1000% irrelevant. New theories in physics are often quite unconventional, and yet because their prediction bear out in Nature, they get analyzed and accepted, then become at least somewhat conventional and eventually commonplace. And some don't. Just being "unconventional" doesn't mean jack.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I would say he does not know the subject.

Have you looked at the math beginning on page 9?

I did. There is nothing to support his pronouncements about the alleged special qualities of the coil. And I'm not even talking about taking it closer to Rodin's claim, i.e. demonstrating any connection between a particular field configuration and any sort of alleged new phenomena. If you find any physics on pages 9 and on, please give a reference. Thank you.