"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

This article makes me think of this thread: "Vortex radio waves could boost wireless capacity 'infinitely.'”

By Sebastian Anthony on March 2, 2012 at 7:07 am

After four years of incredulity and not-so-gentle mocking, Bo Thide of the Swedish Institute of Space Physics and a team in Italy have finally proven that it’s possible to simultaneously transmit multiple radio channels over exactly the same wireless frequency. In theory, according to Thide, we could potentially transmit an “infinite number” of TV, radio, WiFi, and cellular channels at the same time over the same frequency, blasting apart our highly congested wireless spectrum.

Thide’s approach is rather simple. Basically, electromagnetic waves can have both spin angular and orbital angular momentum (OAM). If you picture the Earth-Sun system, spin momentum is the Earth rotating on its axis (producing the day-night cycle), and orbital momentum is the Earth rotating around the sun (producing the seasons). In standard wireless communications — radio, TV, WiFi — we only modulate the spin angular momentum of waves. For years, Thide had theorized that orbital angular momentum could also be added to wireless signals, effectively creating a spiral signal that looks like fusilli pasta; or, in the words of Thide, a “radio vortex.”

Now, in an experiment in Venice, Thide and his Italian colleagues have transmitted two signals at the same time, on the same frequency, over a distance of 442 meters (1450ft). Pictured on the right is the antenna that the team used. No, your eyes don’t deceive you: To create these radio vortices, all you have to do is make a cut in a standard parabolic reflector and twist it slightly. If you imagine a corkscrew of radio signals being continuously transmitted from the outside edge of the antenna, that’s effectively what’s occurring. On the receiving end, there are two “normal” TV antennae (Yagi-Uda) set apart by the same angle as the break in the transmitter. These antennae “decode” the vortex, and voila: Two radio signals transmitted over the same frequency.

. . . Read more at New Journal of Physics

reply to post by Mary Rose


Great find, Mary. Now, how is it related to the topic?

Another appeal to electrical engineers:

Wireless Transmission of Electrical Energy

Integrity Research Institute, Thomas Valone www.integrityresearchinstitute.org...

Nikola Tesla's discovery of pulsed propagation of energy does not resemble the standard transverse electromagnetic waves so familiar to electrical engineers everywhere. Many engineers and physicists have dismissed Tesla's wireless energy transmission as unscientific without examining the unusual characteristics and benefits of longitudinal waves. . .

The new book, Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy, contains several papers from prominent physicists detailing the unusual method of pulsing a broadband Tesla coil at a repetition rate of 7.5 Hz to resonate with the Earth's Schumann cavity. Dr. James Corum explains, in one of his papers in the book (p. 198) entitled, "Tesla & the Magnifying Transmitter: A Popular Study for Engineers," that a mechanical analog of the lumped circuit Tesla coil is an easier model for engineers to understand. From mechanical engineering, the "magnifying factor" can be successfully applied to such a circuit. "The circuit is limited only by the circuit resistance. At resonance, the current through the circuit rises until the voltage across the resistance is equal to the source voltage. This circuit was a source of deep frustration to Edison because voltmeter readings taken around the loop did not obey Kirchoff's laws!" As a result, Edison claimed such a circuit was only good for electrocution chairs.

"All that is necessary," says Corum, is that his transmitter power and carrier frequency be capable of round-the-world propagation." In fact, Tesla (in Dec., 1904 L.A. Times) stated, "With my transmitter I actually sent electrical vibrations around the world and received them again, and I then went on to develop my machinery."

The power loss experienced by this pulsed, electrostatic discharge mode of propagation was less than 5% over 25,000 miles. Dr. Van Voorhies says (p. 151), "...path losses are 0.25 dB/Mm at 10 Hz", which often is difficult for engineers to believe, who are used to transverse waves, a resistive medium, and line-of-sight propagation modes. The capacitive dome of the Wardenclyffe Tower is a key to the understanding of the longitudinal waves. Dr. Rauscher quotes Tesla (p. 236), "Later he compared it to a Van de Graaff generator. He also explained the purpose of Wardenclyffe...'one does not need to be an expert to understand that a device of this kind is not a producer of electricity like a dynamo, but merely a receiver or collector with amplifying qualities.'"

Become educated about Tesla's wireless energy transmission discovery at users.erols.com... .

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Another appeal to electrical engineers:

Appeal to do what? Your quote says it doesn't produce any electricity. It's just a collector. Electrical engineers have already built collectors, like the crystal radios that were popular a century ago that needed no batteries to operate because they extracted their energy from the environment.

We now have other ways to extract energy from the environment that engineers have developed, like this:

New Printable Antenna Can Harvest Ambient Energy To Power Small Electronics

However the amounts of electricity extracted are relatively small because there's not that much power there to extract. It's no problem to power something like a digital watch with energy from the environment because it doesn't use much power, perhaps 2 microwatts. However if you want to run the central Air Conditioner of your home, that uses a lot of power (usually over 2000 watts) so you can't do it with this technology, because as ATSer Bedlam notes in that thread:

"There's no way to get more, because that's all there is."

I think Bedlam understands it. Will Mary Rose understand it?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Another appeal to electrical engineers:

Appeal to do what? Your quote says it doesn't produce any electricity. It's just a collector. Electrical engineers have already built collectors, like the crystal radios that were popular a century ago

I built one in the 70s

But seriously, Wiki has a lot of pretty detailed info on the Tesla's tower. It also shows that he was "playing by the ear" and changing his approaches and proposals as he went. It's not mainly about producing electricity but its transport. I find it interesting that he contemplated injecting current into the ground, effectively, while using the upper atmosphere as the balance. The only thing I could never get is why he expected the energy to be received at precisely point "B" after it was supposedly emitted at point "A". Since the tower (to which prior location I'm currently sitting relatively close, curiously enough) has cylindrical symmetry, there can be no preferred direction of transmission. What would prevent the Empire State Building from being zapped, in case the transmitter worked right?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What would prevent the Empire State Building from being zapped, in case the transmitter worked right?

Oh so you want to discuss what Tesla actually said, instead of some people's misinterpretation of it? That's actually a better topic. I think Tesla's patent 645576 addresses that question well on page 4 starting around line 99:

Thus if there be high mountains in the vicinity the terminals should be at a greater height, and generally they always should be, if practicible, at altitudes much greater than the highest objects near them in order to avoid as much as possible the loss by leakage.

So the receiver would be much higher than the empire state building. On page 3 line 10, the patent says:

...Terminal D, preferably of large surface, formed or maintained by such means as a balloon at an elevation suitable for the purposes of transmission...

If you scroll to the end of the patent there is an illustration of the transmitter terminal D and the receiver terminal D' which roughly have the appearance of balloons in the drawing.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Thanks. And herein lies a problem -- from what Tesla himself has written, it appears that in principle most high object can server as a receiver. Otherwise he would not be doing that height comparison etc. What would then prevent a mountain range from absorbing most of the energy being radiated elsewhere? Because you see, it was alleged that the losses were quite low.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What would then prevent a mountain range from absorbing most of the energy being radiated elsewhere? Because you see, it was alleged that the losses were quite low.

Look at the three wireless transmission ideas pursued by Tesla mentioned on the pbs site. I think you've identified the problem with the first two:

Tesla's Life and Legacy

There are some reports that he did transmit a signal several miles powerful enough to illuminate vacuum tubes planted in the ground. But this can be attributed to conductive properties in the ground at Colorado Springs.

Another approach pursued by Tesla was to transmit extra-low-frequency signals through the space between the surface of the earth and the ionosphere. Tesla calculated that the resonant frequency of this area was approximately 8-hertz. It was not until the 1950s that this idea was taken seriously and researchers were surprised to discover that the resonant frequency of this space was indeed in the range of 8-hertz.

That second one is the idea mentioned in Mary Rose's quote and it does seem that leakage would likely be a problem as you suggest.

However, leakage might be lower with his third idea:

A third approach for wireless power transmission was to transmit electrical power to the area 80-kilometers above the earth known as the ionosphere. Tesla speculated that his region of the atmosphere would be highly conductive and again his suspicions were correct. What he needed was the technical means to send electrical power to such a high altitude.

Since the highest mountain is less than 9km high, leakage to mountains may not be a problem with this method where transmission occurs above 80km. But even if it works, it's just a method of power transmission, and not any source of free energy as Mary's source would seem to suggest.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arb, thanks for the great post. As you noted, Tesla was toying with a few very different ideas. None of them matured to become a feasible proposal, and I think there are physical reasons for that.

For example, as the ionosphere goes -- I still would say that Tesla hadn't proposed any sort of directional energy injection into the ionosphere. For obvious reasons it's impossible to have a direct connection to same and just use two taps, one for input and the other for output of energy being transmitted. And it's not clear to me at all that the losses would be small. Gas in neon tubes glows for a reason, you know. And if it's not a steady state, then a wave or a shock wave generated would also dissipate energy.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
And it's not clear to me at all that the losses would be small. Gas in neon tubes glows for a reason, you know. And if it's not a steady state, then a wave or a shock wave generated would also dissipate energy.

I didn't say the losses would be small, just that the third idea might have lower losses than the first two, but I agree the losses could still be substantial even in the third idea.

The point about gas in neon tubes glowing is an excellent one and it's an excuse to post some cool (to me) videos. Even at half a million volts in our typical transmission lines, we can see corona discharges like these:

Corona discharge

Of course as you suggest, the fact that you see gas glowing means there are losses, so while this looks cool, it's not a good thing for efficient power distribution.

This one is a bit more dramatic but it doesn't show the transmission losses so much as what half a million volts can do to make gas glow (and it's fun to watch, from a distance):


Now if those are the problems we see at 0.5 million volts, what kind of problems might we have using the 20 million volts Tesla suggested? Yes I agree, glowing gas could be an issue and a source of losses, which will probably be a lot worse at 20 million volts than it is at half a million volts.

And as you point out, that's only one of many problems with this Tesla wireless tech. There are reasons we aren't using it. But we are using Tesla's AC current. Tesla had some great ideas, but there were some not so great ideas from him as well.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Yep, that switch being open under load is one of more famous pictures... Awe-inspiring.

I agree with people saying that Tesla was ahead of his time. What it also means that what he was theorizing about was at times unsupported by either theory or experience, which simply didn't quite exist then. And when these did appear, they still didn't support some of his ideas. Same applies for his "death ray", a macro-particle beam weapon. Nice idea, but includes a few key points that won't work well in practice.

I did see an actual piece of machinery built in Tesla's time according to his actual design, it's installed at MIT. All I can say, very solid work, great talent indeed.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I tacked down Russell Blake to an Australian firm, and have swapped a couple of emails with him. . . .
www.youtube.com...

Rodin talks about Russell Blake in one of the YouTube videos I recently posted so I'm watching that video Aloysius posted.

Here is a screenshot:



Evidently Blake has a theory called "Spring Theory."

I have the Rodin talk DVD on order. I'm curious to see what Rodin says about Blake's application of vortex math to artificial intelligence. (Although artificial intelligence does not interest me.)

reply to post by Mary Rose


I wonder what inspired him.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Rodin talks about Russell Blake in one of the YouTube videos I recently posted so I'm watching that video Aloysius posted.

Here is a screenshot:

Evidently Blake has a theory called "Spring Theory."

I found a webpage where that video is offered, with the same comments that accompany the youtube posting so it may be the source:

Spring Theory
There are some interesting comments on that page explaining how while Russ acknowledges he previously did some math for Rodin, he is not endorsing Rodin as the correspondence ATG posted suggests:

When I first started looking into Russ's work I did what most people do these days and searched the internet to see what was out there about him and QST. As Russ has been following the peer reviewed publication path to gain serious scientific evaluation of QST I didn’t get too many hits.

However, I was somewhat concerned when some of the web search results associated Russ with the work of a Mr Rodin. Some of this stuff made me feel uncomfortable because it was, to be kind, a bit unscientific. I raised this concern with Russ and he said that he did some mathematics once for this bloke. However, to quote Russ on what Mr Rodin is promoting he said that it was, 'utter nonsense’ and that he did not endorse it in any way.

Russ says that there was nothing wrong with the maths he contributed to the paper they worked on together. In fact it was the basis for an International Patent in 72 countries on three games based on that maths. So it would be unfounded even, dare I say, unscientific for anybody assessing QST to downgrade its relevance because of this past association.

I already knew Rodin's work was 'utter nonsense’ but it's interesting to see that one of Rodin's so-called "endorsers" says that he did not endorse it in any way. I'm not sure that's totally accurate. He may have actually written the letter of endorsement (he hasn't denied that has he?) and later figured out Rodin's work is nonsense and now won't admit it? At least that's my guess. Related facts would be welcome.

Mary, thanks for leading us to this reminder from Russ Blake that Rodin's work is "utter nonsense".

Originally posted by -PLB-

I wonder what inspired him.

He does seem to have difficulty with quantum mechanics and apparently he thinks everything is classical.

But Russ Blake does have a huge advantage over Rodin: he has some testable ideas and is asking people to test them, whereas Rodin has nothing that can be tested that I can see. Whether anybody will actually bother to test them remains to be seen as the ideas seem somewhat heretical.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
These are the latest videos posted on Rodin's website:

To replace the removed TED Charlotte Randy Powell 2010 video:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
To replace the removed TED Charlotte Randy Powell 2010 video

Oh, THAT guy... The one who can look in the camera and say that he's working on cutting edge mathematics. Except there is no result he can demonstrate.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
To replace the removed TED Charlotte Randy Powell 2010 video:

Powell says the "flux thruster atom pulsar electrical venturi spacetime implosion field generator coil's" ability to produce unlimited energy and save the planet hasn't been realized yet. Perhaps if he hooked it up to the retroencabulator, the logarithmic casing would help as described here:

Retro Encabulator

The similarities between that Retro Encabulator video and Randy Powell's video are amazing. But even if combining the "flux thruster atom pulsar electrical venturi spacetime implosion field generator coil" with the "retro encabulator" provides unlimited energy, I don't see how it will cure all disease.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Retro Encabulator

The similarities between that Retro Encabulator video and Randy Powell's video are amazing.

I respectfully disagree. Technobabble as it is, the Retro Encabulator description somehow makes more sense than that idiocy coming from Rodin and Powell. "Sinusoidal deplaneration" is something I could relate to, while "the ability to perform all function of all branches of mathematics using 9 numbers" is something I can't.

This model is based on vortex principles, according to the description:

reply to post by buddhasystem

I concede that not all specious techno-babble is created equal; some is much better than others. In fact, I can really tell when science fiction media production employs the use of scientific technical consultants to improve the quality of the techno-babble, like this bloke:

www.davekrieger.net...

my job was to read all scripts and stories purchased by the series' writing staff and then point out things that were either scientifically impossible, or inconsistent with the scientifically-impossible things already established in Star Trek. The job also included suggesting plausible "technobabble" for the impossible things the writers wanted to leave in. ...

I did put my fingerprints on the show in a number of ways that did reach the screen... mostly by preventing egregious stupidities...

Maybe Marko Rodin and Randy Powell should hire a guy like that because their techno-babble does fail at so many levels, including egregious stupidities such as "dark matter is the number 9".

Originally posted by buddhasystem
This model is based on vortex principles, according to the description:

Good find. I see the last picture shows a modified version of a common household vortex generating device...so maybe we can all make our own at home?

But for anyone who wants to support that vortex research, they sure made it a lot harder to figure out how to send them money, compared to how easy it is to send money to Randy Powell.