"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Bobathon
Unlikely (because it's relevant, and I know you don't like relevant things) but have a look anyway.

Cut the crap.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Bobathon
You might be interested in this letter from one of the "authors" of that paper, Mary. Unlikely (because it's relevant, and I know you don't like relevant things) but have a look anyway.

Who are Lawrence B. Crowell and Tim Harwood?

Lawrence Crowell is one of the physicists listed as author of the paper you cited. I understand if you couldn't give a cr@p what he thinks unless it agrees with your fixed view of reality, but I thought it was worth presenting anyway.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by 547000

 

The alternative science and its implications remains to be addressed rather than avoided and ridiculed.

You simply continue to avoid and ridicule – repeatedly. Like a robot.

Calling everything you disagree with ridicule is stupid. I stated the facts. Now I ridiculed you because logic seems to elude you.

reply to post by 547000

 

You didn’t answer my question so I’ll ask it again: What is your opinion regarding mainstream science in relationship to TPTB?

I think it cannot be suppressed like history or other such things. The scientific method is such that the truth will always come out in the end. I think the idea that science can be suppressed is, frankly, retarded.

Originally posted by Bobathon
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

Same question as ever, from Wikipedia (with sources):

In 2001, Bearden predicted that the first commercial products based on the MEG would be "rolling off the production lines in about one year", and as early as 2002 claimed to have a prototype of the device that produced "100 times more power out than was input". It was promoted through JLNlabs, Cheniere.org, and an Egroup called "MEG Builders". In May 2008, with the MEG still not in production, Tom Bearden claimed he needed about $11 million to develop it to a viable commercial form.

Why do these people claim so much so readily, and ALWAYS produce NOTHING apart from publicity and requests for more funding? Do you think they are perhaps too incompetent to make a good idea work? Or is it that they are making a living by playing the public like pieces in a game?

Would you care to answer, Mary.

Originally posted by Bobathon
Why do these people claim so much so readily, and ALWAYS produce NOTHING apart from publicity and requests for more funding? Do you think they are perhaps too incompetent to make a good idea work? Or is it that they are making a living by playing the public like pieces in a game?

I think those are good questions, but on page 3 Mary posted the Dale Pond video about the Keely motor, which I finally got tome to watch when I posted my observations on page 38 in the thread.

Keely didn't produce NOTHING exactly, in fact Dale Pond shows one of the prototypes in the video, but he had lots of excuses about why he couldn't demonstrate that it works. Keely lost millions of circa 1880 dollars, which amounted to over 100 million of today's US dollars. When he died, they took apart his lab and found a hidden air compressor in the basement and hidden air lines running from that to his demonstrator units. Scientific American published an article about this after Keely's death, but Mary doesn't trust Scientific American as a source I guess. She called the earlier article they wrote while Keely was still alive a "more than likely" "hit piece":

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Mr. Keely was immediately to begin "focalizing and adjusting the vibrators".... indeed, to consider seriously this alleged invention, or justly characterize the inventor, who, in this age, not only assumes to get something out of nothing, but would hide all his methods and processes and affect more than the mystery of the alchemists of the early ages. ... [Scientific American, March 25, 1884, p. 196.]

More than likely, the above was a hit piece.

After watching the Dale Pond video posted on this thread, I doubt very seriously that Keely did anything untoward. If money was lost, there could be an explanation for it that has nothing to do with whether or not Keely was an honorable person, or whether or not his invention worked.

There is exhaustive information about Keely on the Sympathetic Vibratory Physics website.

I also watched the Dale Pond video and I don't see how it supports Mary's argument at all that she should "doubt very seriously that Keely did anything untoward". On the contrary, the fact that Dale Pond does have one of the Keely motor prototypes in the video, but he is unable to demonstrate it working (without being hooked up to the air compressor) caused me to draw the opposite conclusion of Mary from the same evidence.

It's funny how one person can look at a demonstration of a motor not working and think maybe it doesn't work, while another person can look at the same demonstration and come to a different conclusion.

There was evidence even while Keely was alive that he was using compressed air to power his motors, as one of the not so gullible spectators of his demonstrations figured out when Keely refused to drain the compressed air from the tank before the demonstration, making up some bogus excuse about why he didn't want to do that.

If Mary is willing to wait over a century to pass for the Keely motor to work, then Bearden's decade long delay seems small in comparison. But more importantly than the time factor, there is lots of evidence Keely did "untoward" things with compressed air if Mary would look past the Dale Pond video, though she apparently doesn't consider Scientific American a credible source. If Scientific American is a credible source, then fraud on the part of Keely is quite evident. So it seems to me that for Mary to believe a merely unproven claim like Bearden's should be far easier than believing a proven fraud like Keely, and clearly she's defending Keely in spite of all the evidence against him.

For those interested the orinigal NY Times article revealing Keely's deception is available on-line

reply to post by Arbitrageur


So you're not aware of slander and public debacles?

Edison's publicity campaign Edison carried out a campaign to discourage the use[12] of alternating current, including spreading disinformation on fatal AC accidents, publicly killing animals, and lobbying against the use of AC in state legislatures. Edison directed his technicians, primarily Arthur Kennelly and Harold P. Brown,[13] to preside over several AC-driven killings of animals, primarily stray cats and dogs but also unwanted cattle and horses. Acting on these directives, they were to demonstrate to the press that alternating current was more dangerous than Edison's system of direct current.[14] He also tried to popularize the term for being electrocuted as being "Westinghoused".

Years after DC had lost the "war of the currents," in 1902, his film crew made a movie of the electrocution with high voltage AC, supervised by Edison employees, of Topsy, a Coney Island circus elephant which had recently killed three men.[15] Edison opposed capital punishment, but his desire to disparage the system of alternating current led to the invention of the electric chair. Harold P. Brown, who was being secretly paid by Edison, built the first electric chair for the state of New York to promote the idea that alternating current was deadlier than DC.[16] When the chair was first used, on August 6, 1890, the technicians on hand misjudged the voltage needed to kill the condemned prisoner, William Kemmler. The first jolt of electricity was not enough to kill Kemmler, and only left him badly injured. The procedure had to be repeated and a reporter on hand described it as "an awful spectacle, far worse than hanging." George Westinghouse commented: "They would have done better using an axe."[17]

en.wikipedia.org...


btw, Where exactly does Dale Pond plug in the air hose? It's a century later... Surely, there's a way to track down connections, if there are any present.

reply to post by Americanist


Well, here's a problem now: how exactly would you tell the difference between genuine fraud and allegations of slander?

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Americanist

 

Well, here's a problem now: how exactly would you tell the difference between genuine fraud and allegations of slander?

First, find out what's to gain. Second, evaluate the source to determine, if they're greedy control freaks involved. At the very least keep tabs because it'll more than likely sort itself out in due time.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
For those interested the orinigal NY Times article revealing Keely's deception is available on-line

edit on 3-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

Who would rely on the NYT when its a front for the Rockefeller.

“Condemnation w/o investigation is the height of ignorance” – Albert Einstein.

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
Who would rely on the NYT when its a front for the Rockefeller.

“Condemnation w/o investigation is the height of ignorance” – Albert Einstein.

What about condemnation WITH investigation? If you read the article, it mentions a thorough investigation.

I suppose Einstein didn't figure on someone misapplying his quote about no investigation when a thorough investigation was done. For that reason, I suspect you've reached higher heights than he imagined. Did you read the article?

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Americanist

 

Well, here's a problem now: how exactly would you tell the difference between genuine fraud and allegations of slander?

First, find out what's to gain. Second, evaluate the source to determine, if they're greedy control freaks involved. At the very least keep tabs because it'll more than likely sort itself out in due time.

I think Beardern and the likes of his fit "fraud" per that definition. First, Bearden (and various gurus like Stewart Swerdlow) gain by selling their fantastical DVDs to unsuspecting public. Just ask Mary, she bought a few. Second, evaluate if they are greedy control freaks. Check. At the very list keep tabs, because Bearden's device did not materialize after a very long time of alleged prototyping, and neither did Searl's contraption. He says it promptly flew away. Yes, sure.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
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?

I know I should watch all 44 youtube videos before giving an opinion on the validity of rodin's work, but for now, I'll just make an observation. If he doesn't work on his presentational style and, for the love of god, SHAVE THAT WOOKIEE HAIR OFF HIS SHOULDERS, no one will listen to him and take him seriously. Presentation is everything...

Originally posted by Americanist
So you're not aware of slander and public debacles?

Edison's publicity campaign Edison carried out a campaign to discourage the use[12] of alternating current

en.wikipedia.org...

I think that shows the truth came out in spite of efforts to suppress it. DC electricity is fine as everyone who drives a car uses DC electricity.

However it's inefficient to distribute DC electricity, that's primarily why AC won the distribution war. If you are trying to argue that technology suppression is effective, your example seems to prove the opposite point: that it's not effective. Right?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
So you're not aware of slander and public debacles?

Edison's publicity campaign Edison carried out a campaign to discourage the use[12] of alternating current

en.wikipedia.org...

I think that shows the truth came out in spite of efforts to suppress it. DC electricity is fine as everyone who drives a car uses DC electricity.

However it's inefficient to distribute DC electricity, that's primarily why AC won the distribution war. If you are trying to argue that technology suppression is effective, your example seems to prove the opposite point: that it's not effective. Right?

I point to gain. Size up $11 billion revenue in one quarter vs. the profit margin on DVD replication and sales. You speak of effectiveness as if that's what we're doing now.

Gas drilling - Fracking
Oil drilling - Disaster

vs.

Vertical algae farms
& Bio-engineering

Your definition of effective and suppression are general facets of monopolies and/or for-profit entities.

Originally posted by Americanist
I point to gain. Size up $11 billion revenue in one quarter vs. the profit margin on DVD replication and sales.

DVD replication costs next to nothing. Blanks are pennies a piece and burners are the price of a carton of cigarettes. So, as margins go, the charlatans win hands down.

Gas drilling - Fracking
Oil drilling - Disaster

vs.

Vertical algae farms
& Bio-engineering

You are switching the topic. Algae farms are real and they do exist. Bearden's, Rodin's and other charlatan's free energy devices do not exist. You have no point here.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
I point to gain. Size up $11 billion revenue in one quarter vs. the profit margin on DVD replication and sales.

DVD replication costs next to nothing. Blanks are pennies a piece and burners are the price of a carton of cigarettes. So, as margins go, the charlatans win hands down.

Gas drilling - Fracking
Oil drilling - Disaster

vs.

Vertical algae farms
& Bio-engineering

You are switching the topic. Algae farms are real and they do exist. Bearden's, Rodin's and other charlatan's free energy devices do not exist. You have no point here.

Again, you've overreached... I've done both CD and DVD replication. Normal runs start at 500. The per unit price on CD's with single insert and standard blk back case runs over $1.28. Slimlines run even more. DVD's are obviously more expensive. Way to butt your head into something you know next to nothing about. Typical... This is not a bait and switch either. Projects as large as what Tesla presented need major funding. That doesn't happen any longer. We have enough problems keeping Medicare and SS afloat. Use some common sense, if you can mustard any.

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
I point to gain. Size up $11 billion revenue in one quarter vs. the profit margin on DVD replication and sales.

DVD replication costs next to nothing. Blanks are pennies a piece and burners are the price of a carton of cigarettes. So, as margins go, the charlatans win hands down.

Gas drilling - Fracking
Oil drilling - Disaster

vs.

Vertical algae farms
& Bio-engineering

You are switching the topic. Algae farms are real and they do exist. Bearden's, Rodin's and other charlatan's free energy devices do not exist. You have no point here.

Again, you've overreached... I've done both CD and DVD replication. Normal runs start at 500. The per unit price on CD's with single insert and standard blk back case runs over $1.28. Slimlines run even more. DVD's are obviously more expensive. Way to butt your head into something you know next to nothing about. Typical... This is not a bait and switch either. Projects as large as what Tesla presented need major funding. That doesn't happen any longer. We have enough problems keeping Medicare and SS afloat. Use some common sense, if you can mustard any.

Well a buck or two per DVD isn't so bad when they charge you $30+ a piece, is it? A set goes for hundreds of dollars. It really is lucrative. As long as there are gullible people, of course. Mary asked Mr.Swerdlow "what is vortex?" and that charlatan answered "yeah vortex is cool, please by my DVD set where I explain how important it is". Uhu.

Further, Rodin's and Bearden's devices simply don't cost millions of dollars, or even thousands. What funding are you talking about? It's just a morbid scam. And again, Medicare has nothing to do with it, you just seem to have a knack for drugging in extraneous topics into these threads.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Well a buck or two per DVD isn't so bad when they charge you $30+ a piece, is it?

Actually, you're both right. It depends on volume. $1.28 sounds about right for low volume, and pennies (like 19 of them) sounds about right for high volume, though I suspect with a nice jewel case it will be more. You don't have to use the jewel case though, but it's a nice touch. Prices at various quantities here:

bulkdvdreplication.com...

I pay around 19 cents for the DVD-R+ blanks I use at home, and I was even able to get Verbatims for that price last time I ordered, so that's what you'd use if the volumes were really low and not large enough to do a master. I have no idea what volume of DVDs Bearden and Bedini sell, but I'm curious.

Further, Rodin's and Bearden's devices simply don't cost millions of dollars, or even thousands. What funding are you talking about? It's just a morbid scam.

Nobody's really answered why Bearden needs 11 million dollars (nor why Rodin needs so much). He's already got this breadboard shown on his site:

www.cheniere.org...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/514a1e828ae7.jpg[/atsimg]

First, that probably doesn't cost much more than $100. Second, it's already built as seen in that image, in a manner sufficient for testing. Third, if he takes it to an independent test lab like this one and they verify it does what he says, he'll get more funding than he knows what to do with. All he needs to do is show their report to investors.

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.