Gyroscopic Inertia Generator

[synchro1]

There is a big difference between a "TEDx" talk, like the "Free Energy" video above, and a true TED Talk. It is a misrepresentation to try to legitimize the content of the TEDx presentation as a "TED Talk".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_%28conference%29#TEDx

You can find all kinds of nonsense in TEDx presentations. You are shooting yourself in the foot, twice, by posting that particular video of nonsense. It is not a "TED Talk" and it makes false claims for which there is no evidence.

Why don't you ask Marko Rodin, or any of the Rodin Coil claimants, where they get their electricity? I know where they get it and so do you. Not a single one of them has ever shown any real evidence of a single Joule of "free energy" or even any unusual electromagnetic phenomena from a "rodin coil". They are works of art, nothing more.

ETA: Let's review. If you think you have a new "theory" that is different from, say, Quantum Electrodynamics, then you have to be able to show several things.
1. Your new theory has to fully account for everything covered by the old theory -- AND --
2. It must make testable predictions NOT already made by the old theory -- AND --
3. Those predictions must be found to be true, by properly constructed experiments.

So go ahead and demonstrate how "vortex based mathematics"  does these things. Please.  Demonstrate something that a Rodin coil does that cannot be described fully by ordinary A-level electromagnetism. Present something that "vortex based math" predicts that is not predicted by standard physics/maths and then demonstrate that the prediction is accurate.  But of course you cannot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqNqMfBj_F8&list=UUo4TZccCL4Y6reMBGJSl0NQ

[MileHigh]

TK:

Thanks for pointing out the difference between TEDx and TED, I was not aware.

Scorch:

Like TK said, show a milli-Joule of free energy coming from a "Rodin" coil before you start talking about "energy from the vacuum" or any variant thereof.  One more time you are trying to shift the burden of proof when you state, "I accept all your claims upon proof of your claims."  I don't have to prove a single damn thing, so get that in your head and start thinking clearly about this issue.  On the forums many times people have claimed that they can get excess energy from the vacuum by pulsing a coil and I ask them to do a simple experiment to prove it.  I have asked it about five times from various people making strong claims along these lines and never once got a response.

Albert Einstein called it "Inertia Ether".
Nikola Tesla called it "Radiant Energy".
Tom Bearden calls it "Energy from the vacuum".
MileHigh calls it "disinformation"...

I am not aware of the term "Inertia Ether" associated with Einstein.  Your little word play where you squeeze me into the mix falls flat.  Where is Tom Bearden's Motionless Energy Generator?   Wasn't in in something like 2002 or 2003 where he was supposed to go into production with this alleged free energy machine?  Until somebody offers up tangible proof that can be verified by multiple independent and technically competent third parties it's all just crap and disinformation to sell books and DVDs and downloads, just like the "Energy from the Vacuum" series.  It's all just word verbage heaped on impressionable people with free energy fantasies to fleece them of their money.  This applies to Quanta Magnetics and your pulse motor also.  There is no mystique and opportunity to discover something new with your basic beginners "Electronics 101" pulse motor.  If you took a dozen or so electronics and electronics related courses and did about 150 electronics laboratory experiments then perhaps your attitude would be different.

I watched that Randy Powell TEDx talk about a month ago and I was shocked to see that the "TED" organization gave that guy a platform.  His talk was ridiculous stating that a Rodin coil and the associated alleged "vortex math" could be used to solve just about all of our energy and social problems.  He was full of crap.  Somewhere I read that he promised to email the TEDx people with some follow-up information to back up his outrageous statements.  He was supposed to respond in email within 30 days but never did.  Surprise surprise.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Here we go:

http://blog.ketyov.com/2012/10/ted-pulls-pseudoscience-talk.html

TED pulls pseudoscience talk

A few months ago TEDxCharlotte released a video from its event of a guy named Randy Powell just talking a bunch of pseudoscientific-but-grand-sounding nonsense about "Vortex Mathematics".

Carl Zimmer mentioned it in his evisceration of TED's weak science draw (specifically Philip Zimbardo's talk) which lead me to ask a question about the talk over on Quora.

Specifically, I asked, "Is Randy Powell saying anything in his 2010 TEDxCharlotte talk or is it just total nonsense?" It got a lot of great answers (which is what I was hoping for) including the currently top-rated response from Jay Wacker, Stanford professor of theoretical physics:

Wow. Such fucking bullshit. Well, I am theoretical physicist who uses (and teaches) the technical meaning of many of the jargon terms that he's throwing out. And he is simply doing a random word association with the terms. Basically, he's either insane a huckster going for fame or money doing a Sokal's hoax on TEDx I'd bet equal parts 1 & 2.

and this one from Joshua Engel (one of my favorite Quora users):

This is one of the reasons I'm not crazy about TED talks. The argument is gibberish; not a single point makes any sense. But without a transcript, it's tricky for me to make a point-by-point refutation. I have to stop, transcribe, then explain. It's a slow and tedious process. The question is, is anybody engaging in that kind of critique for the talks that aren't obviously deranged? Or is everybody just accepting what they hear and then letting the video move on to its next point? Video is a poor way to make an argument. It's a good teaching tool, since it's very convincing when the subject is actually valid. But it's equally good at making an invalid argument with little opportunity for critical thought.

>Well it would appear that TED has officially responded by removing Mr. Powell's talk from their TEDx YouTube channel. Specifically, TED editor Emily McManus left this response on my Quora question:

Randy Powell's talk onstage at TEDxCharlotte 2010 came under criticism for its lack of scientific validity. Criticism came from mathematicians and science writers as well as threads on specialist science and math blogs and other online communities. Members of the TED and TEDx teams watched the talk, sought further advice from experts, and ultimately agreed that the criticisms had merit and were serious enough to warrant removal of the talk from the TEDx official YouTube channel, in compliance with our policy.

>Randy Powell was given several opportunities to directly defend his work, but did not do so. In a phone conversation with members of the TED and TEDx teams on September 12, 2012, Powell stated that his brief onstage talk at TEDxCharlotte did not include complete data on his work. He could not point us to that data online during the call, but agreed during the call to email TED his data, including a detailed 10-page paper, for a further independent review by a mathematician and possible replication of his experiments by a physicist. Neither the paper nor any other data was ever received. We consider the matter closed.

In response to this incident, TEDx has clarified its policies on the scientific validity of talks and is working with independent TEDx organizers to help them access more and better resources for vetting speakers.

Personally I don't think that removing the content to scrub its record is the best way to go but it's interesting to see that TED is at least taking some steps to clean up its scientific appearance.

[MileHigh]

Just some comments to deal with some cliches that Scorch mentioned.  Scorch is just one of many people around here that state things like this.

The fabric of space... that which powers the universe, galaxies, solar systems, gravity, electron spin, thought processes, power creation and all life.

Galaxies, solar systems, and orbiting electrons are not powered by anything.  They require no power to keep moving.  This is an annoying bugaboo for me that people often state.  It comes from ignorance, or a lack of education, or from blind repetition, or from a form of superstition, or from a failure of the imagination.

Anybody that believes this kind of nonsense should do their own investigations and learning to figure this out for themselves.  Take the solar system as an example.  Prove to yourselves that the solar system is not in any way whatsoever being "powered" by something.  If you can't figure out the truth here for yourself, then you have a problem if you want to discuss energy and related matters.

[MileHigh]

Synchro1:

@Milehigh,

You're the Bogeyman!

You're a dirty little synchronously looping über tempest!