Do they really want free power?
It's doubtful that this machine even works. First of, where those it get its energy? You can't just create something out of nothing. Secondly, you cannot stop gravity, you can create lift by using fans or other thrusters, but you can't stop gravity from working on an object. Thirdly, not a single person can verify that it actually works, not even his own son (and he has allegedly worked on this for 60 years). Also, John Searl has been caught before in many lies. Last, but not least, if it did work we wouldn't be using the technology we have now and John Searl would definitely have received the Nobel Prize, which he has not.
It's hard to picture something you can't see; There is an effect exhibited by solar flares 'magnetic flux twist'; a search for that reveals some videos of small manifestations using magnets. Electromagnetics can overcome gravity (hutchison effect) and can result in huge amount of thermodynamic work with little actual power (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdzxq4LVjzw).
However, even those reasonable efforts to reproduce such a thing failed, because likely the homogenity of the field (not being interrupted by a rod connected to a plate connected to the rollers) is probably fairly important... I wish I knew what the machine that makes rope is called - I had it once upon a time the motion of rollers is similar to the aparatus used for spinning.
Also, this apparently is a single guy... there's lots that have heard about it, and most are easily dissuade by your arguments; there's definatly few with a few million in cash to just make this happen that have heard of it - why would they? they have the money to buy centralized power. Those that have interest are deliberatly making sure that all misinformation is presented; heck I'm beginning to beleive that flowerbower's article is as manufactured as the article 'reprints' in the john searl story dvd... There is a hint of a retraction of the MEG from the russians printed from their work at the institute of high tempuratures; but it's not a retraction, going back to the article with translate.google.com; it's an article about pseudo science (He mentions lots of people, and I forget the other names offhand). It's said that these guys aren't real people- but I did find a video with an interview with roschin and some other guy - I guess although it was posted end of 2010, it really dates back to like 2002; but nothing really significant is said.
If I announce hey there's these great guys (
www.blacklightpower.com and
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Direct...Catalyzer_(E-Cat):_Frequently_Asked_Questions ) that both have similar technology reacting similar elements in somewhat dissimlar ways, and notify the energy advisor of the govenment who is definatly in contact with other energy sources like hot fusion and nuclear and other centralized power systems, if he asks them about it of course they can say it's worthless - but
there is no solid scientific statement for why the searl effect generator won't work. But without a lot of effort and only understanding the basic idea of string theory and m-branes and knowing that seperating a magntic field there is something inbetween still energy, why not use the flux itself to wring it out like a rag? If I had 50,000 probably more like 200,000 I could probably have one made, but still not magentized right... I mean how hard can it be to replicate windings and get a capactitor bank (none of these things really readily at hand for me, but back in high skewl I knew some guys...)... each principle that is demonstratable now by
www.searlmagnetics.com is valid, and I ran a few simulations (being a software developer) and it would work out very well to counter the attractive force with both the roller inertia and the eddy currents built up in the copper to allow a gap while maintaining enough centripetal force to keep the roller in orbit. (which would continue to spin, as has been demonstrated repeatedly that a spinning non magnetic substance (aluminum wheel) will cause a magnet to spin without being in direct contact.