Searl Effect

[Hugget Sukker]

I don't know if this would interest you Hivers. Maybe you're not the right kind of thinkers for this, unless I'm generalizing wrongly, but here goes:

A pioneer called John R. R. Searl has invented a piece of tech called the SEG (Searl Effect Generator). It will have the properties of:

1) 100% free and sustainable energy
2) Being an antigravity device (it can levitate)
3) Being a healthful air purifier

It is a wondrous device which will save us from energy crisis, heal us, and shoot us into space faster than any NASA effort evar, 3 in 1!

Here are links to get you interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPPBkhjp1fY
http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/12792/searl-effect-generator?Pg=1
http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9701967776/m/51619067601

I give my credit card info to searlsolution.com immediately.
I am sure John Searl will bless all us Earthlings with amazing miracles!
s***asm

 

[The Reborn Devil]

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.

 

[fladdermasken]

First of, where those it get its energy? You can't just create something out of nothing.

I'm not a big fan of the word 'create' in this context as it actually is a matter of transformation rather than creation, however I will ignore that for now. Now, to my point.

Depends on your interpretation of 'nothing'.
If you want to consider it as such, the universe came to be in exactly this manner of creation

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.

False.

There have been many cases where discoveries weren't rewarded until several years after the actual acceptance of the theory/discovery. Plus, who gets the prize and who doesn't is partly political and rather biased. For instance, the jury consists of quite a few anti-semites.
As for the technology, there are numerous reasons to hide advances in technology from the masses, possibly because it isn't failproof and/or not properly tested yet.

But yes, being extremely sceptical to the 100% free energy concept, and actually sceptical to anything that seems to good to be true in general, I must agree.
I doubt this machine actually works.

 

[Fussiler1]

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.

wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology

 

[d3x0r]

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.

 

[Zarathustra]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is quackery and technobabble. Stage magic with magnets is not science.

Searl makes outlandish claims, but fails to support them with any semblance of meaningful, reproducible evidence. He also fails to provide a valid theoretical justification for his claims. He even fails to provide a qualitative description of the "Searl effect" that is not either incredibly vague or riddled with inconsistencies.

Protip: If a person makes an extraordinary claim, fails to provide evidence, and calls it the "(your name here) effect," that person is full of crap.

 

[Hugget Sukker]

I'm tempted to say: Give him money. Let him try. But I'm afraid to give him my own money, because I'm afraid of being cheated. It sounds too good simply. This is a problem. What if the SEG was what it's stated to be *cough*? I have to admit I find most all of what I get coming from his mouth to sound both amazing and proposterous. Though, his stories, his history and all that - it just sounds plain stupid. In my opinion, if he's dedicated, he should have toned down the glamour from the beginning. That nonsense about being instructed through dreams as a 4 year old - just makes it sound like a fairytale, which I then think it might just be. So even if he truly isn't pulling anyone's leg, he should still have refrained from telling that story - in order to be taken as seriously as he can hope to.

That's what keeps me from believing in it, and the free energy idea too, and probably everything else.

I first heard about him by reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room (Yes the voices speak to me whenever I read something)
It's a weird one. It seems constructed so that if you allready despise the idea of computed intelligence, this thought experiment will just be up your lane. If you don't despise it, you'll probably find his reasoning as weird as I did. It's saying little more than: Google Translator is unintelligent. Why make such an abstract and plain thought experiment when we have the technology to put some things to a test. Or is it coming down to an argument of what words mean? I say: Try building a "strong AI" in a strong parallel computer - that's close to what a brain is in basic structure - it just needs a few things that could be done. What I see could be a barrier is our ability to sympathize with a tool. That will be difficult. On the other hand, why would we want a tool that could feel, unless that's a prerequisite for being creative ofcourse.
But ultimately I doubt we will have computers that are just like us, mostly because we can allready just make babies, and we allready know what problems they bring ;/

Compare the Chinese Room to the Searl Effect.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Well it looks quite impressive in action, but I don't see the basis of the claim that it can provide infinite energy - that should be physically impossible.

 

[d3x0r]

I'm tempted to say: Give him money. Let him try. But I'm afraid to give him my own money.

If I had the money to tell him "you said you took option 3 'I'll do it' " so here's the money, do it. But it's useles to pay 24.95 for a video because that will be a trickle and just go to day to day expenses and fees to lecture and travel for lectures to get the information out; that one day someone either either the raw resources or the capital to cover building machinery and buy the resources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room (Yes the voices speak to me whenever I read something)
Compare the Chinese Room to the Searl Effect.

Ahh that john searle that's an interesting article, I won't be here much, but I will leave, I stumbled upon it tracking down info about GEET Reactors (fancy carberators - okay not fancy, very spurratic, lots of curves to have to change the operatating paramters are - a good AI could do it though....) Okay not AI, maybe just something fuzzy logic oriented.


(One more minor tangent - hooray for resource based economic models like the venus project)

D

 

[Zarathustra]

I first heard about him by reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room (Yes the voices speak to me whenever I read something)

Actually, that's Searle. He's a professor of philosophy. The "Searl effect" guy is someone completely different.

Loving the Chinese Room reference, though. Reminds me of a strip from one of my favorite webcomics.

 

[Hugget Sukker]

Wait a second. I could've sworn half the internets were spelling his name wrong, turns out he was two different people, and I was the... ah, nvm, I'm going back to my video games! Science is for losers anyway.
Anyway, it's the Searl Effect that got me skeptic in the first place when I started googling for more info on Searle, and bumped into Searl. Maybe I mispelled it there and hung onto that. So I know next to nothing about Searle, and too much about Searl.

The Chinese Room is good in the way that it raises good questions with a funny example. I just think it mainly shows that our concept of what mind is, is something in our minds. Not saying there's necessarilly no distinction to be made between mindful and mindless (say a dog and a bench), but on the other hand I can't say there is for sure. The Chinese Room only makes me keep wondering, not letting my mind settle for what Searle concludes. Who says there can't be a "Chinese consciousness" present in the room (except it would be very odd and unlikely)? After all, my fingers aren't English speakers because they type this sentence on my keyboard, and that's how I see his example. He's a thumb pushing a button, ofcourse it doesn't make him speak Chinese.
Oh, but this is off-topic... it turns out.

 

[BlargHonk]

.........

Go ahead, pour your money into it, it will never work.

I prefer General Fusion's approach better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Fusion

Why? Because it just sounds badass.

 

[Hugget Sukker]

Go ahead, pour your money into it, it will never work.

Who, me? Don't look at me. I made this thread partly to see how many people are gullible for that stuff.
Er, result: No one posting here, which is a slight surprise as I've seen "serious threads about telekinesis" in the pasty.

Because it just sounds badass.

It sounds industrial-badass.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Who, me? Don't look at me. I made this thread partly to see how many people are gullible for that stuff.
Er, result: No one posting here, which is a slight surprise as I've seen "serious threads about telekinesis".

suuuuure you did.
In all seriousness it may just be the thread's name, it doesn't hint on to the actual content in it in any way, so many people just pass it by rather then attempting to read it - those that do may not even understand the subject (as with anything science based, so that's not really your fault) so they don't post - telekinesis is a concept everyone understands, not many people have even heard of the Searl Effect.

 

[Hugget Sukker]

When I see a title in off-topic I don't know the reference of, I always look at it, because I have too much time in my life, and using your self to depict others in your generalizations always works in my experience. (fail)