UVG0 wrote: I think this would be a simple question for RS theroy. I search the forum and found
bperet said,"The Searl effect is based on anti-gravity response, not really "free energy". Is that means that this machine is just a permanent-magnet machine? HOW "The Searl effect is based on anti-gravity response" ?
It may be a simple question, but the answer is a little more complicated... first, I would recommend reading the
section on Forces and Force Fields, which discusses how "forces", including electric and magnetic force, work in the Reciprocal System. I would also recommend reading the
section on "Why do they Gravitate?" It is important to understand what gravity IS and therefore what anti-gravity IS, and how it can be produced.
The SEG (Searl Effect Generator) is a permanent magnet device, but with an unusual magnetic configuration. Conventional science considers magnetism to be a "force," in other words, they don't know what it is. In the RS, magnetism is a 2-dimensional, rotational VIBRATION, which means it has a frequency and structure. In the topic on Forces and Force Fields, I did diagrams showing how the repulsion of like magnetic poles was actually the force of the progression of the natural reference system (Hubble expansion), due to wave cancellation. The progression moves in the opposite direction of gravitation, so it appears as an "anti-gravity" effect.
Searl claims, and has demonstrated, that he was able to produce a standing "magnetic wave" in a permanent magnet setup, a regular oscillation of the poles. Can't be done if magnetism is just a "force," but when you consider it as a vibration, it makes more sense... easy to produce a standing wave when the force you are dealing with IS a wave. Searl said that it requires very tight tolerances in constructing the SEGs, which again makes sense... the physical dimensions would have to allow a standing wave to form, similar to the tuning of a quartz crystal, but in a magnetic domain.
He also makes extensive use of copper (as do most "free energy" devices), a diamagnetic material--which repels magnetism. What I find particularly interesting about his rotor setup is that it DOESN'T explode! People claim "fraud" when they see he is accelerating the rollers with a ring of electromagnets, but they are missing the entire point of the experiment. It isn't trying to show that the rollers move by themselves, but that they can be accelerated to very high velocities and not fly apart from centrifugal force. If you look at the videos on Searl's site, it is really quite impressive--12 rollers are magnetically stuck to a central cylinder, and each cylinder repels each other--like pole repulsion. Most of us have done this in science class in High School, but if you remember, if you get too many magnets around the central cylinder, one of them will flip over, and the whole bunch will then go into attraction and stick together in a big clump. Searl's magnets do not do this, regardless of how many he sticks on that ring. When accelerated, so the rollers start moving around the disk, they exhibit
centripetal acceleration--they stick harder to the inner cylinder and are not thrown off, as one would expect, since the only thing holding them on is appears to be a fairly weak magnetic attraction. His system generates a "yin" force (towards the center) that increases with rotational velocity. I find that very interesting.
I'll have to review his latest work and see if I can find a configuration, using Reciprocal System concepts, that would reproduce the behavior. I did not find much in the way of technical data (frequency of the magnetic wave, field strengths, etc), so there is not a lot to base a model on. I would be curious to know if the magnetic field increases with rotational velocity, which would explain the stability. I'll post a follow-up when I have something.