Talk:Searl Effect Generator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 15 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Actually, I think this article does not make unjustified claims as I initially thought, but it needs references to sources. Miguel Andrade 18:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


While this article has been careful to say Searl's claims are just that, it would be nice to have a more balanced article referencing Searl's reputation, qualifications, etc., and referencing other Wikipedia articles such as perpetual motion machine, and antigravity.

In the section on Current Overloading, it should be clearly stated that the machine is claimed to violate the law of conservation of energy.

It is claimed that when they are started in motion by an outside source, they will accelerate exponentially, rotating around the ring spontaneously, producing more energy than is put into it.

Such things are commonly considered science fiction. Rmambrose 17:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)RM

Disclaimer: John Searl has never proclaimed, indorsed or even inferred that the SEG violates the first or second laws of thermodynamics but rather it functions as quantum diode. Those that impose the notion that it violates such laws are only making assumptions to suit their own forum or personal opinions and it is not that of the inventor himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDM (talk • contribs) 19:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

But that is a nonsensical claim - what does a quantum diode have to do with "extracting ambient energy" or counteracting gravity? LeContexte (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The quantum diode, a form of pn junction, is simply an attempt to update here the old crackpot idea of using a conventional diode to rectify thermal noise in a piece of metal. It is, in effect, a Maxwell demon and thus an attempt to infringe the second law of thermodynamics. FDM is trying to 'baffle with science': science which he clearly does not understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.62.7 (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I have been able to understand, the SEG is not a heat engine. If it does work then it may operate by some other as yet unknown principle. For those with an open mind it may be useful to think of it as a mill wheel that is powered by the water of a passing stream. The water turns the wheel. If we follow this thought experiment, then in the case of the SEG the questions are: what is the "water"? What would make the rollers interact with it so that they move? Alxc (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Until a working device is actually presented, subjected to independent scientific examination, and found to be inexplicable in terms of known physics, it is rather silly to muse about 'mill wheels' etc. There is no proof that the device has ever existed, and Searl cannot present a theoretical explanation that would even begin to impress a professional physicist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.202.69 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Merge John Searl into Searl Effect Generator

I propose that John Searl be merged into Searl Effect Generator for the following reasons:

  • Both articles are fairly short.
  • The John Searl article focuses primarily on the Searl Effect Generator device anyway.
  • The Searl Effect Generator is what makes John Searl notable. Without it, there wouldn't be a reason to have an article on him, and the device is the only reason we have an article on him, therefore it makes sense to have just one article about the device, with a bit of biography thrown in.

Comments? =Axlq (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. Agreed, and thank you for taking this forward. The SEG seems to have enough presence in the fringe science "community" to just about pass the notability threshold, but Searl is not notable for anything other than claiming to have invented it. Two articles just means twice as much opportunity for trolls to edit the articles to suggest the invention works. LeContexte (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: The individual and the effect are two distinct entities that can be sustained on their own notability. Precedent demonstrates that elements in physics (or faux physics, in this instance) are clearly divisible from those who created discovered them. - perfectblue (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but Searle is not notable in his own right so, unsurprisingly, the two articles duplicate much of the same material and references. Keeping the article just creates twice as much opportunity for trolls and the gullible to add supportive POV material. LeContexte (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Searl is notable in himself, particularly in perpetual motion and conspiracy circles. - perfectblue (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: I find the recent changes appalling by the degree of misrepresentation of what is know about it. Unfortunately, these are typical views lacking knowledge of the subject matter and or find it too advanced from present day. I think is unjustifiable to simply wipe out months gradual attributions and label it as perpetual device; that is a gross mistake! It known as an energy converter, so it does not violate the first law in the first place! I agree we should share a more balanced view but these drastic changes seem to represent an attack with extreme bias and do not serve to inform public on a developing subject. Let us keep in mind that much the technology we now take for granted was once outside common and accepted knowledge, thus subject ridicule and persecution; can Wiki rise above it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDM (talk • contribs) 17:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

But it claims to convert "ambient energy". I am not sure what this means. The words are either nonsensical puffery (in which case the device is a perpetual motion machine of the first kind) or amount to the more specific claim that it is possible to extract energy without having a "sink" of lower energy (in which case it is a perpetual motion machine of the second kind). It is hardly ridicule or persecution to ask those making extraordinary claims to have extraordinary evidence rather than, as at present, no reliable evidence at all. LeContexte (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
In this context converting ambient energy means that this device is meant to take in low level energy that exists in the natural environment and then concentrates it into a usable form. This has actually been done before, but with different kinds of energy. You can actually buy devices that do this such as the "reversible cycle heat pumps". This isn't science fiction and it works within the laws of physics by taking ambient heat energy stored over a large area of ground and then pumping it into a small area such as a house or room. Of course, this isn't the same as a Searl Engine as the energy that it gathers is of a conventional and accepted type (heat). - perfectblue (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
LeContexte, this isn't extraordinary, it's just absurd, the Two are different. When dealing with the absurd the burden of proof is to demonstrate that the absurd has been claimed, not that it is true. Seriously, all that needs to be done in relating to Searl's claims is to record what Searl actually claimed and then to verify that he claimed it. Asking for proof that his claims hold water is the same thing as saying that you believe there could be some truth in them, and I'm quite sure that isn't what you intended.
You don't need extraordinary proof when a man claims that the CIA is brainwashing people using subliminal messages in baseball cards, and you don't need extraordinary proof that a man claims to have broken an unbreakable law of physics. you just need regular level proof that he actually made the claim as per WP:BLP.
perfectblue (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Please keep the comments in this section pertinent to the merge discussion. Thanks.
The contention that Searl is notable all by himself is absurd; the only thing that makes him notable, even in perpetual motion and conspiracy circles, is this device he invented. There simply isn't anything else of interest that one can write about him.
Those opposed haven't established or explained what harm the merge will cause, and haven't disputed the the benefits, in particular reducing the number of places material can get duplicated or trolled.
I daresay Searl's lack of notability as a person will doom the bio article to stub status forever. Merging would eliminate that problem.
I respectfully request the opponents to please re-evaluate your opposition, and address the merits or faults of this proposal. Thanks. =Axlq (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Support. I agree that the only reason to read about Searl is because of the S.E.G. Make his name redirect here. Długosz (talk) 11-Feb-2008 —Preceding comment was added at 19:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Support. Searl has nothing note-worthy except for the SEG claims. It may change once the hoax is debunked and more details about the person itself come up. --213.160.11.146 (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Questionable content aside (Not just Searl's claims but their poor presentation) I would suggest that it makes more sense to merge the SEG into Searl's biography. I've seen references that original research is unwelcome here so that would make the SEG page potentially in violation. As such I think a format similar to Tesla's biography would make sense (in depth information about the man) with the SEG tacked on where relevant to the biography. With apologies I'll make a quick rant on the selective perpespective of the authors of the SEG page as well - while I don't see much valid in the bulk of Searl's work the SEG description misses a great deal about the relatively exotic magnetic patterns he claims to impose on the rollers and rings and, really, calling someone out on "magic squares" and supporting it with a homemade-page of strawmen doesn't seem quite legit either....there's more but I'll stop now. Conclusion: Make the SEG page a subset of the biography and increase the biographical content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.15.13 (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article should be deleted

Hello,

this article should be deleted for many reasons. 1) First, it is pure pseudo-science. That is, it has absolutely _no_ useable references, except to its own stuff. 2) The only reasonable source given seems to be blatantly faked. 3) it is bad science, quackery, woowoo.

About 1): If you search a while on the net, and read the youtube comments (and follow the links therein), you will get a lot of contradictory statements from the very persons that make these claims. One version is that Searl had build the first machine with a friend, while he was a teenager, and he got the plans to it in his dreams. Then there is the version that "when he was an apprentice employee of BR Rewinds at Grays Inn Road, London". Google spits out some more sites with the exact claims & statements made recently, just that they were last updated years ago. This includes statements of having some kind of proof-of-concept machine, not having the propper funds to do a final one, but generally having it ready soon. Then it is said that he was arrested for fraud, and the police seized the eralier versions. In other sources you read something about his ex co-workers betraying him and stealing that stuff and his plans. Now what? taken away by police, or taken away by friends?

About 2): The only external source, that could be reasonably trustworthy is said to be a paper from two persons at the russian academy of science: V. V. Roschin and S. M. Godin, the paper is called "Experimental Research of the Magnetic-Gravity Effects." Now, guess what: there are no V.V. Roshin, nor S.M. Godin at that place. They are not listed in the list of all persons since 1724, but the board of directors has two persons wich share the same initials. But not the same surname. I wrote them an E-Mail to clarify about that just some minutes ago. And guess again: there is no such paper on the academy's publications list either!

Now about 3): Quackery, WooWoo and Bad Science! This stuff has always the same layout: claim something impossible, produce pseudo-facts by throwing around a lot of scientific words randomly, create made-up "evidence", beg for money, bring in strange beliefs. You have all that combined here in that "Stearl Effect" nonsense here. The absurd claim, the big words in all their written stuff, with no meaning in the end. Made-Up "evidence" by referring to either non-credible sources, own publications and testers, or just completely made up studies. Then bring up the "we have not enough money yet" card to collect $$$. Now claim to have it "some time soon". Invent some excuse as to why it doesnt work yet. Give lame excuse ala "It was THEM who took it away from me, jailed me", you know, the big boy behind the scenes pulling all the strings, so that "true inventors" like Searl are suppressed. Now wash, rinse, repeat.

Read the searl-sites carefully! You will find comments there like "hey, we gave some info here, but withdrawn it because these dumb real scientists couldnt swallow it". Also note the general "Wanna see more? Pay first to become a member" stanza.

Really, take some time googling about that searl-effect nonsense. Read the ridiculous claims and theories on the searl-related sites. Compare that to the regular fraud schemes in the "free-energy/perpetuum-mobile" sector. Notice what pages contain most references to that junk: just more pseudiscience crapsites!

So i tagged the article as "disputed" now. A deletion of it would be the right thing to do. You know, enough people say already that wikipedia creates its own kind of reality through many distorted/slanted/bad articles. While that might be true in some places, that is no reason to let wikipedia go down the road of tabloidism and junk-science. Having junk like this "searl effectt" in here only gives it even more the look that this scam could be something real, which it just isnt.

Fight pseudosience frauds on sight.

Chris

P.S.: If wanted i can do a collection of links and put some findings about it here. But i'm sure you find that stuff yourself soon enough. Just google for "searl effect" and check the discussions at the youtube links of all the videos there.

--213.160.11.146 (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We have a mechanism for deleting articles on Wikipedia: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Follow the instructions there.
However, this was attempted (and it failed) in December 2007; see the deletion info box at the top of this page. I doubt you will succeed either, because pseudoscience or not, the Searl Effect Generator is notorious enough to warrant an article here. What is needed instead of deletion is to (a) describe actual scientific evaluations written about it, and (b) eliminate text that is unsourced or unsupported by verifiable and reliable sources (note that proponents' claims should be included, as long as those claims are properly attributed).
Improving the article will accomplish more than deleting it. If it is deleted, it will simply reappear later. =Axlq (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, fine. i'll go ahead and collect some stuff together, and try to put that into the article then to improve it. For example, the controversy of statements, how the "suppoortive sites" (and entries therein) connect together, etc. Altough i fear that this would lead to an article almost full of controversy and with little real information about anything real (read: the device itself). Probably it will end up under some "Discipline: Science Fiction" instead of the current "Physics and engineering" ;)
My main concern is just that such exposure as currently on Wikipedia acts more as an advertisement, just for the sake of them having some more source they can cite that does not sounds as dubious as the current ones. Just to get people fooled to make them "invest".
--213.160.11.146 (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements and synthesis

(section break)

Well, I'd say the controversy is what makes this device notable, so if this article evolves into an article about the controversy, that's appropriate and a better justification for this article's existence, don't you think?

Just be careful about drawing conclusions from combining multiple sources when those sources don't explicitly state the conclusion; that's called synthesis and violates the no original research policy on Wikipedia. =Axlq (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course i'm going to post the proposed edits here on the talk page first, anyways. Since i'm not that much experienced in wiki-editing in general, that might be a good idea, i guess.
--213.160.11.146 (talk) 07:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Axlq, just a little question re: combining multiple sources. You wrote "Just be careful about drawing conclusions from combining multiple sources when those sources don't explicitly state the conclusion..." How far does that rule go? I mean, if document A states something about the (still non-existing!) device, and document B states something different. Is that "explicitly stated" enough then by this, or does it require any of these documents to literally read "document A contradicts this document B"? Or even worse, would a third doc be required that states that the other two contradict?
To me, pointing out the contradictions by showing the documents (or parts thereof) side-by-side (or link-by-link) is not sythesis, nor original research. Am i correct with that?
After all, one has to account for the fact that all the "references" in the current article more or less revolve around themselves. That is, a person/group x states y on some page, and uses that page as a reference in page/site z. (Talk about sythesis and original research!). I just dont want to work on that just to find out that it wouldnt have any merrit because of rules that would be applied to the edits that are clearly not applied to the article itself.
Another last question: what if the documents i'm going to reference to will disappear? Really, there is a high chance of just that happening, done by the "inventors gang", to erase or modify history related to that scam (as i still prefer to call it, not science or physics).
Chris
--213.160.11.146 (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would go so far as to say that it is not the Searl item which needs deleting, but Wikipedia as a whole. The entire ethos of Wikipedia is opposed to the very concept of Learning; it reduces knowledge to the level of, "somebody in the pub told me that ...". I have heard that Google is setting up a rival online encyclopedia, and will appoint properly qualified experts. I cannot wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.62.7 (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Unofortunately i have to agree with you to somehow. Wikipedia reached the state of concensus-based reality, leaving any encyclopedic standard more and more behind. Another thing is that their very own guidelines, like "no original research", might be a good thing in essence, but is actually emloyued 180° backwards. The best example for that is this article. I'd really like to know how completely made-up papers and references are supposed to _not_ be original research, but saying "look there, this is proof of a fringe-science article" somehow is. Not to mention the use of references on fringe-science sites like americanantigravity, etc. As i have said, Wikipedia should be aware that by now they are used to give many falsehoods a look of beeing the real thing. Lets hope that Google gets his own encyclopedia started soon, so we all get something more reliable to refer too. Sorry for the rambling here, but this article is just a perfect example for that. --213.160.11.146 (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


How far does that rule go? Just be sure you don't do something like "This source says A, and that source says B, therefore we can conclude C" when C isn't actually a claim made by the sources.
It may be interesting to document synthesis or circular references among the sources. Something like that is verifiable in the sense that anyone could do it and reach the same conclusion. It would be a challenge (and possibly original research) to generalize that conclusion to all sources, however.
As for pages disappearing, that's what the Wayback Machine is for. http://www.archive.org/web/web.php archives web pages throughout the history of the web (with some exceptions; they will delete archives if the copyright holder requests it). Just type a URL into the search box and see if the page you want to reference exists in the archives. For now, use the actual pages, but if they disappear you can reference a page on the Wayback Machine. =Axlq (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree - as I understand Wikipedia policy, an original synthesis is perfectly acceptable when it amounts to a statement of widely understood facts. For example: stating that this invention is a perpetual motion machine which violates the laws of thermodynamics. The general prohibition on original research was created to prevent articles on fringe science spinning out of control, not to give those articles free reign to do so. Edit away! LeContexte (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of giving 'free rein (sic) to edit' when most of those editors are merely bringing their profound ignorance to bear upon the subject? Expertise, by definition, is restricted to a minority, and that minority will always be swamped by the ignorant masses; thus setting Learning back to pre-enlightenment days. There is also the problem of the industrious crackpot: for instance, 'FDM' is obviously Fernando Morris (a lackey of Searl), so his editing activities should clearly be limited or curtailed. Moreover, referring to well-established physical laws as if they were merely short-lived fads is itself ignorant and counter-productive. People who claim to infringe them should be barred outright as being obvious madmen or crooks. There is nothing wrong with treating them as such. To draw a parallel, it is OK to describe the history of astrology, but it is not OK to claim that it is true in any sense. So, Searl should be put straight into the same category as famous perpetual-motion fraudsters of the past, such as Keeley, with no 'open-minded discussion'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.62.7 (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed changes

Hello, i started to edit my copy about the SEG and extended the "history" section a bit. Next i want to add some sources re: the underlying "Law Of Squares" and about the discrepancies in the various models that can be found as pictures on the net. Since english isn't my native language i would be happy if someone could read through the "History" section ofmy copy and check for errors. Of course, for other improvements as well. If that is OK so far, i'd like to integrate the current changes into the main article. Since i dont have that much time, the edits of the other sections will have to wait some more days.

Many thanks,

Chris --213.160.11.146 (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, since no one complained so far, i decided to be bold and added my edits to the "History" section of the article. More to come soon.

--213.160.11.146 (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by PlatinumEgg

I'd like to point to This page, search for "GoldenEgg" there. Statements like "who is one-step ahead is a genius; he who is two steps ahead is a crackpot subject to censure, persecution, and martyred in some cases. In the case of the SEG, well it is more like three steps ahead." make this editor more look like a blind believer/follower. Here is a post by "PlatinumEgg" showing the very same style and thema. So i assume its the same user. Furtermore, the cited article has no direct realation whatsoever to Searl's "Law of the Squares". There is no talk about electric charges or higher dimensions. Searls claim is not only about mass, but also about materials, etc. If that edit doesnt get clarified/substantiated i will remove it, because in this state it is unrelated. It more looks like a edit of a Searl follower to give this some touch of Searl beeing into something, which is just not the case. --213.160.11.146 (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, i'm convinced that this guy is just kind of a sock for the Searl gang. Look at these comments by him, especially where he says "Well considering that I know him very well on a personally basis now for years and I have spend 25 years researching his work..."

Thus i deleted his edits because of NPOV. --213.160.11.146 (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC

User IP 213.160.11.146 guy is clearly has a negative agenda against the subject matter or a type of vendetta, his edits and posting makes it obvious that he has run amuck by only posting selective contains designed to deceive to form his own opinion. I believe Wikipedia should be open to cite not only negatively selected contains, but also the supportive references and citations to present the subject as it is known to be. Therefore I will restore comments and citation of the Magic Squares Physics what was undone by this hypocritical NPOV guy and assist in presenting the other side of the facts to improve and balance the contains of this page. Prime example here now is this guy tries to miss lead us to believe Magic Square that it is just “numerology” when infact it relate to physics as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlatinumEgg (talk • contribs) 2008-03-04 07:47

I have deleted the magic squares paragraph. The cited source doesn't support the claims made in the paragraph, and implying that an observation about inertia can be extended to charges and other attributes is a violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy, particularly the part about syntheses. Deletion of this section has nothing to do with bias; it's a matter of Wikipedia policy. =Axlq 16:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Let the readers be the judge, are Magic Square just "numerology"? It's also possible to consider the numbers of magic squares to be electric charges and to extend such analyses to higher dimensions. Loly has even calculated the so-called eigenvalues of magic squares, which are related to their "fundamental frequencies" if you were to set these squares ringing like a bell. When treated as mass distributions, magic squares give clear and accessible examples of the properties of the moment of inertia, Loly says. "When treated as matrices, magic squares also serve as exceptional examples of some advanced linear algebra theorems". http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060701/mathtrek.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlatinumEgg (talk • contribs) The magic squares paper in the physics journal should be seen for what it is: a "jeu d'esprit". The author could just as easily have taken a crossword-puzzle or Sudoku square as an example (but without the symmetrical results). If Platinum Egg thinks that magic squares are a valid alternative description of reality, let him take a well-known electromagnetic problem and solve it using just those magic squares. Here is a classic problem, which was posed (in viva voce examinations!) to Tripos candidates at Cambridge in the 19th century: "what is the value of the self-inductance of a gold wedding-ring?". C'mon, Platinum-Egg, do your magic-squares magic, and don't forget to show your working. You can even cheat, by asking Searl to help you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.62.7 (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

All of which is true and well sourced, but since the article makes no claim that Searl's work is in any way related, then it is original research to connect that information to the SEG. We do not "let readers decide", we summarize published work. There is no published work - that I am aware of - that justifies connecting Loly's paper to Searl. If you can find such an independet, published source then we can reconsider. Loly is talking about using magic squares as a tool to investigate real scientific and mathematical theories. Searl seems to be dabbling an Numerology. There is an important difference and we do a great disservice to readers if we confuse the two. Gwernol 10:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patents

I have removed the two links to the patents. They dont refernece Searl or any of his work. Searl's work, OTOH, has nothing to do with "magnetic bubbles". Please add only stuff to the article thats has directly to do with the topic. Thanks, Chris. --213.160.11.146 (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I will restore the patent materials as it does relate the John Searl's devices as I will citation next, I advice you (NPOV) not to remove it, such matters is better left to editors such Gwernol with comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlatinumEgg (talk • contribs) 14:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should not include the patents section as it stands. The patents don't refer to Searl or the SEG, and no sources have been provided for the claim that the inventors of these patents have any relationship to Searl. The only way to include such tangentially connected patents would be if a published, independent source links them explicitly to Searl's work. Otherwise this could look like an attempt to lend false credibility to Searl's claims, which I am sure was not the intention. Gwernol 14:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed them again. As I mentioned above, we need published, independent sources that link Gray's work to the SEG if the patents are to be included. Clearly Gray's own website is neither of those things. Even if we accepted the website as a source (which I emphasize, we cannot) then it does not justify the claim that Gray used to work with Searl or was "expelled" from the group. At most you could say that Gray's patents are influenced by the SEG design, and as such their relevance to this article is tenuous at best. This article is about the SEG, not about Gray's design. And again, we come back to need proper sources to even consider including this. Gwernol 16:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


For the sake readers that want to be better informed I will show what was deleted so we see what is happening here. Searl’s SEG configuration/setup has give rise to some patents, two of them from R.W. Gray a former colleague the Searl Research team in Rochester, NY; subsequently he was expelled for patenting them without their consent. From Gray's own website at http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/energy/bubble/bubble01.html regarding US patent 6,008,709 Magnetic Bubble Motion Producer by R.W. Gray and US patent 6,002,314 Magnetic Bubble Motion Producer ultilization Of Magnetic Bubbles To Produce A Motive Force by R.W. Gray. Incidently John Searl did use the term Magnet Bubbles to describe the surface effects in the late 1960's published in his old newsletters. This is the same site used to "Report Magic Square are meaningless"... So why is it a reliable source when it used against the subject matter and not good enough when it comes to anything that supports it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlatinumEgg (talk • contribs) 17:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the stuff before you say something like "Report Magic Square are meaningless". This is _not_ what is stated. It is good enough because it _directly_ talks about the "Law of the Squares". On the opposite, the patents dont mention anything from/about Searl. This means, they have _nothing_ to do directly with the SEG, which this article is about.
I find it funny that you accuse me of pushing an agenda when i add verifyable sources, while you constantly try to add unrelated stuff to try to gives this thing any credibility beyond unproven claims. This is what i mean by saying that your edits are not a Neutral point of View. Also, citing Searl's own work as source of proof for anything will fail. This is because what he says is highly disputed in the scientific community. I would apply this to the statement about him having his home powered by an SEG as well, but for now i leave it in the article. Mind you, prisons are full of unguilty people, if you ask the inprisoned people. Asking the judges gives a different outcome. Searl saying that he not stolen electricity but powered his house with a SEG instead, while court documents and press rreports say otherwise, makes it very likely a false statement by Searl.
Again, please be cautios what sources you want to refer to, and think twice before adding more unsubstantiated material. Thanks!
Chris --213.160.11.146 (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
PlatinumEgg - a couple of points. First you are right that we cannot use Gray's site to argue against Searl's use of Magic Squares. Gray is not a reliable source. I have removed the section discussing magic squares from the article - thanks for spotting it. On the bigger issue of the patents, let me reiterate that Gray's website is neither published nor independent. A source like The Times is both published and independent of the subject. A website run by the author of the patents is clearly neither independent nor published. I'm not doubting that Gray has been granted those patents, but you have no basis for saying this is directly connected to Searl. You claim, for example, that Gray was "a former colleague the Searl Research team in Rochester, NY; subsequently he was expelled for patenting them without their consent" but give no source for that. Unless you have a reliable source that links these specific patents to the SEG, they cannot be added to this article. This article is not about Gray or his designs, its about the SEG. It would probably be worth everyone reading WP:V which is one of Wikipedia's core policies. This explains why we do not use sources like Gray's website in articles. Thanks, Gwernol 17:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of that reference. What about the referenced books and the links at the bottom? After all, these are fringe science publications, and since nothing there is peer-reviewed by established scientist, so i guess using them as sources should also fail WP:V and WP:RS if i read these correctly. Or am i missing something? Greetings, Chris --213.160.11.146 (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:V isn't as strong as requiring peer reviewed scientific journals. Newspapers, books and TV shows all count, for example. Some websites count too. The basic requirements are that the source is independent of the subject and is published, where "published" really means there is editorial review over the content. A good example of the difference is that a book published by a traditional publishing house (e.g. Macmillan) is reliable, but a self-published book is not. Macmillan have editors who decide whether a book is worth publishing and who vet its contents. A self-published book is neither independent nor has outside editorial review applied. Note that this standard applies to sources but not to external links. We can certainly pass a critical eye over the current sources. I suspect some are clearly reliable - for example those citing The Times while others may be debatable: for example, there might be a question about Adventures Unlimited Press, I don't know if this is a truly independent publisher or not. Gwernol 17:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Device section neutrality.

This section implies, without any evidence to back it up, that the device actually exists. It further claims the parts it mentions actually work as described. 192.91.147.35 (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have seen and handled the parts and they certainly exist. The rollers have a magnetic field imprinted in them that varies in a sinusoidal pattern around the circumference. As to whether the machine as a whole works I cannot verify at this time. Alxc (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC) What do you mean by sinusoidal pattern? Do you mean that the peak of the imprinted field wanders up and down the roller surface in a sinusoidal manner? Or do you mean that, if a probe is maintained stationary while the roller is rotated under it, the field varies in a sinusoidal manner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.202.69 (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)