Received from Yigit Turgut at 11/04/11 12:17 UTC:

>It is always safer to take your place among crowded part of the discussion=
,=20
>that is a very basic tendency in human beings. You rely on the scientific=
=20
>knowledge that we gained in the last 300K years and I can say that you got=
 a=20
>full house in your hand (but not a straight flush). Just remind yourself=20
>that that full house left us in the lurch more than a couple of times in t=
he=20
>past. I am not defending John or etc, I am defending what I saw and it is=
=20
>much more valuable to me than a peer-reviewed journal.


The claims by Searl are extraordinary and therefore require extraordinary=20
proof.  As far as I can see by browsing many Searl-related web pages, there=
=20
is zero proof.  There is no working device.  There are only demonstrations =
of=20
various components, and rather than demonstrating the Searl Effect, they=20
demonstrate well known phenomena long explained by basic physics.

there is no question in my mind that levitation of a magnet over a rotating=
=20
wheel with a conductive rim is impressive to many.  But the same effect=20
produced by a changing magnetic field close to a conductive disc that is fr=
ee=20
to rotate on a shaft is what has been driving those electromechanical=20
induction wattmeters (spinning aluminum disc electric meters) on our homes=
=20
since about 1889.  Placed in that context, the effect is a bit less impress=
ive.

There's an explanation in physics for whatever you saw, and when you arrive=
=20
at that explanation it won't involve the Searl Effect.



--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.