Can Vortex Mathematics Lead to Free Energy, or is It Just More Fluff?

I came across the following post in an occult group on Facebook:  “Only God could have created a 9 number system that can encompass infinity with a zero as the emanation [Chaos].”  Just the kind of quirky and weird statement I just can’t pass up.  “I’ll bite,” I commented.

I was led by the poster to a number of videos featuring Marko Rodin, who discovered what he termed, “Vortex Mathematics.”  While attempting to decode the greatest name of God in the Bahá’í faith, using Abjad numerical notation, he created a symbol consisting of the nine arabic numerals inscribed upon a circle.  He called this the “symbol of enlightenment” (shown at right) which he has also referred to as “the mathematical thumbprint of God.”

For me, understanding math is like trying to walk up a grassy hill in the rain with flip flops that are two sizes too large. That being said, I’ll pass on what I do understand.

The “symbol of enlightenment” can be used to model every mathematical function, including multiplication, division, reciprocals, powers of ten, etc.  I don’t have the space here (or the inclination) to go through all of them, but I can quickly give an example:  Starting at the number one, follow the line on the symbol to two.  Here, we have doubling, an instance of multiplication.  Now, follow the line to the four, which is two doubled.  Now follow the line to eight, or four doubled.  Doubling eight, we get sixteen.  Taking the two digits of sixteen and adding them (1+6) we get seven, the next number in line.  Double sixteen, we get (32=3+2) five.  Double thirty-two, we get (64=6+4) one.  Dig?

In the same way, we experience halving by following the circuit in the other direction.  Half of one is 0.5 (0+5) equaling 5. Half of 5 is 2.5 (2+5) equaling 7, and so on.  The following illustration shows how to apply the symbol to some of the other functions if the reader wants to spend some time playing with it.

(Note that in the powers of ten, the numbers to the left of the comma mirror each other horizontally.  This mirroring occurs even during the multiplication function, with the multiples of one being mirrored by the multiples of eight. Though at a glance this doesn’t sound right, Randy Powell walks us through it in the video at the end of this article.  The mirroring found in the “symbol of enlightenment” is one of the most compelling aspects of this system.)

You may have noticed that the numbers three, six, and nine have not been included, yet.  Rodin believes these numbers represent a vector from the third to fourth dimension which he calls a “flux field.”  This field is supposed to be a higher dimensional energy that influences the energy circuit of the other six points.

Yeah.  Like I said.  I don’t really get it, either.

But other than spending the evening screwing around with numbers, what are the real world applications of this symbol? Well, for one thing, the pattern of 1, 2, 4, 8, 7, and 5 is a doubling circuit that has been used to develop an efficient electrical coil.  According to markorodin.com and numerous internet forum posts, Rodin has also supposedly designed an incredibly sensitive antenna that is being utilized by the U.S. government, though I haven’t seen any proof of this claim.  But the most impressive result of vortex mathematics, by far, is Randy Powell’s (a student of Rodin) construction of a 3-D model of a torus (a doughnut shape) using the numerical patterns of the “symbol of enlightenment.” Powell says that the universe itself is shaped like his torus, and has used it as the guide to create the Rodin Coil, a contraption that he claims can produce free energy.

This is where I stop being able to follow the math. Picture the metaphor I described earlier in this article, only the hill is a sheer cliff, the flip flops are ballerina slippers, and the rain is mostly vegetable oil.

Several amateur enthusiasts have built their own Rodin Coils in the past few years.  Their experiments can be found all over YouTube and seem to have promising results, but the voices of detractors have appeared as well.  The number one complaint is the complete lack of peer review, which is interesting considering Powell’s statement during his TEDx Charlotte presentation:  “It has been peer reviewed by some of the best names in science.”

To date, I have been unable to find any published peer review, positive or negative.  The above-mentioned TEDx talk was removed from TED’s YouTube channel, and editor Emily McManus made a statement that TED members “sought further advice from experts, and ultimately agreed that the criticisms had merit and were serious enough to warrant removal of the talk from the TEDx official YouTube channel, in compliance with our policy.”  However, without actually naming any sources, and after the recent removal of Graham Hancock’s TED talk with a similar statement, I don’t exactly consider this as particularly damning evidence against Powell.  I have attempted to contact Powell and have requested access to any peer review, but have yet to hear back from him.

Perhaps we’ll get more straight-forward answers on his planned documentary, Randy’s Doughnuts.

What’s most awful about all this is that I really want it to be true.  I want someone to test this in sight of the public and let us know if free energy is really possible.  In the meantime, I’ll just keep paying the damn light bill.

An example of the home-grown experiments one finds when typing, “Rodin coil free energy” into YouTube

Frater Isla

Frater Isla also writes under the name Joshua Lee. He lives in Albuquerque, NM.For more of his work, visit sittingnow.co.uk .

29 Commentson "Can Vortex Mathematics Lead to Free Energy, or is It Just More Fluff?"

1. emperorreagan | Jul 10, 2013 at 3:36 pm |

So where’s the free energy? All the youtube videos I watched just demonstrate playing with electromagnetism. I couldn’t even find a video of someone comparing this coil design to other coil designs to actually do something.

As for the math: you can find plenty of patterns in numbers and operations on them. Pick a different base than base 10 and you’ll find different patterns. Play games with geometry and you’ll find different patterns. I don’t see anything particularly compelling about vortex mathematics in itself.

Can one find meaning in them? Sure. Can one just find them interesting? Sure.

Has one found THE meaning, THE solution? Probably not.

• Frater Isla | Jul 10, 2013 at 11:36 pm |

What throws up my red flags is the continued claims that the government is using the Rodin designs, but there’s no one corroborating. And you’d think that if this WAS peer reviewed, as Powell keeps saying, then they’d be posting the results everywhere!

I’m not convinced, but I still want to see proof, for or against.

• emperorreagan | Jul 11, 2013 at 12:52 pm |

The thing that raises a red flag for me is this:

Toroidal coils are widely used. You can find them in motors, transformers, speakers, etc. The technology isn’t novel. If you scroll down on this page ( http://www.mpoweruk.com/motorsspecial.htm ), for instance, you’ll see a graphic that shows the design of a toroidal coil motor. You can do a patent search and find things that utilize toroidal coils.

So it’s not some novel technology that’s never been produced before. It’s a different winding. Building a rudimentary electric motor isn’t difficult. Building a transformer isn’t difficult. If you’ve already built an antennae of some sort, providing details about it isn’t difficult.

So why aren’t they demonstrating it? Why do they discuss applications but not build them? Why are they making a movie instead of building an electric motor? Why is he making grandiose claims about evolutionary potential instead of having someone build a transformer? Why jump straight to claims about zero point energy when you haven’t even demonstrated the most basic claims you’re making?

And when the originator of an idea can’t be troubled to demonstrate their idea, why should anyone take it seriously?

• I thought of some weird energy generation involving switching electro magnets before. Then the obvious thought that the amount of current pushed through an electro-magnet is probably pretty high, and I suspect even higher when Work (W) on magnets is being done.

2. emperorreagan | Jul 10, 2013 at 3:36 pm |

So where’s the free energy? All the youtube videos I watched just demonstrate playing with electromagnetism. I couldn’t even find a video of someone comparing this coil design to other coil designs to actually do something.

As for the math: you can find plenty of patterns in numbers and operations on them. Pick a different base than base 10 and you’ll find different patterns. Play games with geometry and you’ll find different patterns. I don’t see anything particularly compelling about vortex mathematics in itself.

Can one find meaning in them? Sure. Can one just find them interesting? Sure.

Has one found THE meaning, THE solution? Probably not.

3. InfvoCuernos | Jul 10, 2013 at 6:16 pm |

Looks like a Volkswagen logo to me.

• Wouldn’t it be awful if this turned out to be some sort of guerrilla marketing campaign by Volkswagen?

• Wouldn’t it be awful if this turned out to be some sort of guerrilla marketing campaign by Volkswagen?

4. InfvoCuernos | Jul 10, 2013 at 6:16 pm |

Looks like a Volkswagen logo to me.

5. atlanticus | Jul 10, 2013 at 7:49 pm |

When i was a kid, I’d play this game with a calculator (I don’t remember the order, anymore) that had a lot of strange patterns and coincidences…was it THE secret? As a bored 10 year old, did I fail to notice the meaning of life, the universe and everything?

6. The Well Dressed Man | Jul 10, 2013 at 9:00 pm |

1. As E.R points out: What’s so special about base 10?
2. If this is in fact really special, how would it be any less amazing that human ingenuity came up with it?

Perhaps the closest our reason may have come to universal truth is mathematics. There may indeed be a “fingerprint of God” in these structures, but I suspect that large prime numbers and the territory between the integers are much more promising areas of inquiry than counting to ten on our mortal fingers.

Edit: Where’s Simon?

• Hocketeer | Jul 11, 2013 at 2:37 am |

There is nothing special about base 10, the only base rodin and powell have is superstition, delusions of grandeur and a good dose of pathological lying. Gurdjieff would be laughing hard since he had so much experience teasing the overly logical with the enneagram. Trying to contain infinity in a circle is typical control freak twattery.

7. Mr. Isla:
First, there is no free energy. There is no free lunch. But we can use energy more efficiently. Rodin and Powell make several physical claims based on VBM (vortex based mathematics) but provide little mainstream theory or formulas for substantiating them. You have to distinguish between their physics and their math. Their physics require a substantial amount of scientific scrutiny and rigor, even though they get some things right. The VBM on the other hand works. It follows a certain set of rules and does what they say it supposed to do mathematically. Believe it or not in quaternion mathematics we can actually have a situation where A x zero=B and B is not equal to zero. Weird but true. People try and denigrate VBM by calling it numerology but is is a legitimate field of mathematics created by one of the greatest mathematicians ever, Hamilton.

The reason why VBM works is because it is a shorthand cookbook way of doing a small snippet of quaternion algebra. Maxwell wrote his original treatise in quaternions but his peers had so much trouble understanding it he changed it into the language of vector analysis.. Quaternions remained rather obscure until jet fighters started to experience gimble lock in their computerized gyroscopic navigational systems. Computer scientists armed with quaternions came to rescue and cleaned up the problem beautifully. Quaternions are becoming a staple of computer science. In fact it is virtually assured that any video game made in the 2000″s was coded using quaternions. Quaternions follow the number patterns of VBM.

I have a site at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGfpElUK_wQ briefly explaining how VBM and quaternions are connect. The book Po Pi Phi Psi give a rigorous mathematical treatment of VBM and how its equivalent to quaternion algebra. It also provides rigorous theories, proofs, and formulas substantiating some of Rodin’s physical claims. I’m not affiliated with Rodin or Powell, but they are definitely onto something with the VBM. I could probably send you a copy of the book if you like.

• I happened to stumble across this page on an Internet search about vortex “mathematics,” and feel compelled to try to clarify a few issues since mathematics can be an intimidating subject for many. I am an undergraduate majoring in mathematics and computer science, so while I am not an expert, I am, at this point in my education, sufficiently qualified to discuss the major points.

First, vortex “mathematics” cannot be accurately characterized as mathematics at all. The mathematical activity effectively ceases with the association of mystical elements with the particular numerical/geometrical patterns Rodin et al have uncovered, independently of whether there is any truth to the mystical claims. Mathematicians make very specific and precise claims and then provide an argument, starting from first principles, that their claims are correct. Mathematicians call this argument a proof. All that I see is a mildly interesting numerical sequence with a cutesy drawing superimposed.

Nor is what Rodin engaged in science. Scientists conduct experiments that can be replicated to demonstrate their claims. Any claims about “free energy” would require that nearly the entire corpus of modern scientific understanding of nature be overthrown. While I suppose that’s possible, you’re going to need to provide more proof than some clever videos.

I also want to refute claims by others who are attempting to lend any sort of credence to this nonsense. I have not reviewed W.J’s videos or book or whatever he’s pushing, but I don’t need to because some of his claims about quaternions are flatly wrong. It is clear that his understanding of mathematics is that of a layman. I am not an expert on quaternions, but I am quite familiar with what they are and some applications. It is true that they are used in angle calculations and they were invented by the mathematician William Rowan Hamilton (though I think it might be a bit of a stretch to place him in the ranks of the greatest mathematicians ever), but if you multiply any nonzero quaternion by zero, you get zero.

Unfortunately, to demonstrate this requires being a bit technical, but I’ll try to pose it in simple terms. The quaternions form a type of mathematical structure called a division ring. In simple terms, this means that they follow all of the familiar rules about real numbers that you learn in algebra, meaning that you can add, subtract, multiply, and divide with them, they follow the associative laws, etc. The only difference with the quaternions is that multiplication is not commutative. In the real numbers, I know that a * b is always equal to b * a, but that’s not true for the quaternions. But it is still true that multiplying anything by 0 results in 0. The proof of this can be found in any textbook on abstract algebra. It relies on the fact that 0 + 0 = 0 and that multiplication distributes over addition; that is, that a * (b + c) = a * b + a * c. So, suppose we have a quaternion, let’s call it q, and let’s see what happens when we multiply by 0. q * 0 = q * (0 + 0), because 0 + 0 = 0, and q * (0 + 0) = q * 0 + q * 0, by the distributive law. So, we’ve discovered that q * 0 = q * 0 + q * 0. The only number that you can add to itself and get the same thing back is 0, so it follows that q * 0 = 0.

Perhaps our amateur mathematician W.J got confused with the notion of zero-divisors. It is possible, in some number systems, to multiply together two non-zero numbers and get zero. For instance, in clock arithmetic, where 12 plays the role of zero, 4 * 3 = 12. But it remains true, even in number systems (rings) with zero-divisors, that anything times 0 equals 0.

You can certainly look at the relevant articles about rings and quaternions on Wikipedia, but unfortunately, they aren’t very accessible to laymen. I hope this helps.

• BDH

With respect, given the rules Rodin has given for his VBM, the math follows the rules. You may certainly take issue with the utility of the math but the numbers do what the rules dictate that they must and will do. Because neither Powell nor Rodin have presented any “rigorous” proofs that meet the scrutiny of you or other mathematicians does not mean that the “algebra” he has created for the numbers do not obey the rules of that “algebra”. They do.That’s irrefutable. Your acceptance and utilization of this algebra is an entirely different matter. I said from the outset that his Physics is very suspect. If you want to take him to task on that then have at it. I won’t comment on it one way or the other until I do much more extensive research of that aspect of his work.

Our differing perceptions of Hamilton is rather trivial. Again, you haven’t read enough to really know. What isn’t trivial is that we can equate Euler’s formula and Hamilton’s quaternions via e^(ipi)=ijk=-1. You of course will most probably take issue with this because you have not been given permission to view these two formulas in such a light. This equation is algebraically undeniably and irrefutably true. But since it hasn’t been sanctioned as yet by your “mentors” you would probably deem it false. Also, you do realize that by proposing Rodin ( or me, for that matter) provide a “proof” to satisfy some mathematical standard and then you provide “All I see is a mildly interesting numerical sequence with a cutesy drawing superimposed.” is a bit disingenuous. Or is it, as I fear, a telling testament to your familiarity, or lack thereof, with the subject? I stick to the numbers. As a undergrad you have much much to learn about the presentation of proof. Also keep in mind, you are by definition a layman until you produce a degree.

Lastly, I am not an expert on quaternions but I am far more than a layperson and with all due respect know quite a bit more about them than what you have thus far displayed. Your problem is your limited breadth on the subject. I’ve actually gone back and read some of the work by Hamilton, and Tait. I would suggest to you research some of the older works particularly
Introduction to Quaternions: With Numerous Examples By Philip Kelland, Peter Guthrie Tait and especially Quaternions as the Result of Algebraic Operations by Arthur Latham Baker. This is the world of quaternions before Gibbs and Heavyside chased it into obscurity. These are the quaternions of Maxwell’s original treatise on electromagnetism.

You make many factually incorrect statements because, again, of your very very limited exposure to the broad range that quaternions cover and because you don’t really understand what they do and how they operate.

First off the definition of a quaternion. It is defined as a vector, a scalar, or a combination of both. This definition alone pretty much refutes all of your arguments. (see how easy a proof can be) p or q in your division ring is the same as i,j or k in the Caley-Dickson construction of quaternions, or i,j, k or ij of the octonions or the ijkl of the sedenions, or the e1,e2,e3,e…. of GA. They are all quaternions that lose certain mathematical characteristics as they proceed through levels. Quaternions lose commutativity. Octonions lose commutativity and associativity. Sedenions lose both and become a zero divisor. Where, as I said, we can have the situation where qx0=p where p is not equal to zero. Again q is STILL a quaternion operating within a sedenion (complexified) level of a Caley- Dickson construction.

“But it remains true, even in number systems (rings) with zero-divisors, that anything times 0 equals 0.” Is demonstrably false if rings are to be construed in general as a number system. Again pay attention to how actual mathematical proof is being provided.

Since you are a budding computer science layman undergrad perhaps I’ll refer you to this site : My Code Here : A few Hypercomplex Numbers.

Good luck in your budding career.

• One last thing. Rodin and Powell each have different styles
of lecturing. Giving both their due respect and acknowledgements, no one, to date, in my admittedly limited opinion, captures and explains VBM better than Tom Barnett. Check out these two videos by him. If after having watched these two videos you still think VBM is “a mildly interesting numerical sequence with a cutesy drawing superimposed” then I guess this field of mathematics just isn’t for you.

RODIN FRACTAL EIGHT ABHA TORI MATRIX

by Tom Barnett

Phi VBM Tori Array by Tom Barnett

• It is not my intention to get dragged into an endless debate with you. I don’t entertain any fantasies that I will be able to convince you of anything. Rather, my purpose was to cut through the hyperbole for those less versed in mathematics. I will, however, clarify a few points that you have raised, mostly in the hope of exposing this alleged “area of mathematics” for what it really is.

To the extent that “vortex mathematics” discusses properties of powers of 2, they do indeed appear to be correct (although I have not seen a proof). I have not disputed this. Nevertheless, I don’t see any utility for the patterns being discussed. Do they have applications in solving open problems in mathematics, physics, or any scientific discipline? It doesn’t appear so, but perhaps someone will come along and demonstrate otherwise.

I watched Mr. Barnett’s videos, but again, I don’t see much going on other than the construction of some somewhat interesting geometric patterns, and indeed, interesting patterns are worthy of pursuit in and of themselves, but geometry is a very well-developed topic of mathematics already, and I don’t see any novel contributions.

I’m not sure why you would think that I would take issue with Euler’s identity, but in fact it is quite trivial to link it to the quaternions the way you have done. It is, as you say, “undeniably and irrefutably true.” It’s also entirely meaningful to extend the exponential function to the quaternions using an infinite series definition, so why not go all the way?

You are correct that the quaternions form a vector space over the field of real numbers, as do the octonions and sedenions. However, you remain incorrect in claiming that there exist nonzero quaternions q and p such that q * 0 = p. It is true, as you sort of said, that the sedenions have zero divisors, but even in the sedenions, multiplication by 0 still yields 0. Here is a more formal proof of this fact, and although it doesn’t directly apply to the octonions and sedenions (since they are not rings), the main idea is quite applicable.

Let (R, +, *) be a ring, x be any element of R, and 0 denote the additive identity of R. Then, by the definition of additive identity, x*0 = x*(0 + 0). Because ring multiplication distributes over ring addition, we have x*(0 + 0) = x*0 + x*0. By transitivity of equality, we thus obtain x*0 = x*0 + 0 = x*0 + x*0. Because (R, +) is an abelian group, we can cancel the x*0 on the left side of the addition sign on each side of the equality and obtain 0 = x*0.

Here is a more direct proof for the quaternions. Let p = a + bi + cj + dk be an arbitrary quaternion (where naturally a, b, c, d are arbitrary real numbers), and denote the zero quaternion, 0 + 0i + 0j + 0k, by 0. Then, by the definition of quaternion multiplication (the Hamilton product), we have p * 0 = (a + bi + cj + dk) * (0 + 0i + 0j + 0k) = (a*0 – b*0 – c*0 – d*0) + (a*0 + b*0 + c*0 – d*0)i + (a*0 – b*0 + c*0 + d*0)j + (a*0 + b*0 – c*0 + d*0)k = 0 + 0i + 0j + 0k = 0.

It doesn’t get much clearer than that. I’m not sure what you meant by “is demonstrably false if rings are to be construed in general as a number system.” Of course, the elements of a ring certainly don’t have to be numbers. They could be polynomials, formal power series, or functions, for example. I referred to them as “number systems” because I was trying to communicate the essence of an abstract idea to a nonmathematical audience. And the fact that, in rings, multiplication by the additive identity always yield the additive identity follows immediately from the axioms of a ring, so it isn’t “demonstrably false.”

If you choose to persist in arguing that it is possible to multiply a quaternion by zero and get a nonzero quaternion, the easiest way to demonstrate your superior mastery of the quaternions and mathematics in general would be to simply produce a concrete example. Give a quaternion that when multiplied by zero yields a nonzero quaternion. I might save you some trouble by mentioning that scalar multiplication of a quaternion by the scalar 0 (since the quaternions are a vector space over the reals, as you know), also yields the zero vector, a fact which also follows directly from the definition of a vector space.

I advise you to not spend too much time trying to run down a quaternion that possesses this mysterious property you’re enamored with because they don’t exist. You could also ask the gentleman who writes the “My Code Here” blog about it after he signs off on your trivial “proposition” relating Euler’s identity and the product of the three imaginary quaternion basis vectors.

In closing, I must admit that I am truly baffled by individuals such as yourself. You seem interested in mathematics, and demonstrate some knowledge, but it is evident that you don’t grasp the deeper concepts or understand the nature of what a valid proof is or the role it plays in the discipline. You might read the book “Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications” by Rosen. It gives a pretty good introduction to proofs and predicate calculus.

There are so many more astonishing mysteries in mathematics than Rodin’s self-aggrandizing nonsense. Perhaps one of these days, W.J, we can have a discussion about some more serious matters. I wish you the best in your future endeavors.

• i=jk=0 where i,j, and k are not equal zero

jk=0xa where a is a scalar and therefore a quaternion

i= 0xa

QED

• Since the first step in your “proof” contains the delightfully insane contradiction that i is equal to 0 and i is not equal to 0, you have succeeded only in demonstrating that you understand absolutely nothing. If we continued to follow your “reasoning,” we could come up with other bits of nonsense like -1 = 0.

Because you have exhibited your incompetence more effectively than I could ever have hoped to, we may mercifully conclude our correspondence. Fare thee well, W.J, on your voyages on the seas of lunacy.

• It is sad that today’s youth are being trained in “science by Facebook” instead of being able to critically think for themselves. You have yet to develop how to think independently and resort to this social silliness that may work at one of your mixers but has no traction when we actually start doing the math.

This is like trying to convince a 3 year old there is no Santa Clause. Just as I suspected you have absolutely no idea and appreciation of the the wonder and algebraic eccentricities of quaternions. You still ahve no appreciation of zero divisors because you are ignorant of the rules of actually multiplying and manipulating them. Everything in that proof is algebraically correct. I am happy you have decided to end this disscussion. All you do is embarrass yourself more and more with each post. Perhaps you should think of changing your major to accounting.

• Frater Isla | Jan 18, 2014 at 9:33 pm |

Oops. Missed this comment. I’m willing to check it out. PM me on twitter @frater_isla.

8. Current always moves from a region of high potential to a region of low potential. This current can be used to do work as it travels. The resistance in non-superconducting wires guarantees loss of energy through heat. To get “free energy” you would need to be able to maintain a potential difference indefinitely without doing any work to maintain it. If technicians and physicists at high energy labs haven’t hit on special properties that can violate this principle, what makes people think tinkerers in their garage, using magnets and coils, are so much more talented?

9. There would need to be rather more to this for it to qualify as “fluff”. As it stands, it’s pure phlogiston.

10. Jonas Planck | Jan 18, 2014 at 10:53 pm |

Here, this’ll help!