[geocentrism] Re: Aether again
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 06:09:14 +1000
As I said earlier, electrical machines are not my speciality but is there any
likely-hood of a similar fate for your switch when used under load, which of
course you must do to make your experiment work?
Paul D I hope not. It was a normal way of changing speeds on motors in the
old days. My original idea was to use two motors belted to the same wheel,
using the 2pole machine to rev up the flywheel. switching between motors.
Direct drive would be better.. I never realised just how inefficient belts
are.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 1:53 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Aether again
Philip M
Just a couple of comments in colour ( I note your usurpation of my favourite
'first reply' colour -- Oh! The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune ).
On the subject of switching from two pole to four pole operation while the
system is energised. I built a mains adjuster monster about twenty five years
ago which used a 600W auto transformer for the basic 117/230V adjustment with
taps to accommodate primary voltages of 95-105-115-125 and 190-210-230-250V.
This gives a good range adjustment but it is a bit coarse so I took a
transformer from an old valve TV receiver, the core dimensions of which
suggested a 400W capability, stripped off the secondaries and wound ten new
secondaries to give ten 1% increments which I then wired in series with the
output of the auto transformer. This fine adjuster was connected to the i/p
voltage whatever it chanced to be.
In operation, one sets the main transformer to either step up or step down
via a ten amp switch (I think -- it was a long time ago) with an intermediate
off position. The output was then set with the coarse tapping switch and the
fine 1% increment switch until the desired voltage was achieved. The fine
adjustment voltages were given added flexibility by allowing phase reversal of
the i/p voltage via a much smaller current simple dpdt switch -- after all, the
primary current is much lower than the secondary current.
When I had it all assembled, I did the usual cautious testing, all of which
showed the system to be working correctly. I then started loading it in
increments and changing the taps to see whether there was any significant
arcing of the switch contacts. I had been careful to verify that the switches
were of the break-before-make variety so I didn't expect any significant
problems, but on the second or third operation of the fine adjuster phase
reversal switch, it made a large bang and emitted fire and smoke. Thinking
about it after replacing the barbecued switch, I realised that I had gained a
valuable appreciation of the energy stored in an inductance. I subsequently
modified the operating procedure to exclude phase reversal while energised.
And here we get back to your two pole / four pole change-over. As I said
earlier, electrical machines are not my speciality but is there any likely-hood
of a similar fate for your switch when used under load, which of course you
must do to make your experiment work?
Paul D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, 18 October, 2008 11:07:50 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Aether again
Philip M
It's wonderful to see something seriously offered as something of value --
you obviously spent considerable time on it -- for FREE! Do I detect joyous
humour or slight sarcasm... <Abolutely the former. Sarcasm achieves nothing
useful -- I try to avoid it but sadly, every so often I do slip up. > either
way its appreciated. Actually my serious writings are mostly created
subconsciously, whilst asleep.. When its ready it comes to me and I then type
it.. That is the work I suppose, correcting the draft presentation, which might
take half an hour of real time.. LOL
I'm sorry I can't reward you with a closely reasoned response. Reward
enough if you just pass it on to YOUR friends for evaluation. However you did
mention Aspden -- twice. I recall that you were going to do some experiments
with flywheels accelerating more rapidly the second time if not too much time
had expired between runs. Did you ever get to do anything on that? Have the
bicycle wheels , have the motors waiting on time for the pulleys belts etc,
rather expensive for my finances. Even if you have not, can you tell me just
what sort of difference you expected to see? What is "too much" time? And I
think there was something about magnets involved -- just what sort of magnets
were needed? How many, in what configuration?
Although I have read Aspden for years, it was in collaboration with some of
the stuff Robert Bennett wrote concerning the aether which pointed me in this
direction. I have not confirmed it yet, as others have claimed, but
essentially the practical application is this, in three statements.
1. A flywheel with given Mass at xyz rpm wiill contain enough energy to
do E amount of work Let us call it 10E kW. This is the same amount of work
as was done in bringing it up to xyz rpm. (standard physics.)
2. If the 10E kW were extracted quickly, in stopping the wheel and doing
work, then it would take less than 10E kW to return it to the original speed of
xyz rpm, provided it was done within a given time, about 15 to 20 minutes. Let
us say ths is only 5E kW
3. However, the energy return if the process is repeated remains at 10E
kW.
Aspden claims that the rotation of the wheel in some way disperses the
aether, or weakens it such that less energy is required to raise the rotational
speed. It is not a rotation of the aether, because the effect is the same even
if the rotation of the wheel was reversed to the opposite direction. Why a
time limit? Let me speak heliocentrically for your easier comprehension. If
the effect of this "vacuum in the aether" is in the aether , and assuming the
aether is still, then as the world moves on around its merry way, after 15
minutes, the wheel will be outside of this influence. Such a theoretical
assumption even over 15 minutes, for the speed of the world in rotation would
require a big volume of influence indeed, and as regards the movement around
the sun, it becomes almost untenable.
From the geocentric view, we only have to worry about the relatively slow
equatorial speed, of an aether moving past the stationary world and my wheel. I
am suddenly curious about the effect of this timing of 20 minutes as regards
the latitude where the experiment was done.
I did not see need for any magnets .. Not in this test. I will bore you
with the latest idea. If my motor is pullied to the biccycle wheel. The motor
is a two speed , motor which gives 3000 rpm in 2 pole configuration, and 1500
rpm in 4 pole config. Its important that you know that any induction motor
connected to the mains power , if oversped , will generate power into the
mains. This is called a synchronous generator.
I will take the speed change wires from the switch to a timed relay, which
will be timed to do the following.
a. in 2 pole , run the wheel up to 3000 rpm, immediately changing over
to 4 pole where the normal speed is 1500rpm.
b. The flywheel will generate power back into the mains untill the speed
drops down to 1500rpm, when the relay will changeback and so repeat the
process.
On the subsequent repeats a net gain of power will be shown if Aspden is
correct. I have one of those power point Kwh meters .. If my motor is supplied
through this, then after an hour or so operation it will surely let us know if
there is any gain.... Let me say that everything I know about physics, tells
me I am going to waste my time.. How could so many kids doing lab experiments
miss this in their calculation.. Near enoug is good enough and they guessed
the friction losses wrongly. Perhaps.
< I am impressed by your ingenuity. It would not ever have occurred to me.
While I accept your assertion about two and four pole operation -- it rings
true in my ears -- I have little affinity for electric machines. We did study
them in my basic training but only in theory. You get a much better
understandig of these things if you can verify the theory with practical
experiment. >
Paul D and Philip M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: philip madsen <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>; geocentrism list
<geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; governor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Robert Bennett
<robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, 16 October, 2008 8:53:54 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Aether again
EXCLUSIVE RELEASE
Free
Its time I went public with an explanation of the aether. I think I can
communicate across the barrier between 4 dimensional and three dimensional
space, that mere mortals might get some idea of what is reserved normaly to the
departed souls, angels and God.
...
Philip.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
