[geocentrism] Re: On the flywheel and Aspden

Thanks Paul.. Strangely but your test is almost out of my college 1940 physics 
book. except the measurement was taken of the time it took for the wheel to 
stop spinning. 

The experiment must have been done thousands of times by students who thought 
for themselves in those days. I did reason that surely many of them would have 
queried any anomaly, but not necessarily as the test required an average of 
several, making the initial drop rather irrelevant.. I wonder why my 
conspiratorial mind suggests a cover up. .  But innocently the first drop could 
have been considered a warm up.  lol. 
 
will get back to you later on this, as I get the exact calculations. 

Phil
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:20 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: On the flywheel and Aspden


  Philip M 
  This is something one can get one's teeth into! I'm interested.
  May I make a suggestion or two? Going the electrical route does indeed 
involve you in some nice measurements and calculations -- measuring power 
consumption  (energy) is complex and I doubt not that it will cause you 
significant headaches. A much simpler approach, which avoids all those 
complications, is the mechanical method. For instance, if you have a bench 
grinder, take the stone off one end and fit a pulley (it doesn't have to be too 
precise). Wind a string of suitable length with a knot at the end around the 
pulley, crossing the string at the end of the first turn just behind the knot. 
Then wind all the string on the pulley except for enough to allow a weight to 
be attached and suspended over an idler pulley. Now release the weight. It will 
fall towards the ground, radially accelerating the motor, shaft and the other 
stone. If the string is the right length, it will fall off the pulley before 
the weight hits the ground. By judicious choice of the accelerating mass, you 
can arrange that the time of fall is sufficiently long as to minimise errors in 
recording the time taken. Don't forget to leave the power switch at 'off'.
  With this approach, the energy imparted is easily calculated and always 
constant. If Aspden is correct, the time taken for the weight and string to 
fall off the pulley will be significantly less on the second of two closely 
spaced tests. I'm betting he's wrong, and that all tests no matter when made 
will, within the margin for error, return the same results!
  I have an old 12" 2.5kg aluminium turntable which would do admirably for 
these tests but sadly I don't have a stopwatch. This mechanism has the 
advantage that it would be simple to change the direction of spin and the 
orientation angle of the flywheel. I'd bet this would also have no effect.
  Paul D


  ----- Original Message ----
  From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Sent: Monday, 10 March, 2008 11:52:13 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] On the flywheel and Aspden


  Philip. Often you throw posts in that have awful spelling, non-existent 
punctuation, mixed-up font sizes and the like......Neville. 

  Aw! ere!  come orf it mate! All my posts are exquisately planned. korrect 
spelling isn't necessary. 

  I have diverted our personal debate with you to a direct line...  

  This week I laid the ground work to do an experiment to prove Aspdens 
Flywheel claim, as mentioned  in GWW, and elsewhere. i.e. That a flywheel 
requires much less energy to restore its speed after an initial speedup and 
shut down, provided the restart was done immediately. (nominally within 2 
minutes)  

  This is important as it is a proof of the aether effect which I think is 
essential to geocentrism. 

  Getting the hardwhere was easy.. Its the electronics for measurement that is 
delaying any result. However I did a quickie test with my bench grinder, which 
is essentially a flywheel. At first switch on, it took 2 seconds approx to 
reach max rpm. Immediate stop with a wood block, and it took 2 seconds approx 
to reach full rpm on the second start..  and the third and the fourth etc. 
According to Aspden the second et al start should have taken less than a 
second. 

  The result  is what my standard physics would expect..  I guess Aspden has 
had me dreaming for a long time about nonsense.  

  However just in case the timing was due to motor characteristics, I will 
proceed to the next step..  Will keep you informed.. 

  Philip. 









------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG. 
  Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1325 - Release Date: 11/03/2008 
1:41 PM

Other related posts: