# [geocentrism] Re: On the flywheel and Aspden

• To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:07:20 +1000
```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 ----
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

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
```