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. www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail