[geocentrism] Re: SMOT et al
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 20:06:24 +0000 (GMT)
Philip M
Despite a decade or more of internet access, I'm afraid that Google is still
not my first reaction when I'm confronted by something new which I know is not
in my books. 'smot' is such a case. I found it after I had posted to you
initially on this subject and found http://jnaudin.free.fr... site but not the
page detailing the gyroscope. I'm impressed by the elegance of his design and
if I can find the time, I'd love to build one. I'd add a laser pointer and
mirror arrangement to permit very long pointers and thus accurate and short
response time measurements. Moving the centre of gravity up to the centre of
suspension I think would also be useful.
That search also revealed Donald Simanek's site. I'm sorry you feel the way you
do concerning his essay. I've been to his site many times and always found his
thoughts to be on the money. Have you looked at
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm#cheng? Scroll down to The
Gravity Shield Engine. I was impressed. This whole area of unworkable devices
is rewarding I think.
Regarding his debunking of the 'smot' device. If it really works as you
suggest, then you should be able to make a ring of them, five would probably be
enough, such that as the ball falls from one (with its height gain) and drops
into the next, then the next etc, you should be able to make the ball go around
the ring forever -- or at least.until it wears out. The fact that I can think
of that means that someone else should have thought of it long ago and industry
should now be powered by them. The fact that this isn't so just bears out what
Donald S says about these devices.
Paul D
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
