Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Momentum, inertia and the Aspden effect

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bob Smith
    replied
    Cool pics, Danny. I do look forward to the tipping point when the preponderance of all this alternative technology will outweigh the forces that deny its existence. I think your approach to all the theory is a good one. People can so caught up in minutiae that they end up over-complicating these setups, some of which are pretty straightforward, provided things are aligned properly.
    Bob

    Leave a comment:


  • Danny B
    replied
    Bob, evidently, I'm not subscribed to this thread and, didn't see your reply. I really don't Understand much of all this energy stuff. As far as lines of force,,, dunno. Aspden seemed to think that energy from the vacuum rushed in to smooth out the cogging. Hell if I know. Raoul Hatem believed that; the attraction approaching magnets was stronger then the drag from departing magnets. Dunno.

    Here are a couple of pics of the duet., Hatem and Terawatt. Also, the fuelless and the William Skinner device
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Smith
    replied
    So is this device neutralizing the inertial lines of force through gyroscopic action?

    Eric Dollard talks in one of his videos (I think it was this phone interview with Aaron about JJ Thompson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEi6L42nz3k ) about neutralizing inertial lines of force as the key to anti-gravity and rapid acceleration/deceleration/direction change seen in some of the hi-tech black budget craft commonly identified as UFOs.

    It seems to me that pulsed and resonant systems can, under the right conditions, neutralize the inertial lines of force, thereby allowing for increased COP (by removing inertial constraints which ordinarily prevent ambient/aetheric charge influx into a setup). I'd like to say more, but will stop here for the moment.

    Any thoughts?
    Bob

    Leave a comment:


  • Danny B
    replied
    Hatem and Terawatt

    Here are interesting images about the Terawatt device. There is a drawing that was removed many years ago that shows the larger wheel to be a very light lattice work.
    Then, there is the drawing that shows the common picture of the device as presented. There is one more picture showing the device during testing. During testing it has a very large weight added. This is used to make the rotation of the drive wheel absolutely steady,,, like any normal flywheel.
    The lattice work wheel is called the "torque amplifier". Every thing else on the assembly is just normal stuff. The 2 butterfly looking things are just used to dampen pulses from the light wheel as it cogs it's way around. Cogging is the critical point of the design.
    The basic Terawatt device is just 2 wheels, one steady, one cogging.
    The 2 butterfly wheels have magnets in apposition to transmit rotational torque a bit more smoothly. I don't know why they didn't use an over-runnng clutch or a fluid drive.

    I built the device as designed and used wood for the light wheel. The original device has a very heavy shaft and, the butterfly thing looks heavy also. I'm sure that my wood wheel is light enough. My primary wheel is aluminium and, only moderately heavy.
    I built the Hatem device with 4 heavy aluminum wheels and a ton for magnets. It made perfect sense to drive the Taerawatt device with the Hatem device to get the mass I wanted. Both Terawatt wheels have 10 magnets and cog very nicely.
    I am a BUILDER, not a bencher. I just built this and, set it aside. Same as I did with the William Skinner gravity motor and the 11 gallon HHO water torch and the giant crystal & magnet "clarifier" and the big SSG motorcycle wheel, and the Tesla hairpin.
    Dunno what else.
    I need to load the pictures of the Hatem married to the Terawatt.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Danny B
    replied
    The gyradoscope

    This seems like the right thread.
    KeelyNet News 2014 - Free Energy / Gravity Control / Electronic Health / Alternative Science - 01/13/14

    KeelyNet News 2013 - Free Energy / Gravity Control / Electronic Health / Alternative Science - 01/23/13

    Leave a comment:


  • Danny B
    replied
    I just can't get the Terawatt device out of my head. I wrote that the 2 shafts turn at the same speed. Terawatt shows them rotating at different speeds. One picture shows both wheels have bold lines for indexing.
    This page has a table with all the figures. It shows different speeds for the 2 shafts.
    Interactive Magnetic Oscillation - Revolution-Green

    I found a German page with just a bit of English referring to a discrepancy about this:
    TUV Rheinland file no.: 30881449.003, project no.: 3070701, Terawatt

    Dear Uwe,

    Sorry, that i have a question about a project, which has been completed 4 years ago, but you have to know, that there are some diskussions here in germany (and i am sure in other countrys too), about what has to been approved by this report.

    For this reason, i take a deeper look inside the report and i think there is something wrong

    What i have seen is:
    - on page 1 of attachment A: wheel on shaft 1 (attached to motor) ist the smaller on, on shaft 2 the bigger one
    - On page 1 and 2 of attachment D: it is clearly shown, that the shaft 2 has a higher rotation speed as shaft 1, but this seems to be strange.

    From the picture of page 4, attachment A, you can estimate the relation of rötation speed as to be 0,65, if the apparatus is driven by shaft 1. Only in the case, that the apparatus is driven by shaft 2, you get the relation of 1.5, which is shown in your report.

    So my Question is, if you are aware, that this measurement might be wrong, or might be extremly ambiguous. I dont know, if it is possible, that you may given my an answer about this, but i think it is not a good idea to present on the homepage of TÜV a mesasurement, which seems to be not correct.

    The reply from the underwriters lab says to "contact the client". Thema: Terawatt (1/5) - Energie der Zukunft - Raumenergie - Die Energieform der Zukunft

    Terawatt didn't want to give too much away so, they fudged everything.

    Leave a comment:


  • Danny B
    replied
    Terawatt details

    Terawatt has taken down their pictures recently after I started this thread. Interestingly enough, they took down the pic and all relevant info for the critical part,,, the torque multiplier. They took it down a few years ago.
    http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a28...psrfngv5sg.jpg
    Here are a couple of other links.
    http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a28...psznd3lpjx.jpg
    The cutaway of the torque amplifier shows disc magnets mounted on an axle. Presumably, each magnet would be attracted to the next adjacent axle (magnets). When the other wheel came close enough, the mags would rotate to attract the nearer wheel rather than the adjacent mag on the same wheel.
    The part that I have trouble with is the apparent size and Hp. of the motor. I built the Hatem device and it "hooks up " well. Not sure what the Hp. limit would be. The last item in the power train is a device that uses bucking magnets to dampen out all the shaking caused by the torque amplifier. This is a known device and is used on many trucks.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnaXB8q3uzQ
    If you want to replicate the device, just take a screen shot and figure out the relative diameters. Then, use your screen shot to "count" the number of magnets / axles. The magentic damper is obvious to those who are skilled in the arts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Danny B
    replied
    Update

    I posted what I believe is a true picture of the construction of the Terawatt device. After all these years, they have taken down all info and pictures. Here are the relevant pictures; Terawatt Research, Free Energy & the CIA | Truth is Treason | Truth is Treason

    Leave a comment:


  • TheoriaApophasis
    replied
    Originally posted by Allcanadian View Post
    @TA
    We use time and space as measures to rationalize things which are tangible and if there is nothing tangible then they cease to exist. The trick to remember here is that we have created these things in our mind as a way to relate to our surroundings.
    AC
    You have only said the same thing I did. Space and time are unreal abstractions of measure and magnitude.


    You , however, forget that TIME and SPACE are measures of magnitudes and times etc to traverse them, etc etc.


    But ALL magnitude/mass/matter is ONLY definitionally MASSIVE/ (has) Magnitude due to radiative magnetic fields.


    Suggest you read Plotinus "ON TIME" in the ENNEADS


    The Greek Neoplatonists mastered this to 10,000% perfection 2000 years ago on a level humans today find impossible to grasp



    Originally posted by Allcanadian View Post
    Nature is simple, it does not need equations or complex terminology, it is what it is and does what it does regardless of what we believe.
    AC

    No, nature is SIMPLEX, not simple.


    Ive said a 1000 times "mother nature does NO math", so , correct.

    Leave a comment:


  • Allcanadian
    replied
    @TA
    Space doesnt exist except as the byproduct of radiative fields (=polarization).
    Einstein, the SOB that he was, reified it, the fallacy of attribute reification.
    I'm not sure I would agree and prefer a simpler version. Space is a measure we use to rationalize distance and volume. As such saying it is a byproduct of radiative fields is like saying inches are also byproduct which is really no different than what Einstein did.

    Space and time are a measure of something and have no attributes, they are not byproducts of anything nor do they have properties or carry anything. We use time and space as measures to rationalize things which are tangible and if there is nothing tangible then they cease to exist. The trick to remember here is that we have created these things in our mind as a way to relate to our surroundings.

    I believe this is why most all of the greatest minds in our history spent a great deal of time outdoors. It keeps us grounded unlike those who spend their lives reading textbooks or searching the internet for answers creating their own little world which bears no resemblance to reality.
    Nature is simple, it does not need equations or complex terminology, it is what it is and does what it does regardless of what we believe.

    AC

    Leave a comment:


  • Danny B
    replied
    Evoligram

    A vid from the inventor of the voligram;
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXDXcXFhMnw

    Leave a comment:


  • TheoriaApophasis
    replied
    Originally posted by Allcanadian View Post
    Space is not empty deal with it.
    AC


    Space doesnt exist except as the byproduct of radiative fields (=polarization).


    Einstein, the SOB that he was, reified it, the fallacy of attribute reification.


    The Poincare' disk model is just a validation that that a 2D (point line, principle-attribute) model of dielectric inertia IN DISCHARGE , creates , resultantly, SPACE.

    Inertia, like "magnetism" are just BS false-relationship properties of human contrivances to CONNOTATE something we do not grasp in DENOTATION (what "IT" really is).


    But , youre right, idiots love to describe sh*t, but CANNOT explain it.

    Magnetism is the necessitated spatial expression of inertial loss of dielectricity which causes spatial reciprocation as the Ether modality of magnetism after which time it must terminate where dielectric voidance is lowest, centripetally on the other pole.


    Inertia is just the grounds, or KHORA (field-base) of the Ether in its highest potential OF WHICH disturbing same produces magnetism, electricity, and in stellar formations, nucleal fundamental particle (only 1).


    Inertia is a circle whose center is everywhere, and whose circumference is no-WHERE.....moving other Ether modalities in space and time, causes a "BREAKING" of the inertia and resultant byproducts, more magnetism, electricity, etc.












    Leave a comment:


  • Allcanadian
    replied
    I have found the term inertia to be a bit of an enigma because when I ask people "what is inertia" everyone tells me it is a resistance to motion or acceleration. I have always found their answers odd because it is like me asking them who is that man and they would reply my mothers brothers cousin the plumber. You see the question is never actually answered because I am asking "what is inertia" and everyone tells me what it does not what it is.

    In fact many scientific terms never answer the fundamental truths as to what something is and digress to a vague if not useless explanation of what something does. The easy answer is that it is not a scientific problem but a psychological one in that we see a force acting on an object however the force is not acting on the object in itself. Inertia is acting on every part of the object on the most fundamental level, a full spectrum external field acting on a singular field relating to every particle which constitutes the whole.

    The real problem here relates to the fact that the mind cannot grasp the simple concept that a simple mass represents billions if not trillions of individual fields relating to each particle and the force acts field on singular field. We know this and we are taught that every mass is made up of individual particles with individual fields fundamental to them however our mind will not let us see past the exterior of what our eyes tell us is present.

    Inertia is simple, space is full of an infinite number of wavelengths radiated from ever star which we call ...radiation or radiant energy. This electromagnetic energy does not couple to the object but every singular field of every singular part of the object. The reason every particle has a field is because it is induced by the external field... again nobody seems to have bothered to ask the question why does a particle actually have a field?....why?. A change in space ie.. acceleration produces a simple phase change between the induced field of the particle and the external field which produces a force which is really no harder to understand than lenz law.

    I don't mean to drag this on it just seems absurd that so many people who claim to be so intelligent cannot seem to apply simple logic concerning the things we already know....just connect the dots...is that so hard?.

    Space is not empty deal with it.

    AC
    Last edited by Allcanadian; 08-17-2014, 02:52 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Danny B
    replied
    Pdf

    Follow up for the curious. http://www.kathodos.com/magnetismsmall.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • Danny B
    replied
    Formulae and practicality

    You will notice that I posted no formulae of my own. I posted generally accepted formulae as a reference point. I’ve read much of the brilliant work of Raoul Hatem. That doesn't mean that I understand any of it. I replicated his work but, I don't have to understand any of his formula to do that. The Aspden effect is real. All that I'm interested in is taking advantage of it. My post is specifically to get others to think about the torque "advantages" related to reciprocating motion.
    There is a Chinese wind power company that cautions you NOT to use their wind-gen to pump water. They specifically state that their water pumping windmill will pump 5 times as much water as a wind-gen and electric pump combo. It reciprocates.
    The early steam and IC engines were well known for their VERY high torque. They all used long piston stroke and heavy flywheels. This very high torque was attributed to the moment-angle of the connecting rod at the time of ignition. I suspect that the Aspden effect plays a part in the high torque. In this vid of a tractor pull, you can hear the driver throttle back and then throttle up while pulling the sled. He had enough power that he wasn't depending just on flywheel momentum.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG0aJ6M1bD8

    While it is great that you have figured all of this out, I just want to build a low-input device with high output. All this formulae is over my head.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X