Terry Blanton wrote:
Precisely my conclusion last night.
Well, not to repeat the obvious, but that would eliminate the need for an electromagnet at all... correct?
... OTOH providing "just" a flywheel for continuity would not be enough unless it were geared way up -but- then friction of gearing would bite into any gain.
However ... if the single spiral was bifurcated so that you have two spiral ramps per every 360 degree revolution, and then at the same time, you use a rotor with three arms instead of two, then you will have six "power strokes" per cycle (one every 30 degrees) hopefully with no need for the electromagnet....
...as the ungeared flywheel can more easily push the arm through (a fraction of) 60 degrees unimpeded then through (the same fraction of) 180 degrees ??
This 'formula' obviously can be taken to the spatial limits of the circumference, with (x)ramps and (x+1) arms - so long as the rotor arm has more (or less) spokes then the number of ramps to provide an offset of the sticky-spot, but one suspects that if the 3/2 version of the formula does not work, then higher subdivisions will fail also...
The bottom line being that if there is OU potential it probably gets back to the Aspden effect (circular polarization of the aether) as much as it does for the extraction of energy from magnets. The magnets would just preserve the angular momentum of the initial mass, but the Aspden effect would effectively decrease the "friction" of aether, which is far more than air-friction apparently -- so that the net result would be self-power (but with little overage).
Hmm ... he muses .... what am I missing (other than 2LoT) and why didn't Aspden do this (other than he failed to report his failure)?
... or else he could not afford to spend (or could not find a source for) the necessary $5-10k worth (or whatever they must cost) of specialty NIBs...
Jones
