🚀 go-pugleaf

janpajak@gmail.com wrote:

> On Mar 1, 9:05 am, Anthony Matonak
> <anthony...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
> ...
> > Think of the gearing required to go from 1 revolution per day to
> > whatever is required for your electrical generation. A typical
> > generator works at thousands of revolutions per minute. Even if
> > your generator works as slow as 100 rpm, you're looking at a
> > gear ratio of 144,000/1. Friction in the gears would probably
> > consume all your power.
> >
> > Think of the scale of such a device. You would need something the
> > size of a mountain, spinning, to generate anything significant.
> >
> > Taking this to the extreme, you're slowing down the rotation of
> > the Earth to power the device. What if everyone did this? If you
> > thought global warming was bad, think of global slowing!
> >
> > Anthony
> 
> 
> YES, I am aware that this particular principle is NOT going to provide
> much energy. I am also aware that the friction on the gearbox will
> consume a significant proportion of the propelling momentum that the
> flywheel is going to produce. This is why I mailny indicate this
> device as a visual proof that science is wrong about the perpetual
> motion devices, not as a so-called "free energy device". However, once
> we have a visual proof which everyone can see, people will have a
> courage to look for other principles which will not only work
> perpetually, but will also generate an abundance of free energy. These
> other principles involve telekinesis (which is a reversal of
> friction), as a technically induced telekinesis allows to form a
> feedback loop in such devices, means it allows that a part of the
> output energy that their perpetual motion generates is feed back to
> them as an input energy that propells their movements. Some of such
> devices based on the telekinetic effect are described on totaliztic
> web pages "free energy.htm", "boiler.htm", and "fe cell.htm" (to see
> any of these web pages, in addresses provided before one needs to
> replace the name "wszewilki jutra uk.htm" with the name of the web
> page, e.g. "boiler.htm", which he or she wishes to see).
> 
> When slowing down of the Earths motion is concerned, if the Earth
> could be slowed down then already long ago would slow it the friction
> caused by tidal waves induced by the moon, by winds, ocean currents,
> etc. The fact that the earth is NOT slowing down proves, that our
> plated is actually propelled by something in its rotation. This
> invisible propulsion causes that whatever we humans would do, our
> planet will be rotating at the same speed (unles this propelling
> effect is changes). What actually propells the Earth, it is explained
> by the "theory of everything" called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity
> (to have a look at summary of this theory one needs to see the
> totaliztic web page "dipolar gravity.htm").
> 
> In spite that thyere is a lot of enemies of the wheel discussed here,
> I do hope that someone, or some museum, finances or makes it
> constructed, so that it proves to people who thing that thay know
> everything, that is "much more on heaven and earth than philosophers
> dreamed about". One of such matters is this flywheel, which if slanted
> at a correct angle towards the Earth surface, will revolve
> infinitively long. Probably the only reason why this wheel was NOT
> constructed by accident as yet, is that it requires slanting in
> relationship to the Earth's surface, so that the axis of rotation of
> it is parallel to the Earth's axis of rotation. This slanting is quite
> significant, because for example for the area of Poland it is equal to
> 49 to 55 degrees - depending on the exact location of the area in
> which this flywheel is to be assembled.
> 
> How exatly one should approach the construction of this flywheel (e.g.
> from an old locomotive wheel), I am just describing it at the newest
> update of the totaliztic web page "free energy.htm". Perhaps in my
> next comments I will explain the most vital points of thie
> construction.
> 
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak

This was discussed on sci.physics a few years ago, if my memory serves
me right.

Also, in 1994 Rodger C. Finvold and Paul E. Humphrey managed to get a
patent on this obvious technology:

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5313850-claims.html

S.