not overunity ;-)
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 1:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The Circular Magnetic Gradient
...
For those not following the action, Grimer got Sean McCarthy to admit
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
six power strokes per cycle (one every 30 degrees)
oops ...every 60 degrees instead of every 30 degree... but it doesn't
change the general drift of the suggestion
On 1/23/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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?
Well, as of today, I am officially under contract in addition to my
NDA; but,
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 23 Jan 2007 08:40:03 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
six power strokes per cycle (one every 30 degrees)
oops ...every 60 degrees instead of every 30 degree... but it doesn't
change the general drift of the suggestion
As well as multiplying the power strokes, you
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
six power strokes per cycle
As well as multiplying the power strokes, you also multiply the sticky points.
Yes, of course. I think you got almost there - to finding a glimmer of
the ultimate tactic to push this to the limit. What we need to add into
the
On 1/23/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
six power strokes per cycle
As well as multiplying the power strokes, you also multiply the sticky points.
Yes, of course. I think you got almost there - to finding a glimmer of
the ultimate tactic to push this to
7 matches
Mail list logo
