For your info:
Harold Aspden had a stroke, and is unable to maintain his websites. An engineering student has met Harold and his wife and has set up a website containing Harold's writings, etc, so they don't disappear. It's now at
http://haroldaspden.com/index.htm
I'm very relieved that he is still with us, his work is of paramount importance.
Thank you for sharing this info.
Chet
Yes. Thank you.
No disrespect, but:
This comment was on the website:
can no longer pursue his work with the tenacity and vigour he did throughout his life.
One never knows what a change can bring. Harold wrote fascinating papers which should stir the dreams of the reader.
Forgive me if this is too bold.
reading further, it also states that:
Wendy then asked if I could help her ensure Harold's websites -which due to their troubles had not been maintained
I'm wondering if CD's or DVD's might be made of this info and sold for a small fee, or given away. Long ago I could see troubles like this coming, so I archived everything for myself. This information is too valuable to vanish.
Maybe even donations to maintain the websites are in order ?
Quote from: fgleich on September 20, 2010, 07:22:30 PM
For your info:
Harold Aspden had a stroke, and is unable to maintain his websites. An engineering student has met Harold and his wife and has set up a website containing Harold's writings, etc, so they don't disappear. It's now at
http://haroldaspden.com/index.htm
I'm very relieved that he is still with us, his work is of paramount importance.
Hi dear
fgleich. Thank you for posting this info about the health status of the elderly Dr. Harold Aspden; and also for sharing the address of the new site kept by a devoted engineering student: http://haroldaspden.com/index.htm
I do truly agree with your words about Dr. Aspden's lifetime vast work in the physics and cosmology fields.
From my viewpoint, he is the leading PIONEER of a more advanced phase of Science at hand; the following was an earlier attempt to make this fact publicly known 'urbi et orbi': Harold Aspden @PESWiki (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Harold_Aspden).
What do you make of: this obnoxious engagement request to the University of Southampton by a Dr. D. Fisher (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/engagement_of_dr_harold_aaspden#outgoing-67603)? Is it the same Dr. Fisher, David, that Dr. Aspden mentions at the Energy Science Report No. 10 (http://www.aspden.org/reports/Es10/esr10.pdf) (page 3 partially quoted beneath)?
If so, doesn't it appear to be the start of an outrageous personal attack to the reputation of the retired Dr. Aspden when they (Fisher et al) seem to have been unable in the past to provide the necessary counter-arguments from their professional field to attempt to refute the solid foundations and logic conclusions of Dr. Aspden's work; or am i misreading it? (English is not my mothertongue)
Course of action?
Thank you for your attention.
Cheers.
Quote
Yet, as I say, since the basis of electrical science is founded on electrical activity seated in electrons and
our body fluids involve activity seated in ions that are very much heavier than electrons, there is reason
for doubt.
Now, the stimulus for writing the text of this introductory essay of this Report No. 10 comes from a
Letter to the Editor in the July/August 1996 issue of Electronics World (page 590). It was authored by Dr.
David Fisher of Cardiff in Wales and was a declaration framed in an accusative context directed at
anyone who believes in 'anti-gravity and perpetual motion (free energy)' with the finger pointed in my
direction. Quoting from it:
"I was, in fact, thinking of Dr. Aspden who, readers will recall, believes in this nonsense and has also
proposed a 'cyclotron' theory in order to 'explain' the so-called link between electromagnetic fields and
disease."
This was probably a result of an article of mine published by Electronics and Wireless World, pp. 29-31
(1989). It was entitled 'Anti-Gravity Electronics'.
The latter article had also attracted similar criticism, expressing doubts as to my wisdom as a
professionally qualified physicist, for my views on the gravity theme. My attacker was C. Hellingman
writing in Physics Education, 27, 112-115 (1992). In rallying to defend my case I wrote another article
which was published by the Institute of Physics in U.K. in that same periodical, Physics Education, 28,
202-203 (1993). It was entitled 'The Law of Perpetual Motion'. As to my `cyclotron' subject that had
featured in an earlier article of mine in EWWW, pp. 774-775 (September 1991). The title of that article
was 'Power Lines, Cancer and Cyclotron Resonance'. Note that EWWW, or Electronics World +
Wireless World, represents a staged period of gradual transition as the publishers of Wireless World
decided to rename their periodical Electronics World. I am tempted to note here that the word `wireless'
has gone out of fashion, along with the word 'aether', but remind you that Nature still needs the aether to
sustain those wireless waves and no amount of electronics can eradicate its existence!
-- Dr. Harold Aspden in Energy Science Report No. 10 (http://www.aspden.org/reports/Es10/esr10.pdf), 1997
@ fgleich, Thank you for the update on Dr Aspen & posting his web site.
Quote from: fgleich on September 21, 2010, 05:18:51 PM
I'm wondering if CD's or DVD's
might be made of this info
and sold for a small fee,
or given away.
Giuseppe Filotto is the person
that has taken on the task of
re-presenting Harold's work
on a dedicated website URL.
I have written him for permission
to maintain a regular website backup
in an offline viewable format instead,
that is stored in a single file archive.
It is simple to do,
and extremely small too
due to being mostly text.
31.9-KB (32,712 bytes)
Here is a test example
of this website as an
offline viewable archive:
It was packed with Win-RAR,
and has a large recovery record.
If he elects to say no,
I'll have to delete this...
The links of the offline set are
relative for local pages,
and absolute for external pages.
So you can still read this offline,
but external links to other websites
still work properly when online.
There are people here
on dial-up connections,
that choice was for them...
I included a single folder backup too,
of each page as HTML for browsers
renamed as the pages they represent.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=448
Quote from: fgleich on September 21, 2010, 05:18:51 PM
Maybe even donations to maintain the websites are in order ?
I searched his wensite for the terms
"Donate" and "Donations"
I'm sure they'd be welcome though,
I wrote him a second note about that.
I'll post a PayPal address if he gives me one,
or indicate he will add a "Donate" button.
Giuseppe is a wonderful person,
he has agreed to a free release
of a backup of his website now.
He will additionally get confirmation
from the family about long-run backups
of all changes and updates/changes.
That will be late January though,
as he is off to be married right now
on another continent (With a vacation).
He will address the donation aspect then too.
I wanted to say something about an experiment I'm doing that is based a lot on ideas from some of Harolds experiment pamphlets, specifically one in which he describes a certain type of motor. The basic principal which makes it work is being able to switch the flux path, and in that way, to extract energy over and above what you put into the system. This is possible because the medium the machine is immersed in supplies all the extra energy. There are other things happening, like, for instance, magnetic fields that are inherent in the material, that university trained engineers scratch their heads about wondering how and where they come from. But, if you read Harolds stuff, you'll know the answer to that question.
Now, the experiment I'm doing ( one of them, anyway ), is a replication of Thane Heins, a video of which is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVYiT4zK9Kc
This can be possible because of the magnetic fields that are set in motion by sympathy next to the driven part. I am saying here that part of the secondary magnetic field is driven by the primary, and part of the secondary magnetic field is induced by that driven field. Right at this point in time, it's unclear what the math needs to be to calculate everything, but it can be worked out by experiment for right now. I'll post pictures and results when I get time.
The extended vacation with a wedding attached
for the website operator of HaroldAspden.com
named Giuseppe Filotto has successfully come to a completion.
As such,
my request for him ask permission from the family of Harold Aspen,
specifically Wendy Aspden (His wife) for the right to mirror
the website as an archive file has been asked and answered.
Plainly put,
we may all mirror and re-present his work as long as we
give proper due credit to Harold for the work presented of course.
I already have a single file archive in a post above,
I'll wait about a month for the website to be fully updated,
and do another archive backup, and delete the older one.
******************************
Below is my incoming email Wed 02-16-11:
Hello again Paul,
I have just got off the phone with Wendy Aspden,
and have asked her about your wish to distribute
Harold's work more widely on the net.
She has expressed her wishes to me that you do this
as much as you like and so should anyone else
who has the inclination to do so.
She only asked that Harold (her husband)
get credit for his work if someone uses it in some way,
be it to advance theory or in practical applications.
I am also in the process of going through a few more
of his papers and files so as to make the information
on the current site we have as complete as possible
and please, feel free to mirror it all over the internet.
Thank you also for the very kind post
I saw you had put up in the forum
(which I haven't visited in along time now,
as I have so little time I seriously need one of you boys
to build a temporal stasis machine.
Come on guys, we all know anti-gravity machines
slow time down to nil when you use them to wormhole...,
I just need use of a little spaceship a few times a year...)
I hope all is well with you and wish you a very belated happy 2011.
Giuseppe
Quote from: fgleich on September 21, 2010, 05:18:51 PM
Long ago I could see troubles like this coming,
so I archived everything for myself.
Do you think you may have backed up something
not currently on the HaroldAspen.com backup website
to contribute to this final website archival update ?
http://haroldaspden.com/index.htm
It is stated:
"Harold Aspden is a brilliant theoretical physicist, electrical engineer and inventor".
Unfortunately his theory is not supported by a single one duplicable working experiment, with expected results differing from what conventional science predicts.
If you have experimented like me his resonant double-capacitor or tri-axial capacitor, you must have come to the conclusion that he is a crackpot. Like Bearden: not physics but overdone verbiage in fuzzy layman terms, no accuracy, no quantified fact, nothing to observe.
Such a wonderful ray of sunshine.
You are welcome to your opinion of course,
I don't have one on this matter actually,
I'm just trying to help keep data from fading away...
For seeing the sunshine, don't look at obscurantism.
:)
Quote from: exnihiloest on February 17, 2011, 03:11:47 AM
http://haroldaspden.com/index.htm
It is stated:
"Harold Aspden is a brilliant theoretical physicist, electrical engineer and inventor".
Unfortunately his theory is not supported by a single one duplicable working experiment, with expected results differing from what conventional science predicts.
If you have experimented like me his resonant double-capacitor or tri-axial capacitor, you must have come to the conclusion that he is a crackpot. Like Bearden: not physics but overdone verbiage in fuzzy layman terms, no accuracy, no quantified fact, nothing to observe.
FFS, the guy has a stroke and you want to grandstand. You really are a low life pompous git.
Quote from: exnihiloest on February 18, 2011, 05:47:04 AM
For seeing the sunshine, don't look at obscurantism.
:)
Are you serious, dude, wow
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on February 18, 2011, 05:13:39 PM
FFS, the guy has a stroke and you want to grandstand. You really are a low life pompous git.
Insults don't change anything about crackpots verbiage whose uselessness and void is obviously not detected by unskilled people.
Those who measure the truth of theories with the sickness of their authors, are simply absolute jerks.
Quote from: CompuTutor on February 19, 2011, 01:39:15 AM
Are you serious, dude, wow
No confirmed observation of anomalies, no prediction of new facts, no experiments that work.
It looks like science, it has words from science, it has the taste of science, but it's not science.
Quote from: exnihiloest on February 17, 2011, 03:11:47 AM
http://haroldaspden.com/index.htm
It is stated:
"Harold Aspden is a brilliant theoretical physicist, electrical engineer and inventor".
Unfortunately his theory is not supported by a single one duplicable working experiment, with expected results differing from what conventional science predicts.
If you have experimented like me his resonant double-capacitor or tri-axial capacitor, you must have come to the conclusion that he is a crackpot. Like Bearden: not physics but overdone verbiage in fuzzy layman terms, no accuracy, no quantified fact, nothing to observe.
I also have to agree here. Anyone who publicly formulates a theory or design should have a working model to back his claims up. Why can't guys like Bearden, Aspden and Lindemann display a simple working model of their "overunity" theories? They claim to have impressive academic credentials, and years of study and experience in the field, but somehow fail to deliver the goods.
If these guys are really who they claim to be, where's the proof? If a guy can write a book and get it published, he can certainly build a small working model of his theories. Bearden claims the MEG works, but that's BS. I've built a lot of MEGS and none of them work. The MEG is a red herring. I haven't heard of anyone else getting one to work either, except Nauden, which I find highly suspicious.
I've also tried to get Aspden's theories to work without any success. These guys are all talk and no substance. If you doubt me try and get one of their theories to actually work.
If I ever claim that something works you can be damn sure I've built and tested it first. I'll have pictures, diagrams or a video, and a full explanation of exactly what I've done. I will also be happy to answer questions or to assist anyone who wants to try and replicate my claims. That's how it should be. Anything less is unacceptable.
We should never be reluctant to demand proof of any claim.
Ted
Quote from: Ted Ewert on February 19, 2011, 11:55:54 AM
We should never be reluctant to demand proof of any claim.
Ted
demanding makes you sounds a bit like an impetuous child, requesting would be more appropriate. that being said, there are far too few people even requesting proof of lindemann, bearden, etc. and that is why they are still in business and will continue to be...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 19, 2011, 12:59:07 PM
demanding makes you sounds a bit like an impetuous child, requesting would be more appropriate. that being said, there are far too few people even requesting proof of lindemann, bearden, etc. and that is why they are still in business and will continue to be...
The point is that these clowns are frauds and need to be exposed. They baffle people with their BS by using vague technical jargon and acting like they're exposing some big secret. The reality is that they aren't revealing anything of value. They won't tell you how to build a device which generates any meaningful amount of energy. They won't explain to you how to produce any real power with all that "energy from the vacuum". All they do is produce copious quantities of BS from the vacuum, which they then turn around and sell in books and DVDs. It's all crap yet these guys are revered and respected in the community.
I can say this because I got sucked in too, initially. The difference is that I actually built a lot of their devices, and tried out their theories, and found out that even though they sounded good, they didn't work at all. I spent a lot of time and money to find out the hard way that these guys are phonies.
No, I don't think demanding proof is impetuous or childish at all. With all the con men and disinformation in this field it's the least we can do.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 19, 2011, 12:59:07 PM
demanding makes you sounds a bit like an impetuous child, requesting would be more appropriate.
...
It sounds like a speech of a priest reproaching to his flock of asking a proof of god:
"My childish sons, you must believe and keep faith. In order your faith not to be deceived, don't ask questions, don't demand evidence, don't use your mind, don't use reason, remain blind!" ;D
Hey guys, we are not in a sect!
Excellent Points Ted.
I sure know what you mean.
.
Quote from: exnihiloest on February 20, 2011, 06:26:44 AM
It sounds like a speech of a priest reproaching to his flock of asking a proof of god:
"My childish sons, you must believe and keep faith. In order your faith not to be deceived, don't ask questions, don't demand evidence, don't use your mind, don't use reason, remain blind!" ;D
Hey guys, we are not in a sect!
your response does not address my post whatsoever... ::) i never said anything about "keeping the faith" or "don't ask questions" or "don't use reason, remain blind" this is nothing but pure hyperbole wrapped up in a nice red herring. i said, "demanding makes you sound like an impetuous child". that being said, go ahead demand all day and all night, see if you put them out of business... ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 20, 2011, 09:11:51 AM
your response does not address my post whatsoever... ::)
...
It does.
The emptiness of experimental observations in favor of Aspen's theories leads to conclude that he has theories that explain... no facts!
By confusing a critical mind asking for evidence, with caprices, you ignore what is scientific methodology and I'm afraid that you are not conscious of the religious mood of your behavior.
Quote from: exnihiloest on February 21, 2011, 02:54:00 AM
It does.
The emptiness of experimental observations in favor of Aspen's theories leads to conclude that he has theories that explain... no facts!
By confusing a critical mind asking for evidence, with caprices, you ignore what is scientific methodology and I'm afraid that you are not conscious of the religious mood of your behavior.
no, it doesn't... ::)
i said. and i quote: "demanding makes you sounds a bit like an impetuous child, requesting would be more appropriate." and you are going off on something irrelevant to what i posted, while quoting me. ::) ie: i am not talking about his theories, whatever your opinion is on them. i am talking about the simple fact that
demanding anything from anyone makes you sound a bit like an impetuous child... furthermore, my post had no "religious mood" to it whatsoever... i never mentioned religion in any form at all. that is just more of your patently false hyperbole. ::)
tu stultus es. q.e.d.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 21, 2011, 07:38:25 PM
...
i am talking about the simple fact that demanding anything from anyone makes you sound a bit like an impetuous child...
...
Your remark was off topic. And it is exactly what I said: you are confusing the scientific method requiring evidence, with reactions of "impetuous child".
Normally we would not even have to ask evidence. It should be already provided in the theory, as we can see it when we read Einstein's 1905 paper about relativity. It is the difference between a genius like Einstein and a crackpot like Aspden.
If you see a scientist requiring evidence, as an "impetuous child", the problem is on your side. It is not a "fact" but just a biased view and a subjective and psychological digression. To put it in bold doesn't change anything. Evidence requirement is the only way to make progress in science.
All progress comes from questions, even from scientists themselves. To ask proofs doesn't make the enquirer an "impetious child". We have not to accept what is asserted as a religious indisputable matter.
Science succeeds in convincing the skeptics thanks to experimental and logical evidence. If people as Aspden, Bearden and others totally fail, having only unskilled people as followers, the reason is that they don't make science but gibberish.
Quote from: exnihiloest on February 22, 2011, 03:41:34 AM
Your remark was off topic. And it is exactly what I said: you are confusing the scientific method requiring evidence, with reactions of "impetuous child".
Normally we would not even have to ask evidence. It should be already provided in the theory, as we can see it when we read Einstein's 1905 paper about relativity. It is the difference between a genius like Einstein and a crackpot like Aspden.
If you see a scientist requiring evidence, as an "impetuous child", the problem is on your side. It is not a "fact" but just a biased view and a subjective and psychological digression. To put it in bold doesn't change anything. Evidence requirement is the only way to make progress in science.
All progress comes from questions, even from scientists themselves. To ask proofs doesn't make the enquirer an "impetious child". We have not to accept what is asserted as a religious indisputable matter.
Science succeeds in convincing the skeptics thanks to experimental and logical evidence. If people as Aspden, Bearden and others totally fail, having only unskilled people as followers, the reason is that they don't make science but gibberish.
no, it was not. i responded to a specific comment by ted... i wasn't even speaking to you moron. i haven't confused anything with the scientific method... i have merely stated that demanding anything makes you sound like an impetuous child, which it does. if you don't like it, go cry to your mommy... ::) in point of fact, scientific method has no "requirement" for demanding... if evidences are not forthwith, the idea or theory is usually dismissed. which, by the way is something you can't seem to manage or you wouldn't be going on and on about bearden, aspden, et al... ::) tu stultus es... q.e.d.
you weren't taking about "asking" for proof... you were talking about demanding it... ::) again tu stultus es... q.e.d.
as an aside, einstein wasn't a genius, he was a plagiarist. and his theory is wrong...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 22, 2011, 05:07:43 AM
no, it was not. i responded to a specific comment by ted... i wasn't even speaking to you moron. i haven't confused anything with the scientific method... i have merely stated that demanding anything makes you sound like an impetuous child, which it does. if you don't like it, go cry to your mommy... ::) in point of fact, scientific method has no "requirement" for demanding... if evidences are not forthwith, the idea or theory is usually dismissed. which, by the way is something you can't seem to manage or you wouldn't be going on and on about bearden, aspden, et al... ::) tu stultus es... q.e.d.
you weren't taking about "asking" for proof... you were talking about demanding it... ::) again tu stultus es... q.e.d.
blah blah blah
Quote
as an aside, einstein wasn't a genius, he was a plagiarist.
Therefore you ignore not only the scientific methodology, but also science history...
Quote
and his theory is wrong...
...and science.
When I read your mention about Einstein, I got the mental image of a pug pissing at the foot of a cathedral.
Quote from: exnihiloest on February 23, 2011, 03:38:17 AM
blah blah blah
you respond with a logical fallacy... imagine that. ::)
Quote from: exnihiloest on February 23, 2011, 03:38:17 AM
Therefore you ignore not only the scientific methodology, but also science history...
...and science.
actually you might want to look at history... ::) and the still outstanding refutations of einstein. it's a hypothesis, nothing more. it hasn't been proven. it is a popular hypothesis simply because eddington put his authority and gravitas behind it... ::)
Quote from: exnihiloest on February 23, 2011, 03:38:17 AM
When I read your mention about Einstein, I got the mental image of a pug pissing at the foot of a cathedral.
and when i read your deification of einstein, i had the mental image of a precocious blind fool presuming to be an authority... ::)
rutherford knew it (relativity) was nonsense...
and see c.l. poor. in 1922,'26 & '30 he gave unassailable refutations of the claims of eddington. i.e., that observations of the 1919 south american solar eclipse confirmed einstein's predicted gravitational attraction of light. (poor also documents a similar situation existing with the 1922 west australian eclipse and the claims of campbell & trumpler.)
and herbert dingle's (former president of the r.a.s.) 'science at the crossroads'. that book alone is sufficient to refute the whole gamut of einstein's relativity, both the theory itself and the presumed observational and experimental evidence for it.
and louis essen (he refutes the claim that atomic clocks flown around the world confirmed einstein's "shortening of time" with motion, and he invented the atomic clock...) he stated 1) "einstein's theory of relativity is invalidated by its internal errors", 2) "einstein's use of a thought experiment, together with his ignorance of experimental techniques, gave a result which fooled himself and generations of scientists", 3) "claims frequently made that the theory is supported by experimental evidence do not withstand a close scrutiny"; and in closing he remarks, "insofar as the theory is thought to explain the result of the michelson-morley experiment i am inclined to agree with soddy that it is a swindle; and i do not think rutherford would have regarded it as a joke [as said in 1954] had he realised how it would retard the rational development of science".
ad infinitum, ad nauseam... ::)
Quote from: exnihiloest on February 17, 2011, 03:11:47 AM
If you have experimented like me his resonant double-capacitor or tri-axial capacitor, you must have come to the conclusion that he is a crackpot.
Would you share some of the info from your experiments like cylinder dimensions, voltages, frequencies, and loads tested?
Quote from: Ted Ewert on February 19, 2011, 11:55:54 AM
I've also tried to get Aspden's theories to work without any success.
Would share some info on your experiments like cylinder dimensions, voltages, frequencies and loads tested?
Here's the reason I asked about experiment parameters.
It has been tickling my brain for a couple of days now that I have seen Aspden's tri-plate device somewhere else in my explorations and it came to me last night that it was in a Tesla patent.
The "Wardencylffe" Patent 1,119,732 has the following text: "The coil B is wound on a frame or drum D1 of insulating material, with its turns close together. I have discovered that when so wound the effect of the small radius of curvature of the wire itself is overcome and the coil behaves as a conductor of large radius of curvature, corresponding to that of the drum [a cylinder]. This feature is of considerable practical importance and is applicable not only in this special instance, but generally. For example, such plates at P P of terminal D, though preferably of large radius of curvature, need not be necessarily so, for provided only that the individual plates or elements of a high potential conductor or terminal are arranged in proximity to each other and with their outer boundaries along an ideal symmetrical enveloping surface of a large radius of curvature, the advantages of the invention will be more or less fully realized. The lower end of the coil B—which, if desired, may be extended up to the terminal D—should be somewhat below the uppermost turn of coil A."
Meaning that coils A, B, and C can be looked at as three cylinders, coil B only slightly protruding into coil A.
Hi, I'm fgleich, the original poster of this thread. I lost my email account, and forgot my password here and was never able to get back into the fgleich account, so I have this new account. I wish to point out a few things about the material on the Aspden website. There is an experiment that he had done that shows without a doubt the extra energy. It is the experiment titled 'Power from Magnetism' and the url is:
www.haroldaspden.com/reports/01.htm
Here, he winds a search coil on a common transformer and calculates the total flux energy and then compares it with the measured input energy. A person can do the calculations themselves to follow along. I've done it, and there is a difference. Further, if you read Aspden's PhD thesis, he shows a disparity between observed and theoretical energy in transformers under operation. Before I made any snap judgements, I would spend more time going through the web site and understanding exactly what is going on.
Thank you :)
Great article. ;) Thanks
Mags
There's an enormous amount of information on that website. Aspden posited a number of things, and had also a lot of very clear concise theories. Here's a link to the PhD thesis thing I had mentioned:
www.haroldaspden.com/lectures/19.htm
I'll be posting more soon :)
I also forgot to mention that Aspden's prediction of rotation caused strictly by electrostatic forces has been experimentally verified many years ago by wistrom and chatakouian at the university of riverside in california. I can't remember the exact year, around 2004 or something like that. I found the link:
http://newsroom.ucr.edu/548
looks like it was done in 2003. Wistrom worked at LANL in New Mexico for a time, I believe. Anyway, in one of Aspden's books, he goes through a discourse and arrives at the rotation effect due to the electrostatic charges. I don't remember which book it's in, but I recommend reading all his material.
Please let me know your thoughts and experimental efforts on this.
Thank you !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR4u9iu2Cvs
http://brianwrex.blogspot.in/2009/10/harold-aspdens-triaxial-capacitor.html
The above two people have experimented with Aspden aether generator and failed. I have no idea of the parameters under which it should be possible to activate "aether" to act as per the theory of Aspden. However it would be quite interesting to note what would be the resonant characteristics of the simplest circuit proposed by Aspden given under. What should be the capacitance and inductance of the air capacitors and coils ? What type of input power to be provided .... DC pulsed, what voltages and pulse rates..etc etc.
I would request some senior members who have a good knowledge of tank circuit behaviour to please comment on it.
Best
http://www.google.co.in/imgres?safe=off&sa=X&biw=1280&bih=800&tbm=isch&tbnid=evKhKEau92RrEM:&imgrefurl=http://frienergi.alternativkanalen.com/Chapt11.html&docid=hKevMQLHuCKQcM&imgurl=http://frienergi.alternativkanalen.com/Chapt11_filer/Fig3.gif&w=467&h=284&ei=SLgEU4ubIof-rAe714DoBQ&zoom=1
I am yet not considering him a crackpot coz I have not conducted any experiments so far.