Re: is the magnetic field really moving?

"Salmon Egg" <SalmonEgg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:SalmonEgg-6EF70F.20534720082008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <g8im5p$nna$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> "Terry L Hewett Sr" <terrylhewettsr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> "Salmon Egg" <SalmonEgg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> > Think of force being analogous to voltage with displacement distance
>> > being analogous to current. That is why a transformer is the
electrical
>> > equivalent of a lever.
>> >
>> > Bill
> I really should have used "rate of change of displacement" as the analog
> of current. That is, mechanical impedance is force divided by velocity.
> Levers and gear boxes are mechanical impedance transformers just as
> electrical transformers are electrical impedance transformers.
>

Agreed

>>
>> Agreed on the lever thing. That would make the fulcrum of this lever
the
>> flux?
>
> Why is a fulcrum necessary? If you must have one for an electrical
> transformer, think of a core.

A lever must have a fulcrum to be a lever. I'm going to stick with my
first 
assumption of flux. the core is more the lever than the fulcrum.


>
>> I do mean transformer spacifically in reference to my invention SRTT.
For
>> the better part it was designed for the sole purpose of transforming 
>> energy
>> from elec to kinetic to elec to kinetic to elec to kinetic to elec
cyclic
>> for infinity or until acted upon by a outside source.  It is a closed 
>> system
>> of transformations. However i suspect that closed is used as a loose 
>> term.
>> componants needing the elec produced such as independent circuitry are
>> simply induced into the system and welcomed as part of the system.
>
> "Transformer" can be too ambiguous a term because of its many meanings
> as "comverter can be.
>
> Bill

Understood. however there are few differences between transform and
convert. 
Terminology is the only real difference other than what the identity is of

what is bieng transformed or converted.