Re: is the magnetic field really moving?

<phil-news-nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:g8nbas2irp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:42:37 -0500
>
> Are you saying this technology makes energy from nothing?

Not what I'm saying at all. However i am saying that this technology uses 
well known and currently applied mechanical interractions to a new
mechanism 
that has the potential to transform energy in a cyclic manner for a very 
long time with little or no losses.


 If so, I want to
> see some proof.  That _may_ be in the form of construction details clear
> enough to actually construct it.  What your web page showed is far from 
> it.
> Alternatively, show me all the materials used to construct it so I can
see
> that no energy storage device (battery, for example, or fuel) is
involved,
> and no otherwise consumable material is involved (unless it's as cheap
as
> dirt and doesn't require a lot).

You will NEVER remove the storage mechanism from any mechanism man made or

occuring naturally. In the case of the SRTT it is flywheel energy as a 
storage mechanism. in fact the polar arrangement of the multipole toroid 
armature and the multipole belt are a looped dipole arrangement. the SRTT 
uses this arrangement for storage. The unnamed invention i refer to as a 
mechanical trinket doesn't use this dipole arrangement for storage. It
does 
use a battery bank wired in such a manner that the battery bank is 
essentially a low pass filter.

I wouldn't suggest that just anyone build the SRTT as i have built
prototype 
#6 (multipart). It is designed as a ONE PIECE toroid armature. The
multipart 
construction is the equivilent of a unique fragmentation device. You DON"T

have my permission to toy with this technology in any other capacity than
to 
contemplate  it's workings. However if you take it upon yourself to
actually 
build a prototype of the SRTT i cannot be held responsible for loss of
life 
or limb.


If you want to experiment with the following technology feel free to. Just

don't forget who you got it from, I want proper noteriety and a copy of
your 
works. It would be in err to assume that your going to manufacture without

my express knowledge and cooperation.  I feel it is safer at this point as
a 
multipart construction.
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!mechtrinket2.jpg

I am currently building prototype #1. it will likely have a hand crank 
instead of a low volt dc motor and controller. the multipart belt is a
pain 
trying to get the rubber spacers precisely cut uniformly. i have made a
jig 
for this however 1 in 10 p***** my quality control.

I cannot stress enough that my inventions are *multifarious* in a
multitude 
of ways. Scale is a primary consideration. small is good in this
particular 
mechanism for it's potential application. Allthough this mechanism is
using 
the same multipole configuration as the SRTT it is not dependent on rigid 
spinning mass to drive the multiple flux fields through the induction
coils 
cyclic.




> Then construct it in isolation that prevents
> access to any other material or parts (if you want to hide from me how
it 
> is
> built).

I'm not bieng carr here in any way. it should be pretty apparent what 
materials and parts are used.


> Then show me how much power it produces, and lets run it for a month
> and see how much energy it can produce.
>

Untill i can implement design spacific componants or computer modeling the

SRTT is at a stand still in research and developement.

> Otherwise, such a claim gets classified as the quackery it seems to be.
>
> -- 

Bah!