Re: is the magnetic field really moving?

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:34:56 -0500 Terry L Hewett Sr
<terrylhewettsr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
| 
| <phil-news-nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
| news:g8qarl3dag@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 15:00:51 -0500 Terry L Hewett Sr 
|> <terrylhewettsr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
|>
|> | <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.
|>
|> Is there an input of energy in some form?  What form?
| 
| No input or output. it is a closed system. There is only induction into
the 
| system. in short the electrical aperatus you are powering is induced
into 
| the system and becomes a part of the closed system. Maintaining system 
| integrity.

If there is no output of electricity, what good is it for me?  I'm looking
for ways to generate electricity.  I expect to obey the laws of physics,
such as the conservation of energy (which means I need to find an energy
source for input that is greater than I need in the form of electricity).


| With that said and should be understood that is under normal operating 
| conditions. There is a inital startup that would have to be from an
outside 
| source.

Sounds like an energy storage system with no way to extract.


|> I'm assuming the output of energy is electrical (a useful form), or one

|> that
|> could easily be converted to electrical.  If you can produce 100 watts
of
|> power continuously, how many joules per seconds of energy input is this
|> device getting?
| 
| 
| Again no input or output.

So how is it useful if I can get no energy out of it?


| Prepairing for the multitude of potential risks is more my worry. proper

| facilities are a must.
| When things go wrong they go horribly wrong post haste. think for a
minute 
| were toying with a frictionless mechanism that has the potential to meet
or 
| exceed any frequency of change we are aware of and probably many we
don't 
| know of or have benchmarked per say. Design variations may bring us to
this 
| point but for now it is not designed to approach a harmful range.

I don't see how this can be frictionless.  Even magnetic levitation has
some
drag (though less than a wheel).


|> | 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
|>
|> You have a patent, or have applied for one?
|>
|> Why do you put ! characters in URLs or file names?  Strange.
| 
| Not so strange. just a personal thing i do on occation. when considering
the 
| thousands of images one creates or use on websites it is simpler than
coding 
| or decoding something like this 7r90t21j65.jpg on a consistant basis
when 
| editing websites. It is also an indicator that the person viewing the 
| spacific range of images is a person of interest through website
statistics.

So what if you just left out the ! part and had:

http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/mechtrinket2.jpg

The reason I ask is that ! is a but more ***bersome for me.  The way I
collect and archive URLs manually is affected by the ! character because
in the path I apply the strings I save, the ! has a special meaning.  I
then need to manually insert the character \ ahead of the ! to force it
to bypass that special meaning.


| I sent out hundreds of emails with the images and text pertaining to
this 
| and other technology of mine. it is a way of seeing if they actually
viewed 
| the images or just discarded the email.

How does the ! part apply to that?


|> Maybe you can explain what it really does.
| 
| In short sustain the dipole of the storage mechanism.

So it is an energy storage system?


|> |> 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.
|>
|> Huh?  I can't figure out much from the web site and photos and
drawings.
|>
|> For example, for all magnets, you should show the field orientation of
the
|> magnets in a drawing, or added to a photo.
|>
| 
| Ok i need a key on some images and my communication skills are fairly 
| minimal. It would be much easier if i was of academia or if i could
express 
| it in mathematical terms. However that is not the case. I'm a
unaccredited 
| benchtop inventor who's invention has drawn me into the very heart of 
| natural physics. Seemingly challenging science physics on several
levels. 
| That's not to say that my own understanding hasn't been challenged over
the 
| course of a decade or two.

I think you and I are in about the same boat, but just pursuing rather
different ideas (and goals).


| I allready told you it works. What's more im****tant, that mankind
understand 
| the very basis of natural physics, or terry selfishly worry about lining
his 
| pockets with cash? However don't assume i havn't took measures to
protect my 
| interests.

Well, I don't understand it.

If you can get someone to hand over money for it, that's your business.


| In all realities i never had money, i don't have money and it is likely
i 
| will never have money.
| I will probably die two weeks before my technology is realized. Adding
my 
| name to the list of dead inventors that never lived to see their
greatness. 
| Effectively robbing mankind of the oppertunity of any real understanding
of 
| the concept through the inventors eyes. Why should i be any different?
hell 
| einstien gave several lectures on e=mc2 and it still isn't fully
understood. 
| there are volumes of text on gravity and we as a commonwealth of
knowledge 
| still don't have a clue.

Maybe the understanding of it will be limited to your eyes.  I know I do
not
understand it.


| The truth is that natural physics closely guards it's secrets by non 
| disclosure. If we want to know those secrets we have to discover them.
In 
| many cases we have discovered some key bits of information and academia
has 
| did a wonderful job of catagorizing them into se****ate fields of study.
That 
| is a err natural physics would be better understood if academia
recognized 
| that natural physics encomp***** everything in the universe and each is 
| relevant to each other equally. 

Grand unified theory of everything?

-- 
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked.  Due to
ignorance |
|         by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked.  If you post
to  |
|         Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP.    
   |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at
ipal.net) |