Re: is the magnetic field really moving?

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:35:06 -0500 Terry L Hewett Sr
<terrylhewettsr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
| 
| <phil-news-nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
| news:g9253n02khd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:13:09 -0500 Terry L Hewett Sr 
|> <terrylhewettsr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
|>
|> | It is a closed system. there is nothing outside of the system. The 
|> primary
|>
|> So I can't take power out of this device to use it somewhere?
| 
| think of it like a box full of energy in whatever form you need. the
energy 
| refuses to leave the box it is happy there. anything you can put into
the 
| box will be powered as it needs.

That sounds utterly useless.  I can't think of anything I use that uses
electricity that can be put inside of some box.  These appliances get
their electricity by means of a pair of wires connected to some source
of electricity.

How does energy get into this box in the first place?  What good is it if
the energy stays in the box and never comes out?


|> What do you mean by "riding piggyback"?
| 
| something that is riding on the back of something else.
| when an authorized person allows (intentionally or unintentionally)
others 
| to pass through a secure door

And this means what in the context of your power/enery device?


|> Can I use it to run my computers?  TV?  Lights?  Electric stove? 
Electric
|> hot water heater?
|>
| 
| Yes. Each one would require a mechanism designed to meet each appliances

| needs.
| in the future of this technology i do forsee one mechanism inducting a
whole 
| household full of devices.

So can it be made to have a pair of metallic terminals from which
electricty
can be obtained, even if not of the correct form (e.g. maybe 96 volts DC
when
you wanted 120 volts AC)?


|> | Yes. I know the power company is going to hate me. If everything you
|> | purchase has a stand alone self renewing power supply onboard there
is 
|> no
|> | need to plug into the grid. No more charging of cell phones, laptops 
|> etc. no
|> | plugging in tv's computers, sterios, appliances etc.
|>
|> How can these devices be powered if you cannot take power out of the 
|> system?
|>
| 
| The device is induced into the system. the closed system accepts the
device 
| as a addition to the system without complaint or rejection.

What does "device is induced into the system" mean?

Appliances I would want to power "accept" electricity through their power
connections, usually and AC cord or an ISO ****t (like computers have).

How do you get power to these appliances?  If you have a way, it can be
useful.  If not, then it seems useless.


|> If it is closed, I cannot get power out of it, and hence I cannot power
my
|> lights.  If I could power my lights, I could put solar cells near the 
|> lights
|> and get some power for other things.
|>
| 
| You answered your own question. the light is inducted into the closed
system 
| becoming part of the system. the light produced could indeed power other
not 
| physically connected to the closed system devices.

If light can go in, it's not a closed system.  Maybe you are using "closed
system" in a different way than the meaning I understand that term to
have.


|> Friction is a mechanical effect against force.  Of course there is 
|> friction
|> against the air of the Maglev train because it cannot be operated in a 
|> perfect
|> vacuum.  I take it your device will have a perfect vacuum to ensure not

|> drag
|> on the moving parts.
|>
| 
| Your correct. The toroid armature chamber (ring chamber) is indeed
designed 
| to be under a vacuum

OK.  But that doesn't mean it would have zero drag.  It might have a very
low level of drag.


|> Are the fields arranged N facing N or N facing C.  If I line up the
disks
|> in a straight line do I get:   -NS--NS--NS--NS--NS--NS-
|>                or do I get:   -NS--SN--NS--SN--NS--SN-
|>
| 
| Key;
| ( | ) = flux field/line of physical disc magnet
| ( ! ) = flux field/line generated by multipole arrangement
| ( n ) = N pole field
| ( s ) = S pole field
| ( N ) = N pole of physical disk magnet
| ( S ) = S pole of physical disk magnet
| 
| Arrangement;
| nN|Ss!nN|Ss!nN|Ss!nN|Ss!nN|Ss

Is the "|" the (position of) disk itself?

If there are just the two poles (N and S) facing each other, most of the
flux
lines will be fairly straight between them, depending on distance relative
to
disk face size, etc.


| exactly the whole ring/toroid armature moves.
| http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/ringofarrows.gif

What determines the direction of the motion?

What sets it into motion?

What keeps it in motion against magnetic drag?


|> This would have to have power _output_ where it connects to the battery
|> terminals in that compartment.
| 
| Input and output are an internal closed system function. I would rather
look 
| at the input as a primary transformation and the output as a secondary 
| transformation within a closed system.

How is this different from a device like this?
http://www.liebert.com/product_pages/Product.aspx?id=59&hz=60


|> You have to get the energy from somewhere to have energy.  Nuclear
power 
|> gets
|> that energy from the mass that is being partially converted according
to 
|> the
|> famous E=MC^2.  More traditional devices get their energy from 
|> electrochemical
|> reaction, or other forms of potential energy such as mass falling to a 
|> lower
|> level (a turbine attached to the base of a water tower), wind mill,
solar 
|> cell,
|> etc.  But the energy comes from somewhere.
|>
| 
| Exactly however every one of the mechanisms are a primary transformation
for 
| the work. they fail as a closed system.

What do _you_ mean by a closed system?

To me a closed system is basically useless.


|> I had an idea that would get energy from an unlikely source, of it
worked.
|> It won't work, but even if it did, it would have an energy input (free
of
|> financial cost) and an energy output (electrical).  Too bad it would
not
|> work (due to the flaw of Faraday's paradox).
|>
| 
| Now you've struck my interest tell me about it. There is more than one 
| faraday paradox. what i present is also a faraday paradox.

It's moot.  Although it does not violate the conservation of energy, it
does
violate relativity.  I eventually figured that out and abandoned the idea.
Deconstructing this idea back to the Faraday disk then revealed to me what
was going on in the Faraday Paradox, and the conclusion that the magnetic
"field" of rotating magnets really has the _effect_ of rotating.  That is
now leading me to a new idea that I'm not ready to reveal.  And if the new
idea is determined to not be workable, I won't reveal it.

-- 
|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) |