sci.physics.electromag

----------------------------
"terrylhewettsr" wrote in message
news:fs76p8$p8f$1@news.netins.net...
>
> "Don Kelly" wrote in message
> news:YnkFj.108368$w94.105201@pd7urf2no...
>> ----------------------------
>> "terrylhewettsr" wrote in message
>> news:fs24gj$b7i$1@news.netins.net...
>>>>> chamber/spool for winding coils around the armature,
>>>>> http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!pt6spooldblslicesm.jpg
>>>> ---------------------

>
> I agree that my writings and methods of expressions are fragmented and of
> very little scientific terminology.
>
> That's what you get with inventors. Educated outside the norms of academia
> and eccentric.
>
> Don =1 is unity, made to stand in calculation. A multiplicative identity.
> as you put it "a much nicer number" calculation which is the basis of
> scientific explanation (not so absolute). A unified state with entropy.
>
> =0 or rather 0.99999999... unworkable in mathematics. A additive identity.
> a not so kind number. Natures (absolute) explanation. A unified state
> barring entropy.
>
> It's not a matter of backwards but parallel. Both understandings are
> correct. However man's scientific explanation is plauged by entropy.
> Simply because we don't believe a closed system is possible.
>
> Nature stands quiet and really offers no explanation. It is up to us to
> find it's secrets. IMHO Scouring through centuries of complicated
> scientific explanation isn't working. Only through discovery will we
> communicate with natural physics.
>
> Typical toroidal transformers are not designed to have the core spin.
> That's one of the many innovations mechanics has contributed to this
> mechanism. Your right i do need to include a wiring schematic showing the
> connections. None are shorted. the drive coils are superconductive. I have
> designed it so that multiple field pairs are interracted upon
> simultaneously. this eliminates the need for mechanically switching the
> coils to drive the armature.
>
> a single pair within the drive coils field would flip to align attracting
> fields as Coulomb predicts. a multiple field set of a non conductive rod
> will act differently as the fields are bound to the rods mass and unable
> to flip to align with attracting fields locally so the whole rod wil try
> to flip within drive coil.
>
> However the rod and ring are two different forms and have different
> characteristics. the ring will be unable to flip within the drive coils as
> the mass of the ring is caged at several points around it. It has no
> option but to move in a annular motion as designed. entropy has been
> reduced to eccentric motion. there is no uncertainty all vectors are
> occupied with mass be it charged field pairs or void of a physical field.
> velocities and inertial frames can be predicted even at a hyper extreme
> rate of change.
>
> The purpose for the non conductive core is to eliminate any chance of
> eddies bieng generated withing the core as the fields are reduced to their
> permanent state within the drive coils. the conductive or iron core would
> cause undesired inverse properties and attract the whole core to the drive
> coils and would not suspend the core it would simply be drawn to the
> coils.
>
> Most of physics is relatve to this mechanism. It is a mechanically simple
> mechanism, however i cannot find anything more complex to explain.

Sorry, still more nonsense.

Still no explanation as to why there should be a spin. Don't assume that
the magnetic forces are in a direction to do this -apparently you didn't
look up Coulombs force law or didn't understand it Try the "right hand rule"
as a simplified substitute- (they may try to expand the diameter of the
coil but not produce force in the direction of the flux) nor will they try
to flip the rotor (no -gyroscopic forces aren't the answer).

However what you have written, allowing for the fragmentation, do show that
you really, outside normal bounds of education, have ignored what has been
found from repeated experimentation and are supplying a gloss of words from
math and physics, without an understanding of what they mean. In addition,
there are some statements that appear to defy common sense.

I would suggest that you start with some basic references and first learn
what is there so that you have a better understanding. There is no problem
in thinking outside the box or being educated outside the normal bounds of
academia but there is a problem when ignorance is used as a substitute for
what is actually known (yes, physics is based on actual experimental
evidence).

There is no use continuing this thread.
--

Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer

>
>