🚀 go-pugleaf

"Dave" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:VtCdnSOSv8hTR_ffRVn-ug@crocker.com...
>
> "ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:FJyae.14964$r53.6361@attbi_s21...
> >
> > "Dave" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:qeadnYk0fdfRCvffRVn-rA@crocker.com...
> > >
> > > "Wolfgang G. Gasser" <siehe@homepage.li> wrote in message
> > > news:d4duns$rth$1@atlas.ip-plus.net...
> > > > Maxwell's first equation can be written as well in differential as
> > > > in integral form. A special variant of the integral form is its
> > > > parallel-planes version:
> > >
> > > note, that this 'special variant' is only valid for static charges.
if
> > you
> > > go back to the full equations and get rid of the assumptions needed to
> > > reduce it to the simple statement you based your argument on you will
> see
> > > that everything is accounted for.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > yea sure "everything is accounted for" I didn't get the memo that said
> > mankind has learned everything about physics!
> >
> > In fact I'd say it's an *assumption* on your part.
> > What isn't accounted for is it's lack of mass.
> >
> > What maxwell did in the mathematics is only part of what he was doing.
> > He was an inventor as well. He was working on a mechanism.
> >
> > It comes down to, how can we drive a changing magnetic flux field
through
> a
> > induction coil repeatedly? He discovered it would be a ring and did
> > experiments with rings noting unusual reactions.
> > I don't think he understood what it was about the ring that was special.
> >
> > It's unity at rest. "in a table of natural sines the radius of the
circle
> is
> > regarded as unity" a ring simply spinning is over-unity. how much over
is
> > determined by it's frequency. Just as today the term over-unity brings
> much
> > opposition. I suspect maxwell encountered opposiition as well.
> >
> > I'll not be thwarted like that. Spinning a multipole ring through
> induction
> > coils as a mechanism is a simple act. The real opposition is showing the
> > scientific community that it is self evident, as well as the method of
> > achieving over-unity, free-energy, perpetual motion, and anti gravity.
>
> if you really have a free energy source don't talk about it on here, you
> will just be frustrated.  take it to greenpeace or the sierra club and
show
> them that it will replace the need for oil!  then you will be totally
> accepted and not need to slum around news groups looking for true
believers
> any more.
>
>

I'm not getting frustrated. I'm in no hurry. It's simple if man can't
understand the forces involved that should be self evident. Than man's just
not ready for it. But you guys can keep playing around in the microscopic
scale and Keep ignoring the fact that to replicate the mechanism that
occures naturally it requires actual physical mass and a man made mechanism.
Then we'll be in the throws of discovery.

It will be a sad day for the sciences if i get greedy and go directly into
manufacture.

Ring