Body
Hector,
What is the difference between driving high impedance windings on a
generator/magneto with a step down for load vs normal impedance windings
with a step up and step down for load? Will the former or latter have
less lenz issues?
Assuming proper impedance matching
.
On 3/28/2019 4:01 PM, [email protected] [EVGRAY] wrote:
>
>
> took a look at it all i can think is magneto ignition -- magneto
> ignition ,,,
>
>
> ---In [email protected], <arkresearch@...> wrote :
>
> ok!
>
> ---In [email protected], <schoonersolsticemoon@...> wrote :
>
> Hector
> Start putting your feelers out for a used Samsung or LG front loading
> washing machine motor in Puerto Rico cheap. We need your brains here.
> I posted a picture of what it should look like.
> A plus, and bummer, of the design is that you need a shaft and bearing
> for it.
> I attached mine to the end of a 2.6 kw generator, using it's bearing,
> and shaft. (See picture), separate post to Doug
> Cheers Warren
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
>
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 9:33 AM, arkresearch@... [EVGRAY]
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Have you ever built & tested a Rotoverter ? Normans MRA ?
> a Kone motor? , a Newman motor ? a coil banger ? ....
>
> still curious ?
>
> (H)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---In [email protected], <eagleseeone@...> wrote :
>
> http://www.free-energy-devices.com/Silver.pdf
> I made their list....
> but they just cant get their mind around the fact that it
> transmutes the water into silver.
>
>
> Why I write the way I do....
>
> http://milesmathis.com/anger.html
>
> I often get emails, from fans and opponents alike, asking
> why I seem to be so angry and confrontational. Can't I
> just present the facts in a scientific manner without all
> the emotion? No, I can't. It isn't my style, for one
> thing. And I have no desire to change my style. Many will
> think this is just caprice or ego, but it isn't. I keep my
> style, and even play it up, not from ego but from a firm
> belief that it is both called for and necessary. If you
> are one of the ones bothered by my anger, my reply to you
> is, “Why /aren't/ you angry? You should be. Given all the
> lies you have been told, all the misdirection you have
> been hit with, all the dodging and fudging and faking you
> have been presented with as science, you should be
> furious. You should be just as mad at the current
> scientists as you are at the current politicians, and for
> the same reason. You have been sold a bill of goods,
> taught a bunch of fake and false equations in high school
> and college, heard decades of loud and obnoxious promotion
> for novel theories that turn out to have been created from
> nothing, been presented with new heroes who are nothing
> more than conmen, and been taxed to support all these
> careerists and their bloated projects. What you are told
> is true is not, and what you are told is false is often
> full of promise. While bad new ideas from entrenched
> phonies are shoved down your throat in all the magazines
> and other media, good new ideas are slandered, belittled,
> and buried, to protect these same phonies. If you aren't
> mad, you either aren't paying attention, or you are taking
> too many sedatives.
>
> Still, I often hear that “anger is not productive.”
> Scientifically, that is false. Anger is one of the most
> productive things. It is one of the primary engines of
> human action. Anger and sex are the two biggest motives of
> human action, and anger may have even more potential than
> sex, especially in extraordinary situations. The modern or
> contemporary belief that anger is unproductive is actually
> just one more lie you have been fed, to keep you quiet.
> Along with all this fake and false science, you are taught
> to be embarrassed by your own emotions. This keeps you
> from channeling your anger into positive action. Instead,
> you sit on it and try to squelch it, as something low and
> unscientific. This is just what your teachers and handlers
> want. They want you to spend all your time reacting
> against your own natural emotions, and no time reacting
> against their theories and projects. They need you to be
> docile, so they teach you there is something wrong with
> anger. This insures you do nothing. Instead, you
> rationalize your inaction as some sort of emotional
> purity. You are “above all that.” You are not a coward,
> you are a yogi or a Zen master, enlightened and above the
> fray. While you are doing that, they sell you an
> upside-down world as some advance. While you are admiring
> the purity of your navel, they steal the food from your
> lips, the socks from your feet, the very air from your
> lungs. That's not hyperbole, either. They /are/ stealing
> the air from your lungs and the lungs of your children,
> whether or not you have the gumption to be angry about it.
>
> But the only thing wrong with anger is bottling it up.
> Instead, you should use it. That is what it is there for.
> We don't need any more yogis or Zen masters or other
> purists. We need some people with some fight left in them,
> people who can't placidly watch the world crumble while
> they coddle themselves and talk of objectivity.
>
> “All right,” you will say, “maybe so, but it doesn't have
> to make its way into the actual research. Be angry if you
> want, but give us a paper that is calm and objective.”
> Again, that tends to sound good, because it is what we are
> taught. We are taught to separate ideas from emotion.
> Reason is good, emotion is bad. But I don't buy it,
> because it is false. Emotion is /not/ bad; and besides
> there is no possible way to separate reason and emotion.
> In reality, they are always informing one another.
> Therefore, a writing style that tries to excise the
> emotions must be a falsification. It is a sort of lying to
> the audience, trying to convince it that you are
> emotionless when you can't be. In that sense, any
> “objectivity” is fake. A writer cannot be objective,
> because a writer is a single person, a subject, who has
> opinions and emotions. Any objectivity is a pretense. It
> is better to just say what you intend to say, with the
> emotion in it, and let the reader see the two together.
>
> It is actually easier to judge “facts” when they are
> couched in the emotions they cause. That is to say, it is
> much easier to spot a lie when a writer is not trying to
> be objective than when he is. We are taught that
> scientific writing was chosen as a style historically
> because it is the most transparent. But again, that is
> false. Not only false, but a lie. Scientific writing was
> chosen and kept because it has proven to be a great way to
> hide. When all emotion is excised from writing, it becomes
> very difficult to judge the veracity and character of the
> writer. The writer becomes invisible. The invisibility of
> the writer would seem to be a good thing, but it actually
> isn't. The invisibility of the writer is like the
> invisibility of the magician's hand: it allows for all
> sorts of things to be passed off in the dark.
>
> To see what I mean, compare what you know about me from my
> style to what you know about famous physicists from their
> style. You may or may not like my style, or the
> personality it exhibits, but you have to admit it tells
> you who I am. It informs you about my veracity. Many
> readers will doubt my humility, but few will doubt my
> veracity. I don't seem to be hiding anything. It's all
> right there, good or bad. Can you say that about other
> physicists? I can't. I feel pretty sure, even before I
> check their facts, that they are hiding something. Their
> style is a dead giveaway. From the first sentence, they
> are trying to divert me. They are diverting me not only
> from the fundamental questions, by taking me immediately
> into side alleys and unsupported maths, but also from
> learning anything about their character or veracity. They
> purposely avoid telling me anything I might be able to use
> in judging them or their theories. This is because the
> sentences don't say anything. Most often, they are
> sentences with form but little or no content. They have no
> emotional content, of course, because that is forbidden in
> science. But they also have very little content of any
> other kind. We don't get science, we get science-speak. We
> get a lot of lingo, math, and claims of relevance, but no
> real ideas or opinions.
>
> Readers will tell me, “We don't want ideas or opinions, we
> want facts. We want data.” Really? Is that really what
> physics is? Facts and data? No. That is what we have been
> taught, but it is false. Physics isn't facts and data. We
> have lots of facts and data now, and almost no physics,
> since no one can read that data. We don't need more facts
> and data, although they are always nice to have. We need a
> coherent reading of centuries of data, going back to
> Galileo. We don't have it, therefore we don't have
> physics. We have data, we have facts, and we have math,
> but we have very little physics, because we have very
> little in the way of good ideas or opinions about how to
> explain that data.
>
> Math is not an explanation of data, although many modern
> physicists seem to think that it is. Any monkey can
> force-fit data into equations. But if the equations don't
> naturally represent some comprehensible mechanics, we
> don't have physics. All we have is the pretense of
> physics. We have a bunch of big equations that overpaid
> people can fill blackboards with, but we have no real
> physics. Physics /means/ mechanics. Look up the definition
> of the word. We have been sold a non-mechanical physics,
> but that is about as logical as non-aesthetic art or
> non-constructive architecture or non-aqueous water. If you
> will accept a non-mechanical physics, you will accept
> anything. Basically, the modern world /has/ accepted
> anything, in all fields. It has accepted everyday,
> untouched objects as art; it has accepted thuggery and
> looting as government; it has accepted mobsters as
> politicians; and it has accepted magic and mysticism as
> physics.
>
> If this doesn't make you angry, I don't know what to say.
> You must be under the influence of some strong sedative,
> and all sedatives aren't pharmacological. Your sedative
> may be wealth or career or position or prestige. I can't
> say. All I can say is that I will continue to tone it UP,
> to sharpen my theories as well as my tongue and my wit and
> my sense of humor. If that isn't to your taste, you will
> have to do your science reading elsewhere, I suppose. Good
> luck with that, since you are unlikely to find healthy
> opinions or ideas from those who are sitting on their
> emotions.
>
>