roamer
Fri, 25 Nov 2005 03:12:08 -0800
Ken, I hate wasting bandwidth on this anymore. What you choose to do, or not to do, doesn't mean anything to me, at all. "...based on sound principals..." Why do you continue to think that the laws of physics need to be defeated in order to give you what you need? I don't believe that they need defeating. BTW, I wasn't suggesting that you were "selling" anything at all. I think it's mildly amusing that you are going off the deep end because I've suggested that people should do some experiments for themselves. THAT is the behavior that I find extremely suspect, in reference to the "disruptor" label. You fit the bill. It appears that you only wish to preemptively dissuade anyone from even trying. Why is that? As I understood from long ago, one of the main ideas of Keelynet, in the first place, was to promote and observe alternate energy science and experimentation. You've done your job well, Ken, seriously. As one of the "shirtless ones" I like having a basic understanding of what's needed to get a battery bank charged, or to get some sulphated batteries restored (when possible). I like knowing that if I can scrounge up a bit of SCRAP wire and only a few SCRAP parts, I can build a device that runs EVERY TIME and produces just about the same performance EVERY TIME, once it's tuned. I also like knowing that it can be done PURELY MECHANICALLY with little degradation in performance, once one studies a small device and begins to understand the basic principles. Ken, I gave you a shortcut to higher amperage models when I posted the speaker wire stator design and it's associated parts needed for getting the tuning close, ON THE FIRST TRY. Yep, rewinding a roll of off-the-shelf speaker wire is SUCH a trauma, you're right. No chips or multi-transistor setups are really necessary. But, you can take it down that road if you choose to. Sure, Ken, it's nice to have a tiny box instead of a big spinning wheel. But, if that's all you're worried about, just use your tiny box. Maybe you'd be the one that's smart enough to figure out how to make a "tiny box" version that would allow you to compare it to your other tiny box, in a one-on-one test. Why is it that you expect me to try to argue YOU into building ANYTHING? I've presented some basic components needed for SG construction purely as an FYI sort of deal, nothing more. Take that however you choose to. Continuing this dialogue is doing nothing but stealing moments from my life that I could be using for otherwise useful purposes. The only reason I jumped into the thread was that you were seemingly casting aspersions at a device concept that you've apparently never seen up close, even though you have the plans available in any number of places and you could build your own in one afternoon. Believe it or not, I do have respect for those that have extensive training in physics and electronics. These are the people that are better suited to finding anomolies in devices that appear to be doing something "different" than what the textbooks say is possible. I'm done with this dialogue now because you're just wasting moments of my life that I could be using for something besides "coffee clutching". I just don't have the energy to keep going around the same circular track, sparring with the unwilling for no good reason. This thread has provided about as much benefit to me as playing yahtzee at my kitchen table. I hope it's done something useful for someone out there. Bye now. R On 24 Nov 2005 at 22:08, Carrigan, Ken wrote: > > Roamer, > It's not funny at all. The desulfator is a desulfator and works on sound > principles and physical > laws. Can you tell me what the SG is based on to make it work?