John Berry wrote: > On 1/21/07, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> John Berry wrote: >> > Well as I spent time with Bruce (and Andrew Mount >> and Paul Clarke) in New >> > Zealand not long before he died and I can tell you >> that he was as Paul >> > asserts a kind man, no negativity. >> > >> > The last N-Machine test in NZ before his death was >> not so positive. >> > I believe that the N-Machine will work as a motor >> (not FE) although I >> > believe that the first machine possibly didn't have >> a motor force, it was >> > very different with carbon brushes at 90 degrees. >> > >> > The N-Machine's magnetic field DOES rotate with the >> magnets, the voltage is >> > generated in the external circuit and not on the >> rotating frame. >> >> I too theorized the field rotates in N-machine, but >> have yet to find time to test such a >> theory. Do you have any proof? > > > You could argue that Hooper proved it with his motional electric field. > But the only proof I have there is logic, obviously the magnetic field must > rotate with the magnet (magnets don't even have a perfect field all > around).
It would become logic when we fully understand what truly causes magnetic fields. We're not there yet. > The only reason to think that it might not rotate is the fact than an > N-Machine generates a voltage, but that is erroneous because if the > magnetic > field rotates then a voltage is induced in the external circuit. Erroneous? It could make all the difference to a physics theory. >> The funny think is that the N-Machine is very very >> easy to test Shhh, don't tell that to Dr. Kincheloe, ***a Professor of Electrical Engineering!*** It's really difficult to read a DC voltage meter and multiply it by the DC current. ;-) >> , don't test it as a generator, test it as a motor. >> >> Red flag #1. Why would you tell people to do that? >> All the tests I've studied clearly >> show the N-machine is over unity as a generator and >> the opposite as a motor. > > > Because if it is a bad (or non-existant) motor then it must be a good > generator. Exactly. So why would we want to test a bad motor when the N-machine is a good generator. It's the generator aspect we're interested in. [snip] > Connect an extremely high >> resistance resistor across a high-speed LED and by >> means of ultra high-speed photon >> sensors you can detect periodic photon wave train >> packets. The light emitted by such >> LED's comes from the thermal energy caused by >> resistance. > > > Yes, naturally there are small and I mean small amounts of energy that can > be tapped by conventional means, but this stuff isn't even flea powered. > Now maybe you could get a trillion diodes and get usable energy but that's > not the road I want to go down, Indeed, such diodes could easily be a few hundred nanometers. It adds up when you have trillions of such nano devices. >plus I'm not interested in extracting > energy from heat no matter how easily it can be done. As for me, I wish it were all about personal *interests*. How great it would be to work on whooptie do da futuristic Tesla technology and the like. :-) Unfortunately, we have a planet that's going ape and a society that's getting ready to commit hara-kiri. Energy from ambient temperature is the most realistic, well define, and safest path, not to mention it's based on old physics. Regards, Paul Lowrance ____________________________________________________________________________________ Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now.
