Latest: No back torque generator.

[BWS]

Where is the power out?
If you would like to see a more developed generator design that reduces back emf in a generator, goto www.magvortechs.tk  I would be happy to explain how to reduce back emf through the unipolar generator, I have been studying it for 20 years.
-Bryan Strohm

[IotaYodi]

because the field is going to move or flow in the same way in the magnet, regardless if the magnet is rotating, moving or at rest.

Thats what I think. I also think the field may be nothing but forced inertia creating a gravity wave. All the electrons are lined up side by side in strings and adding to the strength and direction of the spin. Just like a spinning centrifuge. That it seems is why the field is a constant but with minute fluctuations. The fluctuations in the field may be caused by the central points (+) because the 2 poles repel each other at the closest points. Just conjecture.

[BEP]

My understanding is simply my understanding.

The hole for the 'string or rope' can only be through the polar axis. If otherwise the poles rotate around the axis in varying degrees. The rope I'm speaking of will only exist passing pole to pole no matter how you drill another hole. The rope concept holds regardless. If you twist the magnet so the poles are not aligned with the rope the magnet will attempt to snap back in alignment wit the rope. The rope will stretch but will not break without very special attempts.

Poles and plus or minus really mean nothing except to allow most to have some understanding of what is going on. Same for field lines. All are just a means for us to quantify and apply vector math.

It works until you try to describe an hp gen or similar.
There is no speed to consider from a to b because there was no transit. The only speed to consider is stretch and contraction. The only thing to consider for polarity is spin direction. Spin direction and frequency or speed of rotation are the only common factors to consider.

Attraction is when two spins mesh together. Repulsion is when two spins do not mesh.

Schmecks of Leedskalnin, doesn't it?
My understanding works in all cases for me. Including the hp tests here said to not have been done before.

By all means use what works for you. Some of the descriptions on this thread I understand but have thrown them out a long time ago.
I have not seen an argument that woild change my understanding. I must admit my understanding is still very limited.

[gravityblock]

THE magnetic flux is an all permeating ambient. A black hole only disturbs this ambient structure, not much different than a magnet.
As you move the magnet you are only changing your area of disturbance (you move the so-called magnetic field but you are not moving the magnetic flux).

How can the magnetic flux be an all permeating ambient, if it has no transit to permeate anything?  How can you disturb the flux if the flux don't move?  The flux is the intensity of the field within a given area.  How can the field move but not the flux, when the flux is just the intensity of the field?

There is no speed to consider from a to b because there was no transit. The only speed to consider is stretch and contraction.

This stretch and contraction must have a spin also in order to cause attraction and repelling.  How can this have a spin since the flux doesn't move, it only stretches and contracts?

How can you have 10 beads all connected to the same rope and spinning, without the rope spinning also in order to cause a stretching and contracting of the rope?  The rope must spin with the beads, cause the flux doesn't have a transit towards or away from the magnet in order to cause repelling or attraction.  How can the rope not spin, but yet causes it to stretch and to contract?  How can the beads spin without causing the rope to spin in order to cause stretching or contracting.  You can't have one without the other.

If the rope breaks, then it can reconnect.  How can it reconnect if it's not able to move or to have a transit?

The flux having no transit from point A to B is contradictory to the rope thing and vice versa.

I understand the concept of what your saying, but when you dig deep to analyze this concept, then things don't add up.  If this makes sense to you, then fine......but it totally makes no sense to me and is very difficult to explain.  If I'm not understanding it correctly, then I hope someone can find the words so I can grasp the concept correctly.

I'm not trying to be argumentative.  Only trying to grasp the concept correctly.

Thanks,

GB

[BEP]

How can the magnetic flux be an all permeating ambient, if it has no transit to permeate anything? 

My best guess is because it is fundamental to existence - a stretch I know but where it begins and ends is a bit beyond me.

How can you disturb the flux if the flux don't move?  The flux is the intensity of the field within a given area.  How can the field move but not the flux, when the flux is just the intensity of the field?

My definition of flux/field...

Flux: think of a weightless bubble of water. It adheres to itself. Without outside influence it would stabilize to a sphere shape. Maybe the equivalent beyond a sphere if it exists in more than three dimensions.

Field: a tiny bubble within the above flux. This bubble would be bound to something causing an increase or decrease of density of an area of the flux. It consists of flux but the change in density is enough for us to measure and use. Basically, a measurement of variations of density of the flux.

I know this is a bit simplified but I've been writing tech docs all day. I need a break.

This stretch and contraction must have a spin also in order to cause attraction and repelling.

I have no doubt it does. I'm hoping an advancement in spintronics will answer some of the questions I have in that direction.

How can this have a spin since the flux doesn't move, it only stretches and contracts?

I doubt the the flux is as simple as a bubble of fluid. I also doubt the conceptual rope is as simple as a rope. How they or better interpretations actually work together, I can only imagine.

I must think about the rest so I can explain it without writing a thesis.

For magnetic reconnection see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection ... Where it says 'different magnetic domains' replace that with 'different perturbances of THE magnetic domain'.

For a more in-depth view of most of my understanding of magnetics please look up explanations on 'Time-independent perturbation theory'.

I'll try to elaborate later.....