Anyway, Magnetoman, what you said about Young and Griffiths is untrue (they were talking about a horseshoe magnet and keeper, not a magneto and its armature), and what you said about Spreadbury now also turns out to be untrue (he was talking about a generator, not a magneto). Very sad.
The physics of electrical generation by a generator is identical
to that of a magneto. Maxwell's Equations apply to both in an identical fashion. Spreadbury describes how a generator/magneto that is to be disassembled in the field without the possibility of remagnetizing it has to be overdesigned if it is to still function, albeit at reduced output, to compensate for the loss of magnetism when it is disassembled. As I said more than once, a post-War magneto will still function after it has been disassembled, albeit at reduced output because of the loss of magnetism.
The quantitative loss of magnetism Spreadbury reports for the type of "generator" he addresses is consistent with what my measurements show for a magneto if it is disassembled and then reassembled. The power of an understanding of physics is that the same general principles (e.g. Maxwell's Equations) describe a wealth of phenomena, so understanding the commonality of a "generator" and a "magneto" lets data from one be correctly used to understand the other. What you wrote is as silly as saying measurements on a BTH magneto tell us nothing about a Lucas
, because different names are stamped on their housings. For both books I correctly summarized for this thread the relevant conclusions that would have taken many pages to describe in complete detail. What I said about Spreadbury is completely true, as is what I said about Young and Griffiths.
For the reasons I explained earlier in this thread, the way your "internal magnetizer" functions leaves the magneto with significantly reduced output over that which it would have if properly magnetized. This is what an understanding of the content of these books shows, and this is what my measurements show. However, your lack of understanding of physics is no excuse whatever for the despicable way you have repeatedly called me a liar. Even if there weren't issues with your goods and services, I personally would never knowingly do business with someone who behaves like you.
p.s. I just noticed that Ken altered the text of mine that he quoted in his post, making it appear as if I had emphasized something that I had not, and that I had not emphasized something that I had. What I wrote was "F.G. Spreadbury shows that the output from a magneto with a Ticonol ("Alnico") magnet is reduced by 23% in actual operation if the armature is withdrawn and then replaced after magnetization."
Taking the time to alter someone's text to change the emphasis and then presenting it as if it were a direct quote is unacceptable, and begs the question of whether he has altered anything else.