Maxwells vorticular gears work only if the following conditions hold:
There are clockwise and anti clockwise vortices;
there are at least 3 different scales of vortices;
vortex chains are odd numbered and consist in vortices of both sorts.
The generalisation of these conditions can be simply stated as the field of vortices being of two contra sorts and fractal.
The Shunya field is therefore a candidate for a generalised Maxwell field structure.
The medium of the Field is not defined beyond that it is identified with space.
Spaciometry arises out of this fractal dynamism of space and my apprehension and interaction with space through my sensory mesh networks.
My interaction with space consists in conjugating it and adjugating it according to fractal compliant processes and procedures, some of which are identified as algorithms generally.
We see how Maxwells vortices are replaced by lines. This is not making Maxwells equations clearer it is completely revising them, replacing them with something else, something that obscures the fractal vorticular basis of space.
How can this be done? Ultimately it is done because the transmission of stress or tension through space is modelled by a string that attaches one centre to another. This is a simple Newtonian concept of action at a distance, only Newton could not justify the string because ultimately it had to attach by tieing to the centre. This treatment ignores that simple fact and just assumes the tension is transmitted to the other centre and oscillates it. A vital connection force couple is missed out.
This is permissible if it is declared, but it actually is not even apprehended as missing. Thus this analogy cannot properly model the mechanical behaviour electromagnetic field. At the heart of this misinterpretation is the 20 year gap between maxwells theory and its rediscovery and application. In those 20 years vortices fell out of favour, and mathematical physics was hijacked by Gibbs and Heaveside, pushing aside Hamiltonian Quaternion mathematics. Hamilton's Quaternions were flawed, but no one knew it then or even now. See my blog posts on the Quaternion 8 group. What Heaveside objected to was the imaginary basis to Hamiltons formulation. He preferred Grassmanns seeming lineal combination description, but he never understood it. Instead he drew inspiration from it and made up his own modified version. Unfortunately Gibbs had queered the pitch and the 2 created a mathematical muddle for which they stole Hamiltons cloak to cover over its naked error. As a consequence Rodrigues description of rotation through Pauli had to come up with an exclusion principle through some mysterious mathematical jumbo jumbo.
At the end of the day all these guys were just shooting in the dark including Hamilton. Herrmann grassmann analysed Hamilton's quaternions and concluded his more general analytical scheme could describe it. What he found I have yet to read in his paper, but he does not appear to have found the flaw in Hamiltons quaternion constraints which make them non commutative! Grassmann was aware of non commutativity having discovered it in his more general analysis, but what he found was a general attribute, which in fact under special conditions defined commutativity. Basically a fundamental basis has to be defined and so it's elements are non commutative, but any referrents to that basis, because they are referents are wholly commutative. That commutativity s ensured by the conjugative structure of a ring. Ring and group theory were in it's infancy when Hamilton and Grassmann invented modern Algebra. The deep structure of their algebras were not well understood, particularly Grassmanns non commutative result. Grassmann found this result deeply unsettling, and it is a credit to him that he persisted in exploring and analysing it to the extent that he realised it was a modelling constraint, but he hoped others would help him in the research and development of his analytical tools. This never happened. His brother Robert almost completely hijacked his ideas to promote his own. This got his work noticed, but also misunderstood. In particular his first book in 1844 was mostly ignored despite his revisiting it in his last years of his life. Today his analytical method , due to its extraordinary effect on modern physics is being at last researched, and many assumptions are proving to be false! Grassmann is not wholly right, you can be assured, but he has an evolving method which has clear principles which deserve to be properly understood and not parodied.
Note that Da Vinci specifies Cone Spindles not cotton reel ones. The difference is marked to the design and the rotational efficiency. It is small changes like these that can confirm or deny an insight.