Re: Wesley Gary

Kenneth Carrigan ( (no email) )
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:50:01 -0500

Bill et all,
<<snip>>>
>The third device is a breakthrough if it worked as stated - 2 magnets and a
>"keeper" arranged so that continued mechanical oscillation occurs in the
>system via positive feedback on the "keeper". The forth device was a novel
>design variation on the third.
>
>My experiments showed that the first device worked as stated. Likewise the
>second device worked as stated. The third device proved a little more
>difficult to replicate. The required balance between the 2 magnets, flux
>strenght, keeper size and thickness, geometry of system, etc, etc, is very
>complicated and delicate. I did not succeed in my efforts. But I did obtain
>a valuable overview on the balancing act required for this device to
function.

Bottom line?

<<snip>>
>Device number 3 in the Harpers article is the centre of Gary's concept. If
>this device works, as Gary claims, then WOW! If it dos'nt, then Gary was a
>fraud and a conman.

I tend to think it did not work. The Major problem with magnetic is that
they
are STATIC devices and produce no useful 'work'. What is required is
that the magnetic field (B-Field) becomes DYNAMIC. These are key words
and the basis for generating any useful work/energy. If one can get a
magnetic field to oscillate/resonate with minimal energy then all else
will fall into place. This is why people 'spin' magnetics - to generate
that
dynamic field. I would almost gamble that Harper did not get an oscillating
B-Field or machanical oscillations... but that's purely my opinion.

v/r Ken Carrigan