>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
>
>
Hi, what's your opinion about Professor Searl's premise that magnetic
fields (from stationary magnets, if anything is stationary... ) ARE
dynamic? Maybe I misunderstand, but that's what I thought he was
saying, and was a fundamental principle in his inventions, which, of
course, I have never seen.
Jay Carlson