Hi Dan and all,
yeh, I read your report of some years ago. I assume you've not experimented
since then.
You're findings were interesting in that you went to some lenght to plot
the various flux densities and polarity reversals around the magnet poles
and the "keeper". I must say, though, that your experimental setup of the
Gary generator did deviate greatly from the outlined arrangments in the
Harpers article. Gary used a fundimentally different flux bridge on his
devices which did not produce an electrical output, but rather created
mechanical movement.
Gary never claimed o/u on his patented electrical generators, although it
is obvious that his thinking remained centred on the "neutral" line,
polarity reversal, effect.
The fundimental devices presented in the Harpers article were intended as a
brief on the basics of his discovery. The 4 devices represent a logical
progression of thought, from fundimental effect to application (I know you
know this Dan, but others may not be up to speed on Gary's work).
The first experiment is quite simple - provided you don't go playing with
powerful magnets first up. The second device presents a simple interaction
between 2 magnets and how that interaction may be effected by a "keeper".
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.
We have to ask the question: Did Wesley Gary make a fraudulent claim
regarding his self-acting machine? Certainly the writer of the Harpers
article expresses great interest in the working of the devices he is,
apparently, witness to. In particular the writer comments on the
fascinating way in which the fourth rotary device functions.
The outlined experimental progression, from simple effect to application,
works as stated - but only to the point where additional insight is
required by the builder. In my case this insight was lacking and hense I
remain stuck at device number 3. I personally believe that Gary's work is
of great interest. I don't think that anyone to date has really grasped
what Gary was doing. Certainly I have not seen any research data which
directly relates to the Harpers article devices.
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.
Comments? Bill.