My basic observation from my experiments was that the neutral line really
doesn't exist but is an artifact from the geometry of the magnet, the
keeper, and the materials they are made from. I could see from my
measurements w/ the gauss meter that both versions 2 and 3 would probably
work but would take progressively more refinements in materials and
geometries and at the time I simply didn't have the resouces to pursue it.
If was also at this time that I met and old codger in Tucson who had built
a working magnetic motor and it was much more intrigueing than the Gary
effect. He explained to me its basic principles but would never reveal the
exact details as he had been told by his lawer back in the 50's that he
would be killed by the oil cartel if he tried to put it out and told me
that I shouldn't try it either.
His mag motor is based on the fact that the pull and push energy of a
magnet on another magnet is much stronger that the energy of sliding the
magnets apart. The old guy's mag motor had a set up to do a rotation of the
magnets and when they rotated in close to the stator magnet in a sliding
motion and used push to push them away from the magnet when the magnet had
moved past the stator magnet. The momentum imparted in the pull cycle was
sufficient to carry the rotor magnets past the stator magnets and the push
added more energy. If an odd number of magnets is usde in the rotor and
even number in the stator it is possible to have a fairly continuous set of
push/pull/slides going on. The old codger said the first device they
developed had around 30 horsepower.
It would be nice to get some finaning to try and build one of these but it
would take some big bucks as the magnets alone could cost upwards of $10,000.
Dan
At 05:52 PM 2/11/98 +1000, you wrote:
>At 18:21 10/02/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>Hi Bill,
>>I have. It is all explained in my book "T-Field Energy Research". See
>>Keelynet descriptions. Yes, the neutral "line" exists but not like Gary
>>claimed. NO, I didn't get any free lunch.
>>
>>Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>At 10:30 PM 2/10/98 +1000, you wrote:
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>has anyone out there done any experiments with the Gary "neutral line"
>>>approach to magnetic switching? I've perfomed the basic
>>>magnet/lamination/nail experiment quite successfully.
>>>
>>>Any input?
>>>
>>>Bill.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------
>> || Come ride The River ------- http://www.theriver.com/ ||
>>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>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.
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
|| Come ride The River ------- http://www.theriver.com/ ||
------------------------------------------------------------