Yep... I'm betting that 'if' an overunity generator ever gets built (with
magnetics)
the magnetic field will by dynamic and not static. Again, that is MY
assessment
which might be totally different from everyone else...
>"Bottom line?": I believe that Gary was not a fraud. He seemed to work hard
>at providing a logical progression of thought from the first principle of
>operation leading to the application of that principle in devices. He was
>unusually forthcoming with technical details (in the Harpers article),
>explaining his concept and devices quite thoroughly, albeit in 'quaint'
terms.
<<snip>>
>.... Whether a field is moving or not
>(time dependant) depends on your point of view though does'nt it? It may
>well be that under certain conditions it could be possible to extract
>useful work from a system of apparently static fields. Then again maybe
>not? Could it be that Gary's system created a condition whereby the
>relatively powerful forces of the magnet could be made dynamic in an
>economical way?
Yes, it's 'my' point of view which I'm asserting which again could be wrong
but investigations, experiments, theory and research tells me this... even
taken into account 'supposed working overunity devices'.... Floyd Sweets
device, however, still intrigues me - how did he do it whithout rotating the
magnetics... some proposed that he oscillated the block wall, but did he
really? I really do not think we will ever uncover Sweets device to answer
that question...
OH, and good luck with #3 Harper device.. I hope you get it to work!
In producing oscillations, there is a relaxation time constant or delay line
that must be established. I think this is Beardens thinking on switching
potential in a long wire (steel) and before it arrives on the other side
(delay line) you remove the potential and apply the load. Also works
for momentum and impulse, where timing for oscillation is related to
mass and inertia. (-:
v/r Ken Carrigan