Re: Wesley Gary

Dan A. Davidson ( (no email) )
Fri, 13 Feb 1998 15:07:46 -0700

Jan,
My research shows that magnetic fields are moving aether fields. Leed
Scallon and Keely (of course) both talked of this. I also have had
clairvoyants verify this and also it is the basis of my discovery of how
geometrical shapes (see my book Shape Power) can convert the aether into
other forces and are measurable w/ standard instrumentation. This will lead
to a true free energy device with no circuitry or moving parts.
Dan

At 04:29 PM 2/11/98 GMT, you wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:50:01 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>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
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
|| Come ride The River ------- http://www.theriver.com/ ||
------------------------------------------------------------