View Single Post
Old 11-05-2012, 05:01 AM
Spokane1 Spokane1 is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 356
Function of the CEST - speculations & history

Originally Posted by mbrownn View Post
Thanks to the member that gave me the video.

Its more about what we don't know than what we do know. For me, as a person attempting to build a self running motor, it confirmed that the switching tubes were just that, switches. With the amount of energy going in and out of that motor any commutator would arc and burn up. I believe that the tubes were an attempt to remove the arcing from the commutator but didn't help a great deal. I am not saying that anomalous energy cannot be found in such a tube, just that this was not the main purpose of it.

This is not in the film but is the conclusion I have drawn from it. Motors need current, current when arcing can melt metal, not good for the commutator. The switching tubes would open up a path by means of a high voltage arc to allow current to flow, keeping the arcing away from the commutator. Anyone who has played around with ignition systems knows that to increase the energy in the spark you increase the gap, because of this these spark gaps in the tube would likely reduce the arc size on the commutator but increase the current so in the end would not help the commutator.
Dear mbrownn,

I concure in general with your assessment. A lot of historical data points to the CEST being an early switching device intended to get the arcs out of the engine and use PM's for the rotor. The EMA4 design worked but it was complicated and prone to failure.

What is interesting is that the last photo of the EMA6 (by GD) shows some very active arcing communtors that were alleged to be the source of the energy. In this photo the 3 each fixed distance CEST devices displayed at the Sportsman Lodge media event had been removed. Yet, all of the rest of the equipment seems to remain except for the modified commentator.

My conlcusion was that the fixed gap approach failed, since Mr. hackenberger didn't have the time to test this prototype before the presentation. Its actual out was tested by Dr. Chalphin and found to be only 2 H.P. The COP was not measured.

Mr. Hackenberger was no dummy. He wouldn't have spent three years building a new engine model based upon the CSET design unless he had good engineering reason to do so. My thought is that all of his tests were probably done at low energy levels say <5 H.P. He might has assumed that higher energy levels would automatically follow and that didn't happen.

I know that I have bad mouthed the CEST on several occations, but we shouldn't disreguard it altogether. It still has the shadows of some novel principle that Gray was attempting to protect with a patent. I'm sure that the full operating citcuit was not disclosed in 1986. But we can look for hints.

I'm pretty convinced that the "stretched Arc" in the motor is fundamental to this technology - but why? In the beginning Mr. Hackenberger attempted to lead people into believing that the arc was the sorce of the eneryg gain. After that he just didn't say. He finally told his brother "This stuff works, but I don't know why."

A physically stretched arc is one way to produce a true Tesla "disruptive arc". In my definition a disruptive arc is an arc under which a substantial unidirectional flow of current is broken quickly (<30 nS). This is a lot harder than it seems. A DC arc in air is almost impossible to break. A DC arc once started can be pulled 100X times the initial gap breakover distance. The art and design of high current DC circuit breakers used in submaine service is a book by itself. In these devices they use ceramic arc chutes of a special design that has taken years to develop.

What Gray's team had going for them was the interpole dielectric in both the EMA4 and the EMA6 commentator. Here, the arc was dragged across the inner surface of a white plastic material (assumed to be acteal [Delrin]). This is why the engine had to be turning at a minimum speed (500 rpm) before the excitation energy was turned on. The EMA4 engine was striking arcs and then breaking them. The action of the electromagnets probably had a role in this process as well.

But what did the disruptive arc have to do with anything? Well, I', sure many of you have read Jerry Vassalotos commentary on this issue. He believes that the disruptive arc was the source of the "Radiant Energy". Perhaps, I think there is more, specifically the iron electrodes that were involved. Gray was using the laminated iron of the electromagent cores as his electrodes.

Consider what happes when a large magnetic field quickly collapses around a mass of copper and a mass of iron. The physics are vastly different. What ever happens or is generated travels out radially from the current conductor as what was implied by the CEST design.

Got to go the wife is calling. If anybody is interested I can discuss this analysis further.

Mark McKay
Reply With Quote