Gray Tube Replication

[Arker]

The marvellous's Cole generator under the Occam's Razor

- Following of my previous small post -


Occam's razor is the principle of parsimony of the immense Aristotle, redrafted in 1319 by William of Ockham (or Occam).

This principle of simplicity, and of elegance of solutions, can be formulated thus : the sufficient hypotheses the most simplest are the most plausible.

(Mr Ockham was an English logician, he has studied at Oxford and Paris, where he became a teacher. This is how he was the professor of Jean Buridan, another big shoes already met in previous post.)

___________

So, Mr McKay teaches us that until the hold-up by the police in July 1974, Hack disposed of an extraordinary generator, static (no moving parts except the blade of a vibrator) and COP staggering|*| between 6000 and 23000 !
(Her owner being EV Gray, I named him "EV's box". It was small and black|**|.)

For one year Hack has had every opportunity to dissect him, analyze, test and evaluate it. And to draw a detailed plan.

It follows quite logically that it is by according to the dissection of this wonderful EV's box that Hack would have built his 1st converter in 1973 (black-box), and his 2nd in 1974 (blue-box). And not from an arduous and delicate analysis of motor EMA-4.

Look at all this more closely.

___________

Classically the blade vibrators operate in push-pull, and therefore steer the current in a transformer double primary.

The simplest converted DC to square AC 100Hz, that diodes rectified if necessary.
There existed a more subtle version, with double contacts and transformer with double secondary, called synchronous vibrator, where the push-pull produced artfully DC square. (A topology DC to DC, then.)

1 vibrator, 1 transformer, 1 filter, are the only components. It is therefore easy to identify which non-classical pieces are present.

Impossible, in this case, to imagine that Hack could be mistaken ...
So how explain the COP < 1 of the boxes that he copied ? And whose Hack showed himself perfectly satisfied.
(The GD's recording shows indeed that the Hack's boxes have no virtue, cf. my posts of May 31.)

___________

Well then we find ourselves here in front an unacceptable contradiction.
We are no longer in principles : we are in the simple common sense. See an engineer satisfied with its mediocre copy in a hand, while holding the divine original in his other hand, this doesn't add up !

The Occam's razor imposes a vigorous simplification, by example the EV's box is nothing more than a vulgar trickery : a hidden cable linking this box to the mains.

It's easy to mystify people: bigger is better it passes ; this is well-known.
For example here the feet of the great TV were rigged, and constituted 2 contacts, pressing two other contacts hidden on the shelf, connected to the mains via a big HV transformer ...

Warning : I don't designate Marvin Cole ; is Mr Gray that I designate|***|.
(Only Spokane1 talking about M. Cole. The man who saw this Ev's box in 1972-73 is Dowd Cannady. Now Mr. Cannady speaks exclusively to Edwin Gray in his testimony.)

Our friend Edwin may very well have designed this fake generator used as gorgeous cheerleading girl. (For him this is not swindling, since the engine is really "magic".) The result is ensured, see, in my first note, Cannady's emotion.

Edwin is the genius of pragmatism. The authentic superpower of the motor EMA-4 always remains completely invisible. We does not take off the cerebrality. While a breathtaking cheerleader showing his baits twiddle senses.


Arker



_______________
|*| Dowd Cannady was radio-mechanic in US Air Force. He explain in essence :
. "I’d lay awake at night dreaming about that damn thing. And that gave me nightmares for 35 years. She suppling 10 lamps 100W / 110V in series with a Remington razor, a huge 24-inch TV, and a drill to wicks 13 mm." (Total approx. 1400 watts.)
. "She functioned on a 12 volts small battery 2.5cm x 10cm x 13cm"
- (It's clear, there is here only this unique and tiny battery -not two like Spokane1 wrote.)
- This would correspond to 2-3 A-h nominal.
- Suppose with overstatement that this batt. can debited 3 amp under constant 13 volts, for 1 hour.
- The energy that she contains would be : 1h x 13V x 3A = 39 Wh. (Theoretically, but 10 Wh would be more likely.)
. "Mr. Gray asserted we that consumption is so derisory that even without recycling on input, this small battery will maintain all equipments lit for 7 days."
- 7d x 24h = 168h,
- and 39Wh / 168h = 0.23 watt.
- The minimum COP would thus : 1400W / 0.23W = 6000 !
- (And in taking 10Wh instead of 39Wh is reached 23000.)

|**| D. Cannady asks "What you have in your black box ?" and EV Gray answers :
“That is nothing but a trickle charger from Western Auto that I rewired and added a couple of things to it.”

|***| His patent of a magical trigger #4595975 (Gray's tube) is in a neighboring tonality.
_ e n d _

[Arker]

In the Stan's role : Mr Hackenberger. A Laurel &amp; Hardy's skit ...

- Following of my previous small post -


I continue to reconstruct the events, always via the same grid of the psychology and logic.
Begin by noting that no steps marketing of Gray's wonderful converter has obviously never been reported.



When Hack took office as an engineer in 1973 in EvGray Enterprises Inc., its morality could not accommodate of "EV's Gray cheerleader". So he negotiated with his boss a substitution by a less immoral cheerleader.

This is how a compromise acceptable to both parties (Hack and Gray) was negotiated. And Hack replaced the spectacular (but false) power of a black box by the spectacular (but true) HF of another black box.

___________

That is my personal view concerning the advent of the first Hack's box, black, followed by a second, blue, one year later.

___________

As Hack had astutely wired the output of its converters (see drawing /post #2898), these apparatus were in fact better than their competitors on the market for small converters.
Have thought therefore to sell them like classic camper converters for a clientele of normal campers.

(But furthermore, our two cunning wags never ceased to use them as cheerleaders during the promotion sessions of overunity technology of motor EMA-4.)

Have your cake and want to sell it too, is always dangerous ...

It is thus that Hack found itself in a pickle when clients present at the meetings engine promotion wanted to buy these boxes. (These boxes as overunity technology, course ...)
Inextricable !


Arker

_ e n d _

[boguslaw]

Ok,
what are the conclusions in simple English ?

Hack electronic version static device was hoax along with all EMA motors after EMA4 ?

I have a question :
Can you trace any information about Cole device generating large amount of electrostatic charge and thus require proper grounding ? Any such direct statement about grounding of device or discharging copious amount of electrostatic charge ?

[Spokane1]

Buildup of static charge

Ok,
what are the conclusions in simple English ?

Hack electronic version static device was hoax along with all EMA motors after EMA4 ?

I have a question :
Can you trace any information about Cole device generating large amount of electrostatic charge and thus require proper grounding ? Any such direct statement about grounding of device or discharging copious amount of electrostatic charge ?

Dear Boguslaw,

I haven't run across anything about a static charge buildup being related to the Black Boxes. However at 1300 Volts there would have to be a little snap here and there, but probably way less than what comes from a small Van d' Graff machine. As you probably know the only testimony about a charge buildup comes from the Cannady Interview and that was with the EMA4-E1. None of the notes I have reviewed discuss anything about the need for a ground for the operation of the camping static generators. As far as we know none of the Engines/Motors used a ground connection.

I'm of the untested opinion that an earth ground connection will quickly bleed away any of the anomalous energy no matter where it is in the storage system. But this is just pure technical speculation.

Mark McKay

[Spokane1]

Static or Electrostatic?

_ b e g i n _
1°) I don't understand not why you perpetually strive to append "electrostatic" while all documents of GD, or Hack, always say "static" (STATIC GENERATOR). You do not have the right to do that|*|. (No offense meant.)

Dear Arker,

You are correct in noting that I prefer to describe the Black Boxes as the "Electrostatic Generator" despite Mr. Hackenberger's preference for the term Static Generator.

There is some history behind that. In 1972 and there after Mr. Gray called his group the Electromagnetic Associates (EMA). Before that, in the late 60's his team went by the name Electromagnetic & Electrostatic Associates (EMSA). The term "Electrostatic" was dropped around the time Marvin Cole left. There could be simple advertising and legal reasons for this.

In the 1973 Hackenberger Engineering report, where he claimed the over unity came from the spark gap through some electron avalanche process, his block diagram shows a specific electrostatic energy flow between subsystems in two or three places. One of these is from the converter block.

I need to go back and recheck how I came to use the term "Electrostatic Generator". I have use it for so long that its actual origin is lost in the mist of memory. I have used it way before I learned of Mr. Ken Shoulders work.

I'm of the present opinion that Mr. Hackenberger (at the time of the Transcript) was deliberately attempting to suppress the concept of an Electrostatic process in the system by avoiding the use of that descriptive word. His explanation that "static" meant his new topology had no moving parts is rather lame reasoning to me.

Mark McKay

[Spokane1]

The Black Box Red Herring (misleading information)

For one year Hack had every opportunity to dissect him, analyze, test and evaluate [The Black Box] it. And to draw a detailed plan.

It follows quite logically that it is by according to the dissection of this wonderful EV's box that Hack would have built his 1st converter in 1973 (black-box), and his 2nd in 1974 (blue-box). And not from an arduous and delicate analysis of motor EMA-4.

Dear Arker,

This is a good analysis of the meager facts that we have to work with.

Why did Hack spend so much time attempting to develop a 5th generation camper power supply if he had operating OU prototypes at his disposal?

Your assessment is as good as any I've heard.

I prefer to look at it from a different angle. Assuming that the Cole converter did what Mr. Cannady reported (knowing full well that Gray could have pulled a fast one) then with a 1300 Volt output it was not saleable or safe to distribute to the general public. Mr. Hackenberger had to redesign the transformer for a lower voltage output and seems to have included a regulating system as well. To me it appears that he didn't succeed in down sizing and changing the topology of the Cole device to his transistorized low voltage approach. The Cole system used a spark gap. I suspect that took the place of the blocking diode as seen in the 1975 patent. Well, as a diode, a point to plate arc (when it works) has some pretty impressive recovery times that are critical to this technology. In 1973 high speed fast recovery diodes were just coming online. They were finally available by 1979 (for a price). I'm sure there were other technical challenges as well.

But, he probably didn't have much choice. As I understand it the Cole version Black Box with its vibrator and spark gap was a very unstable circuit that required constant adjustment and replacement of the modified vibrator. When it work, it work well, but its Mean time between failures was measured in minutes. Consider the overall failure rate by having 18 such power supplies being operated in parallel to achieve any sort of HP.

Such a system had to be redesigned. To me it appears that Hack made a grand attempt but failed in those early years. It seems that when PWM IC's became available (along with faster diodes) he was able to finally make some progress with a solid state approach. Notice that the 1979 model operates at around 3 kV. Mr. Hackenberger must have come to the conclusion that a low voltage approach for this technology was just not going to work.

But, your proposal of a "bait and switch" routine is a viable explanation as well.

Mark McKay

[Arker]

Hack electronic version static device was hoax along with all EMA motors after EMA4 ?

You formulate-there with vigour the maxim THINK OUT THE MATRIX. (Which means "for progress, tear out constraints -the initializations- that you put yourself to yourself.")

The simplest answer to your question is : yes.

By prudence. Because from 1973 at 1979 Hackenberger and Gray have always formed a duo of liars. (And even a duo of thieves in 1979 in Kansas.)
As an engineer Hack was on frontline, but it was not the more liar of the two.
Because after the Hack's disappearance in 1980, Gray practiced lies and manipulation at a prodigious level. It is in his nature. (And before recruiting Hack in 1973, it was alike with his EV's box at COP hallucinating, as seen before-yesterday.)

_ e n d _

[Arker]

The static generators

Dear Arker,
...
I'm of the present opinion that Mr. Hackenberger (at the time of the Transcript) was deliberately attempting to suppress the concept of an Electrostatic process in the system by avoiding the use of that descriptive word. His explanation that "static" meant his new topology had no moving parts is rather lame reasoning to me.

Dear Spokane1,

Whatever your explanations (or your references to EMSA) you have no right to initialize discreetly "static= electrostatic". No offense meant.

Mr Hackenberger is the sole creator of his camping-generators, and now you do not have the right to systematically rewrite "electrostatic generators" even if you believe this is for the good cause.

_ e n d _

[Arker]

...
with a 1300 Volt output it was not saleable or safe to distribute to the general public.
Mr. Hackenberger had to redesign the transformer for a lower voltage output
....

Sorry to see that instead of looking to get out of your initialization mechanisms, you have yourself locked up even more with 3 astonishing new initializations.
Because that what you explain pre-supposes exactly this :

1) The general public is the only one interesting target.

2) Cole is an imbecile, since he invented a overunity 1300 volts, inappropriate for the general public(*).

3) Hack is an imbecile, since 12 months he was never capable to lower to 110V the 1300V of this small generator that he has into his hands.

___________

You have the right to think all whatever you want Mark. It's just that is unfortunate that you're wasting your talent because of your psychical mechanisms.

I stop there my posts. By wishing you good luck on your way. (Thanks also to Aaron for his excellent forum.)


Friendly,
Arker


______________
(*) It is as if you said, "the inventor of the truck is moron" because not suitable for general public use.

Obviously if such a generator existed (1300V - 1.4KW - COP 15000), we don't care about 110V and the general public, because the industrials would have snapped up this generator for them.

_ e n d _

[bmentink]

Well now that the rubbish is sorted .. let's get down to some real work

Mark, my Thyratrons have finally arrived so will be running them up over the weekend .. I still maintain that to achieve the radiant energy from a spark current must be interrupted very fast, i.e. extremely short turn off time .. so that will be my aim .. after all, Tesla's original observation was the sudden turn off causing death of some workers if you remember ..

Will let you know how I get on ..

[Spokane1]

Disruptive Discharge

Well now that the rubbish is sorted .. let's get down to some real work

Mark, my Thyratrons have finally arrived so will be running them up over the weekend .. I still maintain that to achieve the radiant energy from a spark current must be interrupted very fast, i.e. extremely short turn off time .. so that will be my aim .. after all, Tesla's original observation was the sudden turn off causing death of some workers if you remember ..

Will let you know how I get on ..

Dear bmentink,

Glad to hear that your Thyratrons finally came in from Russia.

Those accounts about the very early observations of Dr. Tesla and the effects of the switching event for large DC electrical systems from Gerry Vassolatos are only looking at part of the overall circuit that was involved. Other questions need to be asked and included in a good assessment as to what was going on there. As I understand it in the early days the most economical utilization of electricity was for DC motors in commercial and transportation. Electricity was far to expensive for illumination and heating.
Thus the load on that switch had to have been largely inductive. Now consider what is going on in the DC generator. It is being driven at full speed with no load. I believe that the armature coils have fully charged the parasitic capacitance to some value way above the steady state operating voltage. The field coils are also at maximum flux. So when the switch is closed it probably wasn't 5kV that sparked across the blades but more like 15 kV+. In that short transition time, before the BEMF can develop to limit armature current the stored magnetic field (from mutual inductance from the field coils) collapses through the armature coils. Now the generator is acting as a current source into an inductive load for a few 10 of a millisecond. It was under these conditions that the something interesting happened.

Another issue that hasn't been addressed in this phenomena is the possibility of an intermittent arc blow out. Once the initial arc was struck it was followed by a huge and sudden current pulse that heated the metal contacts and the air so quickly that the resulting expansion created an explosion that completely briefly removed the developing conductive plasma and once again greatly increased the gap resistance. What was the impact of this sudden interruption on the generator? Given the size of the generator I assume that delay line times are no longer negligible and some huge electrostatic stresses were being developed that eventually ended up back at the point of the switch closure.

This arc blowout process is more common than you think, even at the low energy levels we work with. The large voltage spikes that result can be easily observed on a digital oscilloscope. The easiest way to observe this is to monitor the voltage across a capacitor (5 uF) charged to 10 kV and discharged through a fixed gap through a HV resistor. I have observed a classical RC decaying voltage, but as the capacitor reached its depletion limit the arc begins to fail and these large voltage spikes appear to produce a "burst" of events. By proper selection of the resistor, gap distance, and initial voltage the length of this burst can be greatly increased.

Anyway, have you given some thought to just what the overall circuit was involved in these early radiant energy accounts? How do you perceive the mechanics of the process that might have taken place. My present explanation is just a WAG.

Your concept about the extremely short turn off time is central to the theme of this technology, but I can't help but think that it is only half of the picture. The other half (in my opinion) is how that transition impacts the physics of the associated transformer or generator. The spark is the whip and the horse is the stored magnetic energy in the coil fields. During this sudden shift of energy gradients something interesting happens.

Anyway, just so I can better understand your position as a result of your research, do you believe that it is the complex physics that takes place in the spark that is responsible for the non-classical creation of additional energy and that the transformers, coils, and capacitors are just support components that provide the proper parameters to allow this novel reaction to occur? Of course, this is a very valid line of reasoning and one that has been followed by others, most notably by Gary Magratten, PE. He has been working on his version of a spark driven motor for years. He even got some funding for it. If you are interested I have a lot of his material and progress notes. I'm sure he would be happy if I sent you scanned copies of his work.

For now, I'm of the opinion that the spark served the purpose of a high speed switch in series with a very fast recovery diode (within certain parameters). All of the magic actually took place in the sudden shift of magnetic and electrostatic fields inside of the transformer/generator apparatus. Of course this is just one of many proposals. The transistors in the 1979 Power Supply had a tf (fall time) of 25 nS. That was pretty good for 1979 but probably shows us the upper limit of the transition time specifications we have to meet in our replication circuits.

A spark gap can achieve off-on transition times of around 9 nS. It is the On-off transition that is hard to achieve. As you probably know once a DC arc is struck its resistance drops to a low value (between 2-100 Ohms). Increasing the gap distance has little effect on quenching a high current event. Dr. Tesla spent a lot of time developing apparatus to interrupt high current events. I suppose that his best solutions never made it to the patent papers. I hope that modern solid state devices can now effectively replace the spark gap devices.

Consider that Dr. Tesla's most advanced interrupters used thin Mercury streams under pressure. Perhaps the might have been intended to explode (like an exploding wire) in order to provide a sudden high resistance after a brief low resistance.

Anyway, I'm glad you are taking a detailed look once again at the spark as being the seat of the non-classical reaction. I shall be most interested in your observations.

Pardon me for rambling so much.

Mark McKay

[bmentink]

Dear bmentink,


A spark gap can achieve off-on transition times of around 9 nS. It is the On-off transition that is hard to achieve. As you probably know once a DC arc is struck its resistance drops to a low value (between 2-100 Ohms). Increasing the gap distance has little effect on quenching a high current event. Dr. Tesla spent a lot of time developing apparatus to interrupt high current events. I suppose that his best solutions never made it to the patent papers. I hope that modern solid state devices can now effectively replace the spark gap devices.

It is the on->off transition that I hope to address with the thryatron, with my drive circuit, as stated in an earlier post, I hope to achieve <3ns. So with the fast turn-on with combo spark-gap/thyraton and fast turn-off with thyraton, I think we can achieve the optimum switching.(I may use this in combo with magnetic quenching + inductor as well)

You are right that this is only half the solution, the other half is the collection method, and I have some idea's there too ..

Pardon me for rambling so much.

Mark McKay

Ramble away, it's always good to hear from you ..

Cheers,
Bernie

[Wicaksono]

arc blowout in CSET

This arc blowout process is more common than you think, even at the low energy levels we work with. The large voltage spikes that result can be easily observed on a digital oscilloscope. The easiest way to observe this is to monitor the voltage across a capacitor (5 uF) charged to 10 kV and discharged through a fixed gap through a HV resistor. I have observed a classical RC decaying voltage, but as the capacitor reached its depletion limit the arc begins to fail and these large voltage spikes appear to produce a "burst" of events. By proper selection of the resistor, gap distance, and initial voltage the length of this burst can be greatly increased.

This is an important rambling from Mr. McKay : how if CSET is actually using arc blowout process all along ? If this is true, then the arc blowout will be between HV & LV electrode, the arc burst will be produced at HV electrode, and this burst will be harvested by CSET grid from HV electrode. But in this case, the thyratron will not be used as a fast on-off switch, it only used as ordinary switch to turn on the arc blowout at spark gap. If Bernie is using his magnet quenched spark gap with inductor with thyratron tube, then he may be seeing this effect.

Wicaksono

[Spokane1]

New info on Hackenbrger Transformer

Gentlemen,

As you know Al Francouer is the present owner of the 1979 Power Supply that I suspect was the Cold Electricity converter that drove the "Blue Engine". He called me Friday and spoke about a number of important events in is life. He stated that he was not ready to disclose the specific novel construction details of this power supply yet. However by analogy he hinted how there were two sets of opposing windings that composed the secondary of this ordinary looking shell type transformer.

I hadn't considered that concept before. Right now I'm exploring a standard solenoid winding. The two internal opposing coils does make perfect sense in this technology. That means that during the Fly-back collapse there are two magnetic fields directly opposing each other. What ever mechanical forces are generated internally apparently can be restrained by the mounting hardware. These windings are bifilar and are wound counter to each other. The general layout is very similar to the Tesla 1892 demo device. It probably shares many qualities of the 1896 Tesla table top oscillator.

I certainly will not find this topology in any of my transformer reference books.

Opposing electromagnets is not new to the OU community. The Bedini, Adams, and Cole motors all share some aspects of this concept. Along with many other coil methodologies.

The successful EMA4-E1 Gray Engine had a curious sequence of operation. For 120 degrees of rotation the "Major" electromagnets were fired at Top Dead Center opposing each other, in which all 18 capacitors were discharged. Then for the remaining 270 degrees of rotation the "Minor" - "Major" firings took place with the 11-2/3 degree offsets. Now this little bit of offset allowed for some torque to be developed, but the TDC firings would have produced all radial force that would have resulted in no torque.

My proposal is that the Major firings produced the Cold Electricity that was stored and then used to drive the next cycle that actually produced the torque. This means that the EMA4 engine was also configured to be a energy converter, perhaps a 2nd stage.

If this new suggestion is valid that means that the configuration of the converter and the opposing electromagnets are very similar. This also means that the actual non-classical conversion could have taken place in the converter and/or the engine. And to think all this time I was sure that the engine was just a rotary transducer. Perhaps it could have been either depending upon the version. Even if this was the case then the "Cold Electricity" was still stored and used to provide torque in a configuration that didn't produce energy.

No wonder this technology is hard to follow - it keeps changing.

Does anybody have any thoughts on this concept?

I'm in the process of winding a new opposing secondary to see just how this functions.

Mark McKay

[boguslaw]

Dear Mark

Check the connection to the EMA4 coils from power supply. I think it may be a single wire power line with capacitive return (via armature or capacitor plates). I quite long time ago stated that this setup was clearly described by Tesla in his lecture in 1892 or 1893. Described but not disclosed the operating principle and efficiency...