I watched the video. Its interesting as much from the social aspects it evokes as from the technical side. Gray was clearly very paranoid and seemed to have little to do with the real engineering of this device. Perhaps the real inventors were cowed into quitting. Maybe they let Gray go because he was more con man than inventor and as such was doing more disservice to the cause than anything else. We will never really know will we?

Hmmmmm Could it be that Ed Gray was just the frontman/Salesman or even a financier? It is not unusual for these people to be unscrupulous shysters.

Is it the case that this device was not all his own work and if not it begs the question, who else was involved?

Marvin Cole, Tesla's assistant.

Wow, thanks for that, it makes sense though.

With all respect to Don Smith I have a theory that he was also a representative of larger group of interest....Just my theory...

Marvin Cole

Are you guessing or do you have evidence of this?

Obviously the video is worth getting just to get an insight into this.

Aaron, your reply seems to suggest you have more knowledge on the subject and possibly further insights not in the video. I'm all ears

Guessing but maybe Mark McKay has hard evidence ?

E. V. Gray Technology Hints

Gentlemen,

The scope of the lecture delivered at this summers Bedini-Lindemann Conference was requested to cover just the historical events as could best be determined at the time.

The collected technical hints is another matter. After the lecture I gave an informal discussion about the overall view of the hardware. Mr. Mike Kishbud of Seattle filmed the event and placed it on YouTube. I didn't have any prepaired slides or drawings so the presentation was weak. I can only draw so fast on a white board and my impromptu schematics were missing quite a lot of important detail.

For those of you who visit this blog drop me a email to mmckay@simplexgrinnell.com and I will send you my latest "The 10 Top Hints of the E. V. Gray technology". It is a 26 page Word document (Still in progress) with compleated schematics and some photos sharing what I have observed in my research and what I think is unique and/or important.

A seperate document speculates about the Tesla/Dollard apparatus. This paper is just a WAG in process, but I will send it as well if you want to take time to read it. (The price is right).

Mark McKay

Marvin Cole - Dr. Tesla's assistant?

Dear All,

It it highly unlikely that Marvin Cole was Dr. Tesla's assistant. Dr. Tesla died in 1943 at the age of 83 (or so). Marvin Cole and E. V. Gray were nearly the same age of 35 in 1957. That would make Mr. Cole about 18 at Dr. Tesla's death. so, he would have been even younger if he were to have worked for Dr. Tesla prior to his death for any length of time.

Now the allegded Andre Poppoff person is another matter. E. V. Gray only spoke of this individual once and that was to his lawyer Mr. Joe Gordon. Here Mr. Gray claimed that Mr. Poppoff got the original idea / inspiration from Dr. Tesla before his death. It is not necessary that the missing link needs to be an employed assistant. A knowlegable individual who had a heart to heart audiance with Dr. Tesla could have aquired this information over dinner with a few notes and napkin sketches thrown in.

We have no more evidence to validate Mr. Joe Gordon's claim and will probalby never get anymore.

Gray got something that tripped his trigger in 1957. Inside info from a Russian imagrant is as good of story as any. I would certainly like to have more details about how this initial burst of inspiration came about. Did they start with a free-energy technology concept from the get-go? Or was the breakthrough discovered along the way towards an industrial pulse motor design? I flip back and fourth on this subject.

Either they got direction directly/indirectly from Dr. Tesla or they tripped over the discovery while working with pulsed arcs and opposing magnetic fields (to produce disruptive arcs). Either way the technology is still related to Dr. Tesla work even if they just rediscoverd it by accident.

I just can't see how an educated individual would give the plans (and/or a proof of principle model) of a Free-Energy technology to an Auto-Body shop owner? Why couldn't Mr. Poppoff have developed the technology himself? By all observations to date the kernel of the hardware is not that complicated and can be aquired for less than $500 in today's money.

Even E. V. Gray's sons have no idea as to how this came about.

Mark McKay

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.

Function of the CEST - speculations & history

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

E.V. Gray research update

Dear E.V. Gray researchers.

It has been awhile since this thread has been active. It seems interest has fallen way off yet we are so much closer than we were in 2000. People were so fascinated by the "Converter Element Switching Tube" that they completely overlooked the real source of the anomalous energy. It appears that the presentation of the EMA6 motor in 1976 was intended to focus interest on the non patented novel looking switching element. That ploy succeeded for 45 years.

The recovered attic audio tapes recorded in 1973 describe that the kernel source was the power supply transformer. Originally, (according to the patent documents) two auto ignition coils were employed. The fundamental system seems to operate much like a dual coil Bedini machine. The difference is in how the energy that is created via the BEMF pulse is harvested. This requires two storage capacitors and a lot of mechanical switching which now days can probably be accomplished with solid state devices and a micro computer.

There is no RF in this process other than the spectral content of the DC pulses.

The present design challenge is the design of the core transformer. First off it is not a transformer but two opposing induction coils on the same linear core. All of the equations for classical induction coils are useless since there is no primary capacitor switched into the circuit after the break, thus the standard oscillations do not take place the same way.

Even the equations for a modern buck-boost SMPS are only good up to a point. All of these assume that secondary current is being drawn out. In this application it is not. We are attempting to charge storage capacitors with BEMF energy. As the capacitor is charged through a blocking diode more and more inductive energy is left behind in the "transformer". After a few cycles there is so much un-harvested circulating current in the secondary that the novel energy creation ceases.

Mr. Bedini's solution was to discharge all of the energy from every cycle into a wet cell battery, which causes novel changes in the battery chemistry, but the real advantage of this energy is no longer available for better uses. As it is now the maximum potential that John's system can achieve (for storage purposes) is a few volts above the float voltage of the battery. Gray and company demonstrated that to really get the full advantage of this energy one needs to build it up to around 3 kV.

There are several ways in which this can be done and I'm exploring a few circuits to do this. However the real challenge is the design of the opposing core transformer. There are no design examples in the classical texts and not very much concerning coupled coils with single rod cores. For example: how to you calculate the total inductance of a multi layer solenoid coil with only 25% of the open area filled with steel? Calculating the value if it in air is easy enough. Adding a small iron core, as in an auto ignition coil, is a non-discussed topic. Then to calculate the same value when you have two of these coils opposing each other is not even mentioned.

I can see why Mr. Hackenberger said that there was no way to calculate the performance of one of these "transformers" prior to making it. He must have made hundreds of these to fine tune the various parameters involved.

I still have no idea as to the actual physics involved - neither did Mr. Hackenberger.

Mark McKay, PE

This energy was first used by Tesla in his lectures. I some day posted a picture of strange coils. Imho they were parts of Tesla novel never patented electrostatic motors. Schematic are in one of early lecture between 1891-1893 can't remember now.
Electrostatic energy I believe is very fast DC switching/pulsing of magnetic field. Probably Earth field.