I did what I could to increase the gradient of my 5/8" grid. I have some control over the effect by how long I charge the cap. I'm going to have to restrict what I release.



"Don't feed the trolls"

Attached Images

	frame2061.JPG (17.4 KB, 60 views)
	frame2065.JPG (10.8 KB, 46 views)

thats quite a spark you have got going there!!!

Thanks. I kind of like it.

OK Some condensers can handle up to 400 volts (Back spikes from the primary) If your getting plenty of spark then I wouldn't worry about it. I was only suggesting their use because they are designed to work with the ignition coils. With a condenser and my 12V battery I am able to easily able to produce strong sparks that will Jump 1" and some can reach out two and a half inches seeking a ground. I would still recomend their use in addition to your regular system capacitor. Maybe use diodes to block the larger spikes from the condenser. Just a thought.

Wow that's pretty impressive! That means you should have on the order of 30KV. I think I'm getting around 8-10KV from discharging 100V from 330uF. I did take your advice and put some mylar caps across the relay and it helped reduce the sparking a bit. But I need to get some slightly bigger caps.

Yesterday I also moved my spark gap inside the grids (carbon still outside). Didn't have much time to test after that, so I'll let y'all know later.

@electrotek
Also very impressive, that ball of lightning you created. Where have you documented your circuit? I'm starting to lose track as all these forums get larger.

@What The Flux:

ImageShack - Image Hosting :: pufftubesm3.jpg

That's my basic circuit, except I've deleted the bottom cap, for now, and some other minor change. The cap will move to the right of the diode, in parallel across the Tube's arc.

Speaking of circuits, I've figured out how to extend your circuit to conform with the patent. Just extend the top and bottom lines on out towards the right and connect another spark gap and capacitor in parallel, between the top and bottom lines. This additional spark gap across the new cap should arc all the time, similar to a Tesla Coil primary.

Then, you need to extend the line from the gird on out, to a 'third electrode' for this additional spark gap. That's what my circuit is. The only difference is I have the third electrode close enough that it arcs all the time, while the patent has it farther away. It's up to you how to put it.

The HV cap doesn't have to be very big, without a heavy load like a motor. A couple of sheets of foil with several sheet protectors (from the office supply) should be enough, with the plastic sheets between the foils. Just so you have both a cap and a spark going through the CSET.

@all, did you check the first Gray patent from 1975? I tend to forget that one all the time and when I checked it I realized the sparking is probably central in all his patents because he came from cap banks and spark gaps and then added the Gray tube and redesigned the circuit a bit. Maybe all beginners should start out without the tube, it sems much simpler if you ask me.

However the basic concept is the same in the first patent, discharge multiple caps across sparks gaps to an inductive load and the load is described in detail in this patent. It seems some of you are right on track with your work anyway, this patent is just something that made me look an extra time..

PS: Gray only applied for 3 patents then health got really bad...

@Gauss:

Yes, it's interesting that the first patent used a large number of capacitors, each with it's own ignition coil/transformer. With the CSET circuit, Gray was able to eliminate all of the caps, except the three which supplied the Power Conversion Tubes.

Gray's early circuit was based somewhat on the '71 Phinney circuit from the jet engine ignition patent (#3619638). That circuit used dual transformers and pulse forming techniques, which Gray simplified.

The key to the early motor was the magnetic harness, which was wrapped around the outside of the motor, in the middle. These two coils are called the delay line, as well as the floating static field coil. The way Gray explained it was that one magnetic effect cannot occur inside another. In other words, the delay line was a choke, and what it delayed was the passage of the pulse through the motor coils. This caused the pulse to bunch up, or compress. Pulse compression is the key to getting large amounts of power from a pulse motor.

And you are correct about the importance of the spark gaps. Hackenberger reverse engineered the EMA-6 motor, using solid state electronics rather than sparks. His motor only put out a dismal 2HP. It might have been different if he had been wise enough to use vacuum tubes, which can closely simulate an arc discharge.

Gray also maintained that the floating static field was what caused the motor coils to ice up. And he was able to demonstrate Over Unity using these two coils on a plastic form, without a motor in the circuit. He was very shrewd - even brilliant - when he designed the CSET circuit, since this circuit incorporates the same effect without the delay line.

And, yes, Gray did pay the price for his heavy smoking. He might not have had his heart attack when he went downstairs that night to confront a possible intruder, if he had taken his oxygen tank.

It's also unfortunate that he lost control of the rights to the CSET. His only somewhat impressive coil popping demonstrations had to rely on Ignitrons, and the circuit was somewhat cumbersome. (Circuit attached)

Attached Images

CoilPoppingCircuit.jpg (62.8 KB, 66 views)

Magnetic compression sounds interesting to me.

Did you compare that with the late VICs of Stan? There you have the exact phenom if you ask me. All the great EEs seem to be able to integrate transformer, inductors and caps into one brilliant component. It seems like integration is key to success but that is just my take.

Thanks for your info, very useful. How about Frits Lens, dead?

@Gauss - I seem to be unfamiliar with the terms "VICs of Stan" and "Frits Lens"?

I mean Stanley Meyer and the late Voltage Intensifier Circuits with multiple spools for node generation. I even have a rather clear pic of how to improve his configuration, let´s see if it´s possible. But I now believe anyone doing the WFC should forget the first VIC, it is no good even if the result is there in a small way.

For Lens I believe he was key engineer fro Gray.

I haven't delved into Stanley Meyer's stuff too much. I think it's workable, but there has to be a simpler way. I am happy to see there's a lot of his information here on this forum. I'll see what I can find out about Lens. Thanks.

So I checked and found out he is not around...

Pls check the late VIC, it is real simple and should do a lot good although not perfect I believe... . Turns out the late VIC is probably a much better generator(Transformer, Ind, R and cap in one piece) than the simple Gray tube although Gray´s receiver is far superior, try to combine them.

I meant the HV-LV generator of Gray compared to the late VIC(magnetoelectric wave generator), sorry. His tube is probably just fine.

Great idea Inquorate! I didn't even think of it at the time. It would be more accurate to since the HV probe does 50kv I believe so it would be hard to see really where it is as.

Or perhaps just use a 100 M Ohm R in series with the probe tip this would insure any added resistive ladder does not have an effect on the circuit (L and C -based and other "balanced" or resonant circuits can be amazingly skewed by even a few ohms sometimes).

If your probe is now a "x1", it is likely to provide a total Input Impedance of 1 megohms (industry standard for most 'scopes). Regular "stand-alone" scope x1 probes have almost no DC resistance (the input impedance being provided internally, with only a filter cap for "trim" in the better ones). PC-based scopes usually have most of the impedance in the probe even for a "x1". If the probe is a "x10" it then it likely has 9 or 10 megs of impedance depending on it's above type (you can "Ohm" it with a DMM).

Putting the 100 M Ohm R on the tip of a "x1" probe will decease the measured values by a factor of about 99 (or for 30 kV, to roughly 300 V... Plus or minus the error percentage of the R itself). Luckily precise measurements are usually not required for these HV applications

The reason "real" HV probes are so expensive is they also have built in circuit protection in them besides the added resistance and special heavy-duty high-density insulation to keep the fingers away from shock and arc dangers. But they also often lower the analog Frequency Response of the whole system quite a bit (from the rating of the scope to around only 50 kHz in many cases). So if considering buying one; check that spec too

The home-made version will affect the analog band width of the scope slightly too, but not that badly. Where this could be of prime importance is when specific "fast" waveform shapes are being examined and compared, and/or when transient spikes are being looked for. But as long as all measurements are done with the same scope & probe arrangement, then it should work for comparison purposes.

Also regarding Frequency Response, remember that digital scopes (of which PC-based ones and the new small portable ones are all) have another important factor, that of Sample Rate. You need at least 10 samples per cycle to get an accurate waveform representation, or you risk "Aliasing". So if looking for spikes, the period of the fastest one you expect to see converted to Hz then multiplied by 10 is what you could use for the sample rate setting (a "1 mS" spike equals "1kHz" f, for a single-channel sample rate of "10k"). Of course more than 10 times is ok too... it really only matters when storing the data to disk, too much over-sampling creates giant files

I added an outer grid to my Tube today, which is 1 1/2" by 4 3/4". Now it's starting to look like a CSET. For convenience, I used the same 1/4" square mesh used for the inner 5/8" bias grid. I don't know that the bias grid is necessary, but it's there, so I thought I'd see what happens. I could take it out easily enough, but then it would look like some of my other CSETs, so I could just use them.

I'm using a center spark, and when I turn it on, I can get a weak sparking with a jumper wire from the outer grid to the non-diode electrode. So I wired in an extra ignition coil, with the grid to the coil's output terminal, and the jumper wire from the coil's common to the non-diode electrode. After that I hooked a small DC motor up, across the coil's LV input, and fired the Tube. Nothing.

I'm going to have to connect a battery to the capacitor and see if I can figure out how the battery's juice can get through it.

My gray circuit

YouTube - UPDATE 28 EDWIN GRAY / TESLA RADIANT ENERGY HYBRID CIRCUIT Running at 48volts

Useful info: http://www.nuenergy.org/alt/valve.htm

Behsires,

Thanks for the link. This is one of the best discussions I've seen about this Valve, aka Glo-regulator.

Ahmedev has shown that the addition of 40% by weight of Cessium to the internal atmosphere results in 100% ionization of the internal gas. This will produce a high Farad capacitor, with static electricity.

The CSET is similar, except the central electrode is positive. The negative side of the system capacitor is connected to the grid, through the battery and motor, whether the commutator is closed or not. So ionization will build up inside the Tube after a short time. These charge carriers will enable a LV pulse to pull electrons out of the passive battery's positive pole, recharging it. It may take multiple CSET's for a given application, depending on how long it takes for the Tube to 'charge'.

Some people say that a negative charge can't move inwards in this type of Valve, but I've seen evidence on my workbench that it can.

I wired up my CSET a little differently for a test I've been thinking about. I'm not using the big, expensive capacitor, or the inductor. Instead, I've got a small sheet protector and foil cap between the NST and the diode. The output of the diode goes to the CSET's input electrode, and the other electrode goes back to the NST's return wire.

I wanted to try a Node-to-Node discharge to the CSET's outer grid. So I ran a jumper wire from the cap's diode connection. When I brought this wire close to the grid, I got a spark about 1" long, with a loud snap. At the same time, my little cap blew out, so I had to stop. I'll make another cap with more insulation and test it again. I'm aiming at connecting the jumper wire to the grid, to see how much charge the CSET will store. If I get any arcing between the central electrode and the grid, this will destroy the capacitance effect, so I'll make a different grid with a larger diameter.

This test is similar to the patent circuit, with the wire running from the back of the diode to the grid, through the battery and motor.

I can see right now that what's going to happen is the rewired CSET is going to develop enough voltage that it'll blow my big diode. I could use an Overshoot Switch (with a distant third electrode) but that would prevent me from seeing how much charge can be accumulated. So I'll try wiring the Tube up so that it acts like a diode. Similar to a Glo-regulator, or Ion Valve. Or, I may have to fill the Tube with Helium to prevent the formation of negative ions, while allowing the passage of free electrons. I got a tank of helium from the balloon department at WalMart for $20.

Then I'll build a bigger CSET, with multiple grids, to maximize the static electricity pick up.

Post a schematic so's I can see what yer doing Pleeeeezz

Here's my circuit from message #321.

Attached Images

phot0020b.JPG (10.6 KB, 52 views)

I think I can try that with my ignition coil setup.

I made a new cap. It only has two layers of foil, each in a sheet protector, but there's six sheet protectors between them. This cap has a much smaller value, but it'll withstand a higher voltage.

When I hooked it up and turned it on, I didn't get the same capacitive snap as the jumper wire approached the grid. (Message #321) However, with the jumper touching the grid, there was a lot of activity. There were sparks from the outer grid to the input electrode, from the inner electrode to the outer grid, and between the grids - in more than one spot. A lot of these sparks were simultaneous, signifying a longitudinal effect.

This diode T-Tap circuit really increases the amount of voltage. And the frequency. If the cap is small enough, it'll produce gigahertz range frequencies.

With a large enough diameter grid to prevent this arcing, this extra, Node-to-Node energy should appear in the form of static electricity. I don't think this extra energy reflects on the utylity meter, since it's not Phase-to-Phase.

Attached Images

	frame2108.JPG (15.9 KB, 25 views)
	frame2109.JPG (16.1 KB, 21 views)
	frame2110.JPG (16.3 KB, 18 views)
	frame2111.JPG (16.3 KB, 18 views)

Been doing some tests lighting up neons from foil to wires.. Something weird is more pickup horizontal than perpendicular...

It's got me wondering about different gray tube geometries.. Although neons lit quite a lot when I put tube end of foil around the screw I adjust spark gap with...

Video

YouTube - Inquorate 23 detector

An image of spark gap and proof of principle re pickup for Electrotek

Deep thoughts

Maybe not, but check this out:

The Tom Bearden Website

PS: I'll look at your video later tonight, when I can tie up the phone line.

When enlarged, the pictures show a lot of blueish energy around the sparks. Maybe this circuit is producing an effect which makes the air more conductive?

Attached Images

frame2112.JPG (15.0 KB, 24 views)

I was just reading about ionized air is more conductive, and a UV beam can be used to make the air more conductive. maybe that spark is generating some UV light.

check Patent: US1309031