Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube ONLY 13% OF SEATS AVAILABLE!!!*** 2017 ENERGY CONFERENCE ***


* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #421  
Old 01-29-2009, 07:31 AM
Beshires1 Beshires1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 245
Now, look at how I produced the event. See if you can positively identify. just what happened. This was not simply shorting out a cap thru the coil. Or thru the tube for that matter.
http://sites.google.com/site/chasing...gn.%20Coil.bmp
__________________
 
Reply With Quote

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #422  
Old 01-29-2009, 08:12 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,571
Thumbs up How the Gray Tube Works 2 & 3

GRAY TUBE - HOW IT WORKS - YOUTUBE





__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami


Last edited by Aaron; 01-29-2009 at 08:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 01-29-2009, 01:04 PM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
How the tube works...

Aaron, thanks for the pictures and you explanation.

However, I think you are wrong in how the tube works. There is not supposed to be a discharge from the low voltage rod to C2. How could you gain any energy by just having electrons you already had jump over a spark gap into a cap? That idea just doesn't cut it! What's more, that's also totally inconsistent with the observation in McKays file ( http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/MKay5.pdf ) where they observe more power with increasing resistance at the low-voltage rod.


I think the only logical explanation of what is going on is that a ver very *short* spark emits radio-waves, both normal transversal waves as well as *longitudinal* waves, across a wide spectrum running well into the 10s of Ghz, at least 60 GHz, judging by Bose's experiments with micro-waves ( J.C. Bose: 60 GHz in the 1890s ).

In an article about Loeb and Meeks 'The Mechanism of The Electric Spark' ( The mechanism of the electric spark and its possible role in tapping Radiant Energy ), you can find the following:

"When the free electrons are absorbed by the high voltage anode the free electrons become bound again, and give up a quanta of electromagnetic radiation. Because of the huge increase in free electrons developed in avalanche the amount of EMR given off by the high voltage anode is in the range of hundred to thousand
fold increase. Thus the huge "Radiant Event". [...] When Mark [Mckay] and I were first doing research on the Gray Circuit we (especially he) kept blowing up components. It was a year before I read the rare book by Loeb and Meek that explained why the components were blowing up. There was a current gain of 500% with the open air, high voltage spark gap."

"If Loeb and Meek are correct then if we assume a spark gap of 3 mm and a voltage of 5,000 volts there are roughly 2,000 electrons created by avalanche for every one electron leaving the cathode. They state that most of these 'free electrons' are absorbed by the anode. [...] In conclusion: Sparks and Arcs are two different beast. My initial research into the amperage necessary to form an arc does not apply to spark and the process of avalanche where this huge gain mechanism is possible."

So, here it is clearly said that you want just a *spark* and not an *arc*, because you want the process of avalanche to occur, which I think should be attributed to longitudinal waves bouncing back and forth between the rod and grids. The reason for that is that Tesla's wireless power transmission system could only have worked if he used longitudinal waves *and* if these tap of ZPE and strenghten themselves. Otherwise, you can never transmit a decent amount of power trough the air without a focussed beam. Since Tesla used spheres mounted as high as possible, he definately did not use anything even close to focussed beam, and therefore the (longitudunal) waves he used must somehow have tapped ZPE, most likely by kicking positron-electron pairs floating around in the vacuum to such an extent that they separate and become free charge particles, adding additional force to the shock wave.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 01-29-2009, 02:07 PM
broli broli is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 530
Lol I thought it was a different Aaron at ou.com but it was you after all. Anyway, you made a good presentation.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 01-29-2009, 03:42 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,571
Lamare??

Lamare,

You must be commenting on someone else's post because your comments don't seem to have anything to do with anything I have said.

Nowhere in any video, picture or comment did I ever say anything about any discharge leaving the LV rod.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 01-29-2009, 04:10 PM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Hmm. I probably misunderstood then. I was referring to the images just above....
I'll study your diagrams again in the train on the way home.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 01-29-2009, 06:18 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,571
diagrams and comments

You may be mistaking the grid as the HV rod. Forget about looking at the tube and what the tube visually implies. I have clearly labeled each item and have shown the HV rod jumping to the GRID first and not to the LV rod. This is the ONLY way that C2 behind the inductor could get charged.

Video Explanation of How The Gray Tube Works
Discussion Forum


My explanation appears to be the only thing that is finally consistent with the patents.

Theories aside, it doesn't matter if there is electron cascade, RF or anything else.

What matters at this point is the mechanics of the step-by-step function of what is happening and I believe I have shown it accurately.

Just about everyone, including myself, seems to have believed C1 is discharged into the tube and this causes an outward event that is captured by the grids and that powers the load. This is evidently NOT the case. It is the inverse. John showed electron movement from rods to grids so he knew all along exactly how it worked or what can be taken from his drawings at least that it was C2 that was powering the load.

As it was mentioned, the patent does say that but nobody is doing what the patent says. The "choices" that seem to be of debate were primarily with the diode placement. Was Gray wrong and Bedini right? Bedini has it right and I still have reason to believe this.

The grids are the standing potential of C2 until LV rod is switched. That standing HV electrostatic potential may or may not be polarizing the ambient air in the tube, special gas, etc... All speculation on gases, vacuum, etc... are evidently not required for the effect although it may be necessary to increase the strength of the effect. None of that is known at this time I don't believe. The Grids are the extension of C2 as an extension to the dipole. The potential is already there and doesn't have to get there.

I pointed out in the past but it went unnoticed that even on John's SG's, the positive potential of the battery is ALREADY sitting in the coil. Then when switched on the negative, which it is, it is the negative potential that slams into the coil without resistance...the positive potential doesn't have to encounter resistance entering the coil because it is again, ALREADY sitting there as an extension of the dipole (battery).

The Grids are an extension of C2 and the + potential is ALREADY sitting in the inductive load. It doesn't have to move into it and meet resistance. When LV rod is switched on, some serious negative potential (not necessarily electrons at all - anti-photon potential) moves with negative resistance TO the grids, into the load and into the cap.

I can see now why at higher voltages and higher speeds that inductive load could get covered with ice.

If everyone can see it, the analogy to lightening and how the tube works are not a joke.

Anyway, C1 gets charged as I show...directly from the power supply, over HV rod directly over gap to the GRIDS, through inductor and to C2...that is exactly how C2 is charged.

The C2-cap/Load-inductor, I suppose can be tuned for resonance at whatever frequency the power supply is operating at for maximum efficiency in charging that capacitor. The wire on the Gray motor appears to be pretty large diameter.

Then while C2 is charged up -- the commutator or whatever turns on the switch at the LV ROD gives a low potential path to ground for C2 to discharge to.

If grids are only covering the HV rod, then C2 can't jump directly to LV rod, it must jump to HV rod first forcing a collision into HV + potential of C1, THEN, it jumps to LV rod back to ground.

It is of course very apparent that the power supply + potential is also at the HV rod in addition to whatever charge is in C1...so C2 is colliding with that as well (if and only if the power supply happens to be on a ON cycle at that time).

My grids are almost 1 cm from the rods so they obviously need to be closer if C2 is going to be able to discharge during the OFF cycle of the power supply.

But if the power supply is operating at 6khz for example, then there will almost be a continuous spark from HV rod to Grids for practical purposes and therefore will act as a conductive pathway for C2 to discharge over towards the Grids. If this is the case, then a wider gap beyond the breakdown gap for C2 can be there.

My C2 was discharging as low as about 700 volts over a gap of almost 1 cm from Grids to HV rod and was able to do so only when it met with a HV spark from HV rod to Grid from the power supply.

I believe that it makes the most sense to have the grids only over HV rod and not the whole setup for these reasons of forcing the collision with the HV potential of C1.

I also think that the spacing between HV rod and Grids should be close enough so that the potential in C2 could discharge when LV Rod is switched on all by itself without having to have the power supply on. With keeping the ROD gap the same, there could be a comparison between C2 discharging by itself with close gap or using HV spark form HV rod and compare coil-popping strength...that is the only sure way to know what is best.

The spacing between the HV rod and LV rod should be worked out by having the gap wider and closer and seeing what makes a stronger pop at the coil...that is the only way to know.

So, after all, it is about discharging from the Grids (C2) into the tube and not the other way around.

__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami


Last edited by Aaron; 01-29-2009 at 06:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 01-29-2009, 06:38 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,571
How the Gray Tube Works PDF

PDF of explanation

http://www.esmhome.org/library/edwin...ytubeworks.pdf
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 01-29-2009, 07:08 PM
Beshires1 Beshires1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 245
Duhhh, I believe MY video showed the discharge from the Grid. What ever.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #430  
Old 01-29-2009, 08:48 PM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Aaron: if you take a look at the first schematic in http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/MKay5.pdf , you'll see the low voltage rod connected directly to ground using a 100 k resistor, and the grids connected directly to ground using a 500 Ohm / 50 watt resistor.

The high voltage rod is being driven by a magnet quenched gap, pulsing very short high voltage spikes being discharged across the spark-gap inside the tube. So, no coil, no c2, no S1. Just a HV spark into the HV rod.

Tad Johnson reports:

"ERE does NOT manifest if there is no resistor on the spark gap end of the CSET. Repeat ZERO POWER if no resistor in place. The more resistance, the more the effect appears to manifest.
With 300 Ohm or more of resistance the grid starts to put off a FRIGHTENING amount of power.
Enough to smoke a 50watt, 500 ohm resistor in less than 30 seconds. My input was 12 watts total from the wall. Output from the CSET grid is UNMEASURABLE. Grounding is also becoming an issue since I cannot run the end of the CSET back to ground with a resistor in between. Also, the energy coming off the grid appears to be harmful even with fast rise and fall times
contrary to other information out there."

So, these guys seem to have very interesting results, without complicated charging of the grids, caps, etc.
Basically all they did was feed a very short spark into the HV rod, connect the LV rod trough a resistor to ground and connect the grid trough a fat resistor to ground....

BTW: there are more interesting documents on Mc Gray's site, like:
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter5.pdf

I wonder wat ever happened to Tad Johnson and why they apparantly quit their experiments.
__________________
 

Last edited by lamare; 01-29-2009 at 08:49 PM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #431  
Old 01-29-2009, 09:28 PM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
This chapter 5 has a very interesting piece about Gray and his tube:

"The power tube presented to the public by Ed Gray snr. (but designed by Marvin Cole) operates by generating a series of very short, very sharp pulses using a spark gap.

Edwin Gray worked as a US Air Force engineer and machine-shop technician. Having discussed the matter with an associate of Nikola Tesla, in 1958 Ed discovered that the magnetic field generated by the very fast discharge of a high voltage source could pick up additional energy. (This was not actually a new discovery as Nicola Tesla had already burnt out a power station when he tried this on a large scale). It is said that in the seventies, Edwin built a device to capture this extra energy, however, it is almost certain that Ed Gray did not build the original system, nor did he understand how it actually operated. The designer and builder, Marvin Cole, unfortunately died, leaving Ed in a difficult position, which he tried, fairly ineffectively, to overcome.
[...]
His patents can not be relied on as Ed did not understand the basic principles of operation of the system, and as well as that, he did not want to disclose anything if he could. The patents were just to encourage investors."
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #432  
Old 01-29-2009, 09:37 PM
boguslaw's Avatar
boguslaw boguslaw is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,412
Aaron and lamare

IMO Both of you are right, but circuit in patent is spoiled.

Grids and C2 are BOTH part of the oscillating circuit, however connection to battery is misplaced or spoiled. That's why batteries exploded and capacitor 2 was a point of debate between Gray and engineers.

Here we have Tesla oscillating circuit with a HUGE - improvement. That improvement is CSET - multipactor which becomes one side capacitor from two side one (grids + plasma -> grids only) That means Gray circuit originally incorporates at least 3 patents !

The results are : very high frequency oscillations of HUGE (and I mean HUGE) power. A lot of problems with that because capacitor 2 and battery cannot restrain so much power.However in perfect circuit capacitor 2 MUST be part of oscillator and commutoator MUST have a second path to let circuit FREELY oscillate between multipactor and capacitor 2.

Well, I think we are not prepared for correctly build Gray circuit (or rather Marvin Cole circuit)

Anyone seeing commutator without two condensers in typical tesla oscillator circuit should ask: where is the rest of the circuit ?

It is here , but IMHO spoiled, because commutator is not a make and break device between CSET and C2 .

Anyway,it's just a theory...
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #433  
Old 01-29-2009, 10:39 PM
Beshires1 Beshires1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by boguslaw View Post
Aaron and lamare

IMO Both of you are right, but circuit in patent is spoiled.

Grids and C2 are BOTH part of the oscillating circuit, however connection to battery is misplaced or spoiled. That's why batteries exploded and capacitor 2 was a point of debate between Gray and engineers.

Here we have Tesla oscillating circuit with a HUGE - improvement. That improvement is CSET - multipactor which becomes one side capacitor from two side one (grids + plasma -> grids only) That means Gray circuit originally incorporates at least 3 patents !

The results are : very high frequency oscillations of HUGE (and I mean HUGE) power. A lot of problems with that because capacitor 2 and battery cannot restrain so much power.However in perfect circuit capacitor 2 MUST be part of oscillator and commutoator MUST have a second path to let circuit FREELY oscillate between multipactor and capacitor 2.

Well, I think we are not prepared for correctly build Gray circuit (or rather Marvin Cole circuit)

Anyone seeing commutator without two condensers in typical tesla oscillator circuit should ask: where is the rest of the circuit ?

It is here , but IMHO spoiled, because commutator is not a make and break device between CSET and C2 .

Anyway,it's just a theory...
I think we'll find the answers in the commutator.Huge capacitors quickly discharged thru big coils very very rapidly = massive amount of powerful backspikes.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #434  
Old 01-30-2009, 12:27 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,571
Gray's patents

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spearmaster View Post

http://radiant.100free.com/zpe_gray.html

On the Gray's Zero point energy page, the following statement is made following the graphic of his CSET;

"Capacitor 38 and inductive load 36 constitutes a tank circuit that resonates at 6Khz."

This would seem to indicate that each coil, stator and capacitor should have very strict values of inductance, capacitance and impedance. Does anyone have any idea of what these values should be? The values I have come up with are entirely unreasonable and likely indicate that I'm using flawed math. Any help will be appreciated.
The load and C2 (c2 in my diagrams being the cap on backside of inductor) is supposed to tuned for 6khz. That is the EXACT frequency that his power supply on the front side is operating at.

Please see both of these documents on Peter Lindemann's website:
http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/ems_inverter.pdf
http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/static_generator.pdf

Gray states in one of his patents that the capacitor on the back side of the load is to capture the spike coming off the coil after power is turned off.

It seems that although it could capture the spike from the coil, it doesn't exclude the possibility that the coil and cap is tuned to receive an efficient charge from the front side power supply as I've shown.

Gray says that the HV cap on the front side is what is discharged across the rod gap and the grids intercept this. This is what I always thought and seems to be the school of thought that all our projects have been based on.

If the cap behind the inductor is not being charged from the power source, what is the point of having the cap/inductor tuned to the exact frequency of the power supply?

6khz obviously has nothing to do with motor running speed since it obviously would be pointless to have a car motor that only runs at one fixed rpm.

I think Gray's patent/comments in the patent are full of misrepresentations and there is enough to put together what is happening. The best patents have a lot of intentional misleading info.

Any comments from anyone on this from anyone?
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #435  
Old 01-30-2009, 12:30 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,571
schematic

Hi Lamare,

That diagram is only their particular setup and attempt based on how they wanted to test it. I am aware of the concept that there is a resistor at the LV rod. I did not include one because it doesn't seem to be needed for the effect but it could of course increase the effect. They're using a neon transformer, which also clearly is not what was used by Gray, etc... there are modifications in that schematic that have nothing to do with the Patent.

Anyone working on this that has no experience with the water sparkplug circuit... I highly recommend building that because much of this becomes very, very apparent.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #436  
Old 01-30-2009, 01:20 AM
Electrotek Electrotek is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 603
Inductor Size?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
The load and C2 (c2 in my diagrams being the cap on backside of inductor) is supposed to tuned for 6khz. That is the EXACT frequency that his power supply on the front side is operating at.

Please see both of these documents on Peter Lindemann's website:
http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/ems_inverter.pdf
http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/static_generator.pdf

Gray states in one of his patents that the capacitor on the back side of the load is to capture the spike coming off the coil after power is turned off.

It seems that although it could capture the spike from the coil, it doesn't exclude the possibility that the coil and cap is tuned to receive an efficient charge from the front side power supply as I've shown.

Gray says that the HV cap on the front side is what is discharged across the rod gap and the grids intercept this. This is what I always thought and seems to be the school of thought that all our projects have been based on.

If the cap behind the inductor is not being charged from the power source, what is the point of having the cap/inductor tuned to the exact frequency of the power supply?

6khz obviously has nothing to do with motor running speed since it obviously would be pointless to have a car motor that only runs at one fixed rpm.

I think Gray's patent/comments in the patent are full of misrepresentations and there is enough to put together what is happening. The best patents have a lot of intentional misleading info.

Any comments from anyone on this from anyone?
Have you calculated the reactive inductance needed to tune a 12uF cap to 6kHz?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #437  
Old 01-30-2009, 02:15 AM
Electrotek Electrotek is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Hi Lamare,

Anyone working on this that has no experience with the water sparkplug circuit... I highly recommend building that because much of this becomes very, very apparent.
I read on the Water Sparkplug thread where you said that that circuit would also work without a diode, just a spark gap by the cap. Have you tried this with the Gray's Tube? This seems to be what Beshires is doing with his coil popping, with the extra spark gap to the cap's alligator clip.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #438  
Old 01-30-2009, 03:27 AM
Spokane1 Spokane1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 356
[QUOTE=Electrotek;42610]After frame by frame analysis of video taped operation of a CSET, I can see that the spark gap fires about three times per second. This is consistent with the estimated pulse rate of one of the old vibrator tubes of around 100 per second, which powers the transformer. This, of course, doesn't equate to the interrupter rate of 6,000 per second. So it's my opinion that both of these frequencies were present in the arc, when it formed. If so, this could account for the excess energy.

Dear Electrotek,

The only video I know of that shows the operation of a CSET is the ZTECH promotion video made by Gray in 1986 (Complements of Kenneth D. Hawkins) while he was livinging in Councel,ID. If that is the case let me comment on that demonstration.

The power for that pulsing arc came directly from the "Trigger Cart". This was a large DC 10KVA 5KV power supply that employed two large 5 KVA Variacs and a 5 tap power transformer with 5 full bridge rectifiers connected in series. This was the power supply for all the motors and popping coils being demonstrated at the time.

According to Mark Gray, who was there and operating the "Trigger Cart", the loud pops you hear are coming from the Ignitrons on the "Trigger Cart". They simply connected the 5KV output of the Cart across the CSET and let it arc as a storage capacitor would discharged across a spark gap. The magnitude of the applied voltage determined the discharge rate, just like a relaxition oscillator. The CSET was not connected to any of the support electronics shown elsewhere in the video nor was it connected to any load.

If you have a a video other than the one I have described I would certainly like to see it.

Also, the glass cylinder was from a Coleman Propane Lanturn. That will give you some idea of the relative size of the components. The whole set up was intended to be pressurized eventually, but I don't think E.V.Gray got around to it before he and Joe Gordon struck a deal and he moved to Texas.

Again let me share with you my thoughts on the issues of frequency of operation.

The 6 KHz frequency, as discusses in the 1973 articles and verified by GD with an oscilloscope, was the operation of the "New" transistor switching power supplies designed and employed by Richard Hackenburger starting in mid 1972.

The 100 Hz operation is the actual frequency of the mechanical vibrators that Marvin Cole used for his multiple front end power supplies.

The reason (my speculation) that the motor was able to matain a pulse rate much higher that the operation of the vibrators is because the storage capacitors were recharged every time there was a discharge between the stator and rotor. A similuar effect will take place in a classical circuit if the inductance of the circuit decreases during the first 180 degrees of the discharge sine wave. This principle is also used in Reluctance Motors.

The reports of observers claim that it took about 30 seconds of warm up time
for any of the original "Electro Static generators" to begin to work. Once this was acheived they started to perform their magic. It appears it was the same situation with the EMA4-E2 motor. Once the charge up period was accomplished then the motor could output its 87.5 HP.

It seems that the only time that additional "top off" energy was needed was when there was a misfire and that particular storage capacitor (1 out of 12) had to be charged from scratch. Apparently misfires were a common problem.

I favor the idea that the arc discharge is DC in nature. The physics of a DC arc provides for the asymetry needed to allow a sudden swift in energy transition that promotes these non-classical events. Charge clusters are made from DC. However, any capacitor - inductor network is going to oscillate. It is my contention that as the arc is stretched the LC timing constant is arranged so that the arc is quenched at the first current corssing.
Dr. Tesla did a lot of this sort of arc manipulation in his 1893-1897 designs.

Pardon me for rambling.

Mark McKay, PE
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #439  
Old 01-30-2009, 03:38 AM
Beshires1 Beshires1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 245
Aaron said:
Quote:
I think Gray's patent/comments in the patent are full of misrepresentations and there is enough to put together what is happening. The best patents have a lot of intentional misleading info.
I think this is a commonly used false statement. I think that Grey's patents/comments in the patents are grossly misinterpretation. I have been trying to go by the patent, not by using another schematic that produces a plasma spark. It is easy to conform the patent, to work the tube as one wishes it to be used, not how it was designed to be used. If people would read and try to do as the patent says They will find out as I did what the use of this tube is really for. It ain't just for flashing neons, blasting the hell out of it with a gzillion volts. or make pretty color flashes that look cool. Its not a capacitor it doesn't discharge. Its a switch. You don't have to switch it on and off because it is a SWITCHING TUBE. Again I'll state, that I have filmed the first event from the tube depicting useful work in a manner that the tube was designed for. I was able to do this by not trying to force the tube to preform in a manner other than what the designer intended it to be used for. Oh about my double ign. coils I was just using the two ignition coils to act as a tapped secondary so I could get the two half wave pulses needed as described in the patent.http://sites.google.com/site/chasing...0rectified.jpg
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #440  
Old 01-30-2009, 04:15 AM
Electrotek Electrotek is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spokane1 View Post
The 6 KHz frequency, as discusses in the 1973 articles and verified by GD with an oscilloscope, was the operation of the "New" transistor switching power supplies designed and employed by Richard Hackenburger starting in mid 1972.
Does this mean that the mechanical commutator shown in the patent was never actually used?

And would you happen to know where Gray was in 1981?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #441  
Old 01-30-2009, 06:12 AM
Spokane1 Spokane1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 356
Dear Electrosatic,

The commentator is vital to the entire non-classical process. It determines the alignment and relationship of the electromagents when the initial arc is struck. It also determins when the stretched arc is quenched through the receiving battery. This distance is shown to be 13-2/3 degree in the pulse motor patent. However this same timing relationship shows up on eralier prototype motors like the ones Al Francouer has (these were built circia 1964). The EMA6 motor also has the same commentator pattern. There is a series of three contacts for each stator pole (9 total). The center contact is about 3X larger than the two contacts on either side.

I believe that the commentator does not pass the entire current of the main arc through it. These contacts are "pilot" gaps that trigger the main arc between the rotor and the stator. The case of the motor was pressurized to .5 psi with air from a automotive emmision control blower in use at the time.

This is one reason for the dual power supplies. Its a neat circuit described in the Phinney patent referenced in the Pulse Motor patent. Any way with two power supplies you can trigger the main gap at twice the supply voltage while only using 5% of the total stored energy in the trigger gap.

When Dr. Chalfin wrote up the patent he didn't include a lot of these details.

Anyway getting back to the cluster of three contacts. I believe that all three contacts are not active at the same passing of the wiper. You can see this in the Gray pulse motor patent. This was the reason for the magnetically moving cylinder that switched between the center contact and the outer two. There are two Modes of operation that don't take palce at the same time. I've already made my guess on what is happening here, but any other engineering analysis is just as good for now.

In 1981 E.V.Gray was well funded by two businessmen from the Jewish Community. He was setup in Canyon Country, CA (a town NE of LA) under the name "Amercian Home Medical Supplies". He had his son Mark Gray and a technician named Nelson Schlaft working for him. There were rebuilding the early Marvin Cole motors (that had not been confiscated) and making Popping coil demonstration Units. They were also fabricating the "Meter Cart" a large demonstration setup that displayed several analog meters, had a bank of batteries, a load bank, The Start Motor, and several other circuits. All of these demostration setups were designed to load up into a Box Van that Mr. Gray had customized.

Mark McKay
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #442  
Old 01-30-2009, 08:41 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,571
patents

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beshires1 View Post
Aaron said:


I think this is a commonly used false statement. I think that Grey's patents/comments in the patents are grossly misinterpretation. I have been trying to go by the patent, not by using another schematic that produces a plasma spark. It is easy to conform the patent, to work the tube as one wishes it to be used, not how it was designed to be used. If people would read and try to do as the patent says They will find out as I did what the use of this tube is really for. It ain't just for flashing neons, blasting the hell out of it with a gzillion volts. or make pretty color flashes that look cool. Its not a capacitor it doesn't discharge. Its a switch. You don't have to switch it on and off because it is a SWITCHING TUBE. Again I'll state, that I have filmed the first event from the tube depicting useful work in a manner that the tube was designed for. I was able to do this by not trying to force the tube to preform in a manner other than what the designer intended it to be used for. Oh about my double ign. coils I was just using the two ignition coils to act as a tapped secondary so I could get the two half wave pulses needed as described in the patent.http://sites.google.com/site/chasing...0rectified.jpg
Patent holders and patent writers often will write the patents to protect the concept and do so within the framework of what the patent examiners will accept.

For example, Bedini's patent showing the use of Back EFM - that description is because that is what the patent examiners will accept even though back emf has nothing to do with what is happening.

This is a FACT based on FACT and not opinion so I can't say I "think" this, I know this to be true. I personally know people that have done this, do this and will continue to do this --- believing that it is only misinterpretation is simply not within the realm of reality.

There is ALREADY enough evidence to give reasonable doubt to one of two things: Gray either didn't know how the heck the technology worked since it wasn't his and gave it his best shot in the patent and didn't get it right or two - he knew full well how everything worked and intentionally left in plenty of "fudge factors" as all good patent writers know how to do. There are of course other possibilities, but these two are the most probable. Simple misinterpretation in patents is barely an option based on the FACTS of how patents are written and for what purpose.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami


Last edited by Aaron; 01-30-2009 at 09:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #443  
Old 01-30-2009, 08:53 AM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
There is ALREADY enough evidence to give reasonable doubt to one of two things: Gray either didn't know how the heck the technology worked since it wasn't his and gave it his best shot in the patent and didn't get it right or two - he knew full well how everything worked and intentionally left in plenty of "fudge factors" as all good patent writers know how to do. There are of course other possibilities, but but these two are the most probable. Simple misinterpretation in patents is barely an option based on the FACTS of how patents are written and for what purpose.
According to the book mentioned above, by Patrick J. Kelly, the first situation applies:

http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter5.pdf

"however, it is almost certain that Ed Gray did not build the original system, nor did he understand how it actually operated. The designer and builder, Marvin Cole, unfortunately died, leaving Ed in a difficult position, which he tried, fairly ineffectively, to overcome."
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #444  
Old 01-30-2009, 09:15 AM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
That diagram is only their particular setup and attempt based on how they wanted to test it.
Hi Aaron,

The way I read it, they actually built those setups and are reporting actual results: "new images uploaded showing the Gray circuit running after being tuned".

As far as I can tell, they really went a long way.


@Spokane1: Are you the Mr. McKay who created the pdf at http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/MKay5.pdf ??

If yes, do you know what happened to these guys and their experiments?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #445  
Old 01-30-2009, 11:42 AM
Electrotek Electrotek is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 603
Interrupter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spokane1 View Post
I believe that the commentator does not pass the entire current of the main arc through it. These contacts are "pilot" gaps that trigger the main arc between the rotor and the stator. The case of the motor was pressurized to .5 psi with air from a automotive emmision control blower in use at the time.
Apparently then, what the *747 patent shows is not a rotary spark gap interrupter, or a distributor cap.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #446  
Old 01-30-2009, 12:40 PM
Beshires1 Beshires1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Patent holders and patent writers often will write the patents to protect the concept and do so within the framework of what the patent examiners will accept.

For example, Bedini's patent showing the use of Back EFM - that description is because that is what the patent examiners will accept even though back emf has nothing to do with what is happening.

This is a FACT based on FACT and not opinion so I can't say I "think" this, I know this to be true. I personally know people that have done this, do this and will continue to do this --- believing that it is only misinterpretation is simply not within the realm of reality.

There is ALREADY enough evidence to give reasonable doubt to one of two things: Gray either didn't know how the heck the technology worked since it wasn't his and gave it his best shot in the patent and didn't get it right or two - he knew full well how everything worked and intentionally left in plenty of "fudge factors" as all good patent writers know how to do. There are of course other possibilities, but these two are the most probable. Simple misinterpretation in patents is barely an option based on the FACTS of how patents are written and for what purpose.
Respectfully aaron, But you asked for my comments. Facts are Based on facts real Facts. You also loosely used these "I Think" terms In your PDF does this imply that you don't know? Again you, seem to like to voice your opinion, and blatantly disregard others who base their findings on fact.

Lets see Mark said:

Quote:
I believe that the commentator does not pass the entire current of the main arc through it. These contacts are "pilot" gaps that trigger the main arc between the rotor and the stator. The case of the motor was pressurized to .5 psi with air from a automotive emmision control blower in use at the time.

This is one reason for the dual power supplies. Its a neat circuit described in the Phinney patent referenced in the Pulse Motor patent. Any way with two power supplies you can trigger the main gap at twice the supply voltage while only using 5% of the total stored energy in the trigger gap.
This statement Is true! AS I HAVE SHOWN. and it also falls in line with the patent as you can see here: http://sites.google.com/site/chasing...0rectified.jpg

I recon I should go back and a paste Copywrite Protection on all my shared schematics.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #447  
Old 01-30-2009, 12:50 PM
Electrotek Electrotek is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 603
Gzillion Volts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beshires1 View Post
If people would read and try to do as the patent says They will find out as I did what the use of this tube is really for. It ain't just for flashing neons, blasting the hell out of it with a gzillion volts. or make pretty color flashes that look cool.
Thanks. Now, if I want to I can suppress my circuit and walk away, keeping it for my own pocket. And everyone will forget that the above picture was made with just 7.5kV and two home made capacitors which aren't even close to one uF. Even with the voltage doubling diode circuit, I'm still using a lot less voltage per inch of Tube radius than you have with your setup. Which, of course, is pretty good.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #448  
Old 01-30-2009, 02:34 PM
Beshires1 Beshires1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrotek View Post
Apparently then, what the *747 patent shows is not a rotary spark gap interrupter, or a distributor cap.
That part of the commutator is definitely in there. The 3 bush arrangement that are between the bearings preformed this function. The brushes contacted the "slip rings" although the rings were solidly fixed and do not rotate. there were attachments to this ring that supplied either the negative or positive potiential that "sets" on one side of the rotor coils and paired capacitors. The brushes contact this ring This is where the lubriplate had to be used. This ring had to make a constant electrical contact with the brushes. the brushes reached thru the ring and as it rotated made connection with the timing contacts.that were spaced at 40 degrees and 120 degrees around the inside of the commutator hub. this would pulse the current supplied to the stationary ring thru the contacts, that had wires connected to carry the pulses to another process point within the commutator. (charging the capacitors, discharge points and to deliver the timing impulse to the stator coils.] It is a rotary selective switch and a voltage chopper. Tho Grey may have used another chopper or vibrator for the transformer, I don,t see why because this chopped dc would pulse the ignition coils thru the tube in time with the motor. Grey probably never used all the contacts inside the commutator hub, but had them there incase he wanted to change the motor configuration from 3 rotor and 3 stator to 3 rotor and 6 or 9 stators. It is obvious to me that the 3 rotor and 3 stator setup would have been the most powerful. Large rotor and matching large stator coils. The down fall of the EMA 6 was because "they" grossly mis matched the magnetic repulsion between the rotor and the stator. Simply the nine stator coils had to be made smaller to fit into the housing.They thought they could ride the large magnetic pulses from the rotor all the way around the rotation of the motor on the small fields produced buy the stator.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #449  
Old 01-30-2009, 05:41 PM
Electrotek Electrotek is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 603
New Tube Test

I wired up my new Power Conversion/Switching Tube and tested its effectiveness. With the grids spaced like they are, all I got was one or two thin sparks between the two grids. Without any sparks to the center electrode, I didn't see any voltage amplification like there was with my last Tube. Apparently, the gradient caused by the first grid being close to the center electrode is important.

I'm still going to hook this up as a Super Bolt capacitor and see what kind of blast it'll give off, since I can use this for one of my other projects.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #450  
Old 01-30-2009, 08:33 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,571
@ Beshires

Anthony,

If you can't post what you want to post without constantly referring to what you don't agree with or like about my experiments or explanations, please leave and don't post in this thread again. Start your own thread dedicated to your circuit. I started this thread. There are respectful ways to ask people to clarify what they're saying if you don't agree with it and other way of communicating without all the condescending references that you use.

"I have been trying to go by the patent, not by using another schematic that produces a plasma spark." - Beshires
You fail to comprehend the fact that my schematic is closely following the schematic in the patent. - you claim that I'm using some other schematic, while you circuit diverts people's attention away from the patent schematic.

Here is the circuit I'm using as I have already shown:



Here is your incomplete block diagram:



Who is really trying to follow the patent? I have said I don't agree with
what Gray is describing in the patent - but that doesn't mean the circuit is useless as I have obviously kept within the frame of reality according to the diagram.

Please show us all this:
1. Where is Gray showing he is switching on the grid side of the circuit?
2. Where is Gray showing he has an ignition coil connected to the load?
3. Where is Gray showing he has a capacitor in parallel with the load?
4. Where is Gray showing the other obvious non-conforming concepts that are in your circuit?

And you have the audacity to repeatedly point out in a condescending manner what you don't like about my circuit, etc...? I haven't been pointing out in a negative way anything about what you're doing but since you insist, I will simply focus on the fact...as posted above and below.

You obviously are unable or unwilling to also comprehend the fact that I have made a comparison between the Gray circuit and the water spark plug circuit and nowhere in my schematic am I showing or saying that I am using a plasma water plug circuit. How I am firing the ignition coil on the front end as the power supply is NOT what I am showing as the effect, clearly, and by all common sense, it is in the video that I'm clearly showing the C2 discharge through the coil - anything to do with a water spark plug circuit? NO.

NOBODY is powering their circuit at this point with a 6khz Gray inverter. At least, you and I are NOT doing it.

"It is easy to conform the patent, to work the tube as one wishes it to be used, not how it was designed to be used." - Beshires
I'm not sure you understand what you are saying. You say it is easy to do what the patent says - TO WORK THE TUBE AS ONE WISHES IT TO BE USED....NOT how it was designed to be used. This is a slip on your part clearly showing YOU using the tube as YOU wish and not what it was designed for and is totally evidenced by your incomplete block diagram. Furthermore, you state it in a way that clearly shows your underlying frame of reference being that: to work the tube as one wishes is to conform to the patent instead of how it was designed to be used. You have clearly said this. You have also shown this.

"It ain't just for flashing neons, blasting the hell out of it with a gzillion volts. or make pretty color flashes that look cool." - Beshires
You made a point of showing your pretty color flashes over and over and over by posting and reposting your video link and pic of the flash - so you clearly demonstrated that you give high value to a light show so PLEASE - be consistent.

You seem to be unwilling or able to see that the non-spark light burst I am showing is a SIGNATURE of certain effects happening that are unconventional. The lightning references to how the tube works supposedly by Gray and others he was working with are about collision effects (which is what lightning is) just like in the plasma spark plug circuit. That is what the light burst indicates.

Your schematic shows a couple POSSIBLE collision possibilities and it is POSSIBLE that is what powered your coil and even if it is, it is still NOT in a way that even remotely resembles Gray's schematic. It is NOT even possible to really tell what you're doing because you don't even post a schematic let alone a usable diagram. How is your battery connected to the rest of the circuit, how are the primaries of the ignitions coils connected, powered and triggered.

"Again I'll state, that I have filmed the first event from the tube depicting useful work in a manner that the tube was designed for." - Beshires
You clearly are not using the tube in a way that is laid out in Gray's schematic. You've said so and you've shown so. You are not the first to demonstrate any useful work from the tube. If you're claiming your capacitor is discharging...there are 2 possible paths to your coil.

1. Through the LV rod to the grid through trigger to the coil. Gray was doing absolutely nothing like this and was clearly not discharging a capacitor like this through the LV rod.

2. In parallel directly with the coil over the gap to the trigger bar and again, Gray was not directly discharging a capacitor in parallel with the load.

So again, it is almost apparent what you are doing but I'm not sure you realize what you're doing and this is why you were asking other to explain what is happening in your circuit in the other thread. In either case, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Gray schematic.

"I was able to do this by not trying to force the tube to preform in a manner other than what the designer intended it to be used for." - Beshires
Really? I believe I clarified this above.

"Oh about my double ign. coils I was just using the two ignition coils to act as a tapped secondary so I could get the two half wave pulses needed as described in the patent.http://sites.google.com/site/chasing...0rectified.jpg" - Beshires
You make a reference to the patent description of the double ignition coils but what you are doing with 2 coils has absolutely NOTHING to do with that description; not in any way, shape or form.

"Respectfully aaron, But you asked for my comments. Facts are Based on facts real Facts. You also loosely used these "I Think" terms In your PDF does this imply that you don't know? Again you, seem to like to voice your opinion, and blatantly disregard others who base their findings on fact." - Beshires

You have been ANYTHING BUT respectful with your comments and remarks referring to what I have posted. Facts are based on facts and I have established some in regards to the FACT that you have contradicted yourself multiple times, claiming to follow the patent while claiming that I'm doing something totally different - while you are the one that is actually misdirecting people's attention away from the real Gray schematic with your incomplete block diagram that is a far cry from anything that this thread is intended to be here for.

What you are doing is not demonstrating any facts in regards to the Gray patent or schematic. Therefore, I am not blatantly disregarding anything based on facts...because you presented no facts to disregard.

What you have posted is suitable for a Beshires Circuit thread but having the audacity to continue to claim that you are the one that is following the Gray circuit while BLATANTLY doing something far out in left field, which resembles nothing of Gray's circuit is...well...it speaks for itself.

I simply have posted my beliefs and did not feel a need to point out each and everything that I feel is wrong about your circuit. You want to refer to so many things that I am doing wrong but I am not returning the favor by doing that based on wild imagination as you have...but on FACTS that I have presented.

I started this thread as a replication thread...not a "significant detour from the schematic in the patent thread".

I do NOT agree with Gray's explanation of what is in the patent and I don't have to. But I am following the schematic and have all the reason to believe he showed the triode/diode backwards. Building the circuit closely following the concept in his own schematic makes several things very apparent.

1. If the LV rod is not switched on...the HV power supply charging C1 CAN AND WILL also charge C2 AT THE SAME TIME by jumping from the HV rod to the grids, which is of course the same as the + on C2.

2. With C2 charged up - it can and will discharge through the coil, charging the coil with a magnetic field that produces work, jumping to the HV rod and then to the LV rod when the switch is closed on the LV rod.


Many people here are doing great work and I also thought what you were doing was interesting even though with your circuit, it is technically off topic. There is nothing magical or special about getting mechanical work out of a coil by discharging a capacitor into it.

However, there is something special about charging a coil through the collision of different potentials forcing them to a common ground. That is what the "magic" of the Gray tube does. When I mention collision, I'm not talking about ion collision...the cascade effect, IF that even comes into any significant play is a side effect or possible addition to the primary effect but is not the cause.

Are you doing this? Time will tell if you ever post a legitimate schematic. If you are then , it won't be how Gray did it but good work anyway!

There are TWO HV potentials.... C1/supply+/HV rod is the first one.... the second one is C2. C2 collides with C1 when LV Rod is switched on...forcing them to a common ground - which is to abruptly shut off. This is what lightning is and if you have a coil in series with the effect, there is serious negative energy entering it and it should become cold especially at higher frequencies.

I'm not interested in a p****** match with you because the result is that 2 people get wet. Take this as my only response to your multiple stabs at me. If you have anything to say in regards to your circuit and HOW it is relevant to the Gray circuit, that is about the only thing that I see as being on topic to this thread. If you want to make more snide remarks about what I'm doing or saying, don't.

Anyway, once placed in the public domain, it is too late to claim a copyright. In either case for your piece of mind for whatever it is worth, it is actually no longer required to post a copyright notice for it to be copyrighted online. Personally, I have always given anyone permission to use any useful diagrams I might have or vids, etc... as long as they are unaltered. Anyone can redraw any of it with their own modifications. Most all of us here have been on the same page with this with their own drawings, pics, etc...

Please refer to the first paragraph in this post.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami


Last edited by Aaron; 01-30-2009 at 08:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

Choose your voluntary subscription

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers