I think you are missing some of the external components of Gray's circuitry. And exactly that Aaron was trying to explain. Having said that, good luck with your research.

I got a PM from Ghst that I would like to publicly answer.

With regrets Ghst, IF your circuit is the same as published by Spokane1, then is hardly like Aaron's.
I don't try to silence you, as I am fully aware I simply cannot. My whole point and it seems you take it offensive, you are missing stuff from Gray's schematic. Please take your time, study both related patents, then look carefully on Dr. Lindeman's explanations in his book, then compare with my drawing from a previous post and I am sure you'll find some stuff Aaron was trying to make us focus.

I don't know why you should take it that hard. Why should be looking with anger towards someone when is telling us we are not paying enough attention?

Cheers and take it easy.

PS: I am still genuinely looking forward for the 3 pictures showing the Gray's tube. I certainly hope they are something I didn't see before. Also in X-ray content of your plasma production if is not much of a trouble. You may see on youtube demonstrations on cutting metal slabs and I wish to know how safe they are.

The second diagram doesn't have a diode and DOES produce the green effect while powering a coil. It is the exact setup I have shown here:
YouTube - aaronmurakami's Channel

I have repeatedly stated in this thread that if there is a gap, there doesn't have to be a diode, it is optional. I usually prefer to have one, but the video above proves it happens without the diode.

This is one of the main points that I have shown in the similarity of the plasma ignition circuits and the Gray tube circuit. The plasma ignition, if there is a booster cap, it is connected physically to the HV from the ignition coil and has a diode. On the Gray tube circuit, the HV from the rod only makes contact with the positive of a second HV cap through an inductor over a gap instead of a diode.

Even without a booster cap on the ignition circuit, the basic plasma circuit is also on its own like the gray circuit. The HV of the coil collides with the cap's + on it's own input through a reversed diode, it closes then the plasma happens at the spark plug...identical. Put a coil in series with that spark plug and you get the effect. I do not believe this is the same that you have shown or explained.

We both saw that there were impedance changes in the coil from what was happening. You used conventional terms to describe only that impedance is changing but not tracing the effect as to why and I used all gas pressure analogies.

Mlurye's motor had the green effect in conjunction with coils that were powered.

Magdude's motor showed the green bursts and it is clearly visible in quite a few of the frames of his youtube video. He personally confirmed to me that we have the same effect.

In some frames of Ghst's vids, there is the green effect in conjunction with coils showing work.

I don't recall you showing a vid of a coil charging with the green effect. You may have and I might have missed it.

But that doesn't matter, it is only what I think is the effect and if someone agrees with me they do and if not that's fine too.

With the 3 points, the ONLY thing I have ever meant by that as well as having posted my explanation multiple times here is that 3 points are equivelant to the tube. HV rod is one point, LV rod is another and the grids are another. That is 3 points.

When I have mentioned 2 points, it is simply removing the gap between the 2nd HV source and the trigger HV source, therefore requiring a diode.

Your circuit and my circuit are not the same - they are not electrical equivelants and I did not plagarize you. The intent may be similar but that's it.

The entire history of how my circuit(s) came about are detailed in posts and videos through out this forum and elsewhere.

Gotoluc's ignition method with the diode, I started using an inductor in series with the exact ignition circuits that have been posted repeatedly by myself and others, that is where most of my schematics, diagrams, explanations, etc... came from and I think this is clear enough that I am plagarizing noone.

I think you should publish and copyright your own circuits as you have the right and you may help others understand what you understand. I have no problem with this and don't see any reason why I would ever want to prevent you from publishing your own circuit.

Everything I have posted is available to everyone for free to do as they wish. I mostly put a specific copyright on my diagrams, etc... just to document that they are my diagrams.

Thank you. But I have 275 posts in this specific thread, not counting this one. So perhaps you missed the one in which I wired up a car battery to the circuit. I hooked my CSET up to a big DC motor from a tread mill and tested it, with the battery in the circuit and without it. And there was a difference.

Also, you asked Ghst for a picture, so here's one, and you can see it is different from the patent depiction:


By inertiatek at 2009-02-18

Thanks to Mark McKay of Spokane for providing me with the many pictures I've posted to my imageshack account, and to his friend "GD", one of Gray's Investors, who took the pictures.

I've been "explaining" Gray's Tube for 10 years now, and I'm finally beginning to think I'm on the right track, based on my own Radiant Energy patent (#4,260,933) and the fact that Tesla used unipolar capacitors as end loads in his high frequency, single wire circuits.

I've done more experiments than I can remember (that's why I post my results) and I've admitted that my circuit isn't the same as Gray's. His top capacitor was a "recovery" capacitor which did not contribute to the discharge, while my cap in that position is part of the discharge. But I'm gradually migrating my circuit to match his.

Yet in your post #365 you say that the diode increases the discharge rate, and provide the scope shots. Were you using copper electrodes? My presumption that your Green Event was Radiant Energy was based on non-copper electrodes. As far as I can tell, everyone else DID use copper, at least in the grid.

In the Gray circuit, there isn't any HV on the second cap until after the circuit is discharged. The patent states that this cap is there to "recover" the EMF from the inductor's collapsing field.

I did trace the effect as to why it happened. I said that in my effect the coil's CEMF collided with the cap's discharge, puffing the spark.

Magdude was using a copper Tube. The green sparks are caused by the emission spectrum of this metal, not by the Radiant Energy color, based on the interrupter rate.

I've had to limit the number of videos I've presented. But here is one of the pictures I posted, showing green all over the place:

http://www.energeticforum.com/attach...relectrode.jpg

Yes. I found your original drawing here:

Gray Tube Replication

Five and a half hours later, you posted this one:

Gray Tube Replication

Perhaps you can see why I think you redid your drawing, based on the three point circuit I had previously posted?

Your circuit is the same as mine. You show a box as the HV supply, while I show a HV transformer with a diode. You draw the return line to ground, from the series cap and coil, straight down, while I route it up around the top, similar to Gray's circuit. There's no other difference.

Then why do you use a copyright date of Jan. 28,2009?

Thank you. That is consistent with my concept of Public Domain posting.

OK. But THIS diagram is mine. edit: I mean this CIRCUIT is mine.

Now (I hope) we can rationally analyse what Gray left us.

First a question I asked myself and I still pondering upon. In the first picture (presented also by Dr. Lindeman) which one do you think is the CEST? A, B or C.

Secondly, look at the second picture and ignoring Doc's commutator and mlurye's Diode which are not present in the patent, ask yourselves these questions:
1. Why Gray used a bridge "24" and none of you did not? (including Aaron)
2. What is the role of diode "44"? None of you did not need (and gracefully ignored) it.
3. What have you learned from Aaron's explanations?

Clues: Gray as businessman was not as stupid to spend money more than necessary. The tube construction left alone, as Gray said, it is a mater of later modifications/improvements. But circuitry alone not.

I hope you all will get inspired as much as I got from Aaron's work. There is not "impossible" or "it does not make sense" but rather "I lack the understanding".

Regards.

Attached Images

	Gray1.jpg (19.7 KB, 16 views)
	evgraycircuiths4.jpg (42.4 KB, 31 views)

Electrotek,

The diode in that scenario does increase cap discharge rate. As soon as the oncoming triggering discharge moves into it, I believe there is a gaseous compression against that other + source.

That aether that has inertial properties to it must keep going for a bit compressing it and if the diode is there to shut off - the further compressed aether seeks the only other nearby ground, which is over the gap (spark plug on plasma ignition or from rods to grid in the tube).

That leaves a negative pressure wake that gives a super strong difference in the gradient between it (strong negative) causing a suction on the potential in that cap behind the inductor.

The positive Heaviside flow that would be expected to normally be over the coil's wires is a speed limiter for the voltage potential - limiting it to about light speed in my opinion. Each positive potential will push against an oncoming positive potential from the cap behind the inductor. However, that strong void that is left pulls that positive voltage potential away from the coil so the positive potential from the cap behind the inductor will discharge into a vacuum...wire that makes up the coil is lacking (over the wire surface) the medium that normally propagates light. Therefore it is accelerated superluminally at a negative impedance and/or negative resistance.



This of course is my opinion and my idea of how these circuits work even if Gray had a different understanding of the same result. This effect, how I see it and circuits that I build to apply my opinions is the only thing that has given me any kind of results that is consistent with what Gray is talking about.

I don't recall immediately who said it but months ago, someone mentioned when I alluded to these concepts that he thought it was like a venturi effect to cause the fast discharge and I thought that was a great way to explain almost exact the way that I see it working.

I have posted before how the same thing happens even without a diode and just a gap - the HV is "tricked" into jumping by having a common ground. Even without the diode, there is only so much of the all the "gas" that was spewed out (high voltage discharge) that can get through and the rest will find way to ground if there is another path within its voltage range.

Most of the tests I did were with copper rods and quite a few with spark plugs without copper. I used iron nails, screws and even steel and even carbon rod pieces. The difference in all of this as far as the white plasma wihtout the inductor in series and the green plasma with the inductor in series is nothing. The performance appears to be the same and the colors of each are identical so none of it had to do with the copper metal itself - as other metals show the same green.

I know exactly what the patent says the backside cap is for...recovery. I don't think that cap ever had its own separate power supply in parallel. But there are possibilities here that seem unpopular. A series charge to this cap is POSSIBLE.

At the speeds the motor is supposed to be able to run at...that cap would be discharged everytime there is a connection between the grids and any rod. That connection would be an oncoming discharge from the rods giving a conductive pathway for the cap behind the inductor to discharge.

Also, another point I have brought up is the cap behind the inductor CAN be charged with the HV leaving the HV rod. If the LV switch is open and if the ignition coil is at high frequency on the front end and if the voltage in the front cap is high enough, the ignition coil output will not be totally absorbed by the HV cap there in the "peaking cap" position...it will spark and it will spark to ground and if the LV switch is open, it will absolutely spark to the grid, moving through the coil and putting a charge on that cap. This is absolutely undeniable.

This possibility actually happens because I setup the circuit like the Gray tube schematic in the patent and the HV rod sparks to the grid in between the time that the LV switch is open. With a cap in the "peaking cap" position on the front, it is easy for the spark to move to the grid if it is already maxed on the pressure it can hold - then it is like skipping stones on water.

So the patent can say it is only for recovery all it wants but that is irrelevant to watching what happens when actually doing the experiment.

With a big enough discharge from the front, the effect can happen if the cap behind the inductor is flat but at least polarized properly so the oncoming discharge from the rod hits the + of that cap through the inductor.

Your pic looks like the same green color but was there an inductor in series and did it charge and attract or repel?

Here is my circuit...a modified plasma ignition circuit and I show the comparision to Gray so it is electrically identical to Gray's. My ignition circuit with an inductor in series is MY drawing and it is a replica to Gray's circuit.

I posted this pic a while back here in this thread and elsewhere. You can see why I was so insistant last summer that the ingition circuit was the same as Gray's. My below diagram has the booster caps as the LV source but in relation to the ignition coil, the LV source on the other side of the diode is the same source of input to the coil to begin with...common ground is over the spark gap of the plug.

Just about anyone that commented on that at Overunity was wanting me to place a grid by the spark gap because nobody understood that the ground of the sparkplug IS the analog to the grid in Gray's tube and not the LV rod. (I'm talking about when there is no booster cap attached.)

And when the plasma ignition has booster caps, the whole CDI plasma discharge is analogous to the HV discharge in the Gray tube.

Below I show the inductor on the ground side of the spark plug as I first did it as a choke in my early experiment. But it works in either place in relation to the gap there...by the LV source before the gap OR on the other side of the gap by ground.



Also, I never used a specific date for copyright. The copyright's are always Just 2009. The specific dates are simply the date of the drawing and doesn't necessarily mean that is the first time that drawing was made. I have piles of schematics drawn and redrawn over and over as a part of my own brainstorming process.

So you can see above EXACTLY where my diagrams and schematics evolved from and had absolutely nothing to do with your drawing.

You're saying mine is electrically identical to yours. Well, as shown above, in concept, that comparision photo shows that my schematic is electrically identical to Gray's. So that must mean yours is electrically identical to Gray's. If so, then either you or Gray have copied the other's diagram.

My diagrams are almost identical to the concept in Bedini's drawings because I'm using the diode like John shows. That is the only way it made sense to me from the beginning whenever Peter's book came out and John released his diagrams. And so since you're showing the reverse diode in that situation, then would you be plagarizing Bedini?

I have diagrams with the inductor on the ground side and on the HV side - it was common sense to me to try placing in multiple areas and as long as the basic plasma effect would happen...placing an inductor in series anywhere in the discharge path, even on ground, the inductor charged and gave the green burst.

You can believe that my innovations off of the plasma ignition circuit are yours but I don't buy it. I think it is clear enough that I simply added an inductor to the plasma ignition with the booster cap setup and that is where all these simplified versions came from for me. And if you read the ignition patents going back decades, you'll see they had the plasma ignition with booster caps. Simply placing a coil in series with the discharge is what Gray's circuit is in my opinion.

It is very simple. My circuits and diagrams come from my simplified schematic of Luc's plasma ignition and putting an inductor in it. Please don't claim that it is your diagram.

In the first picture, the CSET is C. A is the three power supplies (high KVA) and B is the capacitor. There are three capacitors, each with 4 terminals, something unusual. Also, there are three CSET's, each with the innermost grid in common. I'm thinking that only the center one is the real CSET. The two end ones look like they may be disguised multi gap electrodes, each with a side electrode and the center rod. This rod is connected at the far end to a Black Box sitting on the floor.


By inertiatek at 2009-02-18

The other questions: 1. The early motors, which were OU, used half wave rectification. The later patents show a full bridge and if this was used it may be the reason the motor in the picture only produced 2 Hp, and was not OU.

2. Diode 44 was a TVS diode, to protect against transient surges. So was 46. The presence of these diodes negates the need for an Overshoot Switch, as a protective device. That's why I think the Overshoot Switch, which appears to be magnetically quenched, was actually used as a switch which connected the motor's EMF to the recovery capacitor, at just the right moment.


By inertiatek at 2009-01-03

3. The most important thing I've learned from Aaron is that the blocking diode can act as a Step Recovery Diode, producing an ultra fast pulse. This pulse might then couple with the polar mass of the battery, producing a longitudinal effect in the grids - without an arc at this point - which in turn couples with the polar mass of the other battery. Another thing which has been confirmed by Aaron is that there are about as many theories as there are researchers, myself included.

The consensus that most of us on this forum have come to is that Gray's circuit is not accurate.

Thank you for your regards.

I have used a bridge from an AC source to charge booster caps mostly because it was the quickest way to results for the parts I had. And I've used a bridge from an AC source to charge the capacitor to discharge into the primary of the ignition coil. But I like high speed CDI Plasma from an ignition coil for the cap charger for my small scale experiments.

Diode 44 - any overshoot from the grids to the safety gap will be routed by that diode right back to capacitor 16. So if the system isn't scaled up enough, there won't be any overshoot and that diode isn't necessary. If I was maxing out my big caps, I would probably definitely put the safety overshoot gap and that diode.

A I think is power supply, B is a cap and C is the tube.

Aaron: I think your basic superluminal concept is valid. With energies traveling in both directions, the propagation can be faster than light, up to a certain high kilohertz frequency threshold. Above this frequency, the propagation is slower than light. And at light frequencies, the lunging propagation is more like an ooze.

But I don't buy into the Heaviside 'extra energy' theory. If you hold a fluorescent tube under a high tension power line, it will light up. But the utility will still register an added load.

And you're right that there is some potential on the top capacitor, since the grid develops a negative potential, relative to the rod, as the main cap charges.

With my green discharge, there was a series inductor, just as shown in my three point circuit. But I didn't have any repulsion coils set up for that picture. However, my circuit has nothing to do with Bedini, since my only diode is in the power supply.

I did edit my above post to say that it's my "circuit". But it's still your drawing. If you're not going to contest my copyright then I guess that's the end of it.

Warm Regards.

Electrotek,

This is your circuit:
from your link elsewhere:
http://www.freewebs.com/attatchments/pics/setup.jpg

You explain it all here that you see that Bedini
has the "same" triple gap as you do.

Gray Tube Replication

The gaps are part of the overshoot and are not
what makes the motor run. Each point in my diagrams
serves a crucial purpose in making the "motor run".
It can be the two point versions or three point
versions. In either case, the overshoot gap in any
of the drawings are irrelevant to anything that I
have drawn and I see no connection between them
and my circuits as they were not even considerations
or necessities on a small scale circuits.

Every point I have is analogous to some part of the
Gray tube.

In your drawing, your top capacitor's + is connected
to a coil AND to a point at a gap. My coils in my
circuits always have one single connection at each end
and not two like yours. That is one point why our
circuits are not the same.

Another point is that you also have another cap directly
connected to the coil with it's negative side touching the
cap. My circuits only have a capacitor's POSITIVE touching
the coil. That is a another reason why our circuits are
not the same. You have a coil physically in series with
two capacitors without diodes or anything like that. I don't
do what you show. Nor do I draw it like you show.

Your diode has it's anode on the + of a cap and the neg
of that cap is on the coil. Another point of difference here
are that I have the coil next to the diode.

There are plenty of differences. Feel free to post a copyright on your diagram as I think it is a VALID copyright since it is your own unique circuit that has nothing to do with mine. I think the intent behind the circuit is probably the same or similar but it certainly is not what I have drawn.

You mention in the original description:
"I'm actually discharging the positive sides of two caps - each through its own coil - into an inductive arc, although my bottom cap isn't really needed for the effect."

I do not see a second coil and if it is the D or the defibrillator unit that counts as the coil, you have that coil with the negative of one cap on it and the other coil has the positive of that same coil on it and the negative of the other coil on it. Basically, I don't understand how you can be
discharging the positive sides of two caps into their own coils based on
your diagram.

You also mention this:
"In my circuit, the D shaped component is a defribrillator inductor. This is equivalent to a motor coil, except I can't get any magnetic repusion from it, due to the drawn out spark effect, although it does affect wood."

However, my circuits all produce magnetic repulsion or attraction and I don't get a drawn out spark, my plasma discharges are lightning fast.

And a big one...my caps are tied to a common ground. Your caps are not.

Our circuits even behave differently and the why is obvious that our schematics are totally different from each other.

You should just put your copyright on your diagram if you feel it is
necessary and post it here. Your claim that I copied you. I think I have
shown the obvious above that our circuits are not the same and this
thread is a record of both of our beliefs.

I'd like to get back to running experiments.

I think Gray was keen on recycling any energy bleed. The bridge was used to charge the capacitor as fast as he could. He did not want to miss any alternation from his transformer leading to charging the Capacitor.
This is why it appears to use 3 power supplies, which are not represented in Bedini's lab notes.

If one fully understands how diode 28 works, then all the "nonsense" around 42 clears up when looking at 44. And 46 is left for our imagination.

Regards and many thanks to all good people that ceaseless worked from the beginning of Gray's patents until nowadays.

Attached Images

	Gray2.jpg (16.2 KB, 15 views)
	edgray2.jpg (113.9 KB, 18 views)

I've posted more than one version of my circuit, all of which share a majority of elements.

http://www.energeticforum.com/attach...t-set-up-b.jpg

In the circuit that you referenced, one cap discharges through the defibrillator inductor and the other cap discharges through the transformer's secondary - also a coil. The two positive potentials collide head on as they travel through the arc in different directions.

I already have, and I'll have 3 more versions of my circuit shortly.

edit: But there's still the 5 1/2 hour time period in which you 'apparently' updated your drawing to include my 3 point electrodes.

Here's a picture of what I think is Gray's diode. It's in the center, just to the right of the Overshoot Switch and it's control cabinet. Unfortunately, this picture doesn't aid my understanding of the diode's function.

I have clearly spelled out why my circuits do NOT resemble yours and you appear to specifically ignore these multiple facts. Perhaps your experiments are affecting your judgment because you seem unwilling to acknowledge the very specific points below, which are self-apparent by simply looking at your diagram and looking at mine.

You claim: "I've posted more than one version of my circuit, all of which share a majority of elements."

Yes YOUR circuits share a majority of elements with each other. However, YOUR circuits have nothing to do with the layout of my circuits. Why persist with this accusation, which is 100% contrived and not based on facts.

There appears to be a coordinated attempt to discredit Peter and myself at the same time. How interesting...

I'll post them again:

"In your drawing, your top capacitor's + is connected
to a coil AND to a point at a gap. My coils in my
circuits always have one single connection at each end
and not two like yours. That is one point why our
circuits are not the same.

Another point is that you also have another cap directly
connected to the coil with it's negative side touching the
cap. My circuits only have a capacitor's POSITIVE touching
the coil. That is a another reason why our circuits are
not the same. You have a coil physically in series with
two capacitors without diodes or anything like that. I don't
do what you show. Nor do I draw it like you show.

Your diode has it's anode on the + of a cap and the neg
of that cap is on the coil. Another point of difference here
are that I have the coil next to the diode.

You mention in the original description:
"I'm actually discharging the positive sides of two caps - each through its own coil - into an inductive arc, although my bottom cap isn't really needed for the effect." YOUR DIAGRAM DOESN'T SHOW THIS

I do not see a second coil and if it is the D or the defibrillator unit that counts as the coil, you have that coil with the negative of one cap on it and the other coil has the positive of that same coil on it and the negative of the other coil on it. Basically, I don't understand how you can be discharging the positive sides of two caps into their own coils based on your diagram.

You also mention this:
"In my circuit, the D shaped component is a defribrillator inductor. This is equivalent to a motor coil, except I can't get any magnetic repusion from it, due to the drawn out spark effect, although it does affect wood."

However, my circuits all produce magnetic repulsion or attraction and I don't get a drawn out spark, my plasma discharges are lightning fast.

And a big one...my caps are tied to a common ground. Your caps are not.

Our circuits even behave differently and the why is obvious that our schematics are totally different from each other."

Hi everyone,

For all you that may need reference to copyright information -

US CODE: Title 17, COPYRIGHTS / Cornell University School of Law

Please take note to "Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 102 (a) (5)" and "Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 102 (b)"

US CODE: Title 17,Section 102 Subject matter of copyright: In general


Glen

Thanks Glen but that is unnecessary since it is irrelevant.

The below pic is very common sense.

Aaron, Never a question about the two totally different circuits posted ....

Electrotek, get this so you can be informed of what my circuit
actually is.

http://www.esmhome.org/library/water...ionpatents.zip
(I highly recommend everyone study these circuits because I believe they give a good clear common sense insight into what Gray is doing - as he seemed to have a strong background in dealing with ignition circuits with Mallory)

Here is two diagrams from one patent issued in 2003 but this person's patents go back to 1998 with the IDENTICAL concept.

Electrotek, if you want to see something that actually is electrically identical, here is one example. All I have to do is replace L1 with a
real inductor and not just a tiny choke and upscale C2 and it is what
I am doing. Also, if there gap isn't at 302 position, there must be a diode
after L1 and it works identically.



These plasma ignition patents go way back...the NASA one is
identical in concept, etc... these are what my circuits are based
on as Luc's circuit was a rediscovery of this concept. They have
been around longer than ANY of our posted circuits.

Your diagram cannot and will not do what this does. It may make
a spark or plasma burst "puff spark" but it is NOT the same
thing because of the MULTIPLE differences that I pointed out.

If you claim it can, show it in a video...your whole defibrilator
unit and your diagram setup and show it up close in good light
and show the pure white plasma burst and spray water on it
and see what it does...do this with your coil removed from
the circuit.

I do not take it lightly that you are accusing me of plagiarism.
That is libelous and is defamation of character as your claim
is 100% false.

This is the circuit I'm referring to:

http://www.energeticforum.com/attach...t-set-up-b.jpg

This is still NOT what my circuits do.

Your caps are still not tied to a common ground.
The ground of one is directly connected to the
positive of the other cap and connected to the
coil at the same time.

The coil is tied to 3 points instead of two now.
First is a cap's positive on top,
Second is the negative of the other cap,
Third is a point to the gap.

The other differences are pretty much identical
to your other drawing.

Sorry, but you have made a false accusation
against me.

Again, this diagram you are now referring to
still has nothing to do with my schematic.

You seem to have too much EE experience
in order to ignore these facts that I have
proven and shown for everyone to see. I
am now suspicious of your motives.

A recent business column in my local paper, titled "Know details of U.S. copyright laws" states:

"There is no firm rule about how much a work must differ from the original in order to avoid infringing the copyright."

Aaron: The term "libel" requires that a statement be knowingly untrue. What about the 5 1/2 hour update time frame?

edit: What truth is there in your statement that what I'm saying has anything to do with Peter?

Aaron, I forgot to add you are correct about the "Irrelevancy" because of marking of copyrights as indicated in Chapter 4 Section 401 on "Form of Notice" that is required. Once anything is published without it in public it's open game adding it afterwards from what I'm told is to late.

US CODE: Title 17,401. Notice of copyright: Visually perceptible copies



And from what I have heard the "2007 Copyright ? Energetic Forum? A Non Profit Corporation - All Rights Reserved" at the bottom of the Energetic Forum does hold a lot of weight.

How much a work must differ? Do you realize how many 555 circuits there are and that most differ only slightly but they accomplish the same thing nevertheless.

There are many CDI ignition circuits...they all aim to accomplish the SAME thing...charge a capacitor and discharge it into the primary of an ignition coil. Many of these circuits that are either patented or copyrighted have differences so subtle, they almost look like mirror images of each other. Yet, they are fully protected as a unique schematic. Again, the AIM is to accomplish the same thing and they actually do accomplish the same thing.

Your circuit does NOT do the same as my circuits, they are not electrical equivalents, so the difference is even GREATER apart than other circuits that are protected.

If you say mine is electrically the same as yours and mine is 100% ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL in nature to the plasma ignition circuits patented years ago except for my inductor in series with the discharge, you then claim yours is electrically identical to those patents and those patents even pre-date Gray...the older ones go back to the 50's and back. Therefore, you are claiming to infringe on all of those patents. Even though they're outdated and expired now...the older ones, you can no longer claim that the circuit is YOURS.

So these are the two logical options:

A - Your circuit infringes on all these other circuits that I have shown proving they were in existence years before you ever came up with your circuit - therefore it isn't your circuit. (if your circuit and my circuit are
electrically identical)

B - You must admit that the circuits are not only different and are not electrically identical, but don't even operate in the same way or method.

You can take a regular Bedini SG circuit and copy it 100% but just increase the base resistor to a higher resistance and suddenly, the circuit is in self oscillation instead of working as a mechanical oscillator.

It would be understandable if your circuit and my circuit were close enough to even have this kind of similarity but it doesn't. You and I both know and probably everyone else here that changing one little thing on a circuit is the difference between working and not working or doing A or doing B.

A subtle difference in a copyrighted fairy tale is one thing that doesn't change the story too much...but a subtle change in a circuit can cause an exponential difference in the function or intent of the circuit.

Your circuit and my circuit are much more different than just a subtle difference...they are miles apart...no commonly grounded caps as I have repeatedly shouted from the rooftops about in this thread from the beginning...all these things my circuit adheres to but almost none of these parameters exist in your diagram and I have pointed them out specifically with no room for guesswork.

It doesn't matter to me if there are other circuits in this thread that don't stick to what I believe to be the necessary parameters because if it actually works then good, but I have rigorously stuck to applying in my circuits exactly what I have described and I see almost none of this in your circuit.

And a 5 hour difference between one of my posts and another? Not that I have a need to justify anything to anyone but it is irrelevant because our circuits do not resemble each other.

I work all hours of the night and can only do this stuff in between my work and when I have things to do, I do them then get back to this stuff. Even if that diagram was posted 1 minute after the first, it is still irrelevant because your circuit is NOT the same as mine - not electrically or in concept.

With your EE experience, you want to claim that you actually believe that my circuit is based on your circuit? I find that incredibly difficult to believe.

I have a documented history all over the net of experimenting with the plasma water spark circuit and documentation in the water sparkplug thread of why I originally put a coil in series with the spark plug...all the rest of my circuits are common sense extrapolations of from that.

This thread shows the record of everything, feel free to consult anyone you wish if you feel you must.

Again the points of differences - and almost every point applies to your
second diagram you show as well.



And finally, I said I was suspicious of accusations that are so obviously and blatantly wrong and with each attempt to claim that I am using your circuit, the suspicion grows.

All this nonsense is not what Energetic Forum is for. I have freely shared what I have done as some others have and unfortunately once in a while someone starts to antagonize another as I have been accused of infringing on someone else's circuit.

I ALWAYS give credit where my ideas come from such as Gmeast and his scope shot, Luc and his diode deal and the list goes on. Electrotek, if your circuit contributed to my circuits I would have given you credit but honestly, it never made any sense to me so I never really commented on it.

I'm not saying you don't have contributions here that I didn't learn from and they're very interesting ideas but your analysis of the Gray tube doesn't really have anything to do with your circuit.

Again, quoting from the above article:

"A work is protected when it is created and fixed in a tangible form that is perceptible directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works made after March 1, 1989 need not be marked with a "©".

This is something Aaron has mentioned.

Also, the copyright at the bottom of the page doesn't transfer ownership in any Intellectual Property which is presented on this forum. This is evidenced by the Terms of Usage of this forum which state: The forum and its owners, etc. shall have a "non exclusive" license to use material which is posted to, or transmitted through, the forum. Here again, no transfer of ownership rights.

Aaron: Why haven't put my second circuit up side by side with yours and done a comparison? And what do automotive ignition circuits, with two point spark gaps, have to do with my 3 point discharge circuit? Your circuit in question does not have a blocking diode to "slam shut", as you've described many times. Your circuit will in fact do the very same thing mine does, produce a Puff Spark. And your circuit doesn't match the CSET depiction in Gray's patent any more than mine does. But both of us have shown the identical circuits might be used in this manner.

Here's my Tube version of my 3 point discharge circuit:

http://www.energeticforum.com/attach...puff-tubea.jpg

Also shown here:

Gray Tube Replication

A few years back I posted the link to this version of my Puff Spark circuit to the alfenergy forum, and discussed its operation. This group is still active and my messages are publicly accessible at that site.

This does show a tie in with Gray's CSET.

I'm not trying to defame anyone. I'm only defending my Intellectual Property by saying there was an infringement - unknowing or otherwise.

The CDI circuits, like the water sparkplug circuit, involve discharging a LV capacitor, first into an ignition coil, then into the resulting spark. Using two electrodes. My Puff Spark circuit, like your circuit in question, charges one or more HV capacitors directly from a HV source, then discharges the HV capacitor through an inductor. There is no similarity between my circuit, and this specific circuit of yours, and those other circuits you mention, claiming that my copyright is invalid.

Electrotek,

You are VERY selective in what you try to point out about what I have done or posted.

I have repeatedly posted this diagram and variations of it in my youtube vids, on Peswiki, maybe in Overunity.com and here.

The below diagram has been posted here - enjoy the diodes:
Gray Tube Replication



Please don't pretend that you didn't know about this or my other ones
with the diode because you have seen me post too many times describing
how a diode isn't needed if there is a gap and if the circuit is physically
connected, then a diode is needed. I have used BOTH versions and BOTH
have nothing to do with your first circuit, nothing to do with your second
circuit and nothing to do with your "gray" tube comparison.

You say: "And what do automotive ignition circuits, with two point spark gaps, have to do with my 3 point discharge circuit?"

So you obviously admit our circuits are not the same and even my "3 point" versions are not the same as yours.

As requested, here is your second diagram comparison:



And in case you ask about your "Gray comparision"



In all 3 of your diagrams, there is no similarity to the Gray circuit.

All 3 do not have all grounds tied together.

All 3 do not the coil placement correct in relation to a capacitor
and the only cap you have with the + connected to the coil
is also connected elsewhere...either to a point at the gap or
to the tube...NONE of this is represented in any of the Gray diagrams
that I have seen.

All 3 have other deviations from Gray's concept.

I have already posted a video showing a three point system that is
like the Gray tube diagram in the patent. The HV rod is one point,
the LV rod is another point and the Grid is one point...3 points.
Each of these three points are NOT represented correctly in your
diagram.

You SHOULD have no idea what my 2 point versions have to do with
your 3 point circuit because this is a very admission from you that my circuits
are in no way, shape or form similar, identical or electrically identical
to yours and never have been.

Your three point circuit has nothing to do with what Gray is doing
and your three point circuit has nothing to do with what my three
point circuits are doing.

And for the umpteenth time, each point
of my three points are analogous to a HV rod...the trigger or incoming
HV...the second point is a "LV" source where the HV moves to initially
and the grids are represented by my third point, which is identical to
the grids where the big burst is supposed to move to ground. This is NOT hard to understand...simply draw two rods and a grid at my 3 points if you need the shapes of the rods to tell you they're analogous to the rods and a grid if you need the shape of the grid to tell you it is analogous to the grid.

That is an identical analogy to what Gray is doing and why my circuits
accomplish this.

Any mention from you about confusion of my 2
point simplified version appears to be an intentional effort on your part
to misdirect attention to irrelevant matters. The 1st and 2nd point are
OBVIOUSLY physically connected and separated by diodes as shown,
as explained, and as demonstrated multiple times by me. AND the
connection between the cathodes of both opposing diodes turns from
2 points into 1 point leaving the common ground over a gap as the
2nd point.

You say: "Your circuit will in fact do the very same thing mine does, produce a Puff Spark. And your circuit doesn't match the CSET depiction in Gray's patent any more than mine does. But both of us have shown the identical circuits might be used in this manner."

Our circuits do not do the same thing. My circuits without the inductor does exactly what Gotoluc's circuits originally do...make a white plasma burst consistently by applying very specific principles.

You have shown all kinds of DIFFERENT color bursts and have never shown a complete true schematic of anything you have done and your digaram is a diagram not a schematic. I have posted SCHEMATICS that anyone can duplicate and I have posted diagrams where a lot of things are implied.

I have yet to see a schematic from you. In either case, my circuit consistently does one thing...the white plasma burst...and when I put an inductor where I say it should go, I get the green burst and the rapid cap discharge and a quickly charged coil that produces work by attraction or repulsion...consistently...100% of the time with EVERY variation I show as long as certain principles are applied. That is ALL the circuit does.

As far as matching the depiction in the Gray patent, here is the 2 point system as I posted and as you obviously are intentionally refusing to admit what is posted right here:



And I don't need to show a three point system because I already showed
a video and diagram of that actually working and the layout is identical to the Gray tube setup...I simply had lower input on the front end...but it will charge the coil at the grids and I can trigger it at the LV rod with a diode there and switch it in and out of the circuit just as the commutator should do and when I do, the coil charges because my circuits MATCH the patent diagram precisely...at least that variation of the 3 point version...and in that version, I actually used the tube and it makes no difference.

So you think mine doesn't match Gray's any more than yours does...again...you have no caps tied to common ground, etc... 3 connections to one end of the coil, etc...

Yet, I have common ground like Gray's, load coil is in series with on side to one cap and the other to a gap or diode, etc... every principle is the same in all occasions.

The diagrams are clearly available for everyone to see and any further accusations on your part 'may' simply flush out more evidence to this matter that will whittle away your claim to nothing.

You have attacked me accusing me of infringment and you said you had to be agressive about it. I'll give you one thing, you're at least being "polite" compared to some others that have done the same but it is a false accusation.

This doesn't concern some abstract concept...I have VERY SPECIFIC points that I have drawn out that show how your circuit is nothing like mine or Gray's. This is a very concrete subject. Theory of how Gray works, etc... that is all one thing but these circuits that we are all building, yours, mine and others will do what they do because of very specific parameters that are intrinsic within each design and these "hardwired" traits - no pun intended in our circuits leave nothing to guesswork. Your circuit simply is different, has been different, is different and as evidenced from your unwillingness to see this...will probably always remain different from mine and Gray's.

You have serious emotional attachment to your circuit and righfully so. You came up with it, stumbled upon Gray's circuit and was surprised about how "similar" his circuit was to yours. I think you want to believe they are similar because of some visual similarity with the 3 points in the overshoot or whatever, but if you take the time to analyze it, they are very different.

I have no doubt that your circuit produces some kind of plasma burst...all kinds of different ones that you have described over and over. These plasma discharges are weird creatures. But still, this has nothing to do with my circuit or Gray's circuit. Maybe the physics involved with the plasma itself might be similar or something but the sequence of events to get the desired result is different and is different from what you are doing.

I can power the coil by discharging into it from the front or I can power the coil by having the cap behind the load discharge from behind it toward the grid. In either case, they BOTH work, they give the same burst for the same equivelant charge, etc...

I'm not interested in some battle with you on this issue but I will speak my mind in clear detail as I believe I have. The only thing you are accomplishing is giving me the opportunity to firmly document the history of where my circuits came from showing ample evidence - actually proof at face value of the circuit itself and showing that there is no similarity to yours. This is all I see being accomplished - exactly the opposite of your desire to take credit for my circuits, which are entirely different from yours.

Yes, I can do the same thing. This falls under the realm of electrical equivalency. And I have also stated that "diode polarity doesn't matter".(edit) However, with the way I show the diode, electrons move against the arrow, so this IS the positive terminal of the power supply. (/edit) And where is my coil connected in three places? And my two capacitors are in fact tied to the same ground. (edit) None of your "differences" holds up. (/edit)

Your circuits that you've promoted use a LV capacitor. This Puff Spark circuit of yours uses a HV capacitor. (Like Gray's circuit.) And it will not produce a plasma burst without the inductor.

If you're never going to admit that the circuits are the same then we may as well drop the matter from this forum and move it to a different arena.

I don't see how I'll be able to post anything else of value to your forum. This deprives me of something of value.

Dear Forum Members,

I have compleated about an 85% reproduction of the proposed Holographic Appratus as disclosed and contributed by Mr. Ghst. My present circuit varies in that I am using brass threaded rod for the end connections of the spark gap array - it should be copper. Also I'm using 4" of a #2 HB pencil in lieu of the carbon fiber shaft. These variances will be corrected later this week end.

When the circuit is started up, at least in my version, small arcs are formed between the copper donuts and then quickly melt small channels in the nylon washers. After this, all arcing between the copper donuts takes place at these same locations. Therefore there are six fixed small arcs along the spark gap array during operation.

My pencil is aimed at one of these small arcs at a gap distance of 0.140". The voltage across the storage capacitor (5uF 5KV) was observed with a 3KV Electroscope. Storage capacitor discharges, in fresh air would take place starting at 1.8KV then the breakdown voltage would increase to 3KV over a period of 10 min. This implies that the atmosphere inside the plastic jar begins to increase its breakdown strength. Generally, the breakdown strength is reduced in a closed container when using metal electrodes. Perhaps the out-gassing of the nylon or the graphite is responsible for the observed breakdown increase?

What is interesting (at this point) is the large gap that this system is able to jump. Typically a 3KV potential will not strike between sharpened metal points as close as 0.015". In this experiment we are almost an order of magnitude greater than that. The nature of the discharge arc is also interesting in that it forms a triangular "Fan" that is as wide as the gap is long. I have not seen this kind of arc formation in a multidude of other HV experiments. It appears that the discharge wants to connect to at least three of the smaller arcs that are formed across the copper donut spark array at the same time. This suggests some intersting plasma dynamics.

A scope trace of the charging current through the ignition coil primary shows a peak of 6 Amps. The chopping frequency is 116 Hz. There is an abudance of EMI being produced that needs to be explored to see if it can be reduced through better shielding. It takes about 6 seconds to fully charge the storage capacitor.

This is a low energy shake down experiment running at 3KV max. Mr. Ghst reported his anamolous events at a voltage around 6KV or higher.

Setup photos and scope traces to follow.

Spokane1