I'm not familiar with that Naudin demo.

The faster discharge seems to be tied to the diode and not really the
tube setup since it happens without the tube and even on my 2-point
system.

I think it is just a really profound effect and I see it happening very, very
simply with positive and negative pressures of the voltage.

You are not familiar huh?

I know Naudin has been accused of falsifying reports and presenting erroneous findings for some reasons.
By the way, in case this is just genuine, i believe it has potential at giving great boost to tube setup.

Nevertheless, Ed Gray also used the carbon at the LV side of his discharge electrode. so, why carbon? Massive, rugged, variable resistor? Anyway, some experiments on this, are of no harm i suppose.

EDIT:

An a fella here that takes oath that Gray's tube is alla bout spark-gaps and carbon
E. V. Gray Analysis by William S. Alek


baroutologos

i have finally come to the conclusion that the pulse duration is of the utmost importance in the circuit. Apparently gray and moray were using 6000 cycles per second. Tesla himself said in one of his lectures that anything below 5000 cycles should be used for a motor. So i can believe that 6000 cycles would be about right.

But i dont have the skills to build such a circuit. Maybe someone can help out here with a basic circuit that runs at 6000 cycles.

Baroutologos,

I'm going to repost your post on the condenser discharge oscillation.
It may describe that burst of activity Mark McKay shows in those
scope shots.

What are the conditions? I think we have it maybe.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Patent 462,418 Method and Apparatus for Electrical Conversion and Distribution
Foreword,

I searched this forum and found that this patent has been mentioned in more than 14 threads, but none has been developed in his account.

I have read a couple of days ago, an Interview of Tesla in 1916 to a New York Law office regarding his apparatus and patents with a goal at protecting his interests in case of a court. Tesla then was 60 years old.

....

From the first things discussed (with the end of formalities and praise) was this peculiar patent. Using Tesla's own words according to K.L. Corum* and J.F. Corum, Ph.D.** are:

" This is one of most beautiful things ever produced in the way of apparatus: I take a generator of any kind. With the generator I charge a condenser.
Then I discharge the condenser under conditions which result in the production of vibrations. Now, it was known since Lord Kelvin that the
condenser discharge would give this vibration, but I perfected my apparatus to such a degree that it became an instrument utilizable in the arts, in a
much broader way than Lord Kelvin had contemplated as possible. In fact, years afterwards when Lord Kelvin honored me by presenting to the
British Association one of my oscillators of a perfected form, he said that it was "a wonderful development and destined to be of great importance."

..
I personally thought that this type of patent was to step-down currents created by Tesla coils. Instead, the man says he uses a generator of ANY KIND, and this way - as the patent says -transforms the energy.
1) To what i may add?

The interview continues..
"...E] is supposed to be a condenser. That [A] is the generator. Now then, supposing that this is a generator of
steady pressure. I can obtain oscillations of any frequency I desire. I can make them damped or undamped. I can make them of one direction or
alternating in direction as I choose. At G are devices which operate—lamps, or anything else. Some experimenters who have gone after me have
found a difficulty. They said,
"No, we cannot produce a constant train of oscillations."
Well, it is not my fault. I never have had the slightest difficulty. I produced constant oscillations and I have described how I produced them. Anyone
who has no more than my own skill can do it."

Ok, now i am little confused. Tesla talks about oscillations when a condenser is discharged. Naturally we all tend to think, the damped, resonance that is created by the LCR created when the condenser is discharged...

But things tend complicated when Tesla says, that the oscillations could be ONE way or alternating.
2) What kind of oscillation could be one way and what alternating?
....

I have been reading a free energy article by Bruce Perreault regarding his Ion Valve (the kind of articles that the net is full of) http://www.nuenergy.org/pdf/ion_valve_article.pdf . In this article Perreault makes some interesting notes. I quote:

"In one experimental set-up, it was confirmed that when a charged capacitor is discharged through a spark gap that the stored energy is transferred by way of high frequency electrical oscillations. It was found that these oscillations occur directly before the discharge of the capacitor, thus the term, pre-glow discharge. It was found that during the pre-glow discharge plateau, energy is transferred from a primary to a secondary electrical coil. Directly after pre-glow discharge, a surge of current is measured. At the point of current surge is where most of the stored energy in the capacitor is released as wasted heat."

In case this statement is genuine then we have a starking similarity to Tesla's sayings.
...

Spark gaps, spark gaps, spark gaps.... Almost everywhere in the free energy literature of FE devices there is a spark gap. Either for well understood reasons or misunderstood reasons, the spark gap usage is peculiar. So much have been said about those, that is futile to repeat a portion of them.

An interesting thing that Bruce Perreault has said in this article, it is that spark gap geometry and materials used are of GREAT importance. He specify materials to do also.


he also saying that the spark gap must be quenched as more as possible so as the actual current discharge to be at minimum. (he says current is waste)

Tesla in the interview discussed says "Then I discharge the condenser under conditions which result in the production of vibrations"

3) What are the conditions?

Further more,

Don Smith in his Tesla Conference teachings says... Tesla Electric Conversion Concept - Proof of Concept Project - click on the excerpt link. Practically he states the tesla Patent as the key to FE.

Baroutologos

Dear Mr. Baroutologos,

There are two sources of RF vibration that need to be considered when dealing with Tesla Oscillations.

1) The classical RLC oscillations that have been examined in great detail.

2) The completly over look process of "Mass Vibration".

Mass Vibration takes place when a sifficently strong arc stricks a metal object. It rings like a bell that has been hit with a hammer. For brass spheres the wave length is 1.5 times the diameter. Dr. Hertz use 3" Brass balls as the prime oscillator in his early experiments. Marconi use 1.5" balls in his initial wireless patant.

Ever wonder how Dr. Tesla was able to demonstrate potential nodes in a horse shoe shape copper bar, considering the frequency needed to accomplish this? Well, he was zapping the copper bar with the capacitor discharge and generating the oscillations through Mass Vibration.

The technology of generating usable RF via Mass vibration was short lived. Marconi patented his work in 1898. In 1899 Dr. Fesselden came up with the RLC theories and everybody (except Dr. Tesla) switched over to the new ideas. Any book on Spark Radio published after about 1905 doen't even mention Mass Oscillators, mush less explain how they actually worked.

I think a lot of physics was over looked and then forgot in this time period. [It has been re-discovered in Phased Array Radar] It appears to me that Dr. Tesla was able to greatly advanced what could be done in this area. Ever wonder why his Tesla Coils needed to have balenced mass between the primary and the secondary? Everybody else was thinking , and therefore limited, in terms of LRC. Dr. Tesla was able to explore a completly different dimension.

I suppose the proper engineering of Mass Oscillations, concurent with LRC oscillations, would give some interesting effects. I don't believe that any straight LRC circuit is going to yield any OU by itself.

Dr. Tesla's Table top Oscillators used single loop copper bars for the primaries. He then designed his secondaries to harvest the resulting vibrations using a Transmission line approach that matched the frequency of the primary. Brilliant design. These little table top units may well have been operating in the 50 MHz region. Nobody that I know of has been able to duplicate his results demonstrated in 1896. Show me someone who can generate a square meter sheet of streamers using 25 watts. Jeff Behara has been attempting to do this for quite some time and he know his stuff.

Recall what Dr. Tesla said in 1895 about how the differance of 0.250 inches in the length of his copper primary bar made all the differance in sucessful operation. Well, this is what you would expect if Mass Vibration was employed. If only LRC parameters were important then 0.250" would be an insignificant change in a bars bent into a 4" circle.

Back to Gray:

There is some historical evidence that some kind of Mass Vibration process was employed in the original Marvin Cole Motors. This went away when Richard Hackenburger designed and employed the CSET system.

I have been doing some experiments in this area but have stopped for a while to assemble a suitable machine shop. Here is what I have noted so far:

1. To get a mass to ring there is a critical level of pulse energy that needs to be employed to make things happen. This value depends upon the weight, shape, and material used. So far 35 Joules seems to be a minimum for 0.750" brass rods 7" in length.

2. The capacitor discharge circuit has to be tuned so that it is critically damped. At these high current flows additional resistance (not much) needs to be added to keep even the slighest loop inductance from LRC ringing. The larger the pulse storage capacitor the greater the loop resistance needs to be. But we are talking hundreths of an OHM. Perhaps this is what the CSET carbon resistor was doing in? (just speculation)

3. Isolation of the ringing mass after it has been zapped is critical. This requires two or more spark gaps that can quickly quench after the initial discharge. Review the work of Sir Oliver Lodge to see how he did it. Dr. Tesla had his own approaches - especially in his Mecury breaks.

4. The arc surfaces need to be kept clean - which is hard to accomplish in open air for more than about 30 seconds at the current levels observed.

5. What comes out of the ringing bar is stronger at the ends. Check out the work of Charles Morton, as reported in early editions of Electric Space Craft Journel.

This concept is just a consideration when reviewing the work of Dr. Tesla and others while looking for a viable OU process.

Mark McKay, PE

At spokane1

OK, you gave me (and others) much food for the brain.

You are attemping to explain the question (1+2) of mine, how a condenser produces oscillations when discharged. (clearly in the context given, no RLC oscillations are implied at that point - even though can coincide)

You say mass oscillations. I am not at all familiar with the concept. What is mass oscilaltion? Physical ringing that can be sensed? Magnetic one?

How that ringing is connected with electricity and can be used to run air core tramsformers or light lamps at nodes (tesla copper bar and voltage nodes).
Indeed i have seen posts that quote Dr Tesla used to measure the weight of his coils to match somehow.

What you mean by that, after hit with a discharge you need to insulate it? (hence quenching the spark)

Is there any instrument available in order to see the ringing mass? (To get an understanding)

Different metals involved in the spark-gap have any impact? (conserning ions etc)

Thanks,

Baroutologos

ps: i appreciate your polite reply but no need for formalities here

Baroutologos,

I have made a mediocore attempte to consult my collection of Physics and Electrical Engineering books to see if this process has a different or more common and academic name. So far nothing. As I mentioned Phase Array Radar make some use of short metalic and ferite elements to modify phase relationships, but the initial RF generation is generally supplied from a different source -so technically its not really the same thing.

MIT blasted a 18" x 0.250" copper rod with 150KV. The rod was suspended with nylon fish line so there were two arcs involved, one at each end. The rod exploded. An electron microscope examination showed that the metal fragments did not melt but were literaly blown away from the mass matrix. This appears to be a much different phenomena than with exploding wires (which have no initial arcing). The researchers at MIT were attempting to prove or disprove some feature of Amperer's Law vs Faraday's Law. The reason for the explosion was unresolved in the article.

For now I'm calling it Mass Oscillation, until I become educated on the formal sicence of this process.

It is not mechanical vibration. The frequency of oscillation is several orders of magnitude higher than what would be acheived from the reflection of mechanical stresses due to a physical blow. You can check my math, but Dr. Hertz was using 3" brass balls and the produced wave length is supose to be 1.5 times the diameter. As I recall Dr. Hurtz was working in the 120 MHz region. Most mechinal vibrations are in the audio or near audio range.

So far, from basic experiments and historical research, the ringing is some sort of electrostatic process. The "Antenna" is a flat sheet of metal. I use a 4" diameter can lid and a 300 MHz oscilloscope. If you use a loop or coil all you see is the natural ringing frequency of that coil in parallel with the input capacitance of the scope. Most of the early wireless equipment used capacatative antenna elements. Their real challenge was developing any sort of usable detector. The "Coherer" was the most sucessful (for a while). Even so no one really knows how that device works - Not even the Coram brothers. (See their outstanding article in 2007 ESCJ). It appears that Dr. Tesla made vast improvements on the construction of this exotic device and could use it to directly detect his kind of transmissions.

When the radio industry made the early and sudden shift to EM generation and detection all the previous and promising technology that was working with "Something Else" dissapeared. Documentation on these processes is sparce. Dr. Tesla appears to have advanced this something else, but as you know he was not very free with the technical details after 1895 (after his assanation attempt).

Oliver Lodge describe the requirement for insulation (actually isolation) somthing along the lines of "The additional gap allows the oscillator to vibrate at its natural frequency". I have observed that nothing odd hapens when only one arc is used. All you get is all the hash normally associated with a discharge. It takes two gaps to begin to see the faint outline of a HF envelope on a decaying expoential. I can't say that I'm really there in making a solid measurement that I can share at the moment.

I'm sure different metals have different modes of mass vibration. I have brass, bronze, steel, aluminum, copper, and nickel rods to explore.

My only reference on this process is very early texts on wireless telegraphy, and then there is not a whole lot written about it. Nary an equation, graph or micro physical explaination. Most of these books came from the University of Washington Engineering Library.

Marconi got the best results using four 1.5" brass balls with three gaps, before he jumped on the LRC band wagon. It is interesting. The Marvin Cole motor uses also four masses with three gaps as well.

Drop me a note at mmckay@simplexgrinnell.com and I can send you some recent photos of my experimental setup. My photo storage allocation on this site is all used up and I haven't found the time to make use of a common storage service.

If you are really interested in this proposed process I can dig out the specific technical references that are the basis of my argument. They are short chapters from short books.

Mark McKay, PE

I have indulged last weeks in reading, gathering and comparing information about potential gain in arching setups.

Too many patents there with fewer or more similarities are being viewed.
According Bruce Perreault suggestion, i have been studied past days the H Plauson patent (us 1,540,998) and the Paulo & Alexandra Correa's patent (us. 5,449,989), named "Energy Conversion System" (its becoming banal)Energy conversion system - Google Patent Search

The Correas' are getting extra power form their setups by applying a specially constructed tube as a triode. see patent's outline or Fig 9.

Those involved in the Gray tube replication will readily perceive that this is the Gray tube setup. Anode-Cathode and the trigger with switch S2 (the low voltage anode with the diode in Gray tube setup).

They also say that the capacitors C3 & C5 play an important role and clarify it , to my view are being in similar connection to Gray capacitors 16&38.

too many coincidences around. Either copycats or all describing the same thing from their perspective.

...
I tend to conclude purely from theoretical study, that the primitive energy "conversion" or gain setups use spark gaps of various geometries and electrode composition (from carbon to alluminium etc)

Afterwards (as Gray proceed from earlier patents spark gaps), spark gaps are optimized and made rugged by making them as Tubes. (larger electrode surface, controlled pressure and gas composition, trigger circuit etc)

Or perhaps its just me and i have raging imagination.

Baroutologos

What if Gray's "spliting the positive" is exactly what Edison did to obtain etheric force ? Then surely a spark gap inside Gray tube WOULDN'T BE ELECTRICAL but etheric force effect.Electric circuit was completed by other ways.
Edison marked that cadmium bar was excellent flow guide for etheric force, next one was carbon !
What did Gray used in tube ? CARBON ROD!

Bogus you have some right but its not that all as nobody at the moment has all the pieces of the puszzle.

1) High voltage component

The higher the better for given energy pulses.

Generally this method involves high volatges. How much high? As the Great Tesla said, enormous power activities are provided by the disruptive cap discharges. (if you consider it, my 0.1 F electrolytic cap charged at 14 volt hence 10 joules approx. bears far less energetic potential than a 5uf oil cap charged at 2Kv)
Capacitor discharge rate is also a wanted quality.

2) Plasma

Spark gap or tubes create plasma. Many inventors support that whatever energy production is attributed to plasma oscillations. Plasma is the 4th state of matter. It has been found that different elements' plasma offers different properties.
Pressure of plasma in case of a gas used alters the behavior of the radiant event considerably.

3) Electrodes

Bruce Perreault supports that the frequency of plasma oscillation is also affected by the composition of the spark gap or tube's electrodes and geometry.

He claims that electropositive materials should go to anode (e.g aluminium or semiconductors p type) and eletronegative materials should be used for cathode (carbon, lead, tungsten). Others just support it is only the carbon that has the energy productive property.

Electrode surface seems to play a vital role also. Generally the larger the better.

4) Quenching

The gap or the tube for best performance must work in a quenching mode
The better the quenching the better the effect.

The output of course is in pulse mode always and some caps in shunt help smooth the effect.

Baroutologos
Baroutologos

The hv and lv mixing is the only thing I have ever seen that gives evidence
that a cap can discharge FASTER than normal.

Has anyone seen anything else that does this?

@Aaron,

Is this a solid fact that the mixing makes cap discharge faster, hence better effects? From my preliminary experiments, it seems that the HV is a trigger for plasma to be formulated and later allows the LV (that in our case LV is NOT that low) to continue the discharge, operation quite similar as the Xenon tubes of commerce.
IMO, whatever happens must be attributed to plasma formulation and interaction.

For this, I have ordered some HV caps to continue experimenting with greater joule values (instead of the 26nf i use now).
...

I am aware of all you tubes videos of yours Aaron i will not return at discussing the very basics. By the way as a matter of proof, we can arrange two Gray tubes experimental setups.

1) A 4mf 4 KV fully charged cap, and upon a Gray style trigger, that is a connector switch to enable the low voltage rod to be grounded with a battery's + pole or a 12 volt small cap, if you afraid of batteries (just to have the trigger diode opened) and measure results. (32 Joules of discharge)

In this setup, the 12volt battery current or a small capacitors's is far too weak (and little) to jump even the ionized gap.

2) Your setup. The high voltage 50Kv+ (HV rod) initiated by a plasma ignition coil (of little energy) and the 50uf, 1,2 Kv caps (LV rod) you are using. (30+ joules)In this case the main power comes from the low voltage source.

Both setups use same energy content. This way we can see if the 50Kv mixing with the 1,2 Kv (in same power terms) is better than a plain 4KV discharge.


What u say?

Baroutologos

Yes, this tectohnique for a fact makes the cap discharge quicker.

Better or not? That is a matter of opinion and your suggestion to do a
comparison is what I have been saying all along many times.

There absolutely is some unusual properties to the plasma. Just think of
just the bare basic cdi ignition with one single diode...that plasma is
incredible. With the SAME potential in the same cap, without the diode,
the discharge is what is to be espected for a typical CDI ignition spark.
Nothing special just a bit more robust compared to non-cdi.

By only adding one single diode to the cdi, the plasma burst is LITERALtLY
about 100 times bigger in volume - at least it was with a 47uf cap, which
of course is about 10 times bigger than a typical cdi cap of 4uf.

But still, even a standard 47uf discharge into ignition coil without the
diode is not very impressive compared to WITH a diode... SAME power
DIFFERENT results.

With an inductor in the system, we can get an electromagnetic punch to
actually move something.

So without diode, discharge the cap into the coil and see how high it can
launch a 5 gram neodimium magnet or something.

With a diode, same power in coil, do the same launch and see how high
it gets.

I think these tests need to be done to compare the mechanical work
being done.

I have done some of these tests early on like in my video where I show
launching some magnets off of the coil just sitting on a table.

My tests were not super controlled at that time but with the same
amount of potential in a cap being discharged with or without, I had
some magnets that were launched stronger WITH the diode. Again, not
very controlled tests...nothing was super precision but these are the
tests I want to do maybe in the spring when it warms up in my shop.

Also, I don't see anyone using a magnetic harness in these circuits.
I don't really see it as anything other than a bifilar (wound Tesla EM style
like the pancake coils) choke in between the transformer and high voltage
cap on the HV side of the tube. I never mentioned that before but several
things have given me reason to believe that is what it is.

Anyway, I think your proposed tests should be done and the comparison
of joules of potential in a cap(s) and with or without the mixing should be
helpful in us learning more.

Many times I have seen people suggest there is a gas in the Gray Tube
but have never personally seen a valid argument as to why.

I've been aware of allotropic nitrogen for a long time in regards to something
else but it didn't really hit me until I reviewed the info on it and was done
out of learning about the Tutanka water process.

For the first time I think there is a valid argument for a gas in the Gray Tube
and it is nitrogen. Mark's document says Gray was familiar with welding gases,
etc... and didn't use anything "exotic". However, nitrogen is probably one
of the most exotic gases there is.

The discharge of nitrogen can be MORE than what charged it to begin
with. Anyway, just for reference:

Check the first post:
Allotropic Nitrogen - Active Nitrogen

Lord Rayleigh: Active Nitrogen

Ionization & Water Fuel

I am familiar from my chemistry lectures that nitrogen in sparks is agitated. this method is used in industry for the production of ammonia. (NH3)

Somewhere i read about the quenching properties of several gas, researching plasma theories. It is also to note that different gases will behave differently.

Anyway, cannot give it a try

And when the nitrogen is really ionized, it is a very conductive plasma
that may at that time conduct the LV from a battery to the grid to be
a real source of LV with the HV. So, a battery can be used instead of
LV cap like I've been using.

Dear Aaron,

Nitrogen is a common welding gas. It is typicaly mixed with Aragon, CO2 and other inert gases then sold under various trade names.

For all the technical information that E.V. Gray didn't know he did take the time and expense to build his reproduction CSET in 1985 with provisions to have it pressurized.

The exotic gas I was refering to in the article was Sulpherhexifloride SF6. This is an insulating gas use in High Voltage switches that has found wide spread productive used in the power utility industry. According to Mark Gay, E.V. Gray did not use SF6 or anything like it. Mark Gray managed the 1986 CSET construction from scratch by having its components fabricated by machine shops in Boise, ID.

According to Mr. Hackenburger, he thought the OU came from the Oxygen in the air. Consider that the fact that the EMA4-E2 was pressurized to 0.5 lbs with air from an automotive emissions blower (cicra 1969). This is not much pressure but it probably doubles the concentration of O2 atoms availabe to the arc process.

The publically displayed CSET's in the 1976 EMA6 demonstration shows a clear plastic box that is not set up to be pressurized. At 0.5lbs psi the box would have blown apart. So I really doubt any attempt was made at the time to modify the atmosphere in which the fixed arcs were operating. Perhaps this is one reason why the motor only put out 2 HP?

I have no doubt that a modified atmosphere is going to be a requirement for this OU technology. I think, for right now, that pressureized dry air will work until we can get some specific experimental data on the matter. Then maybe we can explore other gases.

Perhaps Mr. Hackenburger was wrong about Oxygen? Maybe the active gas is indeed Nitrogen. If so, then, So much the better because of its availability, low cost and ease of use.

Spokane1

Hi Mark,

In my own mind, the "mixing" whether or not it is a definite sequence
to the HV then that "rf burst" or it happens all together is still how I see
the circuit work and adding nitrogen to the tube doesn't change that
but it might give some interesting properties.

This is what I'm thinking for now...

HV discharge from HV rod to LV rod will ionize the nitrogen and pull
electrons from N2 into the HV rod leaving atomic nitrogen that is positively
charged. This positively charged nitrogen is a very conductive plasma.
So when the HV hits the LV rod and then moves to grid, the nitrogen is
so conductive that the LV side battery can actually conduct a high current
impulse between LV rod and grid and at that very moment, electrons
moving from grid are totally gobbled up by the positively charged nitrogen
and then it turns into n2 with heat production and "afterglow" emissions
that may or may not contribute to the positive charge moving to grid
and towards ground.

I think the nitrogen gobbling up the electrons may be what keeps the
current "cold" as the current is not really moving back to the LV rod but
into the gas.

I've only been able to get the caps to work as LV source and not really
batteries. A few times, I think I had the batts work but for the most part,
I always thought there wasn't enough conductivity with a simple high
voltage spark or even a plasma burst to conduct the battery to the grid.

Dear Aaron,

Keep up that experimental work.

You could very well be right that no specific atmosphere is needed for the fundamental OU process. That would explain the performance of the "Electrostatic Generators" which probably didn't utilize an air blower. However their COP was on the order of 4.0. Perhaps the atmosphere is an enahcement (along with others) that helped with that COP of 274.0 in the dynamic motor design.

I'm not even going to try to figure out a theory model in advance of observing some anomalous physics. My approach is to follow the historical path as far as it can take us then make wild guesses after that. So far I have a lot of work to do in order to even get close to reproducing the experimental setup that Marvin Cole was working with - but I'm getting there.

Machining transformer laminations is a skill that will not be found in text books on metalworking technology. I don't know if Marvin Cole had the cores for his electromagnets custom punched or if he machined them from salvage transformers. I'm going with the latter approach for now.

It is challenging because the geometry of his cores are difficult to follow. Example: the profile of the top pole face is so darn wide and thin. It appears he was using it as an electrostatic shield to keep the internal arc away from the copper windings. Never the less its hard to cut away that much metal and still have any strength left with out the remaining laminations bending and distorting while being machined. If I have examined the photos correct then the final thickness of his top pole face is on the order of 0.100" for the EMA4 series of motors.

The size of the "Minor" electromagnet (aprox. 0.750" wide) doesen't leave much metal for the central core after you take away metal for the magnet wire and only .0612" (1/16") for a coil form insulation. But that is what the photos show (I think) and that is how I'll build it.

The "Major" electromagnet has a lot more meat on it for the central core, but the upper pole face appears to be just as thin. And it has twice the distance to cover. Even so, Using #24 AWG magnet wire there is only enough room for 140 turns (10 layers with 14 turns each) with no insulation inbetween. There won't be much inductance in that coil once I finish it. But then again for high current pulse applications you don't want much inductance anyway.

It will just be interesting to see what the electrical properties are once it gets up to rotation speed.

Keep mixing the HV and the LV and see if you can come up with something. I'll be working on rotating the electromagnets for the next year or so.

Spokane1

Hi Mark,

Talked to Peter - sounds exciting what you are putting together.

Anyway, I'm just trying to clarify my thoughts on this nitrogen deal...here it is - I still need some diagrams...

HV Low Current and LV High Current Mixing in Gray Tube with Active Nitrogen

In the “mixing” method that I described in my diagrams and experiments, it is identical in concept to the plasma ignition concepts. HV moves to LV source, diode shuts off, HV moves over gap and LV then follows over gap where normally the LV cannot make it over that gap. This combination creates a “cold” plasma.

After learning more of Tutanka’s active nitrogen and atomic hydrogen water fuel explanation, for the first time I see a valid argument for why there may be a gas in the Gray Tube and what gas it is.

My view of the Gray Tube working is simple (without the gas part)…

• HV moves to LV rod since that is the path of least resistance to ground.
• Diode shuts off at LV side and HV is seeking next least resistance path to ground, which is at the grid. It jumps to grid ionizing the path.
• I have used capacitors for my LV source since I could get no definite results with a battery. The LV cap discharges over ionized gap to the grids.
• Inductor charges.

Now, adding nitrogen to the tube changes everything. Actually, the mechanics of the HV/LV mixing is the SAME. However, it is enhanced and may allow a battery to perform the LV High Current source easily. Here’s how…

• HV+ jumps rod gap to LV+ rod.
• Having electrons stripped from the N2 ionizes nitrogen in the tube.
• The HV rod absorbs the electrons freed up creating atomic nitrogen or N+. This N+ (positive nitrogen plasma) is VERY conductive.
• Diode at LV rod shuts off and HV moves to grid and at SAME TIME, the LV Battery + is able to conduct over the N+ to the grid contributing a HIGH CURRENT IMPULSE that is blended with the HV.
• The current electrons that are moving from ground to load to grids are absorbed by the N+ activating the nitrogen causing ionizing heat and the active nitrogen “afterglow”, which has interesting anomalous emissions that may or may not contribute to driving the load.

When the N+ absorbs the electrons from the current impulse, the nitrogen gas becomes non-conductive immediately and breaks the battery connection to the grid shutting it off ultra fast.

If the N+ has more than one electron stripped, it is really trying hard to pull electrons from anywhere it can. The current from the grid wouldn’t be pushing into a resistance, the N+ would be sucking on it and therefore, the nitrogen would act as a negative resistor. This is possibly why the coil stays “cold.”

Dear Non-Funded E.V. Gray researchers,

GD, an investor from 1973. Has released 53 pages of dictation taken from his second meeting with Richard Hackenburger in May of 1973. The purpose of this meeting was to establish a regional franchise to build/sell the electrostatic generators.

There are just a few technical clues that might help you with your research efforts.

The original Marvin Cole "Electrostatic Generator" fit in a box 6" x 6" x 6". It did not contain an on board batter charger.

The solid state 2nd generation version of this device (The blue Box) that Mr. Hackenburger built (which I doubt worked nearly as good as Marvin's) was claimed to contain only one custom component - Which was a custom induction transformer that would cost 20% more than a regular transformer. All the other parts were off the shelf. So what did Mr. Hackenburger repalce with his power transistor(s) that Marvin had orginally? Most likly a high speed mechanical switch of some kind.

Mr. Hackenburger claimed that these generators were the foundation of the operation of the motor. We don't know a whole lot about these boxes but it is pretty clear that they did not contain a CSET type component, like what John Bedini reported on. I still believe that the evolution of the CSET was a failed workaround solution to reduce the cost of the original EMA4-E2 motor.

Another new photo shows the last shot of the EMA6 running in about March 1976 - WITH THE CSET's REMOVED. They have been replaced with additional Nylon or Delrin commentator rings. So there is still an arc process required, but it is no longer contained in an enclosure nor is it surrounded with "grids".

In this meeting Mr. Hackenburger claims that they were exploring different winding ratios, commercial core materials, and wire material. However they were not using anything exotic for the core material - like Metglas or stuff like that. I would expect that didn't mess with Ferrites either.

I hope these tidbits help

Spokane1

Thanks for the update Mark.

Do you know if this enclosure had just 2 points for a gap or 3 points?

Mark,
I am always amazed about amount of information you have on Grays motor and it's history.
I don't know may be it would be to much to ask of you, but is it possible to share all information you have on the subject in electronic format? Something like big archive that would be possible to download.

Mike

Hi everybody,

I have been away for a while. Last post was pre-xmas. I finally received more components and have started experimenting again.

I have now built HV probes for my DMM and oscilloscope. (drawings available if anybody needs them..)

I am now trying to get my tube to fire. Again, I am having no luck.

I am using a MOT - output rectified to 3500V at HV rod.

LV either direct to ground via diode and switch, or via LV capacitor supply and switch as suggested by Aaron.

The gap is set to around 1mm, and arc's if the LV diode is bypassed (with a very loud bang and spark).

I CANNOT get the gap to arc with the LV diode in the circuit. the circuit is organised as follows - ground, switch, diode, LV rod.

It seems as if the diodes will not let ANY current through before blocking.

If I hadnt seen the video's, I would never believe that the circuit actually works.

Tomorrow I will try placing the switch between the diode and the LV rod to see if that makes any difference. I will also try again Aarons 2-point circuit.

My motor is ready for final assembly and testing. This is really frustrating.

Without the diode slamming shut, I cannot get any output across from the rods to the grid - so no HV switching will take place.

If anyone has any further suggestions, or working schematics with values - I would be grateful.

Also: I would like to move away from the MOT, and use a 5khz ignition coil supply. I have combed the threads, but cannot locate the schematic.. Would someone please post me a link?

Thanks in advance.

Try 3 nails or something and put the HV and LV point really close to
each other. Take the grid point and have it closer to the LV point
and further from the HV point. That way, the HV is forced to move to
the LV rod first before going to the grid point. If the points are all very
close together, it is almost impossible to not get that to work from my
experience.

Dear Mike,

One of these days I shall get around to writing a book that Peter Lindemann has offered to sell on his web site in an E Book format. But that is not going to happen very soon. Now that I have bought a huge 50" vertical mill and the related tooling I can actually build the same components that Marvin Cole was working with. I would rather experiment with hardware than write up chapters of speculations for general reading.

When I do get to it there will be two books. The first one will be a detailed history of everything we know happend in a linear time line from 1955 to 2000. The second book will focus on the technical issues for both the motor and the Electro Static Generators. A serious researcher will need the detailed history in order to sort out the working technology from the bogus stuff that Mr. Gray peddled for so many years. The technical book will make the DaVince Code look like the Boy Scout Handbook.

Almost all the the new GD material is not in electronic format - yet. It really wouldn't matter since so very little of it contains any usable technical information. The recorded phone conversations do show Mr. Hackenburger as a passionate engineer attempting to move things along, but is surrounded by turkeys.

If you send me your address to mmckay@simplexgrinnell.com I shall send you a CD with all the speculations, lies, stories, interviews, drawings, photos, wag's, and half baked articles. The story line keeps changing as information dribbles in. I've changed my mind so many times in the past that I don't like to read my old writings because they are so out of date.

If you want to post any of this material on the Internet - have at it. I'm sure others would come to different conclusions with the same data in front of them.

Spokane1

Hi Everybody,
I noticed one mistake that everybody are doing when trying to build schema with Grays tube. Everybody connecting grid to the inductive load and some to the ground or to the cap and to the ground. The mistake I see is there is spark gap is missing after inductive load.

What do you mean ?

boguslaw,
Grid is providing energy for stator and rotor coils , stator and rotor coils are not directly connected so there is a spark gap between. And that what is stopping HV driving capacitor from discharging through the grid. There is no path to the ground.
P.S. And another thing to consider. There should be 2 coils 1 is CW and other is CCW (stator and rotor coils). Did anybody mentioned Tesla?

Hmm, I thought that stator was permanent magnets but you are probably right.