Gray Tube Replication

[Electrotek]

... 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.

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

http://www.energeticforum.com/attachments/renewable-energy/2350d1236016598-gray-tube-replication-puff-circuit-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'd like to get back to running experiments.

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.

[barbosi]

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.

[Aaron]

@Electrotek

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.

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.

http://www.energeticforum.com/39691-post156.html

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.

[Electrotek]

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.

[Aaron]

@Barbosi

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.

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.

[Electrotek]

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.

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.

[Aaron]

@Electrotek

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.

[barbosi]

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.

[Electrotek]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

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

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/attachments/renewable-energy/1776d1230929441t-gray-tube-replication-copperelectrode.jpg

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.

Yes. I found your original drawing here:

http://www.energeticforum.com/43338-post418.html

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

http://www.energeticforum.com/43365-post422.html

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

[Electrotek]

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.

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.

[Aaron]

comments

Aaron: You are correct, this is my circuit:

http://www.energeticforum.com/47450-post919.html

And here is your circuit:

http://www.energeticforum.com/57090-post1405.html

Your circuit (the second one) does not have a blocking diode and will not produce the green sparks effect in your video. Your three point discharge circuit is the same thing I've shown on this forum as far back as December.

To my knowledge, no one other than you has shown the green burst, with multiple sparks and no camera saturation. (I believe this was an authentic Tesla effect since he said the color of the Radiant Energy changed with the frequency.) However, you did say that the green perimeter around Ghst's discharge was "the effect" and I certainly have shown the same thing.

My circuit does not plagiarize Gray's since he shows the 3 points as the Overshoot Switch, not the CSET. And my circuit (the third one) does not include a blocking diode. But your green spark circuit does.

Copyright law says that to maintain your copyright you have to aggressively defend your work. If I didn't, then you could prevent me from publishing my own circuit, simply because you also claimed copyright on the same circuit.

You're right, I could have sent you a PM, but I had to be assertive about it. Also, I'm very tired and the stress is getting to me. There may be something to the health effects. I've been doing a lot of tests recently that I haven't posted, and I know there was some kind of high density exotic energy involved at least part of the time.

I'm going to continue publishing my circuit and stating that I have a copyright on it.

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.

[barbosi]

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.

[barbosi]

... so is something missing or not? This is what I'm trying to find out.

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.

[Electrotek]

Dear Electrotek,

Beside capacitor discharge I don't really understand what you wish to accomplish. Not saying it has no value, but when I read this thread, my focus is on Grey tube replication only. With this in mind, I was appreciating Aaron's work on his first post (which started the thread LOL).

I've done more than discharge a capacitor. I've discharged it through a CSET and detailed how the Puff Spark provides a low impedance path for the cap's energy. (Impedance is an analogy to pure DC's resistance.) This results in a much quicker discharge, producing more repulsion between the four and one half pound coils I've videoed. I've also shown that the distance the coils are kicked increases when the CSET arc is magnetically quenched. What I'm trying to accomplish is to identify the missing component(s), if any, in Gray's circuit.

I didn't know you were talking about Aaron's first post; I thought you were referring to his latest post with a circuit. (The circuit which matches mine.)

I don't know if Gray's method used colliding potentials or not - potentials traveling through the arc in different directions. But determining this is one thing I'm wishing to accomplish. I have determined that if potentials don't collide, the arc doesn't puff up. Nothing in Gray's last circuit would cause a Puff Spark in the CSET, so is something missing or not? This is what I'm trying to find out.

[Inquorate]

Calm please

This forum in many threads is starting to look a lot like the OU forum, with unnecessary bickering and defamation of ideas..

Where's the love?