Gray Tube Replication

[Electrotek]

Inductor Size?

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

Please see both of these documents on Peter Lindemann's website:

http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/ems_inverter.pdf

http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/static_generator.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any comments from anyone on this from anyone?

Have you calculated the reactive inductance needed to tune a 12uF cap to 6kHz?

[Electrotek]

Hi Lamare,

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

I read on the Water Sparkplug thread where you said that that circuit would also work without a diode, just a spark gap by the cap. Have you tried this with the Gray's Tube? This seems to be what Beshires is doing with his coil popping, with the extra spark gap to the cap's alligator clip.

[Spokane1]

[QUOTE=Electrotek;42610]After frame by frame analysis of video taped operation of a CSET, I can see that the spark gap fires about three times per second. This is consistent with the estimated pulse rate of one of the old vibrator tubes of around 100 per second, which powers the transformer. This, of course, doesn't equate to the interrupter rate of 6,000 per second. So it's my opinion that both of these frequencies were present in the arc, when it formed. If so, this could account for the excess energy.

Dear Electrotek,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pardon me for rambling.

Mark McKay, PE

[Beshires1]

Aaron said:

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

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

[Electrotek]

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

Does this mean that the mechanical commutator shown in the patent was never actually used?

And would you happen to know where Gray was in 1981?

[Spokane1]

Dear Electrosatic,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark McKay

[Aaron]

patents

Aaron said:


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

Patent holders and patent writers often will write the patents to protect the concept and do so within the framework of what the patent examiners will accept.

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

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

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

[lamare]

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

According to the book mentioned above, by Patrick J. Kelly, the first situation applies:

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

"however, it is almost certain that Ed Gray did not build the original system, nor did he understand how it actually operated. The designer and builder, Marvin Cole, unfortunately died, leaving Ed in a difficult position, which he tried, fairly ineffectively, to overcome."

[lamare]

That diagram is only their particular setup and attempt based on how they wanted to test it.

Hi Aaron,

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

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


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

If yes, do you know what happened to these guys and their experiments?

[Electrotek]

Interrupter

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

Apparently then, what the *747 patent shows is not a rotary spark gap interrupter, or a distributor cap.

[Beshires1]

Patent holders and patent writers often will write the patents to protect the concept and do so within the framework of what the patent examiners will accept.

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

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

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

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

Lets see Mark said:

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

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

This statement Is true! AS I HAVE SHOWN. and it also falls in line with the patent as you can see here: http://sites.google.com/site/chasing...0rectified.jpg

I recon I should go back and a paste Copywrite Protection on all my shared schematics.

[Electrotek]

Gzillion Volts

If people would read and try to do as the patent says They will find out as I did what the use of this tube is really for. It ain't just for flashing neons, blasting the hell out of it with a gzillion volts. or make pretty color flashes that look cool.

Thanks. Now, if I want to I can suppress my circuit and walk away, keeping it for my own pocket. And everyone will forget that the above picture was made with just 7.5kV and two home made capacitors which aren't even close to one uF. Even with the voltage doubling diode circuit, I'm still using a lot less voltage per inch of Tube radius than you have with your setup. Which, of course, is pretty good.

[Beshires1]

Apparently then, what the *747 patent shows is not a rotary spark gap interrupter, or a distributor cap.

That part of the commutator is definitely in there. The 3 bush arrangement that are between the bearings preformed this function. The brushes contacted the "slip rings" although the rings were solidly fixed and do not rotate. there were attachments to this ring that supplied either the negative or positive potiential that "sets" on one side of the rotor coils and paired capacitors. The brushes contact this ring This is where the lubriplate had to be used. This ring had to make a constant electrical contact with the brushes. the brushes reached thru the ring and as it rotated made connection with the timing contacts.that were spaced at 40 degrees and 120 degrees around the inside of the commutator hub. this would pulse the current supplied to the stationary ring thru the contacts, that had wires connected to carry the pulses to another process point within the commutator. (charging the capacitors, discharge points and to deliver the timing impulse to the stator coils.] It is a rotary selective switch and a voltage chopper. Tho Grey may have used another chopper or vibrator for the transformer, I don,t see why because this chopped dc would pulse the ignition coils thru the tube in time with the motor. Grey probably never used all the contacts inside the commutator hub, but had them there incase he wanted to change the motor configuration from 3 rotor and 3 stator to 3 rotor and 6 or 9 stators. It is obvious to me that the 3 rotor and 3 stator setup would have been the most powerful. Large rotor and matching large stator coils. The down fall of the EMA 6 was because "they" grossly mis matched the magnetic repulsion between the rotor and the stator. Simply the nine stator coils had to be made smaller to fit into the housing.They thought they could ride the large magnetic pulses from the rotor all the way around the rotation of the motor on the small fields produced buy the stator.

[Electrotek]

New Tube Test

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

I'm still going to hook this up as a Super Bolt capacitor and see what kind of blast it'll give off, since I can use this for one of my other projects.

[Aaron]

@ Beshires

Anthony,

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

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

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



Here is your incomplete block diagram:



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please refer to the first paragraph in this post.