Gray Tube Replication

[Aaron]

use battery as lv source

Until I have more to go on, I'm going to focus on the mixing of
high voltage low current and low voltage high current just like
the plasma ignitions.

A radar modulator:


Radar Basics - Radar Modulator

is along the lines of what I've always experimented with on the Gray
circuits as it is essentially what is in the patent in concept even if the
patent is bogus.

Except, the thyraton is the Gray tube, which is the switch. But instead of
the trigger/gate of a tube simply being some voltage potential to cause
the current from cathode to move to annode, the trigger/gate IS able
to contribute a current punch on its own.

Seeing how a triode works for example seems to be a possible inspiration
for the Gray Tube or whatever effect this Popov character may have shown
or what Cole figured out. Instead of a simple voltage controlled gate,
it was a source of current, which would be the low voltage rod and
battery bank.

The HV rod is the annode, the LV rod is the trigger and the grid in the
Gray Tube is the cathode (of a vacuum triode analogy).

The plasma ignition effect certainly works if you line up all three points
just like they are in a vacuum triode where the HV is forced to hit the
LV rod first before getting to the grid and causing the coil to pulse. If the
tube is a red herring as Bedini says, it may be in the way the geometry
is setup to throw people off but looking at the function, it is a big
transistor so to speak.

It is easy to run a motor on this all day long, as I have done, as long
as the low voltage source is a capacitor of a couple hundred volts or
more.

The next step for me in all of those experiments, what I really want to
see is results by being able to have a 12v or 24v battery bank jump
the gap with the HV and it is extremely difficult to happen.

With a cap - no problem, using battery for LV source, a challenge.

Simply stepping up the hv input from a cdi or ignition coil with peaking
cap to 4000v at a couple uf and mixing that with a ultra short burst of
current from a battery is what I think would show something quite
interesting. Taking the plasma ignition concept to a whole new level.

Can the gap be ionized enough so that there is enough conductivity for
12v or 24v battery bank to arc over with the HV? This is what is happening
in the plasma ignition but just small scale.

The battery bank would contribute HUGE current pulse and mixed with
a few thousand volts from the input, the results would be over the top.

We can already see that the plasma burst in the ignition system is like
100 times the volume of the spark easily and more simply by adding one
single diode and no extra power. The same would hold true with 4000v
at 2uf and a 24v battery bank.

If I had the time, I'd just have an enclosure with a gap in a simple
battery bank powered dc motor and see if the gap can be ionized in
some way to get the battery to conduct over the gap and just get the
dc motor to move. If it is ionized enough by a 4000v 2uf discharge,
the battery current may follow it over to the grid to power the coil.

Anyway, to me, this seems to be the most obvious step to do on my
personal experimentation path and for anyone that even tried to make
it work with the scaled down plasma ignition system method.

[lamare]

Hi Mark,

All arcs (DC or otherwise) contain a pleathra of frequencies from DC to daylight. The arc inside the CSET or the Cole Motor, the Water Arc, or any other device that employes an arc is indeed a self contained multi-frequency oscillator. Looking at scope traces of even low energy arcs display frequencies within frequencies.

Very, very interesting. Then if I understand this right, you can see the arc itself as a HF oscillator, which is switched on/off using the commutator or some other switching means. Since the HF signal is coupled to the grid, you get HV, HF, AC *voltage* "modulated" in the rythm of the commutator on there. And _that_ is exactly the kind of signal you would use to drive a coil in either half or full wave resonance if you were interested in obtaining free energy from the electric field, as Puharich and Meyer basically did the same way, but you have to rectify the signal, which would explain why there is a triode (IIRC) in Gray's schematic, just as there is a diode in Meyers, while the rectification in Puharich's took place inside his WFC, basically using it as an electrolytic rectifier as they used in the old school. Meyer and Puharich used a much lower HF frequency, but it's in essence the same thing, in my view.
So, if this is correct, then the trick would be in the timing. You have to get the commutator or other switching mechanism to switch the CSET such that you switch it on/off with either the half or full wave resonance frequency of the coils for continuous operation, or perhaps a short pulse to get the thing going an let it do it's thing when used in a motor. If you were able to get the coils into resonance using a short pulse, then it would be essential to drive both coils at exactly the same moment *and* to make sure they have exactly the same resonance frequency. If they don't have the exact same resonance frequency, I think it would also work to put the two coils in series, so you get one series resonance circuit.

Regards,

-- Arend --

One last note: Dr. Stiffler's circuit also produces a very high bandwidth oscillation in his coils, which also oscillate at a higher harmonic (or perhaps better: multiple higher harmonics), as far as my measurements told me. (I only "measured" the main oscillation frequency of my coils using a simple scope, the high bandwidth has been reported by Doc as being important.)

[Spokane1]

HF Oscillations in Non-Classical Conversion Systems

Dear Mike,
IMHO, the HF oscillation as well as the real HF signals stay almost completely within the CSET. Because you have these high voltage spikes, which are characterized with a very sharp rise time and a relatively long drop time, only the rising edge of the pulse reaches the grid, because it is capacitively coupled to the rod with a capacitance in the order of 1-20 pF.

-- Arend --

Dear Arend,

You are absoultly correct on this point. I hope I haven't mislead readers on this subject. My intent is to point out that the excitation power supply used by Cole appears to be DC. BUT, the action inside the conversion medium (or CSET type system if you prefer) is a different matter altogether.

All arcs (DC or otherwise) contain a pleathra of frequencies from DC to daylight. The arc inside the CSET or the Cole Motor, the Water Arc, or any other device that employes an arc is indeed a self contained multi-frequency oscillator. Looking at scope traces of even low energy arcs display frequencies within frequencies.

I maintain that DC was applied and that DC was harvested. But what happened inbetween is a zoo. I like the concept of electron spin dynamics that form the basis of Magnetic Resonance technologies. In application all of the electron spins are aligned by means of a strong static magnetic field. A suitable pulse of RF causes these structures to flip over and release energy that can be monitored. I wonder if a sudden and strong electrostatic field can do the same thing? (pure speculation) in the right medium. Perhaps the RF component of the arc can cause the electrons to yield their fund of stored spin energy? Anyway the actual source of energy would be coming from the zero point vacuum as the electrons re-established equlibrium with the environment. There would be a re-charge time delay for this to take place. RF components would definatly be needed to accomplish any sort of process along these lines.

Thanks for pointing out this engineering fact. In the future I shall attempt to be more clear on just where the RF is taking place and where the DC potentials were used.

Mark McKay

P.S. When I get a momnet I shall read your research documents.

[lamare]

Dear Mike,

The point is that this technology is real (or at least was at one time) and very powerful. It has the highest energy density of any non-classical emerging technology that I know of. The best part is that it was composed of components that nowdays can all be found in the McMaster and Mouser catalogs.

Fully agree with that!

From my analysis it dosent appear that the arc excitation circuit was high frequency. There are several reasons for this assesment based upon the construction details of the equipment. If you spend hours with a magnifying glass looking at grainy photos its not hard to conclude that the connectors, cabling, and other components were not up to RF frequencies. John Bedini claims that the vibrator choppers ran at 100 Hz. If the power supply circuit in the Pulse Motor patent is any thing like the actually unit (I think it only shows 50% of the components used) then that diode on the output of the HV secondary insures DC operation. The stories about 5 kHz and 8 Khz operation come from the non-successful Hackenberger solid state replication circuit (The Blue Box). Besides, a 5-12 uF storage capacitor just can't oscillate very fast in any sort of RLC circuit.

IMHO, the HF oscillation as well as the real HF signals stay almost completely within the CSET. Because you have these high voltage spikes, which are characterized with a very sharp rise time and a relatively long drop time, only the rising edge of the pulse reaches the grid, because it is capacitively coupled to the rod with a capacitance in the order of 1-20 pF.

IMHO, it is these extremely sharp pulses that give you the same "step charge" effect Meyer desctribes for his capacitors, only in this case it "step charges" the inductors which would be the motor coils.

So, in my view, you have a rectifier as well as a couple capacitor within the CSET, where the rectifier is "implemented" because of the shape of the wave. The risin edge passes, the dropping edge doesn't, because that one is relatively slow.

There are two fundamental parameters that are foundations to this technology:

1. The process was electrostatic in nature (not magnetic)

2. The components and / or conversion medium had to be moving (rotating)

I fully agree with the first one, but not with the second one. After all, as far as I am aware, Gray also had a solid state demonstration device probably containing a transformer, which has also been patented in 1984, IIRC, as something like a system suitable for driving an inductive load.

All the systems you have mentioned that you have investigated do share parts and pieces of the Cole system to some degree (as well with each other). I can't help but think there has got to be something fundamental to all of these. It's just that Coles approach hit the jack pot as far as energy density and power level.

IMHO, the main difference betwen the three is that Gray used very high voltages. And since in my view the principle basically is that you sort of force a certain voltage on your coils using an electric field only, you definately can get your coils to deliver huge amounts of power. I mean, think of it, you have a coil that is resonating exactly as if it were driven from a (say) 3 kV AC power line! The only difference between driving a coil into resonance "current driven" from a 3 kV power line and this electrostatic way of driving, is that in the first case the current is at the terminals of the coils, so you're the one to pay the price, while in the second case, the current is inside the coil, so it comes for free, since the electrostatic field comes for free.

As for the motor, I can't comment on that. I can't go beyond the basic principle of how to get the power from the electric field, in line with this "suitable for inductive loads" patent.

But wathever may be the truth, we will find it. Every day is one day closer to the day someone publicly shows a real working replication. Until that day, we won't know for sure what was going on. My money stays on the theory I explained for now and I hope my article will turn out to be useful for achieving that what whe are all working for. At least it offers a different, fresh look into things, which may interest other experimenters. And even if it turns out there are more working principles and I misunderstood what Gray was really doing, then still it was what I understood of Gray's patents that led me to the understanding of Meyer and Puharich. That on it's turn led me to the formulation of a working principle of which I am convinced will be shown to work some day.

So, thank you for your input and let's hope someone makes it happen very soon, regardless of which theory he uses!

-- Arend --

[Spokane1]

Correction

About in the fifth paragraph it shoud say the system "Was not high frequency"

Mark McKay

[Spokane1]

Discharge Speculations

Hi Mark,

I looked into that theory, too, as did Aaron. He showed some interesting similarities with his water spark plug. While I trust Aaron on his statements that this does indeed show COP > 1, I doubt if this process is able to deliver you the amount of power we are talking about with Gray's motors. As far as I can tell/remember from the discussion, this process depends on one single arc/spark which gives you a strong electric field pulse, which on its turn is apparantly capable of "energizing" the charge carriers in the low voltage capacitor and delivering excess energy this way. If that is the way it works, I doubt if that process is capable of delivering kW's of power, unless you are able to perform it at high frequencies.

However, my money is on the theory I explained, at least for now, because I can explain it from the bottom up and because of the similarities between the three systems I investigated.

-- Arend --

Dear Lamare,

Your thoughts are pretty fundamental to this technology especially the part about wondering how KW's of power could have been extracted from an arc discharge. I know a lot of people have their particular theories based upon thier education, ideas and observations. Here are a few of mine.

What this technology has, that darn few have, is a substantial amount of 3rd party verification done by people who knew what they were doing. The Crosby tests were done over a 10 day period at Cal-Tech in California. Two PhD associates, working at that facility (but employed by JPL) were so impressed with the observations and results that they joined E.V. Gray's board of directors. (Dr. Norm Chalphin being one of them).

There are photos (held by George Gray) that show a team of 3 Japanese engineers doing a series of tests on the EMA4-E1. The Pan Amercian Coporation was interested for about 8 months until they realized that the real creator was not E.V. Gray. I assume that before they even offered Gray the untold billions of licensing fees (Jan 1973) that they did a lot of thier homework at least on the technical aspects of the invention.

The point is that this technology is real (or at least was at one time) and very powerful. It has the highest energy density of any non-classical emerging technology that I know of. The best part is that it was composed of components that nowdays can all be found in the McMaster and Mouser catalogs.

From my analysis it dosent appear that the arc excitation circuit was high frequency. There are several reasons for this assesment based upon the construction details of the equipment. If you spend hours with a magnifying glass looking at grainy photos its not hard to conclude that the connectors, cabling, and other components were not up to RF frequencies. John Bedini claims that the vibrator choppers ran at 100 Hz. If the power supply circuit in the Pulse Motor patent is any thing like the actually unit (I think it only shows 50% of the components used) then that diode on the output of the HV secondary insures DC operation. The stories about 5 kHz and 8 Khz operation come from the non-successful Hackenberger solid state replication circuit (The Blue Box). Besides, a 5-12 uF storage capacitor just can't oscillate very fast in any sort of RLC circuit.

There is meaningful observation documented where the non-classical output was a simple, but huge, DC spike that recharged the storage capacitor(s) and was also directed towards the storage batteries. The batteries were destroyed by this input -BUT they could not be eleminated from the circuit. Their circuit parameters were a requirment for non-classical operation. The motor could never run "closed loop" becasue the energy that was not extracted in the form of torque couldn't be effectively stored. They only needed a 60A alternator to top off the batteries from a functional standpoint. But if the motor ran for more than 30-60 minutes the batteries were toasted. If the motor was ran longer than this they exploded from hydrogen outgassing. Today this challenge might be solved with some huge carbon foam capacitors and sophiscated switch-mode power supply circuits.

It appears that the arc acted upon something other than circuit components. The OU was generated in some other medium in the system and then somehow harvested with different components (which included the wet cell battery). Many people experiment with closed loop circuits in which the excitation and collection systems all share a common ground. I really think that the Marvin Cole system had an independant excitation circuit that generated the voltage for the disruptive discharge. This discharged acted upon an electrically isolated medium/ conversion system. Then another circuit was some how employed to collect the resultant excess energy. There are two fundamental parameters that are foundations to this technology:

1. The process was electrostatic in nature (not magnetic)

2. The components and / or conversion medium had to be moving (rotating)

All the systems you have mentioned that you have investigated do share parts and pieces of the Cole system to some degree (as well with each other). I can't help but think there has got to be something fundamental to all of these. It's just that Coles approach hit the jack pot as far as energy density and power level.

An additional technical thought. There was not just one arc. The motor was designed to handle up to 27 discharges per revolution (3 arcs per each of the 9 pole positions). That a lot of pops. The motor would not function unless the speed was at a minimum of 500 to 1000 RPM (depending upon what kind of day it was). At the upper end that would be 450 pops per second. Then the speed could be increased from there (up to 3000 rpm max). There is no way the 12 or so 30 watt mechanical vibrator DC to DC power converters could keep up with this demand. This and other observations confirm that once the system was operating there was a large power feedback channel that recharged the storage capacitors. This feature was commented upon by Mr. Maze who was the reserch director for Crosby Research. It was also mentioned by Hackenberger in his early "Engineering Reports". This power feedback was the DC spike I have spoken of. Cole had to have custom made storage capacitors fabricated to absorb what they could for the next discharge cycle.

Anyway these are just my thoughts and speculations based upon my viewing of the remaining evidence.

Mark McKay

[citfta]

Hi Musty,

Welcome to the forum. What you are seeing is a normal reaction for a neon bulb. Neon gas glows when it is energized by a voltage of around 70 volts depending on the spacing of the electrodes. If the voltage is very close to that voltage then the extra energy from any kind of light will push it over the edge and cause it to glow. What you have discovered is what causes lasers to work. When the laser gas mixture in an industrial laser is energized it starts to glow. As the light is reflected from one end of the laser tube to the other the light causes the gas mixture to produce more light which then produces more light like a chain reaction. Hope this helps.

Carroll

[Musty]

Hi,
I've been following this thread for some time now (lurking) and have been working on developing a gray tube etc. more or less to see 'what happens'.

I noticed something the other night that with my limited knowledge, am unable to comprehend. I'm hoping someone here can set me straight.
About a foot away from my Gray Tube setup is my Bedinni SSG setup that I use to charge batteries. It has a little neon that flickers when the charge battery is not connected. The overload protection neon. The SSG all works perfectly normally. Nothing out of the ordinary.

I have 4 x 2000V 1 microFarad Caps in series giving me an 8000V discharge across the gap inside the Gray Tube. I use a 555 pulsing an ignition coil at approx 8khz to charge the caps.

For the purposes of my experiment I just discharge the caps thru the spark gap into a coil. Very simple circuit. Caps reach the breakdown voltage of the spark gap and discharge into the coil. The coil DOES energize as it will repel or attract a magnet. No surprises there.


At the time the caps discharge thru the spark gap, the neon on my Bedini setup flickers. The two circuits are in NO way connected physically.
Ok, so I guess thats some kind of spark gap transmitter thing going on.
Radiant energy. Still nothing out of the ordinary.

What I can't explain is this: When I turn out the lights. The neon doesnt flicker.
At first I thought it was some kind of extra radiant coming from the room lights (CFL) or the desklamp (fluro tube) that when combined with the spark discharge was putting it over the 'threshold'. But then I tried it with the light from an LED torch. Neon flickered. Then I tried it with an open flame. Neon Flickered. Tried it in daylight. Neon flickered. But in darkness, the neon doesnt flicker.
So what is it? Photons + spark gap radiant = flickering Neon?

I'd really like to understand whats driving the neon, if someone could please explain it to me.

Thanks,
Musty

[Aaron]

@Lamare

While I trust Aaron on his statements that this does indeed show COP > 1, I doubt if this process is able to deliver you the amount of power we are talking about with Gray's motors.

Lamare,

I actually never said my motor experiments with these circuits were over
1.0 cop.

What I did find a few times is that the coil would launch a magnet into
the air higher than it was supposed to according to how many joules of
charge were in the caps, then when discharged with the "method", would
launch the magnet of a certain weight higher than the joules "allowed".

With the motor experiments, I can easily see that I could have gotten
them quite a bit more efficient with tuning, which they weren't. I used
caps that I already had and used coils I already had wound. The reed
switch for a trigger wasn't setup that good but the thing screamed and
it would hardly touch anything in the big cap. Just had to keep it topped
up.

[lamare]

Peter Lindemann's proposal back in 2001 in his book "The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity" was by far the best (and only) attempt to fleash out a real world circuit with what technical information was avaliable at the time. Today we know a little more, thanks to people that who shared their observations and photos. But, Peter's fundamental concept is still valid. An open, high current, disruptive discharge arc, from a storage capacitor casues some form of non-classical energy to manifest (Cold Electricity?) in the right environment. This energy can be OU if properly harvested. Apparently the copper grids and enclosed gas that Hackenberger used from 1973 to 1976 were not completly up to the task. But, I'm convinced that he did come up with something that was.

Hi Mark,

I looked into that theory, too, as did Aaron. He showed some interesting similarities with his water spark plug. While I trust Aaron on his statements that this does indeed show COP > 1, I doubt if this process is able to deliver you the amount of power we are talking about with Gray's motors. As far as I can tell/remember from the discussion, this process depends on one single arc/spark which gives you a strong electric field pulse, which on its turn is apparantly capable of "energizing" the charge carriers in the low voltage capacitor and delivering excess energy this way. If that is the way it works, I doubt if that process is capable of delivering kW's of power, unless you are able to perform it at high frequencies.

However, my money is on the theory I explained, at least for now, because I can explain it from the bottom up and because of the similarities between the three systems I investigated.

-- Arend --

[Slovenia]

Very Interested

Hi Lamare,

I am very interested in what you are talking about concerning the oscillator scenario. Tesla used some sort of oscillator arrangement to capture his free electricity from the aether. I'd like to do the same. If we could get this system to provide us with the proper amount of electricity, we could power our homes and everything else on electric. It would be very nice to not have to pay for the electricity. Thanks!!

If you know how to do this, I'd like to be involved in building a working prototype.

Best Regards,
Slovenia

Hi Spokane1, thanks for your answers. I really appreciate your input, since you know so much about Gray's stuff.

My take on this:

You can extract energy out of the electric field itself, which is an energy source as shown by Prof. Turtur and also explained by Bearden, no doubt about that.

What you need to do is use the electric field (voltage) generated by an oscillator to get a coil into resonance at a multiple of it's half wave resonance frequancy, in such a way that any disturbances created by using the power of the resonance (f.e. in a transformer) do not end up in your oscillator. The easiest way to do that is to use a modulated HF oscillator, where the "audio in" to the modulator corresponds to the half wave resonance frequency of the coil you want to drive into resonance. Most likely you need a high pass filter to make sure the LF disturbances created by the load into the coil cannot reach your oscillator.

That, IMHO, is really all there is to it. A full open coil resonating in half (or full wave) resonance has high voltage, zero current at the terminals. So, you can drive a coil into this specific resonance mode using high voltage, zero current using a capacitive coupling to your oscillator, which also forms a high pass filter.

So, IMHO, the CSET is basically a HF spark gap oscillator, even though in my article I may have missed some details about how this should be operating. I have a feeling I am really close, but not completely there yet. Something is itching, but I don't know what exactly.

And all this is based on a comparison of Gray, Meyer and Puharich, which IMHO are all variations of the same concept.

Arend Lammertink, MSc.

[Slovenia]

Nice Info

Mark,

Very nice input, thanks for sharing it!!

Best Regards,
Slovenia

Dear Lamare,

I'm jumping into this discussion without reading all the material presented to date, so please bear with me.

Just becasue the bogus/failed CSET that Gray patented in 1986 didn't work, doesn't mean that the fundamentals behind it were faulty - just that that particular implementation of it didn't yield the results that were hoped for.

Once Mr. Hackenburger had a better understading of the physics of this new technology he eliminated the fixed gap CSET approach from the EMA6 motor and replaced them with a dynamic system that became part of the commentator in April 1976. He still employed the arc, just in a different embodiment.

There is a good chance that Hackenberger actually improved upon the original design of Marvin Cole, once he got his arms around the overall physics of the process. It took him about 3-4 years to figure it out.

The last photo ever taken of the EMA6 (April 1976) shows the CSET's removed and the new nylon "Donuts" as their replacement. This retro-fit must have showed some promise because with additional funding in late 1979 Hackenberger built the last free energy motor (The Blue Motor). I really doubt that he would have moved to Kansas for 18 months (or that the investor would have paid all the costs) if he didn't believe that he could come up with an improved design to replace the EMA6 that was destroyed by the FCC in early 1979 (or late 1978). It is a reasonable assumption that the Blue motor contained some version of the dynamic arc system that replaced the 1973 versions of the fixed-arc CSET system and the less than sucessful system that was initially used on the EMA6 at the time of the 1976 press release.

Since Hackenberger, E.V. Gray, and his son Mark left Dodge City in the middle of the night (1980) with the Blue Motor in hand they must have been on to something. (or so I think) To bad that Hackenberger died right after that great escape. E.V. Gray went underground for several years after that attempting to avoid Mr. Russel Audrey (the investor) who rightfully wanted what he had paid for.

All of this points to the arc as being some important part of the non-classical process. Cole and eventually Hackenberger got better results with a dynamic approach. However that dosen't mean that some other inventer can't get significant results with a fixed gap system.

The real technical question is how was the non-classical energy extracted (or converted) from the circuit that contained the arc? Dr. Tesla explored a lot of different variations of dynamic arc interrupters from 1893 clear up till 1896. So, the magic seems to be in the interesting physics of the disruptive discharge and how it affects other circuit elements.

I'm sure there is more than one approach to harvest this extra energy - once we understand the physics of it. Dr. Tesla seems to have employed resonance and delay lines impregnated with electrets. Marvin Cole appears to have used a dynamic electrostatic excitation and collection process. Stan Myer and the other researchers mentioned have employed various methods that worked for them.

Peter Lindemann's proposal back in 2001 in his book "The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity" was by far the best (and only) attempt to fleash out a real world circuit with what technical information was avaliable at the time. Today we know a little more, thanks to people that who shared their observations and photos. But, Peter's fundamental concept is still valid. An open, high current, disruptive discharge arc, from a storage capacitor casues some form of non-classical energy to manifest (Cold Electricity?) in the right environment. This energy can be OU if properly harvested. Apparently the copper grids and enclosed gas that Hackenberger used from 1973 to 1976 were not completly up to the task. But, I'm convinced that he did come up with something that was.

I really doubt that E.V.Gray understood exactly how Marvin Cole or Hackenberger were able to do it. But he knew it was worth lots of $$$ and he was going to sell it. He spent the rest of his life doing just that.

Mark McKay, PE

[lamare]

The real technical question is how was the non-classical energy extracted (or converted) from the circuit that contained the arc? Dr. Tesla explored a lot of different variations of dynamic arc interrupters from 1893 clear up till 1896. So, the magic seems to be in the interesting physics of the disruptive discharge and how it affects other circuit elements.

Hi Spokane1, thanks for your answers. I really appreciate your input, since you know so much about Gray's stuff.

My take on this:

You can extract energy out of the electric field itself, which is an energy source as shown by Prof. Turtur and also explained by Bearden, no doubt about that.

What you need to do is use the electric field (voltage) generated by an oscillator to get a coil into resonance at a multiple of it's half wave resonance frequancy, in such a way that any disturbances created by using the power of the resonance (f.e. in a transformer) do not end up in your oscillator. The easiest way to do that is to use a modulated HF oscillator, where the "audio in" to the modulator corresponds to the half wave resonance frequency of the coil you want to drive into resonance. Most likely you need a high pass filter to make sure the LF disturbances created by the load into the coil cannot reach your oscillator.

That, IMHO, is really all there is to it. A full open coil resonating in half (or full wave) resonance has high voltage, zero current at the terminals. So, you can drive a coil into this specific resonance mode using high voltage, zero current using a capacitive coupling to your oscillator, which also forms a high pass filter.

So, IMHO, the CSET is basically a HF spark gap oscillator, even though in my article I may have missed some details about how this should be operating. I have a feeling I am really close, but not completely there yet. Something is itching, but I don't know what exactly.

And all this is based on a comparison of Gray, Meyer and Puharich, which IMHO are all variations of the same concept.

Arend Lammertink, MSc.

[Spokane1]

The Failed CSET - But not Quite

@Raui

We'll see what happens. I would love to hear McKays comment on this, because I am convinced it is correct. Not only because you can explain this principle from the basic ground onwards, but also because Meyer and Puharich did the same thing. And both Meyer and Gray's stuff have been publicly shown to work. So, to me, everything just adds up...

And let me add that the CSET will be awfully hard to tune if it works as I think it does, so I doesn't surprise me noone has been able to get the thing working the way I think it should work so far. And beside that: why patent a device that doesn't work? I mean, patent such that the secret is left out, all right. But patent bull****? No, too expensive for that.

Dear Lamare,

I'm jumping into this discussion without reading all the material presented to date, so please bear with me.

Just becasue the bogus/failed CSET that Gray patented in 1986 didn't work, doesn't mean that the fundamentals behind it were faulty - just that that particular implementation of it didn't yield the results that were hoped for.

Once Mr. Hackenburger had a better understading of the physics of this new technology he eliminated the fixed gap CSET approach from the EMA6 motor and replaced them with a dynamic system that became part of the commentator in April 1976. He still employed the arc, just in a different embodiment.

There is a good chance that Hackenberger actually improved upon the original design of Marvin Cole, once he got his arms around the overall physics of the process. It took him about 3-4 years to figure it out.

The last photo ever taken of the EMA6 (April 1976) shows the CSET's removed and the new nylon "Donuts" as their replacement. This retro-fit must have showed some promise because with additional funding in late 1979 Hackenberger built the last free energy motor (The Blue Motor). I really doubt that he would have moved to Kansas for 18 months (or that the investor would have paid all the costs) if he didn't believe that he could come up with an improved design to replace the EMA6 that was destroyed by the FCC in early 1979 (or late 1978). It is a reasonable assumption that the Blue motor contained some version of the dynamic arc system that replaced the 1973 versions of the fixed-arc CSET system and the less than sucessful system that was initially used on the EMA6 at the time of the 1976 press release.

Since Hackenberger, E.V. Gray, and his son Mark left Dodge City in the middle of the night (1980) with the Blue Motor in hand they must have been on to something. (or so I think) To bad that Hackenberger died right after that great escape. E.V. Gray went underground for several years after that attempting to avoid Mr. Russel Audrey (the investor) who rightfully wanted what he had paid for.

All of this points to the arc as being some important part of the non-classical process. Cole and eventually Hackenberger got better results with a dynamic approach. However that dosen't mean that some other inventer can't get significant results with a fixed gap system.

The real technical question is how was the non-classical energy extracted (or converted) from the circuit that contained the arc? Dr. Tesla explored a lot of different variations of dynamic arc interrupters from 1893 clear up till 1896. So, the magic seems to be in the interesting physics of the disruptive discharge and how it affects other circuit elements.

I'm sure there is more than one approach to harvest this extra energy - once we understand the physics of it. Dr. Tesla seems to have employed resonance and delay lines impregnated with electrets. Marvin Cole appears to have used a dynamic electrostatic excitation and collection process. Stan Myer and the other researchers mentioned have employed various methods that worked for them.

Peter Lindemann's proposal back in 2001 in his book "The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity" was by far the best (and only) attempt to fleash out a real world circuit with what technical information was avaliable at the time. Today we know a little more, thanks to people that who shared their observations and photos. But, Peter's fundamental concept is still valid. An open, high current, disruptive discharge arc, from a storage capacitor casues some form of non-classical energy to manifest (Cold Electricity?) in the right environment. This energy can be OU if properly harvested. Apparently the copper grids and enclosed gas that Hackenberger used from 1973 to 1976 were not completly up to the task. But, I'm convinced that he did come up with something that was.

I really doubt that E.V.Gray understood exactly how Marvin Cole or Hackenberger were able to do it. But he knew it was worth lots of $$$ and he was going to sell it. He spent the rest of his life doing just that.

Mark McKay, PE

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Agree

This is my theory:
Both older Gray schematic and CSET is based on the same principle taken directly from Tesla. It is a time machine - a way to switch circuit faster then some special velocity.Any time you do it correctly you have a gain.Then using positive feedback this gain can be multiplied or using parametric oscillator.
The output stage is huge electric field generating quite big displacement current.
This theory is very possible because I see many people now starting to have similar idea, I'm happy about it.

Hi Boguslaw,

I totally agree with you on this, as I see it and by experimentation, any movement of electrons at above light speed is going to create extra energy, how it creates this extra energy is to be found out.

Creating light speed electrons is not a problem, a laser is an example of this, but to increase this speed over and above one way is the pumping up by parametric oscillation. This is returning part of the energy in electrons and passing through that part of the system again, it will just keep increasing if you do not load the output so restricting the return flow.

The biggest problem I see at the moment is creating the oscillation in the light speed electron beam. The way I see it is that we have to have a vacuum in that part of the system if we are to go over light speed and we have to create free electrons be it from chemical change or pumping out of the ground. Photons as well as electrons have to be taken into consideration as well.

Frequency is important as well, the higher the frquency the faster the wave travels and we do this now at light speed using fiber optics and I use that in a very general way as it is a little more complicated than that.

I will try to input a little more later, time is my problem at the moment.

Mike