Gray Tube Replication

[tutanka]

@tutanka: You need to invest a little bit more time into researching Kapanadze and following the associated threads Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

That schematic is NOTwrong information

HI Xenomorph,
Are passed no more hours and you can see image extracted from Naudin web site and commented from me. Now peoples can interpeter and understand simple how Kapagenerator work..

[tutanka]

@tutanka: You need to invest a little bit more time into researching Kapanadze and following the associated threads Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

That schematic is NOTwrong information

I have found that diagram on scribd.com, Work of Tariel Kapanadzes_Smith devices-00 and I have posted for all. If you know right informations please post here!! That forum is created for open minds not for close these.. Seem that Xenomorph is an tech guardian and know how Kanapadezs or Gray circuits works.. as Im sure that all process depend from capacitor, tesla air coils and earth.

[Xenomorph]

@tutanka: You need to invest a little bit more time into researching Kapanadze and following the associated threads Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze

That schematic is NOTwrong information

[tutanka]

Of course!
In fact Gray problems with replication originated from not counting the inductance of the copper rod. In reality that should be a tidy wound coil and ..you see ? Now there is a coil, a spark gap ,resistor and a big HV capacitor in transmitter section. Exactly like in Tesla method of conversion.
That tube was surely an attempt to enclose Tesla magnifying transmitter along with receiver in one nice vacuum tube.

All are copiers of Tesla including Mr. Kapanadze.. today I see that Mr. Jean Naudin have posted video of replication of Kapanadze Generator but for safety isn't present the circuit diagram.. However I post that maybe peoples can see how it work..

[boguslaw]

Hello,
Some time ago I have casually read that thread about Mr. Edwin Gray.. I have read some docs about that.. In fact Gray isn't an inventor have only read old patents and thinked about that.. The circuit of Gray in fact is an Energy Transmitter/Receiver at the same time and all start from Tesla work.. I have understand very well how Gray system work and there are some ways for create that.. Object of Gray was car motion but you can produce electricity directly and with an simple circuit modification..

Of course!
In fact Gray problems with replication originated from not counting the inductance of the copper rod. In reality that should be a tidy wound coil and ..you see ? Now there is a coil, a spark gap ,resistor and a big HV capacitor in transmitter section. Exactly like in Tesla method of conversion.
That tube was surely an attempt to enclose Tesla magnifying transmitter along with receiver in one nice vacuum tube.

[tutanka]

Hello,
Some time ago I have casually read that thread about Mr. Edwin Gray.. I have read some docs about that.. In fact Gray isn't an inventor have only read old patents and thinked about that.. The circuit of Gray in fact is an Energy Transmitter/Receiver at the same time and all start from Tesla work.. I have understand very well how Gray system work and there are some ways for create that.. Object of Gray was car motion but you can produce electricity directly and with an simple circuit modification..

[Jbignes5]

Aaron

Dude I think you made your point. I agree this was an attempt to take what you provided. Get him banned and lets move on. You have shown enough to convince anyone that this is a blatant attempt to take what was given freely to all of us.
Lets get this back on track....

[Aaron]

self triggering/switching

Jerry claims:

I've tested another variation of the circuit which produces the Plasmid Effect I discovered. This is in no way related to the plasma spark produced by the ignition coil circuit others have reported. The Plasmid is not transparent and you can't see through its surface, due to the bidirectional potentials. This new version of "my" Puff Spark circuit does not need a switch. Instead, the charging rate of the trigger capacitor (C2) produces an automatic firing rate of the Plasmid Effect.


By inertiatek at 2010-06-07

Without this trigger capacitor - which cannot be considered a booster capacitor - a physical switch is needed to pulse the Plasmid Effect. In this case arc #1 is constant except when the switch is open. Some people may correlate this to Gray's rotary gap interrupter, but I've said at various points that I don't think my Puff Spark circuit was the same thing Gray was doing. However, I'm starting to change my mind now that I've seen that my new small skinny 7/16" blue and yellow lightning bolt has an attraction to a polar mass, which is how Gray appears to show the grid in his patent circuit.



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

My response:

I showed you how to do that too Jerry. I even posted a video on it
before, posted diagrams and explanations showing how to do it without
a switch. When the cap is at a high enough voltage, it self-triggers.
Nice try, but please stop trying to take credit for what I showed you
how to do.

Taking the concept of booster cap and misleading others to believe that
is all it acts as is deceitful. I call it a booster cap because that is what
it acts as in the plasma ignition circuits. In the Gray circuits, it is acting
as a low voltage source as the battery does and I have only got it to
work with a battery a couple times so mostly used caps to make it easier
to accomplish. Giving the components on my circuits different names still
does not make them yours.

[Aaron]

end of discussion

That is the END of it Jerry. This thread is to remain on topic but anyone
blatantly plagiarizing other people's designs as their own will be removed!
They are all free to be used - that have been posted in the forum but
that doesn't mean giving permission to others to take credit.

I have posted the FACTS - I have posted BOTH my posts AND Jerry's
and the FACTS speak for themselves. Anyone can make their own mind up
what the truth is but it will not be discussed in this thread. Jerry can
post his claims elsewhere and he cannot claim censorship as ALL of
his messages have been left 100% intact for all to see.

Misinformation, misdirection, misrepresentation of the facts - not welcome
here in this forum, period, end of story.

Jerry, nuff said!

[Aaron]

Documentation of the facts part 14

more documentation on the FACTS

Here is where you refer to that dang blasted WATER SPARKPLUG circuit again even though these days you want to denounce it as having nothing to do with the Gray circuit, yet you say it is so dang similar to it in your older posts. Cognitive dissonance?

http://www.energeticforum.com/43931-post531.html

Right above you describe how your effect is NOT a "phase conjugate effect" and that your green is from the electrode material. Well, I have shown repeatedly that mine is not from the copper so how in the world can my circuits be plagarizing yours when yours can't do what mine does?

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

What the Flux makes a very accurate and common sense observation:

http://www.energeticforum.com/44950-post640.html

Tube could be to throw people off since Gray didn't know what he was doing. WTF says three solid electrodes arranged appropriately. Yes, just like in MY diagram with 3 points. Each point is analagous to each point in the tube, which is completely different from the Electrotek circuit. AND what I show in a simple common sense manner in my videos.

---------------------------------------------------------------
"Originally Posted by Aaron

If that isn't what Gray had, then I discovered how to change the inductance of an inductor allowing a super fast discharge into it even with super thin wire and a lot of windings to give a super fast magnetic pop. I don't know anyone else that has ever done this and if Gray or Marvin Cole did, then I found what they did."


Electrotek Says: "Aaron: Don't you remember that I discussed this same thing, back in message 170 (page 6), using the setup I detailed in message 156? I was hoping that someone would get the idea to "change the inductance". I don't think anyone is ever the only one to do anything.
Here is where you start getting stirred up:"

http://www.energeticforum.com/45017-post647.html

You hoped someone would get the idea to change the inductance. Why would you want someone to get the idea to do that when you aren't doing it yourself? I ALREADY was demonstrating it.

Don't you remember you said:
"With my circuit, the cap discharges too slowly through the coil to produce a usable effect.

That means you haven't figured out how to change the inductance of your coil with your circuit(s), yet I'm plagarizing you? Sounds like you need some catching up to do.

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

Here is where I address the issue of you being left out of being given recognition that you discussed changing inductance before.

http://www.energeticforum.com/45061-post651.html

I was ALREADY discussing it in the past in gas pressure analogies so shame on me for not immediately recognizing what you mentioned. If I had a long history of EE experience like you, I might not have overlooked your mention of changing the inductance.

Nevertheless, I believe my actual demonstrations of a coil with apparent changes in inductance carry more weight than talking about it and carry more weight than circuits that do not have these inductance changes.

I think I saw you mention that you coils offer normal impedance to a cap discharge somewhere.... oh, here it is:

"With my circuit, the cap discharges too slowly through the coil to produce a usable effect.

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

Below you talk about how my setup is EQUIVALENT (that means the SAME AS) the "one way energy path" in Gray's patent.

http://www.energeticforum.com/45155-post665.html

EQUIVALENT - thank you so much for seeing this plain as day. It is no mystery that you recognize my circuit as being like Gray's and that your circuit is unable to do anything like mine. Wow, equivelant. So you claim in recent posts mine isn't like Gray's...yet it is...yet it isn't...yet it is...yet it isn't...yet it is... I'm starting to see a pattern...

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

Here you go extolling the virtues of the water sparkplug circuit again!

http://www.energeticforum.com/45691-post737.html

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

Here you go again acknowleding that I had previously discussed the use of diodes without a gap or with a gap that the diodes aren't needed.

http://www.energeticforum.com/46547-post828.html

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

Of course this is what I said:

http://www.energeticforum.com/46576-post830.html

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

There are many more posts from you Electrotek to show that anything you are claiming or discussing about my circuit now is 100% fabricated. I wonder if someone put you up to making false accusations against me? Anyway, the above is AMPLE PROOF of you contradicting yourself over and over and over.

Any more contradictions or other things that reveal your intention, understanding, etc...? There may be...

http://www.energeticforum.com/23287-post126.html

That post is from the Water Sparkplug thread July 2008. This is the post where I show the concept of the booster cap and that it should be able to work and of course it did work.

This post also reveals the key to the Gray circuit.

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

Electrotek's verification of MY development of the booster circuit.

http://www.energeticforum.com/40532-post232.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrotek
Aaron has developed a booster circuit using a parallel cap (around .65 uf) from a MW Oven, charged to 2kV with that transformer. I'm anxious to see if the booster cap will work with a CSET.

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


a simple question

The A picture is my simple drawing of the bare bones water spark plug effect method. When the capacitor C1 discharges, it is 100% isolated from both terminals from any power supply. The ONLY input into the coil for the effect is whatever is charged into the cap. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is possible that adding high current pulse from a power supply increases the effect, but lets leave that as a separate issue to deal with because it is a fact that the basic effect IS able to be reproduced over and over with only a charged up photo flash capacitor.

The idea I see expressed as to why the effect happens is this:

1. Close S1 to discharge C1 into the primary of ignition coil
2. HV winding outputs HV pulse to the spark plug causing an arc.
3. The arc gives enough of a conductive pathway for whatever is left in the capacitor to discharge over the gap therefore adding a low voltage pulse to the high voltage pulse.

This is what is claimed.

In picture B, based on what the popular claim for the mechanism, the following would be true, correct?

1. Close S1 to discharge C1 into primary of ignition coil.
2. HV winding outputs HV pulse to the spark plug causing an arc.
3. The arc gives enough of a conductive pathway for C2 to discharge adding to the HV pulse that left the coil.

If the claim for this operating method is accurate, there is no reason why picture B wouldn't work.

C2 is charged to the same voltage as C1.

In picture A, when C1 discharges, there is even less left in the cap to go through the HV diode in order to add it's low voltage pulse to the original HV pulse.

Therefore, by having C2 charged up the same in picture B is definitely increasing the chance for the same effect because after all, if C1 discharged, you have C2 fully charged and if the HV arc across plug really gave a conductive pathway for the cap to discharge through in Picture A, that means that there is no reason whatsoever that C2 wouldn't do the same thing.

If the effect can be duplicated with the schematic in Picture B...and I'm talking about having 2 capacitors and BOTH are totally isolated from any power supply...2 caps sitting there charged...and Pic B is sucessful in having the same effect, then I think there is merit in the idea that the HV spark makes a less resistive path for the low voltage to jump across making the magical water spark.

If Pic B fails to produce the same effect, then the idea of how Pic A works needs to be examined and some other ideas that may or may not have been proposed needs to be addressed.

Can anyone reproduce the effect with Picture B? Because if the idea is correct, the HV spark should make a less conductive pathway so that capacitor C2 should simply discharge through the gap.

These circuits are not the same, even if they produce a similar effect (mine will never produce a green plasma burst with the addition of one more inductor, discounting electrode material) (an ignition coil is in fact an inductor):

You can see another of Jerry's diagrams BEFORE he gradually evolved it
to be exactly like mine:

Any circuit which includes a spark gap will have transient voltage spikes. At a high frequency of operation, the potential can build up on a capacitor in line with the spikes until the capacitor burns out, swells up, or even explodes. To prevent this hazzard, and the unnecessary replacement expence, it's a good idea to use a safety gap, to automatically short out the capacitor if a certain voltage is reached.

I'm using a 1uF cap from a microwave oven (MOC). When this cap is powered by a 6kV NST (Neon Sign Transformer), it will discharge across an eighth inch spark gap about once per second. (The cap is rated at 2100 VAC, but it will withstand more when it's DC.) However, it makes a very annoying, really loud "POW" each time. So I put an inductor in series with the cap, which is the secondary from a MO transformer (MOT). This converts the discharge into a small, quiet plasma spark which I've referred to all along as a Puff Spark. This is produced when a HV capacitor discharges into an inductor, with a spark gap in the circuit. I can now run this cap, and safety gap, off of a 12kV NST, without the capacitor burning out. If I use the cap with a CSET, the Tube's spark gap will have to be shorter than the safety gap.

This circuit uses a High Voltage capacitor.


By inertiatek at 2009-04-19

[Aaron]

Documentation of the facts part 13

Jerry claimed that my circuits won't make plasma without an inductor:

It was clearly claimed here that my circuits won't make the plasma burst without the inductor.

This video specifically addresses this:
YouTube - Plasma with AND without Inductor
as if the many other vids and pictures don't.

other comments disputing Jerry's uninformed false claims:

Here is MY 3 point circuit using Gray's 3 spark gap points instead of the tube. Three points in the rod are HV rod, LV rod and Grid. Those are 3 points that makes up the Gray tube. Each of the points are tied to common ground. HV point is tied to common ground, LV point is tied to common ground and Grid is tied to common ground.

Using simple spark gap points does NOT change the circuit. It is simply the inside of the tube but without the tube enclosure. This does NOT change the function of the circuit.

The plastic tube:

• muffles sound
• may act as a dielectric insulation to contain the pressure of the blast channeling it to whereever ground is available
• whatever else...

John Bedini, one of the most credible witnesses to all of this said the tube may be a red herring. He also said the motor runs w/out the tube, just a little stronger with.

Anyway, this video shows MY three point circuit as an exact overlay on the Gray tube.

YouTube - Murakami-Gray 3 Point Plasma outside of tube

Jerry says:

High Voltage capacitor discharge circuit?

Does anyone think that a July, 2009 video, showing a LV capacitor powered circuit, comprises prior disclosure to my December announcement of my discovery that a 3 point discharge circuit - powered by a HV cap - produces a plasma spark effect? Are we doing science here or is this just a popularity contest?

Just to restate the FACTS:

Electrotek - Documentation beats conversation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's where Jerry acclaims the value of Luc's spark plug circuit and here's where he gives me credit for showing how to use it to dump a secondary cap, which is shown in the diagram he claims I stole from him. He says his circuit is a version of the water sparkplug circuit even though he tries to now claim my circuits are not like Gray's and his are - but here he says the water sparkplug circuit is so close to what Ed Gray is doing!

http://www.energeticforum.com/39223-post135.html

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

There is constant complaining that my circuits are not like Gray's - and constant complaining that my circuits are like Jerry's (according to him) - and yet if my circuit is so much like Electrotek's, why point out all the differences between mine and his - and why am I able to show results but Jerry isn't? hmmmmmm Yet, like in the message I quoted above, Jerry says how the water sparkplug circuit is so much like Gray's. These are signs of very serious cognitive dissonance and represents some very serious confusion. Either that or there is simply a personally orchestrated effort to simply spread disinformation.

The below quote shows the comparison yet in newer messages, mine is doing something different. lol

http://www.energeticforum.com/39438-post145.html

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

During last December you accounced a 3 point circuit? Yes, you did and you said:

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

So at that time, yours made no light or sound - yet mine did way before then. I was getting magnetic repulsion and/or attraction from the beginning. Basically, I was getting all of these results with my circuits. You were not getting them with yours and you think my circuit is plagarizing yours.

Also, I'm sure you knew what you were doing with your circuit that you had patented but you already said you had to even have someone else draw the diagram for you.

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

Here is where you're saying that my experiment with my circuit that produces a usable effect is the most important experiment and in the same message you say how your cap discharges too slowly to give a usable effect. Too slowly? Meaning your cap is seeing the full impedance of the coil UNLIKE mine where the cap discharges very quick? Sounds like your circuit by your own repeated past admissions is not only unlike mine, it can't do the same thing as mine.

http://www.energeticforum.com/40471-post216.html

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

My diagram that you claim I plagarized from you has the booster cap in there and below you give me credit for coming up with that. Thank you because I did. Actually, I independently came up with that and found that it was already in the old ignition patents. Great minds think alike?

http://www.energeticforum.com/40532-post232.html

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

One example of another fact about my circuit. Why no discussion about your own circuit in this manner? Because common sense says they aren't the same.

http://www.energeticforum.com/40565-post243.html

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

Remember when you were acting like you weren't "some EE that can draw a schematic" and that you were just using a "generic" capacitor symbol? Well, you really can't "play dumb" because you've been involved with this electrical engineering stuff MUCH longer than your profession as an electrician. So, please don't underplay your experience in situations where it is convenient for you to act like you don't have that much experience.

http://www.energeticforum.com/40590-post253.html

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

Aahh, there is that mention of the WATER SPARKPLUG circuit again - it is a pretty useful circuit isn't it since it produces so many dang usable effects? You already admitted yours doesn't do the same in some of the above quotes coming straight from you.

http://www.energeticforum.com/42546-post384.html

If my circuit is like yours and did the same thing, then you would be discussing how YOUR circuit would be the simplest approach. lol

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

On 1/29/2009, it appears this may be the first time I posted MY diagram that you claim is plagarizing yours.

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

On the SAME DAY AFTER I POSTED IT - you have several comments and questions to me and the context of everything reveals that in your mind, my circuits are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM YOURS - even my diagrams that I posted. You had no issue with it because there is obviously no similarity.

http://www.energeticforum.com/43459-post436.html

Remember when you acted confused about whether or not I can use a diode or not with a gap, etc... basically the repeated subversive posts from you... Below is proof that you KNEW FULL WELL that I had discussed this exact thing.

http://www.energeticforum.com/43470-post437.html

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

Here is where I already give the key to the effect, which has evidently evaded you completely:

http://www.energeticforum.com/43830-post505.html

I mention it again here:

http://www.energeticforum.com/43925-post528.html

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

cont...

[Aaron]

Documentation of the facts part 12

Jerry says:

YOUR capacitor is in parallel with the CSET. How is that different from mine?

my response:

One of your capacitors has the POSITIVE on the diode CATHODE at the LV rod position.

Gray's circuits show no such thing and mine show no such thing.

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

My power supplies are rectified to produce 100% DC.

Your power supply shows only DC through the one diode and elsewhere it is AC.

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

Your power supply output is PHYSICALLY connected to the LV rod.

My power supply is only connected to the LV rod when the HV rod
jumps the GAP towards the LV rod, otherwise, the LV rod is only connected by common ground.

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

You can point to the CONCEPT of a capacitor in parallel with the tube
but that doesn't mean anything.

An AMC Gremlin and a Toyota Prius both have a windshield, 4 wheels,
steering wheel and a transmission but this doesn't address the fact that their operation is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

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

You say you have already said your circuit is unlike Gray's. But mine is
a mirror image of Gray's, so therefore, yours is unlike mine.

The capacitor is Parallel to the CSET.



Next: Part 2, Three Point Discharge (arc is at end of grid, rather than inside grid.)

Aaron: I'm surprised you haven't drawn up a big graphics display of "Why Volland's Patent Isn't Like Gray's". Of course, I filed my patent in '79, eight years before Gray's came out. And I use a tuning circuit, rather than his chopper. So mine only works up to around 10^18 Hz. But that's not really Hz, since the energy is an electrostatic longitudinal field, which has different properties than EM. But is does take the heat out of electricity and reports are OU in some cases.

Still, I show that the Grid can be connected to the load. And it does match Tesla's high frequency concept patent.

There are many patents over a hundred years before Gray but just because
there are patents like yours before Gray does not mean anything!
There are no similarities...again just because you see two rods in a tube,
that does NOT mean you're even in the same ballpark!

What We Now Know Part 3

The Diode T-tap Voltage Doubler. What IS that wire I'm bringing to the grid in the video?

http://img531.imageshack.us/img531/4505/biggercap3419314ob8.flv

By inertiatek at 2009-04-19

Copyrighted by whoever wants to put the name of Insolence on my work.

Aaron: Honesty is the Purity of my Truth. I will not tolerate your defamation of my Integrity yesterday, after I made an issue of it. There is nothing more I will ever say to you.

Jerry's failed attempt at a comparison:

I agree, and I haven't argued theory, except to point out to Aaron that potentials he referred to don't collide. This communication is reflected in his latest message including this concept, since he now says "the potentials join and move to a common ground".

I've invested a tremendous amount of time on this forum, presenting my experiments and findings. If someone copies and CLAIMS my work, how will this fall by the wayside if the work turns out to be correct? And how can he copy my work and give EVERYONE permission to use it? Is that theft of Intellectual Property?

And why is he ATTACKING my character so endlessly, when all I'm doing is defending my copyright, as required by law. A copyright which represents MY work.

Splitting the Positive:

To be discontinued.

Discontinued because you don't know what it means.

more false claims:

Atair: Thank you for acknowledging that I am the Inventor. And I am. I discovered the Puff Spark circuit with the three point spark gap Switching Element, and I developed it by experimenting with various configurations of the circuit in various situations. I first reported my discovery on Bill Beaty's forum freeNRG:

[FG]: "Puff Spark" <m17019.html>, jerry volland, Sat, 14 Jun 2003 15:21:48

I came on THIS forum, with my circuit, because people were actually experimenting with Gray's system and I wanted to show that my effect was related to what he was doing. Prior to this time, I had never seen anyone using the 3 points for switching, rather than as an over voltage gap. Aaron said in his "Public Record" that he had never seen anything like my circuit.

But then:



I'm the person who has shown the 3 point Switching Element, with a variety of pictures of the effect. All Aaron has done was draw a circuit and talk about it. He has never built it and he has never showed a picture of the effect.

When someone else takes recognition for my fundamental discovery, there is a disincentive for me to discuss any other discoveries, or hard gained understanding.

But you're right, there is more than reputations riding on this research.

Also, Mark McKay is at the top of any list of EV Gray researchers, due to his many test setups, his professional approach, and the uncounted weeks he spent tracking down and interviewing Gray's associates.
. . . . .
What is a DoppelGanger avatar?

comments:

1000v at 2 uf can be STRONGER than 1000v at 3uf with the EFFECT.

I would caution anyone against having anything rub off on you about "my cap is bigger than your cap" type of thinking.

If you have 2 identical caps - 1000v @ 2uf and another cap at 1000v @ 2uf - if one is discharged conventionally straight into a coil, it will be a slower discharge, the field strength is more evenly distributed over a larger area - APPARENTLY - because you can feel it over more area - because it is SLOWER.

With the effect, the same 1000v @ 2uf will cause a stronger punch at the core of the coil since it is FASTER meaning there isn't time for the field to be distributed over a larger area - it may reach those areas but the power density is THROUGH THE ROOF.

Also, I have build MANY "3 point circuits" and have done so over the last 8 years or so. In the last one year, the main difference is that I used the plasma ignition system. Just because I release a diagram dated in January of this year means only one thing - that particular diagram is that old.

My first tube setup is identical to this:



It is a healing device that runs on pure aether. Ground connection and antenna and no further power input necessary. I have used OTHER input into this tube in countless experiments since early 2001.

Here is what is total and complete COMMON SENSE that some individuals may find too simple to comprehend but when experimenting with the tube, it is nothing but 3 points. 2 rods are 2 points and the grid is a 3rd point.

A COMMON SENSE deduction/extrapolation/etc... when working with these circuits is that it is OBVIOUS in experiments that 3 POINTS can be used instead of constructing an entire tube setup, which has NOT shown to have any extra benefit by ANY experimenter that has posted ANYTHING on the entire internet EVER.

Also, it is EASIER to simply have 3 points on a bench to adjust and mess with instead of fooling with a tube with a FIXED grid. You can move the rod off center so it is closer to the grid but 3 nails on a piece of wood does the same thing and is easier to adjust.

It is astoundingly ABSURD for anyone to claim ownership over this!

Open air gaps in the experiments have ZERO disadvantage over an encased tube - at least I have NOT seen any proof of this.

My 3 POINT diagram that has been discussed here in overdrawn length IS the Gray tube diagram and anyone that REFUSES to see this isn't using common sense and is taking credit for Ed Gray's patent AND MY work, which includes the variations of the ignition systems that I have shown first.

This is THREE POINTS:
YouTube - Here's how the Gray Tube works

Anyway, unless someone is admitting to trespassing on my property and scoping out my work, they cannot claim to know ANYTHING about my work and what I have done.

I have ZERO obligation to post anything that I do and everything that I have posted is ALL based on the EXACT same stuff I have explained from the beginning and anyone that builds any of the diagrams I have shown will get results.

Also, listening to bogus claims that I'm using other people's work is not only ridiculous - this type of childish nonsense is why so many people do NOT post what they have.

[Aaron]

Documentation of the facts part 11

Aaron: That picture from my Patent cost my $200. I did not draw it, or even a basic representation. Also, I had to pay an attorney to write my patent. I was able to file for a patent because I had recently found the Imris Patent (#3781601) by accident, and correlated it with a report I had about the resmods. I took both to my attorney, he wrote every thing up, then had me read it and sign the forms. Reading patents doesn't provide an "EE" background.

However, the capacitor symbol in this picture is not polarized, as it is an AC circuit. This proves that the symbol for a capacitor in a basic diagram is not polarized unless the polarity is indicated with a + sign. And the symbol for an electrolytic has a heavy dark line, rather than just a straight line. And I may be wrong, but I'm unaware of such a thing as a HV electrolytic.

This is just some more of your CRAP. Why don't you stop deluding yourself and face reality. How could you have designed that circuit when you can't even look at the diagram and see how the capacitor is connected? Why haven't you said that you BUILT the circuit.

Also, your two new circuits are based on MY WORK. In this Public Record, you have quoted me as saying that in one version of my 3 point discharge circuit the bottom capacitor discharges through the coil.

You should also overlay your "version" of the circuit on Gray's schematic. I think it's pretty funny that you've uploaded a web page saying that Gray's circuit works because the capacitor is parallel to the CSET.

And I won't appreciate any more emotional duress being dumped on me with the threat of depriving me of something of value - my membership in this forum - unless I surrender my claim to my Intellectual Property. (Better check the definition of extortion.)

Capacitor not polarized?

It IS a polarized capacitor symbol and NOT a general capacitor symbol.
Jerry, you kept changing your story and back peddling in all the wrong
ways.

I'm sure you're referring to an electrolytic capacitor. I can hook my regular caps up either way and they never have exploded.

I've already told Aaron we should move this discussion to a different arena. HE'S the one who keeps dragging up frivolous crap. And he's still defaming my integrity, after I pointed out that my allegation is not "knowingly untrue", based on his refusal to answear the question pertaining to the 5 1/2 hour period in which he "apparently" updated his drawings to include my 3 point discharge circuit. This circuit is MY WORK. His work is with the Water Sparkplug circuit, as he keeps Publicly showing again and again, since he has NOTHING to show relating to my work other than diagrams.

I'm also trying to learn from this thread, and all I get from Aaron is the diode "slams shut" and the spark jumps to the grid - which isn't even connected without the motor's commutator being engaged - rather than collapsing and producing an inductive kick (Overshoot) in the process. This Overshoot is plainly stated in Gray's patent. An Overshoot which doesn't occur during the few times per second the commutator IS engaged and the spark DOES jump to the grid.

It's been very surprising to me that Aaron has distracted this conversation with so many attempts to show that my work doesn't match Gray's, which I plainly stated. Is this just so much crap, misinformation designed to distract attention from the real issue? Or . . .

I can see two possible reasons. One, he feels that what I've shown DOES relate to Gray's system, but he doesn't understand it (as he admitted) and he's trying to egg me on so that I'll specify how it does, giving him the information so that he "might" publish it in such a way that it looks like HE came up with it. Or, Two, he's showing everyone they better not discuss their own theory, or circuit, if it differs with his, or he'll attack their theory, or circuit, endlessly.

Here's a video I made of my High Speed Tube Test. Does this look ANYTHING like a CSET in operation? Has Aaron posted a high speed operation?

http://img531.imageshack.us/img531/4505/biggercap3419314ob8.flv

WHO do you know of that has the REAL information based on the proper knowledge, which you can say for sure is the TRUE information?

Jerry,

You say: "I pointed out that my allegation is not "knowingly untrue""

It is knowingly untrue because the diagram below CANNOT be mistaken for anything else other than showing that your diagram is NOT like my diagram and mine is a simplified Gray tube diagram without the diode or cap on the LV rod.

You really should drop it. You are simply damaging your own case the more you refuse to acknowledge what is right here on the thread. I said I would be willing to drop everything but referring to me defending myself against YOUR false accusation as CRAP is not winning points - and I don't think you have the slightest clue as to what you're doing. You are the primary instigator of this attack against me and you refuse to see the truth.

http://www.energeticforum.com/58257-post1494.html

I have answered this irrelevant point in the past.

MY 3 point drawing is MY circuit and is NOT your circuit and I have proven this 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt here. It is COMMON SENSE. It IS the actual gray tube circuit without a cap or diode on the LV rod, which is optional if the cap behind the load is to be discharged.

AGAIN, here is the picture proving 100% ABSOLUTELY that your 3 point diagram is NOT the same as what I posted. Even if you reverse the polarity of your cap at the top, it is STILL NOT THE SAME. If you feel it is the same, you are incredibly delusional and your admittance that your health may be suffering from your experiments may have some influence here...physically and mentally.

IS THERE ONE SINGLE PERSON HERE OTHER THAN JERRY VOLLARD THAT
BELIEVES THE BOTTOM TWO DIAGRAMS - HIS AND MINE ARE THE SAME CIRCUIT OR IS THE ONE ON THE RIGHT A SIMPLIFIED DIAGRAM OF THE GRAY TUBE CIRCUIT DIAGRAM FROM THE PATENT?





I'm attempting to show how your work doesn't match Gray's? My attempt has been to defend myself against your ridiculous, disrespectful and fraudulent claims that MY circuit is YOUR circuit. The diagram above shows it VERY CLEAR and you apparently are NOT willing or able to simply realize that YOU made a MISTAKE in claiming my circuit is yours.

Talking about attacking a circuit, you are attacking my work, this thread is a record of that and you are completely out of integrity.

Again, reverse the polarity of the capacitor at the top of your diagram and it is STILL NOT THE SAME. PERIOD END OF STORY.

This circuit shows the capacitor IN PARALLEL with the CSET.

No misdirection allowed, your circuit and my circuit are not the same.

[Aaron]

Documentation of the facts part 10

My 3 point is 3 points - PERIOD. I remember in the movie 1984 there was a part about someone being forced to see more or less finger than there actually were just because someone says so - a definition of reality - what someone says it is. Please keep the subversive tactics out of Energetic Forum.

BEFORE accusing someone like myself of infringing on your circuits, it may be wise to actually know the proper use of a component symbol BEFORE not only placing it into your diagrams, but posting them publicly.

You say: "All I do is just drop a generic symbol for a capacitor where it's located in my circuit. If you want to talk about the polarity, you have to look at where the capacitor is connected."

You CANNOT leave it up to people's imagination to FILL IN what your INTENTION behind the circuit is or is supposed to be - what you MEANT is IRRELEVANT. You publish it as
it actually is and if you don't, whatever you do publish is the ONLY thing
you can claim.



I believe you know full well EXACTLY what that capacitor symbol means
and that your circuits have behaved as they have because of your
"unique" capacitor arrangement in relation to the rest of the circuit and
if it was reversed as I say it should be to be closer but still no cigar match
to Gray's, you may be getting somewhere.


Even if you flip the capacitor, it is STILL a DIFFERENT circuit.


You claim copyright to a circuit with a capacitor polarity indicated as I
explained. For your information, that symbol is anything but a "generic" capacitor diagram. It is a POLARIZED ELECTROLYTIC CAPACITOR, where the straight line is the POSITIVE and the curved line is the NEGATIVE.

Here are some sources for you to learn the proper use of this particular capacitor symbol. And ANYONE can see that my diagrams, schematics and
other drawings are anything but some CAD program.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION TO ELECTRONICS

Capacitor. Device that temporarily stores electric charge. There are two main important values that characterize a capacitor. The first is the capacitance - measured in Farads. It turns out that a Farad is a huge amount, so capacitors are often measured in micro-Farads (F) or pico-Farads (pF). The other important quantity is the rated voltage. This value must never be exceeded in a circuit.

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



File:Polarized capacitor symbol.svg - Wikimedia Commons

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

The symbol for a capacitor:
or
The capacitor on the right is polarized. The potential on the straight side (with the plus sign) should always be higher than the potential on the curved side.



Resistors (Ohm's Law), Capacitors, and Inductors - Mechatronics Wiki


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


I think that should be sufficient to demonstrate clearly that you have
ABSOLUTELY shown your capacitor symbol is WRONG and because it is

INCORRECT - your published diagram has NEVER been similar to mine.


Even with the capacitor reversed, it is still NOT the same circuit because
all you have to do is look at the Gray tube diagram and overlay the

circuit, which you are suddenly admitting that your capacitor is wrong,
supposedly, and you still have the WRONG circuit and it is not like Gray's
and NOT like mine.


For fun and for an example, I will show you two UNIQUE circuits that

have NEVER been published before and which I have just copyrighted.






So you see, although your PUBLISHED circuits may be similar to the

ones I copyrighted above, they are NOT the same as evidenced by the
placement of the caps' polarity in relation to the rest of the circuit which
changes the operation ENTIRELY!!!


So that there are no hard feelings and we can all move ahead, I would

appreciate you retracting your FALSE ACCUSATION and move on.


Furthermore, I hereby declare that Elecrotek - Jerry Vollard - has my

permission to MY above two copyrighted schematics to do with as he
pleases - EVEN IF HE DOESN'T RETRACT HIS FALSE ACCUSATION CLAMING

THAT I AM INFRINGING ON HIS COPYRIGHT.



You say: "I guess this means that you don't have a license to use "Electrotek's Circuit" in an EV Gray application."


Jerry, I don't have a license because I don't need one. Your circuits are not patent protected. They aren't even properly copyrighted and were pasted without notice on a forum known to promote open source technologies. Besides, the circuits you published would NEVER work as the Gray tube works so they are of no use to me.


You even admitted your circuits make different colored plasma because of the material of the elctrodes. Well, so does any common welder.



My circuits make different colored plasma because I am manipulating the
energy differently regardless of the material.



Anything I copyright and post here or elsewhere for the world to see is available for anyone to do with as they please. I can't stop anyone from making money with them because they're not patented and furthermore, anyone who does use them to make money if they choose to doesn't have exclusive rights to it meaning ANYONE else can use them to make money too.



This 100% applies to anything you have posted, period, end of story.



Your published circuits are EXACTLY as I have described. And the circuit you claim you MEANT - still is different as evidenced by all comparitive images I have posted.



Do we have a deal or do you want to insist that I have infringed on your
supposedly mis-drawn circuit - and the infringment is based on what your
INTENT of the circuit is and NOT how you actualy published it? What you meant supposedly is irrelevant - an electrical component is a concrete representation of an intent and is not left to flipping a coin to guess what

the meaning is.

random comment:

Yes Aaron you are correct about the capacitor polarity.
If it is charged in reverse it would destroy it's internal foil and most likely explode.

Why do you waste so many time on this?
For me it is obvious who is wrong and who is right here, and aswell who has the proper knowledge....and i think this is the case for most people here....

Marcoz.

random comment:

I agree with Marcos. I have worked in electronics for almost 50 years and have a degree in it also. Electrotek's circuit is not the same and his arguments are silly. Let's please move on so that those of us trying to learn from this thread can have a chance to do so. Thank you. citfta

There are many other comments from others indicating they see the
common sense differences - anyone can read the entire thread
and comprehend the facts that Jerry is misleading everyone.

Jerry claiming he has extensive ee understanding even though he isn't
a trained EE. Then turns around and acts like he doesn't have the
experience to draw schematics, yet he thinks his schematic is like mine!

I'm considering this matter closed.

Jerry claims: "I'm not some kind of "EE" to be drawing "schematics""

Jerry's patent shows that his electrical engineering experience goes back
to 1979 when his patent was filed - and I'm assuming he had knowledge
before that - (30+ years) so I believe it to be as close to conclusive as conclusive
can get that he already knows full well EXACTLY how a capacitor diagram
is to be written when he uses the polarized capacitor symbol with the
straight line and curve.

His circuit is probably EXACTLY as he drew them and is the reason why
it isn't performing as he desires - and wants to claim that in reality his
capacitor is positioned differently from how he drew it...still doesn't make
it like my circuits.

Here is a diagram from his patent - and there are 3 diagrams with this
capacitor symbol used correctly, apparently. It is an interesting patent
actually and I have a lot of respect for anyone that can bring an idea
as far as getting a patent but all this shows is his full competence in
electrical engineering and that using an excuse of using some generic
capacitor diagram - well, just won't fly.

@Jerry (Electrotek)

Anyway, Jerry, I forgive you for openly insulting and attacking me claiming
I'm using your circuits even though I have done nothing but like that.

I'm satisfied that I have proven my case and you can do with it as you like. You're welcome to post anything in this thread that you feel is appropriate and if you're not willing to retract your statement, at least do not ever bring it up again or allude to your work being stolen, copies, or whatever else unless you're willing to prove it with facts.

I'm simply a passionate person that has shared some exciting results here
with some modifications I've done to some plasma sparkplug circuits and
other circuits and would never take someone's work and claim it to be my own.

Good luck to you and your work.

[Aaron]

Documentation of the facts part 9

My response before to your comparison:

I believe you are mistaken. Again, the drawing is different from your diagram.

To answer why mine is a schematic but yours isn't..... first of all that doesn't apply to my diagram here, which is a diagram and not a schematic. A schematic is an actual electrical blueprint to the circuit and these simplified diagrams are showing concepts leaving details out because things are implied. Both of these examples you show are diagrams - yours and mine.

Please do not mistake the limit of my work to the Water Sparkplug circuit. A majority of what I have posted relates to the Water Sparkplug circuit but not all.

My diagram here is a common sense analogy to the Gray circuit.

The cap is charged from a high voltage source - Gray's has a high voltage cap charged by a high voltage source. Identical.

The switch is at the LV rod. Gray's switch is at the LV rod. Identical

The grid has the connection to the coil, which the coil is connected to the POSITIVE of a cap and the negative of the cap goes back to COMMON GROUND. Gray's grid is connected to the coil, which the coil is connected to the POSITIVE of a cap and the negative of the cap goes back to COMMON GROUND. Identical.

The deviation between the diagram I show and the Gray schematic is the diode is missing on the LV rod. Why?

Because I have shown an alternate possibility of how the Gray tube really works and that is that the front side HV source will jump the gap and charge the cap behind the inductor AS LONG AS THE SWITCH AT THE LV ROD IS CLOSED.

When the cap behind the load is charged up, it simply will not discharge. In this scenario, that cap isn't a recovery cap, it is one of two possible run caps. The HV is hitting the Grid at high speed. The very moment the LV rod is switched in, the cap behind the load will discharge in a collision against the HV source on the way to ground throug the LV side powering the coil with the EXACT green plasma high speed discharge.

This is an explanation of a possibility that to my knowledge was only proposed by me and that diagram not only shows it, it can be unchanged to represent the Gray tube diagram no matter how it works....just add diode on the LV rod for exact analogy...all else is same.

Your diagram does NOT depict this and therefore the operation of how this one and your circuit are DIFFERENT.

Your diagram has the NEGATIVE of the cap connected to your load INSTEAD of the POSITIVE. This clearly is a very common sense difference that shows they are NOT the same diagram. I would NOT put a negative to the load, I would put a positive.

With your cap like that on the load coil, it CANNOT discharge through that coil over the gap to charge it. Whether or not that is how the Gray tube is intended to work as we have discussed this in length throughout this thread months ago is irrelevant...what is relevant - is that this concept is a possibility that I believe remains a possibility - and there is evidence that the cap behind could have played more of a role that simply recovery.

Also, that cap behind the load in my diagram, may or may not have a separate power supply powering it. I have tried both and both works. I do NOT believe Gray had a separate power supply to it but the fact of the matter is that you do not know what the diagram is until specified by the person that wrote it. My diagram has also been taken out of context from the explanations on the sheets where they came from.

In either case, your cap is reversed at the load coil and therefore changes the ENTIRE concept of why my diagram does or is intended to do.

Also, my power supply is only physically connected to the caps negative and your power supply is physically connected to the negative of one cap and positive of another. That is a HUGE difference in concept.

And by the way, the cap behind the coil as described, IS the LV source in my diagram. You left out the 3 points and the sequence of discharge events showing the cap behind the coil is 1, that discharge jumps into point 2 (HV source in this diagram) and then to 3 - the ground at the LV rod.

Again, an "inverse" type of mechanism of the Gray tube - as an alternative possibility and different from yours for reasons above. The two differences I lay out above are undeniable.

your response:

[quote=Electrotek;58527]

Both of my caps are "physically connected" to the power supply at the same point, which is the ground. This simple, UNDENIABLE fact means that the power supply is connected to the negative side of both capacitors.

My top capacitor charges through the spark gap, by having electrons pulled through the load coil and the diode by the power supply's potential. This leaves an electron deficit on the side of the capacitor which is connected to the coil. An electron deficit is a positive potential.

Your statement: "Your diagram has the NEGATIVE of the cap connected to your load INSTEAD of the POSITIVE" is completely untrue. This is an example of what I mean by all the crap you've been dumping into this forum. That and your claim that two capacitors can have reverse polarity when both are connected at the same point.

more facts about the differences I posted in the past:

Yes, your two caps are connected to the same place on the power supply. But, your power supply is NOT physically connected to the same terminal polarity on each respective cap. The top cap's POSITIVE is connected to the power supply directly and the bottom cap's NEGATIVE is connected directly to the power supply...and the bottom cap's POSITIVE is connected to the power supply through the diode.

You say that I say: " "Your diagram has the NEGATIVE of the cap connected to your load INSTEAD of the POSITIVE" is completely untrue."

How is this untrue?



This is crap?

My power supply is across the front cap but the cap at the load, the power supply is connected to it's NEGATIVE (your's is the POSITIVE) - NOT THE SAME.

You claim that the power supply is connected to the NEGATIVE of both caps, but it appears you are misreading the symbol for the capacitor where the curved line is negative and the straight line is POSITIVE and the straight line of the top cap is what is connected physically to your power supply, which is POSITIVE.

Besides all this, this diagram should show you WITHOUT QUESTION that my diagram is identical to the Gray diagram as I have explained and is DIFFERENT from yours. The ONLY difference is that I took out the optional diode and LV + source at the LV rod.



You cannot deny the Gray tube comparison drawings above - mine is like
Gray's and yours is completely different. Therefore, yours is different from mine and your accusations are still false.

Like I said, my circuits and diagrams have not deviated from the basic concept of the Gray tube and the diagram I have shown that you claim to be yours is overwhelmingly obvious in the similarity to the Gray tube diagram, since it IS the Gray tube diagram.

your response trying to make it look like you use generic capacitor
symbols - now changing your story for the umpteenth time:

Here's what I just said in my last message:

My top capacitor charges through the spark gap, by having electrons pulled through the load coil and the diode by the power supply's potential. This leaves an electron deficit on the side of the capacitor which is connected to the coil. An electron deficit is a positive potential.

Don't you even read what I say?



My diagram is not a "schematic" generated by some kind of Electronic Engineering Cad program. All I do is just drop a generic symbol for a capacitor where it's located in my circuit. If you want to talk about the polarity, you have to look at where the capacitor is connected. The negative plate is connected to the negative terminal of the power supply. Is that so difficult?

And I don't see any "curved line" with your capacitor symbols.

Kind Regards

Aaron: You've done a really good job of creating a Public Record of "Why Electrotek's Circuit Is Not Like Gray's Circuit". I guess this means that you don't have a license to use "Electrotek's Circuit" in an EV Gray application.

But would you answear the question as to whether you've actually built your rendition of the High Voltage Capacitor 3 Point circuit? With a picture of the effect?

Oh, by the way, your silent plasma 3 point circuit actually has 4 points. Your grid has 2 points, one by each end of the arc.

Kind Regards