Gray Tube Replication

[Aaron]

Documentation of the facts part 8

your response:

Well this certainly isn't a true statement. I haven't said anything about your "circuits" - based on the Water Sparkplug circuit. I've been talking about ONE circuit which does not include your "LV Source", but does include all the elements of my "3 point Puff Spark Circuit".



No, you haven't. For instance, you said my circuit doesn't have a capacitor physically parallel to the power supply.



Fine. But this will take more time than I have tonight.



I believe I did say that my circuit doesn't match Gray's depicted circuit. But here's an element of my 'circuits' you left out while discussing Gray's circuit, something I've already posted and discussed:


By Inertiatek at 2009-04-19



While trying to wade through the 50 buckets of extraneous crap that you've dumped into this conversation, I haven't seen any pictures that weren't made by your Water Sparkplug circuit - powered by a LV cap dumping into an ignition coil. Maybe I missed it, but I did ask the question in an above post as to whether anyone else has produced an effect with a circuit which is powered with a HIGH VOLTAGE CAPACITOR. (This means with the power supply turned off.)



I'm very sorry that I can't afford to buy a scope. But I have detailed the exact mechanism by which my circuit works. The High Voltage capacitor discharges into a coil, and the CEMF from the coil collides head on with the potential from the capacitor, puffing the spark. And "collide" means head on, it doesn't mean merge or join together, then move in the same direction, as you use the term with your WSP circuit. On the other hand, the two potentials I've just mentioned will collide with your circuit in question, which I starting to wonder if you've even built? And I'm not some kind of "EE" to be drawing "schematics". However, the drawing of my circuit is adequate to show the equivalencies between my circuit and this SPECIFIC "circuit" of yours.



I believe I tempered what I said by saying that the infringement may have been "unknowing". This is neither libel nor defamation. But even 'accidental' infringement has a chilling effect on the Open Source community.



You're acting in bad faith. What will your reaction be when I do detail the similarities between the two *specific* circuits? Say I'm still "attacking" you? I'm sorry you feel "everyone" is "attacking" you.



That'll have to wait till tomorrow. In the meantime, I'm submitting another post, with two more pictures of my effect. Can you post any pictures showing that your HIGH VOLTAGE CAPACITOR circuit will produce a green blast with this electrode?

your response:

Here's a picture of my Blue Spark. This demonstrates that the color of my effect is dependent on the electrode material, unlike the Water Sparkplug circuit which will always make a green burst if there's an inductor in the circuit. The previous picture showing my green light was made with copper electrodes. For this blue picture, I used a tube from some rabbit ears. This tubing is thin wall brass, plated with tin. Tin is what provides the blue color, but there's a little bit of inner green, from the brass. Other colors I've gotten are orange, red, and really dark blue.



Here's the effect, with the same electrode, when I increase the voltage to the grid, which is acting as one of my 3 point discharge electrodes.



Here again, the outer perimeter is blue, caused by the ionic resonance of the electrode material. Inside that is the green from the copper content of the brass.

my response:

Thank you for acknowledging that your circuit(s) and my circuit(s) are NOT electrically identical. "unlike the Water Sparkplug circuit" as you say."

And this shows why my circuits have a color change, not because of the electrode material but because of the quality and nature of the energy and how it is moving.

Your circuit has a color change because of oxidation to the material from a standard high voltage discharge and you even describe how the green light in your demos is from copper - the color to be expected from conventional HV discharges with copper.

You clearly point out that your "effect is dependent on the electrode material". Thank you very much!

Before you said:



But we now know that they are not identical since your circuit is "UNLIKE" the Water Sparkplug circuit. AND, I believe I have shown clearly how my circuit parallels Gray's circuit (since that is what I was trying to accomplish) and have clearly shown how your circuit doesn't match Gray's.

There is no reason it should - you seem like you were not trying to copy Gray. You came up with your own circuit, stumbled upon Gray's circuit and were "surprised" how closely Gray's circuit matched yours. AND, due to the fact that I have been involved with figuring out what Gray did, it should come as no surprise to you that my circuits match Gray's more than yours - because obviously I would want it to match Gray's from the beginning.

Your circuit is your intellectual property and I've never seen it anywhere else and I respect that. I wouldn't know what to do with your circuit anyway even if I did try to copy it because I don't have your knowledge
of your circuit.

You admit my circuit is UNLIKE yours so I will consider this matter closed.

Thank you for demonstrating your integrity!

your response:

Very good Aaron! You're returning to rationality. But you have to remember that there is a difference between the word 'protagonists' and the word 'antagonists'. Also, you have questioned my integrity. My closing remarks about ONE of your "circuits" will soon follow.

Returning to rationality? lol, you don't know the difference between
caps with a common ground and caps in series - pretty irrational to make
claims that my circuit is like yours.

you again:

I appreciate your wisdom. But this country did not become technologically and financially powerful with an Open Source system. We are a world power today, with a high standard of living, because of the Patent System.

I've been on the Internet for 10 years now, and I see forces which are trying to bring down our fundamental system, which will destroy our chances for prosperity in the future. On the one hand, there's the advocates for Open Sourcing key discoveries. These people say things like "If you try to file for a patent, it will be suppressed and no one will have it." Or, "The only way for everyone to have it is for you to GIVE IT AWAY". Or even "Shame on you for being greedy and wanting to make some money with your discovery and start a business with the reasonable expectation of a lack of unfair competition". (Even if that IS the American Way.) Then, some people - sometimes the very same people - say "Warning to Investors: Do not invest in any technology unless the Inventors have Proprietary Ownership." These two types of advice are mutually codependent. If we give up our system of Intellectually Property protection, this nation will fall. No one will get anything. No one will make any money. And we will become technologically inferior to the rest of the world. Not because advanced discoveries aren't being made, but because no one will fund the factories and businesses, without some kind of temporary monopoly on the technology which will prevent 85 other factories from starting to sell the same thing, cheaper. And with less quality.

We've got to keep our Intellectual Property system.

your "comparison" lol

Aaron: Here are the two circuits side by side. These are the same two circuits you posted in message #1498, and neither circuit is the Water Sparkplug circuit.



Neither circuit has a Low Voltage capacitor.
Both circuits have a High Voltage power supply.
Both circuits have three discharge electrodes arranged in an L shaped spark gap.
Both have an inductor.
Both have a capacitor in series with the inductor.
Both of these capacitors are connected between the coil and the ground side of the power supply.
Both of these capacitors charge through the spark gap, and have the same polarity connected to the coil.
Both circuits have a capacitor in parallel with the power supply and the spark gap.
Both circuits can discharge directly, without the need for a HV spark from the power supply, or from any source other than the capacitors.

There is no difference between these two circuits. And it follows that there is no difference between their operation, the effect they produce, or the mechanism by which the effect is produced.

This SPECIFIC circuit you've published in various places on the Internet, with your own copyright, is not the Water Sparkplug circuit you've based your work on. It's not "your" circuit.

PS: Why is YOUR drawing a "schematic" but mine isn't?

It is common sense there can be some similar components but Jerry,
you conveniently leave out all the differences that show conclusively that
your circuit has NOTHING to do with anything I've posted.

An airplane and a moped both have engines and you make this kind of
comparison while leaving out the fact that one flies while the other
rides on a road with two wheels. The DIFFERENCES is what is relevant
and not the similarities. A series wound dc motor turns a shaft and so
do the Bedini SG's but it is the DIFFERENCES that are relevant to showing
that they are NOT the same.

[Aaron]

Documentation of the facts part 7

your response:

Yes, I can do the same thing. This falls under the realm of electrical equivalency. And I have also stated that "diode polarity doesn't matter".(edit) However, with the way I show the diode, electrons move against the arrow, so this IS the positive terminal of the power supply. (/edit) And where is my coil connected in three places? And my two capacitors are in fact tied to the same ground. (edit) None of your "differences" holds up. (/edit)

Your circuits that you've promoted use a LV capacitor. This Puff Spark circuit of yours uses a HV capacitor. (Like Gray's circuit.) And it will not produce a plasma burst without the inductor.

If you're never going to admit that the circuits are the same then we may as well drop the matter from this forum and move it to a different arena.

I don't see how I'll be able to post anything else of value to your forum. This deprives me of something of value.

my response:

If that falls under electrical equivelancy, then you are doing nothing more than copying Gray's cicuit...but you're not.

Your coil at the bottom is connected to the + of a can and the - of another cap at the same time in addition to being tied to a point at a gap..that is three places.

Your claims are incorrect. Every circuit I have produces the plasma burst without the inductor...just more of your willingness to ignore the facts. How many times have I said that it makes the white plasma burst without the inductor and it is green with the inductor...you have some agenda here and it isn't about moving this thread forward.

You HAVE seen this as everyone else has but you insist on persisting with making false accusations against me and spreading misinformation about my circuit.

This below pic has been posted here for all to see months ago:

http://www.energeticforum.com/44188-post560.html

And every youtube vid of a plasma burst from my spark plugs, etc... are without inductors.

Here are some plasma burst with NO INDUCTOR that I have shown before...this is the second time I had to post this vid since it was taken down the first time. Watch the whole video.
YouTube - Water Sparkplug | Plasma Ignition| Booster Caps

Do you mean my NST? That's the power supply. The "coil" is the inductor labeled 36.

And I am moving this thread forwards. I said I'm not going to waste time discussing this matter further on this forum and I responded to the current posts.

a comment from you:

Between the time I posted my last message and now I've come to understand that the experiment depicted in my video is Proprietary. Unfortunately, for reasons previously stated, this means that I won't be able to discuss it on this forum. However, I can see a compelling reason why this experiment needs to be repeated.

You're out of line Electrotek.

"READ THE RULES BEFORE POSTING (public posts AND/OR Private Messages)

1. DO NOT post messages that could be considered offensive, inflammatory or that are aimed at starting problems with other members."

You have attacked me claiming that my circuits are yours. I have
shown you every point of why your circuit is unlike mine and are
not electrically equivalent. By looking at the circuits, it is COMMON SENSE.

You have two options to show any kind of integrity at all.

1. Retract your false accusations

or

2. Show point by point how my circuit is like yours

I have stuck strictly to the concepts of the Gray tube and you have
a circuit that is different from Gray's circuit.

You can dangle a carrot in front of people's noses abusing them
claiming you have all kinds of progress and you no longer open source
your work because you claim that I have copied your circuit and take
credit for it. I wouldn't want to take credit for your circuit because
it isn't the same as Gray's circuit and the operation is not the same
as mine.

This is nothing more than a convenient way for you to mislead others
into believe you have something, while blaming me for ruining your
desire to share anything - therefore you are safe so you will never have
to reveal that what you are doing is different.

You said my circuits don't produce plasma without an inductor.
I show you it did. You had no response because you cannot face
the facts that you are simply fabricating things about my circuits
that are 100% untrue - but you cannot admit it. I have no idea
who here is able to see this, perhaps you may fool some people
but not me.

I have given AMPLE proof how my circuit is completely analogous
to the Gray tube schematic from the patent and yours it NOT. You
are trying to take credit for my circuits and this is not only completely
disrespectful but ridiculous and laughable.

Your circuit produces a light show and 'may' power a coil by having
your cap discharge faster than it is "supposed" to but you haven't
discussed any scope shots, you haven't shown a real schematic or
anything else that is helpful in seeing what your EFFECT is. Now, just
because you get some effect, is irrelevant to comparison to my circuits.

Here is a comparison between my circuits and the Gray tube diagram
from the patent. The similarity is SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS and anyone
with common sense can see that my circuits are sticking to the aspects
in the Gray tube circuit diagram.



Here is a comp between Electrotek's diagram and Gray's circuit:



Without a retraction from you - this remains defamation of character and
libel on your part, which you are 100% responsible. Retract your false
accusations and I will consider this matter closed. You cannot claim that
you are unknowingly making false accusations as I have clearly shown
the facts and you cannot claim ignorance.

Any further attempt at you alluding to your work being stolen, copied,
plagiarized or otherwise will be considered an inflammatory attack and this
thread remains a public record of these facts.

I have provided not only evidence but common sense proof that your
circuit and my circuits are not electrically equivalent. My circuits are
modifications of the plasma ignition circuits are MY own innovations
and I have full rights to them and by placing them in this thread/forum,
I have given permission for anyone to experiment with them.

Again, retract your false accusation or prove that my circuit is the same
as yours.

[Aaron]

Documentation of the facts part 6

your response:

Here's my Tube version of my 3 point discharge circuit:

http://www.energeticforum.com/attachments/renewable-energy/2349d1236016570-gray-tube-replication-puff-tubea.jpg

Also shown here:

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

A few years back I posted the link to this version of my Puff Spark circuit to the alfenergy forum, and discussed its operation. This group is still active and my messages are publicly accessible at that site.

This does show a tie in with Gray's CSET.

I'm not trying to defame anyone. I'm only defending my Intellectual Property by saying there was an infringement - unknowing or otherwise.

The CDI circuits, like the water sparkplug circuit, involve discharging a LV capacitor, first into an ignition coil, then into the resulting spark. Using two electrodes. My Puff Spark circuit, like your circuit in question, charges one or more HV capacitors directly from a HV source, then discharges the HV capacitor through an inductor. There is no similarity between my circuit, and this specific circuit of yours, and those other circuits you mention, claiming that my copyright is invalid.

Electrotek,

You are VERY selective in what you try to point out about what I have done or posted.

I have repeatedly posted this diagram and variations of it in my youtube vids, on Peswiki, maybe in Overunity.com and here.

The below diagram has been posted here - enjoy the diodes:

http://www.energeticforum.com/44626-post612.html

Please don't pretend that you didn't know about this or my other ones
with the diode because you have seen me post too many times describing
how a diode isn't needed if there is a gap and if the circuit is physically
connected, then a diode is needed. I have used BOTH versions and BOTH
have nothing to do with your first circuit, nothing to do with your second
circuit and nothing to do with your "gray" tube comparison.

You say: "And what do automotive ignition circuits, with two point spark gaps, have to do with my 3 point discharge circuit?"

So you obviously admit our circuits are not the same and even my "3 point" versions are not the same as yours.

As requested, here is your second diagram comparison:



And in case you ask about your "Gray comparision"



In all 3 of your diagrams, there is no similarity to the Gray circuit.

All 3 do not have all grounds tied together.

All 3 do not the coil placement correct in relation to a capacitor
and the only cap you have with the + connected to the coil
is also connected elsewhere...either to a point at the gap or
to the tube...NONE of this is represented in any of the Gray diagrams
that I have seen.

All 3 have other deviations from Gray's concept.

I have already posted a video showing a three point system that is
like the Gray tube diagram in the patent. The HV rod is one point,
the LV rod is another point and the Grid is one point...3 points.
Each of these three points are NOT represented correctly in your
diagram.

You SHOULD have no idea what my 2 point versions have to do with
your 3 point circuit because this is a very admission from you that my circuits
are in no way, shape or form similar, identical or electrically identical
to yours and never have been.

Your three point circuit has nothing to do with what Gray is doing
and your three point circuit has nothing to do with what my three
point circuits are doing.

And for the umpteenth time, each point
of my three points are analogous to a HV rod...the trigger or incoming
HV...the second point is a "LV" source where the HV moves to initially
and the grids are represented by my third point, which is identical to
the grids where the big burst is supposed to move to ground. This is NOT hard to understand...simply draw two rods and a grid at my 3 points if you need the shapes of the rods to tell you they're analogous to the rods and a grid if you need the shape of the grid to tell you it is analogous to the grid.

That is an identical analogy to what Gray is doing and why my circuits
accomplish this.

Any mention from you about confusion of my 2
point simplified version appears to be an intentional effort on your part
to misdirect attention to irrelevant matters. The 1st and 2nd point are
OBVIOUSLY physically connected and separated by diodes as shown,
as explained, and as demonstrated multiple times by me. AND the
connection between the cathodes of both opposing diodes turns from
2 points into 1 point leaving the common ground over a gap as the
2nd point.

You say: "Your circuit will in fact do the very same thing mine does, produce a Puff Spark. And your circuit doesn't match the CSET depiction in Gray's patent any more than mine does. But both of us have shown the identical circuits might be used in this manner."

Our circuits do not do the same thing. My circuits without the inductor does exactly what Gotoluc's circuits originally do...make a white plasma burst consistently by applying very specific principles.

You have shown all kinds of DIFFERENT color bursts and have never shown a complete true schematic of anything you have done and your digaram is a diagram not a schematic. I have posted SCHEMATICS that anyone can duplicate and I have posted diagrams where a lot of things are implied.

I have yet to see a schematic from you. In either case, my circuit consistently does one thing...the white plasma burst...and when I put an inductor where I say it should go, I get the green burst and the rapid cap discharge and a quickly charged coil that produces work by attraction or repulsion...consistently...100% of the time with EVERY variation I show as long as certain principles are applied. That is ALL the circuit does.

As far as matching the depiction in the Gray patent, here is the 2 point system as I posted and as you obviously are intentionally refusing to admit what is posted right here:



And I don't need to show a three point system because I already showed
a video and diagram of that actually working and the layout is identical to the Gray tube setup...I simply had lower input on the front end...but it will charge the coil at the grids and I can trigger it at the LV rod with a diode there and switch it in and out of the circuit just as the commutator should do and when I do, the coil charges because my circuits MATCH the patent diagram precisely...at least that variation of the 3 point version...and in that version, I actually used the tube and it makes no difference.

So you think mine doesn't match Gray's any more than yours does...again...you have no caps tied to common ground, etc... 3 connections to one end of the coil, etc...

Yet, I have common ground like Gray's, load coil is in series with on side to one cap and the other to a gap or diode, etc... every principle is the same in all occasions.

The diagrams are clearly available for everyone to see and any further accusations on your part 'may' simply flush out more evidence to this matter that will whittle away your claim to nothing.

You have attacked me accusing me of infringment and you said you had to be agressive about it. I'll give you one thing, you're at least being "polite" compared to some others that have done the same but it is a false accusation.

This doesn't concern some abstract concept...I have VERY SPECIFIC points that I have drawn out that show how your circuit is nothing like mine or Gray's. This is a very concrete subject. Theory of how Gray works, etc... that is all one thing but these circuits that we are all building, yours, mine and others will do what they do because of very specific parameters that are intrinsic within each design and these "hardwired" traits - no pun intended in our circuits leave nothing to guesswork. Your circuit simply is different, has been different, is different and as evidenced from your unwillingness to see this...will probably always remain different from mine and Gray's.

You have serious emotional attachment to your circuit and righfully so. You came up with it, stumbled upon Gray's circuit and was surprised about how "similar" his circuit was to yours. I think you want to believe they are similar because of some visual similarity with the 3 points in the overshoot or whatever, but if you take the time to analyze it, they are very different.

I have no doubt that your circuit produces some kind of plasma burst...all kinds of different ones that you have described over and over. These plasma discharges are weird creatures. But still, this has nothing to do with my circuit or Gray's circuit. Maybe the physics involved with the plasma itself might be similar or something but the sequence of events to get the desired result is different and is different from what you are doing.

I can power the coil by discharging into it from the front or I can power the coil by having the cap behind the load discharge from behind it toward the grid. In either case, they BOTH work, they give the same burst for the same equivelant charge, etc...

I'm not interested in some battle with you on this issue but I will speak my mind in clear detail as I believe I have. The only thing you are accomplishing is giving me the opportunity to firmly document the history of where my circuits came from showing ample evidence - actually proof at face value of the circuit itself and showing that there is no similarity to yours. This is all I see being accomplished - exactly the opposite of your desire to take credit for my circuits, which are entirely different from yours.

[Aaron]

Documentation of the facts part 5

your response:

This is the circuit I'm referring to:

http://www.energeticforum.com/attach...t-set-up-b.jpg

my response:

This is still NOT what my circuits do.

Your caps are still not tied to a common ground.
The ground of one is directly connected to the
positive of the other cap and connected to the
coil at the same time.

The coil is tied to 3 points instead of two now.
First is a cap's positive on top,
Second is the negative of the other cap,
Third is a point to the gap.

The other differences are pretty much identical
to your other drawing.

Sorry, but you have made a false accusation
against me.

Again, this diagram you are now referring to
still has nothing to do with my schematic.

You seem to have too much EE experience
in order to ignore these facts that I have
proven and shown for everyone to see. I
am now suspicious of your motives.

Jerry says:

A recent business column in my local paper, titled "Know details of U.S. copyright laws" states:

"There is no firm rule about how much a work must differ from the original in order to avoid infringing the copyright."

Aaron: The term "libel" requires that a statement be knowingly untrue. What about the 5 1/2 hour update time frame?

edit: What truth is there in your statement that what I'm saying has anything to do with Peter?

Well, Jerry, you are KNOWINGLY making false statements.

my response:

How much a work must differ? Do you realize how many 555 circuits there are and that most differ only slightly but they accomplish the same thing nevertheless.

There are many CDI ignition circuits...they all aim to accomplish the SAME thing...charge a capacitor and discharge it into the primary of an ignition coil. Many of these circuits that are either patented or copyrighted have differences so subtle, they almost look like mirror images of each other. Yet, they are fully protected as a unique schematic. Again, the AIM is to accomplish the same thing and they actually do accomplish the same thing.

Your circuit does NOT do the same as my circuits, they are not electrical equivalents, so the difference is even GREATER apart than other circuits that are protected.

If you say mine is electrically the same as yours and mine is 100% ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL in nature to the plasma ignition circuits patented years ago except for my inductor in series with the discharge, you then claim yours is electrically identical to those patents and those patents even pre-date Gray...the older ones go back to the 50's and back. Therefore, you are claiming to infringe on all of those patents. Even though they're outdated and expired now...the older ones, you can no longer claim that the circuit is YOURS.

So these are the two logical options:

A - Your circuit infringes on all these other circuits that I have shown proving they were in existence years before you ever came up with your circuit - therefore it isn't your circuit. (if your circuit and my circuit are
electrically identical)

B - You must admit that the circuits are not only different and are not electrically identical, but don't even operate in the same way or method.

You can take a regular Bedini SG circuit and copy it 100% but just increase the base resistor to a higher resistance and suddenly, the circuit is in self oscillation instead of working as a mechanical oscillator.

It would be understandable if your circuit and my circuit were close enough to even have this kind of similarity but it doesn't. You and I both know and probably everyone else here that changing one little thing on a circuit is the difference between working and not working or doing A or doing B.

A subtle difference in a copyrighted fairy tale is one thing that doesn't change the story too much...but a subtle change in a circuit can cause an exponential difference in the function or intent of the circuit.

Your circuit and my circuit are much more different than just a subtle difference...they are miles apart...no commonly grounded caps as I have repeatedly shouted from the rooftops about in this thread from the beginning...all these things my circuit adheres to but almost none of these parameters exist in your diagram and I have pointed them out specifically with no room for guesswork.

It doesn't matter to me if there are other circuits in this thread that don't stick to what I believe to be the necessary parameters because if it actually works then good, but I have rigorously stuck to applying in my circuits exactly what I have described and I see almost none of this in your circuit.

And a 5 hour difference between one of my posts and another? Not that I have a need to justify anything to anyone but it is irrelevant because our circuits do not resemble each other.

I work all hours of the night and can only do this stuff in between my work and when I have things to do, I do them then get back to this stuff. Even if that diagram was posted 1 minute after the first, it is still irrelevant because your circuit is NOT the same as mine - not electrically or in concept.

With your EE experience, you want to claim that you actually believe that my circuit is based on your circuit? I find that incredibly difficult to believe.

I have a documented history all over the net of experimenting with the plasma water spark circuit and documentation in the water sparkplug thread of why I originally put a coil in series with the spark plug...all the rest of my circuits are common sense extrapolations of from that.

This thread shows the record of everything, feel free to consult anyone you wish if you feel you must.

Again the points of differences - and almost every point applies to your
second diagram you show as well.



And finally, I said I was suspicious of accusations that are so obviously and blatantly wrong and with each attempt to claim that I am using your circuit, the suspicion grows.

All this nonsense is not what Energetic Forum is for. I have freely shared what I have done as some others have and unfortunately once in a while someone starts to antagonize another as I have been accused of infringing on someone else's circuit.

I ALWAYS give credit where my ideas come from such as Gmeast and his scope shot, Luc and his diode deal and the list goes on. Electrotek, if your circuit contributed to my circuits I would have given you credit but honestly, it never made any sense to me so I never really commented on it.

I'm not saying you don't have contributions here that I didn't learn from and they're very interesting ideas but your analysis of the Gray tube doesn't really have anything to do with your circuit.

Your response:

[Aaron]

documentation of the facts part 4

my response:

Electrotek,

This is your circuit:
from your link elsewhere:

http://www.freewebs.com/attatchments/pics/setup.jpg

You explain it all here that you see that Bedini
has the "same" triple gap as you do.

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

The gaps are part of the overshoot and are not
what makes the motor run. Each point in my diagrams
serves a crucial purpose in making the "motor run".
It can be the two point versions or three point
versions. In either case, the overshoot gap in any
of the drawings are irrelevant to anything that I
have drawn and I see no connection between them
and my circuits as they were not even considerations
or necessities on a small scale circuits.

Every point I have is analogous to some part of the
Gray tube.

In your drawing, your top capacitor's + is connected
to a coil AND to a point at a gap. My coils in my
circuits always have one single connection at each end
and not two like yours. That is one point why our
circuits are not the same.

Another point is that you also have another cap directly
connected to the coil with it's negative side touching the
cap. My circuits only have a capacitor's POSITIVE touching
the coil. That is a another reason why our circuits are
not the same. You have a coil physically in series with
two capacitors without diodes or anything like that. I don't
do what you show. Nor do I draw it like you show.

Your diode has it's anode on the + of a cap and the neg
of that cap is on the coil. Another point of difference here
are that I have the coil next to the diode.

There are plenty of differences. Feel free to post a copyright on your diagram as I think it is a VALID copyright since it is your own unique circuit that has nothing to do with mine. I think the intent behind the circuit is probably the same or similar but it certainly is not what I have drawn.

You mention in the original description:
"I'm actually discharging the positive sides of two caps - each through its own coil - into an inductive arc, although my bottom cap isn't really needed for the effect."

I do not see a second coil and if it is the D or the defibrillator unit that counts as the coil, you have that coil with the negative of one cap on it and the other coil has the positive of that same coil on it and the negative of the other coil on it. Basically, I don't understand how you can be
discharging the positive sides of two caps into their own coils based on
your diagram.

You also mention this:
"In my circuit, the D shaped component is a defribrillator inductor. This is equivalent to a motor coil, except I can't get any magnetic repusion from it, due to the drawn out spark effect, although it does affect wood."

However, my circuits all produce magnetic repulsion or attraction and I don't get a drawn out spark, my plasma discharges are lightning fast.

And a big one...my caps are tied to a common ground. Your caps are not.

Our circuits even behave differently and the why is obvious that our schematics are totally different from each other.

You should just put your copyright on your diagram if you feel it is
necessary and post it here. Your claim that I copied you. I think I have
shown the obvious above that our circuits are not the same and this
thread is a record of both of our beliefs.

I'd like to get back to running experiments.

your response:

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

http://www.energeticforum.com/attachments/renewable-energy/2350d1236016598-gray-tube-replication-puff-circuit-set-up-b.jpg

In the circuit that you referenced, one cap discharges through the defibrillator inductor and the other cap discharges through the transformer's secondary - also a coil. The two positive potentials collide head on as they travel through the arc in different directions.



I already have, and I'll have 3 more versions of my circuit shortly.

edit: But there's still the 5 1/2 hour time period in which you 'apparently' updated your drawing to include my 3 point electrodes.

my response:

I have clearly spelled out why my circuits do NOT resemble yours and you appear to specifically ignore these multiple facts. Perhaps your experiments are affecting your judgment because you seem unwilling to acknowledge the very specific points below, which are self-apparent by simply looking at your diagram and looking at mine.

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

Yes YOUR circuits share a majority of elements with each other. However, YOUR circuits have nothing to do with the layout of my circuits. Why persist with this accusation, which is 100% contrived and not based on facts.

There appears to be a coordinated attempt to discredit Peter and myself at the same time. How interesting...

I'll post them again:

"In your drawing, your top capacitor's + is connected
to a coil AND to a point at a gap. My coils in my
circuits always have one single connection at each end
and not two like yours. That is one point why our
circuits are not the same.

Another point is that you also have another cap directly
connected to the coil with it's negative side touching the
cap. My circuits only have a capacitor's POSITIVE touching
the coil. That is a another reason why our circuits are
not the same. You have a coil physically in series with
two capacitors without diodes or anything like that. I don't
do what you show. Nor do I draw it like you show.

Your diode has it's anode on the + of a cap and the neg
of that cap is on the coil. Another point of difference here
are that I have the coil next to the diode.

You mention in the original description:
"I'm actually discharging the positive sides of two caps - each through its own coil - into an inductive arc, although my bottom cap isn't really needed for the effect." YOUR DIAGRAM DOESN'T SHOW THIS

I do not see a second coil and if it is the D or the defibrillator unit that counts as the coil, you have that coil with the negative of one cap on it and the other coil has the positive of that same coil on it and the negative of the other coil on it. Basically, I don't understand how you can be discharging the positive sides of two caps into their own coils based on your diagram.

You also mention this:
"In my circuit, the D shaped component is a defribrillator inductor. This is equivalent to a motor coil, except I can't get any magnetic repusion from it, due to the drawn out spark effect, although it does affect wood."

However, my circuits all produce magnetic repulsion or attraction and I don't get a drawn out spark, my plasma discharges are lightning fast.

And a big one...my caps are tied to a common ground. Your caps are not.

Our circuits even behave differently and the why is obvious that our schematics are totally different from each other."

and...

Electrotek, get this so you can be informed of what my circuit
actually is.

http://www.esmhome.org/library/water-sparkplug/plasmaignitionpatents.zip

(I highly recommend everyone study these circuits because I believe they give a good clear common sense insight into what Gray is doing - as he seemed to have a strong background in dealing with ignition circuits with Mallory)

Here is two diagrams from one patent issued in 2003 but this person's patents go back to 1998 with the IDENTICAL concept.

Electrotek, if you want to see something that actually is electrically identical, here is one example. All I have to do is replace L1 with a
real inductor and not just a tiny choke and upscale C2 and it is what
I am doing. Also, if there gap isn't at 302 position, there must be a diode
after L1 and it works identically.



These plasma ignition patents go way back...the NASA one is
identical in concept, etc... these are what my circuits are based
on as Luc's circuit was a rediscovery of this concept. They have
been around longer than ANY of our posted circuits.

Your diagram cannot and will not do what this does. It may make
a spark or plasma burst "puff spark" but it is NOT the same
thing because of the MULTIPLE differences that I pointed out.

If you claim it can, show it in a video...your whole defibrilator
unit and your diagram setup and show it up close in good light
and show the pure white plasma burst and spray water on it
and see what it does...do this with your coil removed from
the circuit.

I do not take it lightly that you are accusing me of plagiarism.
That is libelous and is defamation of character as your claim
is 100% false.

[Aaron]

documentation of the facts part 3

my response:

Electrotek,

The diode in that scenario does increase cap discharge rate. As soon as the oncoming triggering discharge moves into it, I believe there is a gaseous compression against that other + source.

That aether that has inertial properties to it must keep going for a bit compressing it and if the diode is there to shut off - the further compressed aether seeks the only other nearby ground, which is over the gap (spark plug on plasma ignition or from rods to grid in the tube).

That leaves a negative pressure wake that gives a super strong difference in the gradient between it (strong negative) causing a suction on the potential in that cap behind the inductor.

The positive Heaviside flow that would be expected to normally be over the coil's wires is a speed limiter for the voltage potential - limiting it to about light speed in my opinion. Each positive potential will push against an oncoming positive potential from the cap behind the inductor. However, that strong void that is left pulls that positive voltage potential away from the coil so the positive potential from the cap behind the inductor will discharge into a vacuum...wire that makes up the coil is lacking (over the wire surface) the medium that normally propagates light. Therefore it is accelerated superluminally at a negative impedance and/or negative resistance.



This of course is my opinion and my idea of how these circuits work even if Gray had a different understanding of the same result. This effect, how I see it and circuits that I build to apply my opinions is the only thing that has given me any kind of results that is consistent with what Gray is talking about.

I don't recall immediately who said it but months ago, someone mentioned when I alluded to these concepts that he thought it was like a venturi effect to cause the fast discharge and I thought that was a great way to explain almost exact the way that I see it working.

I have posted before how the same thing happens even without a diode and just a gap - the HV is "tricked" into jumping by having a common ground. Even without the diode, there is only so much of the all the "gas" that was spewed out (high voltage discharge) that can get through and the rest will find way to ground if there is another path within its voltage range.

Most of the tests I did were with copper rods and quite a few with spark plugs without copper. I used iron nails, screws and even steel and even carbon rod pieces. The difference in all of this as far as the white plasma wihtout the inductor in series and the green plasma with the inductor in series is nothing. The performance appears to be the same and the colors of each are identical so none of it had to do with the copper metal itself - as other metals show the same green.

I know exactly what the patent says the backside cap is for...recovery. I don't think that cap ever had its own separate power supply in parallel. But there are possibilities here that seem unpopular. A series charge to this cap is POSSIBLE.

At the speeds the motor is supposed to be able to run at...that cap would be discharged everytime there is a connection between the grids and any rod. That connection would be an oncoming discharge from the rods giving a conductive pathway for the cap behind the inductor to discharge.

Also, another point I have brought up is the cap behind the inductor CAN be charged with the HV leaving the HV rod. If the LV switch is open and if the ignition coil is at high frequency on the front end and if the voltage in the front cap is high enough, the ignition coil output will not be totally absorbed by the HV cap there in the "peaking cap" position...it will spark and it will spark to ground and if the LV switch is open, it will absolutely spark to the grid, moving through the coil and putting a charge on that cap. This is absolutely undeniable.

This possibility actually happens because I setup the circuit like the Gray tube schematic in the patent and the HV rod sparks to the grid in between the time that the LV switch is open. With a cap in the "peaking cap" position on the front, it is easy for the spark to move to the grid if it is already maxed on the pressure it can hold - then it is like skipping stones on water.

So the patent can say it is only for recovery all it wants but that is irrelevant to watching what happens when actually doing the experiment.

With a big enough discharge from the front, the effect can happen if the cap behind the inductor is flat but at least polarized properly so the oncoming discharge from the rod hits the + of that cap through the inductor.

Your pic looks like the same green color but was there an inductor in series and did it charge and attract or repel?

Here is my circuit...a modified plasma ignition circuit and I show the comparision to Gray so it is electrically identical to Gray's. My ignition circuit with an inductor in series is MY drawing and it is a replica to Gray's circuit.

I posted this pic a while back here in this thread and elsewhere. You can see why I was so insistant last summer that the ingition circuit was the same as Gray's. My below diagram has the booster caps as the LV source but in relation to the ignition coil, the LV source on the other side of the diode is the same source of input to the coil to begin with...common ground is over the spark gap of the plug.

Just about anyone that commented on that at Overunity was wanting me to place a grid by the spark gap because nobody understood that the ground of the sparkplug IS the analog to the grid in Gray's tube and not the LV rod. (I'm talking about when there is no booster cap attached.)

And when the plasma ignition has booster caps, the whole CDI plasma discharge is analogous to the HV discharge in the Gray tube.

Below I show the inductor on the ground side of the spark plug as I first did it as a choke in my early experiment. But it works in either place in relation to the gap there...by the LV source before the gap OR on the other side of the gap by ground.



Also, I never used a specific date for copyright. The copyright's are always Just 2009. The specific dates are simply the date of the drawing and doesn't necessarily mean that is the first time that drawing was made. I have piles of schematics drawn and redrawn over and over as a part of my own brainstorming process.

So you can see above EXACTLY where my diagrams and schematics evolved from and had absolutely nothing to do with your drawing.

You're saying mine is electrically identical to yours. Well, as shown above, in concept, that comparision photo shows that my schematic is electrically identical to Gray's. So that must mean yours is electrically identical to Gray's. If so, then either you or Gray have copied the other's diagram.

My diagrams are almost identical to the concept in Bedini's drawings because I'm using the diode like John shows. That is the only way it made sense to me from the beginning whenever Peter's book came out and John released his diagrams. And so since you're showing the reverse diode in that situation, then would you be plagarizing Bedini?

I have diagrams with the inductor on the ground side and on the HV side - it was common sense to me to try placing in multiple areas and as long as the basic plasma effect would happen...placing an inductor in series anywhere in the discharge path, even on ground, the inductor charged and gave the green burst.

You can believe that my innovations off of the plasma ignition circuit are yours but I don't buy it. I think it is clear enough that I simply added an inductor to the plasma ignition with the booster cap setup and that is where all these simplified versions came from for me. And if you read the ignition patents going back decades, you'll see they had the plasma ignition with booster caps. Simply placing a coil in series with the discharge is what Gray's circuit is in my opinion.

It is very simple. My circuits and diagrams come from my simplified schematic of Luc's plasma ignition and putting an inductor in it. Please don't claim that it is your diagram.

your response on the 26th:

Aaron: I think your basic superluminal concept is valid. With energies traveling in both directions, the propagation can be faster than light, up to a certain high kilohertz frequency threshold. Above this frequency, the propagation is slower than light. And at light frequencies, the lunging propagation is more like an ooze.

But I don't buy into the Heaviside 'extra energy' theory. If you hold a fluorescent tube under a high tension power line, it will light up. But the utility will still register an added load.

And you're right that there is some potential on the top capacitor, since the grid develops a negative potential, relative to the rod, as the main cap charges.

With my green discharge, there was a series inductor, just as shown in my three point circuit. But I didn't have any repulsion coils set up for that picture. However, my circuit has nothing to do with Bedini, since my only diode is in the power supply.

I did edit my above post to say that it's my "circuit". But it's still your drawing. If you're not going to contest my copyright then I guess that's the end of it.

Warm Regards.

[Aaron]

Documentation of the facts part 2

my response to that on the same day:

The second diagram doesn't have a diode and DOES produce the green effect while powering a coil. It is the exact setup I have shown here:
YouTube - aaronmurakami's Channel

I have repeatedly stated in this thread that if there is a gap, there doesn't have to be a diode, it is optional. I usually prefer to have one, but the video above proves it happens without the diode.

This is one of the main points that I have shown in the similarity of the plasma ignition circuits and the Gray tube circuit. The plasma ignition, if there is a booster cap, it is connected physically to the HV from the ignition coil and has a diode. On the Gray tube circuit, the HV from the rod only makes contact with the positive of a second HV cap through an inductor over a gap instead of a diode.

Even without a booster cap on the ignition circuit, the basic plasma circuit is also on its own like the gray circuit. The HV of the coil collides with the cap's + on it's own input through a reversed diode, it closes then the plasma happens at the spark plug...identical. Put a coil in series with that spark plug and you get the effect. I do not believe this is the same that you have shown or explained.

We both saw that there were impedance changes in the coil from what was happening. You used conventional terms to describe only that impedance is changing but not tracing the effect as to why and I used all gas pressure analogies.

Mlurye's motor had the green effect in conjunction with coils that were powered.

Magdude's motor showed the green bursts and it is clearly visible in quite a few of the frames of his youtube video. He personally confirmed to me that we have the same effect.

In some frames of Ghst's vids, there is the green effect in conjunction with coils showing work.

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

But that doesn't matter, it is only what I think is the effect and if someone agrees with me they do and if not that's fine too.

With the 3 points, the ONLY thing I have ever meant by that as well as having posted my explanation multiple times here is that 3 points are equivelant to the tube. HV rod is one point, LV rod is another and the grids are another. That is 3 points.

When I have mentioned 2 points, it is simply removing the gap between the 2nd HV source and the trigger HV source, therefore requiring a diode.

Your circuit and my circuit are not the same - they are not electrical equivelants and I did not plagarize you. The intent may be similar but that's it.

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

Gotoluc's ignition method with the diode, I started using an inductor in series with the exact ignition circuits that have been posted repeatedly by myself and others, that is where most of my schematics, diagrams, explanations, etc... came from and I think this is clear enough that I am plagarizing noone.

I think you should publish and copyright your own circuits as you have the right and you may help others understand what you understand. I have no problem with this and don't see any reason why I would ever want to prevent you from publishing your own circuit.

Everything I have posted is available to everyone for free to do as they wish. I mostly put a specific copyright on my diagrams, etc... just to document that they are my diagrams.

The above shows how you make claims and make 100% faulty analysis
of my circuit showing without diode doesn't make the effect, etc... when
you never even tested it but I of course tested all my circuits and they
do what I say they do. You proven yourself to be incapable of
understanding my circuits as evidenced by your claims of them.

your response

Yet in your post #365 you say that the diode increases the discharge rate, and provide the scope shots. Were you using copper electrodes? My presumption that your Green Event was Radiant Energy was based on non-copper electrodes. As far as I can tell, everyone else DID use copper, at least in the grid.



In the Gray circuit, there isn't any HV on the second cap until after the circuit is discharged. The patent states that this cap is there to "recover" the EMF from the inductor's collapsing field.



I did trace the effect as to why it happened. I said that in my effect the coil's CEMF collided with the cap's discharge, puffing the spark.



Magdude was using a copper Tube. The green sparks are caused by the emission spectrum of this metal, not by the Radiant Energy color, based on the interrupter rate.



I've had to limit the number of videos I've presented. But here is one of the pictures I posted, showing green all over the place:

http://www.energeticforum.com/attachments/renewable-energy/1776d1230929441t-gray-tube-replication-copperelectrode.jpg

Yes. I found your original drawing here:

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

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

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

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



Your circuit is the same as mine. You show a box as the HV supply, while I show a HV transformer with a diode. You draw the return line to ground, from the series cap and coil, straight down, while I route it up around the top, similar to Gray's circuit. There's no other difference.



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



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



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

[Aaron]

documentation of the facts part 1

It is still a knockoff of my circuit. I don't care if you use it or post
about it but don't tell people you came up with something that I showed
you how to do.

You say: " You show a really long gap between the rod electrodes, just like I do."

Then you say: "And where exactly did you show a setup with a TWO AND A
HALF CENTIMETER gap beteen the rod electrodes?"

First you say I show a big gap then turn around and ask where is my
really long gap! You seem to not remember what you say from one minute
to the next - hence the ongoing contradictions.

For you to claim you know anything about my gap spacing by looking at my
representational diagrams is all telling.

Booster cap is MY terminology that I used when I first showed putting more
capacitance in parallel with the plasma ignition circuits. It represents a
low voltage source which can be a 12 or 24 volts battery or bank of
batteries. AND, I have shown single cap schematics and diagrams before
you posted anything about single caps but of course proper schematics
when all the grounds are tied together and you have never shown this
until you claimed my schematic as your own over the last few days.

I already show you the comparison between my diagrams and how they
parallel the Gray circuits. AND I show how your diagrams and schematics
have no similarity to Gray's circuits. They are posted below for everyone
to see and make up their own mind. Again, you don't even tie the grounds
together as you have your 2 caps in SERIES with an inductor between them. I've never shown that and neither has Gray but all YOUR ORIGINAL
schematics and all variations of it show something completely different
from what Gray shows and what my diagrams show. Again, all comparisons
are posted below for anyone to see. It's really common sense.

Again, just because you have 3 points on your original circuit is irrelevant.
Your circuit has nothing to do with what Gray is showing and has nothing
to do with anything I'm showing. Give it up. I don't care if you discuss
your circuits even if they have nothing to do with what Gray is doing but
showing irrelevant diagrams in this thread is off topic and posting diagrams
that you recently plagiarized from me claiming they are yours is ridiculous.

You're trying to relive some old glory days that because you have a patent
with a spark gap in a tube, which has been done countless times over the
last hundred years that you think it has to be similar to the Gray circuits
just because you see two rods and a tube - please!

Your patent diagram is not related to ANYTHING that the Gray circuits show
or are designed to do so stop trying to make it look like you and Gray had
any similarities in your work. You're misrepresenting all of it, period.

Here is your old post insulting me:

This circuit Aaron presented in his recent post is actually MY circuit, copyrighted 2005, 2009 and presented in my post #919 on page 31 of this thread, on 3-02-2009. The circuit he posted and copyrighted under his own name is electrically identical to what I posted. And I've discussed my copyrighted three point discharge circuit on two other forums before I came here.

He also left me off of his short list of people other than him who have produced the effect, even though he's using MY circuit to explain the effect, and in spite of the many pictures of the effect which I've posted here.

Unless the issue of this plagiarism is resolved, I'm not going to post any more circuits on this forum.

You claim your circuit is electrically identical to yours. Your circuit didn't
even work but all mine did. Your caps didn't share a common ground, mine
did, etc... you don't even know how to read schematics or diagrams if
you claim they are electrically identical! lol That little false claim of yours
was on 6/25/2009

My original response to you on the same date is:

Electrotek,

Here is your circuit: http://www.energeticforum.com/47450-post919.html

With all due respect, the circuits I posted are my own innovations and modifications of the plasma spark plug and variations of what Gray shows in his patents. All of my circuits were produced independently of anything you have ever shown.

What I consider to be the effect is the green burst visual effect in conjunction with a coil charging. When I see the green burst, I can bet money on what the scope shot probably looks like as far as the cap discharge in relation to the coil. I don't believe I have seen you post this and if you have, then I apologize, I have missed it. You may be getting other effects but as far as I know, it isn't the same as what I have seen or what I have predicted would happen if certain parameters are applied in a circuit.

ALL of our circuits here are simply knock-offs in one way or another of what Ed Gray shows so are we all, including you, guilty of plagiarism of Gray's circuits since in essence, we're all trying to be electrically identical to what Gray was doing?

I had posted these Gray type schematics actually as far back as 2005 online myself in icubenetwork before they were shut down when I tried to explain to everyone there how the reversed diode worked, etc... These were all wiped out and unfortunately the only references to this from me back then are in some saved threads discussing the Meyer technology and how the "voltage potential" circuits of Bedini are similar. All the threads specific to Gray on that forum are totally gone.

In either case, the first time the "effect" (according to my definition) has ever been shown online to my knowledge was in my video last summer on youtube showing my "silent plasma" video of the water spark plug circuit.

Here it is: YouTube - Water Sparkplug | Plasma Ignition | With current restriction

That is the second time I posted that vid on youtube under a different account since the first time, youtube yanked down everything but originally was around last August.

I started to experiment with the plasma ignition (not any schematic you have shown here or elsewhere), I knew the plasma was imploding so I reasoned that if I had a choke in series with the ground, it should limit "electrons" giving the gases in the plasma less electrons to reassemble itself and implode.

I hooked up the choke and the plasma went silent, still exploding water silently but I saw a change in the color of the plasma, it went green AND the wire on the choke was jumping with each pulse. The choke didn't prevent the implosion but what I found was simply validation of what I had known already.

Even before this in Overunity.com and maybe here, I was the first to show everyone the identical nature to the plasma ignition and the Gray circuit with the reverse diode effect - and was ridiculed at Overunity.com for claiming any similarity but anyway - the wire on the coil (choke) bouncing with each pulse gave me evidence to believe that I had been right all along about the reverse diode being necessary (based on Bedini's drawings and not what Gray showed).

Every one of my circuits has been a direct replica or modification of 1) Ed Gray's circuits shown in his patents and 2) my own innovations of the plasma ignition circuits.

The plasma ignition circuits pre-date Gray's work by DECADES and the only significant difference between all of them and Gray's patents are the large scale of discharge and coils and having a coil in series - that's it.

So I fail to see how I am plagarizing anyone. Again, the circuits I have used to explain anything have been Gray's circuits and different variations of the plasma ignition circuits with a coil in series with the effect, which I discovered on my own.

I have countless variations of these schematics that go back to 2001 or 2002 right after Peter put out his book. My first Gray tube circuit was built around 2001 or 2002 with the help of John Bedini giving me a few machined parts for the tube...a solid state Gray tube circuit that runs 100% from an Earth ground and antenna. Most of these schematics I have would have been a simple plasma ignition circuit if I took the coil out but why would I want to do that back then?

So anyway, you can claim plagarism of your circuit by me if you want but that is far from the truth. If you ever had a problem, you could always have tactfully sent me a PM about this to at least get my viewpoint but instead, you choose to openly attack and accuse me on this open forum. So be it...

Your response on the same day:

Aaron: You are correct, this is my circuit:

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

And here is your circuit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Aaron]

Documentation Of The Facts

I'm posting 15 posts full of messages between Jerry and I on this entire
issue. They are in this thread and here are all of them for the record.

This IS the final word on this discussion about the copyright or circuit
copy claims. Jerry's "recent" switch IS my diagram that he copied and
all the evidence and history of the progression of his circuit posts are
enclosed. After I post these, the thread needs to stay on topic. I was
fine with Jerry posting his "presentation" but the moment he tried to
take credit for my circuit, that is where I draw the line.

[Electrotek]

No More CRAP

When the switch is closed, the long arc will start popping as the primary capacitor on the right charges.

@Aaron: Did you miss this statement or do you EVEN READ what I say?

Here's an updated diagram of my latest switch circuit, to prevent any more confusion or future fraudulent copyright correlation:

There are ZERO obvious
variations of your circuit that I have ever done because none of your
circuits ever had a similarity to anything that I showed or what Gray
showed. You have different variations for making colored bursts and that
is about it. And here your are for the first time showing one of "your"
diagrams, which is simply claiming my work as your own. Shame on you!

You show a really long gap between the rod electrodes, just like I do. AND Gray does too, in his circuit diagram. Your ignition coil circuit is OBVIOUSLY not the same as Gray's.

Yes, I did post my diagrams so everyone can use them but that does not
include allowing others to take credit for something that I came up with.
That diagram is EXACTLY a booster cap in parallel with a gap with an
inductor inline, which I was the first to ever show powering an inductor
by that exact method when everyone was still doing the normal plasma
ignition circuits.

My circuit does not have a "booster cap". It will work with a SINGLE CAPACITOR. And where exactly did you show a setup with a TWO AND A HALF CENTIMETER gap beteen the rod electrodes?
Your ignition coil circuit is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what Gray shows.

So the FACTS are that your circuit is completely different from anything
I posted - like I said, all my grounds are tied together,

Since when is -5kV GROUND POTENTIAL?

YOU are the one that jumped up right now and said that my circuit was your copyright. Something you planned all along? And what WOULD your circuit look like if I hadn't joined the forum and showed you my "three point discharge" circuit?

And to post this more recent diagram and say it is one of yours, you
learned that from me and it is EXACTLY as my diagram as I just showed.
I couldn't even say it is a variation of my circuit, it IS my circuit!

You are delusional. Or MAYBE trying to disrupt my presentation.

Get real! Mine all worked the first time every time I tried
them.

It's sad that when someone can't quite replicate your effect all you can say is: "It works for me EVERY TIME".

I would encourage EVERYONE that wants to know the truth to the
progression of these events to look at 100% of every post in this entire
thread. I could see what Jerry was going to do before he did it with his
constant mentioning in his posts of "my" circuits, etc... "nuff said", etc...
completely obvious but never thought he would actually post my diagram
in his writing and claim it as "his" switch. Ridiculous, insulting and
unacceptable. I don't know who is going to be fooled by his manipulation
and deception but it sure isn't me.

I think you would encourage everyone to stop considering my experiments and instead refocus on all the CRAP you've dumped into this thread.
Don't forger that YOUR conclusion was to agree with Bedini that "the Tube is a Red Herring". Suppression?

However, one thing I learned from Edwin Gray is the the circuit itself can be patented. Now that I have my new "minimal plasmid" circuit I can see that THIS circuit will also work with the Tube I show in my own patent. The rest of you guys lost out.

[Aaron]

get the facts straight

Why do you guys think you can even patent universal knowledge like that....
It's BULL****

Read the ENTIRE thread post by post before making any more comments.

It is obvious you don't even know what has been posted here from the
beginning in regards to this.

In addition to that, what are you talking about patents for? Nobody is
patenting any of this. I open sourced many diagrams, videos, explanations,
papers, schematics, etc...

What I did is COPYRIGHT my diagrams because they are my innovations
and inventions simply to document that they are mine. I posted them
publicly so anyone, including Jerry, can use them. But posting my
diagrams and claiming credit for it is NOT acceptable, which is EXACTLY
what Jerry is doing. He posted that diagram claiming it is "his" switch,
when I'm the one that came up with that and I have all the facts to
prove it.

You need to read this entire thread and get your facts straight before
you say that anything I am doing is "BULL****", please.

[Aaron]

cease and desist

@Aaron:

I think you owe me an apology for disrupting my current presentation. My last on-topic post contained NONE of the text from your article, and the spark diagrams and discharge sequence are completely different from what you show. Also, I would NEVER tie -5kV to chassis ground.

What you claim I did is what YOU did - you originally claimed I stole
your copyrighted diagrams. That is ridiculous and the post I just posted
proves that conclusively to anyone that has common sense to look at the
diagrams and look at the explanations.

I don't owe you an apology. I would if I did but you insulted me and now
you are plagiarizing my circuits claiming them as your own. AND, I have
MULTIPLE explanations as how the exact schematic works and can work
all based on the same principles, with video evidence to back it up.

Call an attorney Jerry and have him/her send me a letter on your behalf
to my mailing address which is on all my personal websites. Cease and
desist your plagiarism and false claims now. I'm not discussing it any further
with you and stop twisting the facts.

[Aaron]

Jerry Vollard taking credit for my work

Jerry,

You are misleading everyone about the facts.

I am not the one jumping up and down about infringement - you are
the one originally claiming I copied your diagrams. That is completely
ridiculous!

Look at the diagram you posted - you rearranged one line to make it more
clear but it is still the same. You have EXACTLY - 2 CAPS IN SERIES
WITH AN INDUCTOR BETWEEN THEM. That has absolutely NOTHING to
do with any of my circuits and isn't even close to anything I have ever
shown. Nor does it have ANYTHING to do with anything that is shown
in ANY of the Gray patents.

All my caps always have common ground, etc... Yours do NOT.

There are ZERO obvious
variations of your circuit that I have ever done because none of your
circuits ever had a similarity to anything that I showed or what Gray
showed. You have different variations for making colored bursts and that
is about it. And here your are for the first time showing one of "your"
diagrams, which is simply claiming my work as your own. Shame on you!

Yes, I did post my diagrams so everyone can use them but that does not
include allowing others to take credit for something that I came up with.
That diagram is EXACTLY a booster cap in parallel with a gap with an
inductor inline, which I was the first to ever show powering an inductor
by that exact method when everyone was still doing the normal plasma
ignition circuits. I first showed in in video a few years ago but never
pointed it out to anyone until way later - that video is still online!

http://www.energeticforum.com/58213-post1481.html

That is the original response to your bogus claims that I copied your
diagrams that don't even work right - why would I copy them? They don't
do the same as what my circuits do.

There are plenty of others and anyone looking at those posts can clearly
see every single point of difference between yours and mine. It is clear
what other obvious variations, etc... means when looking at a circuit but
yours are so far off from anything I'm doing, you are simply caught up in
some delusion to claim my discoveries and work as your own.

So the FACTS are that your circuit is completely different from anything
I posted - like I said, all my grounds are tied together, you have two caps
in series with an inductor between them.

Trying to say my circuit is a
variation of yours is like saying a submarine is like a automobile simply
because they both are transportation and in our case, both "use"
electricity! It's ridiculous! So your claim that I infringed on you
before is completely delusional.

And to post this more recent diagram and say it is one of yours, you
learned that from me and it is EXACTLY as my diagram as I just showed.
I couldn't even say it is a variation of my circuit, it IS my circuit!



For the record - ANYONE can read every post back in the June 2009 time
frame and see everything I posted out on Jerry's (Electrotek's) circuits
as being completely unrelated to anything I ever showed here.

For convenience, here are some graphics showing the differences, which
are completely common sense:











Below, it says "My circuit" that means Jerry's circuit.



So, anyone can see the progression that you kept altering your diagram
to get closer and closer to something that worked and you insist that I
copied you Get real! Mine all worked the first time every time I tried
them. You actually changed the concept of yours quite a few times and
I actually kept my concept throughout ALL of mine and showed real
variations of the concept that were all obvious to me.

You NEVER showed anything like what I showed until the last few days
and to my amazement, not a variation, an identical rip off!

To everyone - I do NOT mind everyone using anything I post in
their own experiments, etc... that is the point of me posting them but
that doesn't mean do what Jerry does and wait a year and a half and
post my diagrams as your own, that just isn't cool!

I would encourage EVERYONE that wants to know the truth to the
progression of these events to look at 100% of every post in this entire
thread. I could see what Jerry was going to do before he did it with his
constant mentioning in his posts of "my" circuits, etc... "nuff said", etc...
completely obvious but never thought he would actually post my diagram
in his writing and claim it as "his" switch. Ridiculous, insulting and
unacceptable. I don't know who is going to be fooled by his manipulation
and deception but it sure isn't me.

[Jules Tresor]

Hutchinson file

The Hutchinson file is freely available from his website, along with other files, check here:
hutchisoneffect.ca

[Electrotek]

Absolutely! You are entitled to it if you so choose.....
Look at Imhotep... he is known all over for his motor modification technique

As far as suppression goes.... it can't be stopped if it is timeless and nameless yet still known. I guess pseudo names are a good idea, to preserve YOUR identity, and to make it easy in the future for others to find your information

Pseudo names don't work this time. Last year, Aaron defamed my integrity, threatened me with extortion, and slung all kinds of mud at my good name (Jerry Volland), saying I was basically a stupid "EE" who couldn't see his circuit was completely different than what I Open Sourced.

@Aaron:

I think you owe me an apology for disrupting my current presentation. My last on-topic post contained NONE of the text from your article, and the spark diagrams and discharge sequence are completely different from what you show. Also, I would NEVER tie -5kV to chassis ground.