Gray Tube Replication

[Spokane1]

Popping Coils as a source of OU

(I mean, for example, that for me the poppings-coils are a generator as well as the transformer of the two boxes . But I will talk again about that with you.)

Dear Arker,

This comment is from a post of yours from last April (#255100) but it is important because there is evidence that this might very well be the case.

I have attempted to make this point several times, but I just don't know how to follow up on it. Here is the points of evidence I have found:

1. The opposing engine electromagnets had four (4) conductors, therefore they were transformers or coupled coils NOT common inductor opposing electromagnets.

2. These engine electromagnets were wired so that one of the HV terminals was connected to the iron in the core and designed to arc to its opposing electromagnet. The technique is also used in some automotive ignition coils.

3. The "Minor" engine electromagnet appears to be a standard 2-wire inductor that is wired in series with the "Major" engine electromagnet. This may serve two purposes a) to shift the axis of magnetic flux to get the maximum co-sine vector product. b) maybe to provide current limiting c) maybe to increase effective leakage capacitance to impact some sort of resonance process.

4. The operational programming of the EMA4 shows that for 120 degrees of rotation or 3 of the 9 steps the major electromagnets were fired top dead center while opposing each other. This configuration will produce no net torque since all the resultant forces are radial. This might have been some kind of an energy generation phase where the resultant energy was harvested and used to charge the capacitors for the next 240 degrees of rotation that did the actual work output. I have come to this analysis from taking a detail look at the mechanical layout of the commutator of the Pulse Engine Patent drawings. I don't ascribe much worth to the written text.

5. The "Bedini Field Notes" show that a PM rotor was being used and probably was the proof of principle for the layout of the EMA6 engine. This resulted in a much smaller and simpler engine. If the actual generation (or a second stage generation) was taking place between the rotor and stator electromagnets in the EMA4 then that process would have had to move to the Power Supply for the EMA6 design. Perhaps Mr. Hackenberger didn't understand all the necessary details of this and thus the EMA6 failed on its first trial run.

6. I suspect that what ever topology is in the Electrostatic Generator would be reflected in the opposing "Major Electromagnets".

Mark McKay

[Spokane1]

Some Keen Observations

The boxes were not OU.

(And if Hack lie, perhaps he has never revealed to his boss EV Gray that the COP is less than 1.)

Then right away other elements arise for consolidate my thesis of Hack-liar :
. Start from 1974 and assume that the boxes are O.U. This means that Hack assimilated M. Cole's technology ...
. Well. Jump to 1976 : Hack creates the EMA-6. It is a total failure.

This is the indisputable proof that in 1976 Hack did not understand nothing to the M. Cole's technology. And if he did not understand in 1976, a fortiori he had understood nothing in 1974 ...

The over-unity of the boxes in 1974 is therefore absolutely impossible, and Hack is a liar. But a so much skillful liar that we can never caught him in flagrant offense of lie : not once, as we saw at the beginning of my post ; only analysis prove that he is lying.

Back to the visit of May 13 1974 (without to forget other promotion sessions of the time). This do chillingly : GD's group was quite simply in a rip off.


Arker

Dear Arker,

That is a pretty detailed and well thought out assessment of the limited material contain in the 2014 GD transcript document, however for us to better understand the actual situation we need to look at the broader picture and pull in information from other sources.

My present assessment believes that the original Cole Electrostatic Generator worked and the Hackenberger Solid State version (at that time) did not - as you have deducted.

For some reason Mr. Hackenberger was promoting his non-functional converter technology as a means to get temporary funding - believing that he could get it to work as well as the Cole technology with just a little more money. Thus, all the techno-babble (misleading comments) about the performance of his version of the Electrostatic Generator. Maybe he was not ready to admit, even to himself, at that moment, that his reverse engineering effort was a failure (after 2-3 years of full time work).

Things were complicated by the LA DA raid in 1974 that confiscated the original Cole Electrostatic Generators and then destroyed them. Hack could no longer go back and review what he might have overlooked in their construction.

According to Mark Gray, his father and Mr. Hackenberger were continuing to work on the technology without funding in 1977. Hack took a job as a taxi cab driver to pay his rent. He must have figured it out because he got the EMA6 to finally run properly - just before it was confiscated by the FCC in 1977.

Mark McKay

[Spokane1]

The Chopper Fly Back Topology Mystery

]
The characteristics of the boxes that gives Hack make me think of a flyback without capacitor.

A flyback is robust and reliable. Besides a small driver, he needs only 3 components (1 inductor, 1 transistor, 1 diode) to convert DC to pulsed-DC HF.

(One could also think of a chopper but the chopper transformer is a banal transformer, while the very special flyback transformer matches well to the Hack's description.)

Around 1974 I think quasi no electronician knew this kind of DC-DC converter ? But Hack may very well have imagined his flyback without anyone's help. (But flyback or not, it does not matter. Will be understood in my next post.)

Dear Arker,

You have hit upon an important central issue in the reverse engineering of this technology:

If this is essentially a Fly-Back process then why does it employ a push-pull front end driver?

This has kept me awake for many evenings and has been a fundamental question for 12 years. I don't have an answer. If the 1979 power supply did function at one time (I assume it did since someone spent a lot of money on its construction), then the push-pull operation was a requirement since a single switch Fly-Back system would have been a lot cheaper and simpler.

According to the schematic in the 1975 Pulse Engine Patent we see a mechanical chopper power supply - very typical of car radios used in the 1950's. The secondary connection is where the confusion comes from. A single HV output tap with a blocking diode. According to the patent commentary the transformer was "an auto ignition coil employed as a HV transformer".

To me it appears that this patent converter design pre-dated Mr. Hackenberger's arrival. This was the prototype that was submitted to Crosby Research for evaluation. After those trials Mr. Hackenberger then proceeded to make his solid state improvements to develop the EMA4-E2 version. He must have made some progress since the HP rating increased from 10 HP to 87 HP (according to comments from Ron Cole via John Bedini)

A Chopper Fly-Back circuit is rare but not unknown in classical power supply design. In the book "Power Supplies, Switching Regulators, Inverters and Converters" 2nd edition, by Irving M. Gottlieb 1994 page 24, he shows a schematic of a Symmetrical waveform from an asymmetrical inverter. It is a solid state version of the converter disclosed in the Pulse Engine patent. The author states " The other transistor then serves the function of resetting the core magnetization, exactly as it would if it, too, was delivering power into the load"

So this feature seems to have something to do with the magnetization of the core, but in the 1979 power supply the two switching channels seem to be both sized for high current.

In the 1975 Pulse Engine Patent it was disclosed that the unit power supplies were operated in pairs. From the schematic most everyone agrees that such an arrangement is redundant and serves no obvious engineering purpose. I suspect this was done because the mechanical vibrators used at the time were limited to about 30 watts of useful capacity. Thus two supplies were needed (actually a total of 18) were needed to achieve the required excitation power levels. But, the fact that these odd details were included in the patent implies that they were attempting to provide legal protection for some kind of important but novel feature while removing information about its actual purpose.

I believe that two outputs are a required part of this technology. I suspect that Mr. Hackenberger was able to design a single transformer to accomplish the two outputs. They probably operated at the same time since in order for the FFF to function (for what ever it was doing) current would have to be flowing in both windings at the same time.

There is also the possibility that the core operated in a saturated mode and required some hefty (heavy) resetting current.

I don't have the answers, but I'm going to stick with the push pull design because that is the way they appear to have done it.

Mark McKay

[Spokane1]

Operational Status of the 1979 Power Supply

_ b e g i n _
1) Since 2012 you benefit personal informations about the supply EMA-7, thanks to your friend Al Francoeur who in 2012 bought the supply of Hack-1979. (This power supply is operational but refuses to manifest over-unity virtues .)

_ e n d _

Dear Arker,

To the best of my knowledge Al Francoeur has not applied power to the 1979 Power supply. His plan (as of last year) was to purchase all new components and build a replication, then test that circuit.

This is indeed a challenging undertaking. The switching transistors have to be individually balanced with .01% resistors and there are eight of them. He also has to construct the custom transformer. The large Ferrite E cores are hard to get.

He did take my advice and had the transformer X-Rayed at a local veterinarian clinic (for $80). So he has some additional information to work with. He also claims to have dissembled the transformer (to some extent) to examine the winding structure. It is the details of these internal observations that he wishes to keep proprietary. He also mentioned that there are additional unseen passive components on the primary side of the transformer. I have assumed that these are additional decoupling capacitors that can be seen in one photo. To me they appear to be two capacitors in parallel, a small tantalum and a ceramic disc. I would guess they would be 10 uF an .01 uF respectively.

Mark McKay

[Spokane1]

Challenges of Measuring HV

Hi Mark,

As corrected in one of my posts, I found that I had a high voltage leakage across my wooden desk coupling to the plates I was testing. The plates I had 0 voltage on where insulated from the desk. SO all my tests are null and void.

I am embarrassed I did not pick that up sooner ..

Bernie

Dear Bernie,

No kidding!! I've made that very same mistake myself. However, in working with arcs and such you can charge a small capacitor at a short distance from your apparatus with a metal plate at right angles from your source. For me the intensity drops off very quickly and is gone when the distance reaches about 30". I was observing a pulsating arc operating at around 10 kHz.

So, when you mentioned that you were picking up something prior to the arc breakdown I was interested in the details.

Don't worry about making unfamiliar miss-steps like this. These are the things we have to go through to refine our instrumentation techniques and hopefully observe things that have not been seen before.

Mark McKay

[bmentink]

Dear Bernie,

I've done those same kinds of measurements (though not as extensive as you appear to be doing) and every time and with every kind of "antenna" I got different readings.

What frequency are you running your fly-back coil at? Do you have it in a shielded box?

I understand that copper sheet will function as a low grade diode with just the thin layer of oxide that collects on its surface (it gets better with age). I'm not sure what stainless steel will do.

If I have read your posts correctly you say that you get the effect before the spark gap breaks down. What happens after that? does the harvested voltage stay constant or does it start to degrade? How often do sparks take place?

Mark McKay

Hi Mark,

As corrected in one of my posts, I found that I had a high voltage leakage across my wooden desk coupling to the plates I was testing. The plates I had 0 voltage on where insulated from the desk. SO all my tests are null and void.

I am embarrassed I did not pick that up sooner ..

Bernie

[Spokane1]

Voltage vs. Materials Measurements

For some reason I can not edit the above post ... so ...

As an experiment I replaced the copper plate with a copper wound pancake coil I had lying around, the coil is wound with one wire diameter spacing so I would have thought it to
be similar to a copper plate with 50% holes. I connected the cap to one end of it. To my surprise I found that I had no voltage at all with the coil connected instead of the plate. !!
I am puzzled, is there some sort of field cancellation effect going on in the coil?

Cheers,
Bernie

Dear Bernie,

I've done those same kinds of measurements (though not as extensive as you appear to be doing) and every time and with every kind of "antenna" I got different readings.

What frequency are you running your fly-back coil at? Do you have it in a shielded box?

I understand that copper sheet will function as a low grade diode with just the thin layer of oxide that collects on its surface (it gets better with age). I'm not sure what stainless steel will do.

If I have read your posts correctly you say that you get the effect before the spark gap breaks down. What happens after that? does the harvested voltage stay constant or does it start to degrade? How often do sparks take place?

Mark McKay

[Spokane1]

Some interesting analysis of the GD Documents

Dear Arker,

You have certainly have done your homework. I have never received such a detailed and lengthy review of my writings - ever.

It will take me many days to completely comment on your analysis, but here are a few quick responses.

I agree with you, the "Electrostatic Generator" (the Black Box) was not OU by itself. Mr. Hackenberger probably thought it was because it made the engine OU and because it improved the performance of florescent lamps. I believe that Mr. Hackenberger lost something in the redesign between the Cole device and his solid state lower voltage version. The Cole design was different and Mr. Hackenberger was confusing the performance and operation of the two systems in his conversation with the GD group.

The Original Cole converter has these features:
- Used two separate batteries
- Operated at 100 Hz because of the internal mechanical vibrator
- employed an arc somewhere in the circuit
- had an output in excess of 1000V, therefore the load was composed of several incandescent lamps connected in series
- Made for a very impressive demonstration by itself
- the transformer was a modified automotive ignition coil (fly-back operation)

It appears that Mr. Hackenberger didn't really start to under this technology until 1977, then he began to make some real improvements while in Kansas City. It only took him 5 years to figure it out with working prototypes in front of him. We have much less to work with.

I also agree that this system is probably a Fly-back kind of a system even if it had a sine-wave output and is push pull. That means it probably employs discontinuous operation. I certainly haven't figured out all the details myself, but I think you are on the right track. No doubt you have noticed how similar this is to the Bedini Technology.

I think the same way you do about the Ferrite Core having to have an air gap. If it does, then it is not visible on the side from the photos, so would have to be in the center core. My core is two piece "E" frame, Al claims that the 1979 unit has a three piece Ferrite Core and no air gap. Down the Road I plan to add some Ferrite shims to my transformer and see how its performance changes - after I figure out its fundamental operation.

Right now I believe that a foil capacitor was included in the primary windings. This capacitor would have a value of around .005 uF and add to the shunt capacitance of the resonant tank. There is a chance that the non-classical process took place in this novel component much like it might have in the 1928 Hendershot device, which appears to have the same aspect ratio.

At the time I wrote the "The Top 10 Hints" paper" in 2012 I was unaware of the possibility of a resonant mode of operation.

Thanks for the detailed review. I shall look forward to discussing your conclusions in the days to come.

I have additional information that I shall email you. From your comments it appears that there are some other documents and photos that you haven't seen yet that might refine and improve your positions.

Mark McKay

[Arker]

Supply EMA-7, creation of Hack 1979

_ b e g i n _
Dear Sokane1,


I rely on the documents that you transmitted to me personally about this supply EMA-7. You say it is a "resonant supply." I want to believe you since you affirm ...

Unlike to the DC to DC technology of the boxes (clearly specified by Hack and many times), hither the schemas you transmitted to me show clearly a topology DC to AC.
(Diodes rectify the output and, if I put myself in your head : the "magic" electricity cross the diodes's silicon and stay "magic" on the other side ...)

I do not know if contrary to your drawing you created an airgap ? But if there is no airgap it is sure that your core saturates.

In this case (if there is no airgap) the resonant element may very well be the core : this requires a narrow rectangular hysteresis, and it is justly the case for ferrites.

The first oscillator with resonant core was invented and patented by Bright and Royer. In 1954 Royer wrote in Electrical Manufacturing that, with its saturable core and 2 germanium transistors 2N74, his DC to AC converter has an efficiency of 90% ...

Bright and Royer had no resonant cap and out a square AC signal in their supply. Thereafter it was used extensively for DC to AC converters, in the watts range but also kilowatts.

Then others added a cap in parallel with the two half- primary in series : the core's ferroresonance is maintained but associated with the effect of the cap. And then the output signal become a sinusoidal impeccable. (The resonant topology with saturable core + capa, you have it under eyes : all present PC screens are backlit by this method.)

In summary dear Mark, here is my modest tips :
. for your tests of powerful it is useless that you place diodes into the output -in a first-time,
. if you did not put airgap, seeks to activate the resonance of your core. (Also try with various cap in parallel.)
. choose your eventual parallel capas only with PP as dielectric (otherwise the quality factor collapses) -mica is also good but overpriced to large capacity,
. if you have put an airgap : removes it to see,
. ask your friend Al Francoeur if it has an airgap in his Hack's ferrite, since the assembly is screwed. (If yes : by grinding or the central branch ? or shims on the two lateral branches ?)
(You exposed on May 8 to me personally that Al will not talked on forums, but emails with friends is different from forum posts, right ? And then, test itself the ferroresonance may interest him.)


Friendly,
- - - - - Arker



_______________
PS : There is a last hypothesis : Hack's supply has none virtue. In this case,
a - the Marvin Cole's technology is not a tandem of two "magic". All is in the motor.
b - I do not know if in 1978-79 Hack penetrate through or not the M. Cole's secret, but If yes : according to "a -" any powerful HV supply would be suitable.
c - Hack has not ceased lie to and it is possible also that he have lie for EMA-7. Dear Mark is it by mere intuition across from the photo that you declare this motor O.U. ? or do you have a secret document ?
_ e n d _

[Arker]

The little EV. Gray's converters of Hack 1974 _ A villanous story

This is following of the previous post. My development relies exclusively on Mr Richard Hackenberger's statements, the engineer who created these boxes (camping converters DC to pulsed-DC).




During the promotion sessions of the over-unity motor EMA, the EV Gray's team always presented the camping converters as falling under the same overunity technology.

This overunity was majestically quantized on the EMA motor in May 1973 in Crosby : 7500 W for 27 W ...

GD, a mechanical worker in Oregon, fascinated by the ecological scope of this technology, had a precarious Hack agreement for commercialize sale of the boxes in its region. It was of course persuaded that the boxes are overunity.

With a small group of friends GD had pre-founded in Oregon the EMA Inc. And May 13 1974 with four of them they had come by plane to interview the inventors (nobody knew they usurped the title of inventors, it is the historian-engineer Mark McKay that revealed it on this forum in 2008.)

The COP of the boxes, or their efficiency, is evidently the most important of questions.
Well in reading GD I am stupefied of Hack's behavior : he constantly seeks to manipulate its visitors !

Almost always he copes to dodge :
. or he share in exterior considerations, in order to deduce an approximate answer,
. or by responding directly but discreetly clutch on other thing before finishing his answer.

When he responds directly his answers are blurred and extremely surprising :
. On several occasions Hack replied that it was impossible to quantify the energy out of the boxes, because the signal is in pulses HV-HF. (But this is false. Hack is an engineer and knows that to quantify the energy of a overornate signal we simply use a lamp and a lightmeter, or a resistor and a calorimeter)
. By way of technical datas Hack, who is not afraid by anything, provides at his visitors a significant example :
EV Gay himself, in camping with his children, used the black-box 72 hours for his radio, his TV 16", and lights at evening. And its battery of 90A-h was not even discharged(*).
. Hack also indicated several times that the duration of use is linked to the size of the battery :
More great is the battery, more long working for the converter without recharging.
. Hack elsewhere explains that regardless of the size, the battery must be recharged sooner or later :

It is easy to understand that if the battery of a system is discharged, is because this system is not overunity. In all O.U. system, the inventor will loop a part of output toward the input, the battery will be never discharged.

Therefore the boxes are simply not O.U. ...

But Hack scrambles completely the mind of its visitors, in explaining that even the EMA motor needs a battery recharging ! He places, in thought, a EMA motor 3 KW in a car, and said that after 500 Km of road it will take 6 hours to recharge with a 30 amperes charger(**).

But this is false, since we know that a year earlier in Crosby the true EMA motor of M. Cole was turning without pause :
The test lasted 8.5 days,
the energy was : 7.46KW x 203h = 1500 KWh,
whereas the energy in the 4 batteries was limited to 5.4 KWh.

How to explain the extravagant attitude of Hack

The prudence ?
Is it by prudence that he never wants that one can to be able to know or calculate the efficiency of EV Gray's applications O.U. ?

No. Because Hack clearly states in front of the tape recorder of the group on 13 May 1974 that the EV Gray's technology is overunity : it consists in taking the chemical energy of the battery and increase the amount of energy taken ! Here are his exact words :

The lie ?
So the hypothesis of caution is to be rejected. Another hypothesis much simpler, would be the lie : Hack knows perfectly that the boxes has none overunity (also, no need to lightmeter or calorimeter) ; the aim being to ripoff the good GD and his investors friends ...

In this case it would also mean that all great promotion sessions in front of the investors the press or TV were lies (since the boxes there are always presented as derived from EMA motor.)

(And if Hack lie, perhaps he has never revealed to his boss EV Gray that the COP is less than 1.)

What further hypothesis ?

A little hindsight

All my post is centered on May 13 1974. But since we are in 2014 a step back is permitted.

Then right away other elements arise for consolidate my thesis of Hack-liar :
. Start from 1974 and assume that the boxes are O.U. This means that Hack assimilated M. Cole's technology ...
. Well. Jump to 1976 : Hack creates the EMA-6. It is a total failure.

This is the indisputable proof that in 1976 Hack did not understand nothing to the M. Cole's technology. And if he did not understand in 1976, a fortiori he had understood nothing in 1974 ...

The over-unity of the boxes in 1974 is therefore absolutely impossible, and Hack is a liar. But a so much skillful liar that we can never caught him in flagrant offense of lie : not once, as we saw at the beginning of my post ; only analysis prove that he is lying.

Back to the visit of May 13 1974 (without to forget other promotion sessions of the time). This do chillingly : GD's group was quite simply in a rip off.


Arker



________________________
Hack's voice, transcribed by GD :

[Arker]

The little EV Gray's converters of Hack 1974 _ Technological approch.


Mr Mark McKay has kindly agreed to transmit to me the 13 pages that his friend GD just typed in April 2014 (essentially devoted to "boxes"), 40 years after one of his visits to Van Nuys (California) May 13, 1974, where all was recorded.
My development below relies exclusively on Mr Richard Hackenberger's statements, the engineer who created these boxes (camping converters DC to pulsed-DC).

The characteristics of the boxes that gives Hack make me think of a flyback without capacitor.

A flyback is robust and reliable. Besides a small driver, he needs only 3 components (1 inductor, 1 transistor, 1 diode) to convert DC to pulsed-DC HF.

(One could also think of a chopper but the chopper transformer is a banal transformer, while the very special flyback transformer matches well to the Hack's description.)

Around 1974 I think quasi no electronician knew this kind of DC-DC converter ? But Hack may very well have imagined his flyback without anyone's help. (But flyback or not, it does not matter. Will be understood in my next post.)

Recall succinctly the peculiarities of a flyback converter :

This is not a chopper topology because it works only on the rising edge. It operates by magnetic storage, in 2 steps :

1st) At primary of the inductance, each current pulse magnetizes the core. At the same time to the secondary, the diode blocks any induction effect.

2nd) At primary, the transistor switches off the current. This demagnetize the core. At secondary the pulse, of induced current, flow freely through the diode, and fill a large capacitor.

Recall also :

. The demagnetization current recovered by the secondary depends on the ratio of n1/n2 turns. (V-peak, at secondary is function of the inverse ratio n2/n1.)

. a sufficient gap for never saturate. At primary, the transistor always cut the exponential rise of the magnetizing current before saturation of the core.

(Nota : in HV output it is sometimes useful to clipping off a few the spikes.)

What that Hack has explained to the GD's group :

- The design of the transformer (core and windings) is the most important point.

- My boxes do not use capacitive discharge, unlike the motor.

- My boxes have nothing electrostatic ! They are static because there are no moving parts.

- My converters black-box and blue-box work with a 12V battery

- The difference is that the blue-box has a built-in battery : a motorcycle battery 12 Ah, innovative and capable of be recharging in 6 minutes (if one has a large 120 amperes charger ...)

- On the black-box, a security disconnect the battery of the car if it is not full enough for restarting.

- My boxes are designed to feed a maximum load of 30 to 45 watts : 110V bulbs, TV and radio without transformer (trivial at the time). The maximum limit is 60W briefly.

- The output current is composed of short pulses DC 1000 volts (not rectified AC !), Hack clearly specifies it repeatedly.

- 6000 pulses springing each second.

- The duty-free is such that, for example bulbs marked "110V-30W", behaves like on the mains 110V/60Hz.

(Nota : a lot of questions around the COP of the boxes are raised by the five visitors. For alleviate we will see the answers in another post.)

Why Hack does not put a capacitor on the diode ?

I think it is for conserve HF ...

So thanks to HF Hack can give an aura of mystery at meetings motor promotion, impress the gallery. Because pulses HV-6KHz sparsely powerful can not electrifies, and you can put your hands in the water with lit lightbulb.

Both boxes are in fact the motor's cheerleaders. But I also think to a technical aspect :

It was sparsely known at the time, but fine pulses HF-HV-DC have anti-sulfation action on a lead battery (in addition to recharge the battery).

So knowing that the internal resistance of a battery is derisory, to interpose the battery in the output stands to reason.

_ e n d _

[Arker]

Details /EMA-7's supply story

_ b e g i n _
Dear Sokane1,


I thank you for your careful explanations (your post #2864 May 9, now drowned among heaps of other posts) on the historical of this supply, complemented by your email on your replication of the same supply EMA-7, and also by your GD's documents in EvGray Enterprises Inc. to May 1974, focusing on the boxes.

Now I can lastly understand what you were talking in your posts #2808 and #2813.

And I think also to have understand your flowpath between these two supplies :

1) Since 2012 you benefit personal informations about the supply EMA-7, thanks to your friend Al Francoeur who in 2012 bought the supply of Hack-1979. (This power supply is operational but refuses to manifest over-unity virtues .)

2) In April 2014 you receive from GD 13 pages focused on boxes, the camping converters of Hack-1974. (Now, during promotion sessions, the EV Gray's team always exhibited these boxes as a "magic application", although static, of their "magical" engine.)

3) You then drew a parallel between these two supply, hoping to successfully restore the "magic zone" of the EMA-7 supply.

4) As you initialized a running in tandem-technology you think that an application, such as popping-coils, is necessary for this EMA-7 supply for observe "something" ...

My mental approach is very different from yours (no offense). And more I've already said you by email in 2011, I always associate a psychological dimension.

The study of english documents is all along difficult for me, because it's their french translation by software that I study.

So it is long. But thanks to all these documents whom thou hast sent me (which is really gentle and elegant) I can now deliver you my modest cooperation, organized in 3 posts below.


Friendly,
_-_-_-_Arker

_ e n d _

[Aaron]

vb edit

For some reason I can not edit the above post ... so ...

As an experiment I replaced the copper plate with a copper wound pancake coil I had lying around, the coil is wound with one wire diameter spacing so I would have thought it to
be similar to a copper plate with 50% holes. I connected the cap to one end of it. To my surprise I found that I had no voltage at all with the coil connected instead of the plate. !!
I am puzzled, is there some sort of field cancellation effect going on in the coil?

Cheers,
Bernie

There is some occasional glitch with vbulletin. When you click to edit post, always follow up by clicking Advanced Edit and do the edit there. It will always work then.

[bmentink]

I did some testing with various metals, shapes and sizes that I had lying around ..

Metal Size Voltage
------ ---- --------
Copper 10 sq inch 100v
Cu with holes 10 sq inch 180v
Al plate 20 sq inch 70v
Al with holes 20 sq inch 150v
Stainless 10 sq inch 270v
Zinc coated Fe 4 sq foot 0.5v
Iron plate 1.5 sq ft 0v

Stainless Tube 22mm dia 1m 0v
Copper Tube 14mm dia 1m 0.5v
Brass Rod 4mm dia 2m 60v

What stands out is the following:
1. The good reading for the brass rod considering the small surface area, must get some sheet.
2. Excellent results for the Stainless plate, I wish I had some perforated to test, oh well, out with the drill..
3. It seems that anything the shape of a circle (tube, coil) has very poor results. ... maybe it acts as a shortened turn?
(remember the spark gap is OUTSIDE the tube, not within it)
4. Perforated copper nearly double that of non-perf.

Some other interesting points:
1. Having the iron anywhere near the spark gap, caused it not to fire anymore.
2. I put a carbon rod (from a D-cell) in the LV side and now I get 0v on the copper plates and the spark gap does not fire as readily ..
(maybe the carbon block is a red herring?)

EDIT: PLEASE DISREGARD THE ABOVE TESTS!!
I have just found that I had a small HV leakage path across my benchtop on which the plates were perched ... dang!

Cheers,
Bernie

[bmentink]

For some reason I can not edit the above post ... so ...

As an experiment I replaced the copper plate with a copper wound pancake coil I had lying around, the coil is wound with one wire diameter spacing so I would have thought it to
be similar to a copper plate with 50% holes. I connected the cap to one end of it. To my surprise I found that I had no voltage at all with the coil connected instead of the plate. !!
I am puzzled, is there some sort of field cancellation effect going on in the coil?

Cheers,
Bernie