Gray Tube Replication

[antena]

Absurdity

Hallo
Stop that, that is real absurd, If u dont wana share your knowledge with others dont go here. If one was first or other who cares ?
Dont write your waste here - go to another forum for example two childred on sand-pit. This is infantility...
Antena

[Electrotek]

There's no point in arguing theory when only results matter. The ones that don't work will naturally fall by the wayside in time.

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

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

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

No one here has fully replicated Gray's circuit and demonstrated the solution to our energy crisis and until that moment comes there is no RIGHT or WRONG. This forum is about working together, so if that spirit is to be maintained then at least some tolerance should be exhibited.

There's no point in arguing theory when only results matter. The ones that don't work will naturally fall by the wayside in time.

[Electrotek]

fini

What We Now Know Part 3

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

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

By inertiatek at 2009-04-19

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

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

[Marcoz]

New circuit

Hi Guy's
Here is my new circuit

Marcoz.

[Aaron]

more to come

Skywatcher,

You're right. Maybe a paid detractor or just incredibly jealous and he wonders when I'll show a comparison of his circuit to Gray's.

Anyway, I'll post details on this later
YouTube - Aaron's Green Plasma Motor in the Dark
It was a fun experiment.

[Electrotek]

My Patent

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

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

[Electrotek]

What We Know Now Part 1 of 5

The capacitor is Parallel to the CSET.



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

[Spokane1]

Capacitors in the CEST Schematics - Purpose???

Mark,

What do you think the purpose is in the tube patent is for checking the difference between the two energy reservoirs? Is this the front and back cap? And why would it matter what the cap behind the inductor is doing if this is what it is referring to and if it is referring to this cap behind the inductor, what does it matter if it is not contributing to the function of motor?

Dear Arron,

The history behind the CEST is really weak. The original device was developed in the 1971 to 1973 time frame. The patent didn't arrive till 1986, a 13 year differance. In 1986 Gray was fully engaged in making bogus equipment to produce film demonstrations and printing "Concept Technology" proposals to sell off shore. He was in sore need of working equipment and documentation to validate his asking price.

According to the technician who was building all the demonstration carts and popping coils at the time states: "Gray didn't even know Ohms Law". I have not found any evidence to dispute this claim. Even Mr. Gray's son Dr. James Gray (who holds a PhD in Mechanical Engineering) says his father never did learn anything aobut electronics and only bantered around the lingo he heard from others.

So, it is hard for me to see how Mr. Gray could have put any of his own technical thought into the 1986 patent. If Mr. Gray were with us today he probably wouldn't have a clue as to what a majority of those components did or were intended to do. I'm sure he had a set of notes, not unlike what John Bedini disclosed, to help him come up with something novel that he could sell for $10 million+ and let the buyer figure out the finer details. (like how it really worked)

The same technician also claims that all the power supplies displayed in the 1986 promotion video are "Gray's Junk".

I believe that the 1986 patent is a shadow of the 1972 device that was important and probably worked, and worked well. The Bedini Notes are probably more accurate, but still lacking detail since they were drawn up after the acual visit(s). I consider both sechematics as being partial and containing some errors. (maybe even a lot of errors)

So, attempting to discuss why Gray did this or included that, is to me, a moot point. He knew that the capacitor stored the energy and that the shunt diode was necessary to pop coils but most likly he didn't know why. You can review the 4th E.V. Gray British patent and get a better idea as to what his limited understanding was of these basic components.

The only way we are going to solve this mystery is by hard experimentation and taking the surviving documents with a huge grain of salt. For now anybodies theories are good. It will be the actual performance that will seperate the interesting speculation from the true working non-classical physics.

Spokane1

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Aaron, please cant you see that electrotek is trying to stall and delay progress in this thread. Move on.
peace love light

[Aaron]

not the same circuit

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

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

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

My power supplies are rectified to produce 100% DC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Electrotek]

The Circuits Are The SAME

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

[Aaron]

nope

This circuit shows the capacitor IN PARALLEL with the CSET.

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

[Electrotek]

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

This circuit shows the capacitor IN PARALLEL with the CSET.

[Aaron]

Mark - energy reservoirs

Mark,

What do you think the purpose is in the tube patent is for checking the difference between the two energy reservoirs? Is this the front and back cap? And why would it matter what the cap behind the inductor is doing if this is what it is referring to and if it is referring to this cap behind the inductor, what does it matter if it is not contributing to the function of motor?