Gray Tube Replication

[Aaron]

still no go

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

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

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

Kind Regards

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

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

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

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



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


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


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

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

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

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

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



File:Polarized capacitor symbol.svg - Wikimedia Commons

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

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



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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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






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

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


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

appreciate you retracting your FALSE ACCUSATION and move on.


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

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

THAT I AM INFRINGING ON HIS COPYRIGHT.



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


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


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



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



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



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



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



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

the meaning is.

[Electrotek]

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

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

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

Kind Regards

[Electrotek]

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

How is this untrue?

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

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

Don't you even read what I say?

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

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

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

Kind Regards

[Aaron]

different circuit still...

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

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

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

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

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

How is this untrue?



This is crap?

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

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

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



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

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

[Aaron]

Gray tube diagram

Hey men ive also designed a circuit that lookes just like the ones you guys are talking about.
But it is also slightly diffrent.
Anyway, I am not going to argue about who's who's because i think it's great to compare the work from one person to another

If somebody doesn't want others to use their circuit, the answer is quite simple... just don't post it

Marcoz

Marcoz,

Your circuit contains the bare basic concept.

Here is what I posted back in January. The bottom diagram in this image is what Electrotek posted without posting the explanation of what this is...an explanation of one possibility of how the Gray tube works.



What I'm showing here is EXACTLY what was shown in this video:
YouTube - Here's how the Gray Tube works

The TOP diagram shows how the cap behind the inductor not only can but does get charged if the front side cap is not too big or too empty to suck up all the charging potential. If it is not too big or too empty, the HV output from the power supply will skip across the potential in the cap - AND if the LV rod is not switched on, it will spark across from the HV rod TOWARDS the grid to ground and the cap charges behind the inductor.

When the LV rod is switched on, the HV source and charge in the cap behind the inductor collide and are forced to ground at the LV rod, which causes the green plasma effect, the cap behind the inductor discharges quickly and the coil charges strongly.

This is still EXACTLY the Gray tube schematic, which has nothing to do with anyone else's circuit...the ONLY difference in the bottom diagram is that there is no diode on the LV rod. The differences are completely obvious.

[Spokane1]

Automotive Sparkplugs as Safety Overvoltage Devices

please help me can any one tell me
what is safety gap ?????

what it does ????

can i use the spark plug ????

Dear pranav2010,

It appears that Marvin Cole use at least 2 and maybe 4 large large sparkplugs for just such a purpose. They appear in a back view (B&W) of the EMA4-E1 motor taken prior to 1973. These "safety" spark gaps are also mentioned in the Hackenburger Technical Report and shown in his block diagram.

Spokane1

[pranav2010]

egray tube safety gap

please help me can any one tell me
what is safety gap ?????

what it does ????

can i use the spark plug ????

[Electrotek]

[QUOTE=Aaron;58504]

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

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

Also, my power supply is only physically connected to the caps negative and your power supply is physically connected to the negative of one cap and positive of another.

The two differences I lay out above are undeniable.

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

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

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

[Marcoz]

I don't mind.

Hey men ive also designed a circuit that lookes just like the ones you guys are talking about.
But it is also slightly diffrent.
Anyway, I am not going to argue about who's who's because i think it's great to compare the work from one person to another

If somebody doesn't want others to use their circuit, the answer is quite simple... just don't post it

Marcoz

[Aaron]

still not the same

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SkyWatcher]

Hi electrotek, but from my view this country U.S. has fallen some time ago due to forces from within, mainly. You can think what you will though and I hope it works for you.

[Electrotek]

Circuit Comparison

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?

[Electrotek]

Hi folks, I must say a few words here as to the so called ownership of ideas as though any one human being owns an idea. This is one of the reasons the world has become so despotic and that includes anything from owning land to radio waves, etc., etc..
I hope you folks take what I am saying from a higher perspective and not one of survival which has been engineered to be that way in this world. Sharing, which is what open source, pay it forward and other methods represent are trying to steer us away from this fake lack game. I do respect your choice if you think my ideas, which are nothing new, are not workable in your perceived world. But in my view it is the only true survival.
peace love light

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.

[Electrotek]

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!

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.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, I must say a few words here as to the so called ownership of ideas as though any one human being owns an idea. This is one of the reasons the world has become so despotic and that includes anything from owning land to radio waves, etc., etc..
I hope you folks take what I am saying from a higher perspective and not one of survival which has been engineered to be that way in this world. Sharing, which is what open source, pay it forward and other methods represent are trying to steer us away from this fake lack game. I do respect your choice if you think my ideas, which are nothing new, are not workable in your perceived world. But in my view it is the only true survival.
peace love light