Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Plug Heater

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83360
  • *Latest: kibby27

  • *Total Posts: 508868
  • *Total Topics: 15176
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 8
  • *Guests: 11
  • *Total: 19

Author Topic: Eds design  (Read 71230 times)

Offline Spokane1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Eds design
« Reply #75 on: August 28, 2008, 05:01:45 PM »
Dear forest,

I believe that there are vacuum tube structures that do have the ability to deliver some OU output - but I doubt that E.V.Gray and company did it that way. At least from a historical analysis.

The CSET has never been shown to produce any measurable OU during its two decades of existence. The only tested E.V.Gray motor that demonstrated the huge OU performance didn't have CSET's (The EMA2) and all of the "Black Box" circuits didn't have CSET's either.

All of the proposed ideas for energy tubes that I have seen from the free energy community require a vacuum. The only real CSET's in existence that I know of couldn't support a vacuum.

If you find energy vacuum tubes interesing then study Moray and/or Farnsworth. Or better yet study what Gary Magratten has done. He has probably pushed the CSET technology to its zenith and had a little funding to help out.

Richard Hackenburger (Gray's Engineer from 1973 - 1979) claims it was the spark gaps in the motor reacting with Oxygen. This is hardly the description of a vacuum condition. In fact they had to blow fresh air into the motor to keep the NO2 level down.

This is just my personal opinion for this month.

Spokane1

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Eds design
« Reply #75 on: August 28, 2008, 05:01:45 PM »

Offline forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3848
Re: Eds design
« Reply #76 on: August 28, 2008, 10:02:07 PM »
TV set tube ? accelerated electrons ?

Offline Spokane1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Eds design
« Reply #77 on: August 30, 2008, 11:49:13 PM »
Dear forest,

To my classical knowledge free electrons can only be accelerated effectively in high vacuums (such as CRT's, vacuum power tubes, x-ray tubes, atom smashers, etc.). Free electrons in open air arcs is a far differnet kind of physics. There you have all the other mixture of hot ions to deal with. Once the free electrons pick up some velocity they run into another particle where there is a collision and yet another redistribution of the energy. The electrons do make it to the receiving electrode with a little more energy then when they started, but it is far less that what they could achieved if they were traveling in a high vacuum with out a collision every 30 nS.

Spokane1

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Eds design
« Reply #77 on: August 30, 2008, 11:49:13 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Shanti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 204
Re: Eds design
« Reply #78 on: September 01, 2008, 07:58:57 PM »
Quote
The only tested E.V.Gray motor that demonstrated the huge OU performance didn't have CSET's (The EMA2) and all of the "Black Box" circuits didn't have CSET's either.

Is this known? For couldn't a CSET have been in one of the black boxes?

Quote
The only real CSET's in existence that I know of couldn't support a vacuum.
Do you mean, the Promo Vid CSET and the CSETs of the EMA6-Presentation?
I personally would guess they are both fake, and not the real CSETs... (but that's just MHO)

Quote
"Besides this way it is possible to use pulsed mode and
switch-off the primary energy source before the
emission electrons will reach the anode, Fig.2. In this
case there is not the conductivity current between
anode and cathode and the primary source is not
discharging during its work.

Well OK, didn't read the PDF. But as far as I see it, the electrodes mustn't be isolated in this layout, and then there will surely be drawn some current from the source, to replace the radiated electrons.

Quote
If you have studied the fine details of the Tesla table top oscillators, especially the lecture to the New York Academy of Science in 1897 you will find a strange reference about how the distance and orientation of the storage capacitor had to be to the secondary of the output transformer. From my classical training this association serves no useful function at all, but if Dr. Tesla was referring to some non-disclosed non-classical process then we might have a better understanding as to what the FFF might really be for.

Well Tesla mentioned many times, why the distances in his devices were so crucial: To improve the developed power by a very great amount, he created standing waves on the electric lines. He also said, that even a conventional Tesla transformer would be exceptionally better if you exactly size it, so that a standing wave can develop. Most hobby-Tesla-Transformer builders are already happy, when they can get the primary and secondary perfectly in resonance. But to get them in resonance and at the same time build standing waves in the cables is extremely difficult to build. But Tesla surely mastered this art.
He also made some nice demonstartions with this. E.g. he created a standing wave in a copper bar. And now when you connected the lamp at one place, it light (amplitude point of standing wave), when you connected it at another place it remained dark (wave knot point).


Offline forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3848
Re: Eds design
« Reply #79 on: September 01, 2008, 09:08:04 PM »
Is this known? For couldn't a CSET have been in one of the black boxes?
Do you mean, the Promo Vid CSET and the CSETs of the EMA6-Presentation?
I personally would guess they are both fake, and not the real CSETs... (but that's just MHO)

Well OK, didn't read the PDF. But as far as I see it, the electrodes mustn't be isolated in this layout, and then there will surely be drawn some current from the source, to replace the radiated electrons.

As far as I know this is not needed. This is a beauty of secondary emmision.But ,y knowledge of vacuum tubes is limited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_emission

Seems that we lost very valuable electrical parts when solid state come up. The last oportunity is ending know with all those LCD forced monitors and TV sets.I feel like somebody planed this... Who does know today details about secondary emmision ? What if we put such a source in positive feedback loop powered by sharp gradient unipolar impulses ?


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Eds design
« Reply #79 on: September 01, 2008, 09:08:04 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Shanti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 204
Re: Eds design
« Reply #80 on: September 01, 2008, 11:26:35 PM »
Quote
As far as I know this is not needed. This is a beauty of secondary emmision

Sure I know this principle, the Farnsworth Mulitpactor works like that. But you only smash out electrons out of the electrode. But somehow you again have to replace these electrons, otherwise the potential of the electrode will rise, and soon no more secondary emissions will happen, or the electrons will immediately be swallowed up again by the electrode. And I think this schema is a bit odd for this. But OK, maybe it could work, but only if all the switches were timed correctly, and this makes this design far more complicated than necessary, for a Farnsworth Multipactor does this much simpler without any switching need just with a simple LC-oscillation circuit...
So to me, this is the same principle, but in a much more unnecessary complicated version.
And as I said, even if you time it correctly, you will still need some current from the source in this arrangement, although it may be little.

Offline Shanti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 204
Re: Eds design
« Reply #81 on: September 02, 2008, 04:30:46 PM »
Quote
All of the proposed ideas for energy tubes that I have seen from the free energy community require a vacuum. The only real CSET's in existence that I know of couldn't support a vacuum.

What about the story, that the real CSETs were made out of glass and always transported separately in a suitcase (with a gun in it)? Who said this?
If it would be true, it could very well be, that these glass-CSETs had a vacuum.

And how strong the vacuum would have to be depends on the Electric field in the tube: The kinetic acceleration potential between collisions with "air"-molecules has to be higher than the ionisation potential of the molecule. Like that you could get an electron avalanche effect.
When I got some time, I will calculate it...

Addition:
OK, I now calculated it roughly:
* 1st ionization potential of Nitrogen 14eV (2nd 29.6eV). Air is mainly nitrogen and oxygen, BTW oxygen has almost the same ionization potentials, so I will calculate only with nitrogen.
* Lets assume a Voltage of 5kV and a Grid spacing of 1cm.
* How many collisions possible in this grid space, so that electrons get accelerated enough to cause ionization. -> 357 (1st ionization potenital) or 114.7 (for 1st and 2nd).
* What distance will an electron need for this accelleration: 28um (1st) or 87um (1st and 2nd)
* What pressure would be needed, so that the mean flight path would allow this? About 3mbar (1st) or 1mbar (2nd). Sure this still counts to the "Grobvakuum" (german, don't know this in english), but from a construction point of view this is already a vacuum.

Again: This is just a rough calculation. There would be quite some other points needed to be calculated. But anyway it should about tell in which size the vacuum would have to be for this size of tube at this voltage.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2008, 04:56:55 PM by Shanti »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Eds design
« Reply #81 on: September 02, 2008, 04:30:46 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Shanti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 204
Re: Eds design
« Reply #82 on: September 04, 2008, 01:56:37 PM »
Ah, just recognized, that I made an error. The Mean Free Path calculated were for gas molecules in air, before colliding with each other.
The Mean Free Path for Electrons is bigger. Unfortunately I couldn't find a table indicating the MFP of electrons in air in respect to pressure. But in one scientific paper I found the MFP for electrons at least in air at ambient pressure. This is 10e-5m=10um.
Well as we saw before, 28um would be needed at least for functioning. So if one would decrease the spacing to 3mm or increase the voltage to 15kv it should work even at ambient pressure!
But stop! One thing we didn't used yet. Namely, that the condenser built by the central anode and the grid cathodes is asymmetric. This actually means, that the electric field increases strongly toward the center. So it would be very probable that it still will work even with 5kV at 1cm spacing...
So this secondary electron avalanche effect could happen even at ambient pressure, and at about the indicated measures and voltages. I think this is quite interesting.
On the other hand, the needed vacuum for increasing the distance to 30um would be so easy attainable, that most surely even a custom vacuum cleaner would suffice to get to this vacuum level.

Offline Spokane1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Eds design
« Reply #83 on: September 05, 2008, 05:14:31 AM »
Dear Shanti,

The story about the glass CSET's and the gun came from Dr. Peter Lindemann in a conversation over lunch about 4 years ago. I haven't pressed him for the details since. Apparently Peter lived in the LA area in the early 70's and had contact with many people in the Free energy Community at the time. This included Bruce De Palma, Ed Skilling, and the editors at the Borderlands. I have no doubt that he heard this story from someone in his circle of friends. Even Peter doesn't put a whole lot of stock into this story since there has been no additional verification of it since. Therefore he didn't mention it in his book - but I still think its a great story.

For the sake of speculation, if this story is true as quoted, then we can draw some conclusions from what history we do know.

1. Mr. Gray didn't develop or build these devices himself. They were probably fabricated from a design that came from Marvin Cole.

2. Mr. Gray certainly didn't have the experience or technical skills to understand the advanced processes you are proposing [i.e. electron avalanch, MPF, eV, e.t.c.] He obviously knew these devices were important and guarded them accordingly.

3. Mr. Gray certainly may have had some knowledge as to how they were built and a general idea of their internal construction.

4. When Mr. Cole died that was the end of the supply. Perhaps the detailed plans and specifications were lost as well if this information was ever documented.

5. Perhaps this was the component that was failing in the EMA4-E2 motor? If so that explains why the motor wasn't demonstrated from mid 1973 to July 1974 when it was confiscated by the LA DA. We don't know if these proposed tubes were in the EMA4-E2 when it was run through the metal shredder. I suspect they were if they existed.

6. Mr. Gray and his hired Engineer (and several technicians after that) were unable to reproduce what ever "Magic" these tubes might have had.

7. What we have in the patents (written up 13 years later) are a collection of partial memories of a fantastic device as recalled by a nontechnical person with no knowledge of classical high energy particle physics.

8. If these CSET's were made of glass then I would assume they also were intended to operate in a partial vacuum or some other controlled atmosphere.

9. I would assume that the services of a custom Neon Shop would have been contracted to do this work. I'm sure that the LA area could have provided just such specialized services back then when Neon Signs were still affordable.

If you can come up with a working theory on how such a device might produce some energy amplification then more power to you. The field is still wide open. Be sure to check out Gary Magratten's work. No sense "reinventing the wheel" if someone else has already done a lot of work in this area.

Spokane1
 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Eds design
« Reply #83 on: September 05, 2008, 05:14:31 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Shanti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 204
Re: Eds design
« Reply #84 on: September 05, 2008, 01:27:01 PM »
Thank you really very much!
It's really priceless to have someone here, who has such a profound knowledge on this topic!

About Gary: I just read some of his theory here: http://www.angelfire.com/ak5/energy21/grayreproduction2.htm

But some of this doesn't really make sense. Why should the photon impact on the copper plates generate negative voltage?
If the photon energy is high enough surely photo effect would take place, but this would knock out electrons, and therefore electrons would be knocked out of the copper. Surely then voltage would be developed, current would flow. But not as explained from Gary. He draws and explains, that the electrons would then wander out of the grid through the cable. This doesn't make sense...

Offline Spokane1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Eds design
« Reply #85 on: September 06, 2008, 04:04:13 AM »
Dear Shanti,

I certainly agree with your first run analysis. Gary kindly sent me a 32 page report on this subject. It looks like he took a lot of time to put this manuscript together. There was suppose to be a second report that detailed the hardware that that made application of the many equations he had listed. So far I haven't seen the second report yet. But when I do I shall study them side by side. It is very hard for me to understand theory without working hardward to demonstrate the principles involved. That is why I had such a hard time with Calculus III. (Took it over three times)

If you are interested in my unsolicited opinion I believe that our present classical understanding of particle physics will not point to the kind of breakthrough we are looking for. For example, did classical particle theory point to the existence of "charge clusters" as explored by Ken Shoulder's or super conducting "charge cluster micro tubes" as discovered by Mark Golds? I doubt it, not even close. These advancements were experimentally observed - then a theory was developed to explain (partially) what might be going on. I maintain that this will be the case as we search for a hardware setup that will emulate Dr. Tesla's or Marvin Cole's work.

This is why I collect as much historical information as I can. There is another researcher a Mr. Tad Johnson who explored a Gray CSET design in 2004 using a Marx generator to excite it. He claimed he was getting more heat from his load resistor than what his 12 KV switching power supply could deliver (12 watts). He then had a falling out with his lover at the time and to my knowledge he hasn't gone back to working to that project since. I don't know if he found some sort of error in his initial measurements or had hit upon something important and is keeping all his follow up research proprietary. I believe that Patrick Kelly has a copy of Tad's 2004 work on his web site.

Spokane1

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Eds design
« Reply #85 on: September 06, 2008, 04:04:13 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3848
Re: Eds design
« Reply #86 on: September 09, 2008, 10:40:12 PM »
Please read my reply here : http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1310.msg125611.html#msg125611

it is strongly related...

Offline Jerry Volland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
Re: Eds design
« Reply #87 on: August 15, 2010, 01:59:56 AM »
Here's the link to my Puff Spark circuit:

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

I posted this in message #26 of this thread.

I've previously stated on another forum that the bottom capacitor, in series with the diode, isn't needed for the effect:

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

With the single capacitor I can get some pretty good repulsion
between two MOT secondaries placed into the circuit in series with the defibrillator inductor, or with the MOT's only.

Here's my Ed Gray Test Circuit, with one capacitor, side by side with Gray's circuit, with similar elements circled:
« Last Edit: August 15, 2010, 02:20:38 AM by Jerry Volland »

Offline Jerry Volland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
Re: Eds design
« Reply #88 on: August 15, 2010, 04:11:12 AM »
This circuit is an Arc Switch.  I've studied it in relation to Gray's technology to see if the CSET is just a switch, rather than an Electrical Conversion Tube as stated in the patent.

The traditional triggered spark gap has two electrodes connected to a discharge circuit, with a third electrode positioned between them, or off to the side.  This third electrode, operating at a higher voltage, ionizes the gap, producing a breakdown which enables the circuit to discharge.

My circuit does not use a higher trigger voltage.  When Gray's switch 26 (not shown) closes the primary circuit including the two electrodes which are furtherest apart, an arc forms between these two points.  This arc acts as a switch to discharge the capacitor.  This is possible because the third electrode is close enough to the main arc that the electron sheath around this arc provides a conductive path for the capacitor's charge.  This third electrode is spaced back from its adjacent electrode just far enough that the capacitor's arc will not form without the primary arc being present first.  So the discharge path is first across the wider gap, then the third electrode discharges across the more narrow gap - to the first arc, not one of the two primary electrodes.

As part of the operation the capacitor can also charge through the main arc.  This doesn't involve the third electrode arcing to one of the others, the secondary charging arc is to the first arc itself.  Without a switch the capacitor will then discharge back through the "switch leg" arc, once it is charged to a certain level.  (.707 times its full potential.)  However, if a switch is used to interrupt the primary arc, the capacitor will discharge when that arc is restored, no matter how little charge is on the capacitor.

This discharging of the capacitor with a partial charge is in line with what Gray specifies in the patent, in that increasing the dwell of the switch will allow a stronger charge to develop on the capacitor.  This charge is then switched into discharge mode when the interrupter restores the primary arc.  With the next close of the interrupter switch, the charge/discharge cycle repeats.

Offline Jerry Volland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
Re: Eds design
« Reply #89 on: August 24, 2010, 07:22:21 PM »
I've published a number of circuits which are variations of my basic original Arc Switch diagram.  Most of these circuits only used one capacitor and were presented in the standard circuit format, rather than with the connections routed to show the similarity to Gray's schematic.  For instance, the top two circuits in the picture below are electrically equivalent - minus the capacitor which has been stated as not needed (and seldom used).  Usually when I present a variation of my circuit it's to illustrate an effect I've discovered which can be produced with the Arc Switch.  It only takes two more obvious variations to show how the CSET works.

 

OneLink