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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Eds design  (Read 93564 times)

Shanti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Re: Eds design
« Reply #75 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 »

Shanti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Re: Eds design
« Reply #76 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.

Spokane1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
Re: Eds design
« Reply #77 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
 

Shanti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Re: Eds design
« Reply #78 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...

Spokane1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
Re: Eds design
« Reply #79 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

forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4076
Re: Eds design
« Reply #80 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...

forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4076
Re: Eds design
« Reply #81 on: August 24, 2010, 08:07:22 PM »
what is the gain from having third electrode ?

FatBird

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1178
Re: Eds design
« Reply #82 on: December 06, 2010, 01:51:40 AM »
What is the value of the Caps?

penno64

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 457
Re: Eds design
« Reply #83 on: December 08, 2010, 10:05:59 PM »
Hi Jerry,

I am trying to follow your circuit.

Are you also providing 110/240 AC into the mot ?

Or is it 12v and the motor and caps and diode hooked into the pri/sec ?

Regards, Penno

XS-NRG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
Re: Eds design
« Reply #84 on: December 23, 2010, 10:19:53 PM »
so where is the resistive elememt?

Shanti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Re: Eds design
« Reply #85 on: May 24, 2014, 09:01:08 PM »
Didn't post here since a long time...

But I stumbled from another project on an idea, which could easily explain the Gray-story, and where the OU is coming from.

First a very short summary as I got the story:

The two friends Marvin Cole and Edwin Gray wanted to make new efficient motors, which were working on the impulse-principle. Up 'til now, nothing OU like.
Cole was the engineer and Gray basically responsible for the marketing.

The principle of impulse-motors is, that you only put very short, but very strong current pulses on the electromagnets, when the coils are in the best position. Like that you get a much higher torque, and can still get to higher rpms than with conventional motors.
The big disadvantage is, that you need much higher voltages and currents, which makes the switching of these currents very complex and costly. Additionally you have to insulate everything quite strongly, due to the high voltages which again is costly and also makes the cooling less efficient.
 
Anway, they made one prototype after the other, which probably were more and more efficient. Then, as it seems, after th 5th prototype a OU effect showed up.
 
Then they made a new series of prototype motors to increase this effect and the power of the motors (EMA series). The second such prototype motor of this "OU-series" with 10hp power was then tested externally by the Crosby institute.
 
In the meantime they were at the 4th prototype (EMA4), which delivered around 30hp.
The actual inventor, engineer and constructor of this motor (Marvin Cole) suddenly didn't wan't to continue anymore and went away.

Much has been speculated, what happened there. Often with a paranoid undertone (especially in OU-communities)
 
But what if Cole suddenly discovered, how the motors really worked and that they werent' really OU?
In the meantime they had many obligations due to made contracts (for they needed money for developing the motors). It could well be, that therefore Cole wanted to get out of it as fast as possible, not to get drawn into a financial bottomless pit or maybe even jail due to possible sueings


That was BTW then exactly what happened to Gray. An investor sued Gray, as he didn't deliver. Due to that all material was confiscated (also the motors). Finally Gray was found guilty for fraud and the motors were shredded. The only leftover piece from Marvin Cole was now gone.
Already at that time as also later it showed that Gray used quite shady methods to get money from investors, which were often not quite legal.

But back to the story, when Cole disappeared, and the motor EMA4 was still there.

Gray was no engineer, so he hired a new enginbeer Mr Hackenberger. There still was a "functional" motor, and as it seems he assigned Hackenberger with the task to find out, how it worked and also to increase its power.
 
Hackenberger now tried to discover, how the motor produced the OU, but he didn't succeed.
The only thing they did know, is that the motor did need oxygen to deliver the OU effect. This has been clearly stated in the technical report from them.
 But they did not know why it needed the oxygen. And how this was related to the OU production.

Air has been constantly pumped through the motor and the commutators for cooling.
Certainly one big problem was the wear on the commuators, which were rather rotating spark gaps.
I personally guess, that Hackenberger once tried to decrease the wear on the commutators by using an inert gas, and not air for cooling, and that this resulted in the OU-effect disappearing.
So that then they got aware, that oxygen was needed.

So they knew oxygen was needed for the OU, but not why. Hack developed several theories, but as it seems they never did find out the principle.
So the story more and more got away from the OU side, although Gray always tried  with the help of the Crosby report to get investors.
But he left nothing else than scorched earth (or cheated investors), as they had no idea, why there was an OU in the late Cole motors.
 

But back to the actual point.

It is known, that for the first prototypes (not OU) he used thyratrons/ignitrons for switching. This is actually quite straight forward, and probably many other engineers also would have taken them at that time, as Power FETs weren't yet available.
But these thyratrons/ignitrons are very expensive and they do not like to be used in a way with many "shots" per second, as they are needed in such an impulse motor.
Therefore they got defective quite fast and had to be replaced (this is a known fact and was a big financial problem for them!)
 
My personal guess is, that Cole therefore switched to a direct commutator (rotating spark gap), for they simply couldn't afford anymore the dramatic thyratron/ignitron wasting.
But then I guess the commutators showed a strong wear.
It could well be, that from that point on, some kind of OU started to appear.

It is more or less known, that the so called "Gray-Tube" (which Bedini saw) was the last "device" that Cole made, before he left. As it seems, the HV-event takes here place in an external device and the commutators in the motor only trigger these events.
This would make sense as in improvement.
In its basic principle IMHO a kind of Trigatron, so a spark triggered spark gap. You only do not have an additional HV to trigger, but you trigger directly the main HV, by a smaller spark which you limit by a resistor, so that not all energy will flow through there. One could also use a capacitor for that, but this would complicate a bit the circuit.

But how can there be any OU developing inside that device?

Here comes my idea, which I got during thinking about another project:

In a spark gap discharge a very big heat is generated, especially at such high currents as in such an impulse motor. This big heat evaporates part of the electrodes and if there's oxygen, it burns the evaporated metal. This combustion heat obviously additionally heats the gap. And this heat obviously also results in an expansion of the gas in the gap (similar to any common combustion engine).

But if you now hold this discharge plasma in the gap non neutral, e.g. by holding both electrodes positive, and if there's a third electrode perpendicular to the spark gap, with a potential so that there's an electric field which pushes positive ions away, you can convert the additional heat to electric energy.

The positive ions get repelled by the perpendicular grid. But the heat expansion (explosion)  pushes them into the direction of this grid.
You basically create a small explosion which pushes the positive ions outside.

That this can work, the outer perpendicular electrode has to have many holes, as this expansion would otherwise be aerodynamically hindered. OTOH due to the gridding of the electrode you need several electrodes. But probably two would already be sufficient, for as soon as the pos ions are in between the first and the second grid they are in a zero field (faraday cup) and therefore get attracted by the second grid (influence attraction). But more grids surely wouldn't be too bad, as then you can make the grids very loose so that the expansion doesn't get hindered a lot.

This would be quite the setup of the Gray Tubes as reported by Bedini. He still saw the original Tubes as made by Cole (after he left):

http://www.keelynet.com/evgray/edgray1.jpg

There surely may be some details in this image, which could be missing or wrong, but the basic setup looked like that. And I strongly believe that this sketch is much closer to the real device than the later patent. Especially that here, the grids are also over the bigger diameter carbon part. This is IMHO important, as otherwise you cannot really use it as a Trigatron.


Again back to the principle:

It's basically the same as with e.g. a Van de Graaff generator. Only that there the charges get transported by a rubber belt against the field to the top capacitor, whereas in this example the charges would be catapulted to the top by an explosion.

So in the same image, you would have in the tube, where usually the belt is running a charged ion cloud at the bottom which gets catapulted to the top against the electric field by an explosion at the bottom.
Also in this example it would be obvious that you would need some holes at the top of the tube, otherwise the cloud would be hindered at its expansion.

So the additional energy would actually come from burning the electrodes. You would also see this optically. E.g. if you burn copper, the spark will become green-blue. That's the typical color for burning copper and is used widely to color fireworks.

It is also known, that the motors never did run for a long time before something went defective. Maybe this was exactly the reason. The wear, due to burning of the copper, was so extreme, that the motor couldn't run for extended periods.
Also the Crosby report tests, which verified the OU only run for 21 mins.

At least it would easily explain, why oxygen was needed for the OU effect to take place.

In the same context:
Actually burning metal for energy generation is not that far off.
E.g. the PSI made a study for the swiss national energy department about using aluminium for home heating instead of oil, or gas. As it seems, this would work very good. The energy density is quite good and in its raw form it does not burn and is not hazardous and can easily be transported.
The resulting aluminium-oxide can easily be collected and then later again be converted to aluminium with the help of electric energy.

Also the NASA made tests with a water-aluminium-suspension as a rocket fuel. There one did put tiny aluminium particles inside the water. The big advantage is, that this water suspension is much easier to handle than pure aluminium (as it is liquid).
So one could even make a demo for a "water"-motor, where one shows that one just burns water, which you can also drink as a proof.
If the spark is strong enough, such a suspension could also be used as a direct combustion engine gaz replacement in an Otto-motor.

BTW: Schauberger also used aluminium in his Klimator (room heating unit). There as a fuel he used a disc of aluminium together with pressed wood chips and some other stuff (like Selen).
But Schauberger burnt this stuff "cold" in his machine. This he did by ionizing the air, so that the oxygen got so reactive, that it oxidized the fuel even at low temperatures. I personally guess the wood chips were necessary so that the aluminium wasn't there as a whole bloc, as this way it probably would have been harder to burn.
The wood chips would slowly burn away and so piece by piece reveal some aluminium.

From this POV also the non neutral positive plasma in a gray-tube could consist in a big part of O+ ions. These are extremely aggressive and could drastically increase the "burning" of the electrodes and by that the additional energy release, similar like in the Schauberger Klimator.
 
« Last Edit: May 25, 2014, 12:09:03 AM by Shanti »