Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: Thaelin on April 13, 2005, 04:32:35 AM

Title: Eds design
Post by: Thaelin on April 13, 2005, 04:32:35 AM
   Well guess since I ask for this forum to be created I should be the one to start it out.

   Now that the motors that ev gray was trying to market have been located and are
systematicly being dismantled and measured and catalouged, does anyone here think
that his design had merit?  The fact that he was ruined with many people behind him
makes me wonder if they worked as stated. I know that all of the people who gave him
finacial backing refused to file any kind of charges against him, most willing to give more.
Then he was found dead of a heart attack soon later.

    From what I have seen of the design, I feel it had merit. Would love to hear others on this.

Sugra
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: dracozny on April 13, 2005, 10:01:20 PM
I beleive his work had merit and when an inventor is killed on the brink of discovery well he must have been on to something.
I am continuing work on his tube with dramaticly radical concepts and hope to achieve spectacular results.

of course Ed Gray and Nikola Tesla are my heroes I just hope I dont end up with their fate
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Thaelin on April 14, 2005, 01:16:41 AM
   Agreed on that. I just wish I could get my hands on one of the motors for an
afternoon and see just what it looked like. Pictures are one thing, but hands
on makes the difference.
   With the japanese guy about to release the electric scooter that will go for
500 miles on 4 car batteries. I think this guy may well have cracked the OU
envelope but as its said on the write up. He may be holding back to not shock
the system too hard and milk the cash cow a bit first. Its sure he is using the
same idea tho. The RF kick back seems to be where the OU is going to pronounce
its self.  My little scooter will soon tell. I just received my 8 neo mags for the
next test. I am just having a fit with the  hall effect triggering the transistors.

   Just how many windings do you have to have to fire a 3055 anyhow, any idea?
I use reeds for the test but they go bad very quickly. At 6800 pulses per minute
it doesn't take long at all.

sugra
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Bruce A. Perreault on April 14, 2005, 09:49:07 PM
The key to the conversion tube is with T. H. Moray's design.

                       -B.A. Perreault
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: rlm555339 on April 15, 2005, 12:09:30 AM
? ?
? ?Just how many windings do you have to have to fire a 3055 anyhow, any idea?

sugra


- - - enough to generate at least 0.7 volts.  Mr. Faraday's formula will do that for you if you know the basic values.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: sevenmead on May 03, 2005, 09:03:30 PM
I believe Ed's motor worked.  He was on the scene long enough to indicate this.  I think alot of his problems came from the lack of knowledge as to how his machine actually worked.  But this was also a blessing.  Stating that his motor was actually a high efficiency design (99% efficiant)  was probably what enabled him to get a patent.  If he has stated his motor ran off the cosmos, he would have been denied. 

The key here (opinion) is in the power supply.  I got the feeling the motor was just designed to run off the specific pulse signature produced by Ed's power supply.  There fore, it is of little importants until the power supply is developed. 

Has anyone else noticed the similarities between the Ed Gray power supply, Tesla's magnifying transmitter, Moray's device.  Tesla's is the most simple becuase he was broadcasting the radiant energy and there wasn't much discussion about recieving it.  Ed's design takes this to a new level by including the recieving protion in his design so effectively he was only broadcasting his radiant energy across his tube.  The Moray design is the best in my opinion.  He has all the components that appear in Tesla and Gray's designs but with the added complexity that comes with making his circuit occilate instead just pulsed DC.  I think the confusion comes from Moray's "fission material" which is probably helpful and makes the circuit simpler, but I believe a hybrid between the three can be made with out the need for the "detector" substance.

any thoughts?
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: tpslsmn on May 19, 2005, 04:31:04 AM
THE MORE I STUDY,THE MORE SIMILARITIES I SEE IN ALL THE ABOVE DEVICES- INCLUDING FLOYD SWEET. COLD ELECTRICITY, ARGONNE, NEGETIVE ENERGY ALL
SEEM TO BE THE 'TRUE PRODUCT'  OF OVERUNITY DEVICES. I ALSO BELIEVE ED'S
MOTOR WORKED. THERE ALSO SEEMS TO BE A COMMON PROBLEM WITH CONSISTENCY OF PERFORMANCE IN MOST OF THESE DEVICES.
 HOW DO YOU MEASURE COLD ELECTRICITY OR NEGETIVE ENERGY? IT HAS TO COME
FROM SOMEWHERE. OU DEVICES MUST CREATE AN IMBALANCE TO WORK. IF YOU WERE SURROUNDED BY OU DEVICES, WOULD YOU FEEL ENERGY BEING DRAWN FROM
YOU? THE MORE I THINK ABOUT, IT SEEMS ACHEIVING 'PLAIN UNITY' WOULD BE A
GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENT. THERE IS SO MUCH FREE POWER IN THE SUN ALREADY.
      OK, I'LL GET OFF MY SOAP BOX.    HOWEVER... LET'S ALL GET OFF THE GRID!

               - MARK
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: jwrigley on May 25, 2005, 01:58:17 AM
Hi Mark,

   the skeptic in all of us comes out...and it should. But I believe as you that there are common threads between many of the articles on the web and books to be purchased. If you have not read Moray King's lastest work regarding potential ZPE harnessing, I would suggest you do. Also Peter Lindemann's book, "the sectrets of cold electricity." Lately, I have read Bruce A. Perreault's book as well, "Harnessing Cosmic Energy." I've compiled a little reference library which I constantly refer to. Also books on theory can be useful as well, Milo Wolff, "Exploring the Unknown universe." What I've tried to do is gather in as much information as possible, reread, and cross-reference, without becoming to skeptical at first. A basic understanding of presently established scientific theory (I believe) is a must. It's the underpinnings of these theory's that seem to be in question (for example. what is a photon?). These are not just philosophical questions but may have real world applications. Most of all though, is not to go spouting theory until you have done your own homework and experimentation. This, in my humble opinion, is how best not to waste other people's time.

-John   
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: iald on June 21, 2005, 03:42:37 PM
Hi Guy's

Pls check if there we can get idea at web ismaelaviso.com a motor running with 0.53amps only for 2ho & 2000rpm, somebody told me that is EV GRAY version, 9 stator and 3 rotor coils. The power supply was a FYMEGM energy, do you know about this ? This is the first time i saw a video motor running with less amps. How about Lutec, Muller, Newman etc.. do you know if they have this kind of footage of their motor ? I want to build one but i  dont know where to start and  i dont know where i will get the idea.

iald

Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: sevenmead on July 13, 2005, 10:34:17 AM
I get the feeling the whole point in Cold electricity is ZERO amps.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: F_Brown on September 21, 2005, 07:57:38 AM
The uniqueness of Edwin Gray's design is based on two major principles:?

Einstein's photo-electric effect, and Tesla's radiant energy collector.

Everything else relates directly to pulse motors matters.

Anyway, has anybody else done actual research with quantitative results in this direction?

Best regards,

F. Brown
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: ewitte on November 08, 2005, 10:27:51 PM
I get the feeling the whole point in Cold electricity is ZERO amps.

I've been studing a design based on his ideas.  Actually your not too far from it.  The design runs at 1000v and 25ma.  IMO from reading off of it you can't really directly pull too much energy out.  Maybe enough to keep the battery charged or at least running for a few days/weeks.  But it runs about 2550 of RPM with very high torque.  It wouldn't be that hard to indirectly get power from it.  I'm modifying the design with a slightly longer shaft and putting a windmill alternator at the back end.  The windmill alternator will be whats used for power.

Eric
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: gn0stik on April 29, 2006, 07:40:53 PM
I get the feeling the whole point in Cold electricity is ZERO amps.

What would be the point of that? Without current all you have is potential. 0A = 0W since A(V)=W. Cold electricity exists all over the place. The second you introduce potential to a circuit you have current. Ever zap a doorknob with your finger? That's thousands of volts discharing right there, but the Amps are in a the ma range so it does nothing. The total power is very low. But it's a perfect example of potential building up with no place to go ( 0A ), until it has a circuit. You could do more damage with low voltage and say 5 amps. Converting "cold electricity" to a higher amp lower voltage is where we can get something that is capapble of doing work. Either that or developing a motor that can run on very low amps and can produce work capable powering more than a toy.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: fwalenda on May 24, 2006, 07:07:42 PM
in eds early experiments he did not use a motor.the circit is the the key.you can power your whole house on just the circit.he would use a car battery to charge a cap to 3000 volts then would create a spark across a spark gap with a timming or control circit which goes back to the neg of the battery.(no free energy here).near the spark gap were just two peices of copper tubing which picked up the raidient event or as found by tesla the spark actually some how manufactures electrons.this is how he charged his battery and ran his motor nothing special about the motor.sorry for this very short explination but this is the jest of it.all ed did was copy teslas work.when he worked at nasa he worked with teslas assittant.this is probobly where he got his info from or the idea.tesla had a peirce arrow(car) running with this circit and an electric motor(80 hp).cant type that well as everyone now knows,so i will leave you peeps with some reading material on the subject.the free energy secrets of cold electricity by peter lindemann.this guy sells a book and video,with som other good books on his web site like the secrets of cold war tecnology all required reading if you peeps want to build the circit and or motor.i would attach a pdf of the book but im on dial up and its 20 or so megs.hope this helps you guys and girls.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: mikestocks2006 on May 30, 2006, 09:56:09 PM
in eds early experiments he did not use a motor.the circit is the the key.you can power your whole house on just the circit.he would use a car battery to charge a cap to 3000 volts then would create a spark across a spark gap with a timming or control circit which goes back to the neg of the battery.(no free energy here).near the spark gap were just two peices of copper tubing which picked up the raidient event or as found by tesla the spark actually some how manufactures electrons.this is how he charged his battery and ran his motor nothing special about the motor.sorry for this very short explination but this is the jest of it.all ed did was copy teslas work.when he worked at nasa he worked with teslas assittant.this is probobly where he got his info from or the idea.tesla had a peirce arrow(car) running with this circit and an electric motor(80 hp).cant type that well as everyone now knows,so i will leave you peeps with some reading material on the subject.the free energy secrets of cold electricity by peter lindemann.this guy sells a book and video,with som other good books on his web site like the secrets of cold war tecnology all required reading if you peeps want to build the circit and or motor.i would attach a pdf of the book but im on dial up and its 20 or so megs.hope this helps you guys and girls.

From the research I've done on this so far, I'll tend to agree with fwalenda.
Following the Tesla theories and observations, the motor in it self is secondary. The true additional energy input from the radiant event happens in that converter circuit, the one that has the sparkgap. The Key seems to be the ultra fast interruption of the spark discharge. That causes the radiant energy to be radiated from the high voltage rod and captured by the surrounding rods or collectors.

Now that you mentioned Peter Lindemann, there was a Free Energy Conference back in 2000 or 2001? Where Lindermann and Wooten participated.
I think Mr. Norman Wooten had acquired earlier some of Gray's motors and he was setting up a  machine shop to manufacture more. If I recall correctly some foreign investors were funding the facility and machining equipment. I haven't really found anything since. Have they made any? do they perform as claimed? It's been 5 years so I'd expect at least some basic production units to be available. If anyone has any more info please do post.

Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: gn0stik on July 01, 2006, 06:47:31 PM
Here you go, here's the circuit diagram, the conversion element diagram, and the patents for said devices. These are the original patent and the two subsequent patents he received while working with the government. Check out that video on google video, just look up p.lindemann, or free energy secrets of cold electricity.



Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: c0mster on July 11, 2006, 06:47:07 AM
I thought I would post a link to this video and image from my lab.
Tesla is right, the capacitor does make a difference in the longitudal waves down the coil from the violent blast. The better I can get the cap to charge and release creating a bigger snap the better the strobe light lights. Here is an image of the setup http://cmnet.ca/projects/maggap.jpg. Here is a video applying violent shocks to 6 raps of house wire. The right side coil is connected to the strobe light. http://cmnet.ca/projects/hvt1.avi.

Camster     
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: c0mster on July 11, 2006, 06:49:19 AM
I thought I would post a link to this video and image from my lab.
Tesla is right, the capacitor does make a difference in the longitudal waves down the coil from the violent blast. The better I can get the cap to charge and release creating a bigger snap the better the strobe light lights. Here is an image of the setup http://cmnet.ca/projects/maggap.jpg. Here is a video applying violent shocks to 6 raps of house wire. The right side coil is connected to the strobe light. http://cmnet.ca/projects/hvt1.avi.

Camster    


When I test the circuit without a capacitor, the spark gap will jump the full distance of the electrodes when the electrodes are at their widest. The strobe light will not light and using a milliamp meter on a separate coil, which is held close to the base of the heavy coil, shows 0 ma. With 2 .05 microfarad 1kv cap in series from a 1940Â’s radio, the distance between the electrodes has to be about 1-2 mm to get a white spark. The strobe light lights and the amp meter shows .05 ma. As well I used a coil connected to my oscilloscope, placed at 90 deg to the setup coil and could read a 9-10 volt ac wave. I believe with this experiment I may understand what Peter Lindermann described in his presentation with regards to some of TeslaÂ’s work in conduction with Hertz. “Slapping the water with a hand.” One other note: The positive side of the thick coil showed much less to no action but the negitive side is where I took the above values. Disconnecting one wire from the strobe light, I could get a 3mm spark that would seem to go into wood, the ends of capacitors  and the end of my finger from that wire with out any shocking affect <such fun :)>.  So perhaps the higher readings with the capacitor was do to the capacitor being a capacitor and holding back until it has some amps behind it sending more amps into the main coil and producing a higher voltage to light the strobe. ???? The pulses were timmed the same.  

Camster

Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: fcpeace17 on October 16, 2006, 03:52:30 PM
Im new to this community, i have been over on physics forum for awhile. i dont know why this thread died but i find your experimental video and idea very interesting. what exactly is that set up you have, from the picutre i have a gard time telling. i looks as though you have some sort of coil with 5 windings comeing from the capacitors going to a turbe of some sort. Have you tried it with capacitors with a higher micro ferit rating? When Dr. Lindeminn says that the abrupt \discharges must be less than 100 micro seconds does he mean less frequent than 100 micro seconds. I feel as though all that are interested in harnessing these truly astonishing electro radiant events should come with me to start in a strategic direction to figure out this circuit along with telsa's magnifying transmitter, and how the two coorilate. If you have not watched the peter a lindeminn. (sp.) video on google video, i HIGHLY suggest you watch it or read the book before joining the discussion, for the insight it provides is remarkable. Evan
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: fcpeace17 on October 16, 2006, 03:57:06 PM
also, did ed gray's circuit produce ozone?
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Jerry Volland on November 25, 2006, 08:08:03 PM
In his book, Peter Lindemann says that Tesla used a magnetic spark gap in which the wires were bent into a horn shape.  This sounds like a miny Jacobs Ladder, augmented by the nearby magnet's field.  (The powerful magnet from an old hard drive may work, but I haven't tried it, to verify the field orrientation.)  The objective is to blow out the arc as quickly as possible, without allowing any current reversals.  If this is tried, insulate the magnet with some crystal clear shipping tape, which is polypropylene, the best HV insulator by far.  Without striving for Tesla's exotic effects, the duration of the spark has to be less than one tenth milisecond.

I've read that Ed's latest motors were sold to Al Francouer, in Canada.  Al runs the Flying Saucer Machines group on YahooGroups.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: fcpeace17 on November 26, 2006, 12:06:52 AM
have you had any success in building the ed gray circuit?
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Jerry Volland on November 26, 2006, 01:48:29 AM
I've had success with "splitting the positive", but not with Ed's published circuit.  Although it's easy to initiate a capacitive discharge when the polarity is negative, when the positive sides of two caps are discharged to each other, the discharge is much harder to initiate.  I've found that doing this requires the transformer's spark as well.  This is something which is missing with his diagram, since he shows four diodes to charge the main capacitor.  I only use one diode (rectifier).  It's possible that he also used only one diode, for ecconomy, but included the full bridge in the patent circuit, for preciseness in the art.  I'm using a 16 mF cap for the main one (at 7.5 kV), and a small, homemade one for the "lower voltage" - without using the 12 V. battery for anything other than to run the inverter which powers the HV transformer.  I discharge both caps through the transformer's arc.  Also, I've set my circuit up so that each cap has a different Time Constant, by discharging the small cap through the transformer's secondary, while the large cap has a seperate inductive component.  I've built the Conversion Tube, and I'm going to experiment with a ceiling fan motor as the Pulse Motor.  This motor is wired differently than most motors, and precise timing of the discharge, relative to the coil's position, isn't necessary.  The patent mentions that the circuit will work with any inductive load.  Of course, the discharge will still have to be of short duration.  So I may have to change the capacitor in the motor to a smaller value, due to the higher frequency, but I don't think it'll need a higher Voltage rating, to the positive nature of the pulses.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: fcpeace17 on March 16, 2007, 08:19:38 PM
did your setup show anything promising?
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Jerry Volland on March 17, 2007, 02:23:34 PM
I've noticed one thing of interest.  With one experiment, I included a gradient plate in the discharge path, to accelerate the expanding spark.  This plate consists of alternating layers of insulation and small aluminum foil squares, with a 3/16" hole through the center.  I placed the point of a safety pin just outside the center of the hole and connected the far end of the gradient plate to the transformer's return wire.  The safety pin went to the transformer's side of the diode, with the leaky home made cap in series between the diode and the gradient plate's output end.  After charging the large cap by touching its wire to the safety pin for a few seconds, I broke the circuit momentarilly, then touched the wire to the safety pin again, to discharge the big cap.  The cap's expanded discharge spark is normally around 5/16"X5/8", but when accelerated by the gradient, the spark volume was around 1"X2" and bright white.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: barbosi on March 17, 2007, 04:47:18 PM
Do you have a schematic associated with your experiments you could share with us?
(Some pictures will be encouraging too  ::))

Thanks.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Jerry Volland on March 19, 2007, 04:35:36 PM
I've placed the basic circuit online.  There's no text, yet.  I also have other circuits and some hardware pictures I'll put up in the next few days.

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

The component at the top right is a defibrillator Inductor.  It's rated at 100 miliHenry.  It's sealed in Bakelite, and there may be insulation between the layers of the coil.  The top cap is 16mF at 7.5 kV.  The transformer is the secondary of a 7.5 kV NST.

To initiate the Puff Spark effect, pull the Inductor's wire away from the main arc, then touch the arc with the wire.  I keep the wire fastened to the end of a wooden dowel rod.  The positive side of both caps discharge through the transformer's arc, through different inductors.

For the White Spark, I placed the gradient plate around the first half of the main arc.  This stopped the arc, but still allowed - and accelerated - the Puff Spark.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Jerry Volland on March 24, 2007, 04:54:57 AM
I've uploaded some pictures of my Ed Gray test circuit equipment.

http://www.freewebs.com/attatchments/pics/Set Up.jpg

By examining the picture, you can see that each component is connected the same way as in the circuit diagram under the picture.  The two capacitors, including the home made one at the bottom, are each connected to opposite sides of the transformer.  The top cap is in series with the defibrillator inductor on the top.  The blue wire coming from the transformer forms a spark gap with the bolt on the end of the yellow diode.  These are two of the electrode circles in the diagram.  The third electrode circle is the wire at the end of the dowell rod.  The dowell is pulled out of the inductor and used as a handle to position the wire, to charge the top cap against the diode's bolt terminal.  This circuit is then broken after a few seconds, with the dowell used immediately to touch the wire back to the arc again.  The result is the arc puffs way up for a short, on going interval.  If the top cap is only barely charged before the circuit is broken and refired, the main arc developes a region of opaque dark blue turbulence, signifying the presence of Field Energy.  My feeling is that this is the effect I'll obtain once I add a high speed interruptor to the circuit.  My belief is that this dark blue energy is electro-optical in nature, and, if so, it should be conductive.  This will allow Ed's Power Conversion Tube to act as a switching element, applying the heavy amperage from his battery to the motor - 6,000 times per second.  Incidentally, when a dowell rod is positioned at an angle through the inductor, the wood experiences a torque impulse, aligning it with the inductor's axis when the circuit is fired.

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

This picture shows my gradient plate, which is just under an inch square by 3/8" thick.  It smoked the last time I used it, but the picture shows the basic idea.  The burn pattern seems to reveal a longitudinal curl.

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

The dowell rod's wire can be left connected to the diode's spark gap terminal, without breaking the circuit.  After the cap builds up a certain percentage of its maximum charge, it will discharge spontaneously, puffing the arc.  At the same time, it sends its positive charge through the arc in the opposite direction as the positive charge from the smaller cap.  So, the arc "splits the positive".  With this version of the circuit, only two discharge electrodes are needed.

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

This uses the same concept as my half baked idea of using both sides of the transformer for the first and second inductors.  This circuit illustrates the differences between Ed's published circuit and the circuit I discovered.

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

This image shows two circuits.  The input electrodes are the circles on the outside.  The circuit on the left was invented by Harvey Norris and he calls it a Binary Resonant System (BRS).  He maintains, and has demonstrated, that the single arc functions as a Scalar Emitter.  The arc generates two sine waves, one going in each direction.  The circuit on the right is my circuit, with the same orriginal connections, but drawn to resemble his, to highlight the differences.  This circuit produces a Scalar Click, with two positive pulses traveling through the arc in different directions.  Since this is similar to the electrostatic discharge pulse from a Van deGraaff generator, it's possible that these two circuits can be used in tandem to mimic the Hutchinson Effect.


When testing the circuit's set up shown in the picture, with the transformer switched off after charging the caps, the spark will make a slow, fizzeling squirt when the switch wire is touched to the normal end of the diode.  This drawn out spark effect is caused by the current limiting action of the defibrillator inductor.  When both caps are the same size, this squirting will reverse directions when the wire is subsequently touched to the diode's other end.  The charge can only be shuttled between the caps three or four times like this before it fades out.  -JV
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Jerry Volland on March 24, 2007, 05:02:15 AM
Well, the first link doesn't work with a space in it, so use this one:

http://www.freewebs.com/attatchments/pics/SetUp.jpg
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: fletchdaf on April 04, 2008, 05:12:39 AM
Well, this is where you've been hanging your hat, Jerry.  Good to see you still "around" even if that last post is a year old.  One of the few guys I know to have actually managed to obtain a "non-classical" event from his ciruit.

Hope all is well.

Dennis
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: pese on April 04, 2008, 07:49:28 AM
Well, this is where you've been hanging your hat, Jerry.  Good to see you still "around" even if that last post is a year old.  One of the few guys I know to have actually managed to obtain a "non-classical" event from his ciruit.

Hope all is well.

Dennis

take a look in google

input:  ed gray not working    (without any " " )

so you show devices that NOT working
as devices that WORKING  (?)


You must shown first. before you will
buy the "papers" at 70$ that are "mysteriosly"

Pese
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: fletchdaf on April 05, 2008, 05:12:46 PM
take a look in google
input:  ed gray not working    (without any " " )

Why on earth would I do that?


so you show devices that NOT working
as devices that WORKING  (?)

I do not wish to be obtuse here, but ... what?

You must shown first. before you will
buy the "papers" at 70$ that are "mysteriosly"

Are you trying to sell something?

Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: pese on April 06, 2008, 12:47:57 AM
No , i have nothing to offer in this area.
An frind have buy the original schematics at 75$,
aft i sayd him , not to do.
I have seen the papers. Its scrap , no value
Sorry, i have also not an idea for working devices
Pese
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: fletchdaf on April 07, 2008, 04:13:29 AM
Pese.

From that last post I can see your english is not so good.  I now see why I didn't understand your previous post to me.

The EVGray circuit

In theory, the EVGray circuit is quite simple (I will point out the practical difficulties in a moment.)  Jerry Volland has posted a number of circuits.  You will note he is using a defibrillator inductor and mentions a "current limiting action" caused by this inductor.

An inductor is simply a coil.  It can have an open air core or an iron core, but either way it is nothing more than a coil of conductor wire.  Also called an toroidal coil inductor, it is used in classical EM circuits to filter out certain frequencies.  But for the EVGray circuit, its purpose is more fundamental and intimate than generally understood.  That purpose was to filter (or "choke") out current.

When E.V. Gray built his circuit, he patented it calling it a circuit to run an inductive load.  E.V. Gray was either purposivly obtuse or didn't understand the theory behind what he had built and how it worked.  Perhaps it was a little of both.  In any event, the EVGray circuit was used to run Gray's inductive motor ("EVGray motor") which reportedly generated 80 horsepower.  One does not need to be a P.Eng to look at that motor and realize it was unnecessarily over-designed.  But one thing that it did do was filter out current.  According to the patent, it was this current, this "back emf" that was diverted and sent to the charging battery during the operation of the motor.  Whether one believes this or not is irrelevant.  The many, many coils in the circuit \ motor filtered out current.

The "secret" which isn't a secret. 

One must pulse high voltage across a spark gap filtering out the current.  On each pulse, the high voltage "arc" will cause a discharge of radiant energy perpendicular to the direction of electrical flow.  The radiant energy is picked up by a copper grid which by virtue of the nature of copper, converts it to standard EM electricity which can then be used for powering a load.

That's it.

Today there are many people who understand the theory.  Jerry is one of them, though he hasn't to my knowledge built a full EVGray circuit.  He is testing the creation of the non-classical event he described above as a "slow, fizzeling squirt".  He has elsewhere described it in such a manner to make me believe he has generated radiant energy - albeit for a short period of time.

Tom Beardon is another one.  Peter Lindemann is another one.  John Bedini is another one.  Tesla was certainly one.  There are many, many others some living, some dead.

A prime source for learning how to create that non-classical "radiant energy" is John Bedini and his SSG circuit.  John has successfully shown the existance of "radiant energy spike" on a scope (his "h" wave.)  His circuit is based on generating Electric Potential while filtering out the current.  Like EVGray, it is done on a pulsed basis.  His measurement of the effect of the radiant energy (other than the strong spike shown on his scope) is by the cycling of charging and discharging of lead acid batteries.  He has a yahoo group for this purpose.

So again, the key in the EVGray circuit is to generate a high voltage potential while filtering or choking out the current which potential is then arced across a gap.

So what's are engineering challenges?  There are a number of then, some of which EVGray never completely solved.  What follows are just a few to give you a taste of the nature of the challenges facing the researcher and the bench technician.

1.  The pulses must be of a high frequency, high voltage and low amperage.

1a) High Frequency

Regarding the frequency, Tesla mentions many millions per second.  We are in the gigahertz range here.  Obtaining this level of frequency at a high voltage has a whole set of engineering issues that must be overcome, not the least of which is the natural tendancy of the inductor coils used to filter out amperage to be relatively "slow."  Mechanical oscillators or voltage choppers won't do the job.  Solidstate is probably the way to go, though there are some vacuum tubes that will achieve it.  One cannot start with a relatively low level of frequency and then "scale up."  Unless a certain frequency is used,  the radiant energy event doesn't occur.  I have a paper on a Sanyo 2SK3748 MOSFET transister array that switched 3k volts at frequencies and pulse widths in the ns range.

1b) High Voltage

While generating high voltage is merely a matter of transforming an existing voltage, high voltage carries with it its own set of challenges and issues.  The first is to protect oneself from a potential lethal shock.  I use a high voltage mat, high voltage gloves and high voltage rubber boots.  Moreover I use a welder's mask when generating the arc to protect my eyes.  The second is to protect one's equipment.  Scopes don't come cheap.  I have a number of varying high voltage probes I use.  The third is to protect one's shop.  The importance of fuses and breakers cannot be overemphased.  Purchasing a fire extinguisher is an absolute necessity.

1c)  Low amperage.

Ensuring a negligible level of amperage (current) is necessary to ensure the appearance of the radiant energy event. The inductor coil is probably the way to go and it was certainly the way Gray acheived this.  Because of the high frequency of the pulses and the relative slowness of the inductor coils to charge and discharge, it is likely necessary to have more than one inductor coil and some sort of switching means to alternate between the coils.  As soon as one speaks of "switching" when high voltages are used, there are potential arcing problems in the switches if mechanical switches (relays) are used.  If solid state, the high voltage pulses generate heat which has its own filtering effect and eventual failure of the solid state switch is always a concern.

2.  Transformers can only transform a/c electricity.

The EVGray technology is based on running the whole system from 12 or 24 volt batteries.  Therefore the voltage must be "stepped up".  This requires transformers.  Since the battery produces dc, some sort of system must be used to "chop" the dc (turn it on, off, on, off etc.) so that the transformer can transform the electrical voltage upwards.  Once the voltage is at the desired level, the ac electricity must be rectified back to dc prior to producing the arc.  As should be readily apparent, the higher the voltage, the greater the effort to protect the bridge rectifier diodes.  This requires "balancing" the individual diodes with resisters and capacitors.  Each of these components have their own capacitances, inductances, heat generation and failure potential.

After obtaining his reported 3,000 volts, EVGray collected the electricity in capacitors prior to discharge across the gap.  He charged up two high capacitance capacitors (to voltages that were presumably much higher than 3,000 volts) and then only partially discharged each capacitor at each pulse into the circuit.  This obviously required a switching system between the transformer and capacitors (to switch from one capacitor to the other) and then beween each capacitors and the spark \ arc gap to switch between the discharged capacitor and the charged one.  As mentioned above, switching has its own set of problems in high voltage, high frequency applications.

3.  The arc must be distinct and sharp - a "cracking" arc according to Tesla.

An electric arc is relatively easy to generate.  Any welder can do it and does it by hand and "feel".  Of course the arc welder permits high current and it is the current that generates the arc.  In our case, we are trying to generate an arc with negligible current at a high voltage.  Otherwise we would be simply building an arc welder.  So an arc without current is the goal.  This can be done even though it is contrary to standard EM theory, but it requires a strong push of voltage that is stopped after the arc and before the amperage flow (using Dirac particles?)  Whatever the actual physics involved, it happens.  Look at Jerry's posts above.

So we generate a high voltage, negligible current arc which is stopped, started, stopped, started i.e. "pulsed" as distinct, sharp and cracking discharges.  This isn't so easy.  This is an effect which is a factor of the distance between the electrodes, the temperature of the air, the voltage (amplitude on the scope), and duration (pulse width on the scope) of the electricity.  In order to "tune" the circuit, each of these components must be tunable.  Remember to use an appropriate probe if you are going to measure the pulse on the scope.

3a) Starting the arc.

To generate the high frequency mentioned by Tesla requires timing controls which could be anything from an array of HV transistors (MOSFETs) to a 555 on the low voltage side of the circuit or combination thereof.  To achieve various pulse frequencies, Gray reportedly used mercury based thiristor tubes.  Presumably these were almost as difficult to obtain in the 1970s as they are today.  Because they are mercury based, they are actually illegal where I live.  Gray also tried transisters in "darlington arrays" but reportedly burned them out over and over again.  Today we have access to high voltage and robust transisters he didn't have access to, but they are expensive.

3b) Stopping the arc.

The high frequency pulsing electrical circuit not only requires a "starting" of the arc, but a "stopping" of the arc.  The arc must be completely dissipated prior to the next cycle.

To obtain the necessary "stoppage," Tesla reportedly used magnets and hot air.  It is not clear just how he did this.  The pictures of the arc gap and magnets show up in some of his patents.  This technology, or something similar, must be developed further.  Even though transisters can be used, and are typically very quick at their "stoppage", the rest of the circuit will not give up its voltage, amperage, or magnetism due to any circuit's natural inductance and capacitance.

4.  Residual Issues.

There are a number of residual issues the EVGray researcher must be aware of.  I can only mention a few.

4a) EM interference.

It should be noted the generation of a high voltage, high frequency arc will generate a lot of EM "noise" that will be picked up by anyone using sensitive electronic equipment close by.  So if you don't want to interfere with your neighbor's radio, T.V., ham radio, the local communications of a military base, police station or airport, you must build a "faraday cage".  I work in my garage in a large city.  This is obviously a major concern of mine.  My "faraday cage" is the body of two microwave ovens which will be situated over the spark gap.

4b) Electrodes.

EVGray reportedly used silver tipped electrodes.  This certainly would facilitate the arc across the gap.  It would also cut down on the inevitable wear on the electrodes.  To "silver tip" electrodes requires a finese and knowledge of metalurgy, not to mention a small smeltering capability.

4c) Carbon resister.

The low voltage "side" of the circuit meets the high voltage "side" of the circuit at the arc gap.  According to the patent, on the low voltage side there is a resister.  No specifications are given for this resister.  However, it is this resister is reportedly a "carbon" based resister.  The EVGray researcher would do well to note this.  There is in the scientific literature scores of articles on carbide and carbon negative resistance being observed when a charge is placed across the material.  This resister is within the "tube" used to pick up the radiant energy.  It likely has an effect on the production of the radiant energy event.

4d) One way electrical flow.

The circuit must not permit a reverse flow or the radiant energy event will not occur.  The resister mentioned above may help to prevent this, but the judicious use of diodes and full bridge rectifier will also help.  In addition to the four diodes in the full bridge rectifier, EVGray's patent 4,595,975 shows two more diodes.

4e) Choking the amperage

By the judicious use of toriodal inductor coils, the amperage must be choked off as much as it is possible for the radiant energy event to occur.  During the pulsing cycle, the coils will have to be discharged and the resulting amperage diverted away from the circuit either to earth ground or a resister system.  Whether or not this can be done as fast as the gigahertz frequency mentioned by Tesla is doubtful.  Thus multiple toriodal inductor coils and a switching system may have to be used.  I am planning to try two very large air-core toriodal inductor coils for this purpose as has been seen in pictures of EVGray's system.

Conclusion

The above are some of the issues I've met in my research and testing.  I hope this post is not too long or too tedious to be helpful. 

Sources

There are many sources for the EVGray technology.  Primarily, the researcher will examine his American patents 3,890,548 (June 17, 1975) 4,595,975 (June 17, 1986) and 4,661,747 (April 28, 1987).  He also has a British patent but as I recall, it was even less helpful than his American ones.

Mr. RB Hackenberger, Engineer of Evgray Enterprises Inc. wrote a short "Technical Discussion" regarding the technology that is, in my view, interesting but hides as much as it discloses.

There are a number of media articles each of which give clues to the technology.  See the "L.A. Free Press" (Dec 28,1973), "Newsreal" (circa 1973), "Probe" (circa 1976), "Progress Bulletin" (July 7, 1975) and "National Tattler" (July 1, 1973, March 16, 1975).

There is one particular book on the EVGray circuit, Dr. Lindemann's book "The Free Energy Secrets of
Cold Electricity" which provides a valuable comparison between EVGray's circuit and Tesla's comparable technology.

Other works include Mr. Beardon's works available at http://www.cheniere.org, John Bedini's works available at http://www.icehouse.net/john34/, anything published by Tesla - his patents, books, compilations, and articles.  There are documentaries about Tesla that are also helpful.  See also works by Dr. Konstantin Meyl, John J. O'Neill 1944, Thomas Commerford Martin 1894, Thomas Valone Ed. of Harnessing the wheelwork of nature 2002, John T. Ratzlaff , Electrical Experimenter Magazine 1919, and the Tesla notes published by the Nikola Tesla Museum.  Though it has been criticised by some, I also recommend the book "Secrets of Cold War Technology: Project HAARP and Beyond" by Gerry Vassilatos, 1996, especially chapter 1.

Everything mentioned above gives hints and clues as to the actual workings of the EVGray circuit and the nature of radiant energy.  It has taken me several years to accumulate and digest this material and collect the components required.  I would like to see many, many people working on this circuit.  Get off grid before there is no grid left.

Kindest Regards,

df
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: ourbobby on August 08, 2008, 04:02:04 PM
Hi there fletchdaf,
                          IMHO, There is one observation that I would like to make regarding your interpretation of the high frequency pulses. Tesla's originating pulses were low frequency. He also, spent a lot of time and thought on arresting the current through the coils - hence, he discovered the magic timing cut off of .062microsecs for the originating pulse as the voltage leading the current due to the "skin effect". The high frequency was supplied by his capacitors. Otherwise, an excellent post.

Regards
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: pese on August 08, 2008, 04:11:44 PM
Ed Gray, never have find and TRIODE-TUBE than can wort with the announced
(i belive it was around 200Volts and 100 Amps)

Idont know Triodes like this, only gassfilled Thyratrons than can only SWITCH (like an SCR)

i think: To use Vakuum-Tubes - is an wrong way.
G.Pese
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: ourbobby on August 08, 2008, 04:37:41 PM
Ed Gray, never have find and TRIODE-TUBE than can wort with the announced

G.Pese

Hi there Pese,
                      I have spent a lot of time on this tube idea as well. It resembles more a Pentode valve, with the exception that the "screens" are used as collectors and the positve voltage on the anode is used as a positive screen to stop the electons from going past the screens. Just IMHO.

Regards
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 on August 17, 2008, 05:24:52 AM
Here is a new photo of the EMA6 from 1/9/76 Stockholders Meeting to add to your collections.

(Darn the photo is to large at 10MB in a pdf format to attach to this post) I'll have to go to Kinkos and convert these .pdf files to. jpg format and then reduce the resolution. My Version 5 of PhotoShop doesn't do this.

The photo I was going to post is the reverse view of the EMA6 motor from the opposite side, showing details of the commentator and the muffin fans on the power supplies. It also shows a cleaner view of the CSET's

At this meeting it was disclosed by Dr. Norm Chalfin that the measured output of this motor [EMA6] was only 2 HP, all be it near 100%, not counting the recycled energy which may have put it at a COP of about 1.5 or so. The lawyers on the board wanted no mention of any OU energy. Never the less the dismal performance of this "new" motor whitch was three years more advanced (supposidly) than the 100 HP EMA4-E2 killed any further investor support. Gray and Hackenburger continued to work on the motor at least till April of that year by making additional modifications. This was done by adding additional "donuts" in the commutator section. Hackenburger was cut off the payroll by June and had to get a job as a cab driver. He did hang around and worked for free when they had resources to do anything. Mr. Hackenburger was a firm believer in this technology and as far as I can tell did everything he could to make it main stream.

Another photo (again not posted) shows the use of a large vintage Tektronix Oscilloscope (I would speculate it was a 7904 model or something the same size). Therefore Mr. Hackenburger was looking at measurements far deeper than I had thought before.

Richard  did say that the current pulses were on the order of milliseconds - which is pretty long for a capacitor discharge. You can do your own calculations and see what kind of Capacitor and inductor values will lend itself to that kind of oscillation period.

While government interferance did severly impact the sucess of this technology - the shear lack of performance was probably more detrimental. At the time of the stockholders meeting this organization was cash starved and litigation was still on-going with the LA DA. By the time there was a resolution to those legal matters the game was all over. The original equipment was returned a few months later - in boxes. Apparently, the equipment had been mistakenly (ha,ha) run through a scrap iron shredder (or something like that). Of course E.V. Gray didn't have the litigation power to seek recourse or even file a complaint. This is probably why they had to work so hard and so long to find something to pin on him.

What appears to have happend after the stockholders meeting was a general breakdown in confidence of E.V.Gray's technical ability to reproduce his (or actually Marvin Cole's) earlier work. Richard Hackenburger did his best to reproduce the Cole technology, but may have missed some important point. He was not dumb. Listening to audio tapes of him speaking at the time I hear a quick and focused individual frustrated by the dumb decesions by the board of directors. Richard only had a year to work with the original surviving equipment. Once it was confiscated he didn't get a second chance to go back and see what he might have missed. - What a shame.

I suspect that he had it pretty well figured out generally, but was unaware of some simple but important technical feature - like the materials used in the spark gaps or something like that. He claimed that the technology used in the EMA6 was superior to that of the EMA4-E2 - to bad he couldn't prove it by the time of the stockholders meeting.

This was also the time that E.V. Gray's 2nd wife Renete and her father Fred Lenz could see the hand writing on the wall and decided to bail. Fred cast his lot with the investors who were attempting to get control of the patent as liquidated damages against Gray. Fred claimed that he was the builder of the motor and therefore it was his. By the end of the year (1976) Renete had filed for a divorse.

Somehow Gray was able to limp along for the next few years until 1979 when the FCC came in and confiscated the EMA6 and anything else he had left in the shop for EMI interferance. The technology never recovered after this.

Richard Hackenburger got sick in 1980 and was dead withing a week. I doubt if the MIB bumped off E.V. Gray, but I'm not so sure about Richard. If anyone had any idea of the principles of the Marvin Cole technology it was Richard - certainly not Gray.

Spokane1
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: turbo on August 17, 2008, 10:13:13 PM
hi can you post this picture in the download selection?  :)

Thanks.

PS somebody mentioned the radiant effects only run in the gigaherts.
The effect can be generated at any frequency it is the voltage and pulse duration that makes it happen.
The Gray circuit was claimed to be running around 6Khz.

Marco.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 on August 17, 2008, 10:42:34 PM
Dear Marco,

I would love to upload this collection of new vintage photos. But the smallest one is 6 MB. I had Kinkos scan the original slides and photos at 2400 dpi and thus the large file sizes. (some are 75 MB) They also did it in .pdf format whic is almost impossible to work with as a photo. I need to correct the white balance and reduce the resolution to Internet sizes, but this is going to take some time and maybe some $$.

On, the other technical questions I can only offer my unelightened opinion. I believe both bits of information are correct. First off the 6 KHz frequency relates to the "Electro Static Generator" Black Boxes output. This was actually observed on an Oscilloscope in 1974, It was a 50% duty cycle DC square wave. It is claimed by Richard Hackenburger that the technology used in these "Black Box Inverters" was the same as that was used in the motor.

According to other documentation the motor was producing pulses at a rate of 200,000 per minute or at a rate of 3.333 KHz. Now this was from the output of 12 (or more)  unit power supplies. The power supplies themselves were alledgedly (from John Bedini) running from something that sounded like automotive vibrators which operate at 100 Hz.

So, I think is safe to say the the excitation current pulses were being provided at a rate of 3KHz to 8 KHz. Now the resulting non-classical energies produced by the arcs or what ever is a different matter.  A common arc will generate frequencies from DC to daylight. So speculations about gigahertz frequencies being associated with the Radiant Energy phenomena may be correct. It is still a matter of just how such high frequencies are harvested and optimized.

A study of the Tesla desk top oscillators will yield a lot of good information about the operation of these kinds of circuits. The energy is pulsed into the resonate circuit at a low rate, but the resulting oscillations are determined by the parameters of the secondary circuit, which is generally much higher. It is like ringing a bell - a single stroke of a hammer results in oscillations in the audio range. The interesting thing about the Tesla oscillators is that they were not based upon lumped LC parameters but used a delay line to harvest and magnify the output energies. Therefore each current pulse is added to the last. The amplification takes place when the next pulse is applied before the ringing of the last pulse ahs died out - the faster the better (at least according the Dr. Tesla).

Spokane1
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: gyulasun on August 17, 2008, 11:30:57 PM
Dear Marco,

I would love to upload this collection of new vintage photos. But the smallest one is 6 MB. I had Kinkos scan the original slides and photos at 2400 dpi and thus the large file sizes. (some are 75 MB)

Hi,  maybe you could consider using free file upload services like megaupload.com or rapidshare.com  etc? 

Thanks,  Gyula
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 on August 18, 2008, 12:55:23 AM
Dear Gyula,

Nice idea if I were not so far in the tooly-weeds with a phone connection that runs at about 2KB/sec even with msn.com compression assistance. I would have to be on line all evening to upload one file. Needless to say I'm unable to receive YouTube clips as well.

At work almost everything is blocked and processing large files is frowned upon, even after hours. This new photo collection is on 7 CD's. I think I can get it all on to one DVD.

But, don't worry I fully intend to make these available in file sizes that we all can work with. I just don't have the program to do it right now or I would be sending them out already. There are just a few details in these photos that really need all this high resolution - like the labels on the control panel of the EMA4-E2 and the exact number of turns in the Floating Flux Field (FFF) component. Also there are a number of photos that are not worth passing on but some are real technical gems (to me anyway).

They were all acquired from an early investor who wishes to be only known as GD. He was involved in the E.V. Gray saga from 1974 to late 1976. He claims to have had a close relationship with Richard Hackenburger. GD also has a collection of about 30 audio tapes of meetings and phone conversations with Mr. Hackenburger. So far I have had the opportunity to listen to about a third of this material. Several of the cassette tapes became unglued and are in need of repair. The content is 99% business related since GD had a letter of intent that allowed him to seek venture capital for a commission. But there are a few interesting technical comments that I intend to write up for this community. Several of the new points were commented on in the last post.

For example, GD and Hackenburger were discussing the manufacturing costs of making the "ElectroStatic Generator" (This was Richard's favorite device). GD said that his potential investors were worried about the cost of the custom made transformer that was part of the "Blue Box". Richard responded that the transformer was indeed special, but it was nothing that a transformer winding shop couldn't produce for a 10% premium. - So I wonder, just what can be done to a power transformer that would only add 10% to its manufacture and would still be considered a novel feature? From other historical research I suspect that this was a current limited design that employed a small air gap or magnetic shunt for magnetic leakage.

I know from previous research that E.V.Gray (or Marvin Cole) was having the Mallory Electric Company (not P.M. Mallory that makes the Blue Capacitors)  build these custom ignition coils. The Mallory company was involved with Gray at least as early as 1970 as observed in the GD documents.

Pardon me for rambling on so long about this subject, but it has been a long time since we have had any new material to work with.

Spokane1
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: fletchdaf on August 18, 2008, 03:49:23 AM

Here is a new photo of the EMA6 from 1/9/76 Stockholders Meeting to add to your collections...
If anyone had any idea of the principles of the Marvin Cole technology it was Richard - certainly not Gray.

Spokane1

There's only one person I know who has this level of detailed knowledge on the EVGray technology and company.  "MkMc".  How are you, my friend?

Dennis F, Calgary Canada.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: ourbobby on August 18, 2008, 03:55:33 AM
Hi  Spokane1,  you couldls try opening the images in windows Paint program and then save them as jpeg. You should get the option of the resize parameters. Just a thought for all us EVGray afficionados!

thanks
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 on August 18, 2008, 04:09:36 AM
Dear Dennis,

I'm doing just fine and even more so after this last interview trip. It is certainly refreshing to find a person who was involved in this story that can still remember some facts. Unfortunatly GD has no technical information to share. Never the less I'm finding a great value in what he has offered. GD is the source of the original "Investor Photos" that Peter Lindemann and John Bedini received in Post Falls, ID about 3-4 years ago. At the time GD wanted to remain annomonus. But, now he wishes that all of what he knows is made avaliable to serious researchers. The photos are probably his most valuable asset. He still wishes to be known as GD. He hopes that something can become of this lost technology that he devoted several years to.

Send me an email at work and I'll send you my usual rambling monographs and drawings on this subject that keep changing with the times.

For the last few months I have been exploring Water Arcs, Tesla Velocity Transformers, and learning how to use a freeware Finite Element Magnetic Modeling (FEMM) program.

After this load of material I might find a new direction to keep me busy this winter.

Spokane 1
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: pomodoro on August 20, 2008, 04:03:54 AM
(http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/264/koneheadgray3ft0.jpg)

The above image is what John Bedini reckons Ed's setup looks like. Look at the diode going from the battery to the tube. How will the current ever flow from the +3000V caps trough the tube with the diode blocking the flow? Surely Bedini would not make such a simple mistake?  What do you guys reckon?
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 on August 20, 2008, 04:24:06 AM
Dear Promodoro,

According to John Bedini (he lives about 25 miles from here) that historical sketch was drawn by Ron Cole in 1973 (No relation to Marvin Cole) after he and John had visited E.V. Gray's shop in Van Nuys. The date on the sketch is when John redrew it. According to John, Ron was attempting to figure out how this system opered and was exploring a thought (while driving) about some kind of Zener avalanche negative resistance process that Ron was familur with from his extensive experiance in exotic solid state systems - some of them classified grovenment projects. The diode acually goes the opposite way. Check the polarity of the "triode" in the CSET patent and then check Gary Magratten's early work. I don't know about you but I have a pile of diodes in my "Hall of Flame" that attest to this little error.

Apparently the PIV of the diode you use doesn't need to be high. Gary used a 600V 60A model and he was able to get some ananomolus sparks (about 2" long which is about 80KV worth) flying off his CSET right through the plexiglas enclosure. Now regular arcs don't do that. So I think he was on to something with a forward biased diode. At least that is how I'm using it my systems from now on.

A very good question.

Spokane1

Stay tuned I have a coupule of new photos to up load this evening
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 on August 20, 2008, 05:00:28 AM
Dear Loyal and Information Hungry E.V.Gray Researchers

GD Materials Installment #1    8-19-08

Here is a photo of the front side of the EMA6 as it was presented at the stockholders meeting 1/9/76. This photo seems to have been preprocessed as if it were cut from a larger photo and then pasted on a new background. Never the less there is some interesting things to observe here. It is my belief that this motor was the technical efforts of Richard Hackenburger as he attempted to improve upon the principles he saw operating in the EMA4-E2 Cole motor. The original resolution was 600 dpi.

1. I'm pretty sure the size of the motor cylinder is 12" ID by 16" long. There was an attempt to make the newer model smaller. I believe the size of the older EMA4-E2 was 16" ID x 24" long. I know that the white panels on the three power supplies are standard 19" rack panels. I think these power supplies were custom built for Gray by a company in 1000 Oaks, CA (at least that is where he got his diodes).

2. Notice there doesn't appear to be a starting motor on this model nor an air pump. There is a good chance that this model could start from 0 rpm, unlike the EMA4-E2 that needed to be brought up to 500 rpm first.

3. Notice the 6" muffin fans on each power supply. They may have been working with "Cold Electricity" but obviously these reported cooling effects didn't take place in the power supply. This suggests that perhaps the non-classical process took place in the motor and not in these particular power supplies- this is just.
a thought.

4. The second photo is my attempt of providing a close up using Photo Shop Ver. 5. The detail is not as good as I would like it to be. Notice the black dots around the end of the white nylon cylinder.  There are 9 clusters of 3 each. This same contact arrangement is to be found in the EMA4 and the EMA5 prototype motors owned by Al Francouer in Yack, BC (about 120 miles north of here). If you study the Pulse motor patent 3,890,548 you will also see this same pattern (I recommend disregarding the text). The center contact is about three times wider than the two smaller outer ones. It appears (according to my research so far) this one fires the "Major Pole" while the small one do something after the "Major Pole" has been fired. All three contacts don't operate at once. First the center contact is closed then on another swipe the two smaller contacts are made active. This is achieved with two internal slip rings. I'm still working on what this could possibly do inside the motor.

5. Notice no control panel, only a very large knife switch and a large rotary dial (assume for speed control) that selected different voltages from the battery pack.

6. No outboard generator to top off the batteries. This motor was far from being ready for production but it was the best Richard could do with the circumstance's and funding available.

7. This view still doesn't give a good perspective of the CSET's

Spokane1
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: pomodoro on August 20, 2008, 05:19:23 AM
Thanks Spokane1!

Fellow researches, I was looking at the patent and something about Ed's tube makes little sense. The grid only surrounds the long, high voltage anode and is not surrounding the spark.  All I have read about radiant energy is that it is generated at the arc and radiates out.  But Ed seemed to not care about the arc zone one bit - assuming the patent is realistic.
(http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/6303/zpegraypower01bp0.gif)
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 on August 20, 2008, 06:14:30 AM
Dear pomodoro,

You are correct on that issue. Consider the source of your reading. The idea that RE is radiated out in all direction from the arc has its beginnings with Dr. Tesla in an article he wrote in 1892 in the "Electrical Experimenter". Researchers have expanded upon this idea - most notably being Tom Bearden and Jerry Vassilatos.

But let us consider the facts.

There are only two (2) models of E.V.Gray CSET tubes in existence that have been photographed. The first one shows up on the EMA6 and the remaining one in the 1986 promotion video.

The first ones seemed to have worked (marginally at a mere 2HP out). OK, assume they were having a bad day. These only working devices look a heck of a lot different than what the drawing shows in the patent. The outer copper (it looks copper) ring is about 2" thick and 4" in diameter. There appear to be 3 inner "grids" as well - all seem to be copper water pipe. Also there doesn't seem to be any holes in these "grids". The center electrode appears to be about 1" in diameter and is at least 4" long. This layout, of the only know working CSET, is a far cry from what the patent shows. - So go figure (I have for a long time)

Also, the enclosure is standard Plexiglas. I doubt if it could hold a partial vacuum or very much pressure. I think it was operating at one atmosphere (standard outside air pressure).


Folks, It is my learned opinion that the devices shown in the EMA6 series of photos are Trigger gaps used to start a higher current arc somewhere else (motor or power supply). E.V.Gray would not display the heart of his technology (actually Marvin Cole's) in see-thru boxes at a media event. They sure look neat, but I say these units are functional eye candy only - the real magic is else where.

That means if the CSET is a valid component then the real ones were hidden in the power supplies - and who knows what they looked like or how they were built. One report claims that E.V. Gray kept his real glass CSET's in a locked brief case and took them home with him every evening. He was also said to be armed. However, I haven't heard the same information from any of my interview contacts. It's a good story though.

Even if the CSET's are for real Gray didn't know how to build them. He spent a decade scratching for a living (1979-1989). If he could built just one functional demonstration device (that wasn't bogus) his financial problems would have been over with. It appears that he wasn't up to the task.

The CSET built in 1986 and shown in the Promotion Clips was never connected to do any work. 5KV was pulsed through it for show but that's all. The glass enclosure was from a Coleman outdoor lamp. The custom end blocks were machined in Bosie, ID

Check the Phinny patent 3,619,638 if you want to get an idea as to what I think the devices shown with the EMA6 are really for - but this is just my opinion.

Attached is a photo of the bogus CSET built by E.V. Gray  in 1986 in case you don't have one. The label is 1/2" wide for size comparision.

Spokane1
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Thaelin on August 20, 2008, 07:05:06 AM
Hi Spokane:
   The more I look at these tubes, the more I see a triggered spark gap. Over and over this keeps
coming up in my thoughts. In the end, I saw recently posted that the "FCC" raided his shop and
took what was left due to radio interference. A spark gap would damn sure cause lots of it. Just have
to put it in a cage and shield it. The way these tubes are layed out would seem as the high current
switching device for the coils with recapture on the other side.
   Too bad a photo flash tube cant handle the umph

thaelin
 
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: pomodoro on August 20, 2008, 02:32:50 PM
Dear pomodoro,

You are correct on that issue. Consider the source of your reading. The idea that RE is radiated out in all direction from the arc has its beginnings with Dr. Tesla in an article he wrote in 1892 in the "Electrical Experimenter". Researchers have expanded upon this idea - most notably being Tom Bearden and Jerry Vassilatos.



Spokane1, I googled the "Electrical Experimenter" but as far as I can see it only started print in 1913! I'm very interested in reading first hand  Tesla's notes on what Lindemann talks about in his book; In particular the blue discharge from wires when the DC generators are first switched on and the 'radiation' he felt stinging his body when he exploded wires.
I have exploded a few wires using 4kv 2uF discharges but apart from a loud noise haven't experienced any stinging sensation as yet. 

Cheers, Pomodoro
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Shanti on August 20, 2008, 06:41:23 PM
Hi, good thread,

I also occupied myself some time with Ed's design (or Cole's...).

Again the question about the diode. I didn't get your answer, do you now think It should be placed  in current direction, or blocking the current?

As I some time ago, came across Farnsworth's patents and especially his electron multiplier, I wondered, if this could not be the principle behind the tube. The principle is (see pic), that you generate some radiation (e.g. with the help of a spark), if such an photon/electron hits a metal it will knock out several electrons out of the metal (photo effect, this works especially good if you have caesium doped silveroxide). If you now have an anonde (the anode can also be isolated!) nearby the electrons will be accelerated in the direction of the anode, but will fly through the anode and then hit the metal on the other side, and again knock out some electrons.
Now, one would certainly say, the electrons will again be decelerated after passing the anode, but here comes the trick. The cathodes are in a oscillatory loop, so that the potential will positive, when the electrons again hit a cathode.
He also said, that it is certainly also possible to connect the two cathodes and use them as one cathode, but then, the oscillatory frequency has to be doubled (as in the picture). Then you could also make a spherical (cylindrical) cathode with the anode in the middle. He also described this already in his patent.

(http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/5370/electronmultiplieryg0.gif)
Pic from patent US2071516

Now certainly, there are some differences to Ed's (Cole's) Tube. BTW: I think the tube did really look like he described it in the patent, as Ed certainly knew how  Cole's Tube looked. But unfortuantely he didn't really knew how it worked, and therefore was not able to replicate an usable working copy.
The main diffference between a farnsworth multiplier and the CSET would certainly be, that the anode is solid, and electrons will not be able to pass through it. But there it is possible he make another trick. What if you just before the electrons would hit the anode would  generate a spark and  decharge the anode. The electrons which would be knocked out, would remain there, but if then they "see" the battery 12V , for due to the arc the path is conducting. the electrons would move to the battery plus pole. (In this respect the diode would have the right direction in the schema). At the same time they would deliver additional energy to the spark which would again be emmitted to the metal plates. Like that, more and more electrons would be drawn from the tube, until the metal plates would have such a high voltage, that even if they oscillate, the anode is not anymore able to attract the electrons. Therefore you have to make a spark gap, so that the metal cathodes can again draw some electrons (this you can also see in the patent circuit and in the bedini notes).
The hard thing to do would be, to time the discharges of the anode exactly with the flying time of the electrons, and also synchronously with the oscillation of the cathode plates (which is the LC Oscillation circuit, whereas the L is from the motor and the C as in the drawings).
Like that the motor would be in an oscillations circuit, where more and more electrons would be drawn, in kind of an exponential surge (as the electron multiplying would happen exponentially). Therefore only one configuration in the motor would make sense, namely two coils in series (or parallel). Coil and magnet would not work, as with every firing, the coil would change magnetization direction on a high frequency.
If you use it like in a farnsworth electron multiplier, then you would like to have a vaccuum as perfect as possible. For every electron hitting an air molecule would be a loss and just heat the tube. But, on the other hand, maybe some special gas mixture at a certain pressure would be beneficial, for then an electron hitting a gas molecule could also induce a knock out of electrons (electron cascade effect), which would further assist the exponential electron surge.
And if you read Farnsworth's patent, you get told, that the electron surge will quite fast reach tremendous amounts.

BTW: The CSET usel several stacked cathodes. Why? Well, first, in this theory it would be obvious why the holes would be needed in the cathodes, so that also the outer cathodes can "see" the radiation from the spark. But why stacked ones? Well if one would think about it, one could fast come to the conclusion, that more amount of surface would be beneficial, at the other hand, the distance from the anode to the cathodes shouldn't be too small. A good and easy solution would be to use a cathode at every distance from the flying time of the electrons. Like that one could increase the efficiency, but still keep the dimensions small. For if this is really the principle how it worked, the CSET tube shouldn't be too long, for then, the spark radiation received at the other end would be fairly small.
But it would also explain, why the cathodes are around the anodes and the spark at the end. For the anode has to be in the middle of the cylinders, otherwise this principle would not work.

What do you think about this theory?

Addition:

Well one could also think, that the electrons which will fly in the shortly before discharged anode, will knock out electrons, but as the anode is now discharged, but the cathodes at the outside still positively charged (due to lacking electrons), the freed electrons will again be accellerated in the direction of the cathodes and will knock out again some electrons there, by now, the anode shoudl again be fully charged, so that the electron again be attracted by it and on it goes...
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Shanti on August 21, 2008, 04:54:37 PM
Well I just saw, that Jerry Volland had some time ago the same idea. He referred to a later patent, which is the same circuit. but resembles more the gray circuit. The difference is, the before mentioned solid Anode in the CSET, whereas Farnsworth uses a loosly wound coil.
Here it is interesting to state, that the Marinov description of the inside of the pots of the Testatika are described just like that:
Quote
[..]Marinov said that the two Leyden jars contained no magnets. The
central electrode was a helix of a few turns of thick wire[...]
Here a picture of a Farnsworth electron multiplier variant, as indicated in the patent US 2189358:
(http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/458/patus2189358fig4wk3.jpg)

It is also interesting to note the similarities between an amplifier Farnsworth made with 2 such tubes, to even more amplify the current by letting them resonate together, and the layout of the Thestatika:

See Fig 5 of patent US2137528:
(http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/3890/patus2137528fig5fe1.jpg)

The only difference is, that here he actually introduced some additional conventional electron guns in the tube (like in a cathode ray), so he was able to modulate the output and like that could construct extremely efficient and sensitive RF-amplifiers.
The funny thing was, that the electron gun do have an impact at all, he needed to dejust the resonance freq of the cathode so that it will not just generate an electron surge on its own.

Quote
[...]In adjusting the multipactor for use as an amplifier, the frequency of the tuned circuit is adjusted so that the tubes are incapable of sustaining self-oscillations without the use of the gun current[...]

He also indicated, that instead of the electron guns, also other methods could be used. And IMHO a "spark" would certainly also work!
Like that, one could switch the electron multiplication on and off if you don't want to have a continuous power produced. Wouldn't that be perfect to drive a pulse motor?  ;)
And he also declared in the patent that this control mechanism needs very few power compared to the power of the tube. (2-4mA for a tube which delivers 10kW power)

All through the patents he always wrote, that such a tube, if the resonance freq is correctly adjusted would just start by itself, and start very fast to develop huge currents:

Quote
[...]The tube starts oscillating immediately without the use of the gun described herein, probabely because there are sufficient free electrons within the space bounded by the cathode so that mutiple impacts may be initiated.[...]
Quote
[...]and thus the oscillation becomes self-sustaining and relatively large amounts of oscillating power may be withdrawn from the circuit.[...]
The funny thing is in all his patents he somewhere writes, that obviously, this isn't a FE-Device:

Quote
[...]The energy for maintaining the oscillationsis, of course, derived from the DC source, which must be sufficient high in potential to release the secondaries at the required ratio[...]

But the interesting thing is, if one really thinks how this thing works, this is actually not true. One could even completely isolate the anode, and the principle should still work. So even if no current would be flowing from the DC source, this should work. One could even just take an electret as anode to get a pure passive excitor device, this should also work.

Did he insert this statement in all his patents, so that he could actually get the patent?
Or where could I make the mistake, that this should work equally well even if an electret is used as anode?
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 on August 22, 2008, 06:29:38 AM
Dear Loyal and Information Hungry E.V.Gray Researchers

GD Materials Installment #2    8-20-08

There has been a lot of creative and interesting speculations about the E.V.Gray Conversion Element Switching Tube (CSET) as described in patents 4,595,975 and 4,661,747 that was applied for in Oct. 18, 1984.

Here is a photo of the shaft side of the EMA6 as it was presented at the stockholders meeting 1/9/76. This setting shows the simple control switches, 1) a large 8 position rotary switch (mounted in the large dark case) and 2) a large open copper knife switch (only one pole was used). This photo has been scanned at 600 dpi and reduced to 72 dpi to fit this groups 100KB photo size limit. The intent was to provide the maximum resolution for this important disclosure. The original photo was scanned from a 35 mm slide at 2400 dpi.

This photo is the best in existence (to date anyway) to show the overall aspect ratio of the three CSET?s employed. To get an idea of relative size, the OD of the motor case is about 13? and the width of the cart is around 22?.

Please consider these important political facts before you run to the hardware store and purchase a selection of copper pipes to cut up and assemble into something that looks similar to this apparatus.

1. At the time of this photo (1976) E.V.Gray and company had zippo, none, zilch, squat patent protection on this novel component. In fact, he had even less protection for any sort of OU process, yet this was the foundation of his 7+ years sales campaign.

2. There were at least 80 people present at this media event (some reports claim there were as many as 150 individuals present) many of them had cameras and were using them ? including GD.

3. There are three (3) lawyers and two (2) individuals with PhD?s in physics sitting at the head end table on the stage. These were some of the board members at the time.

4. All these people in the audience didn?t come here to learn about investment opportunities in a novel and efficient DC motor. They were here because many of them had already invested $$ in a world changing Free Energy System years before, after seeing some impressive past demonstrations. They already knew (or thought they did) what this game was all about and were waiting with bated breath to hear about all the advancements and technical improvements that had taken place within the last 3 years, despite the problems with the LA DA. (Litigation was still in progress at that time). Boy, were they disappointed when Dr. Chalfin gave them the dry report about the ?New Motor? only being able to put out a mere 2 HP. He might just as well had told them ?Folks, you?ve been had!!!?

5. The professionals sitting on the board were not there to make fools of them selves. Some how each one of them had become personally convinced of the importance of this technology and were getting on board in hopes of making some big $$$ and starting on the ground floor of a vast new industry. I would have come to the same conclusion had I been there.

6. Now, given these circumstances and the people involved. Do you think that Mr. Gray, Mr. Hackenburger, or any of the board members would knowingly disclose the heart of an unprotected age-changing technology at a media event while being housed in clear Plexiglas containers, especially when these devices were hinted as being the soul of the Free Energy process?

I shall let the well seasoned researcher ponder these statements and reflect upon how serious the photos of these devices should be taken.
Never the less, these devices are a work of art and certainly added a sense of mystery to an otherwise uninteresting pile of mechanical equipment.

Now, let use consider what photos like this can tell us about the real technology that these people were attempting to work with.

This motor was work of Richard Hackenburger. It was a Version 2 design that was intended to improve upon the problems encountered in the EMA4-E2. Besides sudden failures (capacitor and battery blow outs) the Version 1 models suffered from poor speed-torque response and tended to stall when a mechanical load was suddenly applied. This was not a good thing for an automobile application. It appears that Mr. Hackenburger came on board after several (at least three) advanced prototype motors had already been built. The huge improvement was the consolidation of the ?Major? and Minor? electromagnets into one electromagnet assemble. (We still don?t know how many windings this assemble includes)

I have no doubt that Richard did his up most professional best to make this motor run better than its predecessor. If he had a collection of copper pipe sections on public display then (in my opinion) He didn?t think they were technically that important. Obviously, his year of physical and electrical analysis of the working Cole motors and the Electrostatic Generators convinced him that the ?kernel? of the OU process was somewhere else.

This Version 2 prototype motor had a similar pole topology to the EMA4-E2. According to recorded phone conversations it had 9 outer stator poles and 3 poles on the rotor. It is this author?s belief that these poles were of a single unit electromagnet design. (complex I?m sure)

There are 6 very large (maybe 250 A-hr each?)  6V lead acid batteries that provide the DC power for this demonstration. They are split into two unequal power banks. The two batteries closest to the end of the shaft are connected in series (12 V). The negative terminal is connected to the case of the motor proper (assume to be ground) while the positive terminal home runs to a connection near the commentator. I propose that these two batteries are collecting some measure of recovered energy. The other 4 batteries are also connected in series (24 V) and have several custom inter-cell taps installed to allow different voltages to be used. About 6 of these taps go to the large rotary switch on the adjoining table large amperage rotary switch. A single large white wire emerges from this box and goes to the knife switch. From here is disappears into a number of cables that interface with the three (3) power supplies.

There are 3 metal gray cans, assumed to be dual capacitors (four terminals each), employed. One capacitor pair is related to each ?CSET? device. To the best of my observations in examining all of the photos to date there only appears to be TWO connections to each CSET device. One connection, using bare copper ribbon, attaches to one pole on its associated dual capacitor. The other CSET terminal is connected by a large diameter white wire that travels up and into the motor housing and enters if from below. The rest of the dual capacitor connections appear to head towards the there (3) power supplies. To me this implies that these devices are in fact are fixed spark gaps ? but I would certainly welcome being proven wrong. I?m sure they are functional units. There are three (3) white wires that descend from the commentator. I have been unable to exactly determine where these go.

More to follow,


Spokane1
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Shanti on August 22, 2008, 10:02:37 AM
Thank you very much, really interesting.

As it seems here are some people, who are closer involved with the history, I got some short questions:
What happened with the EMA4, that they were not able to make a working replication?
What happened to Cole?
Did the working EMA4 also need such large HV caps for operation?

For I for myself am not impressed at all with all the later demonstrations. E.g. if the EMA6 really just did output 2HP (heard this for the first time), I doubt it would be OU, as 2HP you can easily get out of this stack of batteries. Then it would merely be just a conventional pulse motor (maybe not even as efficient as a conventional electric motor).
Also the demonstrations in the 1986 promo video are not stunning at all. You can easily calculate if you just take a real HV Cap. E.g. like the one I have here (still looks smaller than the ones on the EMA6-cart), which has 500J capacity. With this amount of energy you can fire a 1kg coil more than 50m up into the air.

Maybe the people more involved in the history could gather and write some nice text, of what is known today about gray and the whole history, and maybe even make a small book out of it. I would buy it.

BTW: I thought again about the idea of the electron multiplicator. Maybe they used it that way:
Spark -> Radiation hits grids -> Electrons get knocked out of grid -> electrons get accelerated into the middle due to anode -> electrons will be gathered to flow into the spark, so that spark is fed and again more radiation is produced -> radiation again hits grids, ...

Because the radiation is not affected by the electostatic field of the anode it gets not hindered at hitting the grids, but the other way the electrons get knocked out of the grid and accelerated to the anode. So you actually get this acceleration energy of the electrons for free.
But for this to work I think the best layout would be to make the anode a coil, and in the middle of the anode a rod. So that the electrons get accelerated in the direction of the anode, but as soon as they are within the faraday effect of the anode (inside the anode coil), they get not anymore affected by it and can easily gather at the rod and this rod can then discharge this energy in a spark which again radiates...
Sure, even if only a small percentage of the electron energy flying to the middle will be transformed into radiation energy, it will work as long as the anode potential is high enough so that the acceleration energy developed by it is higher than the loss due to inefficient transformation.
But as before, if used like this, the girds would become charged more and more positive very fast and quickly starved from electrons. Therefore the additional spark gap would be needed to again transfer some electrons to the grid.
I personally think this "cold" effect stated could be a reaction due to the very fast exponential surge of electrons drawn from the grids/motor windings, which is not yet understood by conventional science.
BTW, the battery needed to suck away the electrons from the center rod need only to have a very low positive potential needed, as only the amount of electrons which get sucked away is important, which means current. And as the rod is inside the faraday cage of the anode, it will see a homogenous E-field and therefore will not have problems for discharging. At the other hand, the same amount of electrons, that get dissipated into the battery will also be drawn from the grids. So we have the same current flowing in the battery and drawn from the grids. But the potential developed on the grids will be far higher, only limited by the anode voltage and the distance between grids and anode. So we need to input only a low voltage at a certain current to dissipate it, but get the same current at a much higher voltage at the grids -> Ergo more power. The anode coil could be isolated and therefore will not need any energy.
Are my thoughts correct? Could this work? If not, where did I make the mistake?
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Shanti on August 22, 2008, 11:32:20 AM
Hmm, thought again about it. Think it will  not work, as you cannot get the gathered electrons out of the middle (outside the anode faraday region) without needing power. What do you think? Then it would only work, if you do it with discharging the anode everytime shortly before the impact of the electrons. Then only a solid rod as anode would be sufficient. Surely the advantage would be, that the energy needed to charge and discharge the anode everytime would also be radiated in the spark and therefore contribute to the overall power. But you would surely also get a capacity loss  in the anode if the electrons coming nearer...
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: pomodoro on August 22, 2008, 02:25:49 PM
 Spokane1, you make Ed sound more and more like a crook! Perhaps he was. The patents were done just to keep investors on the hook.  I'm going to continue the exploding wire stuff just to see if these 'darts' or whatever are for real.  I hope to feel them as tesla did and then move on to quenched spark gaps. If I don't get any sensations at 15kv I will probably dismiss the theory of operation as outlined in the book as not applicable. I'm still going through the Tesla lectures slowly and so far I have not yet come across what Gerry and Peter describe so voluminously. Lots more to read though.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Shanti on August 22, 2008, 02:45:30 PM
Actually I also read lot of the Tesla Stuff. All the common known lectures and articles (2 Books: "Tesla Collected Articles and Lectures", a must buy for Tesla interested). But I also didn't read anywhere what Gerry wrote. So does anyone know from which source are the things that Gerry talks about? He must have had some special source which is not commonly known.
And Peter just requoted garry. And then interpreted this in his own way according to how it may fit to the gray tube.
These descriptions are also in the book "The Complete Patents of Nikola Tesla" if I interprete this page correctly http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/tesla.htm (http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/tesla.htm).
But on the page also no source is indicated.
I think a lot of things of Tesla is unnecessary mystified, because of lack of electronic knowledge. And unfortunately I already saw this with many themes online (especially Tesla themes): Somebody just guesses something, and after some time and everybody quoting everybody, it is then told Tesla said this and it's presented as a fact...
E.g. the Lyne explanations are an example for this. If you read the corresponding articles and patents you will quickly recognize, that Tesla meant it completely different than Lyne wanted to understand it. But I doesn't think bad about Lyne because of this, he also only wants to find the truth, and just doesn't have much knowledge in electronics and therefore interprets it in his own unique way...
But one always has to be very alert, to differentiate what did the original source say, and what is just an interpretation of somebody.
Therefore if possible, i always include from where I quote (e.g. which patents...)
Another thing I cannot understand, how it can still be speculated how some things work, wheras they are completely explained by Tesla and very simple in principle (e.g. his death ray). How many sites are there on the net, guessing what his death-ray might be, although he made a detailed explanation of it, and it would be no problem building one according to these explanations...
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 on August 23, 2008, 06:23:05 AM
Dear promodoro,

I suppose I do sound to critical of E.V. Gray and I should temper my text accordingly. He was a regular working man with his share of vices who had his hands around a big pot of gold that slipped out of his fingers. He was changed for life. He merely attmepted to regain what he had lost by doing the same things he did in the past.

I also suppose that I'm more aggitated because I lost a hero when I slowly discovered his real technical ability - as contrasted to how he built himself up in the early 1973 interviews. Perhaps he couldn't tell the press otherwise and still hope to cpatilize on his treasure.

However, Mr. Gray was no where near the technical genius that Dr. Farnsworth was.

Now back to the Tesla RE phenomena. I was wrong on the reference. The magizine was actually "The Electrical Engineer" December 21, 1892 Vol. XIV No. 242 "On The Dissipation of the Electrical Energy of the Hertz Resonator" by Nikola Tesla.

The copy I have is from Jerry Vassilatos "Vril Compendium Volume 9" Vril and Aerial Radio. 1995 Published by Borderlands. Most of the pages are not numbered in this collection, but this document is about 50 pages from the front of 300 pages.

Peter Lindemann claims that this two page article is not the "Mother Load" that Jerry was talking about in his "Lost Science Book". Until we find the actual reference - this will have to do.

I also have not found a reference about people being electracuted from the closure of a large DC system power switch during startup. If I could I would model the circuit setup in LTSPICE and see just what classical parameters were present at the switch. In my study of the Cole system I would think the shutdown of the system would be where the action would happen. I recall reading about a submarine breaker that generated ball lightning when the breaker attempted to interrup a DC motor that was over loading. Now that sounds more like it. A high current DC arc being stretched while connected to an inductive load. Interesting things happen under those circumstances.

Attached (at 300 dpi) is the paragraph of interest. Notice how Dr. Tesla makes reference to the "thick metal bar". For a long time I thought that if the arc hits the center rod in the CSET a phenomena like this would occur and maybe it does (Like the Morton effect), but Dr. Tesla didn't use copper cylinders to harvest this analomous energy he used a very special wound coil.

Spokane1
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 on August 23, 2008, 07:02:55 AM
Dear Shanti,

Some historical answers to your questions:

What happened with the EMA4, that they were not able to make a working replication?

Nobody knew where all the OU came from, least of all Mr. Gray. All of the technical matters were handled by Marvin Cole. Richard Hackenburger was a classically trained electrical engineer who was tasked to finish off a started project (The EMA5).  He was up against a huge learning curve. I'm not so sure I could have done any better with my classical training. It took a few years to get of the idea that there was a violation of the conservation of energy laws (from thermodynamics) taking place in from of him. I also understand that the EMA4-E2 was broke down much of the time after the batteries exploded or a capacitor in the power supply died. Richard was under a strict Non Disclosure Agreement. It wasn't as if he could call up one of his professional friends and say "Hey Sam, how does this free energy thing work?".

What happened to Cole?

He disappeared in early 1973 or late 1972. I really don't know. One account claims that he was bumped off in the desert. We can only guess as to what happened. Since there was no apparent estate battle going for control of the company assets I assume he died with out a spouse or a family. If he had been eliminated through some action of the MIB then the surviving equipment would have been taken as well and it was not. So this leads  me to the conclusion that he suddenly died of an accident or natural causes. It happens.

Did the working EMA4 also need such large HV caps for operation?

We don't know for sure. The electronics under the cover of the EMA4-E2 has never been seen, however one photo shows 12 large yellow HV conductors hanging from the inside. My assumption is that there were 12 unit power supplies involved. I still think the capacitors here were still between 5 and 12 uF. this much capacity is needed to get the discharge timing slow enough to match the speed of rotation. I do think that the oil capacitors used on the EMA6 are designed for over kill and don't need to be that large. (personal opinion). A modern poly capacitor would be 1/10 that size - at least the ones I use.

Details about the Output of the EMA6:

Dr. Chalfin claims that his measurements indicated a near 100% efficiency (1440 watts in) at the 2 HP level. Later Richard Hackenburger claims that he was just measuring the excitation power only (from the 24 V bank of batteries). He was not including the harvested energy that was returning to the receiving battery bank (the 12 V set). The lawyers wanted nothing to be said about excess energy in public for fear of the LA DA. In the EMA4 the return energy was about 63% of the excitation energy. If this factor held true in this motor and at this power level - then we are looking at a COP of 1.63. Not bad, if they were allowed to talk about it. I suspect that the low energy level turned most people off. How are you going to run a car on 2 HP even if it is 100% or 200% efficient - so what.

Spokane1
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: AhuraMazda on August 23, 2008, 10:44:29 AM

Has anyone seen this design or experimented with it?

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item108

Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 on August 24, 2008, 07:50:16 AM
Dear E.V. Gray Researchers,

You may have seen this photo before, but not at this resolution. I got the maximum pixels that I could fit into the 100KB limit.

This is a front end view of the EMA4-E2 Stator showing all 36 electromagnets. Marvin Cole was serious about his work when he built this complex prototype  (no wonder they ran out of money). As you can see it follows the patent pretty close. Another photo (yet to up load) shows that the rotor is also just what the patent shows. This is good because at least we have something to go (not much but some).

Notice that each of the "Major" and "Minor" electromagnets are wired independently. The electromagnets are rather flat. The large one is about 2.5" wide and about 1" thick by 6.75" long. I would guess the wire used for both electromagnets is standard copper magnet wire at about #22 AWG. Notice all the white plastic blocks (assume Delrin) between the poles. I'm sure these serve a useful function.

There is strong evidence that these electromagnets are three-wire devices (and not two). If you check the figures in the motor patent you will notice a detail of the rotor showing how two of the electromagnets are wired in series on the rotor. I assume the case is the same here on the stator.

Spokane1

The case appears to be metallic (most likely aluminum) about 1/2" to 5/8" thick. The inside diameter is 16" so you can make your own relative measurements. We use to think the case was G-10 fiberglass because of the color in this slide, however other photos defiantly show metal.

You can speculate on the magnetic flow in this system, there appears to be some metallic mass underneath the electromagnets so maybe there is some kind of continuous flux path there.

This motor was finished and operational in about 1971, so it is already two years old in this photo  and it has been modified in that time period. I shall show the differences in later photos.

John Bedini claims that he saw this motor operate at 87.5 HP (only once). E.V.Gray would not demonstrate it after that. I project that there was a failure that his team was unable to quickly repair or worse yet not able to find easily.

Spokane1
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: forest on August 24, 2008, 03:13:09 PM
Spokane1, you make Ed sound more and more like a crook! Perhaps he was. The patents were done just to keep investors on the hook.  I'm going to continue the exploding wire stuff just to see if these 'darts' or whatever are for real.  I hope to feel them as tesla did and then move on to quenched spark gaps. If I don't get any sensations at 15kv I will probably dismiss the theory of operation as outlined in the book as not applicable. I'm still going through the Tesla lectures slowly and so far I have not yet come across what Gerry and Peter describe so voluminously. Lots more to read though.

Don't loose hope.I think stinging effect is real but you are making big mistake using large 15kv.Once you done it you may be unable to tell us about it. Why not just start in mini or micro scale ?
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: forest on August 24, 2008, 03:42:19 PM
Dear Spokane1,

I can't see any thyratron tubes at all in those pictures you have generously posted  here. Do you think that could be the reason why Gray motor generated only 2HP ?

I heard many very good theories here and there, I think we should summarize all of them in one place and eliminate by using some info obtained from now available photos.

I heard about :

- radiant energy generation and capture

- Beta rays decay due to Synergee nuclear reaction in excited carbon rod
(http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1310.0/topicseen.html)

- huge voltage rise due to capacitor surface change : two terminals into one terminal capacitor conversion


IMHO also the vacuum tube in Gray circuit is a source of free electrons, that what I think is the most important role of this device.
Now there is possibility that all mentioned plus all described here theories are correct in some degree.

My personal thoughts:
I think that what Gray said about "recreating lighting" may be also correct. Looking for the positive pulse path we see that first it
is arcing between metal rod and carbon rod, then probably commutator is shutting off this path and part of discharge is going back looking for the ground (i.e. lower voltage area). The only path that remains is through copper grids. That's why also the name : "switching device". Vacuum tube is the source of electrons which are needed to complete path of current through copper grids. Maybe the electron avalanche effect occurs in air or carbon in CSET container also or even nuclear Synergee reaction.I don't know.I speculate also that the rest of energy is used to reachrge those large caps Gray used and that's why elements 42,44,46.


Boguslaw
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 on August 24, 2008, 11:20:23 PM
Dear Boguslaw,

You are right there are no thyratron's showing in any of these posted photos and I really doubt there was on in existence at the time 1973-1976. According to Ron Cole E.V. Gray didn't know what a thyratron was during this period of time. His hired technician did use then in  1980 but they were quickly replaced with Ignitrons when a new technician cam on board. The CSET pattent was drawn till 1984, so by then Gray probably had some idea what they were - since he paid for several.

But I don't think the Marvin Cole technology had them.

As far as you interesting ideas on excited carbon rods. I believe you mentioned that in a post not to long ago. I just want to add that what you describe is not a property of just any old carbon or graphite rod. You have to have Pyrolized Carbon. This is a material (carbon of course) made form heated methane gas that is grown like a crystal in a pressure high temperature pressure chamber. The carbon atoms form benzine rings and are laid down in sheets one atom thick. Now that stuff does have all the interesting properties you are referring to - or at least according the Graham Gunderson who has studied this material.

I certainly don't know where you buy it or how much it costs - I doubt if its cheap.

All you need to do now is propose some experimental setups and go to work looking for some non-classical process. The Gray (or Cole) process is wide open for any good ideas that you want to work on.

Spokane1
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 on August 24, 2008, 11:26:58 PM
Installment #4

Dear E.V. Gray Researchers,

Here are three better views of the ?CSET? devices that were used with the EMA6 at the 1/9/76 stockholders meeting.

I have already expressed my technical and political views on this device. These photos are offered for researchers that have a different professional opinion (good for you) and are looking for additional information.

Take a close look at photo CSET4 300-4. Notice the large gauge (about #12 AWG or greater) bare copper wire that appears to be connected to the 1? in diameter center electrode. It also appears to be connected to the large white wire that goes directly to the motor case. In the CSET patents it is the ?grid? that is suppose to connect to the motor, not one of the electrodes. You draw your own conclusions.

Keep in mind that the CSET patent documents didn?t get started for another 8 years after these photos were taken. It seems to me that is a long delay in seeking protection for the heart of an age-changing technology ? but I wasn?t there to know the whole story.

I know that John Bedini?s field notes describe a circuit that is a dead ringer for the CSET patent drawings, but I just can?t get all these clues to jive just right to follow the detailed technical evolution of this circuit.

In photo CSET 300-5 you can also see another bare copper wire connecting the CSET to a terminal on the dual capacitor.


Spokane1
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 on August 24, 2008, 11:31:51 PM
Installment #5

Dear E.V. Gray Researchers,

Here is an out of focus photo of the front end of the EMA4-E2 taken in 1974.

Take a close look at the little rectangular box that is in the middle of the blue support arm that holds the DC motor/generator.

I use to think this feature was a circuit board that probably was some kind of a speed transducer. Boy, was I wrong. The new photos show what it really is. The old B&W photo that I got this erroneous idea from was the 1973 article by Jack Scagnetti. This just shows you how bad conclusions can easily be drawn from poor photos.

It really is a view port that was machined right through the motors front face. From another photo you can see that the front place is about 2? thick. Marvin Cole certainly didn?t want any slippage in his front shaft bearings.  I suppose the rear motor plate is just as thick, but it was intended to support a transmission. The Plexiglas is about ?? thick.

This feature did not exist on this motor in late 1971 it was added during one of the many remodels and upgrades. This pretty well proves that design and programming improvements were still taking place after the motor was first built.

The important technical fact (to me any way) is that you can see the rotor through the window. This is the only photo in existence that shows anything about the EMA4-E2 rotor. As you can tell it follows the patent really close. There had been some speculation by some researchers who thought the rotor was really a single electromagnet design and not the ?Major- Minor? structure that we see now.

In this view there has been a re-arrangement of the outboard support devices compared to the 1971 model. Here the alternator has been replaced with a DC generator which also serves as a DC start motor. The air pump has been relocated to the position on the left. I think this is definite improvement in layout. Not only were they able to eliminate one outboard device (and its V-belt) but the air piping is much simpler and straight forward.

The unlabeled electronics box on the left is also the result of some post 1971 improvement. I speculate (and you got to watch me on these speculations) that it is a control box for two strobe lamps, one for the motor and one for the switching system. When this box appeared there was an additional toggle switch that was added between the two lower meters on the motor control panel. It is labeled ?CTL LAMP?.


Spokane1
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 on August 24, 2008, 11:39:22 PM
Installment #6

Dear E.V. Gray Researchers,

Here is a B&W professional photo taken of the EMA4-E1 when it was first completed in late 1971. This is one view of a series of three photos done in the same period.

You may have seen this photo a number of times. This one sports an automatic transmission. With the higher resolution scan we can focus on the mysterious component ?The Floating Flux Field?.

I won?t bore you with a long lecture on the significance of this novel feature. I?ve spent many moons beating my head against the wall attempting to figure out what this strange inductor like component does. The main thing to consider is that Marvin Cole thought it was very important. It shows up in five of his drawings in the Gray Pulse Motor Patent. It is labeled as item #114 and/or #23/#24.

In the patent Dr. Chalfin says ??we believe it to be a delay line.? which means he didn?t have a clue. I have always got a laugh out of that line. How can the creator of this technology be so uncertain about the purpose of his own work?  Obviously, neither he nor E.V. Gray came up with this component.

A similar component also shows up in the early ?Coil Popping? photos. In comparing these two implementations it appears that their structure is more similar than I thought. What I see in the enlargement FFF photo is a 10 turn - two layer structure composed of some large black cable. The single white cable, on the right, is a set of bundled control conductors going to the power supply from the control panel. The irregular white strip on the left is added insulation in between the two layers to help better separate the cables from each other. This implies there is some high voltage potential at this location that needs to be dealt with.

My examination of the size of these cables yields a diameter of between ?? to ??. I suspect that there are 12 unit power supplies in this motor. If each supply were provided with a common FFF component, as described in the pulse motor patent, then a 12 conductor cable would be needed. Common control cables generally offer 19 conductors because they pack so nice that way, but 12 conductor cables are available.

What is the purpose of this strange device? Well, I?ll be the first to say I don?t know for sure but don?t overlook its importance. Its size, its location, and its construction are all very specific and show up in two of Marvin Cole?s systems. For some reason Mr. Hackenburger didn?t include a similar device on the EMA6 and that may have been one reason why his model fell on its nose. (I?m sure there are other reasons).

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.

I speculate that it is a feedback antenna. It also serves as providing some additional EMI reduction benefits as well; in fact it might have started out just for that purpose. The anomalous processes that are taking place in the motor radiate outward and are partially harvested by this devise, then fed back to the power supply where the speculated non-classical energy is recycled in a positive feedback loop. After a number of cycles the concentration of this non-classical energy reaches a point where is can do some serious mechanical work - for free.

Spokane1
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 on August 24, 2008, 11:43:52 PM
Installment #7

Dear E.V. Gray Researchers,

Here are two photos to consider as you attempt to make sense out of all this information in the differences between Marvin Cole?s work and that of Richard Hackenburger?s.

I still maintain that Richard did the best he could with what he had, but we still have to evaluate performance if we wish to establish how we are going to best invest our limited time and resources reverse engineering these systems.

Consider the apparatus shown in photo Dyno 72-5. This is what Marvin Cole used to provide a measurable load for his motor. It is essentially an oil pump. The high pressure side is forced through a small orifice of a known size while pressure readings are taken on either side. Some general fluid flow calculations will yield the energy dissipated. From that that exercise the motor output HP is determined ? or at least that is how I think it works, but I need to have this reviewed by a professional who works in this area.

I?m making my best guess on what the gauges are. The large gauge on the upper right is a 2% 600 psi pressure gauge to establish the magnitude of the high pressure. The smaller black gauge on the upper left is a lower range pressure meter (I guess up to 90 psi) that establishes the pressure on the low side of the orifice. The lower left black gauge is a 200? temperature gauge that is used to adjust the calculations as the oil heats up.

I would guess this system had a limit of about 150 HP. Heat was dissipated from a small air cooled transmission radiator underneath the EMA4-E2 equipment stand.

Now, take a look at what Richard had to work with in photo Pony Brake 72-3. This is a 2? wide leather strap supporting a 50 lb weight. The strap goes to a near by bench and connects to a fish (spring type) scales. By multiplying the weight registered on the scales by the speed of the motor and then by a conversion factor the general output HP could be determined.

This ?Pony Brake? method has no way to dissipate the heat generated so it is only good for very short and low power measurements. A 2 HP output would be in its range for a short run, but not much more than that or the leather would start to smoke. In fact, it they were getting anything near 100 HP the strap would be on fire in about 2 seconds.

Now which motor do you think the Japanese would offer $12 million for (in 1973 dollars) and which motor do you think investors would walk out the door and write off their losses?


Spokane1
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 on August 24, 2008, 11:47:39 PM
Installment #8

Dear E.V. Gray Researchers,

Here are two photos to consider as you attempt to solve the mysteries of the Marvin Cole Power Supply system.

This is as much as anyone (that I know of) has seen of under the hood of the EMA4-E2 power supply. For size reference the ?hood? is about 24? wide.

I have counted those yellow wires (They appear to be 7mm Spark Plug Wires) several times using a graphics program and I still only come up with 12 wires in two groups of 6 hanging on that white support bar.

Now 12 power supplies just happens to match the number of pole sets used. There are 9 stator poles and three rotor poles = 12 poles total. So I assume one power supply for each pole.

In another photo you can see what looks like two large spark plugs mounted on one side of the hood (I assume they are on both sides). My thought is that these are some of the over voltage safety gaps.

There is also a note in the Pulse motor patent that describes that 18 capacitors are used. I don?t know how 12 power supplies divide into 18 capacitors, but I?m not done yet.

Take from this what you will.

The date on the Hood1 photo is 5/30/74

Spokane1
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 on August 24, 2008, 11:52:04 PM
Installment #9

Dear E.V. Gray Researchers,

Here are two photos of historical interest. These are of the assumed EMA3. This is yet another prototype 9 pole motor ? not to be confused with the 3 pole series of motors that are owned by Al Francoeur that seem to use the same numbering system.

Given the time when these photos were taken it is assumed that this motor was destroyed along with the EMA4-E2 after the LA DA raid.

The close up photo (EMA3 100-5) shows that the motor is not complete. The holes that mount the electromagnets are empty. I suppose the electromagnets were cannibalized to make repairs on the EMA4-E2 ? but this is just a good story telling thought.

What we do see is 10-12? swing lathe. This piece of shop equipment plus the vertical mill seen in other photos implies that maybe Fred Lenz did fabricate most of the EMA6 after all (as he claimed in later legal action). That shows you that a father-in-law from a second marriage can be good for something after all - that is before the lawyers become involved.


Spokane1
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 on August 24, 2008, 11:56:31 PM
Installment #10

Dear E.V. Gray Researchers,

Here is a better photo (and the last) of the EMA6 before it rides off into the FBI shredder sunset. The date of 4/25/76 shows us that this is four months after the last stockholders meeting. Richard Hackenburger and E.V. Gray are still attempting the breath some performance life into this prototype.

The improved approach is the swapping out of the one ?donut? (commutator section) for four smaller ones. What the new ones did or how they are improved over the single unit design is anybodies guess. However, that original commutator was not an inexpensive piece of equipment to have fabricated.

Obviously, they felt they had made a mistake or over extended some assumption somewhere that required a bit of re-engineering. They had already run out of money and the bones of the company were starting to be picked apart by the lawyers. It appears that Gray and Hackenburger were grasping at straws as to how to get this thing to function with no money. Richard might have been driving cab at that time to pay his rent. He was from San Diego and never went home but rather chose to stay in LA to see this adventure to his end.

As far as I know the EMA6 never did significantly improve its performance, however the modifications shown in this photo are claimed to have helped out ? but no one knows by how much or if they actually did.

Both men fully believed they had a fortune just sitting in from of them, ?now darn it, why doesn?t this thing work like the other one did??

Failure is a hard pill to swallow in any circumstance. Imagine how these men might have felt when they both realized they had an age-changing technology in their hands and then somehow it just slipped away. Both men spent the rest of their lives in pursuit of this dream.

Notice the Stroboscope on the bench behind the motor.


Spokane1

Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 on August 25, 2008, 12:01:20 AM
Installment #11

Dear E.V. Gray Researchers,

Here is a photo I find interesting. For the last 10 years the only instruments that are shown in any of the E.V.Gray photos was the venerable Triplett 630-A analog multi-meter.

Finally, here is a photo of the EMA6 with an oscilloscope shown with it - and it?s a Tektronix model to boot. I have known for a couple of years now that Gray didn?t know how to turn one of these things on let alone use it. So, it is refreshing to see that Mr. Hackenburger was actually using some real instruments.

That means that when he says his pulse widths are on the order of milliseconds and that the current magnitude reached 160 Amps we have a lot better chance of believing that he was not just blowing hot air, like E.V. Gray was known to do when it came to facts and figures.

Spokane1
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: forest on August 27, 2008, 09:51:10 AM
I found an interesting similarity between Gray circuit and this text :

http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/FreeEnergy.pdf

which we may consider as another theory of Gray tube ;-)

Look at attached image.

"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."

What if that was the source of power in original Marvin Cole device ? A power vacuum tube maybe klystron or thyratron, something very uncommon and hard to get but able to generate large secondary electron emission current. Then Gray tube was only a switching element for that current. If so we are in hopeless situation because klystron and thyratron is almost impossible to get. That device had to have very curious features indeed - it had to work in cold cathode way and generating large current peak.I speculate that maybe it was a hand made device without  anode , just with special cathode/filament which generate large peak current slowed later by carbon and switched to copper grids by a method described above.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 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
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: forest on August 28, 2008, 10:02:07 PM
TV set tube ? accelerated electrons ?
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 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
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Shanti 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).

Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: forest 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 ?

Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Shanti 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.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Shanti 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.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Shanti 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.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 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
 
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Shanti 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 (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...
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Spokane1 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
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: forest 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...
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Jerry Volland 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:
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Jerry Volland 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.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Jerry Volland 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.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: forest on August 24, 2010, 08:07:22 PM
what is the gain from having third electrode ?
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Jerry Volland on August 24, 2010, 10:58:51 PM
The third electrode allows a circuit connected to that electrode to be switched on by turning on the primary arc.  The value of this is that it allows the capacitor to be discharged when it is only partly charged.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Jerry Volland on August 24, 2010, 11:53:02 PM
The third electrode allows a circuit connected to that electrode to be switched on by turning on the primary arc.  The value of this is that it allows the capacitor to be discharged when it is only partly charged.
If only two electrodes are used the capacitor would have to reach a certain charge level before it can discharge.  And the discharge would be automatic, rather than controlled.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Jerry Volland on September 10, 2010, 03:53:55 AM
I've had a hard time getting any repulsion out of my Puff Spark.  I've been working with this Plasmoid effect for almost 9 years and no matter what I tried, it just wouldn't repel.  Of course, I've shown more than one video on Energetic Forum in which extra coils attached to my circuit DID repel each other.  But with just the inductor and the spark, nothing.  For one thing the spark discharge is too drawn out.  With explosive repulsion the energy has to be released quickly.  I also tried compressing the Plasmoid but a smaller diameter tube just resulted in a smaller volume effect, with no pressure.  To top it off, the inductor itself always ATTRACTS nearby metal.  And it even has an electrostatic effect on a dowel rod, causing it to snap into axial alignment with the coil.

The Zetex video of Gray's demonstration shows something being launched from a large diameter plastic tube, with a large volume white type of energy following it.  Gray maintains that this effect can be used to fire a bullet as well as impart lift off velocity to the Space Shuttle.  The Israeli government was willing to pay $9 million for his secret.

Well, after all this time I've finally got it.  Here's my video showing an open breach apparatus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzBBjLCMchI

This only has one coil, which is the inductor.  And there's no connection to the metal cone.

Now the REAL work begins.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Jerry Volland on September 11, 2010, 01:24:31 AM
The device in the video I just posted will do exactly the same thing if the power supply is turned off before discharge.  This is not an ignition coil boosted plasma.  The video and the picture both show a Plasmoid, something which has surface tension.  This substance is produced by bidirectional potentials in the originating arc, which is the same effect which occurs in Ed Gray's motor.  The Zetex video shows that his motor was filled with white light - from the stretched Plasmoid between the coils - while it was running.  This white light is caused by Hot Carrier Emission.

Most of my demonstrated tests have involved only one capacitor.  This circuit produces two potentials traveling through the arc in opposite directions, due to the inductor's CEMF.  (In the patents, Gray says they're dealing with two effects, one of which is the CEMF.)  The two pictures at the bottom clearly show that there are two sparks wrapped around each other, proving that there are two potentials with one capacitor's discharge.  This is NOT a normal plasma spark discharge, as I pointed out here, shortly before being banned from Energetic Forum for "plagiarizing" someone else's work:

http://www.energeticforum.com/97586-post1971.html
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Jerry Volland on December 03, 2010, 10:11:33 PM
I've come up with a circuit variation which allows me to power a motor with brushes using HV.  I've been testing the circuit with a treadmill motor which has coils on the armature, but uses magnets only for the stator field.  However, this circuit will also run a weed eater motor which is normally AC but also has brushes and stator coils.  And the circuit will work with a single MW oven capacitor, although the torque and speed both increase with extra caps.

When the bottom side of the Microwave Oven Transformer is negative the capacitor charges, with its bottom side also negative.  When the MOT reverses polarity the voltage is blocked by the diode, but still travels through the motor to discharge the cap, at twice the voltage.  The capacitor provides the primary power for the motor since the speed is much lower with just the voltage from the transformer.  The battery alone will also drive the motor at a slow speed, although the motor is rated for up to 100 VDC.  With the battery and the cap, the speed is higher than with the cap alone.  Reversing the battery results in almost no RPM when the full circuit is employed.

At a couple thousand Volts from the transformer and cap, the battery's voltage is a small increase.  So the added speed must be due to the battery's Amps.  The diode blocks the battery with reverse polarity, so these Amps must be going through the capacitor.  This is further evidenced since the reversed battery will not run the motor when the transformer is off.  There seems to be something about pulsing the cap which allows it to pass DC current.

I also tried an experiment with a 120 V. electric drill motor by plugging it into a 208 VAC socket.  The higher voltage made the drill spin much faster, but the brushes really shot some fire.  This doesn't happen when the higher voltage is supplied by capacitive discharge.  So I think there's two things involved with this circuit which relate to Ed Gray's system, the DC displacement current through the cap and the non inductive static from the cap's discharge.

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/7326/batterycircuit.gif
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: FatBird on December 06, 2010, 01:51:40 AM
What is the value of the Caps?
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Jerry Volland on December 06, 2010, 06:59:33 PM
What is the value of the Caps?
When I'm using a single cap it's .65uF.  This is what I've done my comparison tests with - the battery alone, the cap alone, and the battery and cap.  For now I'm just using a count with a uniform cadence.  With the battery the motor stops at the count of three, after it's disconnected.  With the cap, it stops at the count of five.  And with both the battery and the cap, it spins till the count of seven.

My other cap is .8uF, and I've used up to three of these in parallel with the first one, giving 3uF.  I haven't tried both caps and battery with the larger value since I'm getting such a high RPM if would be difficult to tell the difference (with the battery added).  Also, the transformer starts smoking and I have to unplug it at, or near top speed.  The flywheel motor then spins to a stop at the count of 17.

I've also got a clamp meter and plan to do some better tests.

The motor's rated for 100 VDC and I'd probably get better performance at that DC voltage, but adding the HV may provide a step towards enhanced efficiency.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: penno64 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
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Jerry Volland on December 09, 2010, 05:51:23 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
Yes, I am providing AC to the MOT from the mains.  The full circuit with the car battery and the caps won't work without the HV from the transformer, regardless of battery polarity.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Jerry Volland on December 23, 2010, 05:25:17 PM
I've been playing with one of my Conversion Tubes again and this time around I've been able to charge the grids.  I consider this a milestone since the grids aren't connected to a load.  I'm uploading some pictures so everyone can see the reason for my optimism.

The first picture shows the Radiant flash produced by the combination of my Plasmoid effect (Puff Spark) along with the power supply's arc.  Both the NST and the capacitor, with its 100 miliHenry series inductor, are dumping straight through the Tube's spark gap.  I'm using one end of the 10 kV NST with the center tap, for 5 kV, and charging the cap to around 4 kV before the shot.  Not much detail is visible due to the camera burn.   

The next picture, on the left, shows the opaque Radiant Energy flowing across the end of the Tube and shining through some holes in the outer grid.   

And the last picture shows grid to grid discharges, caused by the different potential on each grid.  Here again, light from the lower spark is shining through two holes in the outer grid.  The two grids are connected by a half turn inductance at the far end, by the teflon spacer.  This connects the inside surface of one grid with the inside surface of the other, but there is no power take off (PTO) at this point.  (So far.)  As it turns out, the grids arc together before the potential has time to travel the length of the grids and equalize through the connecting inductive loop.  It's quite possible that too much charge was put on the grids, but I can produce my key effect with some very small caps, if I need to.   

I think I'm getting really close.  And I've figured out a timing method to connect the grids to the load a split second after they're charged, without using any electronic circuits. 
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: XS-NRG on December 23, 2010, 10:19:53 PM
so where is the resistive elememt?
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Jerry Volland on December 24, 2010, 12:36:07 AM
so where is the resistive elememt?

I'm not using a resistor yet, to limit the power going to the Tube.  That'll be part of the final tweeking, unless I determine the carbon can throw sparks like the wood does.
Title: Re: Eds design
Post by: Shanti 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 (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.