Gray Tube Replication

[FuzzyTomCat]

US CODE: Title 17

Hi everyone,

For all you that may need reference to copyright information -

US CODE: Title 17, COPYRIGHTS / Cornell University School of Law

Please take note to "Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 102 (a) (5)" and "Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 102 (b)"

US CODE: Title 17,Section 102 Subject matter of copyright: In general


Glen

[Aaron]

not the same circuit

Thanks Glen but that is unnecessary since it is irrelevant.

The below pic is very common sense.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Thanks Glen but that is unnecessary since it is irrelevant.

The below pic is very common sense.

Aaron, Never a question about the two totally different circuits posted ....

[Aaron]

clarification of what IS electrically identical

Electrotek, get this so you can be informed of what my circuit
actually is.

http://www.esmhome.org/library/water...ionpatents.zip
(I highly recommend everyone study these circuits because I believe they give a good clear common sense insight into what Gray is doing - as he seemed to have a strong background in dealing with ignition circuits with Mallory)

Here is two diagrams from one patent issued in 2003 but this person's patents go back to 1998 with the IDENTICAL concept.

Electrotek, if you want to see something that actually is electrically identical, here is one example. All I have to do is replace L1 with a
real inductor and not just a tiny choke and upscale C2 and it is what
I am doing. Also, if there gap isn't at 302 position, there must be a diode
after L1 and it works identically.



These plasma ignition patents go way back...the NASA one is
identical in concept, etc... these are what my circuits are based
on as Luc's circuit was a rediscovery of this concept. They have
been around longer than ANY of our posted circuits.

Your diagram cannot and will not do what this does. It may make
a spark or plasma burst "puff spark" but it is NOT the same
thing because of the MULTIPLE differences that I pointed out.

If you claim it can, show it in a video...your whole defibrilator
unit and your diagram setup and show it up close in good light
and show the pure white plasma burst and spray water on it
and see what it does...do this with your coil removed from
the circuit.

I do not take it lightly that you are accusing me of plagiarism.
That is libelous and is defamation of character as your claim
is 100% false.

[Electrotek]

This is the circuit I'm referring to:

http://www.energeticforum.com/attach...t-set-up-b.jpg

[Aaron]

still not the same



This is still NOT what my circuits do.

Your caps are still not tied to a common ground.
The ground of one is directly connected to the
positive of the other cap and connected to the
coil at the same time.

The coil is tied to 3 points instead of two now.
First is a cap's positive on top,
Second is the negative of the other cap,
Third is a point to the gap.

The other differences are pretty much identical
to your other drawing.

Sorry, but you have made a false accusation
against me.

Again, this diagram you are now referring to
still has nothing to do with my schematic.

You seem to have too much EE experience
in order to ignore these facts that I have
proven and shown for everyone to see. I
am now suspicious of your motives.

[Electrotek]

Hi everyone,

For all you that may need reference to copyright information -

US CODE: Title 17, COPYRIGHTS / Cornell University School of Law

Please take note to "Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 102 (a) (5)" and "Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 102 (b)"

US CODE: Title 17,Section 102 Subject matter of copyright: In general


Glen

A recent business column in my local paper, titled "Know details of U.S. copyright laws" states:

"There is no firm rule about how much a work must differ from the original in order to avoid infringing the copyright."

Aaron: The term "libel" requires that a statement be knowingly untrue. What about the 5 1/2 hour update time frame?

edit: What truth is there in your statement that what I'm saying has anything to do with Peter?

[FuzzyTomCat]

Thanks Glen but that is unnecessary since it is irrelevant.

The below pic is very common sense.

Aaron, I forgot to add you are correct about the "Irrelevancy" because of marking of copyrights as indicated in Chapter 4 Section 401 on "Form of Notice" that is required. Once anything is published without it in public it's open game adding it afterwards from what I'm told is to late.

US CODE: Title 17,401. Notice of copyright: Visually perceptible copies



And from what I have heard the "2007 Copyright ? Energetic Forum? A Non Profit Corporation - All Rights Reserved" at the bottom of the Energetic Forum does hold a lot of weight.

[Aaron]

false accusations

A recent business column in my local paper, titled "Know details of U.S. copyright laws" states:

"There is no firm rule about how much a work must differ from the original in order to avoid infringing the copyright."

Aaron: The term "libel" requires that a statement be knowingly untrue. What about the 5 1/2 hour update time frame?

edit: What truth is there in your statement that what I'm saying has anything to do with Peter?

How much a work must differ? Do you realize how many 555 circuits there are and that most differ only slightly but they accomplish the same thing nevertheless.

There are many CDI ignition circuits...they all aim to accomplish the SAME thing...charge a capacitor and discharge it into the primary of an ignition coil. Many of these circuits that are either patented or copyrighted have differences so subtle, they almost look like mirror images of each other. Yet, they are fully protected as a unique schematic. Again, the AIM is to accomplish the same thing and they actually do accomplish the same thing.

Your circuit does NOT do the same as my circuits, they are not electrical equivalents, so the difference is even GREATER apart than other circuits that are protected.

If you say mine is electrically the same as yours and mine is 100% ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL in nature to the plasma ignition circuits patented years ago except for my inductor in series with the discharge, you then claim yours is electrically identical to those patents and those patents even pre-date Gray...the older ones go back to the 50's and back. Therefore, you are claiming to infringe on all of those patents. Even though they're outdated and expired now...the older ones, you can no longer claim that the circuit is YOURS.

So these are the two logical options:

A - Your circuit infringes on all these other circuits that I have shown proving they were in existence years before you ever came up with your circuit - therefore it isn't your circuit. (if your circuit and my circuit are
electrically identical)

B - You must admit that the circuits are not only different and are not electrically identical, but don't even operate in the same way or method.

You can take a regular Bedini SG circuit and copy it 100% but just increase the base resistor to a higher resistance and suddenly, the circuit is in self oscillation instead of working as a mechanical oscillator.

It would be understandable if your circuit and my circuit were close enough to even have this kind of similarity but it doesn't. You and I both know and probably everyone else here that changing one little thing on a circuit is the difference between working and not working or doing A or doing B.

A subtle difference in a copyrighted fairy tale is one thing that doesn't change the story too much...but a subtle change in a circuit can cause an exponential difference in the function or intent of the circuit.

Your circuit and my circuit are much more different than just a subtle difference...they are miles apart...no commonly grounded caps as I have repeatedly shouted from the rooftops about in this thread from the beginning...all these things my circuit adheres to but almost none of these parameters exist in your diagram and I have pointed them out specifically with no room for guesswork.

It doesn't matter to me if there are other circuits in this thread that don't stick to what I believe to be the necessary parameters because if it actually works then good, but I have rigorously stuck to applying in my circuits exactly what I have described and I see almost none of this in your circuit.

And a 5 hour difference between one of my posts and another? Not that I have a need to justify anything to anyone but it is irrelevant because our circuits do not resemble each other.

I work all hours of the night and can only do this stuff in between my work and when I have things to do, I do them then get back to this stuff. Even if that diagram was posted 1 minute after the first, it is still irrelevant because your circuit is NOT the same as mine - not electrically or in concept.

With your EE experience, you want to claim that you actually believe that my circuit is based on your circuit? I find that incredibly difficult to believe.

I have a documented history all over the net of experimenting with the plasma water spark circuit and documentation in the water sparkplug thread of why I originally put a coil in series with the spark plug...all the rest of my circuits are common sense extrapolations of from that.

This thread shows the record of everything, feel free to consult anyone you wish if you feel you must.

Again the points of differences - and almost every point applies to your
second diagram you show as well.



And finally, I said I was suspicious of accusations that are so obviously and blatantly wrong and with each attempt to claim that I am using your circuit, the suspicion grows.

All this nonsense is not what Energetic Forum is for. I have freely shared what I have done as some others have and unfortunately once in a while someone starts to antagonize another as I have been accused of infringing on someone else's circuit.

I ALWAYS give credit where my ideas come from such as Gmeast and his scope shot, Luc and his diode deal and the list goes on. Electrotek, if your circuit contributed to my circuits I would have given you credit but honestly, it never made any sense to me so I never really commented on it.

I'm not saying you don't have contributions here that I didn't learn from and they're very interesting ideas but your analysis of the Gray tube doesn't really have anything to do with your circuit.

[Electrotek]

Aaron, I forgot to add you are correct about the "Irrelevancy" because of marking of copyrights as indicated in Chapter 4 Section 401 on "Form of Notice" that is required. Once anything is published without it in public it's open game adding it afterwards from what I'm told is to late.

US CODE: Title 17,401. Notice of copyright: Visually perceptible copies



And from what I have heard the "2007 Copyright ? Energetic Forum? A Non Profit Corporation - All Rights Reserved" at the bottom of the Energetic Forum does hold a lot of weight.

Again, quoting from the above article:

"A work is protected when it is created and fixed in a tangible form that is perceptible directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works made after March 1, 1989 need not be marked with a "©".

This is something Aaron has mentioned.

Also, the copyright at the bottom of the page doesn't transfer ownership in any Intellectual Property which is presented on this forum. This is evidenced by the Terms of Usage of this forum which state: The forum and its owners, etc. shall have a "non exclusive" license to use material which is posted to, or transmitted through, the forum. Here again, no transfer of ownership rights.

Aaron: Why haven't put my second circuit up side by side with yours and done a comparison? And what do automotive ignition circuits, with two point spark gaps, have to do with my 3 point discharge circuit? Your circuit in question does not have a blocking diode to "slam shut", as you've described many times. Your circuit will in fact do the very same thing mine does, produce a Puff Spark. And your circuit doesn't match the CSET depiction in Gray's patent any more than mine does. But both of us have shown the identical circuits might be used in this manner.

[Electrotek]

Puff Tube

Here's my Tube version of my 3 point discharge circuit:

http://www.energeticforum.com/attach...puff-tubea.jpg

Also shown here:

http://www.energeticforum.com/47450-post919.html

A few years back I posted the link to this version of my Puff Spark circuit to the alfenergy forum, and discussed its operation. This group is still active and my messages are publicly accessible at that site.

This does show a tie in with Gray's CSET.

I'm not trying to defame anyone. I'm only defending my Intellectual Property by saying there was an infringement - unknowing or otherwise.

[Electrotek]

There are many CDI ignition circuits...they all aim to accomplish the SAME thing...charge a capacitor and discharge it into the primary of an ignition coil.

If you say mine is electrically the same as yours and mine is 100% ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL in nature to the plasma ignition circuits patented years ago except for my inductor in series with the discharge, you then claim yours is electrically identical to those patents and those patents even pre-date Gray...the older ones go back to the 50's and back. Therefore, you are claiming to infringe on all of those patents. Even though they're outdated and expired now...the older ones, you can no longer claim that the circuit is YOURS.

I have a documented history all over the net of experimenting with the plasma water spark circuit and documentation in the water sparkplug thread of why I originally put a coil in series with the spark plug...all the rest of my circuits are common sense extrapolations of from that.

The CDI circuits, like the water sparkplug circuit, involve discharging a LV capacitor, first into an ignition coil, then into the resulting spark. Using two electrodes. My Puff Spark circuit, like your circuit in question, charges one or more HV capacitors directly from a HV source, then discharges the HV capacitor through an inductor. There is no similarity between my circuit, and this specific circuit of yours, and those other circuits you mention, claiming that my copyright is invalid.

[Aaron]

circuit documentation

Electrotek,

You are VERY selective in what you try to point out about what I have done or posted.

I have repeatedly posted this diagram and variations of it in my youtube vids, on Peswiki, maybe in Overunity.com and here.

The below diagram has been posted here - enjoy the diodes:
http://www.energeticforum.com/44626-post612.html



Please don't pretend that you didn't know about this or my other ones
with the diode because you have seen me post too many times describing
how a diode isn't needed if there is a gap and if the circuit is physically
connected, then a diode is needed. I have used BOTH versions and BOTH
have nothing to do with your first circuit, nothing to do with your second
circuit and nothing to do with your "gray" tube comparison.

You say: "And what do automotive ignition circuits, with two point spark gaps, have to do with my 3 point discharge circuit?"

So you obviously admit our circuits are not the same and even my "3 point" versions are not the same as yours.

As requested, here is your second diagram comparison:



And in case you ask about your "Gray comparision"



In all 3 of your diagrams, there is no similarity to the Gray circuit.

All 3 do not have all grounds tied together.

All 3 do not the coil placement correct in relation to a capacitor
and the only cap you have with the + connected to the coil
is also connected elsewhere...either to a point at the gap or
to the tube...NONE of this is represented in any of the Gray diagrams
that I have seen.

All 3 have other deviations from Gray's concept.

I have already posted a video showing a three point system that is
like the Gray tube diagram in the patent. The HV rod is one point,
the LV rod is another point and the Grid is one point...3 points.
Each of these three points are NOT represented correctly in your
diagram.

You SHOULD have no idea what my 2 point versions have to do with
your 3 point circuit because this is a very admission from you that my circuits
are in no way, shape or form similar, identical or electrically identical
to yours and never have been.

Your three point circuit has nothing to do with what Gray is doing
and your three point circuit has nothing to do with what my three
point circuits are doing.

And for the umpteenth time, each point
of my three points are analogous to a HV rod...the trigger or incoming
HV...the second point is a "LV" source where the HV moves to initially
and the grids are represented by my third point, which is identical to
the grids where the big burst is supposed to move to ground. This is NOT hard to understand...simply draw two rods and a grid at my 3 points if you need the shapes of the rods to tell you they're analogous to the rods and a grid if you need the shape of the grid to tell you it is analogous to the grid.

That is an identical analogy to what Gray is doing and why my circuits
accomplish this.

Any mention from you about confusion of my 2
point simplified version appears to be an intentional effort on your part
to misdirect attention to irrelevant matters. The 1st and 2nd point are
OBVIOUSLY physically connected and separated by diodes as shown,
as explained, and as demonstrated multiple times by me. AND the
connection between the cathodes of both opposing diodes turns from
2 points into 1 point leaving the common ground over a gap as the
2nd point.

You say: "Your circuit will in fact do the very same thing mine does, produce a Puff Spark. And your circuit doesn't match the CSET depiction in Gray's patent any more than mine does. But both of us have shown the identical circuits might be used in this manner."

Our circuits do not do the same thing. My circuits without the inductor does exactly what Gotoluc's circuits originally do...make a white plasma burst consistently by applying very specific principles.

You have shown all kinds of DIFFERENT color bursts and have never shown a complete true schematic of anything you have done and your digaram is a diagram not a schematic. I have posted SCHEMATICS that anyone can duplicate and I have posted diagrams where a lot of things are implied.

I have yet to see a schematic from you. In either case, my circuit consistently does one thing...the white plasma burst...and when I put an inductor where I say it should go, I get the green burst and the rapid cap discharge and a quickly charged coil that produces work by attraction or repulsion...consistently...100% of the time with EVERY variation I show as long as certain principles are applied. That is ALL the circuit does.

As far as matching the depiction in the Gray patent, here is the 2 point system as I posted and as you obviously are intentionally refusing to admit what is posted right here:



And I don't need to show a three point system because I already showed
a video and diagram of that actually working and the layout is identical to the Gray tube setup...I simply had lower input on the front end...but it will charge the coil at the grids and I can trigger it at the LV rod with a diode there and switch it in and out of the circuit just as the commutator should do and when I do, the coil charges because my circuits MATCH the patent diagram precisely...at least that variation of the 3 point version...and in that version, I actually used the tube and it makes no difference.

So you think mine doesn't match Gray's any more than yours does...again...you have no caps tied to common ground, etc... 3 connections to one end of the coil, etc...

Yet, I have common ground like Gray's, load coil is in series with on side to one cap and the other to a gap or diode, etc... every principle is the same in all occasions.

The diagrams are clearly available for everyone to see and any further accusations on your part 'may' simply flush out more evidence to this matter that will whittle away your claim to nothing.

You have attacked me accusing me of infringment and you said you had to be agressive about it. I'll give you one thing, you're at least being "polite" compared to some others that have done the same but it is a false accusation.

This doesn't concern some abstract concept...I have VERY SPECIFIC points that I have drawn out that show how your circuit is nothing like mine or Gray's. This is a very concrete subject. Theory of how Gray works, etc... that is all one thing but these circuits that we are all building, yours, mine and others will do what they do because of very specific parameters that are intrinsic within each design and these "hardwired" traits - no pun intended in our circuits leave nothing to guesswork. Your circuit simply is different, has been different, is different and as evidenced from your unwillingness to see this...will probably always remain different from mine and Gray's.

You have serious emotional attachment to your circuit and righfully so. You came up with it, stumbled upon Gray's circuit and was surprised about how "similar" his circuit was to yours. I think you want to believe they are similar because of some visual similarity with the 3 points in the overshoot or whatever, but if you take the time to analyze it, they are very different.

I have no doubt that your circuit produces some kind of plasma burst...all kinds of different ones that you have described over and over. These plasma discharges are weird creatures. But still, this has nothing to do with my circuit or Gray's circuit. Maybe the physics involved with the plasma itself might be similar or something but the sequence of events to get the desired result is different and is different from what you are doing.

I can power the coil by discharging into it from the front or I can power the coil by having the cap behind the load discharge from behind it toward the grid. In either case, they BOTH work, they give the same burst for the same equivelant charge, etc...

I'm not interested in some battle with you on this issue but I will speak my mind in clear detail as I believe I have. The only thing you are accomplishing is giving me the opportunity to firmly document the history of where my circuits came from showing ample evidence - actually proof at face value of the circuit itself and showing that there is no similarity to yours. This is all I see being accomplished - exactly the opposite of your desire to take credit for my circuits, which are entirely different from yours.

[Electrotek]

I can power the coil by discharging into it from the front or I can power the coil by having the cap behind the load discharge from behind it toward the grid. In either case, they BOTH work, they give the same burst for the same equivelant charge, etc...

Yes, I can do the same thing. This falls under the realm of electrical equivalency. And I have also stated that "diode polarity doesn't matter".(edit) However, with the way I show the diode, electrons move against the arrow, so this IS the positive terminal of the power supply. (/edit) And where is my coil connected in three places? And my two capacitors are in fact tied to the same ground. (edit) None of your "differences" holds up. (/edit)

Your circuits that you've promoted use a LV capacitor. This Puff Spark circuit of yours uses a HV capacitor. (Like Gray's circuit.) And it will not produce a plasma burst without the inductor.

If you're never going to admit that the circuits are the same then we may as well drop the matter from this forum and move it to a different arena.

I don't see how I'll be able to post anything else of value to your forum. This deprives me of something of value.

[Spokane1]

Back to the Ghst Apparatus

Dear Forum Members,

I have compleated about an 85% reproduction of the proposed Holographic Appratus as disclosed and contributed by Mr. Ghst. My present circuit varies in that I am using brass threaded rod for the end connections of the spark gap array - it should be copper. Also I'm using 4" of a #2 HB pencil in lieu of the carbon fiber shaft. These variances will be corrected later this week end.

When the circuit is started up, at least in my version, small arcs are formed between the copper donuts and then quickly melt small channels in the nylon washers. After this, all arcing between the copper donuts takes place at these same locations. Therefore there are six fixed small arcs along the spark gap array during operation.

My pencil is aimed at one of these small arcs at a gap distance of 0.140". The voltage across the storage capacitor (5uF 5KV) was observed with a 3KV Electroscope. Storage capacitor discharges, in fresh air would take place starting at 1.8KV then the breakdown voltage would increase to 3KV over a period of 10 min. This implies that the atmosphere inside the plastic jar begins to increase its breakdown strength. Generally, the breakdown strength is reduced in a closed container when using metal electrodes. Perhaps the out-gassing of the nylon or the graphite is responsible for the observed breakdown increase?

What is interesting (at this point) is the large gap that this system is able to jump. Typically a 3KV potential will not strike between sharpened metal points as close as 0.015". In this experiment we are almost an order of magnitude greater than that. The nature of the discharge arc is also interesting in that it forms a triangular "Fan" that is as wide as the gap is long. I have not seen this kind of arc formation in a multidude of other HV experiments. It appears that the discharge wants to connect to at least three of the smaller arcs that are formed across the copper donut spark array at the same time. This suggests some intersting plasma dynamics.

A scope trace of the charging current through the ignition coil primary shows a peak of 6 Amps. The chopping frequency is 116 Hz. There is an abudance of EMI being produced that needs to be explored to see if it can be reduced through better shielding. It takes about 6 seconds to fully charge the storage capacitor.

This is a low energy shake down experiment running at 3KV max. Mr. Ghst reported his anamolous events at a voltage around 6KV or higher.

Setup photos and scope traces to follow.

Spokane1