Gray Tube Replication

[Aaron]

Electrotek's extensive "EE" background

I'm considering this matter closed.

Jerry claims: "I'm not some kind of "EE" to be drawing "schematics""

Jerry's patent shows that his electrical engineering experience goes back
to 1979 when his patent was filed - and I'm assuming he had knowledge
before that - (30+ years) so I believe it to be as close to conclusive as conclusive
can get that he already knows full well EXACTLY how a capacitor diagram
is to be written when he uses the polarized capacitor symbol with the
straight line and curve.

His circuit is probably EXACTLY as he drew them and is the reason why
it isn't performing as he desires - and wants to claim that in reality his
capacitor is positioned differently from how he drew it...still doesn't make
it like my circuits.

Here is a diagram from his patent - and there are 3 diagrams with this
capacitor symbol used correctly, apparently. It is an interesting patent
actually and I have a lot of respect for anyone that can bring an idea
as far as getting a patent but all this shows is his full competence in
electrical engineering and that using an excuse of using some generic
capacitor diagram - well, just won't fly.

[Aaron]

@ Jerry Volland - Electrotek

@Jerry (Electrotek)

Anyway, Jerry, I forgive you for openly insulting and attacking me claiming
I'm using your circuits even though I have done nothing but like that.

I'm satisfied that I have proven my case and you can do with it as you like. You're welcome to post anything in this thread that you feel is appropriate and if you're not willing to retract your statement, at least do not ever bring it up again or allude to your work being stolen, copies, or whatever else unless you're willing to prove it with facts.

I'm simply a passionate person that has shared some exciting results here
with some modifications I've done to some plasma sparkplug circuits and
other circuits and would never take someone's work and claim it to be my own.

Good luck to you and your work.

[Aaron]

Attraction and Repulsion

I'm not sure how many people are aware of that the Gray motor may be BOTH attraction and repulsion. I'm sure Mark has the history of how this
fits in to anything.

[Aaron]

Green Plasma motor in the dark

I haven't posted anything in a long time because I'm too
busy but here is one. It is just light and noise.

YouTube - Aaron's Green Plasma Motor in the Dark

The circuit is one I've shown many times. The water sparkplug
circuit with booster caps and the coil is in series with the
booster caps.

Booster caps ARE the LV source high current impulse source
while the front side ignition setup is the high voltage source.

Slam those into each other and move to common ground and
the coil charges.

Anyway, I haven't seen any other concept that consistently
works as described in the Gray patent.

HV discharge moves into a LV source and that moves to a common
ground.

[Electrotek]

My Patent

Aaron: That picture from my Patent cost my $200. I did not draw it, or even a basic representation. Also, I had to pay an attorney to write my patent. I was able to file for a patent because I had recently found the Imris Patent (#3781601) by accident, and correlated it with a report I had about the resmods. I took both to my attorney, he wrote every thing up, then had me read it and sign the forms. Reading patents doesn't provide an "EE" background.

However, the capacitor symbol in this picture is not polarized, as it is an AC circuit. This proves that the symbol for a capacitor in a basic diagram is not polarized unless the polarity is indicated with a + sign. And the symbol for an electrolytic has a heavy dark line, rather than just a straight line. And I may be wrong, but I'm unaware of such a thing as a HV electrolytic.

This is just some more of your CRAP. Why don't you stop deluding yourself and face reality. How could you have designed that circuit when you can't even look at the diagram and see how the capacitor is connected? Why haven't you said that you BUILT the circuit.

Also, your two new circuits are based on MY WORK. In this Public Record, you have quoted me as saying that in one version of my 3 point discharge circuit the bottom capacitor discharges through the coil.

You should also overlay your "version" of the circuit on Gray's schematic. I think it's pretty funny that you've uploaded a web page saying that Gray's circuit works because the capacitor is parallel to the CSET.

And I won't appreciate any more emotional duress being dumped on me with the threat of depriving me of something of value - my membership in this forum - unless I surrender my claim to my Intellectual Property. (Better check the definition of extortion.)

[Electrotek]

Yes Aaron you are correct about the capacitor polarity.
If it is charged in reverse it would destroy it's internal foil and most likely explode.

Why do you waste so many time on this?
For me it is obvious who is wrong and who is right here, and aswell who has the proper knowledge....and i think this is the case for most people here....

Marcoz.

I'm sure you're referring to an electrolytic capacitor. I can hook my regular caps up either way and they never have exploded.

[Electrotek]

I agree with Marcos. I have worked in electronics for almost 50 years and have a degree in it also. Electrotek's circuit is not the same and his arguments are silly. Let's please move on so that those of us trying to learn from this thread can have a chance to do so. Thank you. citfta

I've already told Aaron we should move this discussion to a different arena. HE'S the one who keeps dragging up frivolous crap. And he's still defaming my integrity, after I pointed out that my allegation is not "knowingly untrue", based on his refusal to answear the question pertaining to the 5 1/2 hour period in which he "apparently" updated his drawings to include my 3 point discharge circuit. This circuit is MY WORK. His work is with the Water Sparkplug circuit, as he keeps Publicly showing again and again, since he has NOTHING to show relating to my work other than diagrams.

I'm also trying to learn from this thread, and all I get from Aaron is the diode "slams shut" and the spark jumps to the grid - which isn't even connected without the motor's commutator being engaged - rather than collapsing and producing an inductive kick (Overshoot) in the process. This Overshoot is plainly stated in Gray's patent. An Overshoot which doesn't occur during the few times per second the commutator IS engaged and the spark DOES jump to the grid.

[Marcoz]

I'm sure you're referring to an electrolytic capacitor. I can hook my regular caps up either way and they never have exploded.

Please Start here and leave me alone.

Marco.

[Spokane1]

History: Complex switching in the working E.V. Gray motors

I'm not sure how many people are aware of that the Gray motor may be BOTH attraction and repulsion. I'm sure Mark has the history of how this
fits in to anything.

Dear Aaron,

From my study, the switching system employed in the EMA4-E1 and EMA4-E2 is far more complex than what Dr. Chalfin disclosured in the Pulse Motor Patent. It is my opinion that his presentation of a leading - lagging fireing sequence for speed control is misleading. The output level of the motor was controled by adjusting the input voltage level to the power supplies via a set of contactors in the EMA4-E1 & EMA4-E2 motors and a rotary switch for the EMA6.

I certainly have not figured out the switching scheme used, and I have spent many hours attempting to do so. It appears to me that the "shuttle" set of moving contacts changes the mode of operation of the motor. If you study the patent drawing details (and not the text) you will see how all of the major electromagnets are fired in the first 120 degrees of rotation. After this phase the "shuttle" switches to a different position and interacts only with the switching of the stator electromagnets. I believe this is where the "arc stretching" process takes place. I have no doubt that there are polarity changes involved. From close examination of the avaliable photos you can determine the external components and wiring that are responsible to make this 120 degree switch.

Now, when you look at the close up photos of the EMA4-E2 commutator it appears far more complex than what the patent shows because of the vast number of wires observable throught the ventilation slots.

While the EMA4 designs were OU, they were not simple and required tweaking an tuning to maintian their high COP's. They also were not cheap to build and probably could not stand long hours of road vibration. This lead Marvin Cole to develop a whole new system that was the foundation of the EMA6 design. The CEST was a vital part of this transition. It allowed the non-classical arc stretching process (or what ever was going on in the motor) to be removed to the outside so that all the fancy switching could be eleminated. The EMA6 was intended to use PM's for the rotor - but I don't know if it ended up that way, I suspect not.

I'm sure Marvin Cole had all the basic design details in mind and had laid out the apha breadboard to see if the concept would work. Then something happened to him. So, Mr. Gray hired Mr. Hackenburger to pick up the pieces. Did Mr. Hackenburger overlook something or did Mr. Cole withold some vital bit of information that would make the differance between a 2HP output and a 100 HP output? We will never know

Mr. Cole had a pretty good (unknown) funding source from 1965 to 1973. But from 1973 to 1975 money was pretty tight as Gray fished around for an investor who would pay him what he thought it was worth - despite his legal troubles. It seems that a lot of devlopment effort was lost due to lack of money. The LA DA raid certainly knocked the organization for a loop and as a result several potential deals were killed. A Colorado firm came into the picture in late 1974 and made big promises along with a $500,000 down payment. But, Gray took the money and upgraded his offices, his car, his compensation and expanded his foregin marketing efforts. This left Hackenburger with barely enough money to fabricate the EMA6. Development and proper testing of the Electrostatic Power supply came to a sudden halt because of this.

Gray thought he had a "ready to go" technology worth big bucks, when in fact he had a half-baked prototype technology that didn't work. The original working technology had been lost and he didn't even know it.

Spokane1

[Electrotek]

Who Has The Knowledge?

Aaron . . . Why do you waste so many time on this?
For me it is obvious who is wrong and who is right here, and aswell who has the proper knowledge....and i think this is the case for most people here....

Marcoz.

It's been very surprising to me that Aaron has distracted this conversation with so many attempts to show that my work doesn't match Gray's, which I plainly stated. Is this just so much crap, misinformation designed to distract attention from the real issue? Or . . .

I can see two possible reasons. One, he feels that what I've shown DOES relate to Gray's system, but he doesn't understand it (as he admitted) and he's trying to egg me on so that I'll specify how it does, giving him the information so that he "might" publish it in such a way that it looks like HE came up with it. Or, Two, he's showing everyone they better not discuss their own theory, or circuit, if it differs with his, or he'll attack their theory, or circuit, endlessly.

Here's a video I made of my High Speed Tube Test. Does this look ANYTHING like a CSET in operation? Has Aaron posted a high speed operation?

http://img531.imageshack.us/img531/4...3419314ob8.flv


WHO do you know of that has the REAL information based on the proper knowledge, which you can say for sure is the TRUE information?

[Electrotek]

I certainly have not figured out the switching scheme used, and I have spent many hours attempting to do so. It appears to me that the "shuttle" set of moving contacts changes the mode of operation of the motor. If you study the patent drawing details (and not the text) you will see how all of the major electromagnets are fired in the first 120 degrees of rotation. After this phase the "shuttle" switches to a different position and interacts only with the switching of the stator electromagnets. I believe this is where the "arc stretching" process takes place. I have no doubt that there are polarity changes involved. From close examination of the avaliable photos you can determine the external components and wiring that are responsible to make this 120 degree switch.

<snip>

Gray thought he had a "ready to go" technology worth big bucks, when in fact he had a half-baked prototype technology that didn't work. The original working technology had been lost and he didn't even know it.

Spokane1

Hi Mark, I wasn't aware of this switching, in which the only the stator electromagnets were being switched at some point. This is important information which can aid our 'reverse engineering' efforts, towards our goal of replication Gray's (Cole's) technology.

[Spokane1]

EMA4-E1 and EMA4-E2 Switching Schemes

Hi Mark, I wasn't aware of this switching, in which the only the stator electromagnets were being switched at some point. This is important information which can aid our 'reverse engineering' efforts, towards our goal of replication Gray's (Cole's) technology.

Dear Electrotek,

Again this is my technical opinion based on the photos and documents I have. None of this switching analysis came from any of the interviews I've done. Most of the information comes directly from the Pulse Motor Patent with the help of a few GD photos.

When I realized that Dr. Chalfin was hired to draft the patent documents I had a lot better understanding in order to help "seperate the wheat from the chaff". Dr. Chalfin did the text while most of the drawings are probably original Cole drawings. According to Dr. James Gray (E.V. Gray's 2nd son) Marvin Cole was an excellent and fast technical illustrator.

If you think this is important I would be glad to expand on the subject if anyone is interested.

Spokane1

[Aaron]

stop the madness Jerry - its over

And he's still defaming my integrity, after I pointed out that my allegation is not "knowingly untrue", based on his refusal to answear the question pertaining to the 5 1/2 hour period in which he "apparently" updated his drawings to include my 3 point discharge circuit. This circuit is MY WORK.

Jerry,

You say: "I pointed out that my allegation is not "knowingly untrue""

It is knowingly untrue because the diagram below CANNOT be mistaken for anything else other than showing that your diagram is NOT like my diagram and mine is a simplified Gray tube diagram without the diode or cap on the LV rod.

You really should drop it. You are simply damaging your own case the more you refuse to acknowledge what is right here on the thread. I said I would be willing to drop everything but referring to me defending myself against YOUR false accusation as CRAP is not winning points - and I don't think you have the slightest clue as to what you're doing. You are the primary instigator of this attack against me and you refuse to see the truth.

http://www.energeticforum.com/58257-post1494.html

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.

I have answered this irrelevant point in the past.

MY 3 point drawing is MY circuit and is NOT your circuit and I have proven this 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt here. It is COMMON SENSE. It IS the actual gray tube circuit without a cap or diode on the LV rod, which is optional if the cap behind the load is to be discharged.

AGAIN, here is the picture proving 100% ABSOLUTELY that your 3 point diagram is NOT the same as what I posted. Even if you reverse the polarity of your cap at the top, it is STILL NOT THE SAME. If you feel it is the same, you are incredibly delusional and your admittance that your health may be suffering from your experiments may have some influence here...physically and mentally.

IS THERE ONE SINGLE PERSON HERE OTHER THAN JERRY VOLLARD THAT
BELIEVES THE BOTTOM TWO DIAGRAMS - HIS AND MINE ARE THE SAME CIRCUIT OR IS THE ONE ON THE RIGHT A SIMPLIFIED DIAGRAM OF THE GRAY TUBE CIRCUIT DIAGRAM FROM THE PATENT?

It's been very surprising to me that Aaron has distracted this conversation with so many attempts to show that my work doesn't match Gray's, which I plainly stated. Is this just so much crap, misinformation designed to distract attention from the real issue? Or . . .

I can see two possible reasons. One, he feels that what I've shown DOES relate to Gray's system, but he doesn't understand it (as he admitted) and he's trying to egg me on so that I'll specify how it does, giving him the information so that he "might" publish it in such a way that it looks like HE came up with it. Or, Two, he's showing everyone they better not discuss their own theory, or circuit, if it differs with his, or he'll attack their theory, or circuit, endlessly.

I'm attempting to show how your work doesn't match Gray's? My attempt has been to defend myself against your ridiculous, disrespectful and fraudulent claims that MY circuit is YOUR circuit. The diagram above shows it VERY CLEAR and you apparently are NOT willing or able to simply realize that YOU made a MISTAKE in claiming my circuit is yours.

Talking about attacking a circuit, you are attacking my work, this thread is a record of that and you are completely out of integrity.

Again, reverse the polarity of the capacitor at the top of your diagram and it is STILL NOT THE SAME. PERIOD END OF STORY.

[Aaron]

Mark - energy reservoirs

Mark,

What do you think the purpose is in the tube patent is for checking the difference between the two energy reservoirs? Is this the front and back cap? And why would it matter what the cap behind the inductor is doing if this is what it is referring to and if it is referring to this cap behind the inductor, what does it matter if it is not contributing to the function of motor?

[Electrotek]

MY 3 point drawing is MY circuit and is NOT your circuit and I have proven this 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt here. It is COMMON SENSE. It IS the actual gray tube circuit without a cap or diode on the LV rod, which is optional if the cap behind the load is to be discharged.

This circuit shows the capacitor IN PARALLEL with the CSET.