Gray Tube Replication

[Aaron]

permanent magnets

I thought Marvin Cole's original prototypes had permanent magnets
but the later ones had opposing coils. I guess you can say opposing
but the descriptions show that they are both attracting and repelling.

[Jbignes5]

I know you don't like me Aaron but please read this

I was reading up on Tesla the other day ans since I saw that Gray was suppose to be using Tesla radiant energy I thought this might interest you.

Take the original patent of the gray tube and compare that to what Tesla was doing. I'll refer this link to you for comparison. You'll have to go down a bit to get to the part about impulses and read from about there. Especially the magnetic spark gaps that he used.
Here is the link:

Nikola Tesla - The Complete Patents of Nikola Tesla - The Man who invented the 20th Century

Now look at the tube setup I did here:

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p...nsversion2.jpg

If you would like me to I can delete this, if thats what you want to do?

[Spokane1]

Some Historical Evolution of Gray Motor Designs

I thought Marvin Cole's original prototypes had permanent magnets
but the later ones had opposing coils. I guess you can say opposing
but the descriptions show that they are both attracting and repelling.

Dear Aaron,

From my historical study, Marvin Cole started out with classical single electromagnets. One of his first motors was probably the 1 pole "EMA4" that Norm Wooten displayed at the 2000 Tesla Conference. I suspect that this motor was built in 1961. Gray, 2 decades later, took this same motor and had it rewound in 1981 so it could run on classical electricity from a 5KV classical power supply. Currently it is the property of Al Francour of BC. The next motor built was definatly the Nylon 3 pole "EMA5".

Then there was a huge transition in design style and Mr. Cole developed the 9 pole models. These were the very sucessful systems that generated the huge COP's. Here were the paired sets of "Major" and "Minor electromagnets on the stator and rotor. The EMA4-E1 was the zeneth of this technology. The eairler 10 HP 9 pole EMA2 was probably the model that was released to Crosby Research for their tests. (But this is just a guess)

When Marvin Cole left, never to return (1972), Gray hired Mr. Hackenburger to make improvements on the original design to make it more saleable (actually cheaper to build so Gray could completly control the technology). Unfortunatly, Hack did more to screw up the system than improve it. But it wasn't because he was stupid or didn't try, he just didn't know how the system really worked (and neither did Gray). His classical training casued him to consider a method using permenanment magnets on the rotor to simplify the maze of wiring in the commentator section of the EMA4-E2. He also developed the fixed spark gap tube (i.e. the CEST) during this redesign effort. This was the state of affairs when John Bedini visited in 1973. The CEST and all the other related power supplies were stretched out on a large table like a big breadboard in progress. John also claims that the actual motor he was using was a modified off the shelf industrial motor. I don't know if it already had PM's in it or not. But the field notes that were taken by Ron Cole at the time certainly shows a PM rotor. Hack was also using an atomotive distributer for the switching of his CEST system.

It is my opinion that the use of the PM's for the rotor was a step backward. Hacks motor, when finished, only put out 2 HP - so much for his enlightened approach. I would (and plan to) stick with the original design as shown in the patent plus all the stuff that I think was taken out of it.

What is missing in the patent is the fact that there were arcs being struck between the stator and rotor poles. These arcs were stretched across a dielectric surface. The "Minor" electromagnets provided a meger axle field to help stabalize this arc process. This same system was also used in the very first 3 pole motors (without the minor poles). Cole some how discovered that an axel field was needed to get the most out of the arc. It appears that this stretching process charges the opposing dielectric blocks to the same polarity and causes them to repell each other. They must be discharged some how in order for the next cycle to take place. I'm sure there are other things goin on in there as well. But the novel events all revolve around this electrostatic process (what ever it is) - not the classical electromagnetic repulsion that is also present. I think that Mr. Cole started with a purely magnetic repulsion motor using arcs between the stator and rotor (this was going to be the invention). He tripped over the impact of the dielectric somehow during his development. He was using large Delrin blocks to secure his electromagnets to the inside case. These attracted the arcs he was using to power his electromagnets during their power pulse. Somehow he noticed that he was getting out more energy in torque than what he was putting in. I bet that revelation kept him awake for a few evenings.

It took Hack about three years to figure out the importance of the same dielectric surface. in May of 1976 he threw out the CEST's and added back the dielectric arc surfaces. But the EMA6 was not designed to take advantage of this retro-fit. I don't know if this very late modification improved the performance of the motor or not. But it did generate a lot of EMF that brought the wrath of the FCC down on the project (1979). The FBI came in and confiscated everything. They later released some of the office equipment and files back to Gray. Both Gray and Hack continued working on this till the end of their lives.

After suffering two raids in the Free Energy Business it only shows you how strong Gray's and Hacks faith was in this technology that they went right back into this business as soon as they got some more funding from a couple of members of the Jewish community and a group in Kansas.

In the beginning (1973), when Hack was publishing his first engineering report the word electrostatic comes up 19 times. Do you know of anyone who has explored the electrostatic nature of this technology? It is difficult because none of it has been disclosed (except in this first report) but it is the heart of the secret. (according to me) One observer claims that when the motor operated it would suck your hair right towards it. Now that is an electrostatic phenomena, not magnetic. Dr. Tesla also use special dielectrics in the construction of his table top oscillators, the function of which has not been determined (that I know of) today.

Peter claims that the original EMA partership started out as the "Electrostatic and Magnetic Association" A short time later the word electrostatic was dropped. You won't find very much on the electrostatic function of this technology in the patent. I think it was removed along with the internal arc process, because that is where the OU comes from. (So I think)

Anyway, The use of PM's on the rotor was the beginning of Hack's screw ups, not the highest evolution of this technology.

Spokane1

[Aaron]

@Jbigness

Jbigness,

That isn't it at all. I have no problem with you. I only strongly disagreed with
you in the that other thread before.

Thanks for the references.

[Raui]

Mark,
I have a quick question. You mention that Hackenberger designed the tube. I believe I've read somewhere that after Marvin Cole went Houdini on us so did the higher than 1 COP. This is supported by your above post where you say once Hackenberger joined the team the motors COP got worse rather than better. Then the tube was invented. So basically my question is doesn't this mean that the grey tube is not what will deliver the COP > 1?

While Aaron's theory of high voltage high current mixing makes sense and may infact work this is not how Marvin Cole achieved COP > 1. Since there was no motor which achieved COP > 1 after Hackenberger until he threw out the tube. So doesn't this make the tube exactly what John Bedini calls it, a red herring.
-Raui

[Jbignes5]

I do believe...

Aaron, Please believe me when I say I do respect you! We just couldn't agree to disagree on that subject.
I think the tube was exactly that Raui has suggested. But you can always read Tesla's stuff and see that it could have been done just by using the tube.
I remember from somewhere that Gray talked about Splitting the positive, if you take what Tesla was talking about and split the positive completely from the negative you can see that the magnetic gap is exactly that. Even if this method was not employed by the various motors gray used it sure shows you that they in fact were creating lightning in the motors. Did I hear right that he pumped the motor with air? If so then Gray was using the nitrogen like Aaron has suggested inside the motor.
I got my Mags yesterday and I am working on getting the rest of the tube setup just like I posted. If it works then we have the method they used in the motors instead of the tube. I suspect that Gray found the very radiant method like Tesla used, just instead of the tube it was incorporated in the motor instead.

[boguslaw]

Aaron, Please believe me when I say I do respect you! We just couldn't agree to disagree on that subject.
I think the tube was exactly that Raui has suggested. But you can always read Tesla's stuff and see that it could have been done just by using the tube.
I remember from somewhere that Gray talked about Splitting the positive, if you take what Tesla was talking about and split the positive completely from the negative you can see that the magnetic gap is exactly that. Even if this method was not employed by the various motors gray used it sure shows you that they in fact were creating lightning in the motors. Did I hear right that he pumped the motor with air? If so then Gray was using the nitrogen like Aaron has suggested inside the motor.
I got my Mags yesterday and I am working on getting the rest of the tube setup just like I posted. If it works then we have the method they used in the motors instead of the tube. I suspect that Gray found the very radiant method like Tesla used, just instead of the tube it was incorporated in the motor instead.

That is what might happened :
After Cole death Gray hired Hackenburger to continue working on motor, but he apparently didn't have the most important thing - power supply.
So he described what Cole presented to him and Hackenburger invented so called Gray tube probably thinking that it was kind of switch for HV.
Surely everybody would agree that original device was producing radiant energy not the way they thought.

[boguslaw]

If Gray would know exactly how this device works he would had invented kind of solid state generator instead of costly motor.

[Jbignes5]

I agree...

That is what might happened :
After Cole death Gray hired Hackenburger to continue working on motor, but he apparently didn't have the most important thing - power supply.
So he described what Cole presented to him and Hackenburger invented so called Gray tube probably thinking that it was kind of switch for HV.
Surely everybody would agree that original device was producing radiant energy not the way they thought.

I think you are right. But just from the descriptions of Tesla about producing and focusing the radiant energy I believe they were trying to replicate it in a more modern way. The later motors were done that way because I believe it was more efficient to do the lightning in the motor.
So the tube evolved into just such a switching device. It just means the second guy to take up the tube rearranged the tube into the whole device for efficiency reasons. Create the arc and eventually enhance the arc in the motor to gain more without having to transport those kind of energies to the motor.
The tube in the original design would still prove the method and is a lot less complicated to make for testing purposes.

[Spokane1]

E. V. Gray Technical History

Mark,
I have a quick question. You mention that Hackenberger designed the tube. I believe I've read somewhere that after Marvin Cole went Houdini on us so did the higher than 1 COP. This is supported by your above post where you say once Hackenberger joined the team the motors COP got worse rather than better. Then the tube was invented. So basically my question is doesn't this mean that the grey tube is not what will deliver the COP > 1?

While Aaron's theory of high voltage high current mixing makes sense and may infact work this is not how Marvin Cole achieved COP > 1. Since there was no motor which achieved COP > 1 after Hackenberger until he threw out the tube. So doesn't this make the tube exactly what John Bedini calls it, a red herring.
-Raui

Dear Raui,

Marvin Cole dissapeared no later than mid 1972. He might have left sooner, but there is no documentation to support a specific date. Hackenburger was hired an on the job in Jan. 1973 as proven by historical photos owned by Mr. George Gray.

Marvin left behind all of the motors and electrostatic generators he had built. It is generally assumed there were four versions of the Cole 9 pole motor. There are only photos of the last two of these, the EMA4-E1 and the EMA3. It has been assumed that it was the EMA2 (no photos available) that was submitted to Crosby Research for 3rd party verification of the OU Claims in Sep 1973. However the Japanese company Pan Americian Enterprises did extensive inhouse testing of the EMA4-E1 in late 1972 and again in May of 1973. The actual results from these tests have been lost. However, they were impressive enough for the Japanese to offer Gray a $12.5 million dollar research contract and an even better deal on an Asian licensing agreement.

Even though Mr. Cole had departed (alive I hope) the equipment he left behind worked just fine - for a while. According to one observer the stress of the non-classical energy (or classical HV AC) degraded the insulation of the electromagnets and every other conductor in the system. Insulation failures were a common event and got worse as time went on. By late 1974 the 100 HP EMA4-E2 didn't work at all. Some say this was one reason the Japanese pulled out, along with the fact that they figured out that Gray didn't have a clue as to how this equipment really worked and that someone else might really own the technology. (Some say they couldn't get the funding to meet Gray's price)

In early 1973 Mr. Hackenburger started developing the next generation motor using the CEST approach. By May of 1974 he already had the case of the EMA5 fabricated. This case was damaged by the LA DA raid and was never used. The finished 2nd generation motor, the EMA6, was presented to the stockholders on Jan 9, 1976. Unfortunatly it only put out 2 HP. This news killed any serious financial interest at that meeting.

So, your summary is essentially correct. There is no historical evidence to even suggest that the Hackenburger motor (EMA6) with its CEST's (or what ever those three sets of copper rings were intended for) was OU. John Bedini claims that there were no CEST type devices used in the EMA4-E2. From this I assume that the 9 pole EMA2 motor with its COP of 275 didn't have a CEST device either.

However, these facts don't diminish the importance of why the CEST came to be. It is a reflection of some important arc process that Mr. Hackenburger was taking out of the working EMA4-E1 motor to make the EMA6 motor. I still have to figure out the significance of the "Grids" and why so much mass was used in the anodes. These are important parameters (among many others). Yes, the setup that Gray patented in 1986 doesn't work, but it is a shadow of something that did. Hackenburger was not attempting to make bogus equipment in 1973. He was seriously attempting to make intelligent engineering improvements on this technology to the best he could understand it. The study of the CSET and its history may have important lessons to teach us. I just don't know what they are yet.

The CSET, as it has been experimented with in non-funded research shops, has not produced a hint of OU in the fashion that the other Cole motor system have. Mr. Gary Magratten has probably dug into this subject much more than most. He received some funding and spent at least three years working on this. There is a lot of interesting stuff going on in an arc. I don't really know what his conclusion was, but it doesn't look like he has found the Holy Grail yet. Never the less I think its in the arc somewhere.

Aaron's threepoint arc systems should be studied and experimented with to provide a greater knowlege of how pulse arcs can be manipulated and controlled.

I just happen to think the real non-calssical action is in a dynamic moving arc and not a stationary one. But don't take my word for it. I could be very wrong.

Spokane1

[phi1.62]

The man at the end of "The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity"

There was a man at the end of Peter Lindemann's lecture "The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity" named Brian Desborough that says the following to Peter:

First of all I must complement you on your research, you've done an excellent job and I'll think you'll find that Mr Gray's transceiver would have to function at a minimum frequency of 20 Khz in order to split the incoming dipoles, then you could take the electron which would then be coupled with the etheric carrier and then split those. But from my own experiments I find anything less than 20 Khz you can't split the dipoles, but I find once you do the problem then is not generating tremendous energy it's limiting it - you need a really good voltage divider usually because I find my incoming spikes are well over 1000 amps and it gets really frightening.....but definately this kind of circuit is for real.

I've assumed that in spite of the lack of evidence of Gray having used the CSET to obtain energy it still may be possible to obtain a large amount of energy from it as Desborough indicated to Lindemann, unless Desborough was lying.

[ewizard]

Darn I hate to ask this but I've looked at an acronym site, I've looked through this thread to the first references to "CSET" to some of the last ones and I still can't think what it means except for me at this moment it just means I Can't See Every Thing So just what does CSET mean? Prepared to be

[phi1.62]

Darn I hate to ask this but I've looked at an acronym site, I've looked through this thread to the first references to "CSET" to some of the last ones and I still can't think what it means except for me at this moment it just means I Can't See Every Thing So just what does CSET mean? Prepared to be

CSET stands for Conversion Switching Element Tube. The name was given by Peter Lindemann in his 2000 documentary "The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity".

[boguslaw]

There was a man at the end of Peter Lindemann's lecture "The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity" named Brian Desborough that says the following to Peter:



I've assumed that in spite of the lack of evidence of Gray having used the CSET to obtain energy it still may be possible to obtain a large amount of energy from it as Desborough indicated to Lindemann, unless Desborough was lying.

Yup, that man said 100% truth. The main problem is to limit energy gain before it destroy everything and create true lightning.
Gray had not only equipment , he had also Cole sentences.They are truth too.
Split the positive and recreate lightning. One positive is sent back to battery draining it (but not much) the second HV positive is creating lightning. Check the reality how lightning is propagating in air and why it is depicted as it is.

[Jbignes5]

Not quite right imo...

Yup, that man said 100% truth. The main problem is to limit energy gain before it destroy everything and create true lightning.
Gray had not only equipment , he had also Cole sentences.They are truth too.
Split the positive and recreate lightning. One positive is sent back to battery draining it (but not much) the second HV positive is creating lightning. Check the reality how lightning is propagating in air and why it is depicted as it is.

When Gray said to split the positive I think he meant to split the positive completely from the negative. Under normal situations the positive is always included with the negative (circuit). With knowing the Leedskalnin magnetic current theory you can start to see where they were going with that. Tesla had a new switching device he called the magnetic quenched arc gap. This concept rejects the other polarity only allowing 1 pure polarity to flow causing a radiant type effect with no reversal at all. This is what I believe Gray figured out.
Since Bearden got on the bandwagon it has helped the theory a little. I don't usually talk about Bearden but one has to start listening to everyone and pool the information. Once this is done one can start to understand these men as they talk.
To tell you the truth I might be wrong about this but since Gray mentions Tesla Radiant energy I believe he re engineered the technology and was attempting to use it in his motors. It was the Aethric motor that Tesla referenced in his writings.