Gray Tube Replication

[DrStiffler]

After continueing with my analysis, this is where I am now. I think this is it:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post108949

@lamare

When yo say riding on top of a carrier wave, does this not imply AM modulation? In so doing where are you doing the modulation? In a normal AM transmitter the modulation controls the carrier amplitude and as such the modulator is a separate circuit from the carrier generation and is configured in such a way that the amplitude of the modulation controls the carrier output, so 100% modulation would vary from 0 carrier to 2X carrier. Now if you are talking more towards DSB, then we have a balanced filter that rejects the carrier and only passed the sidebands.

Where you speak of inserting a cap in series with a coil you also are creating a series resonant circuit where the primary frequency is suppressed and the sidebands pass. (Generalized idea)

I know you know this, yet you explanation is as confusing to say the least, for us old fellows a simple hand drawn schematic would be great, we can feed the data into the computer and make the needed calculation to follow what you state you want to obtain, humm...

The diagram of Meyer and the rest of course are junk, so what is in your mind, idea sounds great, but we can't wrap around the circuit to match the idea.

[lamare]

@lamare

When yo say riding on top of a carrier wave, does this not imply AM modulation? In so doing where are you doing the modulation? In a normal AM transmitter the modulation controls the carrier amplitude and as such the modulator is a separate circuit from the carrier generation and is configured in such a way that the amplitude of the modulation controls the carrier output, so 100% modulation would vary from 0 carrier to 2X carrier. Now if you are talking more towards DSB, then we have a balanced filter that rejects the carrier and only passed the sidebands.

As far as I can tell, yes, you would basically have to build a straight AM modulator, no SSB or DSB. Puharich shows what it should look like (you may want to look up his patents and stuff for further details):

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post108525

The upper part shows a straight AM modulated signal as far as I can tell, the lower part the rectified one. Puharich rectified his wave *before* the power amp, but the rectifiers should go *after* the insulation transformer.

BTW: looks like Puharich used half-wave resonance, judging at where he connected the load at his transformer.

So, I would say to build a straight AM modulator, where the modulated signal matches the resonance frequency of the load.

As for the carrier wave frequency, that depends on your high pass filter and the frequency characteristics of your load. If the resonance frequency is, say 10 kHz, and you fiddle around with the current (you use current), you get the differential frequencies out there. So, let's say your actual load draws a bandwidth of 5 kHz. Then your carrier wave would have to be at least something like 20 kHz, cause the filter will have a certain bandwith. Of course, it would be much easier to take your carrier frequency much higher than that. In thase case something in the order of 100 kHz should do, because normally you would not draw HF stuff directly out of the coils.

Where you speak of inserting a cap in series with a coil you also are creating a series resonant circuit where the primary frequency is suppressed and the sidebands pass. (Generalized idea)

I know you know this, yet you explanation is as confusing to say the least, for us old fellows a simple hand drawn schematic would be great, we can feed the data into the computer and make the needed calculation to follow what you state you want to obtain, humm...

The diagram of Meyer and the rest of course are junk, so what is in your mind, idea sounds great, but we can't wrap around the circuit to match the idea.

The devil is always in the details, ain't it?

The idea is that the coil you want to drive, resonates at it's (some multiples of its) natural resonance frequency (depending on how you drive it), say 10 kHz. That would be the signal that would be the "audio in" on your AM modulator.

The carrier frequency should be much higher, I'd say at least 10 times higher than the resonance frequency of the load coils, so, say 100 kHz.

Then the capacitor should be such that it can be considered a shortcut at 100 kHz and "open" at 10 kHz. Of course, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but you get the idea.


So, let's assume for a moment you can drive two coils in series at their combined 1/4 lambda this way. Meyers schematic suggests that is possible. So, then one of the coil terminals goes to ground, and you drive the other from the output of your AM transmitter, trough a couple capacitor and a rectifier diode. The capacitor should be a shortcut for the frequency of your carrier wave, and open for the resonance frequency of the coils.

I hope this clears things up. Really you are much better at this stuff then I am. I can tell you *how* to do it in principle, but I'm not much of a 'hands on' engineer, I'm afraid.

Update:
It may be that you need more circuitry than just a capacitor. The basic idea is that you prevent any junk that is generated by your load train to end up in your driving circuit. And you can do that because the load train has a limited bandwidth.

So, the coupling filter from your HF driving circuit to the LF load should be such that the HF can pass and the LF cannot.

Bottomline: make sure your whole load train does not produce HF junk that comes even close to your carrier frequency. And make sure that any LF junk on your load train cannot pass your filter. And you should be able to do that with some kind of standard high pass filter. I think the high pass filter could be just a capacitor, but you're the HF expert, so it's up to you to judge if you need more than that.

[DrStiffler]

As far as I can tell, yes, you would basically have to build a straight AM modulator, no SSB or DSB. Puharich shows what it should look like (you may want to look up his patents and stuff for further details):

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post108525

The upper part shows a straight AM modulated signal as far as I can tell, the lower part the rectified one. Puharich rectified his wave *before* the power amp, but the rectifiers should go *after* the insulation transformer.

BTW: looks like Puharich used half-wave resonance, judging at where he connected the load at his transformer.

So, I would say to build a straight AM modulator, where the modulated signal matches the resonance frequency of the load.

As for the carrier wave frequency, that depends on your high pass filter and the frequency characteristics of your load. If the resonance frequency is, say 10 kHz, and you fiddle around with the current (you use current), you get the differential frequencies out there. So, let's say your actual load draws a bandwidth of 5 kHz. Then your carrier wave would have to be at least something like 20 kHz, cause the filter will have a certain bandwith. Of course, it would be much easier to take your carrier frequency much higher than that. In thase case something in the order of 100 kHz should do, because normally you would not draw HF stuff directly out of the coils.



The devil is always in the details, ain't it?

The idea is that the coil you want to drive, resonates at it's (some multiples of its) natural resonance frequency (depending on how you drive it), say 10 kHz. That would be the signal that would be the "audio in" on your AM modulator.

The carrier frequency should be much higher, I'd say at least 10 times higher than the resonance frequency of the load coils, so, say 100 kHz.

Then the capacitor should be such that it can be considered a shortcut at 100 kHz and "open" at 10 kHz. Of course, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but you get the idea.


So, let's assume for a moment you can drive two coils in series at their combined 1/4 lambda this way. Meyers schematic suggests that is possible. So, then one of the coil terminals goes to ground, and you drive the other from the output of your AM transmitter, trough a couple capacitor and a rectifier diode. The capacitor should be a shortcut for the frequency of your carrier wave, and open for the resonance frequency of the coils.

I hope this clears things up. Really you are much better at this stuff then I am. I can tell you *how* to do it in principle, but I'm not much of a 'hands on' engineer, I'm afraid.

Update:
It may be that you need more circuitry than just a capacitor. The basic idea is that you prevent any junk that is generated by your load train to end up in your driving circuit. And you can do that because the load train has a limited bandwidth.

So, the coupling filter from your HF driving circuit to the LF load should be such that the HF can pass and the LF cannot.

Bottomline: make sure your whole load train does not produce HF junk that comes even close to your carrier frequency. And make sure that any LF junk on your load train cannot pass your filter. And you should be able to do that with some kind of standard high pass filter. I think the high pass filter could be just a capacitor, but you're the HF expert, so it's up to you to judge if you need more than that.

@lamare
Okay here is what I think. If you take a full wave rectifier off the output of a coil and feed two coils, one from each leg, you do not get inverse pulses. Spatially you either get a + referenced to 0 or baseline or a - referenced to a baseline. You do not get a set of + an - pulses referenced to some midpoint 0.

Therefore to place a load between two different coils will configure the same as a conventional configured system. The only way I can see to get to the inverse pulses or the +/- split is to feed the driving coil from a center tap. In this way the spatial ground will allow you to see what you envision. Otherwise feeding a primary (driver) coil from one end or the other and trying to pull two inverse pulses does not work. The driver coil always has a spatial ground reference if driven from one end, (open end is spatial ground).
This means you can not extract opposing phase output to two different coils (load coils). You can only extract energy for both it they are in phase.

What I have stated above is proven by experiment.

[lamare]

@lamare
Okay here is what I think. If you take a full wave rectifier off the output of a coil and feed two coils, one from each leg, you do not get inverse pulses. Spatially you either get a + referenced to 0 or baseline or a - referenced to a baseline. You do not get a set of + an - pulses referenced to some midpoint 0.

Therefore to place a load between two different coils will configure the same as a conventional configured system. The only way I can see to get to the inverse pulses or the +/- split is to feed the driving coil from a center tap. In this way the spatial ground will allow you to see what you envision. Otherwise feeding a primary (driver) coil from one end or the other and trying to pull two inverse pulses does not work. The driver coil always has a spatial ground reference if driven from one end, (open end is spatial ground).
This means you can not extract opposing phase output to two different coils (load coils). You can only extract energy for both it they are in phase.

What I have stated above is proven by experiment.

I don't get this completely yet, but the idea was to use an AV plug, which would be a half-wave rectifier. You feed the + pulses to one coil, the - to the other. So your drive the coils with unidirectional pulses, because otherwise you get the HF into your coil.

You basically "touch" your coils into one direction with the HF unidirectional pulses.

And because these pulses are created by the AV plugs from sine waves and come from a transformer, you don't need fast switching as with your SEC circuit.

Update: this does mean that the coils only receive a signal half of the time, so Puharichs lower rectified wave form looks somewhat different than what we would get, I guess. I mean, what he shows is full-wave rectified, right?

Update 2: This is what Puharich's looks like:

With this configuration, you would place two AV plugs at the output of the insulation transformer, which has double secondaries. So, you drive them from open secondaries.

Update 3: and then the high pass filter should go between the transformer and the load. I think before the AV plugs.

Update 4: So you would get two load trains, where Puharich shows only one (L1, L2, WFC), which should be exactly out of phase.

Update 5: And as it's drawn now, you would get a half wave resonance in the load, while if L1 would be at the other leg of the TF, you would get full wave resonance of the load train. And then I mean full wave across the complete load train, not the coils as such.

Update 6: So, there is a difference between Gray, Meyer and Puharich after all. Gray used full wave resonance, Puharich used half wave resonance and Meyer used quarter wave resonance. I'm a bit off in my "official story" to be completely honest. However, it's the principle that counts and that had to be brought out there first. The details can and will be filled in now we got the truth all over the place and don't have to worry about MIBs anymore. And really, once you see how this works, you can learn a great deal by looking at the stuff those three left us.

Update 7: for those of you who can read Dutch, the Dutch blog Niburu published a story about this that I have written, and already has been read over 5.000 times now: Het geheim achter vrije energie - Google translation: Google Vertaling

[bboj]

@lamare
Okay here is what I think. If you take a full wave rectifier off the output of a coil and feed two coils, one from each leg, you do not get inverse pulses. Spatially you either get a + referenced to 0 or baseline or a - referenced to a baseline. You do not get a set of + an - pulses referenced to some midpoint 0.

Therefore to place a load between two different coils will configure the same as a conventional configured system. The only way I can see to get to the inverse pulses or the +/- split is to feed the driving coil from a center tap. In this way the spatial ground will allow you to see what you envision. Otherwise feeding a primary (driver) coil from one end or the other and trying to pull two inverse pulses does not work. The driver coil always has a spatial ground reference if driven from one end, (open end is spatial ground).
This means you can not extract opposing phase output to two different coils (load coils). You can only extract energy for both it they are in phase.

What I have stated above is proven by experiment.

I also had a problem with that part. Is it possible to see a diagram of your experimental set up?

[lamare]

I also had a problem with that part. Is it possible to see a diagram of your experimental set up?

I don't have an experimental setup. I just studied the work of Meyer, Puharich and Gray and found out they used the same principle, which can be explained using the theories of Bearden and Turtur. Basically hard-core science done right.

So, that's what you got. A solid theoretical description of how this should work in principle with all the references you can dream of. And three inventors that used this principle in three different variations independently, even though none of the three did it completely optimal, but apparantly you don't need to go all the way to get results. None of them used dual identical loads completely out of phase, for example. At least two of these have been publicly shown to work and for all three lots of documentation is available.

With Gray you have to be careful, because after his engineer Marvin Cole, the real inventor of Grays stuff, dissappeared, they never were able to replicate their earlier succes, because they didn't understand how the HF, HV spark gap oscillator worked. Basically that delivers you the same kind of spikes as Bedini shows, only very high voltage and very high frequency. So, the "LV" rod gives you the oscillating signal, the HV rod is at HV DC. The grid and the "LV" rod are basically a capacitor, which is one of the high pass filter caps. Component 38 is the other. And everything in between the "LV" rod, all the way trough the commutator and such should be considered a shortcut in your analysis. See here: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post108329

So, the most basic trick is to use a HF half-wave rectified carrier wave (which can be HF spikes as Gray did) on top of which you have the signal that energizes the inductive load (as done by Puharich most elegantly, but can be a "block" wave as Meyer and Grey did), *trough* a high pass filter. The filter makes sure that any LF junk created by the load cannot disturb your voltage source. And then you don't have to pay the price.

And as for the filter: Gray used a capacitor for that and the other two didn't use any. I think that explains why Gray got so much power that he could hardly control it, but he used high voltage at very high frequencies, so that may also explain it.

So, the rest is up to you tinkerers to figure out. I don't have the time nor budget nor workmanship to do it. It has been shown to work, there are several schematics, etc. available everywhere, so it's really a matter of studying these and look up the links posted here on the top, connect the dots, and fill in the details:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...-negative.html

And I'm absolutely sure it can be done. It's just a matter of time before someone does.

And of course, I keep following this and will try to answer any questions that may turn up. But if you want to do this, then you will need to study the three inventors mentioned, see what they did and connect the dots and you will also have to look up quite a lot of my earlier posts to be able to understand how I got to my theoretical explanation. I tried to refer to the parts of the documentation I used as much as possible, so you don't have to read it all.

So, you won't hear me telling you this is a piece of cake. It's a lot of work to get to understand everything and get it all straigthened out in your mind. Took me a couple of years, so don't expect the solution to be handed over to you on a silver plate. I would love to do that, but I can't. There are quite some details to be filled in and as you know, the devil is in the details...

However, if you start with either Meyer or Puharich and improve their designs step by step, you should be able to get there. They were really very close to what it should be. Meyer should have used a capacitor (HF filter) before his rectifier diode and should probably have used a significantly higher carrier frequency, Puharich should have put his rectifier *after* his insulation transformer and should have put a capacitor (HF filter) in there too.

That way, it can and will be done, no question about that.

And as for your question: as far as I understood, Doc talks about *full wave* rectification, which is not what the idea was. So, I might have misunderstood, but I tried to answer that question in my answer to Doc. If I missed something, please let me know.

Update: For more on Marvin Cole and the history around Edwin Gray, see: Fuel-Efficient-Vehicles.org » Ed Gray’s R. E. Motor

From 1958 to 1972 Marvin Cole, Ed's neighbour, working alone, designed and built ever more powerful prototype engines, and it was a small one of these which was tested by Cal-Tech. In this period, Marvin also developed ever more powerful power supplies, which are the really important item in all of this.

In 1967, Ed Gray rejoins Marvin Cole and together from 1967 to 1972, they solicited venture capital and promoted the technology.
Early in 1972, for unknown reasons, Marvin Cole disappeared and never saw Gray again.

Eventually, his discovery will transform the economic base upon which the society of the entire planet has rested up to this point.

Despite the ever-present danger from the petroleum and other power giants who face business extinction within the decade because of his invention, Gray and his associates in EvGray Enterprises have demonstrated its worth publicly --- an act requiring great courage.

Displaying the kind of open honesty that made America great, Gray and his partners stress the fact that they want the whole world to benefit from their new technology.

"I won't allow it to be bought up and buried by big money interests", Gray told Tattler during the exclusive demonstration.

"I tried for 10 years to get American interests to pay some attention, but I've been tossed out of more places than most people ever think of going into."

Neither government agencies nor private enterprise would listen to Gray, so he turned in frustration to foreign interests. The innovative Japanese were eager to listen.

Update 2: If you are into doing this, please do share your work here on the forum, so it can be discussed. What also needs to be done, is to make sure this information becomes structured and accessible. So, even if you don't want to go and tinker yourself, you can help pulling this of. So, if you want to do something and have some time to spare, please do consider editing this page and share what you have found here and elsewhere:
Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice - PESWiki

Now, I really can't do much more myself on this now. Because of this, lots of other things have been delayed which I have to do now, even though this stuff is much more interesting. So, it's up to you guys to make this happen.

And whatever you wanna do, just make sure to have some fun doing it!



Update:
Even more on the history of Gray here:
Evolution of the E.V. Gray Circuit Topology -- by Mark McKay

[lamare]

Where you speak of inserting a cap in series with a coil you also are creating a series resonant circuit where the primary frequency is suppressed and the sidebands pass. (Generalized idea)

I know you know this, yet you explanation is as confusing to say the least, for us old fellows a simple hand drawn schematic would be great, we can feed the data into the computer and make the needed calculation to follow what you state you want to obtain, humm...

I think I ran into what you meant to say:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post109656
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post109667

Sometimes it takes a while for the message to get trough with me.

Anyway, when you talk about driving an ordinary power transformer as used in power supplies from an exciter circuit, you are talking about inductances that differ by orders of magnitude, because of the magnetic core used in power transformers. In your SEC circuit and similar devices, we are talking in micro Henries, where in power transformers you are talking in milli Henries.

So, as far as I can tell, when you drive a power transformer from a SEC circuit trough a couple cap and an AV plug (half wave rectifier) you can neglect the inductance of the power transformer in the frequency range your exciter operates. However, it *does* have its parasite self capacitance and that one we have to take into account.

If I assume the power transformer has some kind of virtual ground, then the resonance frequency of your exciter will no longer be determined only by the parasite capacitance of your driving coil, but you get the combination of your couple cap and the parasite capacitance of the power transformer you're driving (which are in series to one another) more or less in parallel to the parasite capacitance of your driving coil. So, you get a bigger capacitance and therefore the resonance frequency of the whole will be lower than that of a naked exciter.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, because the details are not clear to me. I see you have to take the parasite capacitance of the transformer into account for determining the value of your couple capacitor, but I can't say how you should model the parasite capacitance of the power transformer, because I don't know how to account for the diodes and/or any virtual ground that I think comes into the equation somewhere.

Update:
So what you want to do in essence is charge the parasite capacitance of the primary of your power transformer as efficiently as possible, keep it charged for a while and let the transformer do it's thing, then switch off the exciter and let the transformer do it's thing for a while again. And then start the whole exercise again....

[boguslaw]

True solution


P.S. Damn I cannot attach it in oiriginal size ! Help!!!

[lamare]

True solution


P.S. Damn I cannot attach it in oiriginal size ! Help!!!

Isn't it out there somewhere?

And about tricks with magnetics: While I do think it is likely possible to get free energy out of magnetics, I don't think this is what Gray did. Let me repeat what I posted here:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post109644

Parametric oscillation, yes those words again; well, I will try to explain, on the ON cycle the coil is seen as only half its number of turns, but on the OFF cycle the BEMF sees the full coil or double, which ever way you want to see it. The effect is creating two distinct phases and two distinct frequencies, one the applied frequency and the other the frequency obtained by the addition of the cap and extended coil on the BEMF. Along with these two base frequencies also appears harmonics of these two frequencies. You could call the start frequency the carrier and the secound the carried.

Hi Mike,

I have seen some stuff about getting free energy by somehow changing the parameters during operation. I thought it was Alexander Frolov, but I can't find that now. I also saw some video's of a guy in a wheelchair, but I don't remember his name. Did find this one with google, though: Polarization of Capacitors

However, this is a totally different technique as what I am talking about and to be honest, I don't know much about parametric oscillation.

What I am talking about is using the energy from the electric field, pretty much directly, as taught by Bearden in his "don't kill the dipole". So, this is a totally different beast then magnetism.

As far as I can tell, Gray did what I explain, or better, that's what he does in this schematic. IMHO:

Now you may be right that there is a second working principle that applies to his later motors, I don't know. This one looks totally different:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post108359

Now I can't really say much about this one. All I can say is that it doesn't work along the principles of my theory, because there is no HF in there as far as I can tell. This one uses straight spark gaps, but no "resistive element" which gives you the HF oscillator. I don't really know wether or not this actually worked. As far as I am aware, his later motors didn't work, because of the dissapearance of Marvin Cole. But it could also be that this one did work and used a different principle.

To make a long story short: I think your theory is promising, but I don't think it matches the schematic Gray is showing with the CSET.


-- Arend --



Update: Now I remember who I meant. Don Smith:
http://www.free-energy-info.com/Smith.pdf

[Raui]

@Lamare;
While I do find your theory interesting & thank you for all your great research, I don't think your theory can be applied to Gray's technology. Mark Mckay has researched Gray and has a lot of relevant documents on his technology. Through his research he has come to the conclusion that the CSET tube never worked. The CSET was never used in a system designed by Marvin Cole who obviously is the true owner of this technology and this technology never worked with a CSET tube implemented. The CSET was a failure that was implemented into the system by Hackenburger. If the CSET did work then I believe we'd know. I don't think Peter Lindemann's interpretation of Gray's technology is right either otherwise the CSET should work and it clearly doesn't. I personally think this thread should be renamed to Marvin Cole - Electrostatic Motor or something on those lines because the 'Gray Tube' is utter nonsense.

As for the real operating principals of this technology I can't really give you an answer. Without a circuit diagram of the original system it's a bit hard to comment but I think it is safe to assume that the circuit in the patent you reference would have some similarity between it and the original design of Cole's.

Raui

[lamare]

Mark Mckay has researched Gray and has a lot of relevant documents on his technology. Through his research he has come to the conclusion that the CSET tube never worked. The CSET was never used in a system designed by Marvin Cole who obviously is the true owner of this technology and this technology never worked with a CSET tube implemented. The CSET was a failure that was implemented into the system by Hackenburger. If the CSET did work then I believe we'd know.

@Raui

We'll see what happens. I would love to hear McKays comment on this, because I am convinced it is correct. Not only because you can explain this principle from the basic ground onwards, but also because Meyer and Puharich did the same thing. And both Meyer and Gray's stuff have been publicly shown to work. So, to me, everything just adds up...

And let me add that the CSET will be awfully hard to tune if it works as I think it does, so I doesn't surprise me noone has been able to get the thing working the way I think it should work so far. And beside that: why patent a device that doesn't work? I mean, patent such that the secret is left out, all right. But patent bull****? No, too expensive for that.

[boguslaw]

This is my theory:
Both older Gray schematic and CSET is based on the same principle taken directly from Tesla. It is a time machine - a way to switch circuit faster then some special velocity.Any time you do it correctly you have a gain.Then using positive feedback this gain can be multiplied or using parametric oscillator.
The output stage is huge electric field generating quite big displacement current.
This theory is very possible because I see many people now starting to have similar idea, I'm happy about it.

[lamare]

This is my theory:
Both older Gray schematic and CSET is based on the same principle taken directly from Tesla. It is a time machine - a way to switch circuit faster then some special velocity.Any time you do it correctly you have a gain.Then using positive feedback this gain can be multiplied or using parametric oscillator.
The output stage is huge electric field generating quite big displacement current.
This theory is very possible because I see many people now starting to have similar idea, I'm happy about it.

Interesting point. There is a point regarding the velocity. Longitudinal electric waves, the electrostatic field, has been shown to travel at 1.5 times the speed of light, a.o. by Meyl, Tesla and Dollard. This can be mathematically derived to be pi/2. I think it was Thornhill that did this, but I'm not sure.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Agree

This is my theory:
Both older Gray schematic and CSET is based on the same principle taken directly from Tesla. It is a time machine - a way to switch circuit faster then some special velocity.Any time you do it correctly you have a gain.Then using positive feedback this gain can be multiplied or using parametric oscillator.
The output stage is huge electric field generating quite big displacement current.
This theory is very possible because I see many people now starting to have similar idea, I'm happy about it.

Hi Boguslaw,

I totally agree with you on this, as I see it and by experimentation, any movement of electrons at above light speed is going to create extra energy, how it creates this extra energy is to be found out.

Creating light speed electrons is not a problem, a laser is an example of this, but to increase this speed over and above one way is the pumping up by parametric oscillation. This is returning part of the energy in electrons and passing through that part of the system again, it will just keep increasing if you do not load the output so restricting the return flow.

The biggest problem I see at the moment is creating the oscillation in the light speed electron beam. The way I see it is that we have to have a vacuum in that part of the system if we are to go over light speed and we have to create free electrons be it from chemical change or pumping out of the ground. Photons as well as electrons have to be taken into consideration as well.

Frequency is important as well, the higher the frquency the faster the wave travels and we do this now at light speed using fiber optics and I use that in a very general way as it is a little more complicated than that.

I will try to input a little more later, time is my problem at the moment.

Mike

[Spokane1]

The Failed CSET - But not Quite

@Raui

We'll see what happens. I would love to hear McKays comment on this, because I am convinced it is correct. Not only because you can explain this principle from the basic ground onwards, but also because Meyer and Puharich did the same thing. And both Meyer and Gray's stuff have been publicly shown to work. So, to me, everything just adds up...

And let me add that the CSET will be awfully hard to tune if it works as I think it does, so I doesn't surprise me noone has been able to get the thing working the way I think it should work so far. And beside that: why patent a device that doesn't work? I mean, patent such that the secret is left out, all right. But patent bull****? No, too expensive for that.

Dear Lamare,

I'm jumping into this discussion without reading all the material presented to date, so please bear with me.

Just becasue the bogus/failed CSET that Gray patented in 1986 didn't work, doesn't mean that the fundamentals behind it were faulty - just that that particular implementation of it didn't yield the results that were hoped for.

Once Mr. Hackenburger had a better understading of the physics of this new technology he eliminated the fixed gap CSET approach from the EMA6 motor and replaced them with a dynamic system that became part of the commentator in April 1976. He still employed the arc, just in a different embodiment.

There is a good chance that Hackenberger actually improved upon the original design of Marvin Cole, once he got his arms around the overall physics of the process. It took him about 3-4 years to figure it out.

The last photo ever taken of the EMA6 (April 1976) shows the CSET's removed and the new nylon "Donuts" as their replacement. This retro-fit must have showed some promise because with additional funding in late 1979 Hackenberger built the last free energy motor (The Blue Motor). I really doubt that he would have moved to Kansas for 18 months (or that the investor would have paid all the costs) if he didn't believe that he could come up with an improved design to replace the EMA6 that was destroyed by the FCC in early 1979 (or late 1978). It is a reasonable assumption that the Blue motor contained some version of the dynamic arc system that replaced the 1973 versions of the fixed-arc CSET system and the less than sucessful system that was initially used on the EMA6 at the time of the 1976 press release.

Since Hackenberger, E.V. Gray, and his son Mark left Dodge City in the middle of the night (1980) with the Blue Motor in hand they must have been on to something. (or so I think) To bad that Hackenberger died right after that great escape. E.V. Gray went underground for several years after that attempting to avoid Mr. Russel Audrey (the investor) who rightfully wanted what he had paid for.

All of this points to the arc as being some important part of the non-classical process. Cole and eventually Hackenberger got better results with a dynamic approach. However that dosen't mean that some other inventer can't get significant results with a fixed gap system.

The real technical question is how was the non-classical energy extracted (or converted) from the circuit that contained the arc? Dr. Tesla explored a lot of different variations of dynamic arc interrupters from 1893 clear up till 1896. So, the magic seems to be in the interesting physics of the disruptive discharge and how it affects other circuit elements.

I'm sure there is more than one approach to harvest this extra energy - once we understand the physics of it. Dr. Tesla seems to have employed resonance and delay lines impregnated with electrets. Marvin Cole appears to have used a dynamic electrostatic excitation and collection process. Stan Myer and the other researchers mentioned have employed various methods that worked for them.

Peter Lindemann's proposal back in 2001 in his book "The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity" was by far the best (and only) attempt to fleash out a real world circuit with what technical information was avaliable at the time. Today we know a little more, thanks to people that who shared their observations and photos. But, Peter's fundamental concept is still valid. An open, high current, disruptive discharge arc, from a storage capacitor casues some form of non-classical energy to manifest (Cold Electricity?) in the right environment. This energy can be OU if properly harvested. Apparently the copper grids and enclosed gas that Hackenberger used from 1973 to 1976 were not completly up to the task. But, I'm convinced that he did come up with something that was.

I really doubt that E.V.Gray understood exactly how Marvin Cole or Hackenberger were able to do it. But he knew it was worth lots of $$$ and he was going to sell it. He spent the rest of his life doing just that.

Mark McKay, PE