Gray Tube Replication

[lamare]

Someone attended me on some interesting patents by Benitez. I uploaded them to my server:
Bestandsoverzicht van /pdf/Patents/Benitez/

These may be interesting to study in relation to Gray's work, too.

In this patent, he describes a.o. a magnetically quenched spark gap and an old school, electrolytic capacitor like rectifier:
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Patents/Benitez/GB121561A.pdf

He refers to this arc as a Poulsen arc lamp:

Arc converter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unlike the spark-gap transmitter converter, the arc converter produces undamped or continuous waves (CW). This was an important feature as the use of damped waves resulted in lower transmitter efficiency and communications effectiveness, while covering the r.f. spectrum with interference. This more refined method for generating continuous-wave radio signals was initially developed by Danish inventor Valdemar Poulsen. The Poulsen arc converter can be likened to a continuous-duty-rated electric arc welder with a tuned circuit connected across the arc. The negative resistance characteristics of an electric arc permits the creation of a relaxation oscillator that converts direct current to radio frequency energy. The arc converter consisted of a water-cooled bronze chamber in which the arc burned in hydrogen gas between a carbon cathode and a water-cooled copper anode. Above and below this chamber there were two series field coils surrounding and energizing the two poles of the magnetic circuit. These poles projected into the chamber, one on each side of the arc to provide a magnetic field. This field helps to stabilize the arc and improve overall conversion efficiency. In today's world one can still find oscillators based on negative resistance devices; the tunnel diode is one of them.

More on arc oscillators and Poulsen here:
Adventures in CyberSound: Poulsen, Valdemar
Adventures in CyberSound: Experiments with "Singing Arc" and Tesla Coil
Wireless Telegraphy and High Frequency Electricity: Wireless Telephony chapter (1909)
Howeth: Chapter XI (1963)
Soundmachines » magical sound machines

Update:

So, according to Arc converter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , there is a difference between a spark gap transmitter and a Poulsen Arc converter.

The spark gap transmitter:

The Poulsen Arc converter:
Adventures in CyberSound: Experiments with "Singing Arc" and Tesla Coil

The difference is that with the spark gap transmitter, the spark gap is used to charge C2, and you get a dampening wave. With the Poulsen converter, the negative resistance effect of the spark gap is used to get an undamped or continious wave. Note that with the spark gap transmitter you have the cap in parallel with the coil, while with the Poulsen arc, you have them in series.

[Aaron]

snubber cap

hi aaron

what do you mean by snubber cap ????



have wonderful day

Hi Pranav,

I apologize I didn't respond sooner, I just now saw your message.

A snubber is a small cap that gets placed across points and will suck
up some of the discharge to prevent welding the points together.

[Aaron]

Geotron's Gray experiment

Geotron,

Is that diagram showing exactly what you have in the
pics here? http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tem-plans.html

You mention low voltage cap but the diagram shows a battery there.

[Guest]

I've built the version shown in that discussion thread, and it does
not function. After going through the first three pages of this discussion,
and seeing your video on the Proof of Concept, I am faced with a different
view of how it works than I previously thought.

The following is what I now believe to be a more accurate representation
of the technology -

Version 1
Pulsing an ignition coil with the energy from a capacitor, the output
connected through the bridge rectifier + capacitor and sent into the HV
electrode, over the spark gap onto the LV side by the diode sitting open
connected to the capacitor's anode and (-)Bat drawing it in.

The high voltage signal passes through the diode, causing it to slam closed
and send it radiating through the spark gap onto the mesh tube into powering
the motor.

The trigger must then commutate the buildup of charge into the capacitor
feeding the HV ignition coil, or rather the high voltage signal into the
opposing LV-side blocking diode after a buildup of charge in the tube.

Compared to - as I previously believed and which doesn't work -

A high voltage signal is generated from the coil and sent into a bridge
rectifier + cap and directed to flow into the HV electrode against
the blocking diode(s) connected to the LV rod. The diodes will remain
closed until they are activated by a low voltage signal to open them in the
face of the high voltage, then slam closed sending radiant energy onto
the mesh tube.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As per the Version 1,

The manner in which the ignition coil capacitor is charged to send a pulse
into the tube is not immediately striking me. In the video you've hooked
it to a relay I believe with either some kind of voltage sensor or timing
device switch. This is the portion I will need to find out about if the
rest is looking to be accurate.

I now see that perhaps I jumped to a conclusion in the diagram I posted
above with the Zener diode, and the position of the box labeled 'SW'. It
might rather be positioned between the low-voltage tube electrode and
blocking diode if I am correct.

[Guest]

confusion

Shown below is my reason for not understanding - on the left, the 12V
is pulsed into the diode while on the right it is opposite, using the
anode of a capacitor and the (-) battery to initiate the high voltage
over the gap, then waiting for the diode to close and shock the mesh.

Currently I have it set up as shown on the left, except for my 12V is
being boosted up to 90-something and fed into the anode of a capacitor
by charging it up from temporary contact with (-)bat, then commutated
through into the anode of the diode on the LV electrode as is illustrated
with no effect.

Another thing that concerns me is talk of having positive potential sitting
on the low voltage side when it would look to be a grounded sink drawing out
pulses of high potential (in reference to the diagram on right).

[Aaron]

@Geotron

Geotron,

So out of all of this, what is the final schematic you're going with
for your test?

If you can post a schematic instead of a simplified diagram, I can
see more accurately what you're doing and I'm pretty sure I can
show you what needs to be tweaked if anything in order to make
it work.

For me, it always works no matter what variation I try because I
stick to the basic principles that I believe makes it work.

Basically, any variation of the water sparkplug circuit with an inductor
and that is about it.

[Guest]

the voltage isn't helping

This is currently what I've got... have to rebuild my original timer, using
a temporary replacement, although its working quite well.

I just charge up the HV cap bank to ~900V, then use a screwdriver to tap the
LV side commutator - no effect. The tube electrodes are really darn close,
although perhaps somehow I can get them even nearer if that is thinkable.

Everything besides the ignition coil circuit, timer and 12V battery are shown.
There are no hidden connections or parts besides those.

[Aaron]

@Geotron

If your caps charge from the HV of the ignition coil, some would say
that would show you have true longitudinal impulses since they
would essentially be charged off of one wire since that is exactly
what you have. It is being tapped off of one wire.

One thing I see is that that cap bank is WAY too large and will suck up
everything from the HV output IF they are even charging and there won't
be enough to jump the gap.

In that spot for those caps, I'd have either an ultra small peaking cap with
the ground actually tied to common ground or no cap at all.

For the input to the ignition coil, I'd use a capacitive discharge system.

A few things seem backwards to me, I'll have to think on that but if you
get results, it of course doesn't matter how I see it - just whatever
works for you.

[Guest]

I've got a number of small HV caps from one of my previous versions of
this circuit, so one or more of them will likely get put to good use if
I include one at all, as you mentioned.

The method by which pulsing the coil is accomplished with a capacitor
is not yet wholly understandable to me yet, although I've drawn up the
following idea -



Once the zener voltage is reached, it goes into the transisting sensor
and switches on the juice. I still have yet to understand exactly how this
would work.

[Guest]

no caps, circuits, gaps

With my circuit as shown above in the photos, I'm going to adjust it
to remove the HV capacitors and get a spark gap flowing onto the LV
side bypassing the diodes in order to have it visually throwing a gap,
something I've not yet experimented with.

Surely there must be some kind of result from the stream of pulses I'm sending
with the current circuit driver shown below. If there is still no result even
without the large capacitor bank sitting on the HV electrode, then I'll implement
this power-on delay found over at CircuitDB in their Miscellaneous.

Otherwise I am open to suggestion...

[lamare]

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

Take a look at the schematic from Gray's 1975 patent:

Edwin V. Gray: Electromagnetic Association Motor (Pulsed Capacitance Discharge Motor, &c: US Patent # 3,890,548 )

And compare this to William Duddell's "singing arc":

Adventures in CyberSound: Experiments with "Singing Arc" and Tesla Coil

Looks like Hackenberger replaced the CSET with a classic Poulsen/Duddel-like arc converter oscillator circuit, which uses an effect that used to be well known: the negative resistance effect of a spark gap. This clearly suggests that the basic operation principle is to get the coils into oscillation...

The same circuit can be found in the "fueless engine" documents:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...lans-real.html

More references at my article under construction:
Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice - PESWiki

[Guest]

wh--

.............

[Guest]

This is the version of how I'm understanding it..

With the use of bifilar wound coils and a blocking diode on the far
side of the interruptor junction, this will keep the path open through
the diode and generate a negative voltage on the LV electrode in the tube
when the motor is in the correct position.

When the airgap in the tube passes high voltage, it is reaching through the
capacitors and into wherever they lead, may it be a battery or capacitor or
ground. The silicon will crunch tight after a certain time has passed, manifesting
a radiant burst of light and energy onto the mesh through a natural means as
of yet not fully established.

Once reaching the surface of its newly found conductor, the pressing
of the diode launches it into a greater momentum, repulsing the permanent
magnets and generating flow in the other winding.

[Guest]

boosting an ignition coil

On the left is my aformentioned HV pulser circuit, attaining at most
around 3000V as a rough guess. The system on the righthand side does
not obtain more than a slight fraction of this value, and I have yet
to understand why.

During a mishap is was notched on the periphery of the base without impact or
any resultant leak, yet I can't help but wonder if it is somehow responsible.

With an input of more than 70V, shouldn't this be producing spectacular discharges?

[lamare]

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.

There is meaningful observation documented where the non-classical output was a simple, but huge, DC spike that recharged the storage capacitor(s) and was also directed towards the storage batteries. The batteries were destroyed by this input -BUT they could not be eleminated from the circuit. Their circuit parameters were a requirment for non-classical operation. The motor could never run "closed loop" becasue the energy that was not extracted in the form of torque couldn't be effectively stored. They only needed a 60A alternator to top off the batteries from a functional standpoint. But if the motor ran for more than 30-60 minutes the batteries were toasted. If the motor was ran longer than this they exploded from hydrogen outgassing. Today this challenge might be solved with some huge carbon foam capacitors and sophiscated switch-mode power supply circuits.

It appears that the arc acted upon something other than circuit components. The OU was generated in some other medium in the system and then somehow harvested with different components (which included the wet cell battery). Many people experiment with closed loop circuits in which the excitation and collection systems all share a common ground. I really think that the Marvin Cole system had an independant excitation circuit that generated the voltage for the disruptive discharge. This discharged acted upon an electrically isolated medium/ conversion system. Then another circuit was some how employed to collect the resultant excess energy. There are two fundamental parameters that are foundations to this technology:

1. The process was electrostatic in nature (not magnetic)

2. The components and / or conversion medium had to be moving (rotating)

All the systems you have mentioned that you have investigated do share parts and pieces of the Cole system to some degree (as well with each other). I can't help but think there has got to be something fundamental to all of these. It's just that Coles approach hit the jack pot as far as energy density and power level.

Some very interesting details here. Why were the batteries needed?

I have thought a lot in the direction that you need to consider the EM fields as causes for currents to occur and that these are to be considered as separate energy flows that propagate outside of our wires, because of the Faraday cage effect you can't have an electric field within a conductor. And I think what "radiant energy" really is, is a propagating electrostatic field.

Bearden talked about delay lines as a trick to be able to use the power of the field without "killing the dipole" that causes it. Now enter water:

Underwater Electromagnetic Propagation - December 2006, volume 10, number 10 - Archive - Hydro International

Electromagnetic propagation through water is very different from propagation through air because of water's high permittivity and electrical conductivity. Plane wave attenuation is high compared to air, and increases rapidly with frequency. With a relative permittivity of 80, water has among the highest permittivity of any material and this has a significant impact on the angle of refraction at the air/water interface

Conductivity of seawater is typically around 4S/m, while nominally 'fresh' water conductivity is quite variable but typically in the mS/m range. At-tenuation of em signals is much lower in fresh water than in seawater, but fresh water has a similar permittivity. Relative permeability is approximately 1, so there is little direct effect on the magnetic field component. Loss is largely due to the effect of conduction on the electric field component. Propagating waves continually cycle energy between the electric and magnetic fields; hence conduction leads to strong attenuation of electromagnetic propagating waves.

Above 10kHz, electromagnetic propagation is more than a hundred times faster than acoustic. This has import-ant advantages for command latency and networking protocols, where many signals have to be exchanged. Doppler shift is inversely proportional to propagation velocity, so is much smaller for electromagnetic signals.

Speed of Light

The speed of light depends on the medium through which the light travels. In empty space, the speed is 186,000 (1.86 X 105) miles per second. It is almost the same in air. In water, it slows down to approximately 140,000 (1.4 X 105) miles per second. In glass, the speed of light is 124,000 (1.24 X 105) miles per second. In other words, the speed of light decreases as the density of the substance through which the light passes increases.

http://www.ultracad.com/articles/propagationtime.pdf

But electromagnetic fields travel slower in any other medium, including water. The difference in speed is inversely proportional to the square root of what is called the “relative dielectric constant”. For example, light propagates at approximately 12” per nano-second through the air. We have the rule of thumb that signals (electromagnetic fields) travel at 6” per nanosecond in FR4 board material. The “4” in FR4 relates to the relative dielectric coefficient. The square root of 4 is 2, Hence, the signals travel at 1⁄2 the speed of light on our FR4 circuit boards! How ‘bout that!
The relative dielectric coefficient of distilled water is approximately 80. The square root of 80 is almost 9. So the propagation speed of the signal in the wire through the air is almost 9 times faster than that for the wire suspended in water. The speed has nothing to do with the material of the conductor. It has everything to do with the physical characteristic of the medium around the wire.

This suggests we may be looking at a delay line within batteries / electrolytic capacitors when considering the electric field, because there is an electrolyte, a water solution, between the plates of the battery/capacitor.

Update: another effect, which may be more important, is that waves reflect on the boundary of two materials. Water appears to be one of the most reflective materials for EM waves....