Gray Tube Replication

[Beshires1]

Ok I will not make another post on Your thread. You have shown your true character. Why didn't you mention my circuit along with the patent excerpt that is TOTALLY in line with what Mark spoke of? I must say that you are pretty good at misinterpretation of the facts. and manipulating things to conform to the way you want see them.

[Aaron]

bye Beshires

Stop spreading misinformation Beshires - start your own thread and you can do that all you want. Perhaps you have another agenda and it doesn't have anything to do with revealing Gray's work.

My character is that I don't need to take your subtle disrespectful insults in every other post you make.

This speaks for itself in reference to your claims:

Here is your incomplete block diagram:



Who is really trying to follow the patent? I have said I don't agree with
what Gray is describing in the patent - but that doesn't mean the circuit is useless as I have obviously kept within the frame of reality according to the diagram.

Please show us all this:
1. Where is Gray showing he is switching on the grid side of the circuit?
2. Where is Gray showing he has an ignition coil connected to the load?
3. Where is Gray showing he has a capacitor in parallel with the load?
4. Where is Gray showing the other obvious non-conforming concepts that are in your circuit?

[Beshires1]

Stop spreading misinformation Beshires - start your own thread and you can do that all you want. Perhaps you have another agenda and it doesn't have anything to do with revealing Gray's work.

My character is that I don't need to take your subtle disrespectful insults in every other post you make. This speaks for itself:

Here is your incomplete block diagram:



Who is really trying to follow the patent? I have said I don't agree with
what Gray is describing in the patent - but that doesn't mean the circuit is useless as I have obviously kept within the frame of reality according to the diagram.

Please show us all this:
1. Where is Gray showing he is switching on the grid side of the circuit?
2. Where is Gray showing he has an ignition coil connected to the load?
3. Where is Gray showing he has a capacitor in parallel with the load?
4. Where is Gray showing the other obvious non-conforming concepts that are in your circuit?

Answer
#1. Thats misleading. The grid wire does go to the load, and the tube is the switch. the grid wire is just a carrier. When the commutator lines up the proper contacts as explained in the patent It discharges the load capacitors.

#2. Actually as has been pointed out to me the motor is run on pulsed dc. that can come from a battery. (this is the preferred method). But it might also be powered by half wave rectified DC as explained by the patent.
http://sites.google.com/site/chasing...0rectified.jpg

#3. this is done by the nature of the load itself.
http://sites.google.com/site/chasing...e/Fig%2018.jpg

#4.Whats non conforming? you list-um I can show you how I got-um

I don't claim to Know everything about the Tube, But I'm learning more about its function everyday. I do know that the power generating aspects of the Grey concept lies within the commutator . I only demonstrated in in my circuit that the tube does in fact do something. I thought that seeing the tube actually work moving something, anything, would be inspiring to someone anyone, as I will be inspired by you if you show that you can repel two electromagnets with the circuit you describe, and not wire a capacitor in parallel with the load.

[Aaron]

Gray Patent Schematic

The RED highlights the fundamental circuit.

The power supply is only directly connected to cap
16, which I refer to as C1.

The power supply charges capacitor 38 by jumping from
HV rod to grid

[Electrotek]

I think you're on the right track, Aaron. But maybe cap 38 charges through the Tube by capacitive induction, then when its charge reaches a certain level it can back discharge by jumping from the grid to the rods. When the LV path is established.

[Beshires1]

Ok it looks good to me Thanks Aaron!

[Aaron]

charging cap 38

I think you're on the right track, Aaron. But maybe cap 38 charges through the Tube by capacitive induction, then when its charge reaches a certain level it can back discharge by jumping from the grid to the rods. When the LV path is established.

When I have the LV disconnected, the power supply has a visible spark from HV rod directly to the grids, which essentially is directly charging cap 38. It definitely discharges from grid into the tube when LV rod is connected.

Space from grids to rod has to be small enough that cap 38 can jump it. Otherwise, it needs a HV spark from the power supply to give a path to the rod if gap is too big.

When I connect a 4000v/2uf cap directly to power supply output...the spark to the grids is sporadic because the cap is sucking up most of what the ignition coil is spitting out. Cap 38 on the backside still charges but very slowly.

My relay circuit is pretty much toast and it needs to be a higher speed supply anyway. Imhotep's relay oscillator is faster than this isolating relay setup I have now. Next step after that is solid state. I have a 5kv ion pump supply and I may use that in the end.

[Electrotek]

Battery Current

Any way to pump the battery's current into the cap? If you pulse it 10,000 times the voltage will go up 100 times, to 1200V. That's only a couple of seconds. Seven or eight seconds and you're up to 4kV or 5kV. Then when it discharges you only have to replace, supposedly, 5% of the juice. A hundred pulses puts the charge up to 120V, so you'd only need a couple hundred pulses to keep the cap topped off.

If the motor speed is 1800 RPM, that's 30 discharges per second. The difference between that and 6k pulses per second will pump a lot of the battery's coulombs into the cap, between discharges. Maybe the Tube 'Converts' low voltage amps into high voltage charge?

[Spokane1]

The RED highlights the fundamental circuit.

The power supply is only directly connected to cap
16, which I refer to as C1.

The power supply charges capacitor 38 by jumping from
HV rod to grid

Gentlemen,

Perhaps some history about component #38 would be helpful in this discussion.

When Richard Hackenburger came on board in mid 1972 the finished EMA4-E2 motor was running well enough to encourage a group of investors (along with their engineers) to sign a "letter of intent" in Jan. of 1973. The deal was almost done until the motor started acting up a few monts later during advanced tests. Since nobody really knew how it worked nobody (included Gray) could retune or adjust it properly like Marvin Cole could. [Timing in this system is very important - or so I think]

Mr. Hackenburger had an observation port machined into the front of the motor to observe the stretched arcs, but this didn't help him much. Things got worse and then the batteries started exploding from internal arcs igniting the excess hydrogen. After "Hack" cleaned about the third set of battery fragments from the walls of the shop he did two remedial modifications. He had built the large and thick Plexiglas battery enclousure installed (which was carried on the the EMA6 design) and he installed the current limiting capacitor #38. Gray and Hackenburger had long arguments about the modification to the circuit. Apparently the series capacitor stayed and was still in the circuit when Dr. Chalfin wrote up the patent application documents in late 1973.

So component #38 was not part of the original circuit but a "work around" to limit battery destruction by limiting the DC pulse current returning back to the receiving battery. Its inclusion may have contributed to the poor performance of the EMA6.

Submitted for you consideration.

Mark McKay

[Aaron]

cap 38

Thanks Mark,

Peter has told me this plenty of times.

Even if the cap isn't there, the battery will be receiving a charge from the front end power supply and the battery will also receive the inductive spike from the coil when shut off. In both cases, it is obvious why batteries would explode.

A 12v car battery can jump the gap as easily as a high voltage capacitor when there is a spark from the power supply moving from the HV rod to the grid. That spark is a conductive pathway for a low voltage source to discharge over.

In either case, the principle remains the same. Two positive potentials with a common ground are colliding into each other and move to another common ground when LV source is switched into the circuit.

In the plasma ignition circuit, the HV from the ignition coil jumping a gap on the spark plug is what allows a relatively very low voltage source to discharge across the same size gap.

Obviously this is my opinion but simply looking at the schematic and concept, this is the simplest logical deduction that I can see. With plenty of plasma spark plug circuit documentation showing virtually identical parallel situations, that makes a very strong case for what I'm saying.

In my original belief, the HV cap discharges to LV rod, diode shuts off, potential moves to grid to the only ground left and in that case. Then as soon as the cathode of the diode on LV rod is lower than the HV discharge after most has moved to grid, it opens back up and the 12v from that battery on the other side can follow, it is still colliding with another + potential. Principle is still the same of colliding two +'s together. The common ground they both move to is the grids.

[Electrotek]

Rotary Spark Gap

McKay5.pdf details Tad Johnson's experimental set-up. The schematic near the end, and the last photo, both show a rotary spark gap interrupter. After thinking about it, it's clear to me that there's no way the commutator could be turning at 6k per second, since it's in step with the motor. So I'm going ahead with my original experimental agenda.

[lamare]

Magnets over spark gap

Hi Guys,

Just built my first tube today.

I've got a flasher from a cheap one-use camera (EUR 2,-) that is running on a single 1.5 V battery. There is a pretty large cap (about 3cm long, about 6-8 mm radius) that is being charged to about 250 - 260 V trough an oscillator circuit with a single transistor.
Then there is a small transformer coil with 3 connections, one of which goes trough a switch. Once the switch closes, you get a high voltage peak on one of the contacts. It works just like a car ignition coil.

Connected to that, I have a LV rod, just a copper rod of 5-6 mm. Then a gap of about 0.5 - 1 mm, and the HV rod. For a grid, I just took a peace of standard copper pipe of about 10 - 15cm long and I diameter of 12 mm, I guess. So, the grid is outside the spark gap and the HV rod goes all the way trough.

On the other end, I have just a resistor and a wire back to the ground of the flasher. I took a few different resitors (1 k, 22k (I think) and something in the mega-ohms).

Over the spark gap, I have a couple of block-magnets, spaced about 8 mm from another using simple steel bolts. The magnets attrack one-another.
The magnet construction can be moved out of the area of the spark gap.

This gave me the following results:

- I can flash a neon bulb as well as a 9W 250V, what's is called, curved tube light or something? Anyway, you know what I mean. The neon bulb flashes, just small orange colored flashes. The 9W bulb also flashes, but only just. I can see it, but that's it.

- When I move the magnets over the spark gap, the spak gets considerably smaller. Without it, I get a blue-ish spark with a sisshing sound. With it, I can't see a spark, but I can hear it. So, it hardly sparks.

However, the flashes on at least the neon-bulb does not seem to be any different (don't remember the 9W thing). It does draw considerably less energy, though. Without magnets, I can draw just one spark and then I have to wait for the cap to be recharged.
With the magnets, I can draw about 20-30 sparks from the capacitor, when I remove the battery.

Tonight I think about seeing if I can use a transistor to drive the flash circuit.

[Electrotek]

This is great! You're on your way.

That's nice to know about the magnets restricting the spark energy. I noticed a tiny thin spark in my last test. I think I'll pull the magnet out and do it again.

I've heard those camera circuits can work off of 9V, and will then put out around 3kV. Directly to the capacitor wires, without pushing the switch. You'd have to put some caps in series. Sometimes the people who work at the Quick Photo desk are nice if you tell them you're an inventor and will give you some disposable camera shells they'd throw out otherwise. You can get a lot of caps this way, by going around town.

I wonder if the charge time would go down with some of the boards in parallel?

[Spokane1]

HiIstorical CSET photos from the EMA6 Jan. 9, 1976

Dear CSET Affectanados,

For those of you who haven't seen these photo clips I am submitting them again to add to you collection. These came from the GD source materials (an early investor who wishes to remain some what annanomus). They are cropped from much higher resolution photos taken from a 110 fixed focus Instamatic camera.

The interesting feature of this CSET design is the large 1" central (copper?) shaft that connects all three sets of rings together. I don't know for sure where the actual arc gap is, perhaps in the center of the rings (grids?). Each set of rings is in its own section of enclosure. The entire Plexiglas box is about 16" long. Since the outside ring is probably 4" copper pipe, that makes the thickness of the "grid assembly about 1-1/2". Quite a bit different than what was shown in Gray's 1986 patent - 10 years later.

From all my interviews there is no evidence that Gray did any work at all with the CSET component from 1979 to 1986.

Again, all I can determine is that there are only two wires connected to each set of rings. The incoming wire from the capacitor is large gauge magnet wire (about #10AWG). The Output conductor (white) goes directly to the motor. I'm sure it connects to stator electromagnets.

Keep in mind that there is a good chance that Hackenburger's EMA6 motor design used Permenant Magnets on the rotor. You can verify this by reviewing John Bedini's Field notes. IF so, then the whole arcitecture of the motor has been changed from the EMA4-E2 design where the non-classical arcing process took place in the motor case proper.

I still maintain that the CSET was an attempt by Mr. Hackenburger to get the arc process out of the motor. In doing so he removed two major support functions. 1) The kenitic stretching process 2) the axial magnetic field set up by the "Minor" electromagnets to better focus the arc.

Also, since the arc current probably flowed through the coils of the "Minor" electromagnets (at least the primary portion), then the axial field would be changing as the current changed and as they sperated due to rotation. So the applied magnetic field was not constant but changed as a function of time.

[Spokane1]

CSET Photos

Here are the photos I was referring to from the last post.

Mark McKay