Gray Tube Replication

[Beshires1]

For those who can not figure it out:

Thanks. Yes I knew this. There is a lot of those connections happening inside the box that you found that in. Oddly enough the wording of the patents are turning out to be correct. But the person who wrote the patent rarly ever is the illustrator of the drawings. This happens all the time. And quite often the patent is written by someone other than the inventor for the inventor.

[Beshires1]

Ok people, here is a little something I cleaned up. It makes it possible for the "Doc" to stop thinking outside the box for a second and have a look at whats inside.
http://sites.google.com/site/chasing...20Fig%2018.jpg

The wire at 201 202 and 203 are connected by the commutator. That would be the same as the wire connecting between the two popping coils.

[ourbobby]

Ok people, here is a little something I cleaned up. It makes it possible for the "Doc" to stop thinking outside the box for a second and have a look at whats inside.
http://sites.google.com/site/chasing...20Fig%2018.jpg

The wire at 201 202 and 203 are connected by the commutator. That would be the same as the wire connecting between the two popping coils.

Hi there Beshires1,
I am sure that Spokane1 will correct me here. The circuit you refer to here does not, IMHO, represent a motor driven by the Gray tube. It is a motor that literally contained the 17 (18?) large capacitors for each pulse network in the circuit for the patent you suggest. I attach a photo of this unit, the link I have for this is not working:

With respect to reference no 36 - Gray tube Patent - this is a completely different drive system to that proposed here. This, for me, is the hot topic.

I am mindful, that in a lot of technical discussions throughout the "energy" forums, there does seem to be a reliance on traditional explanations for RE. This approach is completely wrong. Whereas, there are well routed electronic calculationsto to determine phenomena, such as Ohms Law, reactance, current flow etc. The method of using these to describe concepts derived from unexplained phenomena, such as the Gray tube, have not been established. Hence, we face a problem with adequately communicating a fair representation of what might be occurring. And, more importantly, confusing ourselves in the process.

I think it is fair to say, that Spokane1 has knocked it on ther head when he reminds us of Marvin Cole - the originator of the technology. The rest is all conjecture. Possible spruiking. As Cole did adequately demonstrate a magnification of energy, the question becomes, "Did he us the "Gray tube"?"
If so, where is it in the original motor drives? If not, then we are chasing the wrong clues. Or, is the Gray Tube an attempt to replicate Marvin Cole's method of magnifying energy, but, housing it in some marketable commodity such as a "Radiant Valve"?

IMHO, the Gray Tube patent is a Red Herring. Also, IMHO, the early results were replications of some of Tesla's High Frequency experiments and his preoccupation with Electrostaic induction. Its possible, the Tube shows a pathway for Tesla's success's.

Regards
Rob

[nat1971a]

There is one thing that puzzles me about all this

1. Patent 3890548
An intake 65 for air is coupled to pump 60 via piping 68, 69 and from the pump 60 via tubing.......the air tends to cool the engine, and the air may be preferably be maintained at a constant temperature and humidity so that a constant spark discharge condition is maintained.

The thing that puzzles me is i thought this thing ran cool...iced over....so why the need for an air pump.

it looks to me the the motor may be in a low air vacuum. from which the later design of the CSET was developed. But may not have included the low air vacuum and hence got inferior results

2. I was looking into more info on carbon and debra chung on her negative resistance experiments last night. And she mentions that carbon layers which are put under PRESSURE exhibit negative resistance which according to beardon brings in energy from the environment.

So i will be persisting with my low vacuum CSET tests when the heatwave over here subsides.

Cheers

Nat

[Spokane1]

Some History on the development of the CSET circuit

Hi Mark,
Thanks for the email. Getting back to the point. I think you are absolutely correct here. There seems to be a deliberate obfuscation of these components. This is an interesting thread trying to describe a working hypothesis based on, not only an incomplete discreet circuit, but, also without the wherewithall to connect it to the motor!

In one of your other posts, your excellent observation is at the root of understanding the connection between Tesla's High Frequency work and the "Gray Tube/ Motor", the development of 87.5 hp with minimal input. This is at the heart of the issue. It is quite clear to me that, IMHO, the Gray Tube has been either wrongly described or there is a serious omission in the description of the circuit.

Also, just to follow up on the minutia, of the Gray Patent circuit, I would like to know how the triode ( the one side of the "split positive") is really connected and driven, rather than some straight through connection to the battery pack with a dangling grid.Maybe just another red herring?

Regards
Rob

Dear Rob,

The first person to draw a schematic of the CSET circuit was Ron Cole (no relation to Marvin Cole) in a series of three visits to E.V.Gray's shop in late 1973. A young John Bedini was in attendance at these visits. John describes the circuit setup as being laidout on a table as if it were in the breadboard stage. I believe that the motor being driven was described as an off the shelf design, not a custom built motor. I guess it would be a 4-pole DC motor or something similuar to the "Start Motor". The commentator being used at this time was a standard automotive distributer.

Anyway Ron Cole drew up these documents after they left the shop - from memory. Years later John Bedini redrew them and kindly placed them on the Internet. The dates shown on the drawings are the dates they were redrawn. All the data came from the 1973 visits.

John has said that the diode is reversed in these sketches. He says that Ron Cole was exploring some thoughts about some kind of Zener action going on as a possible source of the anomalous energy but didn't change the schematic back the way it was.

I maintain that what John Bedini and Ron Cole were observing was Richard Hackenburger's first attempts at a redesigned motor topology. Boy, he didn't have any idea as to what he was getting into. The working motors EMA4-E2 EMA2, and EMA3 motors didn't use the CSET topology, according to John Bedini.

At the time E.V.Gray didn't know what a thyratron was. This discussion proved to Ron Cole that Gray didn't know anything about electronics. This comment and a lot of other discussions that took place during these visits created a poor first impression of Gray's technical skills for Ron Cole. Gray was still looking for some golden haired boy to get these motors to run better. Perhaps he was having his doubts about Hackenburger's ability. It seems that Gray was interested in Ron Cole possibly doing some consulting work on the side in addition to his position at TRW. Apparently Gray visited Ron Cole a couple of times at his shop in Slidmore, CA. John claims that Ron Cole didn't want to do a whole lot with a person who was not the developer of the technology. Ron and John attempted to see Gray for a fourth visit but Gray's wife Renata essentially told them to "get lost." That was the end of the Van Nys visits.

So what are the chances that Ron Cole was able to recall 100% of all of the circuit components and proper wiring connections? This was not a standard circuit. He did better than I could have. I'm sure that E.V.Gray let him stand there and take his sweet time with a clip board and draw up the entire circuit layout and then slowly re-check all the details to make sure- NOT. Both Ron and John had to sign some pretty harsh non-disclosure agreements on the first visit.

Now 12 years later, Gray is living in Counsel, ID (Population 856) with two of his sons. (Eddie and Mark). Gray writes up two patent applications, one for the CSET and one for its excitation circuit. This is pretty darn close to what John Bedini has recorded for us, except there is a triode symbol in place of the diode. Now, the "Triode" has no grid connection nor is the connections to the heater addressed. And this was done by a person who knows almost nothing about electronics. How these obvious omissions slipped by the patent reviewers is beyond me.

The only CSET Gray builds in the 80's (that I know of) is a prop for a promotion video that is driven by a huge 5KV power supply connected to a 240VAC 100A breaker.

So, just how much faith do you want to put into these schematics? (and the CSET for that fact). To me these are all a rehash of Richard's attempt to get the stretched arc out of the motor and into a fixed gap component.

Don't get me wrong. I think that a fixed gap device with 'grids' is a design that might have potential merit. But if you are interested in researching this approach don't limit yourself by the Gray patent or the Ron Cole sketches. Develop a circuit that exploits your paticular theory. If you don't have personal theory then, there are a lot of them out there to be had for free.

From an Electrical Engineering stand point I have problems with the idea of a vacuum tube switching element - either a triode or a thyratron. It has to do with the required heater power input. In either device the maximum pass current is limited by how many thermal electrons are available. This is determined by energy consumption of the tube. I don't know what the multipliers are, but as I recall if you need to draw 10 Watts of plate power you need to have 20 Watts of of heater power. The problem is that the heater has to be drawing energy all the time in order to be on call to pass the pulse current. Now, we don't know just how much current was intended to flow through the electrodes in this circuit, but a discharging capacitor into a low impedance set of electromagnets is generally pretty hefty. My popping coil experiments are on the order of 600 Amps per pop at 3.5KV. That's a huge energy draw for a few miliseconds.

Thyratrons can handle a lot more current than a Triode, but they also need a lot more heater energy to do so. The energy demands of Triodes and Thyratrons are huge. If you do the math (which I haven't) I sure you will find that the energy over head cost (which can't be recycled back to the battery) is going to wipe out any hoped for Over Unity operation.

My personal opinion (this month until more information surfaces) is that Gray just pulled out some old documentation from 1976 added some simple descriptions and some claims and handed it off to his lawyer Joe Gordon(along with a few grand) to get the patents. The "triode" was probably meant to be a thyratron. Gray's second technician Richard II "The Albino" was using them in his version of the circuits in 1980.

Nelson Schlaft "Rocky" who was Gray's third technician pointed out a very simple fact. "These motors were intended to be used in cars. Why would anybody use a thyratron in such an application? The vibration would knock out the filiments in the first mile". Good point Rocky. Having a vacuum tube in an automotive power circuit doesn't make much engineering sense. Now I know tube radios have been used for almost 2 decades in the past, but these are low power devices, less than 5 watts. Some mobile power transmitters got up to 50 watts. But generally the larger a power tube the weaker the filiment.

Richard Hackenburger was using a solid state diode in 1973, by 1985 diode technology had improved by two orders of magnitude - putting thyratrons out of business several years before. So, why was Mr. Gray going backwards in his design? I chalk it up to his lack of technical knowlege and that the real intent of the patent was to have something tangable to sell that looked different. Gray already had plenty of data on the OU performance of the EMA2motor but I'm sure investors wanted something that they believed would lock in thier investment. Selling a patent that they would accept as the "real thing" cetainly made business sense. Unfortunatly Mr. Gray was not above this kind of deception.

Anyway there are my thoughts on this circuit and its history. If anyone has additional solid historical facts on this subject I would really be interested in hearing aout it.

Mark McKay

[Beshires1]

Hi there Beshires1,
I am sure that Spokane1 will correct me here. The circuit you refer to here does not, IMHO, represent a motor driven by the Gray tube. It is a motor that literally contained the 17 (18?) large capacitors for each pulse network in the circuit for the patent you suggest. I attach a photo of this unit, the link I have for this is not working:

With respect to reference no 36 - Gray tube Patent - this is a completely different drive system to that proposed here. This, for me, is the hot topic.

I am mindful, that in a lot of technical discussions throughout the "energy" forums, there does seem to be a reliance on traditional explanations for RE. This approach is completely wrong. Whereas, there are well routed electronic calculationsto to determine phenomena, such as Ohms Law, reactance, current flow etc. The method of using these to describe concepts derived from unexplained phenomena, such as the Gray tube, have not been established. Hence, we face a problem with adequately communicating a fair representation of what might be occurring. And, more importantly, confusing ourselves in the process.

I think it is fair to say, that Spokane1 has knocked it on ther head when he reminds us of Marvin Cole - the originator of the technology. The rest is all conjecture. Possible spruiking. As Cole did adequately demonstrate a magnification of energy, the question becomes, "Did he us the "Gray tube"?"
If so, where is it in the original motor drives? If not, then we are chasing the wrong clues. Or, is the Gray Tube an attempt to replicate Marvin Cole's method of magnifying energy, but, housing it in some marketable commodity such as a "Radiant Valve"?

IMHO, the Gray Tube patent is a Red Herring. Also, IMHO, the early results were replications of some of Tesla's High Frequency experiments and his preoccupation with Electrostaic induction. Its possible, the Tube shows a pathway for Tesla's success's.

Regards
Rob

I thought I recognized that photo . that is not one of Grey's motors. What's up with this. Francoeurs' Gary Motor Replication - KeelyNet 12/29/01 I do notice Keelynet in the photo. http://www.pureenergysystems.com/os/...enerator1a.jpg

[Beshires1]

Why Have so many people converged to tell me I'm wrong? That I should be concentrating on the motors that failed, that used the tube? I do believe that the first patent, 3890548 had to come from the originator of this technology. This patent describes the 3,6 and 9 stator motors. I've found no contradictions.

[ourbobby]

Hi Mark,
My mistake. Too many Cole's about!

Nice summary though. But, what about where the 87.5hp came from?

Regards
Rob

Hi Beshires1,
Sorry if I have upset you. Not my intention to correct you. Only I have not seen the Gray tube in any motor configuration yet.

As Spokane1 rightly points out there seems to be an end in sight for the mystery behind this Motor and its association with RE!

Regards
Rob

[Spokane1]

There is one thing that puzzles me about all this

1. Patent 3890548
An intake 65 for air is coupled to pump 60 via piping 68, 69 and from the pump 60 via tubing.......the air tends to cool the engine, and the air may be preferably be maintained at a constant temperature and humidity so that a constant spark discharge condition is maintained.

The thing that puzzles me is i thought this thing ran cool...iced over....so why the need for an air pump.

it looks to me the the motor may be in a low air vacuum. from which the later design of the CSET was developed. But may not have included the low air vacuum and hence got inferior results

2. I was looking into more info on carbon and debra chung on her negative resistance experiments last night. And she mentions that carbon layers which are put under PRESSURE exhibit negative resistance which according to beardon brings in energy from the environment.

So i will be persisting with my low vacuum CSET tests when the heatwave over here subsides.

Cheers

Nat

Dear Nat,

According to recent GD documentation the EMA4-E2 motor was intended to be pressurized to 0.5 psi of air. Some observers say that the motor needed this air flow to keep the electromagnets from frosting up.

Richard Hackenburger also states in one of his engineering reports as to how he thought that the oxygen in the air is responsible for the energy gain by some sort of electron avalanch process. You can follow up on Gary Magratten's work to see how far he got with this idea.

If my proposal is correct, that arcs were being struck and stretched inside the motor then, an air flow is almost manditory. This is to eleminate all the combustion products of the arc. There are about 32 different gasous compounds created in an open air arc. Most of these are nitrogen based. Some of them mix with the mosture in the air to create Nitric Acid, which is a bad actor on exposed metal parts. The build up of these components in a closed environment reduces the resistance of the air and therfore lowers the strike potential of the spark gap. Not good for timing control.

Meanwhile, an increase in air pressure increases the strike potential of an air gap (assuming the air is clean). There are tables avaliable that show the impact of air pressure on gap distance [See "The Mechanism of the Electric Spark" Loeb & Meek 1940]

The reported anomalous cooling is a side effect that most likely did take place to some degree. At least Mr. Gray really pushed the idea of cold motors and cold coils for years after he had the circuits that might have actually displayed this phenomenon.

I don't know how much cooling took place but it could have been a real problem if it were significant. After all some OU theories maintain that the energy is being sucked out of the zero point and that in turn sucks thermal energy from all the masses in the local area. If 100 HP (76.5 KW) of energy were being sucked from the local environment for very long, then the low air flow from the blower shown would be insufficent to keep the motor from freezing up. I really doubt that the cooling effect was this great - but I really don't know. Gray never ran the motor EMA4-E2 for more than about 45 minutes (when it was working). The EMA2 motor tested by Crosby Research was a much lower power model (10 HP) and may not have suffered from a as much of a cooling issue.

I really like the idea of the oxygen as being part of the reaction. Now the CSET that Gray built in 1985 may have only been used for the promotion video but I think that he intended to do a little more with it in the beginning. It was originally configured to be pressurized with something. (Not SF6 according to Mark Gray). Even the patent shows an enclosed chamber.

Now there are just as many arguments to support the idea of a vacuum chamber. Which it may be. I still favor the idea of a air pressurized enviromnet. After all, large and small vacuum intrupters have been in wide spread use for 20 years and as far as I know of no anomalous effects have been reported. But, high current switch intrupters in open air on submarines with DC currents have been known to create Ball Lightning (on rare occation), a much more interesting non-classical process.

So the air blower could have had these functions:

1. Provide clean air to remove arc combustion products.

2. Provide fresh oxygen to be utilized as part of an electron avalanch reaction.

3. Provide some measure of heating by bringing in warmer ambient air.

I think all three purposes were employed.


Richard Hackenburger is quoted in the 1973 Scagnetti article as saying that the next motor design was going to have and internal fan blades to eleminate the outboard blower. I suspect he discovered that this was harder to do ($$$) than it sounded. I think he scrapped that idea with the destruction of the EMA5 and money ran short. His solution was to remove the arc process from the motor completly and get rid of the blower altogether.


Nat keep working on that Pyrolized Carbon idea. I think the negative resistance process hold some keys in this technology development. When you get tired of carbon take a look at Zinc. This also has negative resistance properties. I myslef had a very interesting experiance when I built a Tesla Coil that used 4" galvanized nails for the spark gap - but that's another story.

Mark McKay

[Aaron]

Coil Popping

The effect works with or without the capacitor 38. It works just fine there and it works just fine without.

It works without a cap on the front end and only a cap 38 in place.
It works with a cap on the front end and no cap behind the inductor.
It works with both a cap on the front end and behind the inductor.

The effect happens with or without the tube.

The effect happens with 3 points as in the tube or even just 2 points - if the concept is understood of what the effect actually is, it allows anyone to make any circuit they want to get the effect as long as a few basic principles are utilized.

The green/white light is the signature of the event and has NOTHING to do with copper metal as it is the same green/white color regardless of any metal I have used. This is the ONLY color light I have seen when the coils actually charge from the basic principle of operation. It is more blue when the effect does not happen but the same cap(s) are still discharging and the coil takes it but does not pop, attract or repel anything. It ONLY happens when the collision happens.




Maybe I am missing something but to the best of my knowledge, in the picture above...there is no motor, commutator, stretched arcing, etc... Everyone wants to know what the EFFECT is, it is demonstrated here...the "cold" coil popping demo that is so famous...and everyone is looking to the motor as having the magic element to make it work. Am I missing something?

It seems sensible that first the coil popping method based on how Gray and/or Cole actually did it is the first thing to duplicate, understand more and fine tune for maximum effect.

Then AFTER that is done, apply it to a basic motor concept like I already posted in this thread with the small monopole rotor. The effect, as I have already tested, pops a permanent magnet as well as popping two coils apart. The thing with the permanent magnet is that it should be a good strong magnet and shaped virtually identical to the core because the magnetic field shape of the "popped" coil appears to be focused very sharp and does not expand spatially very much...from what I have found so far.

Again, the effect is: It is colliding two or more positive potentials into each other and forcing them to a common ground. Preferably, one high voltage source which is your STATIC and preferably one low voltage source acting as your DIRECT CURRENT.

I discovered this many months ago when I started hooking coils in series to different parts of the plasma ignition system. I hooked the tube up in the same place where the spark plug would go and I got the same thing. The coil charged with a strong pulse pop with the same input power when certain conditions are met and the coil does not pop at all with the same input power if the conditions are not met.

With the collision forced to common ground and with the diode(s) as they are, it causes and abruptness not just in shutoff, but in the speed of discharge of the cap...that is what causes the effect.

Also, a gap isn't even needed in the whole circuit to translate the effect to the coil.

[nat1971a]

Mark

Interesting that you mention .5 psi.

I converted Telsa's air pressure that he used according to his wardencliff patents and if i converted them right were in the range of 2.32-2.90 psi

so this is starting to sound promising....

[Spokane1]

Why Have so many people converged to tell me I'm wrong? That I should be concentrating on the motors that failed, that used the tube? I do believe that the first patent, 3890548 had to come from the originator of this technology. This patent describes the 3,6 and 9 stator motors. I've found no contradictions.

Dear Mr. Beshires,

I don't think your wrong and it doesn't matter if you want to explore concepts presented in the surviving documentation that are true or false. If you see something that sparks you interest then go for it. At this point all we have is out native intutition to sort this mess out. I'm offering my opinins and what I think history is, but I only have about 60% of the story. I know nothing about the important events prior to 1972 and that is where the real story is.

What really counts is what you do on your work bench, how well you set up your experiments, record your measurements, and make accurate observations. (With the level of instrumentation you can afford) If you feel generous and wish to share encouraging results with others then so much the better.

All these theories, speculations, opinions, and ideas (including mine) are pretty much interesting fiction. They make for a few moments of entertaining reading (I hope). When one of us actually cracks this nut and figures out just what componets and window of operation creates a non-classical and reproducable event then all this past Internet dribble will evaporate over night. Then the real work can begin.

Just becasue I think that Hackenburger's approach to a fixed gap energy tube failed, don't take that as the final gossple. I still think that the non-classical process is in an arc. Maybe it can be moved to a fixed gap enclosure. That would be nice if it could since it would make things much cheaper and more of us could build one (or more).

Let me comment on the evolution of the motors a moment.

As far as I can tell, the 9 pole dual electromagnet design was the most advanced design as in the EMA4-E2. The early Cole motors started with a single pole motor, then a three pole motor, followed by a few more three pole motors. I have one of the aluminum cases from an early three pole motor.

I have no idea if the age-changing EMA2 motor was a 3 or 9 pole motor. It really doesnt matter because as the motors got larger Mr. Cole seems to have used the same 3-wire electromagnet design - just more of them. I'm sure the operting princples are the same. I don't know when he went to the "Minor' - "Major" electromagnet design, but I think it was an advanced development since we don't see it in the EMA4 and EMA5 designs.

I don't have a clue if the EMA6 was a dual electromagnet design or single. I suspect single since Hackenburger removed the internal arc process therefore the 'Minor' electromagnets were no longer needed and probably made the prototype a lot cheaper.

Hang in there and don't sweat the jibber-jabber that takes place on this or any other Blog forum. Follow your own thoughts, feelings, and great ideas.

Mark McKay

[Beshires1]

Does anyone Know for certain how many rotor poles were on the EMA4-E2 and EMA6 motors?

[ourbobby]

I thought I recognized that photo . that is not one of Grey's motors. ]

Hi Beshires1,
I had this photo from an extinct site referencing it as an early Gray motor. Of course, when I saw all the large Caps, I became Mr Naive!! You are correct. I have since found a reference to one Alf(?) Francoeur. Pays to check.

Regards
Rob

[ourbobby]

Loeb and Meek

Hi Mark,
well noted regarding the Loeb and Meek study. I am attaching a summary of this study which should help clarify a position for the development of the Radiant Effect.

The next observation I would like to point out is Tesla's preoccupation with Oscillationg Transformers and Mercury Interrupters, and, his quest to perfect the spark gap. Confirmed in my opinion by Loeb and Meeks' assessment of the implied need for a quenched spark gap to reduce plasma and preionisation.

To my mind, nothing has changed since 1919 when Tesla elaborated and published details of his series of developed Oscillating Transformers. Should help the Gray Search!