Gray Tube Replication

[Spokane1]

Long stretched arcs in motors

Hey Mark, I have a old video that shows the streching arc actually wrapping around my commutator on a small 3pole motor with permanent magnet fields.This was due to me seriously overvoltageing the motor. But You can see theglow from the spark from one brush as it wrapped the commutator when it reaches the other brush, Well just watch the video.
3 Coil Motor- Permanent Magnet Field 2

Dear Beshires,

I've seen that same effect in several industrial situations, especially when slip rings are involved with lose brushes and DC currents. Overvoltage and Overload conditions (or excessive wear) are generally involved, just as you say.

I think this shows why a quenching process is needed if a stretched arc process is being employed as I propose.

Thanks for the observation.

Mark McKay

[Aaron]

video

I just built my first motor based on Grays patent with neos and coils, it is slow, but it is spinning And I'm getting beautiful green sparks. I am trying to upload video on Youtube.

Looking forward to it!

[Spokane1]

Fixed gaps in the EMA4-E2?

Right, I was referring to a fixed gap such as a tube or something similar that is unrelated to the coils either inside or outside a black box.

As far as I know, there was no evidence in any of the motors of any arcing, carbon marks, etc... but that doesn't mean there wasn't any...is there any confirmation of any of this?

Dear Arron,

I strongly suspect that there was a fixed arc associated with the EMA4-E2, actually a number of them - one for each power supply. An additional fixed gap is required if the Phinney triggering system is used.

In the Cannady Interview, the observer describes the loud noise associated with running the motor. Now the switching arcs in the fron end commentators discs were not that loud, at least on the EMA6. So there was something about the EMA4-E2 that generated a lot of noise. Again I suspect a collection of fixed gaps in the power supply box.

In one of the GD photos you can see a couple of large automotive spark plugs mounted on the inside. I suppose there were possibly 2 more in the same place on the other side of the enclosure, so this makes a total of 4 large spark plugs involved with this circuits. There may have been more. I have thought these were part of an overvoltage system that discharged misfires back to the batteries, but they could have been the fixed arcs of which I was talking about. The gap distance would be right since they would probably be designed to break down at 5KV or about 71% of the doubled supply voltage (3.5KV x 2 = 7KV).

It is appearing that there may be as many as three gaps associated with a single power supply:

1. The low current limited trigger gap formed by the commentator disc

2. The high current switching fixed gap. (not shown in the patent documents)

3. The load stretched arc in the motor proper.

This is something to discuss further as your experiments show us the way.

Mark McKay

[mlurye]

Ok here it is YouTube - Grays motor - 1st attempt

[Aaron]

motor vid

Great job Mike! I sure recognize that color!

Do you have the exact schematic for this?

[Beshires1]

Dear Arron,

I strongly suspect that there was a fixed arc associated with the EMA4-E2, actually a number of them - one for each power supply. An additional fixed gap is required if the Phinney triggering system is used.

In the Cannady Interview, the observer describes the loud noise associated with running the motor. Now the switching arcs in the fron end commentators discs were not that loud, at least on the EMA6. So there was something about the EMA4-E2 that generated a lot of noise. Again I suspect a collection of fixed gaps in the power supply box.

In one of the GD photos you can see a couple of large automotive spark plugs mounted on the inside. I suppose there were possibly 2 more in the same place on the other side of the enclosure, so this makes a total of 4 large spark plugs involved with this circuits. There may have been more. I have thought these were part of an overvoltage system that discharged misfires back to the batteries, but they could have been the fixed arcs of which I was talking about. The gap distance would be right since they would probably be designed to break down at 5KV or about 71% of the doubled supply voltage (3.5KV x 2 = 7KV).

It is appearing that there may be as many as three gaps associated with a single power supply:

1. The low current limited trigger gap formed by the commentator disc

2. The high current switching fixed gap. (not shown in the patent documents)

3. The load stretched arc in the motor proper.

This is something to discuss further as your experiments show us the way.

Mark McKay

Mark contrary to what was suggested by Wooten when he examined the two found motors, There is evidence in these early photos,taken before they were cleaned up before the Keeley Net Conference 1991 that these motors did indeed spark inside the commutators. As this photo taken from Wooten's bench clearly shows. http://keelynet.com/evgray/129.jpg There was a comment made about the lubriplate inside the commutator. This was Electrically conductive lubricant used only on the 3 rotor wiper assemblies, to help maintain contact, to minimize losses from sparking, while completing the circuit from rotor coil to stator coil to energizer. the lubriplate would not have been in side the main contact area of the commutator because it would have simply shorted out the contacts to each other. If there were any lubriplate within the main contact area of the commutator, then it would have been dielectric grease. But that would suggest a metal to metal contact, for the contacts to transfer spark, If dialectic grease were used in the main commutator housing then there would be no sparks and no reason for the view ports. Again I will ask why would Wooten say there was no evidence of sparking in this commutator? http://keelynet.com/evgray/129.jpg

[Electrotek]

Bifilar

I'm told by the Magnetics expert Graham Gunderson that popping coils can't be placed to close together or else the maganetic fields cancel out the inductance and not much energy can be stored in them Therefore the avaliable energy for effective repulsion is reduced.

That's what I've been saying, that the motor coils are equivalent to a bifilar coil.

I fold.

[mlurye]

Based on my observations:
If limiting diode introduced - I was getting very short sparks, green color. In order to get them triggering spark gap was very narrow, may be even it did require physical contact and system was running fairly quiet.
Without diode I was getting big, noisy blue sparks and my power supply could not charge cap quick enough to keep motor running.

[nat1971a]

awesome video mike....well done

[boguslaw]

That's what I've been saying, that the motor coils are equivalent to a bifilar coil.

I fold.

Bifilar coils with non symmetrical count of windings, powered by currents shifted in phase by 90 degrees by action of transformer.

[mlurye]

Updated schema I was using for my test

[Spokane1]

EMA4 Commentator Review

Mark contrary to what was suggested by Wooten when he examined the two found motors, There is evidence in these early photos,taken before they were cleaned up before the Keeley Net Conference 1991 that these motors did indeed spark inside the commutators. As this photo taken from Wooten's bench clearly shows. http://keelynet.com/evgray/129.jpg There was a comment made about the lubriplate inside the commutator. This was Electrically conductive lubricant used only on the 3 rotor wiper assemblies, to help maintain contact, to minimize losses from sparking, while completing the circuit from rotor coil to stator coil to energizer. the lubriplate would not have been in side the main contact area of the commutator because it would have simply shorted out the contacts to each other. If there were any lubriplate within the main contact area of the commutator, then it would have been dielectric grease. But that would suggest a metal to metal contact, for the contacts to transfer spark, If dielectic grease were used in the main commutator housing then there would be no sparks and no reason for the view ports. Again I will ask why would Wooten say there was no evidence of sparking in this commutator? http://keelynet.com/evgray/129.jpg

Dear Mr. Beshires,

I have personally examined and taken measurements of the very commentator you speak of in Al Francouer's living room when he was living in Pentickton, B.C. in 2005.

I took a close look at the condition of the very small spaces between the copper contacts and I could only see just a faint trace of any electrical activity. At the time it amazed me that there was so little evidence of any electrical arcing. Norm and Al had the commentator all cleaned up when I saw it, so some of the evidence might have been cleaned away.

Acording to Nelson Schlaft, who rebuilt both of those motors in 1980, he claims he used the commentator to trigger ignitrons to run the motor. He disconnected all the existing wires and reused what he needed for his approach. So, what Norm found was a botch job of the orginal design, Mr. Schlaft only needed one slip ring (out of two) and half of the contacts to control the ignitrons. He says he was using a Zener regulated 1KV circuit to derive the trigger voltage from the 5KV output of the main power supply. He says he selected the contacts such that the motor could run in either direction. I'm sure with a 1KV potential theere had to be some arcing - even if the current was rather small. I don't know what the trigger current requirement is for an ignitron, with out checking the data sheet.

Now, all the greese is another issue. I agree with you that shorting out the contacts would be a real problem. In the EMA4-E2 (which was a more advanced design) no greese was used. My present thought is that the greese was an artifact during the fight between Russel Audry and Dorthy McKellips when they were disputing the ownership of the motors after Mr. Gray's death.

When Al Francouer received the motors the single pole EMA4 had been exposed to some agent that had destroyed all the insulation and organic components - as if it had been stored in a closed container with brake fluid or aceatone. Some how the motor had been abused. I propose that the greese was associated with this abuse, perhaps by mistake. But we will never know for sure.

Attached is my drawing of the EMA4 commentator. I'm sure you have seen this before, but others might not have. At the time I wrote the paper (where this drawing comes from) I though we were looking at original circuits, not rebuilt connections. But I didn't learn that until three years later. So that paper is way out of date in the light of new information.

The second attachment is a closer look at the cluster of three contacts and some graphs showing possible timing relationships. As you know the commentators for each motor were vary similar in that they each had a full set of 15 contacts each. Yet the EMA4 motor only had one pole.

Also consider that the front plate was cut to permit observations inside the motor. What do you think Marvin Cole was attempting to look at with this cutout?

Mark McKay

[Beshires1]

Dear Mr. Beshires,

I have personally examined and taken measurements of the very commentator you speak of in Al Francouer's living room when he was living in Pentickton, B.C. in 2005.

I took a close look at the condition of the very small spaces between the copper contacts and I could only see just a faint trace of any electrical activity. At the time it amazed me that there was so little evidence of any electrical arcing. Norm and Al had the commentator all cleaned up when I saw it, so some of the evidence might have been cleaned away.

Acording to Nelson Schlaft, who rebuilt both of those motors in 1980, he claims he used the commentator to trigger ignitrons to run the motor. He disconnected all the existing wires and reused what he needed for his approach. So, what Norm found was a botch job of the orginal design, Mr. Schlaft only needed one slip ring (out of two) and half of the contacts to control the ignitrons. He says he was using a Zener regulated 1KV circuit to derive the trigger voltage from the 5KV output of the main power supply. He says he selected the contacts such that the motor could run in either direction. I'm sure with a 1KV potential theere had to be some arcing - even if the current was rather small. I don't know what the trigger current requirement is for an ignitron, with out checking the data sheet.

Now, all the greese is another issue. I agree with you that shorting out the contacts would be a real problem. In the EMA4-E2 (which was a more advanced design) no greese was used. My present thought is that the greese was an artifact during the fight between Russel Audry and Dorthy McKellips when they were disputing the ownership of the motors after Mr. Gray's death.

When Al Francouer received the motors the single pole EMA4 had been exposed to some agent that had destroyed all the insulation and organic components - as if it had been stored in a closed container with brake fluid or aceatone. Some how the motor had been abused. I propose that the greese was associated with this abuse, perhaps by mistake. But we will never know for sure.

Attached is my drawing of the EMA4 commentator. I'm sure you have seen this before, but others might not have. At the time I wrote the paper (where this drawing comes from) I though we were looking at original circuits, not rebuilt connections. But I didn't learn that until three years later. So that paper is way out of date in the light of new information.

The second attachment is a closer look at the cluster of three contacts and some graphs showing possible timing relationships. As you know the commentators for each motor were vary similar in that they each had a full set of 15 contacts each. Yet the EMA4 motor only had one pole.

Also consider that the front plate was cut to permit observations inside the motor. What do you think Marvin Cole was attempting to look at with this cutout?

Mark McKay

Yes I've heard about the one pole EMA4. But I think It was origionally a three pole rotor. The metal shaft EMA4 was built before its composite twin EMA5.Looking at this photo ypu can see the EMA4 motor shaft in front of the EMA5 (composite) First thing I notice is EMA4 has a 3 lobe wiper just like EMA5. Also there are holes EMA4's motor shaft where the other coils had been bolted to the shaft of EMA4.
http://sites.google.com/site/chasing...s/Home/305.jpg

[Aaron]

motor wires

Mark,

How many wires are coming off the coils in the motors?

[Spokane1]

EMA4 and EMA5

Yes I've heard about the one pole EMA4. But I think It was origionally a three pole rotor. The metal shaft EMA4 was built before its composite twin EMA5.Looking at this photo ypu can see the EMA4 motor shaft in front of the EMA5 (composite) First thing I notice is EMA4 has a 3 lobe wiper just like EMA5. Also there are holes EMA4's motor shaft where the other coils had been bolted to the shaft of EMA4.
http://sites.google.com/site/chasing...s/Home/305.jpg

Dear Beshires,

I have no doubt that these are sister motors intended for a number of different tests. I have a three pole case (contributed by Norm Wooten) that appears to be a part of this same design series. It makes perfect engineering sense that several configurations could have been composed from these prototype parts just as you propose. Who knows at what stage these motors were in when they were relieved from duty and placed in storage. I'm glad that they were recovered.

In the GD materials there is another 9-pole motor shown. I don't know where it fits in the chain of developments, but I'm assuming it predates the EMA4-E2. I don't have the processed photo here at work or I would send it.

I have no idea where E.V.Gray came up with his numbering system since the EMA4 and the EMA4-E2 are completly different designs.

But, I agree with you. The EMA4 could have easily been configured as a three pole motor since all the provisions are there for it. Weither it was? I certainly don't know.

Mark McKay