Gray Tube Replication

[Electrotek]

Ghst: Very Good Idea, upping the background light! I think you've really got something here. It would be easy to explain the Scalar Interferometry effect, based on a two point projector, with the two points being the same point, at two places in time. The images would then be the sum of the images from all two point projectors in the 'real' Tube.

[Electrotek]

Here's One Of My Videos

As I said, the potential on my HV cap directly powers the discharge with my circuit. And my circuit works with one capacitor, or two capacitors, or more.

Here's a video of my effect, which I've previously posted. This was made using two capacitors, with the same basic circuit arrangement I first posted. Although the potential from the capacitor will directly power the discharge, I left the power supply running for this video, to allow for rapid recharging. For file size economy, and ease of uploading, the video length was kept to just a few seconds. But that's enough to convey the basic effect.

http://img531.imageshack.us/img531/4...3419314ob8.flv

Is there a trans-temporal spark image in this video?

[Electrotek]

Proprietary Experiment

Between the time I posted my last message and now I've come to understand that the experiment depicted in my video is Proprietary. Unfortunately, for reasons previously stated, this means that I won't be able to discuss it on this forum. However, I can see a compelling reason why this experiment needs to be repeated.

[Marcoz]

Between the time I posted my last message and now I've come to understand that the experiment depicted in my video is Proprietary. Unfortunately, for reasons previously stated, this means that I won't be able to discuss it on this forum. However, I can see a compelling reason why this experiment needs to be repeated.

So you are basically saying: "I am not going to talk about it, but i think people should replicate it" ????

Something's fishy here....and it aint open source.

Marcoz.

[Electrotek]

So you are basically saying: "I am not going to talk about it, but i think people should replicate it" ????

Something's fishy here....and it aint open source.

Marcoz.

No, I'm saying that *I* need to repeat the experiment.

I'm no longer open sourcing my stuff.

[Spokane1]

Preliminary measurements with the Ghst Appartus

Dear Non-Funded Researchers,

Here are some preliminary construction notes and observations about my ongoing attempt at the replication of the Ghst Holographic Apparatus.

Carbon Fiber "2nd Electrode":

A set of three Chinese made Hybrid Carbon Arrows were bought from Big Five Sporting Goods for a cost of $19.95 (less 10% due to missing points). Skew #03935277 trade marked Allen Item 93428. They are 28" long, 0.295" in diameter with a wall thickness of 0.025". A 4" section was cut from one arrow. A tubing cutter proved useless as this particular material would deform and fracture before actually being cut, perhaps due to the thin wall construction. A fine tooth hobby saw was effective in making clean cuts. Each end was sanded with #600 grit emery paper.

An electrical connection strap was fashioned out of 0.006" copper sheet x 3/4" wide and secured with a #6 brass machine screw.

The end to end DC resistance was found to be 32 Ohms. Mr. Ghst appears to have made his connection to the arrow shaft at about the 1/3 point. In this location the resistance from the copper clamp to the end was 27.5 Ohms.

If you plan to purchase an arrow shaft for these kinds of experiments and have little knowledge about Archery (like I do) be careful not to purchase a black fiberglass arrow. They look the same and cost half as much, but would probably be useless for this kind of work.

For a comparison a 4" length of #2 HB pencil has a DC resistance of about 1,350 Ohms.

An alternative source is to purchase carbon fiber tubes from a hobby shop. The one I selected for comparison cost $6.95 for a 36" length of 5.98mm (0.230") x 4.8mm tube. A 4" length of this material has a DC resistance of 10.8 Ohms. Even though the diameter of the tube is smaller the thicker wall produces a stronger overall component. I plan to explore using this material in the future because of its lower resistance.

The Observed Primary Ignition Coil Current:

The scope trace of the ragged sawtooth wave form is the primary current through the ignition coil as created by the mechanical chopper and snubbing capacitor. In this measurement the peak current is 6 Amps at a frequency of 116 Hz. The average current, as measured with an analog meter is 1.5 Amps. The primary current was measured with a .1% 0.250 Ohm series resistor inserted between the chopper and the ground of the 12 volt lead acid battery.

This is not what you would see in an older automotive ignition system. The reversed diode on the secondary completely changes the response of the ignition coil. Typically the first pulse out of an ignition coil after the points open is a positive swing. An arc at the spark plug is almost always established during this first half cycle swing. In this circuit, current flow from the positive swing is inhibited because of the polarity of the blocking diode. This means that the storage capacitor is being charges from the negative swings of the ignition coil. As a result a lot of current is being forces back out the primary during the first half cycle of operation and it ends up in the snubbing capacitor.

The purpose of the snubbing capacitor is to reduce arcs across the points to promote long life. This is not happening as well as it should in this circuit. The charge on the snubbing capacitor is the opposite of what it should be. Therefore you will observe a significant amount of positive current flowing even while the points are open. I believe this is left over energy from the unused primary swing of the ignition coil.

The overall impact of this novel operation needs to be explored in further detail.

The Pulse Current:

The scope trace (A LeCroy 9361 300 MHz) of the pulse current was done with a Pearson Model 110 Wide Band Pulse Current Transformer. The conductor between the CEST and the positive of the storage capacitor was split so that the range of this measurement could be extended by a factor of 2. The scope is now reading 100 Amps per vertical division for a peak of 700 Amps at a pulse width of about 10 uS. The stored voltage for this event was around 2.4K. At 3 KV the current pulse is way off the range of this instrument arrangement. (Estimate 1000 Amps) Mr. Ghst is operating at higher voltage levels and therefore at higher current levels. However, I believe that the maximum current that these conductors can handle quickly becomes limited at these levels.

There appears to be no ringing which means there is enough resistance in the arrow shaft (and other sources) to insure an over damped condition. The 700 Amp and greater current pulse is pretty good considering that #16 AWG 5V test pod lead was being used for the conductors. By rights these should be replaced with much larger conductors if the goal is to maximize pulse current and minimize pulse width. But for now I'm staying with the type of equipment that produces the anomalous events. I'm sure there are significant losses due to eddy currents at this power level. There is some inductance in this circuit (there always is) with this information it probably can be simulated with SPICE III.

The Instrument Layout Photo:

CEST in the lower center. 120VDC Motor and Ignition distributor in the center. Blocking Diode (8KV 4 Amp) to the right of the CEST on a black wire reel. Pulse current transformer to the left of the CEST. 3KV Electroscope center left. 5uF 5KV poly pulse capacitor (Maxwell) to left of CEST. Lower Left Green coils for future use, not used in this evaluation. Upper Left 5KV 300 Watt classical power supply for future use, not used in this evaluation. Upper center 25 A-hr battery with 10 Amp charger behind. Red digital meter on top of battery for noting voltage of battery. To the right of the battery is the 10 Amp Analog current meter. Below the Analog meter is the Tektronix .1% 0.250 Ohm current sense resistor. LeCroy Scope not shown.

The Layout of the Evaluation Holographic CEST

Modified 40 oz Peanut butter jar sitting on 1" marble Block. Connections rods are brass all thread and should be copper. 4" arrow shaft installed for 2nd electrode. Device not in operation for this photo.

Close up of Multi-Gap Array

Multi-Gap array according to specifications provided by Mr. Ghst. Copper donuts are constructed of #10 copper wire. Spacers are #8 nylon washers. Central components are mounted on a section of 10-24 nylon thread cut from a 1-1/2" 10-24 nylon bolt. The nylon bolt section does not show. The connections to the brass all thread rod are made from two 10-24 brass nuts soldered together. Over all dimensions 1.210" in length x 0.385" in diameter.

More to Follow

Spokane1

[Spokane1]

Details of Holographic CEST "Shield"

Dear Mr. Ghst,

As I understand it, frmo past posts, this holographic effect started when you lined the inside of your CEST container with brass sheeting with a 1" gap. I know this sounds simple enough, but there are some important technical details that are not obvious about this modification that I am interested in.

1. What was the thickness of the brass sheeting? My hobby shop offers four thicknesses. .002", .004", .006" and .010" beyond this they become more plates than sheets. I suspect it really doesn't matter. I SHOULD BE CAREFUL OF SAYING THAT - Richard Hackenburger probably thought the same thing about some minor construction technique that Marvin Cole used and it cost him an entire life of failure.

2. Where does the 1" gap go? In you most excelent photos it appears near the 2nd Electrode. Is the gap in the brass sheeting centered on the 2nd Electrode?

3. Are there any electrical connections between the brass sheeting and anything else? Or does it just float electrically?

AT your leasure

Spokane1

[Aaron]

Retract your false accusations Jerry Volland - Electrotek

Between the time I posted my last message and now I've come to understand that the experiment depicted in my video is Proprietary. Unfortunately, for reasons previously stated, this means that I won't be able to discuss it on this forum. However, I can see compelling reason why this experiment needs to be repeated.

You're out of line Electrotek.

"READ THE RULES BEFORE POSTING (public posts AND/OR Private Messages)

1. DO NOT post messages that could be considered offensive, inflammatory or that are aimed at starting problems with other members."

You have attacked me claiming that my circuits are yours. I have
shown you every point of why your circuit is unlike mine and are
not electrically equivalent. By looking at the circuits, it is COMMON SENSE.

You have two options to show any kind of integrity at all.

1. Retract your false accusations

or

2. Show point by point how my circuit is like yours

I have stuck strictly to the concepts of the Gray tube and you have
a circuit that is different from Gray's circuit.

You can dangle a carrot in front of people's noses abusing them
claiming you have all kinds of progress and you no longer open source
your work because you claim that I have copied your circuit and take
credit for it. I wouldn't want to take credit for your circuit because
it isn't the same as Gray's circuit and the operation is not the same
as mine.

This is nothing more than a convenient way for you to mislead others
into believe you have something, while blaming me for ruining your
desire to share anything - therefore you are safe so you will never have
to reveal that what you are doing is different.

You said my circuits don't produce plasma without an inductor.
I show you it did. You had no response because you cannot face
the facts that you are simply fabricating things about my circuits
that are 100% untrue - but you cannot admit it. I have no idea
who here is able to see this, perhaps you may fool some people
but not me.

I have given AMPLE proof how my circuit is completely analogous
to the Gray tube schematic from the patent and yours it NOT. You
are trying to take credit for my circuits and this is not only completely
disrespectful but ridiculous and laughable.

Your circuit produces a light show and 'may' power a coil by having
your cap discharge faster than it is "supposed" to but you haven't
discussed any scope shots, you haven't shown a real schematic or
anything else that is helpful in seeing what your EFFECT is. Now, just
because you get some effect, is irrelevant to comparison to my circuits.

Here is a comparison between my circuits and the Gray tube diagram
from the patent. The similarity is SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS and anyone
with common sense can see that my circuits are sticking to the aspects
in the Gray tube circuit diagram.



Here is a comp between Electrotek's diagram and Gray's circuit:



Without a retraction from you - this remains defamation of character and
libel on your part, which you are 100% responsible. Retract your false
accusations and I will consider this matter closed. You cannot claim that
you are unknowingly making false accusations as I have clearly shown
the facts and you cannot claim ignorance.

Any further attempt at you alluding to your work being stolen, copied,
plagiarized or otherwise will be considered an inflammatory attack and this
thread remains a public record of these facts.

I have provided not only evidence but common sense proof that your
circuit and my circuits are not electrically equivalent. My circuits are
modifications of the plasma ignition circuits are MY own innovations
and I have full rights to them and by placing them in this thread/forum,
I have given permission for anyone to experiment with them.

Again, retract your false accusation or prove that my circuit is the same
as yours.

[Ghst]

Dear Mr. Ghst,

As I understand it, frmo past posts, this holographic effect started when you lined the inside of your CEST container with brass sheeting with a 1" gap. I know this sounds simple enough, but there are some important technical details that are not obvious about this modification that I am interested in.

1. What was the thickness of the brass sheeting? My hobby shop offers four thicknesses. .002", .004", .006" and .010" beyond this they become more plates than sheets. I suspect it really doesn't matter. I SHOULD BE CAREFUL OF SAYING THAT - Richard Hackenburger probably thought the same thing about some minor construction technique that Marvin Cole used and it cost him an entire life of failure.

2. Where does the 1" gap go? In you most excelent photos it appears near the 2nd Electrode. Is the gap in the brass sheeting centered on the 2nd Electrode?

3. Are there any electrical connections between the brass sheeting and anything else? Or does it just float electrically?

AT your leasure

Spokane1

1. Honestly I don't know I also purchased my sheet from a Hobby shop. And used some in the Brass and Comb setup. But its about as thick as two sheets of paper.

2.Correct. The gap is centered on the second electrode.

3. No, Not at this time. I was planning on the brass to be a collection grid, that is isolated from the HV. I installed the brass and fired up the circuit mainly to be sure that I had no HV jumping to the brass grid. I was planning on shifting the centered gap closer and closer to the carbon, to see how close the brass grid could get before possible drawing a arc. Then I was going to get another brass sheet and drill a hole for the second electrode and solder a complete tube together for the grid, with attaching wire to the grid. But the image thing has made me put futher ideas on hold.

[Electrotek]

You have attacked me claiming that my circuits are yours.

Well this certainly isn't a true statement. I haven't said anything about your "circuits" - based on the Water Sparkplug circuit. I've been talking about ONE circuit which does not include your "LV Source", but does include all the elements of my "3 point Puff Spark Circuit".

I have shown you every point of why your circuit is unlike mine and are not electrically equivalent. By looking at the circuits, it is COMMON SENSE.

No, you haven't. For instance, you said my circuit doesn't have a capacitor physically parallel to the power supply.

You have two options to show any kind of integrity at all.

1. Retract your false accusations

or

2. Show point by point how my circuit is like yours

Fine. But this will take more time than I have tonight.

I have stuck strictly to the concepts of the Gray tube and you have
a circuit that is different from Gray's circuit.

I believe I did say that my circuit doesn't match Gray's depicted circuit. But here's an element of my 'circuits' you left out while discussing Gray's circuit, something I've already posted and discussed:


By Inertiatek at 2009-04-19

You said my circuits don't produce plasma without an inductor.
I show you it did.

While trying to wade through the 50 buckets of extraneous crap that you've dumped into this conversation, I haven't seen any pictures that weren't made by your Water Sparkplug circuit - powered by a LV cap dumping into an ignition coil. Maybe I missed it, but I did ask the question in an above post as to whether anyone else has produced an effect with a circuit which is powered with a HIGH VOLTAGE CAPACITOR. (This means with the power supply turned off.)

Your circuit produces a light show and 'may' power a coil by having
your cap discharge faster than it is "supposed" to but you haven't
discussed any scope shots, you haven't shown a real schematic or
anything else that is helpful in seeing what your EFFECT is. Now, just
because you get some effect, is irrelevant to comparison to my circuits.

I'm very sorry that I can't afford to buy a scope. But I have detailed the exact mechanism by which my circuit works. The High Voltage capacitor discharges into a coil, and the CEMF from the coil collides head on with the potential from the capacitor, puffing the spark. And "collide" means head on, it doesn't mean merge or join together, then move in the same direction, as you use the term with your WSP circuit. On the other hand, the two potentials I've just mentioned will collide with your circuit in question, which I starting to wonder if you've even built? And I'm not some kind of "EE" to be drawing "schematics". However, the drawing of my circuit is adequate to show the equivalencies between my circuit and this SPECIFIC "circuit" of yours.

Without a retraction from you - this remains defamation of character and
libel on your part, which you are 100% responsible. Retract your false
accusations and I will consider this matter closed. You cannot claim that
you are unknowingly making false accusations as I have clearly shown
the facts and you cannot claim ignorance.

I believe I tempered what I said by saying that the infringement may have been "unknowing". This is neither libel nor defamation. But even 'accidental' infringement has a chilling effect on the Open Source community.

Any further attempt at you alluding to your work being stolen, copied, plagiarized or otherwise will be considered an inflammatory attack and this thread remains a public record of these facts.

You're acting in bad faith. What will your reaction be when I do detail the similarities between the two *specific* circuits? Say I'm still "attacking" you? I'm sorry you feel "everyone" is "attacking" you.

Again, retract your false accusation or prove that my circuit is the same as yours.

That'll have to wait till tomorrow. In the meantime, I'm submitting another post, with two more pictures of my effect. Can you post any pictures showing that your HIGH VOLTAGE CAPACITOR circuit will produce a green blast with this electrode?

[Electrotek]

Blue Spark

Here's a picture of my Blue Spark. This demonstrates that the color of my effect is dependent on the electrode material, unlike the Water Sparkplug circuit which will always make a green burst if there's an inductor in the circuit. The previous picture showing my green light was made with copper electrodes. For this blue picture, I used a tube from some rabbit ears. This tubing is thin wall brass, plated with tin. Tin is what provides the blue color, but there's a little bit of inner green, from the brass. Other colors I've gotten are orange, red, and really dark blue.



Here's the effect, with the same electrode, when I increase the voltage to the grid, which is acting as one of my 3 point discharge electrodes.



Here again, the outer perimeter is blue, caused by the ionic resonance of the electrode material. Inside that is the green from the copper content of the brass.

[Electrotek]

Isolated Grid

1. Honestly I don't know I also purchased my sheet from a Hobby shop. And used some in the Brass and Comb setup. But its about as thick as two sheets of paper.

2.Correct. The gap is centered on the second electrode.

3. No, Not at this time. I was planning on the brass to be a collection grid, that is isolated from the HV. I installed the brass and fired up the circuit mainly to be sure that I had no HV jumping to the brass grid. I was planning on shifting the centered gap closer and closer to the carbon, to see how close the brass grid could get before possible drawing a arc. Then I was going to get another brass sheet and drill a hole for the second electrode and solder a complete tube together for the grid, with attaching wire to the grid. But the image thing has made me put futher ideas on hold.

Ghst: I hope you don't keep your isolated grid test on hold indefinitely. I tried this test with my setup and didn't get ANY potential on the unconnected grid. But I don't use a blocking diode and you are, so I'm waiting for your results.

[Aaron]

Thank you Electrotek!

Here's a picture of my Blue Spark. This demonstrates that the color of my effect is dependent on the electrode material, unlike the Water Sparkplug circuit which will always make a green burst if there's an inductor in the circuit. The previous picture showing my green light was made with copper electrodes.... Other colors I've gotten are orange, red, and really dark blue.

Thank you for acknowledging that your circuit(s) and my circuit(s) are NOT electrically identical. "unlike the Water Sparkplug circuit" as you say."

And this shows why my circuits have a color change, not because of the electrode material but because of the quality and nature of the energy and how it is moving.

Your circuit has a color change because of oxidation to the material from a standard high voltage discharge and you even describe how the green light in your demos is from copper - the color to be expected from conventional HV discharges with copper.

You clearly point out that your "effect is dependent on the electrode material". Thank you very much!

Before you said:

Your circuit will in fact do the very same thing mine does, produce a Puff Spark. And your circuit doesn't match the CSET depiction in Gray's patent any more than mine does. But both of us have shown the identical circuits might be used in this manner.

But we now know that they are not identical since your circuit is "UNLIKE" the Water Sparkplug circuit. AND, I believe I have shown clearly how my circuit parallels Gray's circuit (since that is what I was trying to accomplish) and have clearly shown how your circuit doesn't match Gray's.

There is no reason it should - you seem like you were not trying to copy Gray. You came up with your own circuit, stumbled upon Gray's circuit and were "surprised" how closely Gray's circuit matched yours. AND, due to the fact that I have been involved with figuring out what Gray did, it should come as no surprise to you that my circuits match Gray's more than yours - because obviously I would want it to match Gray's from the beginning.

Your circuit is your intellectual property and I've never seen it anywhere else and I respect that. I wouldn't know what to do with your circuit anyway even if I did try to copy it because I don't have your knowledge
of your circuit.

You admit my circuit is UNLIKE yours so I will consider this matter closed.

Thank you for demonstrating your integrity!

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, I must say a few words here as to the so called ownership of ideas as though any one human being owns an idea. This is one of the reasons the world has become so despotic and that includes anything from owning land to radio waves, etc., etc..
I hope you folks take what I am saying from a higher perspective and not one of survival which has been engineered to be that way in this world. Sharing, which is what open source, pay it forward and other methods represent are trying to steer us away from this fake lack game. I do respect your choice if you think my ideas, which are nothing new, are not workable in your perceived world. But in my view it is the only true survival.
peace love light

[Electrotek]

Thank you for acknowledging that your circuit(s) and my circuit(s) are NOT electrically identical. "unlike the Water Sparkplug circuit" as you say."

And this shows why my circuits have a color change, not because of the electrode material but because of the quality and nature of the energy and how it is moving.

Your circuit has a color change because of oxidation to the material from a standard high voltage discharge and you even describe how the green light in your demos is from copper - the color to be expected from conventional HV discharges with copper.

You clearly point out that your "effect is dependent on the electrode material". Thank you very much!

Before you said:



But we now know that they are not identical since your circuit is "UNLIKE" the Water Sparkplug circuit. AND, I believe I have shown clearly how my circuit parallels Gray's circuit (since that is what I was trying to accomplish) and have clearly shown how your circuit doesn't match Gray's.

There is no reason it should - you seem like you were not trying to copy Gray. You came up with your own circuit, stumbled upon Gray's circuit and were "surprised" how closely Gray's circuit matched yours. AND, due to the fact that I have been involved with figuring out what Gray did, it should come as no surprise to you that my circuits match Gray's more than yours - because obviously I would want it to match Gray's from the beginning.

Your circuit is your intellectual property and I've never seen it anywhere else and I respect that. I wouldn't know what to do with your circuit anyway even if I did try to copy it because I don't have your knowledge
of your circuit.

You admit my circuit is UNLIKE yours so I will consider this matter closed.

Thank you for demonstrating your integrity!

Very good Aaron! You're returning to rationality. But you have to remember that there is a difference between the word 'protagonists' and the word 'antagonists'. Also, you have questioned my integrity. My closing remarks about ONE of your "circuits" will soon follow.