Eds design

[pomodoro]

Dear pomodoro,

You are correct on that issue. Consider the source of your reading. The idea that RE is radiated out in all direction from the arc has its beginnings with Dr. Tesla in an article he wrote in 1892 in the "Electrical Experimenter". Researchers have expanded upon this idea - most notably being Tom Bearden and Jerry Vassilatos.

Spokane1, I googled the "Electrical Experimenter" but as far as I can see it only started print in 1913! I'm very interested in reading first hand  Tesla's notes on what Lindemann talks about in his book; In particular the blue discharge from wires when the DC generators are first switched on and the 'radiation' he felt stinging his body when he exploded wires.
I have exploded a few wires using 4kv 2uF discharges but apart from a loud noise haven't experienced any stinging sensation as yet. 

Cheers, Pomodoro

[Shanti]

Hi, good thread,

I also occupied myself some time with Ed's design (or Cole's...).

Again the question about the diode. I didn't get your answer, do you now think It should be placed  in current direction, or blocking the current?

As I some time ago, came across Farnsworth's patents and especially his electron multiplier, I wondered, if this could not be the principle behind the tube. The principle is (see pic), that you generate some radiation (e.g. with the help of a spark), if such an photon/electron hits a metal it will knock out several electrons out of the metal (photo effect, this works especially good if you have caesium doped silveroxide). If you now have an anonde (the anode can also be isolated!) nearby the electrons will be accelerated in the direction of the anode, but will fly through the anode and then hit the metal on the other side, and again knock out some electrons.
Now, one would certainly say, the electrons will again be decelerated after passing the anode, but here comes the trick. The cathodes are in a oscillatory loop, so that the potential will positive, when the electrons again hit a cathode.
He also said, that it is certainly also possible to connect the two cathodes and use them as one cathode, but then, the oscillatory frequency has to be doubled (as in the picture). Then you could also make a spherical (cylindrical) cathode with the anode in the middle. He also described this already in his patent.


Pic from patent US2071516

Now certainly, there are some differences to Ed's (Cole's) Tube. BTW: I think the tube did really look like he described it in the patent, as Ed certainly knew how  Cole's Tube looked. But unfortuantely he didn't really knew how it worked, and therefore was not able to replicate an usable working copy.
The main diffference between a farnsworth multiplier and the CSET would certainly be, that the anode is solid, and electrons will not be able to pass through it. But there it is possible he make another trick. What if you just before the electrons would hit the anode would  generate a spark and  decharge the anode. The electrons which would be knocked out, would remain there, but if then they "see" the battery 12V , for due to the arc the path is conducting. the electrons would move to the battery plus pole. (In this respect the diode would have the right direction in the schema). At the same time they would deliver additional energy to the spark which would again be emmitted to the metal plates. Like that, more and more electrons would be drawn from the tube, until the metal plates would have such a high voltage, that even if they oscillate, the anode is not anymore able to attract the electrons. Therefore you have to make a spark gap, so that the metal cathodes can again draw some electrons (this you can also see in the patent circuit and in the bedini notes).
The hard thing to do would be, to time the discharges of the anode exactly with the flying time of the electrons, and also synchronously with the oscillation of the cathode plates (which is the LC Oscillation circuit, whereas the L is from the motor and the C as in the drawings).
Like that the motor would be in an oscillations circuit, where more and more electrons would be drawn, in kind of an exponential surge (as the electron multiplying would happen exponentially). Therefore only one configuration in the motor would make sense, namely two coils in series (or parallel). Coil and magnet would not work, as with every firing, the coil would change magnetization direction on a high frequency.
If you use it like in a farnsworth electron multiplier, then you would like to have a vaccuum as perfect as possible. For every electron hitting an air molecule would be a loss and just heat the tube. But, on the other hand, maybe some special gas mixture at a certain pressure would be beneficial, for then an electron hitting a gas molecule could also induce a knock out of electrons (electron cascade effect), which would further assist the exponential electron surge.
And if you read Farnsworth's patent, you get told, that the electron surge will quite fast reach tremendous amounts.

BTW: The CSET usel several stacked cathodes. Why? Well, first, in this theory it would be obvious why the holes would be needed in the cathodes, so that also the outer cathodes can "see" the radiation from the spark. But why stacked ones? Well if one would think about it, one could fast come to the conclusion, that more amount of surface would be beneficial, at the other hand, the distance from the anode to the cathodes shouldn't be too small. A good and easy solution would be to use a cathode at every distance from the flying time of the electrons. Like that one could increase the efficiency, but still keep the dimensions small. For if this is really the principle how it worked, the CSET tube shouldn't be too long, for then, the spark radiation received at the other end would be fairly small.
But it would also explain, why the cathodes are around the anodes and the spark at the end. For the anode has to be in the middle of the cylinders, otherwise this principle would not work.

What do you think about this theory?

Addition:

Well one could also think, that the electrons which will fly in the shortly before discharged anode, will knock out electrons, but as the anode is now discharged, but the cathodes at the outside still positively charged (due to lacking electrons), the freed electrons will again be accellerated in the direction of the cathodes and will knock out again some electrons there, by now, the anode shoudl again be fully charged, so that the electron again be attracted by it and on it goes...

[Shanti]

Well I just saw, that Jerry Volland had some time ago the same idea. He referred to a later patent, which is the same circuit. but resembles more the gray circuit. The difference is, the before mentioned solid Anode in the CSET, whereas Farnsworth uses a loosly wound coil.
Here it is interesting to state, that the Marinov description of the inside of the pots of the Testatika are described just like that:

[..]Marinov said that the two Leyden jars contained no magnets. The
central electrode was a helix of a few turns of thick wire[...]

Here a picture of a Farnsworth electron multiplier variant, as indicated in the patent US 2189358:


It is also interesting to note the similarities between an amplifier Farnsworth made with 2 such tubes, to even more amplify the current by letting them resonate together, and the layout of the Thestatika:

See Fig 5 of patent US2137528:


The only difference is, that here he actually introduced some additional conventional electron guns in the tube (like in a cathode ray), so he was able to modulate the output and like that could construct extremely efficient and sensitive RF-amplifiers.
The funny thing was, that the electron gun do have an impact at all, he needed to dejust the resonance freq of the cathode so that it will not just generate an electron surge on its own.

[...]In adjusting the multipactor for use as an amplifier, the frequency of the tuned circuit is adjusted so that the tubes are incapable of sustaining self-oscillations without the use of the gun current[...]

He also indicated, that instead of the electron guns, also other methods could be used. And IMHO a "spark" would certainly also work!
Like that, one could switch the electron multiplication on and off if you don't want to have a continuous power produced. Wouldn't that be perfect to drive a pulse motor? 
And he also declared in the patent that this control mechanism needs very few power compared to the power of the tube. (2-4mA for a tube which delivers 10kW power)

All through the patents he always wrote, that such a tube, if the resonance freq is correctly adjusted would just start by itself, and start very fast to develop huge currents:

[...]The tube starts oscillating immediately without the use of the gun described herein, probabely because there are sufficient free electrons within the space bounded by the cathode so that mutiple impacts may be initiated.[...]

[...]and thus the oscillation becomes self-sustaining and relatively large amounts of oscillating power may be withdrawn from the circuit.[...]

The funny thing is in all his patents he somewhere writes, that obviously, this isn't a FE-Device:

[...]The energy for maintaining the oscillationsis, of course, derived from the DC source, which must be sufficient high in potential to release the secondaries at the required ratio[...]

But the interesting thing is, if one really thinks how this thing works, this is actually not true. One could even completely isolate the anode, and the principle should still work. So even if no current would be flowing from the DC source, this should work. One could even just take an electret as anode to get a pure passive excitor device, this should also work.

Did he insert this statement in all his patents, so that he could actually get the patent?
Or where could I make the mistake, that this should work equally well even if an electret is used as anode?

[Spokane1]

Dear Loyal and Information Hungry E.V.Gray Researchers

GD Materials Installment #2    8-20-08

There has been a lot of creative and interesting speculations about the E.V.Gray Conversion Element Switching Tube (CSET) as described in patents 4,595,975 and 4,661,747 that was applied for in Oct. 18, 1984.

Here is a photo of the shaft side of the EMA6 as it was presented at the stockholders meeting 1/9/76. This setting shows the simple control switches, 1) a large 8 position rotary switch (mounted in the large dark case) and 2) a large open copper knife switch (only one pole was used). This photo has been scanned at 600 dpi and reduced to 72 dpi to fit this groups 100KB photo size limit. The intent was to provide the maximum resolution for this important disclosure. The original photo was scanned from a 35 mm slide at 2400 dpi.

This photo is the best in existence (to date anyway) to show the overall aspect ratio of the three CSET?s employed. To get an idea of relative size, the OD of the motor case is about 13? and the width of the cart is around 22?.

Please consider these important political facts before you run to the hardware store and purchase a selection of copper pipes to cut up and assemble into something that looks similar to this apparatus.

1. At the time of this photo (1976) E.V.Gray and company had zippo, none, zilch, squat patent protection on this novel component. In fact, he had even less protection for any sort of OU process, yet this was the foundation of his 7+ years sales campaign.

2. There were at least 80 people present at this media event (some reports claim there were as many as 150 individuals present) many of them had cameras and were using them ? including GD.

3. There are three (3) lawyers and two (2) individuals with PhD?s in physics sitting at the head end table on the stage. These were some of the board members at the time.

4. All these people in the audience didn?t come here to learn about investment opportunities in a novel and efficient DC motor. They were here because many of them had already invested $$ in a world changing Free Energy System years before, after seeing some impressive past demonstrations. They already knew (or thought they did) what this game was all about and were waiting with bated breath to hear about all the advancements and technical improvements that had taken place within the last 3 years, despite the problems with the LA DA. (Litigation was still in progress at that time). Boy, were they disappointed when Dr. Chalfin gave them the dry report about the ?New Motor? only being able to put out a mere 2 HP. He might just as well had told them ?Folks, you?ve been had!!!?

5. The professionals sitting on the board were not there to make fools of them selves. Some how each one of them had become personally convinced of the importance of this technology and were getting on board in hopes of making some big $$$ and starting on the ground floor of a vast new industry. I would have come to the same conclusion had I been there.

6. Now, given these circumstances and the people involved. Do you think that Mr. Gray, Mr. Hackenburger, or any of the board members would knowingly disclose the heart of an unprotected age-changing technology at a media event while being housed in clear Plexiglas containers, especially when these devices were hinted as being the soul of the Free Energy process?

I shall let the well seasoned researcher ponder these statements and reflect upon how serious the photos of these devices should be taken.
Never the less, these devices are a work of art and certainly added a sense of mystery to an otherwise uninteresting pile of mechanical equipment.

Now, let use consider what photos like this can tell us about the real technology that these people were attempting to work with.

This motor was work of Richard Hackenburger. It was a Version 2 design that was intended to improve upon the problems encountered in the EMA4-E2. Besides sudden failures (capacitor and battery blow outs) the Version 1 models suffered from poor speed-torque response and tended to stall when a mechanical load was suddenly applied. This was not a good thing for an automobile application. It appears that Mr. Hackenburger came on board after several (at least three) advanced prototype motors had already been built. The huge improvement was the consolidation of the ?Major? and Minor? electromagnets into one electromagnet assemble. (We still don?t know how many windings this assemble includes)

I have no doubt that Richard did his up most professional best to make this motor run better than its predecessor. If he had a collection of copper pipe sections on public display then (in my opinion) He didn?t think they were technically that important. Obviously, his year of physical and electrical analysis of the working Cole motors and the Electrostatic Generators convinced him that the ?kernel? of the OU process was somewhere else.

This Version 2 prototype motor had a similar pole topology to the EMA4-E2. According to recorded phone conversations it had 9 outer stator poles and 3 poles on the rotor. It is this author?s belief that these poles were of a single unit electromagnet design. (complex I?m sure)

There are 6 very large (maybe 250 A-hr each?)  6V lead acid batteries that provide the DC power for this demonstration. They are split into two unequal power banks. The two batteries closest to the end of the shaft are connected in series (12 V). The negative terminal is connected to the case of the motor proper (assume to be ground) while the positive terminal home runs to a connection near the commentator. I propose that these two batteries are collecting some measure of recovered energy. The other 4 batteries are also connected in series (24 V) and have several custom inter-cell taps installed to allow different voltages to be used. About 6 of these taps go to the large rotary switch on the adjoining table large amperage rotary switch. A single large white wire emerges from this box and goes to the knife switch. From here is disappears into a number of cables that interface with the three (3) power supplies.

There are 3 metal gray cans, assumed to be dual capacitors (four terminals each), employed. One capacitor pair is related to each ?CSET? device. To the best of my observations in examining all of the photos to date there only appears to be TWO connections to each CSET device. One connection, using bare copper ribbon, attaches to one pole on its associated dual capacitor. The other CSET terminal is connected by a large diameter white wire that travels up and into the motor housing and enters if from below. The rest of the dual capacitor connections appear to head towards the there (3) power supplies. To me this implies that these devices are in fact are fixed spark gaps ? but I would certainly welcome being proven wrong. I?m sure they are functional units. There are three (3) white wires that descend from the commentator. I have been unable to exactly determine where these go.

More to follow,


Spokane1

[Shanti]

Thank you very much, really interesting.

As it seems here are some people, who are closer involved with the history, I got some short questions:
What happened with the EMA4, that they were not able to make a working replication?
What happened to Cole?
Did the working EMA4 also need such large HV caps for operation?

For I for myself am not impressed at all with all the later demonstrations. E.g. if the EMA6 really just did output 2HP (heard this for the first time), I doubt it would be OU, as 2HP you can easily get out of this stack of batteries. Then it would merely be just a conventional pulse motor (maybe not even as efficient as a conventional electric motor).
Also the demonstrations in the 1986 promo video are not stunning at all. You can easily calculate if you just take a real HV Cap. E.g. like the one I have here (still looks smaller than the ones on the EMA6-cart), which has 500J capacity. With this amount of energy you can fire a 1kg coil more than 50m up into the air.

Maybe the people more involved in the history could gather and write some nice text, of what is known today about gray and the whole history, and maybe even make a small book out of it. I would buy it.

BTW: I thought again about the idea of the electron multiplicator. Maybe they used it that way:
Spark -> Radiation hits grids -> Electrons get knocked out of grid -> electrons get accelerated into the middle due to anode -> electrons will be gathered to flow into the spark, so that spark is fed and again more radiation is produced -> radiation again hits grids, ...

Because the radiation is not affected by the electostatic field of the anode it gets not hindered at hitting the grids, but the other way the electrons get knocked out of the grid and accelerated to the anode. So you actually get this acceleration energy of the electrons for free.
But for this to work I think the best layout would be to make the anode a coil, and in the middle of the anode a rod. So that the electrons get accelerated in the direction of the anode, but as soon as they are within the faraday effect of the anode (inside the anode coil), they get not anymore affected by it and can easily gather at the rod and this rod can then discharge this energy in a spark which again radiates...
Sure, even if only a small percentage of the electron energy flying to the middle will be transformed into radiation energy, it will work as long as the anode potential is high enough so that the acceleration energy developed by it is higher than the loss due to inefficient transformation.
But as before, if used like this, the girds would become charged more and more positive very fast and quickly starved from electrons. Therefore the additional spark gap would be needed to again transfer some electrons to the grid.
I personally think this "cold" effect stated could be a reaction due to the very fast exponential surge of electrons drawn from the grids/motor windings, which is not yet understood by conventional science.
BTW, the battery needed to suck away the electrons from the center rod need only to have a very low positive potential needed, as only the amount of electrons which get sucked away is important, which means current. And as the rod is inside the faraday cage of the anode, it will see a homogenous E-field and therefore will not have problems for discharging. At the other hand, the same amount of electrons, that get dissipated into the battery will also be drawn from the grids. So we have the same current flowing in the battery and drawn from the grids. But the potential developed on the grids will be far higher, only limited by the anode voltage and the distance between grids and anode. So we need to input only a low voltage at a certain current to dissipate it, but get the same current at a much higher voltage at the grids -> Ergo more power. The anode coil could be isolated and therefore will not need any energy.
Are my thoughts correct? Could this work? If not, where did I make the mistake?