PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-04-20, 17:29:20
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7
Author Topic: Edwin Vincent Gray's conversion tube  (Read 84682 times)
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2625
Hakasays
As always it's problematic because the actual "inventor" who designed the technology in question has not disclosed the operating process. As you imply, who actually invented the damn thing or owns it if not the person named in the patent or the investors?.

I think it's comical because I do the same thing offering advice to others who could pursue the technology claiming it as there own and to be honest I don't care. What I say is what it is and I understand when I say it this becomes a part of the public domain to be used as others want despite anything I may wish. I want nothing to do with what they do...

Gray's story is not uncommon and greed/human nature generally causes any organization to implode within. I saw this a few times and got out early before everyone involved tried to screw over or kill each other. We never really know a person until there is big money involved and it tends to change some people for the worse. This is why truly intelligent people don't get involved with assholes.

In essence once the organization implodes everyone claims only they knew what was really going on and everyone else was wrong about everything. Go figure, and apparently everyone was right and wrong in the same instance. Or like trump, everyone is a crook but apparently nobody had a clue what was going on or was involved. So everyone knows or nobody knows depending on there interest or the legality... ergo it's a shit show based on deception.

Do you understand how this works?, there are large numbers of really smart people who feed others information knowing they don't want to get involved because they know it always turns into a complete shit show ie. human nature. Like Tesla feeding countless people information who went on to do really cool things like antigravity and FE but ultimately failing in the end. In many cases we never know where the actual technology came from other than the usual he said/she said conjecture.

Regards
AC





---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
Jerry
Indeed, I used 1/4" copper clad gouging rod used by welders in my device. There fairly cheap(https://www.amazon.ca/s?k=gouging+rods&ref=nb_sb_noss) and I found the carbon in the carbon emitter in Gray's device wasn't a resistance it was a charge carrier/emitter. When we consider patents we must be aware that the goal is to hide what's important and only disclose enough information to protect our intellectual property.

For example, in many FE patents we may see one switch on one circuit leg labelled oscillator and another switch on another leg labelled on/off which is actually another oscillator. There switching both the (+) and (-) circuit legs simultaneously in or out of phase but they don't want you to know this so they use misdirection to hide or obscure the facts. As an inventor I know this because, no offense, I don't want you to know everything I know. Information and knowledge has value as another form of currency which allows some to do stuff others cannot. This is quite literally how "value" is defined...

This was why Gray called the carbon emitter in his discharge tube a resistance so nobody would give it a second thought and nobody to my knowledge did. Here we need to do a little research and use a line of reason based on the facts we know often working the problem backwards. For example, Gray had big problems with electrode erosion of his discharge tube conductors, why?. One was made of carbon and for anyone who does actual experiments like myself we know a HV capacitive discharge will cause massive electrode erosion, so why use carbon?. Well, because he had no choice and that was the only thing which would work in his device. I know this because I do a stupid amount of random experiments on everything. However if we didn't know through experiment a HV discharge blasts charged carbon as charge carriers from the point of discharge then?, well then were done and the line of reason/progression ends. 

I mean, did nobody notice the circuit energy flow terminates on the points of the electrode/emitters in the discharge tube then magically appear on the concentric rings surrounding said emitter terminating on the load circuit?. What did everyone think was happening?, obviously there must have been a translation of energy so how did said translation occur?. What was the mechanism present?, there are only a few mechanisms which could allow this to happen.

So here is a basic experiment you can do which I call doing our worst, not our best but our worst which is the opposite to our false idea of how we think things should happen. Use a HV 5kV+ minimum and 50kV is better, impulse from a big capacitor to try to blow your carbon electrodes apart. Do your absolute best to do the very thing you think you shouldn't be doing. You will find doing the thing everyone thought was the wrong direction was in fact the right direction, they just never bothered to try. Do your best to blow that mofo carbon electrode apart and your on the right track...

Regards
AC

Gray's original Switching Tube can be seen on the motor presentation cart.  The heavy tube grid rings do appear to surround a thick inner rod which looks a lot like carbon.  Some researchers think this carbon threw off electron which would condence on the grids.  These electrons moving radiantly can, in fact, blast the carbon.  For instance, firing my defibrillator circuit through a spark plug causes it to explode.  This is because the carbon inside the ceramic is what breaks apart.  The circuit produces a bi directional potential. 

This exploding carbon has nothing to do with Gray's much later Conversion Tube.  Looking at that patent, can you see an arc at each end of the steel High Voltage annode rod?
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
The CSET patent drawing shows a constant arc in the Overshoot Switch.  One end of this arc is electrically connected to the Tube's center rod.  And the other end of the rod touches the Tube's arc.  So this is wired like one version of Tesla's Hairpin circuit.  So, we know the rod gives off Radient Energy with each pulse.  But this is not the same as a sheet of electrons streaming outwards.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 543
The CSET patent drawing shows a constant arc in the Overshoot Switch.  One end of this arc is electrically connected to the Tube's center rod.  And the other end of the rod touches the Tube's arc.  So this is wired like one version of Tesla's Hairpin circuit.  So, we know the rod gives off Radient Energy with each pulse.  But this is not the same as a sheet of electrons streaming outwards.

What makes you think that the CSET tube is the 'core' of the device, and not the coil configuration or core material or HV power supply / etc?
Would not a conventional vacuum tube or thyratron/magnetron show a similar effect when impulses are applied?


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2625
Jerry
Quote
Gray's original Switching Tube can be seen on the motor presentation cart.  The heavy tube grid rings do appear to surround a thick inner rod which looks a lot like carbon.  Some researchers think this carbon threw off electron which would condence on the grids.  These electrons moving radiantly can, in fact, blast the carbon.  For instance, firing my defibrillator circuit through a spark plug causes it to explode.  This is because the carbon inside the ceramic is what breaks apart.  The circuit produces a bi directional potential.

This exploding carbon has nothing to do with Gray's much later Conversion Tube.  Looking at that patent, can you see an arc at each end of the steel High Voltage annode rod?

As an inventor, who knows countless other inventors and consulted on many patents our job is to protect our intellectual property...period.

For example, "I claim this electrode is steel, but it could be made of any other materials" but in fact steel is the poorest example and barely works 10% of the time. Then I claim X is a switch but it's actually an oscillator and Y is an over-voltage gap but it's actually a switch so others have literally no idea what I'm actually doing. You don't honestly believe any real inventor would tell everyone exactly how there invention works so any fool could replicate it do you?. Why not say I buried 500k in my backyard but it's probably not where that mound of fresh dirt is... I mean really?.

You can't honestly believe these brilliant inventors who worked decades on advanced energy systems could possibly be that naive do you?.

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1980
Some guy thinks he invented something but in the end he screwed up and it never worked.

But the legend is built around it. You can't reproduce the thing because the guy who popularized it is not the real inventor but one of his buddies who wants to do business.
Bad luck, because the real inventor is dead and we have nothing from him.
And again bad luck, because the real prototypes that were supposed to work were transformed not because they didn't work, the explanation is too obvious, but surely to improve them, so not only do we not have the detailed plans, but also not the relics that would have worked.

And we still see today beautiful setups full of electronics, which surely required a lot of work to build, imitating in appearance and without working either, the legendary machine.

When you look at these stories with a bit of hindsight, it's really funny folklore. We could make a modern version of the search for the Holy Grail, with lots of adventures, extraordinary phenomena, secrets, and magic coils.
Ah, I'm told that's already been done. See :

The Real History of the Ed Gray Motor, PART 1, by Mark McKay, $27
The Real History of the Ed Gray Motor, PART 2, by Mark McKay, $27
The Real History of the Ed Gray Motor,COMBO PACK PARTS 1 & 2, by Mark McKay, $37

The only thing left to do is to make a movie like Indiana Jones.
:)


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 543
Another day, another poster attempting to turn a research+investigation thread into an off-topic commentary/rant. C.C

Except for a local library it's hard to find knowledge+information that doesn't have a price on it.  Even academia is quite guilty of this (see attached)
IMO open source is a better ideal to strive for though. :)


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2625
Hakasays
Quote
Another day, another poster attempting to turn a research+investigation thread into an off-topic commentary/rant. C.C

Except for a local library it's hard to find knowledge+information that doesn't have a price on it.  Even academia is quite guilty of this (see attached)
IMO open source is a better ideal to strive for though.

Agree 100% and it irritates me to no end that we have to pay excessive fee's to access science we probably supported as taxpayers. In fact almost all the science even remotely considered cutting edge is now pay to access. Couple this with the fact that a new study revealed that possibly 50% of new science papers have no peer review and could be fake. It's kind of ironic, a real scientific study determined many new scientific studies have no or faked peer review and may be used for profit and/or to support profit making interests. Ergo, most likely a scam...

It begs the question... is there anyone not trying to cheat the system for profit?. Of course with academia were not talking about something as petty as a questionable $27 book but billions of wasted tax payers dollars globally.

AC

 


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1119
Folks,

IF someone needs the article from Nature (shown above), it is freely downloadable from the Nature site itself:

        https://www.nature.com/articles/356739a0.pdf     C.C

Gyula
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2625
Gyula
Following through on links...
https://www.nature.com/articles/515480a
Publishing: The peer-review scam

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-real-fake-hoodwinks-journals.html
'Real' fake research hoodwinks US journals'

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18202
Faked peer reviews prompt 64 retractions

https://blog.degruyter.com/fact-or-fake-the-question-of-anonymity-in-peer-review/
Fact or Fake? The Question of Anonymity in Peer Review

It's not rocket science, people cannot be trusted because we don't really know who they are, there real biases or beliefs, there vested interests or whether there actually trustworthy. This is why Feynman implied no authority can be trusted no matter how competent others claim they are. There must always be factual unbiased checks and balances otherwise it generally always becomes corrupt.

AC







---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
Back on topic:

Whenever a Radiant, longitudinal electrostatic flash goes through a piece of metal, a charge is placed onto the surface of the metal.  This is because electrons are entrained by the field and moved past the metal, into the air.  Then, commutated remaining potential flows from Gray's grids to the load.  The goal is to convert the Tube's input discharge into biphasic energy at the output.  (The same kind of energy which produced the Radiant flash).  This is done by using individual inductive lead out wires, from each of the two grids, to the Tube's output terminal.  The wire from the inner grid should have a sharp inductive kink, from your thumbnail.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 543
Back on topic:

Whenever a Radiant, longitudinal electrostatic flash goes through a piece of metal, a charge is placed onto the surface of the metal.  This is because electrons are entrained by the field and moved past the metal, into the air.  Then, commutated remaining potential flows from Gray's grids to the load.  The goal is to convert the Tube's input discharge into biphasic energy at the output.  (The same kind of energy which produced the Radiant flash).  This is done by using individual inductive lead out wires, from each of the two grids, to the Tube's output terminal.  The wire from the inner grid should have a sharp inductive kink, from your thumbnail.

It's interesting that the CSET patent was a much later invention (1987) while the actual motors and popping coils and other demonstrations were over a decade earlier (1975 and earlier).

Why do you think the expensive, custom-built motors might have been abandoned and Gray had gone a completely new direction in the 80's?
The only significant change I can see was the death of the lead engineer Hackenberger in 1980, and the ensuing motor rewinds/modifications by Nelson Schlaft thru to '85 or so.


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
It's interesting that the CSET patent was a much later invention (1987) while the actual motors and popping coils and other demonstrations were over a decade earlier (1975 and earlier).

Why do you think the expensive, custom-built motors might have been abandoned and Gray had gone a completely new direction in the 80's?
The only significant change I can see was the death of the lead engineer Hackenberger in 1980, and the ensuing motor rewinds/modifications by Nelson Schlaft thru to '85 or so.

My take is that Investors paid Gray to engineer the motors, then kept the blueprints.  Some fringe applications would benefit from the high torque and compact size.  (The same reason I researched it).  The much later, seemingly unrelated CSET was Gray's attempt to simplify the power supply.  The motor carts fed the capacitor bank with a heavy, complex 24V-3kV transformer.  A biphasic transformer like that isn't needed with the Power Tube.  And the patent represents that the Tube can also drive a transformer, which doesn't have the Plasmoid discharge channels.  (Hackenberger mentioned that only four or five percent of the EMA motor's output derived from the coil/static repulsion.)  Neither did Gray's first motor, or the 10 Hp starter motor, which was tested to be OU.  And it can also super charge a capacitor, which is the subject of my current tests.

Also, I feel that rewiring the motor coils with bigger wire was a mistake.  The disc popping "partial schematic" states that the wire size "can't be too small".  I'm sure the Hp went down with bigger wires.  If the Investors knew this, the motors left scattered around were decoys.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 543
My take is that Investors paid Gray to engineer the motors, then kept the blueprints.  Some fringe applications would benefit from the high torque and compact size.  (The same reason I researched it).  The much later, seemingly unrelated CSET was Gray's attempt to simplify the power supply.  The motor carts fed the capacitor bank with a heavy, complex 24V-3kV transformer.  A biphasic transformer like that isn't needed with the Power Tube.  And the patent represents that the Tube can also drive a transformer, which doesn't have the Plasmoid discharge channels.  (Hackenberger mentioned that only four or five percent of the EMA motor's output derived from the coil/static repulsion.)  Neither did Gray's first motor, or the 10 Hp starter motor, which was tested to be OU.  And it can also super charge a capacitor, which is the subject of my current tests.

Also, I feel that rewiring the motor coils with bigger wire was a mistake.  The disc popping "partial schematic" states that the wire size "can't be too small".  I'm sure the Hp went down with bigger wires.  If the Investors knew this, the motors left scattered around were decoys.

This might be useful to you (save a few bucks); I forget the exact source but McKay stated with some confidence that the original Gray motor(s) used iron wire in their builds in some portion of the design, that was replaced with copper in the 80's rewinds.
I'm sure GK will get a kick out of that one ^-^ >:-)


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1980
...
Agree 100% and it irritates me to no end that we have to pay excessive fee's to access science we probably supported as taxpayers. In fact almost all the science even remotely considered cutting edge is now pay to access. Couple this with the fact that a new study revealed that possibly 50% of new science papers have no peer review and could be fake.
...

I agree with this point of view. More than the fakes, the main problem is that most of the articles don't bring anything new. It's still embarrassing when it's supposed to be research. Authors rephrase the same things, and the more they produce, the more they can be quoted, which helps their career! Where it becomes fake is when they do it pretending that there is something new when it is just the well-known rehashed. And this is very common.

Sometimes you don't know if it's a fake or a mistake, but it's a big one. Let's take for example this paper where an experiment is presented with a fancy title, supposed to show a new electromagnetic principle: Vector Potential Coil and Transformer
Even I, and I think most of you too, can understand where the big mistake is. I'll put you on the track, just note that the 2 loops of his measuring circuits for V1 and V2 are crossed by the fluxes of each turn of his wound solenoid, so we have a classical induction. So how many bogus or fake papers are there like this one? I think the number is considerable.

As for the price tag, don't forget that you have sci-hub, thanks to our beloved Alexandra Elbakyan. The last address that works is https://sci-hub.se or https://sci-hub.ru. You just have to put the DOI number, or even the complete https address where the paying document is available.  There are even browser extensions for chrome and maybe firefox that allow one-click download from the publisher's page.
It's time to practice with the pdf link I passed above :). Not everything is there, especially recently published papers, but most physics and engineering publications are there.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1980
Folks,

IF someone needs the article from Nature (shown above), it is freely downloadable from the Nature site itself:

        https://www.nature.com/articles/356739a0.pdf     C.C

Gyula

And it is even worse today. It should be noted, however, that the things to be discovered are less obvious, more subtle and complicated today than in the nineteenth century when we started from scratch.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
I agree with this point of view. More than the fakes, the main problem is that most of the articles don't bring anything new. It's still embarrassing when it's supposed to be research. Authors rephrase the same things, and the more they produce, the more they can be quoted, which helps their career! Where it becomes fake is when they do it pretending that there is something new when it is just the well-known rehashed. And this is very common.

I do believe, in the case of E.V. Gray's system, I did say there is new information.  My career hasn't been tainted by publishing something which is "fake".  Two arcs energizing the central rod isn't widely recognized.  And you can say "thank you" for my willingness to share what I've learned about drilling all the way through the Carbon.  This "research" is neither well known, if at all, nor something being "rehashed".

Still to come (without a Naysayer's disrespectful diatribe [seems like it's always the same two or three guys disrupting the discussion]) is that the Carbon resister increases the voltage.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 543
I agree with this point of view. More than the fakes, the main problem is that most of the articles don't bring anything new. It's still embarrassing when it's supposed to be research. Authors rephrase the same things, and the more they produce, the more they can be quoted, which helps their career! Where it becomes fake is when they do it pretending that there is something new when it is just the well-known rehashed.

That's why I enjoy Mark McKay's contributions, since he's actually does the footwork tracking down and interviewing all the people involved, neighbors family/etc, tracking down machines and their history/modifications over the decades, and making sure that any machines onhand are extremely well photographed, measured, and documented.
That, and he's not the kind to keep secrets; always happy to answer questions and share anything he's gleaned over the years. :)


I do believe, in the case of E.V. Gray's system, I did say there is new information.  My career hasn't been tainted by publishing something which is "fake".  Two arcs energizing the central rod isn't widely recognized.  And you can say "thank you" for my willingness to share what I've learned about drilling all the way through the Carbon.  This "research" is neither well known, if at all, nor something being "rehashed".

Still to come (without a Naysayer's disrespectful diatribe [seems like it's always the same two or three guys disrupting the discussion]) is that the Carbon resister increases the voltage.

I agree with the principle.   The more well-traveled a given path is in science, the less room there is to find unique/unpredictable effects.
Personally, I think the motor are more credible since it was actually lab-tested and is much more articulate.  If you compare the two patents you see a clear difference in detail+quality.

If there is one known critical factor in Gray tech IMO it would have to be high voltage.  The thyratrons and HV supplies and expensive pulse capacitors; if there was a cheaper/simpler way to do it, surely they would have.   The 'purple motor' IIRC was 5-6kv.

Also Jerry, I did find a couple more McKay compilations:
https://tesla3.com/ed-gray-by-mckay-page-1/
https://tesla3.com/ed-gray-by-mckay-page-2/



---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1980
...
And you can say "thank you" for my willingness to share what I've learned about drilling all the way through the Carbon.  This "research" is neither well known, if at all, nor something being "rehashed".

Still to come (without a Naysayer's disrespectful diatribe [seems like it's always the same two or three guys disrupting the discussion]) is that the Carbon resister increases the voltage.

You can say thank you when something useful comes out of it. We are all here to share our knowledge and research, I also participate without asking anyone to say thank you.

Few would probably be ready to do it :), because in general the knowledge I provide is in opposition to the inconsistencies, the misinterpretations of banal things and the outdated ideas that many imagine. Preferring to believe than to know, is more comfortable and less tiring than to make the effort to study and challenge one's own ideas.

All skeptics believe in radio waves, which they have never seen. It is not enough to call a skeptic "Naysayer" to prove that what is considered impossible is possible. It is enough, as Hertz did, to demonstrate it to a skeptic, I say to a skeptic, not to a believer who has no intellectual requirements in his acceptance of the slightest assertion.

Gray's tube has been going on for over 30 years. Those who maintain for years not a hypothesis but their assertion that a new phenomenon exists, without ever being able to do what Hertz did, to prove it to the skeptics, have no place in experimental research nor in anything related to science and technology, they do not understand the method, they ignore the doubt.

One asserts when one knows, not before, and one knows that one knows only after having brought the experimental proof to those who doubt and that they have recognized it as such by a consensus. Doubt is the foundation of the scientific method and by elimination, the only way to find reality, and consequently to make useful products that work.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
That's why I enjoy Mark McKay's contributions, since he's actually does the footwork tracking down and interviewing all the people involved, neighbors family/etc, tracking down machines and their history/modifications over the decades, and making sure that any machines onhand are extremely well photographed, measured, and documented.
That, and he's not the kind to keep secrets; always happy to answer questions and share anything he's gleaned over the years. :)


I agree with the principle.   The more well-traveled a given path is in science, the less room there is to find unique/unpredictable effects.
Personally, I think the motor are more credible since it was actually lab-tested and is much more articulate.  If you compare the two patents you see a clear difference in detail+quality.

If there is one known critical factor in Gray tech IMO it would have to be high voltage.  The thyratrons and HV supplies and expensive pulse capacitors; if there was a cheaper/simpler way to do it, surely they would have.   The 'purple motor' IIRC was 5-6kv.

Also Jerry, I did find a couple more McKay compilations:
https://tesla3.com/ed-gray-by-mckay-page-1/
https://tesla3.com/ed-gray-by-mckay-page-2/

I do have those Mark McKay documents.  And I'm grateful that Mark sent me everything he did, by snail mail.  Without that, I would still have most of what I do, I just wouldn't be able to correlate mine with what Gray had.

The motor which was tested was an off the shelf motor/generator, with the addition of a Hall Effect sensor.  (It still had the two Ignitrons).  It was after this motor was tested that funding was approved for developing the EMA motors.  The EMA motors were never tested to be OU, or even high Hp.  Gray's OU came from his power supply.  Specifically, his dual primary Tesla coil, with its internal pulse forming equipment.  HV storage caps are expensive, but LV pulse caps, storing the same Joules, would be much worse, and more cumbersome.  LV would still be better, as far as taking longer to discharge, but I'm not aware that anyone has gone this route.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 543
I do have those Mark McKay documents.  And I'm grateful that Mark sent me everything he did, by snail mail.  Without that, I would still have most of what I do, I just wouldn't be able to correlate mine with what Gray had.

The motor which was tested was an off the shelf motor/generator, with the addition of a Hall Effect sensor.  (It still had the two Ignitrons).  It was after this motor was tested that funding was approved for developing the EMA motors.  The EMA motors were never tested to be OU, or even high Hp.  Gray's OU came from his power supply.  Specifically, his dual primary Tesla coil, with its internal pulse forming equipment.  HV storage caps are expensive, but LV pulse caps, storing the same Joules, would be much worse, and more cumbersome.  LV would still be better, as far as taking longer to discharge, but I'm not aware that anyone has gone this route.

Thanks for the clarification Jerry. :)

One more Q, where do you think the 'asymmetry' come from in the power supply?  In other words, what kind of mechanic/principle do you think might be involved?  And why doesn't it show up often in 'normal' EE works?


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2625
Hakasays
Quote
Also Jerry, I did find a couple more McKay compilations:
https://tesla3.com/ed-gray-by-mckay-page-1/
https://tesla3.com/ed-gray-by-mckay-page-2/

Thanks for the links, that's an interesting site. I found most of the information strange because most of the details are pointless and there is no progression to a conclusion which is often the case.

For example, as an inventor I know no inventor just decides to use over 5kV to drive a motor for no apparent reason, why?. From the time line it's obvious Gray started popping coils and found higher voltage impulses were more efficient and practical just as I did. Then the problem becomes switching because nobody builds high voltage (20kV+) high current (100 A+) electronics. To me it seems obvious whatever Gray discovered was learned when popping coils and the motor means nothing because it's simply a series of timed popping coils.

It's also important to understand many other inventors were claiming similar energy gains with impulse based solenoid coils/motors before Gray was even born. So we know the electronics, switching tube/rotary motor topology Gray was using are not required. Which as I implied, makes the information in most of the Gray motor articles kind of pointless. They go on and on analyzing thousands of little details which have literally nothing to do with the heart of the technology.

In effect, whenever we want to understand what an inventor was really doing we go back to the beginning. The discovery in it's simplest form is always made at the beginning and everything after the fact is built on the initial discovery. This is literally how the process of invention works...

AC








---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 543
In effect, whenever we want to understand what an inventor was really doing we go back to the beginning. The discovery in it's simplest form is always made at the beginning and everything after the fact is built on the initial discovery. This is literally how the process of invention works...

My talk with Mark McKay was exactly that.  Reverse-engineering and trying to break everything down to their simplest components+principles. :)

First to set the stage, an excerpt:
Quote
"In the workshop, a six-volt car battery rested on a table. Lead wires ran from the battery to a series of capacitors which are the key to Grays’s discovery. The complete system was wired to two electromagnets, each weighing a pound and a quarter.

The first demonstration proved that Gray was using a totally different form of electrical current – a powerful but “cold” form of the energy. As the test started, Gray said: “Now if you tried to charge those two magnets with juice from the battery and make them do what I’m going to make them do, you would drain the battery in 30 minutes and the magnets would get extremely hot.”

Fritz Lens activated the battery. A voltmeter indicated 3,000 volts. Gray threw a switch and there was a loud popping noise. The top magnet flew off with powerful force. Richard Hackenberger caught it in his bare hand. What happened was that Gray had used a totally different form of electrical current – a “cold” form of energy. The fact that Hackenberger caught the magnet and was not burned was evidence enough of that."


This was my thought-process with McKay assisting + filling in details as we went along:

* So, the earliest demonstration was the 'popping coils' demo, which led to the large investment to machine all the EMA motors.
* McKay describes the 'popping coils' as two electromagnets, with each electromagnet having 4 wires coming out.
* From this lets assume that each coil half is actually an equal/matched pair of coils.  Hence the 4 wires.
* Lets reason from the progression that Gray motors are in-fact 'spinning popping coils' and that they both operate on the same unknown principle.
* I noticed and McKay confirmed that the rotor on the Purple motor only had a 2 wires to the rotor brushes.
* From this, we might extrapolate that the 4 coils in the original 'popping coil' demo is actually 3 coils.  So now we're down to 3 coils used of the 4.  6 wires...
* Lets reason that the high voltage capacitors and thyratrons are necessary components, and that the Ignitron/Thyratrons are intended to provide short impulses to the system.  McKay said that witnesses report corona and tremendous arcing and electrostatic fields (hair standing up like in a Vandegraff).
* McKay commented on the use of Iron wire (I believe from interviewing one of the original machinists that helped build the original motors?).
* Lets reason from this that iron wire is also a critical component, and thus should be present in at least one of the three original 'popping coils'.

So now we're down to 3 coils, 1 on one side and 2 on the other, with at least one winding ferromagnetic.  Triggered by a high-voltage impulse of 3kv in some unknown configuration. O0


* We note the interesting results in delayed-pulse propagation for a pair of wires with a scope (I forget who did this test, will edit w/ link when I find it)
* We also note that ferromagnetic wire adds a parametric effect.  The inductance of the wire decreases as the current running through it increases.  That makes the result very complex and difficult to model.  Even without adding a 2nd and 3rd coil.
* Besides being complex, it's also relatively unexplored territory.  Very few experimenters work with voltage impulses over 1kv, and even fewer work with iron wire.
* High voltage is also consistent with a need to overcome high resistance (potentially other reasons as well)

Anyway, I hope some of that made sense C.C :P   I don't even know if there's anything there, but it was fun playing detective, and McKay's a cool guy to talk to.


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3941
tExB=qr
What is meant by "popping coil"?

Iron wire is specifically used to achieve a delay in a very specific method of pulse compression.  This method will cause a popping sound in coils.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 543
What is meant by "popping coil"?

Iron wire is specifically used to achieve a delay in a very specific method of pulse compression.  This method will cause a popping sound in coils.

Interesting, I did not know about an accoustic popping sound with delayed coil pairs. ???

'Popping coil' was just the name of the demonstration, I'm not sure if it refers to the popping action or the popping sound.


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-04-20, 17:29:20