Free Energy is all about freedom:
Power to the people -- literally and figuratively
You are here:
Pure Energy Systems > Academy > Papers > Evolution of the E.V. Gray Circuit Topology

Evolution of the E.V. Gray Circuit Topology

By Mark McKay
With insights from Dr. Peter Lindemann and John Bedini

Submitted to PES Network Inc, August 31, 2004

When one reviews the publicly disclosed source documents1 of the E.V. Gray technology it becomes apparent that this work evolved dramatically over its 28 years of exploration. This paper presents one approach to organize these technical advancements into three distinct system versions. None of the following proposed schematic diagrams were actually disclosed by E.V. Gray. These sketches are offered as technically reasonable configurations extracted from the existing source information.  These diagrams might represent what Mr. Gray was working with at the time. It is hoped that this system organization will provide a point of reference for E.V. Gray researchers to help determine the fundamental physics of this novel technology.

Note about the publication of this paper.  Some of the images below have been slightly resized so that the text fits on the page when printing.  Use your browser's resizing feature to view an image in full-size.

Table of Contents

Links take you to relevant section below.


The overall technological progression of the E.V. Gray work appears to be one of greater simplicity as his prototypes matured. In this paper it is assumed that each new circuit topology kept and enhanced the critical circuit parameters that produced the optimum non-classical event, while deleting less-productive or obsolete components.

An equally valid contraian opinion is that the circuit evolution was, in reality, a constant economic compromise between effective energy capture and the per unit construction costs. John Bedini goes so far as to contend that the introduction of the “Conversion Switching Element Tube” (CSET) was a deliberate red herring that was intended to draw attention away from the real circuit parameters that generated the non-classical effects. This contrasting opinion does have some circumstantial substance. Consider what would happen if the fundamental non-classical physical principles that Mr. Gray used could be proven in court to have been already disclosed by Nicola Tesla well over a 100 years ago? This would then have made all of the EMA group’s technology public domain and the patents worthless. While this opinion may yet prove to be true this paper takes the high road and assumes that the CSET was a useful and functional component, but, perhaps only supplementary. Furthermore, the circuit evolution was indeed a process of improved technical implantation that also achieved reduced construction costs.

The only way to definitely settle these technical speculations (and many others) is to successfully reproduce a working over unity E.V. Gray Motor system.

Photo #0
E.V. Gray Version 1.0 type Motor EMA1 (circa 1961) – Courtesy Dr. Peter Lindemann

Version 1.0 Machines

The baseline for the E.V. Gray technology begins with the information disclosed in US Patent 3,890,548 granted in June 17,1975. It appears that this patent application was completed a few years after the Version 2.0 type technology had already been developed.  Most likely the formal preparation, technical search, and preliminary application process took several months, or years, to complete.  Mean while, research and improvements continued to be made, but could not be economically included into the patent application in progress.

This patent presented a “new” type of  “efficient” capacitor discharge DC motor that was illustrated with 19 figures, 333 numbered components, and 11 pages of text. For most non-funded free-energy researchers the relative complexity of this design is obvious. According to the patent text some 72 individual electromagnets and capacitors were charged with their own DC-DC unit power supplies. This array of capacitors were sequentially discharged to the proper electromagnets by means of spark gaps placed around the periphery of the motor shaft and triggered by moving contacts that come into register. A novel speed control mechanism was provided that shuttled between different spark gap contacts to advance or retard the HV firing sequence. This general power distribution scheme is shown in Diagram 1.  The speed controller monitoring and actuation electrical systems were not disclosed. There is also a back EMF energy recovery system that is described in the fourth paragraph and also later on in the patent text. This recovery system is not shown in any of the electrical diagrams. However, it was disclosed that a separate set of batteries was employed for this purpose.

One unusual aspect of this motor is the application of “Major” and "Minor” electromagnets in both the stator and the rotor. The purpose or rational to support these different size coils has not been discussed in the patent text or any other source document. In the Hackenburger Technical Report2, Richard discusses how the high voltage commutation required the switching of the proper polarities. It may have been necessary to alternate the current flow through the electromagnets in order to neutralize the residual magnetic polarization of the cores. One possible speculative arrangement would be that the two minor coils might have been paralleled and then placed in series with a large coil. For now the purpose of this uncommon construction feature is obscure.


Power Supply Arrays

According to John Bedini, the array of multiple-parallel power supplies was typical of the early E.V. Gray motors. According to Jack Scagnetti3 Mr. Gray’s very first working proto type (built in 1961) only ran briefly and was about the size of a 3 lb. coffee can (approximately 8” diameter x 12” long). The motor shown in Photo#0 was the EMA-1, according to Dr. Lindemann. The miniature-attached transmission displayed is a wooden mock-up and is not functional. Most likely this particular model was built with funds derived from the EMA partnership as a “proof of principle” device and was therefore the first official company model, but it may have not been the first working model.

John Bedini says that the first Gray motors were not provided with 72 individual power supplies. He states that the first E.V. Gray motors initially used automotive distributors for the HV power distribution. This would imply that the first motors were constructed with far fewer individual power supplies, perhaps 4, 6, or 8 units. So, in order to achieve a full 100 HP power output, as described in the patent, all 72 power supplies may have been needed. It is not clear if such a motor of this design was ever built. There are inconsistencies in the patent illustrations that claim only 18 capacitors were used (see Figure 2 lower right hand corner of patent 3,890,548).

If the ratio of one capacitor to one electromagnet was strictly observed, as specified, then the actual demonstration model (EMA4-E2) probably had far fewer power supplies than a full blown 72-capacitor motor. This would also imply that the actual HP rating of the 18-capacitor machine was much less than the desired rating a 100HP motor. A 10 HP device was submitted to Crosby Research for analysis in 1973. While 50HP and 100HP motors are discussed in some of the source documents none of these larger systems have been tested by an independent organization.

It is important to consider why larger and more powerful models, at the time, required a greater multitude of the same fundamental unit power supply. In power electronics, greater economy of scale and efficiency is generally achieved by building systems using larger transformers, coils, capacitors, and switching components. Why did Mr. Gray have to use costly and complex redundant circuit arrays to achieve these higher power levels? Whatever the reason the next round of developments seemed to have overcome this restriction.


Version 1.0 Complexity

Photo #1 is a good example of one of Mr. Gray’s more developed full size Version 1.0 technology motors (circa 1973). Notice the abundance of cables, switches, meters, and ancillary equipment draped around this proto-type. None of this circuitry is described in the patent document. There is also at least one small circuit board hidden between the 12-volt starter on the top left and the alternator on the top right. This board has about 15 or so components on it. There may be other circuits scattered around this equipment. Also, notice the multiple taps on the four large capacity 6-volt Lead-Acid storage batteries. This demonstration equipment was utilizing at least four different DC voltages.

Photo #1
E.V. Gray Version 1.0 type Motor EMA4-E2 (circa 1973) – Courtesy Dr. Peter Lindemann

From an engineering point of view, one must appreciate the number of man-hours that went into the construction of this custom and complex machine with the limited resources of an individual or a small start-up venture. It is hard to understand how such a sophisticated device could be constructed using new novel technology without a whole series of development prototypes. There is no public record of the circuits and development motors (if any) that may have preceded the EMA-1 device.

This situation supports the idea that Mr. Gray didn’t discover or develop this technology from scratch. It is believed; by Mr. Norm Wooten and others, that Mr. Gray received this information almost fully developed from Mr. Andre’ Popoff5. Mr. Popoff was a Russian immigrant who was said to have had direct contact with Nicola Tesla during his declining days in New York City.

We will probably never be able to fully reverse engineer this lost technology from the patent documents or the surviving photos.  At best, we can only hope to extract some fundamental technical principles present in the available documents and attempt to develop the rest from detailed experimental analysis.

Version 1.0 Power Supply

It is fruitful to consider the Version 1.0 unit power supply as a basis of comparison to later E.V. Gray circuit versions. The unit HV power supply was disclosed in Figure 1 of patent 3,890,548 and is reproduced in Diagram 2.

According to the patent text on page 3:

“The capacitor charging circuit comprises a pair of high frequency switchers which feed respective automotive-type ignition coils employed as step-up transformers. The “secondary” of each of the ignition coils provides a high voltage square wave to a half-wave rectifier to generate a high voltage output pulse of d-c energy with each switching alternation of the high frequency switcher. Only one polarity is used so that a unidirectional pulse is applied to the capacitor bank being charged” (So what happens to the other half of the pulse?)

The Hackenburger Technical Discussion2 discloses a possible switching power supply frequency of 360K CPM or 6 KHz and an operating voltage of 3000VDC. This is a reasonable speed for a DC-DC instrument chopper at the time, but a rather low frequency by today’s switch-mode power supply standards7. The operating voltage is also consistent with the Jack Scagnetti Article3 (1973).

Figure 2, in patent 3,890,548 is inconsistent with the text and other diagrams in regard to how power is applied to the rotor electromagnets. (This demonstrates how to write a good patent) Figure 1 shows how the patent connects the rotor electromagnets in a “Y” configuration, and then discharges three storage capacitors through them. If all three storage capacitors are charged to the same +3000 VDC potential referenced to the same ground then how does and current flow through the electromagnets at all?  The operation of this part of the circuit is not obvious for a DC circuit using classical theory.  For the sake of filling in a possible gap in disclosure facts, a slip ring connection to ground has been added to Diagram 2A. Keep in mind that some other technique may have been used.

In reviewing this power supply schematic, and the rest of the patent text, a technical person might pose these questions:

· What kind of commercial automotive-type ignition coil comes with a center tapped primary?

It is very possible that a custom wound primary was attached to a modified commercial ignition coil secondary.


Photo #4
Example of Modified Ignition coil with Retro-fitted Center Tapped Primary

· How can a mechanical type vibrator achieve a switching frequency of 6 KHz when common tube type car radio vibrators only go to about 200Hz8 (and those were quickly replaced by transistors in 1958)?

Car radio vibrators operated up to 200 Hz, but instrument tuning fork vibrators used for low level DC measurements were made to go up to 12K Hz. These specialized instrument “choppers” were very well developed by the late 60’s but the demand completely collapsed with the introduction of direct-coupled discrete transistor amplifiers and later by superior monolithic IC operational amplifiers.  Instrument choppers are no longer commercially available and are extremely hard to find through the surplus channels.

Photo #5
1950’s Car Radio Power Supply Vibrators

Photo #6
Multi-pole Instrument Input Choppers

· Why was a mechanical chopper used in the first place? (1961) Power Transistors or SCR’s would have made a better and more controllable design, perhaps even cheaper and smaller.

John Bedini says that Mr. Gray eventually did develop a transistor driven power supply, however a mechanical vibrator has many built in advantages when working with HV circuits. The most useful of which is the built in immunity to HV transients, but other advantages include positive dead time between switching commutations, positive non-shorting start-up, wide temperature range of operation, and a simple method to synchronize multiple choppers.  There is the possibility that this non-classical phenomenon may require, or favor, a solid metal-to-metal contact. Most likely Mr. Gray had the good fortune to acquire an abundant supply of these costly and now obsolete components form a surplus source at a very reasonable price.

· Why was only half wave rectification used if the purpose of this motor was power efficiency?


It is believed that the cardinal Tesla rule about “unidirectional current flow” was being strictly observed,

But, there may have been other technical reasons. Version 2.0 machines use full-wave rectification and the help of a storage battery to provide a minimum +12 volt bias. The same approach may have been applied to the Version 1.0 machine as part of the energy recovery system.

· What was the purpose of the “Floating Flux Coil” (Delay Line) and why was it located around the outside equator of the motor housing (of all places) and composed of so few windings?

      This is the subject of a separate paragraph to follow.

· If the output of a typical automotive-type ignition coil is 20-30KV how could the storage capacitor output voltage be limited to 3000VDC or only 10% of the peak coil output?

Because this kind of power supply circuit operates in Pulsed Switched Mode style. The stored magnetic field is not allow to collapse to an open primary as is done with ignition circuits.  The output voltage is limited by the pulse-width modulation and/or the switched frequency of the input supply.

· What does “a pair of high frequency switchers” mean?  Figure 1 of the patent illustrations show two unit power supplies, but they are not specifically connected as “a pair” because of grounding at three points.

This could imply that the inductances in the “Delay Line” are intended to be magnetically coupled in pairs. This is somewhat similar to the common magnetics used in a modern Cuk’ type switch-mode power converter. Another “paired” feature is that both sides of the delay are driven positive with each rectified output pulse of the “paired” ignition transformers. A dual reed instrument transformer would insure synchronized pulses. This is contrary to the normal mode of operation for a delay line where one side is generally held at ground potential.

· There is no provision for current limiting, regulation, feedback or dead band control in the presented schematic.

Patents only disclose enough information to help protect the owner’s intellectual property in court. They were never intended as a “How-To-Manual”. Many patents are deliberately deceiving. A classical example of this situation is found in the development of Nylon.  Here, the inventor was able to sell his patent formula to Dupont for a good sum, and then sell his expensive consultation services to them in order to make it work.

The right answers to these questions may well point to the non-classical physics that were manifested in the Gray equipment.


The "Floating Flux Field"

One of the more interesting and novel aspects of the Version 1.0 technology is the “Floating Flux Field”.  At first glance a technical person would consider this component to be a standard single pie low pass filter section, typical of a linear DC power supply design. However, the patent specifies the need to have at least two paired power supplies with two of these strange components.  This pairing and the novel placement geometry hint to a potential deeper purpose, beyond simple ripple removal.

The “Floating Flux Field” appears to be a vital component in the version 1.0 machines. It is well illustrated in the patent 3,890,548 block diagram of Figures 1 & 2 and the mechanical Figures 3, 4, 5 and 9. But, much less is written about it.

The “Floating Flux Field” can be easily seen on Mr. Gray’s first partnership motor (EMA1). This equator-mounted component is shown with nine windings, no more than 2 or 3 layers deep, but most likely only composed of a single layer. This same motor appears to have 9 fixed stator electromagnets. This suggests a 1:1 correspondence between stator coil and these outer windings. There are also two well insulated and non-disclosed windings, one at each end of the motor, that add even more complexity to this mystery component.

The EMA-E2 also has a “Floating Flux Field” of similar geometry to the EMA1. Seven turns of large diameter conductor (approximately ½+” in diameter) can be seen in Photo #1. The remaining windings are obscured with other equipment. Patent 3,890,548 illustrates a “Floating Flux Field” for the exemplary embodiment as having 18 windings with 2 layers (as shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5) if the motor case were 24” long and 16” diameter. Then the overall cross section of a single coil conductor would be about .2” in diameter. The overall size of the coil form/holder for the patent motor would be 3.75” wide and .75” deep. Meanwhile, the photos of the EMA4-E2 and the EMA1 appear to have similar coil form aspect ratio but they have half as many conductors that are twice the diameter as the conductors shown in the patent illustrations.

Again, notice how the EMA1 is outfitted with the two well-insulated windings at each end of the motor case. This same configuration is also detectable on the EMA4-E2 motor, however the cable is white and tends to blend in with the other cables. It appears that in both motors the diameter of this outer cable is the same as the conductors in the “Floating Flux Field” thus suggesting that they either part of or very closely related to each other.

There is not much written about the “Floating Flux Field”. The patent 3,890,548 text states:

“The rectified unidirectional pulsating output of each of the diodes in converter 38 is passed through coil 23, 24 thus forming a harness 37 wound about the case of the engine, as hereafter described, which is believed to provide a static floating flux field. The outputs from delay lines 37 drive respective capacitors in banks 39 to charge the capacitors there in to a relatively high charge potential”

Further on in the patent text we read:

“Around the central outer surface of housing 50 are wound a number of turns of wire 23, 24 to provide a static flux coil 114 as herein before described, which is a delay line as previously described.”


This is all that was disclosed in patent 3,890,548. It is interesting to note that this novel component was not even listed in the multiple claims detailed at the end of the patent text. Who knows what the term “Static Floating Flux Field” meant, but it is certain, from the operation of this device, the field was anything but “static”.

The Jack Scagnetti article3 provides a couple of quotes from Mr. Gray that might relate to the “Floating Flux Field”.

“Our motor creates power surges – one behind the other – in micro-seconds,” says Gray. “By doing this, we are able to direct the magnetic flux field. The magnetic flux is a coolant source, so we need no cooling system.”




“The only external magnetic effect is that another field system cannot operate within this same battery system.  The magnetic field orientation is 360 degree in all directions”

These comments will certainly leave a classically trained researcher scratching his/her head. How can a magnetic field produce general cooling and how can it be oriented in 360 degrees? (A magnetic monopole?)

The component geometry of the “Floating Flux Field” will not provide much inductance or a very long delay time. Classical theory would suggest that this arrangement would interact primarily with the very high frequency components of the input step function.  The total length of cable for a single section would be about 8 feet long (assuming 2 layers). If all of the conductors for the individual coils were combined into a single multi-conductor cable then we would have a 72-foot long delay line. If the two outer single windings (Diagram 7) were also included, we would have a total of 88 feet. The proposed idea of this component being made from a common multi-conductor cable has merit because of the existence of the two outer single windings. (About 44 feet of conductor for a single winding architecture) Alternatively, these large “delay line” conductors could also be individual coax cables (similar to RG-11).

The location of the “Floating Flux Field” insures that it is magnetically coupled to the current pulses taking place inside the motor, and therefore may function as loosely coupled feedback connection to the storage capacitor. Classically the sum of the pulse currents in the rotor and the stator electromagnets would sum to zero (over time). The magnetic fields of the “Floating Flux Field” and the internal electromagnets are 90 degrees to each other and according to classical theory would not interact. But, this is if everything is perfectly balanced and operating at a relatively low frequency. In practice there would be eddy currents, leakage flux, edge effects, and differences in material leading to some real world imbalances.

An interesting topic to consider is the EMF pulses that would be produced when the capacitors discharged through the low resistance windings of the rotor and stator coils.  A fast rise-time current pulse contains a vast spectrum of RF frequencies. For a brief moment (2 microseconds or so) the field intensity of some individual frequencies may reach several watts. The “Floating flux Field” due to its location will tend to act as an antenna and absorb some of this energy along with the related harmonics.

It is doubtful that this route of energy feedback would contribute much to the overall energy recovery balance, but it certainly needs to be looked at as far as its potential contribution to some non-classical excitation process.

One speculative mechanism might be that the ”tuning” of the “Floating Flux Field” might have provided enough positive feedback to impact the dynamics of the spark gaps. For a brief moment, the natural high frequency oscillation of the arcs might be phase locked to some particular high frequency determined by the parameters of the delay line thus add even more resonate energy back to the collective network.

But, any such absorption of classical RF energy by the “Floating Flux Field” would be largely shunted to ground by the storage capacitors. This overall idea only demonstrates the potential complexity of possible mechanisms that might have been utilized in the Gray Technology if some method of feedback (or feed-forward) process were used.

If the “Floating Flux Field” was intended to resonate at some particular frequency then it would have been constantly excited from every voltage step that the charging capacitors received and at every moment a capacitor fired. It seems that the “Floating Flux Field” would be constantly resonating like a bell at some fixed high frequency determined by the length of the delay line, its characteristic impedance, and the relative parasitic parameters. Because the HV ignition coils are applying positive swings to both sides of the paired delay lines the voltage difference between these closely coupled coils would be minimal and the effective shunt capacitance almost nil. One needs to consult references on transmission line theory to further explore the function of this kind of network when operated in this unique fashion. The loading on this delay line would be constantly changing from the low value of the rotor/stator coil resistance during firing to the high leakage resistance of the storage capacitor during charging. Voltage pulse reflections of both polarities would constantly be bouncing back and fourth from the ends of this network.

Input Operating Voltage

The Jack Scagnetti article3 implies that the input voltage to the EMA4-E2 motor was 24 VDC, and that the starter operated at 12 VDC. However, the block diagram that accompanies the Richard Hackenburger Technical Discussion2 for the same machine shows an input energy of 1584 Watts at 132 Amps. This equates to a steady state voltage of 12 volts.  The return energy flow also calculates to 12 volts. The output of the alternator calculates to 14 volts.

From a classical engineering stand point it is unlikely that the Gray motor would have been designed to operate at both 12 and 24 volts. The optimization of the electromagnets requires a narrow range of operating current. Either these two men are talking about two different machines or possibly Mr. Scagnetti might have assumed a 24 volt machine because the display model (EMA4-E2) had four each 6 volt batteries connected to it. Mr. Gray states in patent  #3,890,548 that the energy recovery system was achieved by a secondary set of batteries, even though they were not shown in the patent document. These recovery batteries may have been displayed on the EMA4-E2 (Photo #1).

Photo #2
E.V. Gray Version 2.0 type Motor EMA6 1977 – Courtesy Dr. Peter Lindemann

Version 2.0 Machines

Sometime between 1973 and 1976 a major breakthrough allowed for a great simplification in the circuit design that characterizes the version 2.0 machines.  The best available photo of this technology is Photo #2 where Mr. Gray is demonstrating his EMA6 motor to stockholders at a meeting in 1977. In 2002 Mr. Alan Francouer of Penticton , BC acquired the two predecessors to this motor, the EMA5 and EMA4. See Photo #3

In this rendition of the E.V. Gray technology a custom component called the “Conversion Switching Element Tube” was introduced. Patents 4,661,747 and 4,595,975 are technically describing the Version 2.0 topology and the CSET. It is a safe guess to assume that these two very similar patents were required to appease the reviewers who wanted the system divided into smaller chunks (To increase patent fees). From these patents, the available photos, and the work advanced by Dr. Peter Lindemann6, a proposed general diagrammatic schematic can be composed for a Version 2.0 machine as shown in Diagram 3.

Photo #3
E.V. Gray Version 2.0 type Motor EMA5 (circa 1975) – Courtesy Alan L. Francouer

Version 2.0 engineering improvements allowed Mr. Gray to eliminate up to 69 unit power supplies. With this economy of scale Mr. Gray was able to reduce his system to three large power supplies. One might come to the conclusion that this savings was made possible by the invention of the CSET and a change in circuit topology. Some how this one component might have been able to allow for higher power levels without the need for redundant ignition transformers. A more likely situation would be that engineering time and additional resources were finally available to improve the “quick-and-dirty” original simple HV power supply design. However, this author proposes that the critical multiple delay line architecture only got slightly smaller and was quietly moved from the motor case to the enclosed “HV Power Supply” cabinet, out of sight and hopefully out of mind from the prying eyes of potential claim jumpers. It is interesting to note, in Photo #2, that the three very proprietary CSET’s are housed in a transparent Plexiglas case for all to see. But, the rather large front-end HV power supplies are completely enclosed. The multiple arcs and sparks coming from the CSET’s would certainly draw many people’s attention.  However, the rather dull and boring “Standard HV Power Supplies” would tend to be overlooked by many observers.

So now it appeared that the external motor mounted “Floating Flux Field” was missing from the new Version 2.0 design. However the mechanical coupled control commutater was now connected to a vacuum tube triode (or thyratron as claimed by John Bedini).  Full wave rectification was now being employed on the secondary of the “ignition-type coil”.  Still one half of the high frequency mechanical chopper was being used to excite the HV step-up coil (most likely with paralleled contacts). Perhaps the reason that Mr. Gray was still using these components was because they worked and he had a lot of them on hand. Dr. Lindemann contends that at that time the non-classic physics still required the properties of a mechanically interrupted battery current. It was only much latter that Mr. Gray was able to migrate his HV power supply to the use of solid-state devices.

Overall, the Version 2.0 machines appear to charge a large storage capacitor to +3000 VDC then quickly dumps this energy too a spark gap in the CSET.  Somehow the process produced a large amount of an electrostatic type of energy (possibly Cold Electricity) to be collected on the CSET “Grids”. This energy was then directed to the low resistance coils of the Gray repulsion motor. The circuit arrangement would allow a majority of any classical electrical energy to be dissipated in the spark gap, but some of it would radiate as an RF pulse from the current flow loop.

Dr. Peter Lindemann, in his book “The Secrets of Cold Electricity” explores the Version 2.0 Gray circuit in greater detail and proposes how the triode grids (or thyratron) may have been pulsed to provide sharp rise and fall times for the energy that was applied to the CSET.

Missing from the patent schematics are the methods by which the vacuum triodes (or thyratron) receive their grid control and how the heater supply (if any) is isolated from the 3000 VDC plate supply.

Details of the internal mechanical construction of the EMA4 and EMA5 Version 2.0 repulsion motors are shown very well in Norm Wooton’s video5. Further details can be downloaded from Alan Francouer’s web-site.  John Bedini maintains that the coils of the Version 2.0 machines (the recovered EMA-4 and EMA-5) are much different than what he observed in Mr. Gray’s laboratory in California when examining the Version 1.0 type of machine.

Mr. Alan Francouer has spent a considerable amount of time analyzing the EMA4 and EMA5 motors.  One of the more revealing discoveries has been determining some of the detailed functions of the Version 2.0 commutater.  Patent 4,595,975 shows a simple schematic commutater with only two conductors attached. The real EMA5 proto-type actually has 15 contacts (see Photo #7). Mr. Francouer has determined that this device was able to disconnect the storage capacitor just prior to firing and then quickly make different connections to achieve some back e.m.f. recovery. The EMA6 in Photo #2 shows a commutater with at least 15 connections but only three visible external conductors. (White wires) The schematic in Diagram 3 does not attempt to show these refinements.

Photo #7
Norman Wootan displaying the Non-Disclosed Complexities of the Timing Commutater from the EMA5 Gray motor at the 2001 KeelyNet Conference5 – Courtesy Dr. Peter Lindemann

Version 2.0 Motor Development Progression

The progression of Version 2.0 Motor development is easily observed when looking at the surviving EMA4, EMA5, and EMA6 (photo only) motors.

EMA4 – Aluminum Case, One Stator, One Rotor, Cut away end plate to facilitate observations with a strobe lamp. Obviously an initial proof-of-principle design that diverged from the “Major” and Minor” electromagnets of the Version 1.0 Motors

EMA5 – (Photo #3) Nylon case and G10 shaft, Three Stator Coils, Three Rotor Coils, Possibly an experiment to see if a non-magnetic case construction (very expensive) would improve system performance. Coil construction, Slip ring design, and Commutater layout are the same as in the EMA4.

EMA6 – (Photo #2) Aluminum Case, Nine Stators, an unknown number of rotor electromagnets (most likely three each), Longer electromagnets, and the timing commutater is now separate from the motor case proper. This motor might have been a full power prototype (100 HP).  One may assume that the non-magnetic case experiment of EMA5 proved to be too expensive or did not yield the hope for efficiency gains.


Triode vs. Thyratron

John Bedini maintains that the E.V. Gray “Triode” was actually a high current thyratron operating in Class C mode possibly with a grounded grid. The commutater achieved the gross switching control and the thyratron was simply over-voltaged to fire like a flash tube.  The intent was to provide a low resistance forward current path and then a high resistance reverse path.  The advantage of a thyratron is that its heated cathode provides a fast reverse recovery time, when compared to solid-state diodes. The down side is the huge energy investment needed to supply the thyratron heater. But, it is not nearly as bad as the energy required to operate a triode in the same current range. For a standard triode the maximum forward pulse current is directly proportional to the heater wattage. This determines the number of free electrons in the space charge. In a mercury gas filled thyratron positive and negative current carriers are created in abundance when the switching “arc” is established. The maximum pulse current is more limited by the tube’s heat dissipation and the mechanical strength of its internal elements. Short-term reverse currents are inhibited due to the inertial mass of the moving positive mercury ions. For the same size of tube a thyratron can handle 1000 time more current than a triode. So there are some sound engineering reasons to believe that a thyratron might have been used.

But, what advantage the thyratron gains in larger current capacity it looses in its ability to be controlled. It can be told when to turn on, but it can’t be turned off until all the available energy has passed through it. With out a means to effectively control shut off timing it is difficult to see how any simple speed control system might have been employed.

Looking at Photo#2 you will notice that there are six each of the large 6-volt storage batteries supplying the EMA6 motor as compared to 4 each batteries in Photo#2 of the EMA4-E2 model. It would be a reasonable guess that these additional two batteries might be supplying isolated triode (or thyratron) heater power.

Version 3.0 Machines

All of the information about the Version 3.0 topologies comes from The John Bedini Field Notes4. This information was collected in at least three separate visits to Mr. Gray in 1979, 1982, and 1984.  It appears from these notes that the E.V. Gray technology remained pretty stable during this five-year period.  Diagram 6 is a schematic composed from the 1979 John Bedini notes demonstrating a Version 3.0 type machine. The significant changes that make this design different from the Version 2.0 topology are:

1.      The rotor coils have been replaced with permanent magnets.

2.      The triode (or thyratron) of the Version 2.0 circuit has been replaced with a solid-state rectifier appearing to operate in Zener mode.

3.      One larger non-disclosed HV power supply drives all three of the Conversion Element Switching Tubes (CSET’S) as opposed to three power supplies in the Version 2.0 design

4.      Each CSET drives a separate stator coil.

The rest of the circuit remains very similar to the Version 2.0 topology.

Currently, there are no common domain photos or supporting text that document the construction or operation of a version 3.0 motor.  This last version design would have lent it self to the least expensive construction of any of the previous models. There is good reason to believe that Mr. Gray built, tested, and demonstrated a number of these models of motors prior to his untimely demise.

The use of the solid state diode in place of a triode or thyratron implies that the magnitude of loop pulse current in the Version 3.0 machines was at least an order of magnitude smaller than the Version 2.0 machines. This assertion is based on the relative current handling capacities of the two devices. The pulse current capacity of a medium size thyratron is on the order of 1200 Amps. A modern (circa 1979) diode built to the same specification would have been very large and very expensive. But a diode rated for limited service 120 Amp pulse currents would have been more available.  Part of this reduction in current could be well explained by the increase in operating voltage. The Version 2.0 machines are believed to have operated at 3000 VDC. The Version 3.0 machines, according to John Bedini, were operated at 5000 VDC. Dr. Lindemann believes that the amount of “Free Energy” that can be extracted with this technology goes up with the square of the operating voltage. If this principle is correct then the math shows that an order of magnitude of current reduction would be reasonably expected in going from 3000VDC to 5000VDC and maintain the same power level.


Model Numbers

It has generally been implied that Mr. Gray’s motors were constructed in a numbered sequence starting with model #1 in 1961 (Photo #0) and went all the way to Models #8 or #9 (circa 1989). Models #6 and #4 are shown in Photo #2  (Model #4 is setting on the table in the background). Model #5, with its Nylon housing construction is shown in Photo #3.  In the Richard Hackenburger “Technical Discussion”2 he talks about the Model EMA4-E2 with some of its listed specifications. This device appears to be the same Model EMA #4 shown in Jack Scagnetti’s Photo #1. This machine is defiantly Version 1.0 architecture and not a Version 2.0 design. The EMA Model #4 that is owned by Alan L. Francouer is defiantly a Version 2.0 type topology. The unique feature of Mr. Francouer’s EMA-4 motor is that it has only one rotor and one stator coil. (This must have been a real challenge to dynamically balance). This device appears to be a proof of principle proto type design that might have became the foundation for the later Version 2.0 machines.

These description conflicts suggest that there were at least two series of model numbers.  If this speculation is correct we then can assume that Mr. Gray actually built at least 12 or more proto-types, rather that the 8 or 9 models that are presently generally assumed.


Time Line

Diagram 4 provides a time line for the E.V. Gray technological progression and tentative demarcations between circuit versions.


The End of the Road (1925-1989)

Much of the detailed E.V. Gray technology has never been disclosed. John Bedini and Dr. Lindemann maintain the Mr. Gray was extremely paranoid about his “Secret” 5. They say that he was always armed and kept the CSET’s locked in a brief case. (At least three CSET’s would fit in a brief case). Apparently, Mr. Gray was known to abruptly fire his hired assistants (including his own son) when they appeared to “wise-up” as to how the equipment might have worked. It was just such a disgruntled employee who filed the original complaint against E.V. Gray to the Los Angeles DA’s office. The degree of concern that Mr. Gray held for preserving his “Secret” could possibly imply that the “Secret” would be trivial if discovered.

There is considerable speculation about the many reasons why Mr. Gray might have been sanctioned by the “establishment.” Many people believe that Mr. Gray’s untimely death was obviously intended to prevent him from marketing a working “Free-Energy” device that would jeopardize “Big-Oil’s” financial interests. While these theories abound, little attention has been given to the legacy of his left behind laboratory equipment. How is it that EMA Models #4 and #5 could be recently recovered in the first place5? According to Dr. Lindemann the unpaid landlords of Mr. Gray’s three or more rented buildings merely threw out and disposed of his proto-types, tools, instruments, and supplies.  There appears to have been no overt (or covert) MIB clean up operation that followed his death. If some individuals were really concerned about what Mr. Gray might reveal to the world they certainly didn’t take the minimal effort to secure the surviving technological hardware. If what Mr. Gray was doing (after 28 years) was perceived, as any sort of threat to the military, or big business, then such a small precaution would definitely have been in order. For example, the EPA has been known to completely clean out a persons laboratory (and not return the equipment) if there is the slightest hint (from some anonymous 3rd party informant) that there might have been a small capacitor or transformer containing some PCB’s on the premises.

It is also interesting to note that no relative, employee, or business associate stepped in to continue Mr. Gray’s potentially profitable work.  Many say that the MIB advised them not to pursue this exploration for vital health reasons. (John Bedini states that in 1985 two professional thugs personally threatened him and warned, “You’ll use gasoline”.) Perhaps no one in Mr. Gray’s immediate inner circle considered his efforts to be of any financial value. Mr. Gray also out lived all of his original business partners. The source technical patents at the time were held by a 3rd party legal firm5. The foundations of his non-classical physics were never disclosed. And, according to Dr. Lindemann6, Mr. Gray didn’t truly understand the underlying “Secrets” of his own equipment anyway. Maybe those few people close to Mr. Gray figured that if he hadn’t made some real money in 28 years, the chances of others doing so in the future were pretty slim.

An interesting end of story perspective, from Dr. Lindemann, is that Mr. Gray had amassed a $23 million dollar war chest from inspired investors who had seen one or more of his many capital-raising demonstrations. After his run in with the LA DA in 1974, Mr. Gray took certain prudent measures to collect all further monies into a Swiss bank account. With control of that kind of cash, issues about his “Secret” become insignificant when compared to the very real possibilities of plain human greed. Who ever ended up with all that money could well shed some light on the real reasons for Mr. Gray’s departure.


Mostly from Peter Lindemann's Website

1 -  Source Documents in the Public Domain




References Continued


2 -  “Technical Discussion” by Richard Hackenburger


3 -  “The Engine That Runs Itself”; Probe The Unknown, July 1973 by Jack Scagnetti


4 - John Bedini’s E.V. Gray Field Notes, 1979, 1982, 1984 personal notes released to the common domain. Available from the KeelyNet of John Bedini’s web site.

5 -"The History of the E.V. Gray Motor" – 2 hr presentation by Norman Wooten;
      KeeleyNet Conference 2001 – June 16-17 – Dallas , Texas

The History of The E.V. Gray Motor by Norman Wootan - 2hr VIDEO
The truth is finally revealed. The mystery about Ed Gray's EMA motors is finally over. With two recovered EMA motor prototypes on stage at the KeelyNet Conference in June 2001, Norman Wootan discusses every design feature possible. Every single way the real motors deviate from the designs revealed in Gray's Patent are discussed in detail. Now you can see with your own eyes how it was really done. This video is a must for serious researchers wanting to convert Radiant Energy into mechanical power. A great companion piece to "The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity" by Dr. Lindemann (book or video) where the EMA power supply is discussed. (2 hrs.)

6-     “The Secrets of Cold Electricity” by Peter A. Lindemann, D.Sc.  

The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity by Peter A. Lindemann, D.Sc.
This book explains how Edwin Gray produced "cold electricity" and how that relates to Nikola Tesla's discovery of "Radiant Energy" over a century ago. All of the images that appear as slides in the video are reproduced in the book, as well as complete reprints of Edwin Gray's three US patents, and three of Nikola Tesla's US Patents, which related to the subject. This is an important study manual for serious researchers. Ed Gray's EMA motor produced 40 times more power than he took from his batteries. The secret is in the power supply and this book tells how it works!

7-      “Power Electronics – Converters, Applications and Design” 1989 Mohan, Undeland, Robbins, Wiley & Co.

8-   “The Mye Technical Manual” Section 4 - Vibrators and Vibrator Power Supplies, by
       Mallory Co. available from Radio Era Archives at

See also

Page posted by Sterling D. Allan Sept. 19, 2004
Last updated December 24, 2014





"It is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom." // "I'd rather be an optimist and a fool than a pessimist and right." -- Albert Einstein

ADVISORY: With any technology, you take a high risk to invest significant time or money unless (1) independent testing has thoroughly corroborated the technology, (2) the group involved has intellectual rights to the technology, and (3) the group has the ability to make a success of the endeavor.
All truth passes through three stages:
   First, it is ridiculed;
   Second, it is violently opposed; and
   Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

    "When you're one step ahead
of the crowd you're a genius.
When you're two steps ahead,
you're a crackpot."

-- Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, (Feb. 1998)


PESWiki Departments:
LatestNewsXMLFeedDirectoryCongressTop 5Open Sourcing
Copyright © 2002-2015, PES Network Inc.