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
ABSTRACT
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
|
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.”
And:
“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.
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
|
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
Diagram 4 provides a time line for the E.V.
Gray technological progression and tentative demarcations between circuit
versions.
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
Patents
- #3,890,548 - June 17, 1975; Pulsed Capacitor Discharge Electric
Engine http://www.pureenergysystems.com/os/EdGrayMotor/PM_PEM_MG/patents/3890548/
- #4,595,975 - June 17, 1986, Efficient Power Supply Suitable For
Inductive Loads http://www.pureenergysystems.com/os/EdGrayMotor/PM_PEM_MG/patents/4595975/
- #4,661,747 - April 28, 1987, Efficient Electrical Conversion
Switching Tube Suitable For Inductive Loads http://www.free-energy.cc/pdf/US04661747__.pdf
Articles
- Short Biography of Edwin Gray From by Dr. Peter Lindemann http://www.free-energy.cc/graybio.html
- Man Creates Engine That Consumes No Fuel; The National Tattler, July
1, 1973, by Tom Valentine http://www.free-energy.cc/images/Img0002.jpg
- Miracle No-Fuel Electric Engine; The National Tattler, July 8, 1973,
by Tom Valentine http://www.free-energy.cc/images/Img0001.jpg
- The Engine That Runs Itself; Probe The Unknown, July 1973, by Jack
Scagnetti http://www.free-energy.cc/images/Probe1.jpg
- Smog-Free Engine Ignored; Los Angeles Free Press, December 28, 1973 http://www.free-energy.cc/images/SmogFree1.jpg
- 2 Inventors Work To Devise Fuelless Car; The National Tattler,
January 23, 1974, by Tom Valentine http://www.free-energy.cc/images/2inventors1.jpg
- Inventor of World's First No-Fuel Engine is Suppressed by LA
District Attorney; The National Tattler, March 16 1975, by Tom
Valentine http://www.free-energy.cc/images/WorldsFirst1.jpg
- Auto Motor Inventor Just Fueling Around?; The Progressive Bulletin,
July 7, 1975 http://www.free-energy.cc/images/AutoMotor1.jpg
- EMS- Electronic Power That Could Change The World's Economic Power
Picture; Newsreal, June 1977 http://www.free-energy.cc/images/Newsreal1.jpg
References
Continued
2 -
“Technical Discussion” by Richard Hackenburger http://www.pureenergysystems.com/os/EdGrayMotor/PM_PEM_MG/TechnicalDiscussion/RichardHackenberger/
3 -
“The Engine That Runs Itself”; Probe The Unknown, July 1973 by
Jack Scagnetti http://www.free-energy.cc/images/Probe1.jpg
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.)
http://www.free-energy.cc/products.html
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!
http://www.free-energy.cc/products.html
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 http://www.radio.com |
See also
Page posted by Sterling
D. Allan Sept. 19, 2004
Last updated December 24, 2014
| |
|
Feed
