Edwin V. Gray - The Man Who Copied Tesla.

Quote from Director

There's only one aspect of Edwin V. Gray's technology that deserves our focus - that's how he produced very short duration electrical discharges across a spark gap and collected the radiated output to perform meaningful work. In Gray's setup, he produced a very short, unidirectional pulse across a spark gap. The resulting discharge (a self organizing plasma or EVO) would strike the anode. This would somehow - although this is not fully understood how - make the anode emit what many have called "radiant energy" in all directions. Using concentric grids around his extended cylindrical anode, he collected this output which had very unique properties. Although many have described this output as "cold electricity" it was still able to perform very real work: lighting bulbs, powering appliances, or operating motors.

Nikola Tesla himself - which all of you are free to call a total retarded scammer if you so wish - did the same thing with his Tesla coils. He produced a unidirectional discharge across his spark gap or "disruptor" which he attempted to make as short as possible (going so far as to even produce rotating spark gaps). Moreover, to prevent current reversal, he utilizing magnetic fields, blowing air, and other methods to quench the discharge before a true arc discharge could be established. The strike on the anode produce a radiant blast of emissions of "something" that he was able to harness with the PRIMARY of his coil. The secondary only increased the electrical potential of this strange form of current. Interestingly, his form of electricity had the same anomalous "cold" properties as Edwin V. Gray's and others who have replicated this same effect.

Kenneth Shoulders was doing the same thing as both Nikola Tesla and Edwin V. Gray; however, due to being extremely risk adverse, he worked at extremely low power and produced only tiny EVOs of at most several microns in diameter. When he ejected an EVO - utilizing a very short electrical discharge from a sharp cathode - at an anode, he was not only able to collect energy from the anode directly but also from a coil wrapped around the quartz cylinder. Interestingly, this coil extracted more energy than the anode itself. All together, Shoulders calculated that the output was greater than the total input not even factoring energy in the form of light or heat. Moreover, most likely, he was collecting only a fraction of the radiant energy emitted.

There are other ways of producing energy via the EVO phenomena: you can induce EVO formation on or within hydrogen embrittled metal particles (most traditional LENR systems), you can wrap an EVO around a central anode (The SAFIRE Project), or you can produce free floating fireballs or EVOs within a discharge tube (Andrea Rossi). There are many other parties which have produced excess energy in one form or another including Paulo Correa, Alexander Chernetsky, Thomas Henry Moray, and others. But the above three individuals Edwin V. Gray, Nikola Tesla, and Kenneth Shoulders were utilizing the same basic setup and doing the SAME thing except at different scales and powers. They were not scammers or conmen: they were producing the same very real effects that yielded more power OUT than IN.

Not only were they producing overunity, but the resulting electricity is truly anomalous as well. If you want to see it in action, check out the Tesla Hairpin circuit. There are videos about it on YouTube. Those that are true to Tesla's design are able to produce a form of electricity that travels through tiny wires yet illuminates bulbs to full output. A whole range of inventors have documented this form of electricity that seems to burn COLD instead of hot. For example, if you managed to get a bulb to the same amount of light output using ordinary electricity and placed it in water, the bulb would crack due to being cooled so rapidly. However, with cold electricity the amount of heat producing is dramatically reduced. Thomas Henry Moray performed some fascinating experiments with this form of electricity and Nikola Tesla did so as well.

For those who would attack and bash Edwin V. Gray as a scammer, I have three things to say...

First, please publicly proclaim Nikola Tesla to be a total scammer as well. Yes, go do so. Because if you think Edwin V. Gray was a scammer, you MUST call Nikola Tesla one as well. If you don't, you are only displaying your total ignorance of how the technologies are one and the same with only minor differences.

Secondly, instead of attacking Edwin V. Gray and others, why don't you re-focus on accumulating proof for your own theories by building something of real world practical value. That was what Edwin V. Gray was trying to do.

Thirdly, broaden your horizons a little instead of being stuck into one specific mindset. At first, many years ago, I didn't think there was anything to the work of Kenneth Shoulders or the EVO phenomena. But as I spent the time doing research (countless sleepless nights reading and re-reading documents) I started putting the pieces together and realized that although there are probably OTHER interesting phenomena out there as well, the EVO phenomena is what links together a long string of exotic technologies going back a hundred years.

Display More

Seems related to the condensed electron clusters discussed in a few experiments. I'm guessing if real it is absorbing ambient thermal energy from the immediate environment, and induces superconducting in the medium it travels through, thus why it is cold but I have little knowledge of this.

Quote from Mark U

Speaking of Tesla, you will probably appreciate this Tesla related video, having to do with resonance. This guy is very clear headed and talented:

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

I'm going to be looking more at the 'cold' electricity you mentioned, seems very interesting. Regarding the Tesla hairpin circuit, you may be interested in this video by ... "EVO labs."

Take a peek at

External Content youtu.be

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/w…iscover-new-state-matter/

Mainstream observation of pure electron clustering at room temperature.

For those who like equations:

On the Possible Existence...

Quote from Rjzk

For those who like equations:

This is something from Evans that is quite useful and can also be used in higher dimensions. Positive and negative rotation currents symmetrically cancel and also the fields (when using the correct topology) . This finally leads to a "magneto static" solution for higher dimensional fields in SO(4). Of course Evans stays in 3D,t but this path is correct.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This is something from Evans that is quite useful and can also be used in higher dimensions. Positive and negative rotation currents symmetrically cancel and also the fields (when using the correct topology) . This finally leads to a "magneto static" solution for higher dimensional fields in SO(4). Of course Evans stays in 3D,t but this path is correct.

A bit out of the thread subject but it would be interesting to now which kind of reasoning has lead to higher dimensional thinking. I would assume that adding torsion in Einstein's space-time world lead to Evans' ECE originally maybe just by curiosity - what happens if we add torsion there instead of only curvature? Now there is probably something similar behind SO(4)-thinking, e.g. is it easier to explain some real-world phenomena adding dimensions or is there some kind of mathematical proof that directly leads to higher dimensions ?

Quote from Rjzk

A bit out of the thread subject but it would be interesting to now which kind of reasoning has lead to higher dimensional thinking.

From computation theory we know that there is no time or no continuous time arrow. In a distributed system (all reality is such) there exist only partial ordered events. Thus physics based on time is just approximative in respect to all quantities that integrate over time like energy. Obviously we live in 4D as GER shows but as already Einstein knew: GER is correct local only and thus the concept of time only works in close proximity. Mills 4D approach already works better than GER for cosmological calculations as it restricts GER to 2D what is enough to reproduce the claimed solved mysteries like the Mercury perihelion.

The last step is to understand that there are no point particles and we need a higher order topology to reproduce the correct charge surface.

Quote from Wyttenbach

From computation theory we know that there is no time or no continuous time arrow. In a distributed system (all reality is such) there exist only partial ordered events. Thus physics based on time is just approximative in respect to all quantities that integrate over time like energy. Obviously we live in 4D as GER shows but as already Einstein knew: GER is correct local only and thus the concept of time only works in close proximity. Mills 4D approach already works better than GER for cosmological calculations as it restricts GER to 2D what is enough to reproduce the claimed solved mysteries like the Mercury perihelion.

The last step is to understand that there are no point particles and we need a higher order topology to reproduce the correct charge surface.

Agreed.
No point charges, that means dimensions in the nucleus of the atom. Thus we need the structure of the nucleus in order to understand local differences.

For a proposal for the structure of the nucleus I presented the Structured Atom Model on several occasions, hoping to inspire others to take a good look at it and in that process see the huge advantage such a model offers for understanding what we are dealing with here.

Edo Very thought provoking theory! I have a major curiousity about some particular points. Firstly how does this match up with compounding experimental results, regardless of experimenter's theories, with exothermic products and input/output energies lower than expected for the particular nuclear reaction yet still dense? Transmutation spectrograph reports with relatively low input and <100keV average per reaction. I am not saying nuclear reactions aren't occuring I'm implying they may not be the actual novel source of excess energy. Again the key is in measuring of mass/energy changes and input/output power numbers per interaction in all positive hydrogen/metal/catalyst reactor systems before formulating a theory. I like that it appears like more than one element nucleus is inside a single atom and the proton/electron ultimately being the two fundamental particles. Molecules at lower electron orbits, involving H isotopes with themselves and compatible metals in precise conditions, would give similar if not more accurate experiment reflecting results. Thanks for sharing.