Central claims: Ainslie-Rosemary-Ann
Source gap (revised after QE). All six documents now have extracted text: the Quantum article (5 pages), the Pretoria News clipping (1 page) and the patent bundle (43 pages) by OCR, the other three by text layer. The patent's Examples 1-3 (pp.19-32) and the Quantum article were deep-read; the patent's description (pp.3-18) and claims (pp.33-38), the Kelly compilation and most of the magnetic-field paper (pp.10-16, 23-37) rest on digests only. What is still missing from the folder: the raw oscilloscope data (sampled shunt waveforms and spreadsheet), the ABB, Cape Hope Metrology Laboratory and BP test reports, any third-party replication, the patent claims in full, and how the 0.039 A gate-supply current was obtained. Conclusions about those items rest on the author's own account or on [memory].
- A simple battery-driven circuit (555 timer, MOSFET, air-core inductive "resistor" with flyback diode) dissipated about 17.5 W as heat in the load while the battery supplied only about 1.13 W, a gain of roughly 16 to 18 times, over 997 minutes (16.5 hours) with no measurable battery voltage fall (Quantum 2002; 2009 reprint). Details the reviews must keep in view: the 1.13 W comes from a 1.2 microsecond sample window (about a fifth of one cycle at 143-200 kHz); the stated 1.22 MJ disagrees with 17.53 W x 59,820 s = 1.049 MJ; the separate 12 V gate battery (0.039 A, method of derivation not stated) is not in the balance and would add roughly 40% to the input.
- The gain comes from counter electromotive force (back EMF) from the switched inductor, with part of the returning energy flowing back into the battery, and it grows with switching frequency. - 2a. Patent bench tests (earlier, 1998-1999): Example 1 COP 1.086 (22 ohm test resistor against a 68 ohm control, 8.6% with a 5% allowance); Example 2 "100 percent above unity" (actual ratio 2.45, with the battery-2 waveform discarded and the average-as-rms slip); Example 3 load/battery ratio 0.976 to 1.176 at 50-90% duty, whose table is internally inconsistent (V/I rms gives 2.96-5.24 ohm for a 6.3 ohm load; with 6.3 ohm the ratios are 0.46-0.94). The three examples use different methods and do not corroborate one another.
- With the gate resistor tuned, the circuit self-oscillates far above its 555 timer setting (143-200 kHz at about 1.3% duty in 2002; over 500 kHz at about 55% per Kelly), and this is what makes the gain appear. The 2002 article says results depend on "the precise components used" and also that they are "easily repeatable"; the 2009 paper still quotes 2.4 kHz and 3.7% duty. The patent regime (50-99% duty, 40 Hz or more) is a different operating regime again.
- The result breaches the efficiency limit of unity, so conventional energy-transfer models do not constrain electromagnetic energy transfer; the extra energy is said to come from an unseen medium or environment (Kelly's reading) or from magnetic fields bound in the resistor (the author's reading, 2009 appendix and Pretoria News sidebar). Kelly further asserts "COP 4 to 17" for Ainslie techniques, a prototype above four times input and a self-charging battery variant; these are third-party claims with no data in the folder.
- Electric current is the movement of discrete magnetic dipole particles ("zipons", tachyons moving at about twice light speed) and magnetism is a primary force; this unifying field model predicted the over-unity result and may resolve non-locality, dark matter, gravity and the proton/electron mass ratio (an electron is three "truants", a proton is three electrons). The mass-ratio "derivation" is 3 x 6^2 + 3 x 24^2 = 1836, an integer sum with an unjustified factor of 4 and a cosmetic add-and-subtract of 1.5; the model's own units give 1224, not 1836, and the real ratio is 1836.15267.
- Mainstream institutions refused to test or evaluate the claim (the author says Stellenbosch University refused even a demonstration) while companies and bodies (ABB, BP, Sasol, Spescom/Fluke, Cape Hope Metrology Laboratory) tested, attended or supported it. In the sources, ABB and BP results are not quoted, the named bodies "approved the inclusion of their name" rather than endorsing the result, the Stellenbosch refusal is only Ainslie's statement, and the MTN ScienCentre noted she could not supply the oscilloscope used to display the waveforms.