Frollov-Alexander · Source catalogue

Three-page note. Frolov argues that the electric potential field can move charges without power loss in the source, and that a 'wattless' (displacement) current can be turned into a 'wattful' (conduction) current in a load, giving 'free energy'. He cites Bearden's 'massless current' and describes a home experiment: a 30 V, 10 kHz generator feeds a step-up transformer (2-5 kV); a pair of diodes ('Avramenko's plug') is connected to the single high-voltage wire and the transformer, and the load is a 10 nF capacitor with a 0.5-1 mm spark gap. Sparking at 1-10 Hz. He computes spark energy A = 0.5*C*V^2 and P = A*f; for V = 2 kV, C = 10 nF, f = 5 Hz he gets 0.1 W, versus 3 W DC (30 V, 0.1 A) consumed by the generator, i.e. about 3% of input, which he calls 'free' because it is not tied to conduction current in the source circuit. A second, high-frequency version (about 30-50 V, over 100 kHz, lamp load) is attributed to Avramenko: 60 mA at 50 V gives 3 W. He concludes that power in the load depends on the amplitude of a longitudinal wave of displacement current, which could be raised by resonance, and notes polarity asymmetry for unipolar pulses. He ends by saying Tesla demonstrated single-wire power transmission in London in 1892. Check of the arithmetic [read + own calculation]: 0.5 x 1e-8 F x (2000 V)^2 = 0.02 J per spark; x 5 Hz = 0.1 W. The numbers are internally consistent, but they show output (0.1 W) well below input (3 W), so the measured data by themselves do not show over-unity. The article gives no measurement of input power at the generator under load versus no load, and no waveform measurements. A diode pair acting as rectifier charging a capacitor from an AC high-voltage source is also a textbook arrangement that would explain the output without new physics.

Key claims

• A closed circuit is what drains the source; a single-wire connection carrying only displacement current delivers power to a load without conduction current in the source circuit.
• Power in a spark-gap/capacitor load connected through Avramenko's diode plug on a single wire is free of cost to the generator.
• With V = 2 kV, C = 10 nF and 5 Hz sparking, the load power is 0.1 W, while the generator consumes 3 W DC (about 3% efficiency).
• With a lamp load at 100 kHz and 50 V, Avramenko's plug delivers 60 mA (3 W) in the load.
• For unipolar pulsed drive, load power is greatest when the diodes are on the positive pulsed pole of the coil.
• Load power can be raised by increasing the amplitude of the longitudinal displacement-current wave in resonance, and generator power is unimportant.
• Tesla transmitted power along a single wire in London in 1892.

Relevance: Earliest and most concrete experimental claim by Frolov in the folder; gives actual numbers that can be checked. Introduces the Avramenko plug, wattless/wattful current, and the link to Bearden and Tesla.

Mainstream conflict: Mainstream treats displacement current as part of the ordinary Maxwell equations, with no separate 'longitudinal wave' carrying power for free. Any steady power in a load must be supplied by the source (energy conservation); the article's own figures show output below input. 'Wattless current' normally means reactive current, which does transfer no net power. The claim of free energy from the potential field conflicts with conservation of energy; the single-wire capacitive coupling effect itself is conventional.

An 18-page magazine article with a full text layer. PDF pages are used here (PDF p.1 = magazine p.11; PDF p.N = magazine p.N+10). Frolov argues that the vacuum ('aether') is a source of energy and that the potential (scalar) field can do real work 'without fuel'. The conception is dated 1995 (PDF p.1). Closed-trajectory argument (PDF pp.1-5, deep read): it contains NO equation. Frolov concedes in words that the work of a potential field on a closed path is zero, but says this holds only if one part of the work is positive and another negative; the negative part 'can be excluded' by spatial superposition, pulsing, change of interaction polarity or screening, so the closed-path work 'can be formed as two or more parts of positive work'. He never accounts for the energy needed to move, switch or drive the screen or pulse generator, and for a static conservative field the closed-path result is a theorem; the loophole works only for time-dependent fields or screens that cost energy (reviewer analysis, not Frolov's). He asks 'what is the source of the power?' and answers not with an energy balance but with 'space-time / aether density', Whittaker-Bearden photons and anti-photons, and a four-dimensional balance in which entropy in direct time is matched by anti-entropy in reversed time (total energy 'equal to zero', quoting G. Naan 1964). So Claim 1 has an engineering form (testable only by measuring input and output energy, none reported) and a metaphysical form (untestable as stated). Also in pp.1-5: perpetual-motion kinds 1-3, 'negative conductivity' circuits, Orffyreus and Bhaskar. Figures 1-3 (page images viewed): Fig.1 is two unlabelled vacuum-tube drawings (normal order cathode-grid-anode, and the 'grid under cathode' order), with the text claiming emission current rises 'by means of the potential on the grid only'; no circuit, load, meter or data. Fig.2 is two circuit diagrams of a pulsed mode: battery connected while electrons cross the tube, then disconnected before they arrive so that the energy appears as current in a resistor R; no timing, waveform or energy balance, and it ignores the energy the battery supplied while connected. Fig.3 is the single-wire 'Avramenko diodes plug' circuit: two diodes at the end of a line fed from a high-voltage transformer (Frolov used a television high-voltage unit), quarter-wave (lambda/4) chokes, a load such as a luminescent bulb or a charging capacitor. He says the wire carries 'information signal' by Faraday polarization current, may be made of tungsten without heating, and that resonance is the high-efficiency mode ('in my experiments it was determined'); no frequency, voltage, efficiency number or instrument is given, and he writes 'it is not difficult to repeat'. Frolov's own 1995 flat-spiral-coil experiment (PDF p.4): the whole description is one paragraph. A Tesla-style flat spiral secondary with a solenoid primary shows 'asymmetrical mutual induction', i.e. connecting an active load (lamp) is 'free from input power in the primary'. 'I have to claim' marks it as an assertion. No quantity measured, no instruments, no turns, frequency, voltage or powers, no publication; standard theory has symmetric mutual inductance (M12 = M21) and a load always reflects into the primary, but with no data nothing can be checked. Strebkov sentence (PDF p.5): 'In 2001-2003 New Energy Technologies magazine have published new experimental results on single-wire power transmission reported by research team from Moscow (Prof. Strebkov, Avramenko, Nekrasov and others). For example, they built and tested lines from 20 to 100 Kwtt power level!' The only dated source is ref [8], New Energy Technologies #5(8), 2002, in Frolov's own journal; it is not cited by number at that sentence. No voltage, frequency, wire, length, efficiency, load, tester or independent witness is given, and the cited paper is not in the folder. Even if true, a resonant single-wire line obeys ordinary conservation (Frolov himself writes 'in each receiver the power can't be more than power of this generator'), so it would not by itself support Claim 1. Other pp.1-9 survey content (digest and text reading): Tesla coils and resonance transformer ('efficiency can be more than 100%', p.4), Tesla's 1934 car (no source), T. T. Brown capacitors (GB 300,311, 1927; US 3,187,206; 'efficiency ... million to one', p.5; Frolov excludes 'electrokinetic' ion flow although the cited patent's Fig.4 is titled 'Electrokinetic apparatus'), Hubbard, Hendershot, Cooper, unbalanced wheels, Searle disks, Godin-Roshin (7 kW, 100 kg axial force), Floyd Sweet's vacuum triode amplifier (magnets self-cooling 'about 20 degrees', no unit), Zaev dielectric cooling. Figures 4-7 were not viewed as images. Second half (PDF pp.10-16, deep read): the article gives almost no measured data of its own; Frolov's experiments are one to four sentences each, no instruments, no waveforms, no power values (the only number is 'about 300 mA'). His own claims: (a) a ferrite-core alternator (motor spins an iron plate between a magnet and a coil) whose ferrite core 'is self-cooling', no temperatures (p.11); (b) rotor 'accelerated by the secondary field (back-EMF)', 'several experiments' 1994-2003, 'claimed in the patent description, Fig.11' (patent not identified; Fig.11 photo shows a bench prototype with an unlabelled hand-held multimeter, no reading given; 'accelerated' is not by itself an energy-gain claim) (p.12); (c) an arc in the transformer secondary shows 'negative resistance': consumed current falls to zero and 'can change its direction', about 300 mA, measured 'in DC battery circuit' so 'no phase shift' error, one effect demonstrated at the 1996 St Petersburg conference, larger spark gap gives more surplus (a testable dependence); Frolov says Chernetsky's pinch explanation (hundreds of amperes) does not apply and proposes electron acceleration in the gap. The DC battery argument answers only AC phase errors, not averaging of pulsed current, stored energy or battery sag (reading note) (p.13); (d) an argument, not an experiment, that electrolysis needs no primary power because the field moves the ions (p.14); (e) assertions that free-energy systems change causality and that Kozyrev gyroscope data are a basis for teleportation (p.16). Also two Russian ferrite heat-to-electricity patent applications of 1983 (#3601725/07 and #3601726/25) (p.10). Second-hand reports (each states no named measurement unless noted): Methernitha (750 kW total since 1980, 20 cm disk 200 W, 3 m disk 30 kW; photo only), Hide US 4,897,592 (patent only), Reed motor, Johnson US 4,151,431 ('It is reported' about 5 kW; filed 1973, granted 1979), Adams (10 kW only a plan, from correspondence), Echlin US 4,567,407, Swenson (7.5 Hz, 375 kHz, 10 m antenna; Fig.12 schematic shows no diode although the text mentions one), Moray (>50 kW; Yakovlev visit Nov 1929 stated without result), RQM 25/200 kW (Frolov doubts the firm), Koler 60 kW, de Palma unipolar (his own 1991 tests, no numbers), MITI 1994 40 kW superconducting unipolar report (unidentified), Lambertson 1600 W per unit, Chernetsky/Galkin self-generated discharge (1971 transformer destroyed by 'reversed current' 10 times consumed power; unsourced incident), Latchinov 1888 electrolysis, Goriatchev (0.2 V pulsed electrolysis, 1500%), Kanarev, Correa US 5,416,391 and 5,449,989 (483% in a conference report), Serogodsky/Scheffer German patent 4244016 (154 C), Buynov N2O4 proposal (theory only), Filimonenko 'warm nuclear synthesis' (1957), TOPAZ, Patterson cell, ENECO, AECL 1995 review (Frolov's paraphrase of scalar-field processing is unquoted). Suppression allegations (Frolov's, mostly unsourced): Filimonenko supported by Kurchatov, Korolev and Zhukov in 1960 with a secret resolution (source: 'de-classified materials of 1960', unidentified), later 'suppressed by people of nuclear power plant team'; a 1994 Moscow City Council commission in 'Russian Ideas' #1-6 recommending renewal (named source, not seen); Frolov's own suggestion of a military motive is labelled an assumption; Johnson's 1973-1979 delay attributed to 'perpetuum mobile' (dates given, reason inferred); Russian institutes blocking new ideas; 'two worlds' of evident and hidden knowledge; an economic and oil-policy argument ('It is not physics but policy'). Appendices (PDF pp.17-18, digest only): patent lists and addresses of free-energy organisations. Internal tensions: the article says receiver power cannot exceed generator power (p.5) yet that resonant efficiency can exceed 100% (p.4). Evidence summary: Frolov's own work has a photo or prototype for the ferrite alternator and one public demonstration (1996) of the arc effect, with no quantitative data or independent measurement for any; second-hand items are patent-only, reported-number-only, planned (Adams), or theory-only (Buynov).

Key claims

• Frolov dates his closed-trajectory conception to 1995 and states it only in words (no equation, units or numbers appear in the argument, PDF pp.1-5).
• The work of a potential (scalar) field around a closed trajectory can be net positive if the negative-work part of the cycle is removed by pulsing, spatial gradient, polarity change or screening.
• Frolov concedes that closed-path work of a potential field is zero when positive and negative parts cancel, but claims the negative part can be removed by screening, pulsing or polarity change so the closed-path work is two or more parts of positive work; the argument contains no equation and no accounting of the energy cost of the switching or screening.
• A vacuum tube with the grid under the cathode raises emission current 'by the potential on the grid only' (Fig.1), and a pulsed anode source cut off before the electrons arrive does not discharge the battery (Fig.2); both are unlabelled schematics with no data and no energy balance.
• Energy conservation holds only when generalized to a four-dimensional balance: entropy-increasing processes in forward time are balanced by anti-entropy processes in reversed time, so free power in a load does not violate conservation.
• The physical vacuum (aether) is an unlimited energy source, and its density sets the 'rate of time' (Kozyrev), so output of free-energy devices should vary with season and time of day.
• A single-wire resonant line with an Avramenko diode plug (two diodes, lambda/4 chokes, Fig.3) transmits power by polarization (displacement) current without heating the wire (even a tungsten line), and 20-100 kW lines were 'built and tested' by a Moscow team (Strebkov et al.; only source is ref [8], #5(8) 2002, in Frolov's own journal; no figures given).
• A flat spiral secondary coil coupled to a solenoid primary gives 'asymmetrical mutual induction', so a lamp load is 'free from input power in the primary' (Frolov's own 1995 experiment, one paragraph: no quantity measured, no instruments, no numbers, no publication).
• Resonant transformers (Tesla) can reach efficiency above 100%.
• T. T. Brown's high-voltage asymmetric capacitors produce propulsion without ionization (reactionless thrust) and the 'efficiency can be million to one'.
• Floyd Sweet's vacuum triode amplifier produced output power with magnet self-cooling of about 20 degrees and a weight decrease proportional to output power.
• A capacitor with one small and one large plate produces a net force on a dielectric ball from the gradient of the field, usable as a no-fuel force against gravity.
• Unbalanced-wheel and variable-topology gravity machines can run permanently because the lifting and lowering stages are different physical systems.
• A ferrite core in a generator coil, with an iron plate spun through the gap between a magnet and the coil, self-cools (Frolov's own experiment; no temperatures or instruments given).
• A generator rotor can be accelerated by the secondary field (back-EMF) if flux decreases on approach and increases on departure; several experiments 1994-2003, patented (Fig.11), no numbers.
• An arc in a transformer secondary can show negative resistance: consumed DC battery current falls to zero and can reverse, with bigger spark gap giving more surplus; tested at about 300 mA; demonstrated in 1996 at St Petersburg (Frolov's own; no power values).
• Electrolysis needs no primary power because the field, not the battery, moves the ions, so the gases burned can give more heat than the input electric power (argument only, no experiment).
• Second-hand device claims: Methernitha 750 kW total, Moray over 50 kW, Koler 60 kW, Johnson 5 kW, Lambertson 1600 W per unit, Goriatchev 1500% and Correa 483% electrolysis or discharge efficiency, MITI 40 kW superconducting unipolar generator, de Palma unipolar rotor with reduced back-EMF drag; none has a named independent measurement in the document.
• Serogodsky/Scheffer (benzene-water retro-condensation at 154 C) and Buynov (N2O4 paired cycle) propose heat-to-work machines of the second kind.
• Filimonenko's 1957 heavy-water electrolysis extra power was backed by Kurchatov, Korolev and Zhukov in 1960 under a secret resolution and later suppressed; a 1994 Moscow City Council commission recommended renewal (allegation by Frolov, source cited but not seen).
• Johnson's permanent magnet motor patent took 1973 to 1979 because it was a 'perpetuum mobile' (the dates are given; the reason is Frolov's inference).
• Frolov asserts a 'two worlds' thesis (evident vs hidden knowledge in old patents) and an oil-economics motive for neglect of free energy ('It is not physics but policy'); sourced only to his own reading of patents (PDF p.16).

Relevance: Frolov's broadest statement of his theory, linking the 1994 single-wire experiment to Bearden's ideas, Kozyrev, Tesla, Brown and Sweet. Shows the style of his argument: theoretical reinterpretation plus a survey of other people's anomalous claims. The 2003 article's own experimental evidence is thin: the 1995 coil experiment, the 300 mA arc test and the ferrite self-cooling each rest on one to four sentences with no instruments or power figures.

Mainstream conflict: Conflicts with conservation of energy and the second law (perpetual motion kinds 1-3), the standard result that a conservative force does zero net work around a closed path in a time-independent field (time-varying fields can do net work, but the energy then comes from whoever varies the field), with causality (reversed-time anti-processes), and with the absence of any measured 'density of time' or aether. Brown's thrust is generally attributed to ion wind in air. Sweet's and Searle's devices were not independently confirmed as far as the author states (no source in the document). Claims about replications and tests are Frolov's reports and are not independently documented in the file. Further: a ferrite core cooling while delivering electrical work from one heat reservoir would violate the second law (Kelvin-Planck); a generator whose back-torque accelerates the rotor, with no accounted input, would violate energy conservation; electrolysis needs at least the Gibbs free energy (1.23 V per electron pair for water) from the source, so 'free' gases burned for more heat than the input would violate energy conservation; Serogodsky and Buynov proposals are second-kind machines. Real, ordinary physics also sits in these pages: arcs can show negative differential resistance, and DC battery measurements do not exclude averaging or stored-energy errors, which the article does not address.