Gray-EV: Arbiter report (Step 3)

Inputs: facts.json, claims.md, physicist.md, mathematician.md, contrarian.md. Source folder (read only): source folder: Gray-EV.

Read this first: a "QE revision" section at the end of this file corrects several facts used below (who said "violate all the laws of physics", the 3,500 V figure, Claim 4's "not in the patents", the Japanese visit, the charges). Where a sentence below is superseded it is marked [superseded: see QE revision]. No verdict label changed; the reasons for Claims 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 did.

Source gap (revised after QE)

[superseded: see QE revision] The first-pass note said the patents had no text layer. Step 0 OCR now gives full text of all four patents; US 3,890,548 and US 4,595,975 have been deep-read. Still missing: the Crosby test reports ("available at EvGray"), any data from the TRW eyewitness test or the Japanese visit, and court/DA records. The press items rest on page-image reads by the QE deep readers, not on the three reviewers (who worked from a Step 1 summary of garbled OCR). Where a conclusion rests on [memory] or press text alone, it says so.

I did not read the arbiter-level page images again. I relied on the three reviewers, who agree with each other on the letter's contents.

Corrections to Step 1 (all three reviewers agree; I accept them)

• The Crosby letter says efficiency "exceeds 99%", not 100% [read: page image, per all three reviewers]. The ">100%" is the press's reading.
• Letter figure is 26.8 W (TATTLER reprint: 26.9). Signer J. A. Maize, Director of Engineering; notary seal attests the signature only.
• static_generator.pdf is an EvGray sales sheet for solid-state inverters (45 W from 12 V; "no moving parts"), not a static-electricity device [read: page image, per contrarian and mathematician].
• [superseded: see QE revision] The "18 capacitors at 3,500 V" detail is confirmed: Fig. 2 of US 3,890,548 labels the capacitor banks "18 CAPACITORS 3500 VOLTS EACH" [read: page image p.2, per QE deep read].

Recomputed numbers (where reviewers differed or I wanted to check)

All reviewers' arithmetic reproduced. No numerical disagreements between them.

Web checks done (budget: WebSearch exhausted; two WebFetch calls usable)

• Fair-weather field about 100 V/m and current density about 2 pA/m^2 (the Claim 4 verdict depends on these): retagged from [memory] medium to [web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_electricity] (field "around 100 V/m"; current "about 2 picoamperes per square meter").
• US 3,890,548 filed 2 Nov 1973, granted 17 Jun 1975, inventor Edwin V. Gray, and the "conservation of energy" wording: [web: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3890548A/en] (per mathematician and contrarian).
• Claim 5 facts (eight counts, dropped, plea to two securities counts in 1976, 788 stockholders, about $2 million): web check failed (search budget exhausted; the Wikipedia fetch for Gray returned nothing relevant). These remain press-sourced and [memory] low; no verdict below depends on them being true, only on motive being undocumented.
• "Pulsed input under-read by DC meters" as a common error class: [memory] medium, not web-checked. It is a hypothesis, not a finding; no verdict depends on it (the verdict on the physical claim follows from the energy budget alone).
• Spark-gap losses, flyback practice, battery charge acceptance: [memory] high/medium, not web-checked; no verdict depends on them.

---

Claim 1. Pulsed capacitor-discharge motor (US 3,890,548)

• Agree: all three say mathematically consistent, ordinary pulse-power engineering, nothing in mainstream physics at stake, no neutral test of output or efficiency. All give Plausible, untested.
• Disagree: none on the verdict. Physicist adds "Established as pulse-power practice" for the mechanism, mathematician notes a scale check (407 J per revolution at 100% conversion; about 66 uF at 3,500 V, but the 3,500 V is unverified).
• Stronger argument: the mathematician's and contrarian's point that "current is needed only at the instant of discharge" says nothing about energy: energy per pulse is (1/2)CV^2 times pulse rate. The patent itself does not claim otherwise.
• Tested status: never properly tested. One informal observation (TRW's Cronin: the test he watched "ran for about 10 seconds and then everything blew", AP, 7 Jul 1975 [read: page image p.2]; the earlier "not convincing" wording was wrong) is a reported failure with no data, not a controlled test. Not dismissed without testing, but also not properly tested. [revised: see QE revision]
• Settles it: run the motor on a dynamometer for an hour with an instrumented input (below).
• Final verdict: Plausible, untested.

Claim 2. 10 hp for about 26.8 W; "efficiency over 100%"; 203 hours

• Agree: all three: the letter is internally inconsistent (99% vs 27,800%; "watts per hour"; 9.75 vs 26.8 W; 21-min run extrapolated to 203 h); the physical claim as stated is excluded by the energy budget; real performance never neutrally measured; the letter is promoter-side (testers were Pan World Enterprises and EvGray engineers; the letter is addressed to Crosby at the institute's own address), notary seal attests only the signature.
• Disagree (minor): how to word the verdict (physicist and contrarian split three ways; mathematician similar). Contrarian adds that "dismissed without testing" applies only partly: the deputy DA's "violates all the laws of physics" was a prior-based dismissal; Cronin saw 10 s. [superseded: the "laws of physics" remark was Cronin's (TRW), an eyewitness of a failed run, not the deputy DA's; see QE revision] Physicist and mathematician offer a mundane explanation (pulsed-current mismeasurement); contrarian correctly marks this as an unconfirmed hypothesis. I agree with the contrarian: no instrument details exist.
• Stronger argument: the contrarian's observation that 21 min at 10 hp (2,611 Wh) fits within the 5,454 Wh bank means the demonstration is not impossible; the "anomaly" exists only in the claimed meter reading. Also a decisive test was cheap and was not run or published in 1973-76.
• Tested / never tested / dismissed: Tested: no controlled test on record. Never properly tested: the real machine's input power. Dismissed without testing: not by the DA's remark (misattributed; see QE revision); no formal test was refused or blocked per the folder. One informal instrumented visit by a Japanese firm and one TRW eyewitness run are reported negative, with no data.
• Settles it: wideband power analyser (kHz-MHz) integrating v(t) x i(t) at the battery terminals plus before/after battery watt-hour discharge, during a dynamometer run of hours, by an independent lab.
• Final verdict (split):
• The claim as a physical statement (10 hp for 26.8 W from batteries alone): Refuted by calculation (278:1; 1,514 kWh from 5.45 kWh).
• The letter as a test report: Internally inconsistent.
• The machine's real performance: Never properly tested.

Claim 3. Back-EMF capture returns most of the energy (GB 2,030,801; US 4,595,975; US 4,661,747)

• Agree: all three: GB 2,030,801 is a standard freewheel/flyback recovery circuit; patents claim only "more efficient use of energy" / "energy conserving system"; no quantitative recovery fraction claimed; strong form excluded.
• Disagree: physicist gives the strong form "Never properly tested ... if net gain, Refuted"; mathematician and contrarian give "Refuted by calculation". I side with the latter pair: a recovery path returns only residual reactive energy (1/2)LI^2 that was first drawn from the source, and mechanical work delivered to the rotor is never returned. Physicist's example: L = 10 mH, I = 20 A leaves 2 J versus 20 J in a 10 uF, 2,000 V capacitor; I reproduced 2 J and 20 J (illustrative numbers, not Gray's).
• Caveat: "most of the energy is recycled" is not in the patent claims; it is a promoter paraphrase (Hackenberger, TATTLER 1973). [revised: US 4,595,975 has now been read in full and makes no net-gain claim; US 4,661,747 is still digest-only. See QE revision.]
• Tested status: circuit principle tested for decades in power electronics [memory, high]. Gray's actual recovery fraction was never measured in anything in the folder.
• Settles it: measure energy returned to battery 2 or the second capacitor per pulse (integral of v x i over the recovery phase) against energy drawn per pulse.
• Final verdict (split): weak form (partial recovery of coil reactive energy) Established; strong form (net gain or self-running) Refuted by calculation; Gray's specific recovery fraction Never properly tested.

Claim 4. "Cold", static or atmospheric electricity

• Agree: "cold electricity" has no definition or measurable property; "cold electricity" does not appear in the patents (US 3,890,548 attributes operation to conservation of energy); it comes from promoter/press text. [superseded in part: US 3,890,548 does describe a "static floating flux field" harness; see QE revision]
• Disagree: the atmospheric sub-claim. Physicist: Refuted by calculation. Mathematician: Refuted by calculation (field energy density 4.4e-8 J/m^3, reproduced). Contrarian: Never properly tested, since it is not in the patents and nobody tested it.
• Resolution: the contrarian is right about status (nobody ran an experiment) but the calculation stands. Using the web-checked values (100 V/m, 2 pA/m^2), the ground-level power density is about 2e-10 W/m^2, so 7,460 W needs about 3.7e7 km^2 of collector (about 7% of Earth's surface). Both calculations assume the machine's power really were 7.46 kW and that the source is the fair-weather field. This is an order-of-magnitude argument, not a proof about all possible atmospheric sources (lightning, for example, is a different regime, and nothing in the folder describes any collector). I keep the split: it is Refuted by calculation for powering a 7.46 kW motor from the fair-weather field, and the broader sub-claim "taps atmospheric static" is simply not specified by any document, so no experiment could have been run. Static_generator.pdf uses "static" to mean no moving parts.
• Tested / never tested / dismissed: never tested; not dismissed with a test; no one defined what to test.
• Settles it: Gray or a successor would have to define "cold electricity" with a measurable (e.g. a waveform, a calorimetric difference). Absent that, a test with the battery input fully metered (Claim 2) makes it moot: if input is accounted, nothing is left to explain.
• Final verdict: Not testable as stated ("cold electricity"); the atmospheric-supply reading Refuted by calculation (power budget, [web] field values); no experimental test exists.

Claim 5. The 1974-76 LA DA raid and prosecution were meant to suppress the invention

• Agree: all three: not a physics claim; the documented facts (raid, charges, eventual plea) fit ordinary investor-protection enforcement and also fit suppression, so they do not discriminate; no documentary evidence of intent in the folder; a prosecution says nothing about whether the motor works. Facts are press-sourced (tabloid TATTLER, AP, magazine); court records not seen; web check failed.
• Disagree: physicist labelled the factual part "Never properly tested", which is a mislabel (that scale entry is for testable physical claims). The contrarian's separation (events documented per press; motive Not testable as stated and unsupported) is clearer and I adopt it. Contrarian's point that a deputy DA's "violates all the laws of physics" is an appeal to theory, not a test, [superseded: the remark was Cronin's, not the DA's; see QE revision] is fair as a general point; but fraud turns on what investors were told, and the letter's own 278:1 vs 99% contradiction is relevant to that. That is inference, not evidence of intent. The guilty plea (per press) weighs against the suppression thesis, without being proof either way.
• Settles it: DA and court files (charges, plea terms, investigator memos, the brochure given to investors), plus any record of requests for an independent test.
• Final verdict: motive claim Not testable as stated from the sources held, and unsupported by them; events as reported are press-level documentation only. Relevant to physics: none.

---

Corrected claim list

1. Gray's pulsed capacitor-discharge repulsion motor (US 3,890,548) fires rotor and stator electromagnets through spark gaps; current flows only during each discharge, but the energy per pulse is still drawn from the source. Plausible, untested.
2. A promoter-side letter (Crosby Research Institute, Sept 1973, signed J. A. Maize) says the motor gave 10 hp (7,460 W) at 1,100 rpm on 26.8 W (9.75 "watts" in a 21-min run) of battery draw, with 203 h of runtime on 5,454 Wh, and also says efficiency "exceeds 99%" (tested for Pan World Enterprises, described by TATTLER as a Japanese conglomerate). Physical claim Refuted by calculation; the letter Internally inconsistent; real performance Never properly tested (informal reported negatives: TRW's Cronin saw a run that "ran for about 10 seconds and then everything blew"; no data published).
3. The patents (GB 2,030,801; US 4,595,975; US 4,661,747) return collapsing-coil energy to a battery or capacitor; they claim only a "more efficient use of energy" (US 4,595,975 read in full: no numbers, no net-gain claim). Weak form Established; strong "most energy recycled / net gain" form Refuted by calculation; Gray's actual recovery fraction Never properly tested.
4. Promoter and press say the motor uses "cold", partly static or atmospheric electricity (the phrase is not in the patents, but US 3,890,548 describes a delay-coil harness "believed to provide a static floating flux field", with no stated function). Not testable as stated; atmospheric supply of 7.46 kW Refuted by calculation.
5. Gray and TATTLER say the 1974-76 LA DA case was suppression. Not testable as stated; unsupported by the documents read; the raid (July 1974), charges (May 1975: 1 conspiracy, 8 grand theft, 3 securities violation) and plea (late March 1976, two minor securities counts, per a promotional feature) are press-reported only.

What would settle it

• Claims 1-3 (one experiment): an independent lab runs the machine on a calibrated dynamometer for hours with a wideband power analyser at the battery terminals and the recovery battery/capacitor, plus before/after battery watt-hour discharge. Output work compared with net battery energy. Over-unity means net battery energy loss far below mechanical work; the likely result is input near output over efficiency (about 10-90%).
• Claim 3 alone: per-pulse energy ledger: (1/2)CV^2 drawn, work out, energy returned.
• Claim 4: a definition with a measurable consequence; otherwise the metered test above makes it moot.
• Claim 5: DA/court records and the investor prospectus.
• Reading gap: full text of the patents, and the "test reports available at EvGray".

Open questions

• What did the 1973 test meters actually measure, and where in the circuit? (The pulsed-current mismeasurement hypothesis is [memory] medium and unconfirmed.)
• Why did the TRW-witnessed run end after about 10 s with "everything blew", and was the Japanese firm's instrumented visit the same event? (Cronin's account only; no date, firm name or data.)
• Did US 4,661,747 make any quantitative recovery claim? (US 4,595,975: none. 4,661,747 is digest-only.)
• What is the court-record outcome of the 1974-76 case, and what were investors told about efficiency?
• [answered by the QE deep read] US 3,890,548 gives 3,500 V and 18 capacitors (Fig. 18) but no capacitance, inductance, frequency or power. Still open: what the "static floating flux field" coil is for.

Verdict summary

1. Plausible, untested.
2. Physical claim Refuted by calculation; letter Internally inconsistent; real machine Never properly tested.
3. Weak form Established; strong form Refuted by calculation; actual recovery fraction Never properly tested.
4. Not testable as stated; atmospheric-supply reading Refuted by calculation.
5. Not testable as stated (motive unsupported).

---

QE revision (after qe.md and the Step 4b deep reads)

Inputs: qe.md (verdict MINOR); deep reads of various-articles (Opus), US 3,890,548 (Opus), US 4,595,975, gray-suppressed, ems-electronic-power and static-generator (Sonnet), all from page images or full OCR; updated claims.md and facts.json. No new web checks were run in this revision. The atmospheric values stay [web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_electricity] from the first pass, and the legal facts stay press-sourced (below).

Outcome in one paragraph

No verdict label changes. Every physics verdict (energy budget, flyback recovery, atmospheric supply) depends only on the arithmetic, which QE reproduced. What changes is the testing history, the dismissal narrative, and several facts. Tags below: [read: page image p.N] means the QE deep reader's own read of the page.

New evidence and corrections

1. Who said "violate all the laws of physics" (Claims 2, 5). Withdrawn from the Deputy DA. The AP item (Progress Bulletin, Pomona, 7 Jul 1975) gives it to Donald Cronin, a TRW staff scientist who "watched a test of the motor about a year ago" (mid-1974); the lede's unnamed "specialist in energy engineering" is almost certainly AP paraphrasing Cronin. Deputy DA Mitchell Harris said only that two DA investigators "went down to see and got hustled themselves - they invested money of their own for a while, but later got it back" [read: page image p.2]. So the contrarian's and my earlier point that this was "a prior-based dismissal by a prosecutor" is withdrawn. Cronin's remark is an eyewitness's conditional ("If he did what he says it does...") after a failed run, which is different.
2. The test Cronin saw. "It ran for about 10 seconds and then everything blew" [read: page image p.2]; my earlier "not convincing" was wrong. He adds that a Japanese research firm "had come with an elaborate amount of equipment - gauges, instruments, TV cameras - and were ready to sign a letter of intent. After the test, they packed it all up and went back to Japan." No date, firm name or data.
3. Was the Japanese visit the Pan World / Crosby test? Unresolved. QE's suggestion that the Crosby tester "was probably the instrumented group that declined to invest" goes beyond the sources, as the deep read shows. TATTLER says Crosby's J. A. Maize tested "on behalf of Pan World Enterprises Company, Ltd., a Japanese conglomerate" [read: page image p.3]; Crosby, not the Japanese party, ran the machine; the letter is dated Sept 1973 and Cronin's test is about mid-1974, ten months later. Gray says he turned the Japanese money down ("We could have had all that Japanese money last year"); Cronin says the Japanese left after the test. Two stories, possibly one party, no document links them.
4. 3,500 V and the capacitor count (Claim 1). Confirmed on Fig. 2 of US 3,890,548: "18 CAPACITORS 3500 VOLTS EACH" [read: page image p.2] (QE said Fig. 1; the deep read corrects it to Fig. 2). The 18 matches the simplified engine of Fig. 18 (9 stator + 9 rotor); the full engine of Figs. 4-8 has more firing points (27 gap pairs per side) and the patent does not reconcile the counts. No capacitance, inductance, frequency, torque or power figure appears anywhere in the patent [read: pp.1-18]. My earlier "unverified" is withdrawn; the mathematician's 66 uF scale check (407 J per revolution at 3,500 V) stays illustrative only.
5. "Static" is in the patent (Claim 4). The patent says the delay coils form a harness "wound about the case of the engine ... which is believed to provide a static floating flux field" [read: p.11]; Fig. 2 labels box 37 "FLOATING STATIC FLUX FIELD". It states no function, effect or benefit for it, and it is in no claim. "Cold electricity" and atmospheric tapping are not in the patent. The deep reader's physics note: a series inductor in a pulsed-charging line limits current and smooths pulses [memory, high]; a pulsed coil gives a pulsating, not static, field. More press sources for Claim 4: Hackenberger says the motor "draws small amounts of direct current from a battery and blends it with static electricity" (TATTLER, c. 1974) and "we have an electrostatic generating system and a capacitor bank ... based on a modification of Ohm's law" [read: page image pp.3-4]. The atmospheric tap is the author's speculation in the promotional feature ("conceivably could get more out of a battery than a battery has stored in it") and the lawyers are said to advise Gray "to make no claims" [read: ems-electronic-power p.3].
6. "Stores the excess energy" (Claim 1, 3). In context the patent means the back-EMF overshoot recovered into battery 10a and the energy re-stored in the capacitors, under "conservation of energy" and "regenerate a part of the energy consumed" [read: p.9]. No statement anywhere says output exceeds input. The only claim to mention recovery is Claim 1's second potential source. The overshoot return path and battery 10a appear as a block-diagram arrow in Fig. 2; Figs. 1 and 18 draw no return component [read: page image pp.2, 8].
7. US 4,595,975 read in full (Claim 3). No voltage, current, capacitance, efficiency percentage or test result of any kind. It claims "improved efficiency" and longer life between recharges "on theory". The regenerated energy is "reduced by the actual energy removed from the circuit by the mechanical load" [read: p.5], which is conservation-compatible. The capture happens at the end of the pulse (field collapse), not during power delivery as the first-pass wording implied. A second battery 40 and switch 48 swap source and retrieval roles, a bookkeeping arrangement that conserves energy at best. The patent itself says the gap spark dissipates some energy. Result: the Claim 3 caveat "internal consistency unchecked" is removed for this patent; it stays for US 4,661,747 (digest only, a divisional with parallel text) and for the unread drawings of 4,595,975 and GB 2,030,801.
8. Claim 3 per-pulse "99%" figure. The "99%" began as Hackenberger's claim that "only 1 per cent of the energy was used - 99 per cent went back into the battery" about a magnet pulse (TATTLER, c. 1 Jul 1973) and only later appears as Crosby's "efficiency exceeding 99 per cent" (D2). Conservation does not by itself exclude a high per-pulse return fraction when the mechanical work per pulse is small (a 1.25 lb magnet thrown about 2 ft takes a few joules at most, [calc] about 0.57 kg x 9.8 m/s^2 x 0.6 m = 3.4 J) but nobody measured it. That sits inside "actual recovery fraction: Never properly tested". The net-gain version is still refuted by the budget.
9. TATTLER's own numbers disagree with each other (supports "Internally inconsistent" for the press, not only the letter). [calc] 66 lb-ft at 2,500 rpm is 66 x 2,500 / 5,252 = 31.4 hp, matching the article's "brake horsepower 32.05" and not its "100 horsepower" in the same paragraph; the 100 hp "at the brake" (D1), the 10 hp dynamometer test (D2) and "1,000 horsepower per unit" (C) are all different; 20 million shares x $25 = $500 million, not "more than $4 billion". The 99% efficiency and 26.8 W figures contradict (278:1), as before. "Watts per hour" is a unit error in the source.
10. The 100 MW / 40 kW battery substation (Claim 2 extension). TATTLER D2: "supply 100 megawatts of electricity at peak periods while expending only 40 kilowatts doing so" [read: page image p.3] is a ratio of [calc] 100 MW / 40 kW = 2,500. Read as continuous average power, it is Refuted by calculation by the same energy budget as Claim 2. Read as peak-shaving from stored energy, a ratio is possible in principle: a store charged at 40 kW can discharge at 100 MW for a duty cycle of 1/2,500, about 35 s per day [calc], which is ordinary load levelling and not over-unity. The article does not say which it means; the first reading is what "expending only" suggests, and Gray had no battery capable of 100 MW. It is a plan, not a measurement; the article itself notes experts call it a possible hoax.
11. Claim 5 facts. All press-level, none court-verified.
    • Raid: 22 July, year not printed; TATTLER (16 Mar 1975) says seven months with no charge, so July 1974. The AP item (7 Jul 1975) says "Last July" investigators seized the prototype, plans, drawings and books [read: page images]. The TATTLER article has an internal date problem (a "27 Jan 1974" follow-up probably a misprint for 1975); I treat 22 July 1974 as likely, not certain.
    • Charges (AP, May 1975): one conspiracy to commit grand theft, eight grand theft and three securities violation counts; my earlier "three counts of fraud" was the digest's error. Gray sold shares from 1971 to "some 800 shareholders"; the promotional feature says 788 stockholders and about $2 million raised 1957-72.
    • Outcome (promotional feature, 1976, unnamed "Newsreal Series" magazine): serious charges dropped, Gray pleaded guilty in late March 1976 to two minor counts of violating SEC regulations, paid an unstated fine, and was "freed". That feature is promoter-sympathetic and cites no record. Its claim that the charges were "proved ... unfounded" is an assertion.
    • Two DA investigators invested their own money (Harris). That fits a persuasive promoter and a DA staff with no preconceived hostility, which is weak evidence against a prior-set suppression plan but also a reason an agency might later feel burned. Neither reading is shown.
    • DA investigator Ran Novell (TATTLER, Mar 1975): "All he has is a starter motor run by some batteries", admitted no one in the DA's office had tested the motor "or even started it", and said the warrant came from "a former, and apparently disgruntled, employee" complaint. So for the DA's fraud theory "dismissed without testing" is supported by the DA's own investigator, as relayed by a hostile tabloid. That is the partial truth in the contrarian's point, though the source and the speaker are different from what the reviewers cited.
    • The DA side also cites delay due to "hard to find investors willing to press charges"; investigators "see themselves as acting to protect lay investors" [read: page image p.2]. TATTLER's evidence of suppression is analogy (Lewis, Fish, LaForce) plus an anonymous "source within the DA's office"; no link between the DA and any auto company appears [read: page image pp.1-2].
12. Press-account details for the testing history (Claims 1-2). Spring-1973 demonstrations (TATTLER A, c. 1 Jul 1973; promo feature): a 6 V battery and capacitors, voltmeter reading 3,000 V, a magnet thrown more than two feet and caught by Hackenberger; lights, TV and radios run from a 15-amp motorcycle battery; C. V. Wood Jr. of McCulloch Oil as an enthusiastic witness; 8 Jul 1973 article reports 2,500 rpm for over 20 minutes with batteries "found to be as fully charged as they were at the beginning", witnessed by the reporter with no instruments and no stated method. None gives an input power. A 20 minute run is not impossible on four 6 V batteries if the draw were hundreds of watts, so it does not discriminate. Also: Dr. Norm Chalfin and Dr. Gene Wester "of California Institute of Technology" are said to endorse the motor, and patent counsel Gerald Price is an interested party [read: ems-electronic-power p.3]. Not independent tests.
13. EvGray static generator sales sheet. Now read from the page image: generator-only about 45 W from a 12 V car battery, $50; generator-battery model about 30 W for 6 h, $75; "approximately 50% brighter illumination from a given light bulb wattage"; "no moving parts"; no schematic, input power or efficiency [read: page image p.1]. "Static" means no moving parts. [calc, deep read] 30 W for 6 h is 180 Wh, which a 30 A charger cannot supply in the claimed 10-15 minutes; 72 h at 45 W is 3.24 kWh, far beyond a car battery. These are internal-consistency problems of a small testable claim of the same kind as the inverter's "four times longer". Peripheral; not a central claim.

Verdicts after QE

Remaining gaps after this revision

• The Crosby test reports and Maize's meter set-up (the single most useful missing document).
• Any record of what the Japanese firm measured and why it left, and whether it is the Pan World party.
• Court and DA records (charges, plea, fine, property return); the facts are press-level, and the web check for them was not repeated.
• US 4,661,747 and the drawings of GB 2,030,801 and US 4,595,975 (digest only).
• The function, if any, of the "static floating flux field" coil.