Gray-EV · Source catalogue

A rotary (and linear) electric motor in which capacitors charged to high voltage are discharged across spark gaps through pairs of rotor and stator electromagnets wound so the cores repel. Charging chain: 12 V battery, vibrator or transistor 'high frequency switcher', ignition-coil-type step-up transformer, half-wave rectifier, then a series 'delay coil' feeding the capacitor in steps until the gap breaks down. The Fig. 2 block diagram labels the capacitor banks '18 CAPACITORS 3500 VOLTS EACH' and the batteries '12 V' [read: page image p.2]. The 18 matches the simplified Fig. 18 engine (9 stator + 9 rotor capacitors); the larger Figs. 4-8 engine (nine stator pairs 40 degrees apart, three rotor arms 120 degrees apart, 27 steps of 13 1/3 degrees per revolution, three coils fired at once per step, Table I) has no stated capacitor count. No capacitance, inductance, current, speed, torque, power, efficiency or test result appears anywhere in the 18 pages. The 'static floating flux field' appears: the delay coils 23, 24 wound round the engine case (static flux coil 114) form a 'harness' which is 'believed to provide a static floating flux field'; the patent states no function for it and no claim covers it. The background says the machine 'is believed to operate on the principle of conservation of energy', that current is needed only at the instant of discharge, that the capacitor 'stores the energy until discharge', and 'the new engine produces torque and stores the excess energy for subsequent use'. In context 'excess energy' is the inductive overshoot (back e.m.f.) routed to a secondary battery 10a, said to regenerate 'a part of the energy consumed'; no statement that output exceeds input was found. Battery 10a, the return conductor and any diode are shown only as arrows in Fig. 2 (not in Figs. 1 or 18); Claim 1 recites a 'second unidirectional electric potential source' receiving the inverse inductive discharge. A safety circuit 46 dumps the capacitors back to batteries 10, 10a after a misfire. An alternator-starter on the shaft and an air pump for cooling are included. Speed is controlled by shifting the firing time 6 2/3 degrees early or late. Linear embodiment: one fixed and one free electromagnet driving a tool, piston or punch press (Claim 8 'hammer-like blows'). 18 claims, 19 figures; cites Spencer 2,085,708, Brunt 2,800,619, Roberts 3,579,074, Phinney 3,619,638 and Frungel 'High Speed Pulse Technology' (1965). Small internal inconsistencies: arms 86 and 87 swapped between text and Table I; one place prints 450 degrees for 240; programmer numbered 40 in the figure but 46 in one passage.

Key claims

• A capacitor charged to about 3,500 V and discharged across a spark gap through repelling rotor and stator electromagnet pairs can drive a continuously rotating engine.
• Once rotating, current is needed only at the instant of each capacitor discharge; the rotor coasts on the inertia of the repulsion between discharges.
• The discharge overshoot (back e.m.f.) from the collapsing coil fields can be returned to a secondary battery, regenerating a part of the energy consumed.
• Shifting the spark-gap firing points by 6 2/3 degrees accelerates or decelerates the rotor.
• A series delay coil wound about the engine case is believed to provide a static floating flux field (no function stated).

Relevance: The only granted US patent describing the EMA/EMS motor Gray demonstrated in 1973. It is the primary technical source for the machine and its circuit principle, and it shows that the patent itself makes no over-unity or efficiency claim; those come from the promoter and press documents.

Mainstream conflict: None as written: the text invokes conservation of energy and claims partial regeneration. Spark-gap capacitor discharge into coils is standard pulse-power practice and back-e.m.f. return can at most recover part of the energy left in the coil. Conflict arises only with the press and promoter claims in the other documents. The 'static floating flux field' is hedged ('believed to') and unexplained; a coil carrying pulsed d.c. gives a pulsating, not static, field [memory: high].

A short specification. Phase A: a 24 V battery is boosted by a DC-to-DC converter to about 2,000 V and charges a capacitor. Phase B: closing Switch No. 1 discharges the capacitor through an inductive load (for example a motor coil) and Switch No. 2 into a second 'energy recovery' battery. As the capacitor voltage reaches zero a diode keeps the inductive current flowing in a closed loop through the load and the recovery battery, so the back EMF charges that battery. Phase C: Switch No. 1 disconnects the capacitor without interrupting the inductive current. The text claims only 'more efficient use of energy' and suggests rotor/stator pairs with attractive or repulsive timing. The two independent claims are 'substantially as hereinbefore described'.

Key claims

• The back EMF of an inductive load, normally lost, can be captured by a diode path and used to charge a second battery.
• A capacitor discharged at about 2,000 V through an inductive load, with the inductive current continued into a battery, gives more efficient use of electrical energy than direct battery drive.

Relevance: Earliest filing (1978) of the energy-recovery circuit idea that the 1984/85 US patents repeat; the recovery path (diode plus second battery) is the circuit-level core of Gray's efficiency claim. US 4,595,975 cites it.

Mainstream conflict: None as written; flyback or freewheeling energy recovery is standard power electronics. It conflicts with mainstream physics only if read as giving net energy gain, which the text does not state.

A battery drives a vibrator, step-up transformer and bridge rectifier that charge a capacitor 16 in incremental steps. The capacitor feeds the high-voltage anode 12 of a 'conversion switching element tube'; a commutator connects a low-voltage anode to the source through a resistive element, creating an arc in a spark-gap. The arc energy is 'captured by the electrostatic grids' (circumferential charge-receiving plates), stored momentarily and passed to the inductive load. At the end of each pulse the field collapses, and the counter-EMF charges a second capacitor and then a second battery 40; a switch 48 lets the two batteries swap roles (drive and retrieval) at intervals 'determined by experimentation'. The text never claims output energy above input: the framing is 'efficient', more run time between recharges, and recovery of energy 'normally wasted'. It says the regenerated energy is 'reduced by the actual energy removed ... by the mechanical load' and that charging current depends on the mechanical energy consumed. 'Harnessing electrostatic or impulse energy' means the charge held on the capacitor and grids and the short pulse; no new energy source is named. The counter-EMF during the energising phase is described only to motivate short pulses; capture is at field collapse, not during power delivery. The inventor hedges: 'on theory', 'anticipated', results achievable by 'intensive research and development'. No voltage, current, capacitance, efficiency figure or test result appears. 8 claims; the recovery feature appears only in dependent claims 2-4 and method claim 8. Cites only GB 2,030,801. Reference numerals are sloppy (battery 12 vs anode 12, 'anodes 12 and 22').

Key claims

• A capacitor-fed spark-gap tube with charge-receiving grids can deliver short high-energy pulses to an inductive load more efficiently than driving it directly from the source.
• Storing the load's collapsing-field back EMF on a second capacitor and returning it to a battery recovers energy otherwise wasted and 'enhances the productivity of electrical energy'.
• Swapping the roles of two batteries at optimum intervals (switch 48) extends the period between external recharges.

Relevance: Late-career refinement of the pulsed-discharge and energy-recovery idea, moving from open spark gaps to a vacuum-tube-like switch. It settles Claim 3's reading: the patent claims reduced loss plus regeneration, not net gain.

Mainstream conflict: None in the text: energy 'returned' is the unused part of the initial energy, which is conservation-compatible. No data are given, so the efficiency claim is unsupported rather than contradicted. Any over-unity reading comes from outside the patent.

A divisional of US 4,595,975 claiming the switching tube itself (4 claims): an insulative housing, a low-voltage anode (with optional resistive element in series), a high-voltage anode, and an electrically conductive charge-receiving means placed circumferentially around the high-voltage anode, with an output terminal; optionally tubular charge-receiving elements. The description in the digest matches the parent: vibrator, transformer, bridge rectifier, capacitor, commutator, inductive load, a second capacitor storing the collapsing-field back EMF, and a switch between the primary source and the storage battery. Two inductor properties are cited: counter-EMF that opposes energy input, and regenerated energy 'previously lost'. The digest records that the inventor 'contends' proper matching of tube elements and component selection can achieve 'theoretical results through intensive research and development'. The cover lists a Greek priority application (Dec 16 1983, no. 124388, from the earlier Step 1 pass). No numbers or tests.

Key claims

• A purpose-built switching tube with two anodes and surrounding charge-receiving plates conveys a high-voltage discharge to an inductive load with high efficiency, with back EMF stored on a second capacitor.

Relevance: Completes the patent family and shows the tube is the component Gray emphasised late in life.

Mainstream conflict: None on the text digested; efficiency language is vague and unsupported by data.

A one-page letter summarising 'extensive testing of the EMA motor by Pan World Enterprises Co., Ltd., and EvGray engineers between May 1 and May 10, 1973', with 'confirmation of input vs. output power efficiency' by the signer and EvGray engineers on Sep 25 1973. 'The measured overall system efficiency exceeds 99%' using 'EvGray proprietary methods whereby additional electrostrictive power is developed, as well as the electro-chemical battery energy is recycled'; no external recharging generator was used. The motor drove a 10 hp (48 ft lb) dynamometer at 1,100 rpm, 'This power output is 7,460 watts'. 'The total battery power available from the four batteries was 5,454 watts for one hour. The total battery power consumed by the motor during a 21 minute run was only 9.75 watts; this equals 26.8 watts per hour.' The system 'will operate continuously for 203 hours or 8.5 days' at 10 hp without recharge; battery life 2-3 years 'seems reasonable'. 'Tests reports supporting the above information is available at EvGray.' Arithmetic: 5,454 Wh / 26.8 W = 203.5 h (the 203 h is capacity divided by the stated draw, not an observed run); 9.75 Wh in 21 min is an average of 27.9 W, not 26.8 W; 5,454 Wh could supply 7,460 W for about 44 minutes; 7,460 / 26.8 is about 278. The 99% 'efficiency' cannot be an output/input ratio when the same letter implies a ratio near 278.

Key claims

• The EMA motor delivered 7,460 W (10 hp at 1,100 rpm) to a dynamometer.
• The motor consumed only about 26.8 W from four batteries holding 5,454 Wh, measured over a 21-minute run.
• Measured overall system efficiency exceeded 99%, with battery energy recycled and 'electrostrictive' power added.
• The system could run 203 hours at 10 hp from the four batteries without recharging.

Relevance: The key primary-source test claim. It is a promoter-side document (addressed to a Larry Crosby; the institute's relation to the testers is not stated), and gives no instruments, waveforms or method of measuring pulsed input power. The supporting test reports are said to be at EvGray and are not in the folder.

Mainstream conflict: An output of 7,460 W for an input of 26.8 W (ratio near 278) would violate energy conservation if measured correctly; the mundane explanation is a mismeasurement of pulsed input (spikes missed by a d.c. meter or a battery-state estimate), [memory] medium. 'Electrostrictive power' is an undefined use of a real term (electrostriction is a material-strain effect, not a power source).

A promotional technical sheet. It claims a specialised high-efficiency inverter produces 2,000-3,000 V d.c. for the EMS motor and operates at 6,000 cycles versus 60-cycle line power. Some equipment (solid-state radio and TV, light bulbs) will run on 6,000 Hz. Because the inverter is 'extremely' efficient, equipment run from it would run 'at least four times longer' than on direct d.c. or a standard d.c.-to-a.c. inverter, with better mean time between failures (MTBF). No circuit or data. The reverse side of the static generator sheet appears to carry an EV4-1 energy-flow figure, so the two may have been photocopied as a pair.

Key claims

• The EMS inverter makes 2,000-3,000 V d.c. at 6,000 Hz with extremely high efficiency.
• Equipment run from it operates at least four times longer on the same battery than on d.c. or a standard inverter.

Relevance: Shows the spin-off product claim of the same technology.

Mainstream conflict: None demonstrable, but 'four times longer' is unsupported and would imply losses of 75% or more in standard inverters, which is not typical [memory: medium].

A framed three-column flyer, 'EVGRAY STATIC GENERATORS'. Generator-Only model: about 45 W from a 12 V car battery to run 110 V lights, solid-state TV and radios, about $50. Generator-Battery model: 30-45 W from its own rechargeable battery, 'approximately 30 watts of power for 6 hours', recharge 10-15 minutes from a car alternator or 30 A charger, about $75. 'Generator model will provide 45 watts of power for a 72 hour camping weekend ... and battery will still start the car.' 'Provides approximately 50% brighter illumination from a given light bulb wattage.' 'No moving parts', automatic shut-off, 'life-extender switch', 'far greater life expectancy when compared to an ordinary inverter'. No circuit, input/output power, waveform or efficiency, and no free-energy or over-unity claim; functionally it is sold as an inverter-like light and power source. The reader's arithmetic shows tension: 180 Wh recharged in 10-15 minutes would need 720-1,080 W, beyond a 30 A, 12 V charger (about 360 W); 72 h at 45 W is 3.24 kWh, far more than an ordinary car battery holds. Faint mirrored show-through from the reverse side shows an 'EV4-1 ENERGY BALANCE AND FLOW, Figure 2' (boxes such as MOTOR, GENERATOR, CHARGING, STORAGE, TOTAL RECYCLE/TRANSFER and figures like 672, 1594, 1030 WATTS; digits low confidence).

Key claims

• A solid-state EvGray generator with no moving parts delivers about 45 W of 110 V power from a 12 V car battery for a 72 hour weekend and the battery will still start the car.
• The battery model gives about 30 W for 6 hours and recharges in 10-15 minutes.
• The generator gives about 50% brighter illumination from a given bulb wattage.

Relevance: Marketing evidence of what Gray sold or claimed for the spin-off 'static generator' product; low physics weight. The 50%-brighter claim is a small testable claim of the same kind as the inverter's 'four times longer'.

Mainstream conflict: No violation of conservation is claimed, but the runtime and recharge figures are inconsistent with ordinary battery capacities unless input draw is much lower than output [memory: medium, not web-checked]. A 50% brightness gain from the same wattage is unexplained; a pulsed or high-frequency waveform that a wattage meter misreads is one possibility (not stated in the flyer).

A two-page tabloid report. TATTLER first published Gray's engine on 1 July 1973. Los Angeles authorities raided the Van Nuys plant on 22 July (year not printed; most consistent reading 1974) and took 'virtually everything', including the working prototype. By the article date 'not a single charge' had been brought after seven months, and the DA's office had kept the case 'pending five months' when Valentine phoned. Investigator Ran Novell told TATTLER 'we're going to charge Gray with grand theft ... His motor doesn't do what he claims. All he has is a starter motor run by some batteries', admitted that no one in the DA's office had tested or even started the motor, and said the warrant was based on a complaint by a former, 'apparently disgruntled' employee, with earlier complaints about stock sales. Gray's attorney Joel Ward says the firm offered cooperation in April (before the raid), was ignored, and that the Patent Office had told him every claim would be allowed (an attorney's claim, no number given). Gray has about 800 stockholders. TATTLER's alleged motive (protecting Detroit) is supported only by analogies (Paul Lewis, John Fish, the LaForce brothers) and an anonymous DA-office source; no link to any auto company is shown. A TATTLER item says Gray's system would need two banks of batteries 'because batteries could not take the charge rapidly enough'. No power, efficiency or test figure appears. The article's dates are internally inconsistent about the year (a '27 Jan 1974' follow-up is probably a misprint for 1975). The lower part of p.2 is an unrelated Lennon/Yoko Ono gossip item. Lewis is given as 72 here but 77 in another TATTLER item.

Key claims

• The Los Angeles District Attorney's raid and 7-month delay were meant to suppress Gray's motor rather than protect investors.
• Gray's motor could power cars without fuel while charging its own batteries (TATTLER's wording).
• The DA's investigator says the motor is only a starter motor run by batteries and that nobody in the DA's office tested it.

Relevance: The main source of the suppression story that makes the case interesting to an alternative-science reader, and also the source of the DA's side (fraud theory, disgruntled-employee complaint, no test by the DA). It shows that the suppression and fraud accounts are opposite readings of the same events.

Mainstream conflict: No technical content; suppression is an allegation by a tabloid, Gray and his attorney. The DA's investigator alleges fraud. 'Regenerate its own power' would contradict conservation of energy if taken literally.

A promotional-sounding profile. Gray: poor Washington D.C. family, left school at 14, 22 years of thinking about the motor, motivated by capacitor discharge, radar pulses and lightning. From 1957 to 1972 he raised about $2 million from 788 stockholders; major firms (General Dynamics, Rockwell, Ford, General Motors) wanted 90 per cent. Spring 1973 demonstration: a six-volt car battery fed capacitors and two electromagnets of 1 1/4 lb; a voltmeter read 3,000 V; Gray threw a switch, the top magnet flew off and Hackenberger caught it in his bare hand, offered as proof of 'cold' energy. No current, power, energy, timing or temperature measurement is reported; a pulsed capacitor discharge flinging a magnet is ordinary. The author (not Gray) speculates the motor taps atmospheric static electricity or ball lightning and 'conceivably could get more out of a battery than a battery has stored in it'; Gray's lawyers advise him 'to make no claims'. Gray's three 'principles': capacitors store and release charge, pulses can be sent out and returned, lightning is stronger near the earth. Legal history: July 1974 raid; DA men tried to get investors to press charges and 'All refused'; charges 'eight months after the raid' (about March 1975); serious charges dropped as 'unfounded' (the article's assertion); two minor SEC-type counts remained and in late March 1976 Gray pleaded guilty to these misdemeanours, paid a fine (amount not stated) and was freed. A Denver backer funded only a fraction; the 'Fascination' trial with Paul Lewis was dropped. Dr. Norm Chalfin and Dr. Gene Wester of Caltech 'publicly endorsed' the motor; Chalfin is quoted 'There is no motor like this in the world', 'There is no loss of energy in the system' (literally impossible), and wrote the text of the patent applications; patent counsel Gerald Price says Gray was nominated for an award by the Southern California patent lawyers.

Key claims

• Gray's EMS motor uses a 'cold' form of electrical energy (pulsed capacitor discharge plus static electricity) and runs without heating.
• Energy is used for only a small fraction of a millisecond per pulse and the unused energy returns to an accessory battery.
• The motor could power every auto, aeroplane, truck, train and ship without fuel.
• The motor may tap atmospheric static electricity (author's speculation, not Gray's statement).
• Gray pleaded guilty in March 1976 to two minor securities (SEC-type) misdemeanours; the grand-theft charges were dropped.

Relevance: Promoter-side narrative, the 1973 demonstration, the named advisers (Hackenberger, Lens, Chalfin, Wester, Price, none independent), and the best dated source for the legal outcome (plea, March 1976).

Mainstream conflict: 'Cold electricity' or tapping atmospheric static electricity to exceed battery energy has no support in mainstream physics; the magnet-catch demonstration shows only that a pulsed discharge is brief. Chalfin's 'no loss of energy' is impossible taken literally [memory: high]. Endorsements are quotes in the article; I have not verified them or Chalfin's affiliation.

The first TATTLER story. Demonstration 1: a six-volt car battery, capacitors and two 1 1/4 lb electromagnets; Lens raised a voltmeter to 3,000 V, Gray closed a switch, the top magnet shot more than two feet into the air and was caught by Hackenberger, still cold. Hackenberger: 'only 1 per cent of the energy was used, 99 per cent went back into the battery' (this is the origin of the '99%' figure, as energy returned per pulse). Demonstration 2: a 15-amp motorcycle battery with two capacitors ran six 15-watt bulbs, a 110 V TV and two radios 'and the small battery was not discharging' (reporter's description, no measurement). A 40 W bulb in a water-filled cylinder gave no shock to the reporter. Witness: C. V. Wood Jr., president of McCulloch Oil. Hackenberger: 'we have to rewrite the physics textbooks' but 'no laws of physics were being violated'. Gray says Wall Street offered 20 million shares at $25 (20M x $25 = $500 million) as a '$4 billion' deal, which does not follow. Hackenberger, formerly of Sony and Sylvania and the US Navy; Fritz Lens, a former Volkswagen mechanic. Gray was 48.

Key claims

• In a 1973 demonstration only 1% of the energy in a capacitor discharge was used and 99% returned to the battery.
• A small motorcycle battery with two capacitors powered lights, a TV and radios without discharging.
• The device uses a new application of electricity that violates no laws of physics.

Relevance: Original press account of the demonstration and source of the '99%' figure, which later reappears as Crosby's 'efficiency exceeding 99%'.

Mainstream conflict: No measurement is reported; a brief capacitor discharge flinging a magnet is ordinary stored-energy physics, and the 'battery not discharging' observation lacks any meter reading. 99% return per pulse is a recovery efficiency, not an energy gain.

AP profile of Gray, 50. Lede: 'A specialist in energy engineering saw the prototype motor and said if it worked, it would violate all the laws of physics.' Body: Donald Cronin, staff scientist at TRW Systems, who 'watched a test of the motor about a year ago': 'If he did what he says it does it would violate all the laws of physics ... It ran for about 10 seconds and then everything blew. A group of scientists from a big research firm in Japan 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.' The 'laws of physics' remark is Cronin's (the unnamed specialist is probably AP's paraphrase of him), not the deputy DA's. Deputy DA Mitchell Harris is quoted only on investigators: 'two investigators ... went down to see and got hustled themselves - they invested money of their own for a while, but later got it back.' Legal history per AP: Gray began selling shares in 1971 and attracted some 800 shareholders; July 1974 investigators seized the prototype, plans and records; charges filed in May 1975: one count of conspiracy to commit grand theft, eight counts of grand theft and three counts of a securities violation; attorneys cite the 10-month delay as harassment; the DA says it was hard to find investors willing to press charges and investigators had more pressing cases. The DA describes Gray's claims as a motor started by batteries that then runs 'virtually on its own' and puts energy back into the batteries.

Key claims

• A TRW staff scientist saw a test in which the motor ran about 10 seconds and then everything blew.
• A Japanese research firm with instruments was ready to sign a letter of intent but left after a test.
• Gray was charged in May 1975 with one conspiracy, eight grand theft and three securities-violation counts.
• Two DA investigators invested their own money in Gray for a while and got it back.

Relevance: The only on-record sceptical eyewitness account of a running test and the only source for the Japanese instrumented visit. It corrects the earlier attribution of the 'laws of physics' remark to the deputy DA.

Mainstream conflict: None to resolve: Cronin's account is informal, undated ('about a year ago', so about mid-1974), gives no data, and is reported second-hand by AP. Nothing here identifies the Japanese visit with the Pan World/Crosby testing of 1973; that link is unsupported.

Second TATTLER article, 'reported exclusively last week'. Caption: the EMA 'can run perpetually on batteries that recharge themselves, develop 1,000 horsepower per unit'. The prototype (42 x 18 x 22 in, about the size of a six-cylinder engine) is powered by four six-volt batteries. Claimed run: better than 2,500 rpm for more than 20 minutes, with the batteries found 'as fully charged as they were at the beginning' (witnessed by the reporter; no instruments, method not stated). 'It generated 100 horsepower and 66 pounds of constant torque. The brake horsepower tests out at 32.05.' Check [calc]: 66 lb-ft at 2,500 rpm = 31.4 hp, matching the 32.05 and not 100 hp. Two 1 3/4 lb magnets repelled 'with an explosive force' stayed cool and '99 per cent of the energy recycled to the battery'. Hackenberger: high-voltage 'spikes' go through a control unit acting like a distributor into selected electromagnets and most energy is recycled to the batteries. An unnamed UCLA professor suspected a hidden laser. Gray discovered the idea in 1958 and spent about 10 years getting about $1.1 million. API consumption figure: 100 billion gallons, $35 billion. An unrelated boxed filler about an all-girl diving company shares the page.

Key claims

• The EMA ran at over 2,500 rpm for over 20 minutes on four 6 V batteries that ended as fully charged as they began.
• A single EMA unit can produce up to 1,000 horsepower.
• 99% of the energy of each magnet repulsion pulse is recycled to the battery.

Relevance: The earliest detailed press performance claims; their internal inconsistencies (100 hp vs 66 lb-ft at 2,500 rpm, 1,000 hp, later 10 hp) show how loose the numbers were.

Mainstream conflict: The article's own torque and rpm give about 31 hp, contradicting its 100 hp. A battery 'found fully charged' after 20 minutes is a state-of-charge observation with no stated method; a 99% pulse recovery is not an energy gain.

D1: Paul M. Lewis, 77, of Highway Aircraft Corp., Sidney, Nebraska (his 1936 'Airomobile' is at Harrah's in Reno; he says the SEC and Postal Department drove him out of business) plans the all-plastic 'Fascination' car with Gray's motor; first car prototype over $200,000, first EMA motor 'close to $1 million'; target price $5,000. Hackenberger: 500 miles at highway speeds without recharging; 'We do not have perpetual motion here. We have an electrostatic generating system and a capacitor bank ... a modification of Ohm's law', and engineers report '100 horsepower at the brake'. D2: more than $6 million from 'a trio of wealthy U.S. geologists who made fortunes in oil exploration' (unnamed). Crosby test: J. A. Maize tested 'on behalf of Pan World Enterprises Company, Ltd., a Japanese conglomerate'; 'measured overall system efficiency exceeding 99 per cent'; 10 hp at 1,100 rpm, 7,460 W, batteries of 5,454 watts per hour, 'total battery power consumed ... only 26.8 watts per hour', 203 hours. Gray plans a battery substation to supply 100 megawatts at peak while spending only 40 kilowatts (100 MW / 40 kW = 2,500:1), 'disputed by many experts' who say it may be a hoax. What the motor draws: 'small amounts of direct current from a battery and blends it with static electricity to make the static work'. Gray: 'We could have had all that Japanese money last year.' The Italian government is 'very interested'. Fuelless car promised by the end of 1974. D3 (p.4, briefly): 'Auto, Oil Industries Are Unholy Duo' (Valentine and Ayres), 1974 gas mileage 15.1 mpg, unverified claims about Pogue, Fish, Cottell, Webb and Du Pont/GM.

Key claims

• The Crosby/Pan World test showed 10 hp at 1,100 rpm on 26.8 W of battery draw and 99% efficiency (repeated from the letter).
• Gray's planned substation would deliver 100 MW at peak while using only 40 kW (ratio 2,500:1).
• Three unnamed geologists have put more than $6 million into the machine.
• The motor blends a small d.c. draw with static electricity that activates the electromagnets.
• A family could drive about 500 miles between recharges.

Relevance: Press repetition of the Crosby numbers with the key fact that Pan World was a Japanese conglomerate; also the 100 MW / 40 kW claim (a clean second worked-example candidate) and Hackenberger's description of the 'static' blend, the source for the 'cold electricity' and static claims.

Mainstream conflict: 99% efficiency cannot coexist with 7,460 W out on 26.8 W in. A 2,500:1 power gain is a flat violation of conservation of energy if real. 'Modification of Ohm's law' is unexplained. The funding and 100 hp / 500 mile claims are uncorroborated.