Gunderson: central claims
- A permanent magnet's flux, sent into a soft ferromagnetic core whose magnetisation is modulated by an input coil, can be made to "virtually move" across holes in the core, inducing EMF in an output wire without mechanical motion (US 2006/0163971, paras 0014-0034) [read]. This application was granted as US 7,830,065 B2 on 9 Nov 2010 (11 claims; claim 1 amended to a resonant circuit with a square-wave source; new claim 11 recites that it "improves the efficiency of the conversion device"); it lapsed for non-payment of fees in 2022, exact date unresolved [web: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7830065B2/en].
- The Lenz-law reaction in this solid-state generator is directed against the permanent magnets and aids the input, so the input shows no loading or an amplified signal; more output power then needs less input, with the magnets as the energy source until demagnetised (US 2006/0163971, paras 0036-0044) [read]. The text is internally in tension: para 0039 says the reaction is directed against the magnets and "not" the input source (no back-action on the input coil), while paras 0043-0044 say the reaction flux "aids the input flux" on the magnet-free side of each hole, giving "idling" to "strengthening and overall acceleration" of the input signal. The figure (FIG. 3) draws the reaction loop opposing the input flux on one side of each hole and aiding it on the other [read: page image p.4]. The stated energy source also shifts over time: magnets in the patent; zero-point energy per the assignee's (Magnetic Power Inc.) later statements; ambient energy in later accounts [web: research notes]. The document gives no numbers or measurements; its only experimental reference is one unquantified sentence (para 0040).
- In a resonant magnetostrictive/magnetoelastic bar, the coil's Lenz reaction returns an acoustic wave to the vibration source with 90 + 180 + 90 = 360 degrees total phase, so it aids the drive and less drive energy is needed (US 8,093,869, FIG. 5 text, pp.13, 19-20) [read]. The 180 degree step is asserted, not derived.
- Oppositely directed currents in neighbouring coils at a harmonic node add magnetic opposition that increases delivered electrical energy, and cancel inductive reactance, by analogy with a loaded transformer (US 8,093,869, pp.12, 21) [read].
- Square-wave drive makes the odd harmonics' peaks coincide at a central node, so instantaneous power (I squared R) is the square of the sum of the harmonic amplitudes (the patent says "the square of the sum of the energy", an imprecise wording) and is "substantially increased" (US 8,093,869, pp.13, 21-22) [read].
- A source-to-pickup spacing of at least 1/8 (preferably 1/4) acoustic wavelength, with a bias magnet and separated vibration source, is what distinguishes the device from prior magnetostrictive/piezoelectric gyrators and from vibration harvesters (US 8,093,869, claim 1, pp.10-14) [read]. Claim 1 also ends with a load of "nonlinear time-changing resistance" using semiconductor switches, an element the description never explains; the inventor's reported 2016 demonstration output used a switched SiC-FET rectifier [web: research/2026-10-04-energeticforum.md]. The summary names the bar an "energy transfer and multiplier element" without defining "multiplier", and the FIG. 1 lattice says the initial push is "never dissipated" and gives an "inchworm motion" in free space (read by the deep reader as one conserved impulse; no thrust claimed, pp.10-16).
Evidence note [read]: both documents are patent texts by the inventor's assignees (Magnetic Power Inc.; Chava Energy LLC), i.e. the applicants' own characterisation. Neither contains experimental data, a prototype description or a power-in versus power-out budget; the claims themselves are structural and recite no over-unity result.
Non-patent performance claims (outside the two documents; each with its source and stake) [web, from the Investigator's notes in sites.md and research/]: - Gunderson at the ESTC 2015/2016 conferences: stated COP of about 1.02-1.03 (2015) and a 570% figure "still validating" (2016). The inventor's own statements. - "Spokane1" (McKay), energeticforum.com, 11 Jul 2016, replication of a "Magnetic Implosion Transformer": "1.53 watts in and 9.43 watts out or a initial COP of 6.16", input later "down to zero (with four places of accuracy) with the output still at 9.5", "-.25 watts in", 12.7 A-hr lead-acid gel battery, about 800 V peak, 50 kHz, two power analyzers and a Tektronix scope. One forum source; quotes verified by QE on 2026-10-04 against https://www.energeticforum.com/forum/energetic-forum-discussion/renewable-energy/13945-magnetic-implosion-transformer-replication. Reiyuki's phase table on the same forum reports COP depending on the phase of the switched output interruption. - Magnetic Power Inc. (MPI) / Chava Energy (interested parties, assignees): "reaction-less" and "100 times" statements, a 2008 report of a "constant voltage" output signature with plans for 1 kW modules and 75-150 kW car units, and a 26 Mar 2007 proposal setting two 1 kW modules (5"x5"x16") against the GM Volt [web: research/2026-10-04-wayback-magneticpowerinc.md]. These are the assignee's characterisations. - An anonymous fraud allegation exists; it is a critic's characterisation. A 2016 overunityresearch.com thread (Chet K, 11 Jul 2016) asks why Gunderson "abandon[ed] a device that claimed high COP" (login-blocked; snippet only).