Gunderson · Source catalogue

Publication of a patent application for a static generator: permanent magnets above and below a ferromagnetic (toroidal) core containing radial holes, an input coil that modulates the core's magnetisation, and an output wire threaded alternately through the holes. The applicant says the soft core makes each permanent magnet's flux appear to move ('virtual motion', compared to the sun seen from under agitated water), so flux 'brushes' across the holes and induces EMF without mechanical motion. The description (not the claims) states that the Lenz-law reaction of the output current is directed against the permanent magnets and not the input source, so that it 'aids' the input flux; that the input may show 'an absence of electrical loading ... and/or an overall amplification of the input signal'; and that 'as increasing amounts of energy are withdrawn ... decreasing amounts of energy are generally required to operate it', with the permanent magnets as the energy source 'until they are demagnetized' (paras 0015, 0035-0044). A FIG. 4 circuit (square-wave source, step-down transformer, series capacitor, generator input coil, resistive load) is given for resonant drive at 90 degrees quadrature. The document has no equations, no numerical values for power, voltage, current, frequency, turns or dimensions, and no measurement or prototype data. The only experimental reference is one unquantified sentence that high-quality magnets can be 'pushed against' for very long periods before becoming demagnetised (para 0040). Ten claims, all structural (magnets, holed core, modulating coil, output wires through holes; resonant capacitor variants; Earth-field modulation, electromagnet and DC-bias variants); none recites power gain or Lenz-aiding. The assignee is an interested party and the description is its characterisation. GRANT STATUS (not in this document; added after QE): the application was granted as US 7,830,065 B2 on 9 Nov 2010 with 11 claims. At grant claim 1 was amended to a resonant circuit with a square-wave source, and a new claim 11 ends 'improves the efficiency of the conversion device' (CPC H02K53/00). Both quoted description sentences ('decreasing amounts of energy are generally required to operate it'; 'Experiments show that high-quality permanent magnets can be magnetically pushed against...') are present in the granted text. It lapsed for non-payment of fees in 2022; the exact date is unresolved (9 Nov 2022 per the Investigator, 12 Dec 2022 per a Google Patents summary) [web: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7830065B2/en]. The patent publication itself is the applicant's characterisation. INTERNAL TENSION (QE deep read): para 0036/0039 says the reaction is directed against the permanent magnets and 'not the source of the alternating magnetic input field 6', which amounts to no back-action on coil 6; para 0043-0044 says (c) 'aids the input flux (a)' on the magnet-free side of each hole and that the effect ranges from 'idling' to 'strengthening and overall acceleration of the electrical input signal', a positive back-action on coil 6. The text assigns the opposing half of each loop to the magnets, as '(b) and (c) cancel'. The text never discusses flux linkage, mutual inductance or reflected impedance. GEOMETRY (QE deep read, page image p.4, FIG. 3): the drawn reaction loop (c) around each hole runs against input flux (a) on the magnet side of the hole and with (a) on the free side, at all eight hole positions in both panels; circulation alternates hole to hole, which Ampere's law requires of the output current, and para 0038 allows ('wire 4 may take an opposing direction through each neighboring hole'; FIG. 2 shows the serpentine routing). Magnets sit on one face of each hole, alternating top and bottom. The deep reader's analysis (not stated by the patent): holes lie on the mid-plane (para 0029), so in a linear core the mutual inductance between input coil 6 and output wire 4 is about zero by up-down mirror symmetry, and the output arises from a parametric cross term (bias field times input field times slope of permeability); this is not 'no back-action', since at the biased operating point a small-signal mutual inductance exists and, for a lossless single-valued core, is reciprocal. The patent offers no argument or measurement that reciprocity fails. NOTATION: in FIG. 4 the letters a, b, c, d label windings (c = generator input coil, d = output winding), colliding with (a), (b), (c) as flux labels in FIG. 3 [read: page image p.5; paras 0045-0046].

Key claims

• A permanent-magnet flux sent into a soft ferromagnetic core, whose magnetisation is modulated by an input coil, shifts so that flux sweeps across holes in the core and induces EMF in a wire threaded through the holes, with no mechanical motion.
• The Lenz-law reaction flux of the output current opposes the permanent magnets but aids the input flux, so the input shows no loading or an amplification of the input signal.
• As more output power is drawn, less input energy is required, the energy being drawn from the permanent magnets until they are demagnetised.
• At series resonance of the input circuit, current and voltage are 90 degrees apart and input power drawn from the source is at a minimum.
• Experiments show high-quality permanent magnets can be 'pushed against' in this way for very long periods before becoming demagnetised (no data given).
• The patent text asserts both that the output reaction does not act on the input coil (para 0039) and that it aids the input flux on the magnet-free side of each hole (paras 0043-0044); no calculation or measurement is offered for either.
• US 7,830,065 B2 (the granted form of this application) amended claim 1 to a resonant circuit with a square-wave source and added claim 11, which recites that the invention 'improves the efficiency of the conversion device'.

Relevance: Earlier Gunderson patent publication stating the 'Lenz aiding' energy argument in qualitative form; the same theme recurs acoustically in US 8,093,869. Central to any over-unity question, yet no numbers or data are provided. Granted as US 7,830,065 B2 (2010; lapsed 2022). Published claim 7 (Earth's field modulates the core in place of the input coil) is a further energy-source statement. The QE deep read of FIG. 3 fixes the geometry the reviewers' hole-loop argument rests on.

Mainstream conflict: The claimed structure (flux modulation in a magnetic core inducing EMF in a holed-core winding) resembles known fluxgate and parametric / magnetic-amplifier ideas. The energy claim (output rising while required input falls, powered by magnets 'until demagnetized') conflicts with standard energy conservation and Lenz's law as ordinarily applied, which reviewers must judge; no energy balance is offered in the document.

Granted patent for a solid-state magneto-acoustic generator. A ferromagnetic bar with nonzero magnetoelasticity and/or magnetostriction (e.g. Metglas 2605SA1/2605SC, ferrites) is driven into acoustic resonance by a vibration source (piezoelectric ceramic, linear actuator or the magnetostrictive material itself) while a bias magnet polarises it. Stress at resonance modulates flux, inducing current in coils at the stress nodes (Faraday). Three 'mechanisms' are advanced. [A] Lenz field addition: with a second-harmonic standing wave, neighbouring coils carry opposite currents; the patent says the added magnetic opposition increases the energy delivered ('Because electric power is generated via magnetic opposition, this additional magnetic opposition increases the total electrical energy'), by analogy with a transformer secondary load increasing primary current; it also says the reaction fields 'annihilate' and reduce inductive reactance. [B] Magnetostrictive positive feedback: the coil's Lenz reaction is converted by magnetostriction into a reaction acoustic wave; phase arithmetic 90 deg (source to node, 1/4 wavelength) + 180 deg (Lenz opposition) + 90 deg (node to source) = 360 deg makes the reaction wave arrive in phase with the source, so the source 'is aided' and 'requires less energy'. The 180 deg step is asserted, and the patent says it depends on the current phase set by inductance and tuning capacitor. [C] Harmonic addition: a square-wave drive excites odd harmonics sharing a central node, whose peaks add in phase, and power as I squared times R is said to follow the square of the summed amplitudes. The patent also states that source and pickups must be at least 1/8 (preferably 1/4) of an acoustic wavelength apart, contrasts the device with vibration harvesters, and gives a mass-spring lattice model (FIG. 1) with an 'inchworm' remark. Numbers are illustrative only (5000 m/s, 125 kHz gives 90 deg in 1 cm; 1 kHz to 5 MHz range). There are 18 claims (claim 1 independent); claim 1 is purely structural and ends with a load of 'nonlinear time-changing resistance' using semiconductor switches, an element not described in the description. No claim recites over-unity or feedback. The patent contains no prototype, measurement, table or energy balance, and does not compare delivered electrical power with drive power or say where the 'self-produced' acceleration energy comes from. The assignee is an interested party; this is the applicant's characterisation. ADDED AFTER QE: (1) Claim 1's last element, a load with 'nonlinear time-changing resistance, by including semiconductor switching elements for purposes of periodically modulating the current', is not described in the specification. The Investigator's web finds report that the inventor's 2016 'Magnetic Implosion Transformer' demonstration output was a SiC-FET synchronous rectifier opened briefly near the phase transition, with the reported COP depending on the phase of that interruption [web: review/Gunderson/research/2026-10-04-energeticforum.md]. This is a reader's note about a shared feature, not a verdict. (2) FIG. 1 lattice (pp.14-15, QE deep read): a free, lossless chain of masses and springs is given one push (force 120 on mass 100); the pulse travels to the end and back. At T2-2 the state is 'completely identical to the originating instant T1-2, with the single exception that the initial kinetic acceleration 120 has never been dissipated or relieved, and reappears in the model as if applied for a second time'; 'the net action is an inchworm motion successively toward the right'; 'Final absorption of the original kinetic energy 120 requires intervention beyond the scope of this model'. The deep reader reads this as one conserved impulse (centre-of-mass drift plus internal vibration), not an extra input; the text attributes the rightward motion to the single initial push, and no thrust or reaction-less drive is claimed in pp.10-16. Its stated purpose is to derive the resonance period (V = 2L/P, F = V/(2L)). Caution: later pages (pp.18-19) use 'increase in total momentum carried' by the wave in the FIG. 4-5 argument and p.13 has a 'forward-thrusting' phrase; these were not deep-read for a momentum claim. (3) 'Energy transfer and multiplier element' (summary, p.10): 'multiplier' is not defined anywhere; the phrase appears only there (claim 13 has 'displacement multipliers' for the piezoelectric source). Possible meanings, none stated: resonant build-up, the reflected wave adding to the drive (p.20), harmonic addition (p.22), horn amplitude magnification. No gain figure is given. The patent states ambient vibrations are not used (p.14). Application number 12/327,719.

Key claims

• A vibration source separated by at least 1/8 acoustic wavelength from the nearest pickup coil, driving a magnetostrictive/magnetoelastic ferromagnet at resonance, can generate electrical power (claim 1 structure).
• The Lenz-law reaction of the coil current, via magnetostriction, returns an acoustic wave to the source with a total 90+180+90=360 degree phase shift, so it aids rather than opposes the drive and less drive energy is needed.
• Opposite-direction currents in neighbouring coils at a second harmonic add magnetic opposition and thereby increase the total electrical energy delivered.
• Square-wave excitation makes the harmonics' peaks coincide at the central node so instantaneous power (I squared R) is the square of the sum of harmonic contributions, substantially increasing generated power.
• An acoustic wave in a ferromagnet (about 5000 m/s) has a 90 degree phase shift in 1 cm at 125 kHz, versus 600 m for an electromagnetic wave (arithmetic checked in deep read).
• Opposing currents in adjacent coils cancel inductive reactance, giving greater available power.
• Claim 1 (granted) ends with a load of 'nonlinear time-changing resistance, by including semiconductor switching elements'; the specification does not describe this element, and the inventor's reported 2016 demonstration used a switched SiC-FET rectifier.
• In the FIG. 1 lattice, the initial kinetic energy of one push is 'never dissipated', recurs 'as if applied for a second time', and the chain moves in 'an inchworm motion' in free space (read by the deep reader as one conserved impulse; no thrust is claimed in pp.10-16).

Relevance: Mature statement of Gunderson's approach: acoustic phase delay is used to turn Lenz opposition into constructive feedback. The core of the 'free energy' reading rests on [B] and the transformer analogy in [A]. The claim 1 switched-load element links the 2012 grant to the inventor's later 2016 demonstration. The summary calls the bar an 'energy transfer and multiplier element' with no definition or gain figure.

Mainstream conflict: Magnetostrictive-to-electrical transduction with a bias magnet is conventional, as is a magnetoelastic or magnetostrictive resonator. Claims that load current returns net energy to the drive (less input as output rises) and that opposing Lenz fields increase delivered energy conflict with standard energy conservation and the usual sign of Lenz's law; the 180 deg step is not derived (Faraday phase for a resistive circuit is 90 deg from the flux, [memory] high). No energy accounting is given.