Kelly-Patrick · Source catalogue

A 2,481-page electronic compilation by Patrick J. Kelly, also published on free-energy-info.tuks.nl. The preface says Kelly is 'an ordinary person' who became interested after the Channel 4 programme 'It Runs on Water' and bought Stan Meyer's HHO patents in 1986. He says the book is mainly a report of what other people say, that he has not built and proved every device (he reports building a few small circuits, e.g. a Joule Thief / FLEET toroid battery-swap test), that a successful independent replication can prove a device works while a failed attempt does not prove the original false, and that readers may treat it 'as a work of fiction'. Layout: Introduction and a long 'basics' essay (pp.1-41), then Chapter 1 Magnet Power, 2 Moving Pulsed Systems, 3 Motionless Pulsed Systems (Flynn, Tseung, Heins, Annis/Eberly, Sweet VTA, Don Smith, Kapanadze), 4 Gravity-Powered Systems, 5 Energy-Tapping Pulsed Systems, 6 Pulse-Charging Battery Systems, 7 Aerial Systems (Tesla, Moray, Plauson), 8 Fuel-less Engines, 9 Passive Systems (Coler, pyramids, Joe Cell), 10 Vehicle Systems (HHO boosters, Boyce, Meyer, generators on water), 11 Other Devices and Theories, 12 Electronics Tutorial, 13 Doubtful Devices, 14 Renewable Energy Devices, 15-19 flywheel and self-powered generator builds, 20 Health (Lakhovsky, Beck), 21 Reversing Genetic Modification, 22 The Sabourin Generator, and Appendix A (about 1,050 pages) reproducing patents and long source texts (Sweet 1988 paper and Maurice's account, Annis/Eberly, Bedini, Plauson, Meyer, Correa, Don Smith documents, Ainslie WO 99/38247, wood-gas generator). The contents list also names Chapter 22 'Dealing With Chemtrails' and Chapter 23 'The Mandela Effect'; the words chemtrail and Mandela occur in the extracted text only in the contents list (the chapters are not in the body text as extracted). QE note (2026-10-09): the contents list names Chapter 22 'Dealing With Chemtrails' and Chapter 23 'The Mandela Effect', but in the body Chapter 21 is followed by 'Chapter 22: The Sabourin Generator' (listed as Chapter 24 in the contents) [read: QE, extracted text lines 479-488, 53461, 53689].

Key claims

• Kelly states the 'closed system' premise behind conservation arguments is false for devices that draw energy from the environment ('more energy can't be taken out of a system than is put into it or is already in it'), so COP>1 does not contravene conservation of energy [read: p.13].
• Sharp positive DC pulses (best made by a spark gap) interact with the surrounding energy field and make large quantities of energy available [read: p.422].
• Bob Boyce's electrolyser produces up to 1,200 percent of Faraday's maximum gas rate, and Boyce, Stan Meyer and Shigeta Hasebe each reportedly obtained about ten times Faraday's result [read: pp.19, 41].
• Floyd Sweet's VTA produced more than 500 W at 120 V 60 Hz from less than one third of a milliwatt (COP about 1.6 million) [read: p.244].
• Many committed inventors have been intimidated, silenced or bought out by vested interests; Kelly asserts this without citation [read: pp.17, 22, 993-1005].
• Kelly's own stated stance: he has not built or proved most devices, replication success proves a claim while replication failure does not disprove it [read: pp.2-3, 11].
• The book also carries medical claims (Beck blood electrification, suramin and autism, Lakhovsky tumour settings, Alzheimer audio, colloidal silver for cancer, malaria, AIDS and Ebola; pp.1060-1071, 1203, 1210-1212, 1375-1417) that are outside the physics review and cite no trial [read: deep read of medical claims].

Relevance: The whole project: one compilation that gathers several hundred third-party free-energy / over-unity claims, patents and builder reports. Almost every number in it is a second-hand statement; it is the primary source for what Kelly reports and for the texts he reproduces (patents, Sweet's 1988 paper, Maurice's account, Mohamed's Don Smith analysis), not for independent measurements.

Mainstream conflict: Claims violate the standard energy-conservation accounting for closed systems; Kelly's escape is that the systems are open (zero-point / ambient field). Several mechanisms he names (cold electricity, negative energy, Lenz-law avoidance, charged water clusters) have no counterpart in textbook physics; the mainstream view of the specific devices belongs to the reviewers.

Title page (version 32.9, 16 Feb 2018; says the book holds 'only about 5%' of the web site). Preface and Overview: Kelly's stance (hearsay disclaimer, 'work of fiction' clause, suppression belief, analogies of the flat earth, Wright brothers, bumblebee). The 'Basics' essay argues conservation of energy holds only for closed systems, defines COP (output power / operator's input power) and says efficiency over 100 percent is impossible while COP can be infinite (solar panel example), invokes dark matter/dark energy and 'quantum foam' zero-point energy, says a battery or generator makes a dipole that 'pours energy in from the environment' and that the 'tricky bit' of extracting it without destroying the dipole 'has been done', cites Lee and Yang's 1957 Nobel prize as proof of broken symmetry, claims more than 10,000 Americans have built devices that were suppressed, and lists headline examples (Meyer, Boyce, Bedini, Jim Watson 12 kW, Chas Campbell, Hardy, Adams, Flynn, Moray, Rayburn, Plauson, Prentice, Tesla, Don Smith, Kapanadze, Colman/Seddon-Gillespie, Hasebe). Pages 38-41 give current-draw tables for 12 V inverters and a section on heat pumps with COP about 3 that are 'already on sale'.

Key claims

• Conservation of energy applies to closed systems; real systems are open, so over-unity COP is legitimate if the extra energy comes from the ambient / zero-point field [read: pp.12-17].
• A dipole (battery, aerial and earth) continuously draws energy in from the environment, and this has been demonstrated [read: pp.16-17].
• Over 10,000 Americans have built free-energy devices; none reached production because of opposition and national-security classification [read: p.17].
• Calculations by 'scientific experts' that a generator cannot run on HHO are 'massively flawed' [read: pp.24, 41].

Relevance: Sets the framework (open-system argument, suppression narrative) that every later chapter relies on; the reviewers should test the argument rather than the individual devices.

Mainstream conflict: The 'dipole pours energy in' and 'extracting without destroying the dipole' statements are not mainstream; the Lee-Yang 1957 Nobel citation concerns parity violation in weak interactions, which the digest records only as Kelly's attribution [memory: medium]. The 10,000-device and classification claims are uncited.

Chapter 1 (Magnet Power) opens with Kelly's premise that 'the magnet does not actually exert any power at all ... the power of a magnet flows from the environment' (p.42). It reproduces patents and builder descriptions of permanent-magnet motors. ShenHe Wang's 5 kW colloidal-magnet generator: Kelly says it was barred from the Shanghai Expo (1 May to 31 Oct 2010) and that 'two of Mr Wang's 5 kilowatt generators successfully completed the Chinese government's mandatory six-month Reliability and Safety testing programme in April 2008'; no tester, report, input or output is named, and the source is Kelly's own site (pp.42-44). Howard Johnson US 4,151,431 (24 Apr 1979; demonstrated in Science and Mechanics, Spring 1980); no output stated (p.49). Ecklin-Brown US 3,879,622, Tracy US 3,703,653, Teal US 4,093,880, Jines US 3,469,130, Kundel (pp.45-56). Flynn US 5,455,474 (20,000 rpm, 9 V battery; no measurements, pp.57-65). Steorn 'Orbo' (pp.66-67). Mr Sung of China, 20 kW (27 hp), and an unsourced 225 hp machine (pp.67-68). Dietmar Hohl V-track via Jes Ascanius: replication 'did work', but what worked was a magnet stack rolling on the track, not a self-running drum (pp.71-72). Perendev (Mike Brady): 'dozens' sold at 'not less than 100 kilowatts'; Kelly: not confirmed, no independent test 'other than a brief test by Sterling Allan'; backers 'most unhappy' by mid-2010 (pp.78-79). Diduck US 2007/0296284 (pp.82-89). Kelly's own warnings: PM-only motors are 'very difficult', repulsion-mode magnets reportedly 'lost their magnetisation' after about three months (p.82). Chapter 2 (Moving Pulsed Systems): Robert Adams. Headline '800%' (p.90; also p.28, where Kelly adds that Adams was told he would be killed if he shared the information). On p.93 an Adams-motor builder with the forum ID 'Maimariati' is said to have reached 'a Coefficient Of Performance of 1,223', switching on at 42 degrees and off at 44.7 degrees; 'His input power is 27.6 watts and the output power is 33.78 kilowatts' (33,780 / 27.6 = 1,224). In the introduction (PDF p.28, printed I-18) Kelly gives 'One replication using this technique has an electrical input of 27 watts and a 32 kilowatt output'; the ratios (1,185 and 1,224) suggest the same report at two roundings, but the text does not say so. No instrument, method or document is given. Tewari (US 2015/0084467 A1): Kelly says COP 2 to 3; the patent text itself claims only 'a partial nullification of the back torque' and Kelly notes Tewari makes no self-powering claim (pp.101-112). Lidmotor; Teruo Kawai (patent test 17 V x 1.15 A = 19.55 W in; 100 rpm x 60.52 kg-cm = 62.16 W out, COP 3.18; measurement method not stated, pp.113-116). James Hardy water-jet generator, no figures (pp.116-118). RotoVerter: 'at least 10 times' output over input, 'reproduced by several independent researchers' (unnamed); Chorister's remark gives about 0.75 hp out per 1 hp rated (pp.118-123). Coil shorting: 'estimated factor of 100'; the evidence is open-circuit pulses from about 16 V to 440 V (1,600 V 'optimum') on a hand-spun Bedini window motor replica, a voltage not a delivered power (pp.123-128). Raoul Hatem: gain '20 times', video '144 watts of excess power'; 'introduced ... in 1955' against FR 2,826,800 of January 2003 (pp.128-129). Tseung/Tong wheel COP 3.3 (pp.130-136). UFOpolitics rewound-motor forum reports, terminal voltages of lead-acid batteries only (pp.136-146). Infinity SAV motor/generator, South Korean video only (p.146).

Key claims

• Magnets do no work themselves; 'the power of a magnet flows from the environment' (Kelly's premise) [read: p.42].
• Two of ShenHe Wang's 5 kW colloidal-magnet generators completed a six-month Chinese government 'Reliability and Safety' test in April 2008 [read: pp.42-43; Kelly's statement, tester and data not named, source is Kelly's own site].
• Howard Johnson's patent US 4,151,431 covers a motor powered solely by permanent magnets; no output figure is given [read: p.49].
• Perendev permanent-magnet motors give 'not less than 100 kilowatts'; Kelly says this is unconfirmed and that the only test was 'a brief test by Sterling Allan' [read: p.78].
• A forum builder 'Maimariati' reached an Adams-motor COP of 1,223 (27.6 W in, 33.78 kW out); a second statement gives 27 W in and 32 kW out [read: p.93; PDF p.28]. No measurement record is given.
• Adams motors are 'typically, at least 800% efficient' [read: pp.28, 90].
• Tewari's generator gives COP 2 to 3 (Kelly); the patent text claims only partial nullification of back torque [read: pp.101-112].
• Kawai's patent test gave 62.16 W from 19.55 W (COP 3.18) [read: pp.113-116].
• RotoVerter gives at least 10 times output over input (unnamed replicators) [read: p.118]; coil shorting boosts output 'by an estimated factor of 100' (the measured quantity is open-circuit pulse voltage, 16 V to 440 V) [read: pp.123-128]; Hatem gain 20 times [read: pp.128-129]; Tseung/Tong wheel COP 3.3 [read: pp.130-136].

Relevance: Background chapters for the magnet and pulse ideas that the later chapters build on. Contains a claim class (motors driven by permanent magnets alone) and several of the book's largest numerical claims (Adams COP 1,223; Wang test; Perendev 100 kW).

Mainstream conflict: Rigid permanent magnets with fixed magnetisation exert a conservative force, so any closed cycle gives zero net work (the same argument as for gravity); gating, shielding or moving stator magnets by an external drive moves the question onto the drive's energy. Pulsed-motor COP figures rest on single-run, forum-reported or unstated measurement methods, and several (Kawai, Tewari) are patentee statements. Judgement belongs to the reviewers.

Motionless pulsed systems. Tseung's magnetic frame (pp.148-149): permanent magnet in one arm of a Flynn-type frame, sharp DC pulses to one coil; with the pulse reinforcing the magnet flux 'it is possible for the output power to exceed the input power'. Kelly's anecdote: one replicator got no gain until Tseung advised him to omit the magnet (normal output), then reducing a stack of three magnets to two gave 'COP = 1.5'; replicator unnamed, no instrument, waveform or power values (second-hand). Thane Heins bi-toroid, CA 2594905 (pp.149-152): Kelly's lead-in says output 'can be thirty times greater than the input power'; the patent test he quotes (rendered page image p.150) gives primary 0.29 W; secondary coil 1 0.18 W; load 1 11.25 W; secondary coil 2 0.06 W; load 2 0.02 W; 'the input power was 0.29 watts and the output power 11.51 watts, which is a COP of 39.6' (the output sum includes the power in the secondary windings' own resistance; the text does not say whether 0.29 W is real or apparent power, nor the frequency or instrument). A photographed variant with an outer toroid: 106.9 mW in, 403.3 mW out, 3.77 times (p.151; source not named). Video evidence is LED brightness only. Gennady Markov, EP 0844626 (pp.152-164): two opposed primary sections cancel core flux; claims output emf 'increased by 10 to 20 times' with one primary, power transformers 20 to 30 times lighter, 10 kHz to 40 MHz; the patent claims a voltage ratio (transformation ratio 5 to 11 in the examples), not a COP; its Table 1 is not reproduced. Anonymous 'Jack Noskills' Lenz-law-free resonant transformer (Jan 2014; pp.164-169): no meters, halogen-bulb brightness only. David Klingelhoefer 'Gabriel Device' (pp.169-170): 0.5 A x 120 V = 60 W in, 4 A x 120 V = 480 W out, 'COP=8' (products of rms readings; no power factor or instrument stated). Clemente Figuera (d.1908; pp.170-173): the 1902 Daily Mail report, as Kelly quotes it, of 550 V and a 20 horse-power motor from 'a rough apparatus'; no date or page of the newspaper is given; the rest is Kelly's reconstruction. Alexkor zero back-EMF coils (pp.174-179), no measurements. Barbosa and Leal (Evolucoes Energia, Brazil; WO 2013/104041-43; pp.179-199, 210-211): the patent says at least 100 W for 1 W in; Kelly: 'COP of 100 ... the minimum'; a video of '22 watts producing 6 kilowatts' (p.182; ratio 273); and p.211 'demonstrated 169 kilowatts of power flowing from the ground ... 104 times more energy flowing out of their circuit than the energy flowing into it' (no date, place, witness or instrument; the p.37 table gives COP 102.4). Forum builder 'Clarence' reports 3 kW for his household from an inverter, battery and charger chain with many ground rods (pp.198-204), no meter readings. Matchett / Ascanius mains-rod circuits (pp.204-209): 2.6 V with the fuse out, 129 to 162 V with it in, 61 V under a 7 W LED load; Kelly himself doubts that these circuits give net power from the ground ('the mains meter charges you for power assessed by multiplying the average voltage by the average current ... I do not recommend the use of these circuits', p.211).

Key claims

• A permanent magnet in a transformer or frame core, with the input pulse reinforcing its flux, gives output greater than input; one unnamed Tseung replicator got 'COP = 1.5' after reducing three magnets to two [read: pp.148-149].
• Heins' patent test: 0.29 W in, 11.51 W out, 'COP of 39.6'; outer-toroid variant 106.9 mW in, 403.3 mW out (3.77 times) [read: pp.150-151, page images].
• Markov's two-section transformer raises output emf 10 to 20 times with one primary [read: pp.152-164].
• Transformer output windings can be made free of Lenz-law effect (Alexkor, Noskills) [read: pp.164-179].
• Klingelhoefer's steel-shielded Nanoperm toroid gave 60 W in and 480 W out, COP 8 [read: p.170].
• Figuera's 1902 apparatus gave 550 V and drove a 20 hp motor (Daily Mail, as quoted by Kelly) [read: p.170].
• Electrons can be drawn from earth through a grounded 'electron trap' coil: patent at least 100 W per 1 W (COP 100); '22 W producing 6 kW'; '169 kilowatts ... 104 times' (no source); builder 'Clarence' 3 kW [read: pp.179-211].
• Matchett-style mains-rod circuits give volts and a few watts from a grounded rod; Kelly doubts that they give net power [read: pp.204-211].

Relevance: Establishes the 'motionless' magnet-flux and Lenz-free claims used again in Annis/Eberly, Asaoka and Sweet. Source of the book's earth-electron claims (Barbosa and Leal, Matchett), including the 169 kW and COP 100 figures.

Mainstream conflict: Free energy from flux-modulated cores conflicts with the energy balance of linear transformers; Heins' and Klingelhoefer's COPs are products of readings whose power factor, frequency and instrument are not stated (reactive power in a resonant drive can far exceed real power); the Lenz-free and electrons-from-earth claims have no mainstream counterpart. Reviewers to judge.

Reproduces: Annis and Eberly US application 20090096219 (motionless flux switching; patentees claim COP 200-400 for the switches only, 'without the coupling circuit'); Kunel DE 3024814 (1982; cascade claim of 1,000 MW from 1,000 W in six stages); Ivanov (Bulgaria; COP 2.4 and later 'up to 5.4'); Asaoka US 5,926,083 (1999; measured input about one fortieth with a permanent magnet, over-unity only a stated possibility, Wp/Win2 > 1); Leben video proposing a Meissner oscillator plus Flynn frame (no numbers). Sweet VTA: Kelly says Sweet produced over 500 W at 120 V 60 Hz from under 0.31 mW; the conditioning procedure is Kelly's reading of a YouTube video (inner coil 10-15 Hz sine through a 100 W amplifier, magnets about 12 Hz resonance, outer coil 60 Hz pulses from a 16,000 uF 250 V capacitor through an SCR, ferrite magnets about 6 x 4 x 1 in either side of thick aluminium channel). The only bench numbers are Ashley Gray's 1994 lab notes (23 microwatts in, 19.15 W out at about 400 Hz; 1 mW in, 111 W out at 388/402 Hz; 10-12 h run, three unnamed witnesses; Gray says conditioning was not used). 'Maurice' (self-described layperson) describes a live demonstration with a voltmeter reading 120 V, three toroidal coils, barium ferrite bars, cool lamps, apparent weight loss, and alleges Sweet's death in 1995 after unknown visitors and removal of equipment. Sweet's 1988 paper (as reproduced) says 1 mA at 10 V (10 mW) at 60 Hz yields more than 5,000 W of 'negative energy' from the Dirac Sea. Kelly: no one has replicated the VTA; hyiq.org tried for years without success (via Horst Weyrich).

Key claims

• Sweet's Vacuum Triode Amplifier delivered more than 500 W (120 V, 60 Hz) from less than 0.31 mW input (COP about 1.61 million); other figures in the same text are 112 V, over 1 kW, and over 5 kW from 10 mW [read: pp.244, 506, A-808, A-817].
• Conditioned permanent magnets driven by a tiny 60 Hz sine excitation act as a source of 'negative energy' drawn from the Dirac Sea / vacuum; output wires stay cold and the apparatus loses weight [read: A-805 to A-817].
• Ashley Gray measured 1 mW in, 111 W out (COP about 111,000) with a 400 Hz coil-in-magnet-field device (single-source, 1994) [read: pp.247-249].
• Annis and Eberly claim COP 200-400 for flux switching of a permanent-magnet loop in a narrow band of switch rise time [read: pp.213, 219].
• Asaoka's patent measured about one fortieth of the input needed for the same flux when a permanent magnet is present [read: p.237].
• No one is known to Kelly to have replicated the VTA [read: p.244].

Relevance: Sweet is the book's most extreme claimed gain and a recurring citation; the deep read lists its sources one by one and shows that the figures conflict (0.31 mW / 1 mW / 10 mW in; 500 W / 1 kW / 5 kW out; conditioned vs unconditioned magnets).

Mainstream conflict: A passive device cannot, under accepted energy accounting, deliver more average power than it receives; the 500 W / 0.31 mW claim has no measurement protocol, and the explanation (negative energy, negative time, link to the Dirac Sea, 'more than four dimensions') is not part of mainstream theory. Gray's numbers are voltage x current products with no power-factor statement. Flux switching of a permanent magnet is real engineering (magnetic-flux switches exist); the COP claim is the point of dispute.

Mohamed's August 2014 document 'The Resonance Energy Device Explained' interprets Don Smith: an 'extended Tesla bi-filar coil', spark gap, earth/air grounding, 'the displacement current does not exist', Smith's formula E = V x A x (cycles per second) squared, 'negative energy' drawn through the gap, 'cold electricity'; Mohamed's Part 2 retracts some Part 1 claims (a spark gap at A-B gives no useful power). Meyl's closed resonant-circuit Tesla transfer (0.5 mW in, 6 mW out cited without source). Ming Cao (China) tests: longitudinal wave speed on a coil (pi/2)(8/9)c = 1.40 c, rejects Smith's 4:1 wire-length rule. Russian Kapanadze-style builds (2-2.5 kW lamps from a 12 V 0.8 Ah battery), 'Salty Citrus' (12 V, 1-2 A in; ten 100 W bulbs bright; 220-230 kHz), Nick Giannopoulos back-to-back Tesla coils (24 W in lighting two 220 V bulbs; Kelly's caveat that bulbs light at low power). Boyd transformer patent (no replication known, June 2013). Gegene induction hot-plate (758 W meter reading vs 2,800 W of lamp nameplate). Kapanadze: video of a self-run demonstration; anonymous 2009 interview translation (40 W start-up, 5 kW output, 200 kW earlier test); inventor withholds details. UFOpolitics 'cold electricity' coil (forum battery-voltage log: bank A 37.00 to 37.07 V, bank B 34.94 to 38.32 V). Stanley Meyer CA 1,213,671 magnetic-particle generator (no data; Kelly: 'looks as if it has a high possibility of being a COP>1 electrical device').

Key claims

• Don Smith's resonant Tesla-coil device returns output power rising with the square of voltage and the square of frequency, from a 12 V battery front end (160 kW claimed in chapter 5) [read: pp.257-293, 467-468].
• Energy comes through the spark gap as 'negative energy' / 'cold electricity' from the earth and environment; displacement current does not exist [read: pp.258-268].
• Kapanadze's self-powered unit draws 40 W to start and delivers 5 kW; the battery can be removed after start [read: pp.337-338].
• A commercial induction hot-plate acts as a high-frequency magnetic transmitter whose pick-up coils light more lamp wattage than the plate draws (Gegene) [read: pp.331-334].
• A transistor-pulsed air-core coil collects 'cold electricity' that can recharge batteries (UFOpolitics) [read: pp.340-348].
• No named measurer in this range gives a measured input and output from the same test, other than Meyl's second-hand 0.5 mW / 6 mW [deep read observation].

Relevance: Heart of the book's resonance / Tesla-coil branch; shows that many quantitative claims rest on bulb brightness, voltage logs or verbal interviews and that Mohamed himself retracts part of his first analysis.

Mainstream conflict: Mainstream: standing waves and resonance store and exchange energy but add none; output power cannot exceed input in a passive resonant network; 'displacement current does not exist' contradicts Maxwell's equations as taught (Griffiths ch.7) [memory: high]; the Smith power formula as printed is dimensionally power per second, per the deep read. Reviewers to judge.

Tseung pulsed flywheel (COP 3.3 in the text, 3.4 in the heading; public demonstrations Oct 2009); Chas Campbell flywheel with slack belts giving jerks (750 W in, 2,340 W out in a replication video; self-running after switching motor input to generator); Bitsadze / 'Byzehr' pulley-ratio; Garcia del Castillo ES 2,119,690; Mr Wilson of Texas; Bedini pulsing (not gravity); James Hardy water jet; Donnie Watts CEACU (claimed COP 4, 10 hp from a 250 mm rotor); Dmitriev nudged-weights wheel; Milkovic two-stage pendulum (COP 12 as a force ratio); Kwok 'Hidro' buoyancy generator (50 kW / 250 kW / 1 MW offered); Ribero buoyancy patent US 7,958,726 (Kelly doubts it: 'never been built'); William Skinner torque multiplier (1939 newsreel, '1200 percent'; Kelly reads 1200 times). Kelly adds untested redesigns and build guides. Bessler's 1712 wheel is cited.

Key claims

• An impulse (jerk) delivered to a heavy flywheel adds 'lead-out' energy of 2mgr per pulse drawn from the gravitational field (Tseung theory) [read: p.366].
• Campbell's flywheel, after start-up, runs its own motor from its generator and powers extra loads [read: p.366].
• Skinner's tilted-shaft torque machine produced 1,200 times (newsreel: 1,200 percent) its input in 1939 [read: pp.405-406].
• Buoyancy of air-filled containers in water (Kwok, Kelly's design) gives continuous excess power; once an air column is established the pump no longer works against the water head [read: pp.389-402].
• Perpetual motion is 'not impossible' because systems are not truly closed [read: p.384].

Relevance: Gives the gravity / impulse branch (Tseung, Campbell, Hardy) that returns in chapters 15, 18, 19.

Mainstream conflict: The conservative nature of gravity means no net work per cycle from a closed mechanical loop; the 2mgr derivation is not shown; the buoyancy 'no head' claim contradicts hydrostatics as normally taught. Deep read finds no instrument-level data for any device.

Frank Prentice 'Electrical Power Accumulator' (1923 patent; 500 W in at 500 kHz, a loop receiver lighting 50 x 60 W carbon lamps, COP 6); Lawton / Meyer water-fuel-cell pulse circuit; Bedini battery pulse-charger (US 6,545,444; Kelly: 'COP>10 when tuned'; not practical beyond minor loads); Tesla Switch / Electrodyne four-battery circuit (batteries 'conditioned' to 36 V); three-battery switching (untested suggestion); Carlos Benitez patents GB 17,811 (1915), GB 14,311 (1916), GB 121,561 (1918; worked example 400 W in vs 2,400 W battery power, COP 6); Bozidar Lisac US 20080030165; Don Smith (160 kW from a 12 V front end); Kapanadze; Walter Ford crystal set; Tseung FLEET toroid (Kelly: battery-swap test 'both batteries gained'; COP>10 stated); Joule Thief variants and Kelly's own lux test (Joule Thief less efficient than direct LED drive); Ace_Propulsion (30 mW in, 52.8 mW out, COP 1.8); Ed Gray / Marvin Cole (27 W in, 10 hp out, 'Cal-Tech 1973' with no report cited); Moray (two sentences); Molina-Martinez; Alfred Hubbard 1919 (35 hp motor, no batteries); Joseph Cater magnetisation-curve explanation; Coutier FR739458 (216x for three sets); Sweet VTA (repeats 0.31 mW / 500 W, 112 V, video source); Rosemary Ainslie COP 17 heater (no protocol); Oleg Gritskevitch hydro-magnetic dynamo (800 W in, 1,400 W out; Armenian unit 14.4 kW in, 1.496 MW out, COP about 100).

Key claims

• Pulsed DC / spark-gap spikes make environmental energy available in the circuit [read: p.422].
• Benitez patent example: 400 W taken from a battery produces 2,400 W of battery power (COP 6) via resonant spark-gap pulses charging a second battery [read: pp.452-458].
• Bedini pulse-chargers can reach COP>10 when tuned (Kelly, no measurement) [read: p.426].
• Tseung's FLEET toroid and Kelly's own battery-swap test gave both batteries a net gain (voltages unreported) [read: p.480].
• Gritskevitch's dynamo delivers about 100 times input (1.5 MW from 14.4 kW) [read: pp.510-514].
• Ainslie's heater COP 17 (no test protocol in the text; patent examples 1.086, 2.45) [read: pp.508-510; Appendix pp.2412-2424].

Relevance: Largest cluster of numeric COP claims; the deep reads list the basis of each number and note internal inconsistencies (e.g. the Benitez worked example's 24 kW circuit dissipation versus 321 W delivered).

Mainstream conflict: Pulse and switching circuits obey energy conservation in conventional analysis; battery voltage after rest is not an energy balance. Reviewers should check each COP against the energy actually transferred.

Bedini / Roger Andrews tri-filar rotors, Ron Knight (battery professional: conditioning needed, ~15x claim), Ron Pugh build (COP>10, 43 W PSU display), Ossie Callanan 2007 (33 Ah UPS battery 10 V to 14 V in about 6 h at 0.6 A), Alexkor solid-state chargers, Sucahyo 'Stingo' (warns voltage rose without genuine charge), Howerd Halay conditioning, Emme earth battery (patent figures), Booysen/Boyce, Rene's fast-charge Joule Thief, Seiler, and Kelly's own cautions. Kelly's only stated measurement protocol: timed discharge through a known load; he says no instrument measures radiant-energy inflow.

Key claims

• Pulse-charging battery banks with Bedini-type circuits returns more energy to the battery than the driver consumes (COP 2 to 11 claimed) [read: pp.519-539].
• A Joule Thief charger raised a cell from 0.6 V to 1.34 V in one hour; swapping two 12 V batteries via the FLEET toroid left both with 'significant, real, usable' gain, implying COP>2 [read: pp.574-577].
• Kelly: most builders do not get COP>1 and results are 'temperamental' [read: pp.519, 573].

Relevance: Shows the book's own caution on measuring charge: surface charge and voltage readings can mislead.

Mainstream conflict: Voltage rise after rest or at the terminals is not an energy measurement; lead-acid battery 50 percent efficiency is a stated assumption.

Tesla US 685,957 (1901) aerial plate; Jes Ascanius replication (2.6 V LED, about 20 V open, 20 modules charge a 12 V battery overnight); Thomas Henry Moray: witnessed demonstrations quoted (635 W / 655 W appliance ratings, 675 W after a week per Murray O. Hayes PhD, about forty 100 W bulbs per Chester Todd's 1971 memory), 'Swedish stone', germanium diode / Moray valve, patent refused, files missing, reports of intimidation; Plauson (100 kW installation from more than 100 aerials); Alexkor; Rayburn TREC (10 kW, 600 V stages). The deep read corrects an earlier digest line that implied Moray's diode was tested many times (the text says the equipment was).

Key claims

• A short aerial and earth connection can deliver kilowatts continuously (Moray, Rayburn, Plauson) [read: pp.583, 595-618].
• Moray's device lit lamps and appliances totalling 635-675 W for days without moving parts, in witnessed demonstrations [read: pp.602-604].
• Tesla's insulated plate in the air accumulates energy indefinitely until the dielectric ruptures [read: pp.584-586].

Relevance: Primary Moray material in the book; witness accounts are second-hand and mostly appliance ratings.

Mainstream conflict: Atmospheric electric potentials exist but the available steady power from an elevated plate is far below kilowatts in accepted analysis [memory: medium]; the Moray record is thin and contested. Reviewers and the Investigator to follow.

Compressed-air engines (Neal, Robertson, Leroy Rogers, Van Valkinburg), Clem motor, Josef Papp inert-gas engine (35-minute 300 hp test claim on p.642, but '300 HP for 40 min' in Kelly's p.37 summary table [QE, 2026-10-09]; 1968 cylinder detonation, 1983 certification test), PlasmERG, Britt, Klostermann US 7,076,950 (air plasma, patent only). Kelly gives no independent test report in the chapter. Chapter 9: Hans Coler (6 kW from a few watts, 450 mV Magnetstromapparat), Trawoeger pyramid (8 W, 21 W), Drbal razor-blade patent (1778 shaves), Brock rabbit experiment (46.5 vs 34.5 oz, 1977), Grandics US 6,974,110 (oscilloscope data with Faraday cage check), Les Brown, Cater; Ighina ERIM and Elios; the Joe Cell (reports of at least fifteen cars, 'persona' factor, Williams' truck in 'shandy' mode); Lowrance coils (two replications of winding, not fuel-less running); B.A.C. coil; coax electrets; Dan Davidson 'Shape Power'. The Papp patent that states the mechanism (fusion of helium, thorium-232 electrodes, 1,000-hour charge) is reproduced at pp.2196-2228 and is summarised in its own entry below.

Key claims

• Engines can run on a repeatedly ionised and exploded fixed gas charge without fuel (Papp, Britt, Klostermann) [read: pp.642-654].
• Pyramid shapes, Joe Cells and similar passive devices concentrate an environmental / orgone energy; effects depend on operator 'persona' [read: pp.684-718].
• Coler's Magnetstromapparat produced voltage from magnets and coils alone for months [read: pp.655-656, 1148-1150].

Relevance: Shows where Kelly accepts testimony over measurement, and where the book itself notes reproducibility problems.

Mainstream conflict: Air-plasma 'fuel-less' engine and orgone ideas have no mainstream support; the deep reads find no independent measurement of power out vs fuel in. Papp test details are leads for the Investigator.

Booster designs (Smack, Hotsabi, West, DuPlex, Hogg, AVA), fuel-economy claims (8 percent to over 100 percent, none documented), Bob Boyce toroid / 101-plate DC electrolyser (50 lpm continuous, 100 lpm bursts; 211-216 percent DC and 1,000-1,200 percent pulsed of 'Faraday', defined by Kelly as 2.34 Wh per litre of HHO), Lawton's replication of Meyer's cell (300-900 percent, assessor unnamed), Cramton / Laesa (6 lpm for 12-36 W, '2,340 percent'), Harris Honda GX4000i, Quirey, Meyer injection, Lindemann mower, Lowrie, Ewert vortex, GEET, SG Gas (2.8 Wh/L and 0.28 Wh/L pulsed), Garrett, Blue, Zigouras HHO cell (17,500 lpm for 190 A then 10 A at 14 V, COP 5-10). The deep reader's arithmetic: Zigouras's flow implies about 2.5 MW chemical energy versus 140 W-2.7 kW electrical input; a 3 lpm flow carries about 0.43 kW of chemical energy against a claimed 5.5 kW generator output.

Key claims

• Properly pulsed and tuned electrolysers produce 10 to 23 times the gas that Faraday-based (2.34 Wh/L) accounting allows, with energy drawn from the environment [read: pp.770, 789, 846].
• A standard petrol generator runs on HHO and water mist alone (three UK men: 3 lpm, 4 kW load test) [read: pp.23-24, 837-838].
• HHO added to a vehicle improves mpg 25-35 percent typically and over 100 percent rarely [read: pp.727-728].
• Stan Meyer's patent examples describe a water capacitor splitting water with a few watts [read: Appendix pp.1836-1841; deep read].

Relevance: The largest practical branch; the book's own Faraday baseline is consistent with textbook electrolysis, so the claims are quantitative and checkable.

Mainstream conflict: Mainstream: water splitting needs at least the Gibbs / enthalpy energy (about 1.23-1.48 V per cell, 2.36 Wh/L HHO); claimed outputs above that conflict with thermodynamics; stated Boyce / Zigouras figures are unmeasured in the text. Page-label notes: Garrett and Blue p.913-915, Zigouras p.916-918.

Tesla ionised-air and MHD generators with Kelly's own gravity theory; Correa; Meyl scalar waves; Searle permanent-magnet generator (flying disc, no numbers); Dave Lawton gravity-wave detector (speech heard at 4.5 miles through a stone wall); Lafonte motor; Joseph Newman motor (COP 8.0 / 800 percent said to be measured by Dr Roger Hastings; 3 kV, 0.8 mA small motor; no report cited); Daniel Cook; Michael Eskeli heat pump (cycle table 66.7 vs 67.0 B/lb, design calculation only); Rutherford-Geiger radium alpha-count (3.4e10 alpha/s at 4.5 MeV) with Kelly's 'Four Corners' conclusion; Andrea Rossi (US 9,115,913 'Fluid Heater': 6 kWh out per 1 kWh in for 180 days; no test report); Karl Schappeller (Stevens article, 'the facts are not yet proven'); condensation water hammer; William Hyde US 4,897,592 (COP 10 claim; patent text states under 10 percent mechanical input and 300 kV prototype; 10 kW not in the patent); 'The Suppression of Knowledge' essay (40,000 patents said confiscated); Bob Beck blood-electrification pulser (95 percent cure of HIV / cancer claimed in a lecture; printed sources named: Science News 30 Mar 1991, Longevity News Dec 1992, US 5,188,738, LA Times 10 Dec 1996).

Key claims

• Newman's motor has COP 8 (reported as measured by Dr Hastings, no report cited) and back-EMF power above 80 kW at 1.5 W input [read: pp.936-947].
• Rossi's fluid heater yields 6 kWh per 1 kWh in for 180 days (patent text; no measurement record) [read: pp.961-967].
• Over 40,000 free-energy patents have been confiscated and knowledge systematically suppressed [read: pp.993-1005].
• Beck's electronic pulser kills pathogens in blood and cures HIV/cancer in 95 percent (lecture claim) [read: pp.999-1004].
• Hyde's electrostatic generator gives COP 10 and 10 kW (not in the patent text) [read: pp.984-993].

Relevance: Mixed-topic chapter that carries the book's strongest assertion of suppression and the Rossi / cold fusion link.

Mainstream conflict: Rossi's claims are unverified by independent measurement as of the cited sources; the Newman and Hyde figures are patentee-side; Beck's cures are medical claims with no trial data in the text. Printed sources named for Beck and Rossi are checkable leads.

Beginner electronics: voltage, resistance, Ohm's law worked examples (9 V across 330 ohm = 27 mA), transistors, emitter followers, diodes, AC, coils, transformers, rectification, multivibrators, logic gates, NE555, 741, SCR/triac, CD4022 and CD4017 dividers, capacitors, resonance, prototype building, test equipment, magnetic-field measurement and 'The Weird Stuff'. The tutorial supplies the building blocks used in the pulse-circuit chapters. QE remediation addition: pp.1060-1071 design a battery pulser 'to do the same as Bob Beck's pulser circuit' (4 pulses a second from 27 V, NE555 or LM358 version) and quote Beck's own 'Expanded instructions for experimental / theoretical HIV blood neutralization - hypothetical protocols' (rev. 20 March 1997): about 2 hours a day for about 2 months, 'typical comfortable input about 3 mA', '50 to 100 uA through blood is essential', batteries only, with a precautions list (no pacemakers, no pregnant women, electroporation warning). Pages 1089-1091: Kelly's own explanation that volts times amps is not power for non-sine or reactive loads, with a worked example in which a reading of 'COP = 1.56' 'may be wrong', and that true power needs sampling wattmeters [read: QE, digest 47 pp.1089-1091]. This is Kelly's strongest caveat on his own COP figures.

Key claims

• Standard electronics tutorial material (Ohm's law, transistor biasing, 555 and CD4022 timing circuits) [read: digest].
• Volts times amps is not power for non-sine or reactive loads; a reading of 'COP = 1.56' may be wrong; true power needs sampling wattmeters (Kelly's own caveat) [read: digest 47 pp.1089-1091].
• Blood electrification by a Beck pulser (about 2 h a day for about 2 months, 50 to 100 uA through blood) is presented as a treatment for HIV and other illnesses; Beck's own title calls the protocol experimental, theoretical and hypothetical [read: pp.1060-1071].

Relevance: Teaching aid only; relevant because the circuits in chapters 5, 6, 15, 17 and 19 use these parts.

Mainstream conflict: Conventional textbook content, except 'The Weird Stuff' section (not deep-read) and the Beck medical protocol, which cites no trial and is outside the physics review.

Kelly files here devices he believes may work but that nobody can replicate or that are undisclosed. Paul Baumann's Testatika (300 V x 10 A = 3 kW claimed by D. A. Kelly, 1991; commune refuses inspection); homopolar N-Machine (Lindemann, Tewari patent COP 2.5); Romag (company spec 3.5 V, 7 A, self-running; Naudin only); Frolov/Moller atomic hydrogen generator (Naudin >30 min); McQueen US 7,095,126; the Nitro Cell ('not a single cell proved successful in powering an engine', Kelly withdrew then republished; Bundock 25 to 35 mpg with a booster); HydroStar / HydroGen plans (critiqued by Chemelec); hydrogen from aluminium (Cornish; Cornish vs Francis spelling inconsistency in the text); MEG, Bearden et al. US 6,362,718 (48 W out per 12 W in; the text says both 'no one has achieved COP>1' on p.1145 and 'replicated by others, COP>1' on p.1147); Lawton asymmetric MEG; Hans Coler (current drop 104 to 27 mA; claim 6 kW from dry cells). Kelly argues a failed replication does not show a device is false (p.1139).

Key claims

• The Testatika machine produces about 3 kW with no disclosed input [read: p.1114].
• The MEG (motionless electromagnetic generator) delivers 48 W for 12 W in per its patent [read: pp.1145-1147].
• Failed replication does not prove a device false; only that a particular build failed [read: p.1139].
• Hans Coler's devices produced tens of mA to 6 kW from magnets and coils alone [read: pp.1148-1150].

Relevance: Shows Kelly's own sorting: 'doubtful' means unreplicable, not refuted; contains the MEG, which ties to Bearden's work.

Mainstream conflict: Testatika, Romag and MEG lack independent verification in the text; MEG claims conflict within Kelly's own pages.

Conventional and DIY renewable-energy material: wood-gas stoves, a solid-fuel electricity stove, HHO heaters (Paine, Kim, H-Cat), re-wired halogen heater, wind and water power builds (McDavid, Herbert, Mead and Holmes), solar ovens and funnel cookers (BYU tests in Bolivia), solar water pasteurisation and stills, water purity, colloidal silver, Kimbal Musk's 'Urban Farming Accelerator', ram pumps (COP 'of infinity' in the sense of no external energy), mosquito control, wave power, heat-driven absorption cooling (Von Platen / Munters patent), solar lamps (NiMH, LED), Lighting for Africa, Bhargava's energy system, low-cost cooling and Earthships. Deep-read detail (2026-10-09). (1) Kelly's own LM2587 DC-DC converter test (p.1259): 'Measurements using three NiMh batteries connected in series, indicate an input of 800 mA at 3.33 volts (2.664W) driving the 10-LED array displays with 389 mA at 10.3 volts (4.01W) which is COP=1.5.' This is the only COP above 1 that Kelly reports measuring himself. The page names no meter, no averaging, no steady-state condition and no repeat; a boost converter draws pulsed current from its battery, and a typical converter is 80 to 95 percent efficient, so at 90 percent 2.664 W would give 2.40 W (233 mA) rather than the 389 mA reported [calc, deep reader]. (2) Perkins and Frenette shear heaters (pp.1161-1164): 'some measurements indicate that it is at least 100% efficient and some people believe that it is well over the 100% efficiency, though they don't want [to] get drawn into long discussions on methods of measurement'; no data, names or dates; at least 100 percent is also what an ordinary resistive heater gives. (3) Sang Nam Kim's HHO heater (pp.1157-1159): 30 L/min of hydroxy gas would need 4.2 kW at Faraday efficiency by Kelly's own arithmetic; Kelly argues the electrolyser is inefficient and the flow overstated, so he makes no over-unity claim for it. Also reported: 'The Hydrogen Garage' (216 W) and the H-Cat (70 W) with no heat balance. (4) Ram pump 'COP of infinity' (pp.1217-1218): Kelly traces the power to the sun through the water cycle; his own table figures give 40 to 60 percent efficiency by calculation (about 2 W of falling water in); the printed formula D = S x F x E / L lacks a 1,440 min/day factor. (5) Bhargava bicycle generator (pp.1260-1262): 'more than 100-watts' read from analogue meters in a video still; '1 hour of pedalling = 24 hours of low-power electricity' is consistent with ordinary conservation (100 Wh over 24 h is 4.2 W); Kelly's remark that the flywheel 'causes an energy gain' is his opinion. QE also noted: p.1268 refrigerators described as 'about 300% efficient' (a heat-pump COP), and colloidal silver, water purity and the 'cures AIDS and Ebola' sentence (pp.1203, 1210-1212; see Chapter 20 entry).

Key claims

• Ram pumps and solar cookers deliver useful output with no purchased fuel (COP infinite in Kelly's usage; the energy comes from the sun) [read: pp.1217-1218].
• Solar pasteurisation of drinking water removes the need for boiling [read: digest p.1191].
• Kelly's own bench measurement: a Chinese LM2587 DC-DC converter with an input of 800 mA at 3.33 V (2.664 W) and an output of 389 mA at 10.3 V (4.01 W) is 'COP=1.5'; no meter type, averaging or steady-state condition is stated [read: p.1259].
• Perkins shear heaters are 'at least 100% efficient' (unnamed 'some measurements') [read: p.1163].
• Manoj Bhargava's bicycle generator shows 'more than 100-watts' on analogue meters; one hour of pedalling is said to give 24 hours of low-power electricity [read: pp.1260-1262].

Relevance: Practical, mostly conventional chapter; useful to show the book's range, not central to the over-unity claims.

Mainstream conflict: Largely consistent with mainstream engineering. The LM2587 COP 1.5 conflicts with the normal efficiency of a boost converter (below 1) and the method of measuring a pulsed input is not stated; the HHO heaters (Paine, Kim, H-Cat) inherit the Chapter 10 claims, though Kelly's own numbers for Kim show no over-unity.

Chapter 15 is Kelly's build guide for a Tseung/Tong pulsed rotor with proposed upgrades (bifilar Tesla coils, 31 coils, multiple rotors, back-EMF diode, Orbo-type drive coils) and a hoped-for self-powered capacitor-fed variant; no measurements by Kelly. Chapter 16 reproduces Utkin's argument that energy conservation 'cannot be broken' but 'only applies to symmetrical interactions' and that Noether's theorem 'just does not apply (but, that needs to be proved at a future date)'; Heins 40x claim without details. Chapter 17 surveys layouts (Campbell, Garcia del Castillo, Wilson, Bedini), Bedini's commutated motor/generator (62 W GE motor, 1,100 rpm, six 200-turn coils; Jim Wilson 12 kW excess, no data), Kelly's gravitational-field flywheel hypothesis (admittedly unproven), his Lenz argument (pulse drive 'not affected by the Lenz Law effect'), and a flywheel/PWM self-powered proposal that 'has not been built and tested at this time'.

Key claims

• A pulse-driven rotor with pick-up coils can reach COP 3.3 (Tseung/Tong) and be made self-powered [read: pp.1278-1306].
• Energy conservation holds only for symmetrical interactions; asymmetric (orthogonal-coil) arrangements avoid Lenz drag and Noether's theorem does not apply [read: pp.1307-1318].
• Pulse-driven motors are not subject to Lenz-law drag, unlike ordinary motors [read: p.1329].

Relevance: Kelly's own proposed designs and theory for avoiding Lenz drag; no raw measurements.

Mainstream conflict: Noether's theorem and Lenz's law (energy conservation) are used in standard physics as stated; the Utkin argument is an unproved assertion and Kelly's page references to 'chapter 17' for the pulsed wheel should read chapter 15.

Chapter 18 (Chas Campbell, Australia): a 2 m, 80+ kg flywheel kicked by rubber-roller impulses from motor-driven 50 kg small flywheels, a geared 3,000 rpm 3.5 kW alternator fed back to the motors after mains start; no measured output, only suitability ratings of 8 and 20 kW and 'a great deal of excess'; larger versions reported May 2017. Chapter 19 (unnamed South African builder): acrylic rotor with five ferrite stacks, trifilar Litz coil, transistor trigger, flyback energy dumped to a five-battery 60 V chain, inverter load; claimed 40 W output from 70 mA at 12.7 V (0.89 W), COP 45, three weeks continuous, measurement method not described; later battery-free-start and Hall/FET variants at 60 W and 150 W.

Key claims

• Campbell's impulse flywheel with an alternator feeding back to its drive motors is self-powered and supports extra load [read: pp.1331-1374].
• The South African pulse generator gives 40 W from 0.89 W input (COP 45) and held its drive battery at 12.7 V for three weeks [read: ch.19].
• No independent data is given for either device in these pages [deep read].

Relevance: Latest builds of the Tseung/Campbell and electronic-pulse lines; useful as a test case for the reviewers' input-power measurement questions.

Mainstream conflict: Reported COPs depend on how 0.89 W input was measured (not described); flywheel impulse gain conflicts with simple mechanical energy accounting.

Health advice (sleep, exercise, diet), Hulda Clark (illness from poisons or 'destructive bugs'), Bob Beck's electronic pulsing and colloidal silver, and a long build guide for a Georges Lakhovsky multi-wave oscillator, plus a charity essay at the end (pp.1416-1417). The deep read inventories every medical claim with its page and stated source; it does not test them. (1) Beck: 'very effective in dealing with illness, including those illnesses which conventional (pharmaceutical-based) medicine cannot cure' (p.1375); no patient numbers or trials; Beck's own protocol (pp.1069-1071) is headed experimental, theoretical and hypothetical. (2) Suramin: one sentence, 'It is also a fact that autism can be quickly combatted by use of the 100-year old drug suramin' (p.1375), no source, dose or trial; 'suramin' occurs nowhere else in the book. (3) Lakhovsky: the system is 'probably the most powerful medical system to date' (p.1375). The build is by an anonymous American contributor who writes that 'his design has been independently replicated by eighteen other people' (p.1376; no names or data). Settings (p.1413), 'suggestions based on very limited patient experience': general 3,500 V and field intensity 7; brain tumour 3,500 V and 10; liver or pancreas tumour 4,000 V and 12. Contributor doctrine: surface cancer is 'a Liver problem', deep tissue cancer 'a Kidney problem', and 'the results will be excellent every time' (p.1415). The contributor claims the Lakhovsky machine was 'suppressed for over 80 years' (p.1414). (4) Alzheimer's: a 30-minute dichotic audio recording on a web page of 18 Dec 2016 'is claimed to reverse Alzheimer's disease'; Kelly: 'Whether or not the recording is effective, I have no way of knowing, but I have no reason to doubt the claim' (p.1416). (5) Colloidal silver: made at home at about 10 ppm, a teaspoon held under the tongue five times a day; 'completely harmless to humans and has no side effects of any kind' (p.1210; argyria is not mentioned); 'cures AIDS and Ebola' (p.1212, Kelly's flat statement, the only place either word occurs); 'the very cheap and well-proven colloidal silver treatment can cure both cancer and malaria' (p.1417); unsourced anecdotes with named doctors (Nordstrom, Farber, Moyer, Bretano, Margraf, Crookes) and a burn case (pp.1211-1212). Safety statements in the book: Beck's precautions (pacemakers, pregnancy, electroporation, batteries only, p.1069-1071); Lakhovsky: lethal mains and capacitor voltages, 'nobody who has a pacemaker ... should come within ten metres of this machine', a formal disclaimer (p.1408), over-use can 'over stress the body' (p.1409). No page advises consulting a doctor or continuing conventional cancer treatment (an absence in these pages, not a contradiction).

Key claims

• A Lakhovsky-type oscillator restores cellular oscillatory balance and treats illness including tumours; suggested settings for brain, liver and pancreas tumours are 'based on very limited patient experience' [read: pp.1375, 1413].
• Autism 'can be quickly combatted by use of the 100-year old drug suramin' (bare assertion, no source) [read: p.1375].
• Beck's electronic pulsing, with colloidal silver, is 'very effective' against illness; Beck's protocol is 2 hours a day for about 2 months, 50 to 100 uA through blood [read: pp.1069-1071, 1375].
• A 30-minute audio recording is 'claimed to reverse Alzheimer's disease' (Kelly: effectiveness unknown to him) [read: p.1416].
• Colloidal silver is harmless and 'cures AIDS and Ebola' and 'can cure both cancer and malaria' (Kelly's own statements, no source) [read: pp.1210-1212, 1417].

Relevance: Health claims with no clinical data in the text; outside the energy question and not reviewed by a medical reviewer, but in the book and recorded here so that the review's silence on them is not read as endorsement. Interested parties: Beck (device inventor and patentee), the anonymous Lakhovsky builder (a user of the machine), and Kelly (runs the sites that host the Beck and silver pdfs; no commercial stake in a medical product is shown in these pages).

Mainstream conflict: No controlled trial, clinical record or patient data is cited for any medical claim in these pages. Whether the claims are medically true is outside this review (no medical reviewer); the high-voltage and mains construction carries real safety risk.

Chapter 21 equates the zero-point field with 'Orgone', cites Dan Davidson and Mehran Keshe's GaNS (gas nano-state) material and water; procedure with caustic soda and electrolysis; claimed to reverse genetic modification in seeds; no evidence beyond assertion; internal inconsistencies (GaNS life 'indefinite' vs 'weeks' vs 'many months'; wait 24 h vs 48 h). Chapter 22 describes Denis Sabourin's motor with a fishing-float rotor carrying four N52 magnets, a 555-based switch box that periodically swaps batteries; claimed to charge a mobile phone overnight and run indefinitely; actual data only in the battery capacity tests (the 'SDNMY 3800' cell test shows about 7 h at 50 mA). The deep read notes the design needs a periodic relay swap to recharge the driving battery and gives no input/output measurements.

Key claims

• GaNS water and material reverse genetic modification and restore seed to health [read: pp.1418-1423].
• The Sabourin generator runs indefinitely self-powered while charging a phone overnight [read: p.1424].

Relevance: Peripheral to the energy core, but shows the book's extension into orgone, zero-point and biological claims.

Mainstream conflict: No mainstream support for orgone or GaNS; Sabourin's energy balance is not measured.

Wire tables, then patents and source texts, roughly in the order of the contents list. Deep-read items: Colman and Seddon-Gillespie GB 763,062 (1956, '70-year battery', 300 MHz irradiation, 10 A at 100-110 V estimated from 30 mg); Imris US 3,781,601; Jong-Sok An US 6,208,061; Molina-Martinez; Ognyanov US 3,766,094; Edwin Gray; Barbat US 2007/0007844 (COP up to 59 CdSe, 37 CdS, 5,100 InSb calculated; contains the 'infinite energy' rejection text that is the applicant's, not Kelly's); Reardon US 6,946,767 (bench figures up to 13,713 percent; headline 100.87 mW); Spence US 4,772,816 (kilowatts rest on Aspden's report); Alexander US 3,913,004 (1,200 W in, 3,520 W out, COP 2.93); Hayasaka US 5,892,311 ('1/5.2 torque'); Jamison EU 82400992.2; Kawai US 5,436,518 (19.55 W in, 62.16 W out); Newman WO 83/00963 (126 V x 99 mA in; 640 V x >20 mA out; 102 percent); Flynn US 6,246,561 (force per coil power x2); Bedini US 6,545,444, 6,392,370 (COP 0.98 stated) and 2003/117111; Plauson US 1,540,998; Meyers GB 1913/01098; Correa US 2006/0082,334; Stanley Meyer US 4,936,961, 5,149,407, 4,389,981, 4,421,474, CA 2,067,735, WO 92/07861 and Stephen Meyer 2005/0246059; Sweet VTA texts (A-803 to A-817); Annis/Eberly (A-818); a Boyce-style DC electrolyser (A-895); 'The Designs of Donald Smith' (A-907 to A-937) with Kelly's 'PJK commentary' formulas W = 0.5 C V^2 Hz and the f^2 resonance rule (dimensionally power, labelled energy); a practical Don Smith implementation, Russian implementation, Sergei's 'Dynatron' Kapanadze-style circuit (test ended in a blown coil/bridge), constructing high-quality coils, Rosemary Ainslie COP 17 heater and WO 99/38247 'Harnessing a Back EMF' (patent examples COP 1.086, 2.45 and 0.976-1.176; COP 17 has no protocol in the text), and a FEMA wood-gas (producer gas) generator manual (A-997 to the end).

Key claims

• Patentees' own statements are the only basis for the quantitative claims in the appendix (Kawai 3.18, Newman 102 percent, Alexander 2.93, Reardon up to 13,713 percent, Barbat calculated COPs) [read: pp.1445-1700 deep reads].
• Don Smith documents give 160 kW from a 12 V 1 A supply (COP 13,333), a 28.8 kVA suitcase unit from a 12 V 7 Ah gel cell, a 6,000 W unit from 140 W, and gigawatt 'atomic battery' units, with no stated measurement method [read: pp.2342-2353, 2372].
• Smith's mechanisms: a magnetic disturbance can be copied by any number of pick-ups without depletion; output rises as V^2 and f; resonance drops resistance to zero; electricity is just the 'losses' [read: pp.2354-2359].
• Ainslie's patent examples measure COP 1.086-2.45 by resistor temperature equivalence; the headline COP 17 is cited to external Panacea / Ainslie tests not in the text [read: pp.2412-2424].
• The Meyer water-capacitor patents claim energy 'beyond the gas burning stage' and about 5 US gallons (19 L) of water per hour at 5 kHz, 0-650 V, with no measured gas flow or input power [read: pp.1857, 1870, 1893].

Relevance: The book's source-document archive; the deep reads separate what the patents state from Kelly's headers and show where Kelly's header claims exceed the patent text (Hayasaka and Flynn).

Mainstream conflict: Patent text can state claims the patent office did not verify; the Barbat 'infinite energy' passage is the applicant's argument; several Smith formulas have unit errors (T = RC called a frequency, V/uF = Hz). Puharich, Hasebe, Chambers, Garrett, Spiros, the high-mpg carburettor patents, the Papp and Britt patents and the booster mpg reports are now deep-read (see the separate entries below); pages 1961-2002, 2038-2040, 2088-2195, 2253-2279, 2314-2328 and 2433-2481 (Blue, Aguero, Horvath, Eccles and other plans, and the wood-gas manual) remain digest-only.

Puharich ('Cutting the Gordian Knot of the Great Energy Bind' and US 4,394,230, 19 July 1983 as Kelly gives it): 0.9% saline (0.154 M) driven by an amplitude-modulated carrier near 600 Hz; 25 to 38 mA rms at 4.0 to 2.6 V rms, 'P = I x E' = 98.8 to 100 mW, 30 minutes = 180 J; separate rms meters, 'it was decided not to use the watt meter'. Output 10.80 cc H2 + 5.40 cc O2 (16.20 cc), mean of gas chromatography and mass spectrometry in two laboratories (the definitive one named as Gollob Analytical Services, Berkeley Heights NJ), standard error +/-10%. The article's arithmetic: 10.5783 J/cc, ideal yield 17.01 cc water vapour, 11.33 cc H2, measured/ideal 91.30%; then a 'credit' of 16.20 cc x 12.7687 J/cc = 206.85 J against a 180 J 'debit', a 'surplus' of 26.85 J, 14.919% (page images pp.1930-1931). Source of the 20 percent: the patent and article say ΔH/ΔG = 68.315/56.62 = 1.21, so combining the gases releases 'some 20% more energy ... than it takes to produce' them; the quoted Penner passage says the extra comes from heat absorbed from the surroundings. The abstract claims 80-100% efficiency. Pure-water stage D (patent): about 0.1 cc H2 per minute at 289 K for 11.2 mW rising to 100 mW (no measurement method). Kelly: Puharich 'reportedly drove his motor home for hundreds of thousands of miles ... using only water as fuel' (p.1902, no source; nothing in the article or patent mentions a vehicle). Recomputation (deep reader, confirming QE): 10.80 cc H2 is 0.482 mmol of water split; at ΔG 237 kJ/mol that needs 114 J, a Gibbs efficiency of 63.5% (58% if the volumes are at 25 C rather than 0 C), which is inside the 50-71% range the article gives for ordinary DC electrolysers; burnt back it returns ΔH = 137.7 J against the 180 J debit, a net loss of 42 J. The printed 91.30%, 114.9% and +26.85 J all carry a factor-1.5 slip: 10.578 J/cc is ΔG per cc of H2 (22,400 cc per mole of H2), used as if per cc of mixed gas (33,600 cc per mole of water), and 12.7687 J/cc is ΔH per cc of H2, multiplied by cc of mixed gas (the oxygen counted as fuel). A second point, new in this deep read: the article's own Faraday table gives at most 5.23 cc (25 mA) or 7.94 cc (38 mA) of H2 in 30 minutes, so the reported 10.80 cc is 2.07 or 1.36 times what the stated current can make by charge; competing readings are that the gas came from a higher current than quoted, that the rms ammeter under-read the charge in a non-sinusoidal waveform, that the volumes are not 30-minute totals, or a genuine super-Faradaic yield (not claimed by the article). The measured input is volt-amperes, not real power (the article says the power at resonance is 'reactive'). Hasebe US 4,105,528 (8 Aug 1978): spiral electrodes between ferrite magnet rings in NaOH; table (page image p.1936): 2.8 V, 30 A, 'hydroxy gas production rate 116 cc/sec', 'hydrogen production per coulomb 2.6 cc', oxygen 1.3 cc, 'over 20 times that which could be obtained by standard Faraday electrolysis'. No measurement method is stated. Faraday gives 0.1162 cc H2 per coulomb at STP, so 2.6 cc/C is 22.4 times (20.3 at the table's 25 C, 1003 mbar). Input 84 W (pump excluded) for 116 cc/s is 0.724 J per cc, against a Gibbs floor of 7.05 J/cc of mixed gas (6.40 at 25 C); 116 cc/s would need at least 818 W. The per-coulomb rows look derived from the total rate (116/30 = 3.87 cc/C split 2:1). Competing readings: entrained liquid, foam or vapour counted as gas; a unit slip (cc/min) would give 37% of Faraday but needs two errors; or a genuine anomaly as claimed. Kelly elsewhere quotes this patent as '7 lpm of HHO for 84 watts' (p.753). Chambers / Xogen US 6,126,794 (Kelly dates it 16 July 2002; the deep reader recalls 3 October 2000 [memory, medium; to be web-checked]): tap water, stainless-steel electrodes 1 mm apart, 'only 12 volts at 300 mA (3.6 watts)', pulsed 10:1 at 10-250 kHz, 'capable of producing gas at the rate of 1 p.s.i. per minute' (a pressure gauge is the only output measurement; head-space volume not given), and the claim that the gas 'successfully run[s] such engine without any gasoline' on a small one-cylinder engine (no run time, engine size, load or input power during the run). Orthohydrogen / parahydrogen distinction is the patentee's characterization. 3.6 W cannot supply an engine's fuel energy (at most about 4.3 W of heating value even at 100% Gibbs efficiency) unless the engine run used more cells and power than 3.6 W, which the text does not say. Garrett US 2,006,676 (2 July 1935): electrolytic carburettor with a motor-driven pole changer; no voltage, current, gas rate or engine data; the running claim is Kelly's introduction. Meyer US 2005/0246059 tail (p.1901): no figures.

Key claims

• Puharich: 100 mW in for 30 minutes (180 J) produced 10.80 cc H2 + 5.40 cc O2, a 'surplus' of 26.85 J (14.919%), an 'efficiency' of 91.30% to 114.9% [read: pp.1909-1911, 1929-1931].
• Water electrolysis can exceed 100 percent of the electrical energy because ΔH is 20 percent greater than ΔG [read: pp.1902-1903, 1928].
• Puharich drove a motor home 'hundreds of thousands of miles' on water [read: p.1902; Kelly, no source].
• Hasebe's cell made 116 cc/s of gas (2.6 cc H2 per coulomb, over 20 times Faraday) from 2.8 V and 30 A [read: p.1936].
• Chambers' cell on 12 V and 300 mA (3.6 W) ran a one-cylinder gasoline engine without gasoline [read: pp.1948-1952].

Relevance: Gives the water-splitting sub-claims of claim 5 their actual source figures and measurement methods. Interested parties: patentees Puharich, Hasebe and Chambers (Xogen Power Inc.), whose descriptions are their own characterizations; Kelly's introductions add claims (the motor home, Garrett's engine) that the patent texts do not make.

Mainstream conflict: Faraday's law bounds gas by charge; the Gibbs free energy (237 kJ per mole of water, 7.05 J per cc of mixed gas) bounds it by energy. Puharich's surplus arises from a ΔH-for-ΔG substitution plus a factor-1.5 slip, and the gas exceeds the Faraday maximum for the stated current; Hasebe's claim is 20 to 22 times Faraday and about one tenth of the Gibbs energy per cc; Chambers' engine claim lacks input and gas data. Reviewers to weigh.

Claimed closed loop: electrolysis cell, separate H2 and O2 receivers, gas expander, combustion device; 'a proportion of the sum of the expansion work and the combustion work sustains electrolysis ... such that the energy system is self-sustaining, and there is excess energy'. The inventor defines three 'over-unity' types and claims type (ii), 10 W in giving 8 W of thermal value in the gas, can be made over-unity because 'pressure ... is a by-product of the electrolysis process'. Argument: voltage falls with temperature (Bockris calculated values: 3 V at 5 C, 1.175 V at 100 C, 0.94 V at 1,000 C, 0.68 V at 2,000 C; only 0-100 C is the inventor's own) and, he says, with pressure; 1 litre of water gives 1,850 litres of gas, the 'source of the pressure'. Loop numbers: 760.4 W of pressure work at 150,000 atm from 500 L/h, times 0.9 x 0.95 = 650 Wh, plus 585 Wh from a 65% fuel cell, break-even 'at approximately 66 kAtmospheres', a 50 MW station needing 170 MW 'continually looped', and 20 to 40 kW continuous for a passenger car. Measured by the inventor (own test, no independent witness, place and date not stated): a reduced-area cell on a transformer secondary (about 50 A, 60 V open circuit), admixture electrolysis, 20 runs from 1 atm to 2,450 psi (about 167 atm). Voltage 38.5 V at 1 atm, about 29-30 V from 300 to 2,450 psi; current 47 to 66 A; power about 1.85 kW (peak 2.24 kW at run 3); gas 88 to 100 litres per hour up to 1,890 psi (0.35-0.69 L collected in 12-26 s); heating time 40 to 70 C halved at 1,700+ psi, attributed to detonation and implosion in the cell. No run measures energy recovered from the gas; the over-unity is a calculation. Deep-reader observations: Fig.18 is stoichiometric Faraday arithmetic (flow = 471/V litres per hour per kW), not an independent measurement; the voltage drop in the test occurs between runs 3 and 4 and the voltage then stays flat, and a transformer secondary falls in voltage as current rises, so the product stays near 1.85 kW; the pressure-work formula E = (P - P0)V is flow work, valid only if V is the volume at pressure P (for an ideal gas P x V is constant, giving about 14 W, not 760 W; isothermal expansion gives nRT ln(P/P0) = 782 W at 1,273 K but 168 W at 273 K); Figs.27-28 are not reproducible from the stated formula; the highest pressure measured is about 900 times below the 150 kAtm used for the claim; the patent's '88 litres per kWh' misreads its own table, which is litres per hour at about 1.85 kW, i.e. 48-54 L per kWh; '1.49 kW from 1 kW' is an energy ratio (1.49 kWh of hydrogen heating value per kWh of electricity) at an assumed 2,000 C with the heat to hold the cell at that temperature not counted as input; the text gives 11 BTU per litre of hydrogen and also per litre of 2:1 mix, and cannot be right for both. Figs.16, 29 and 30 are not reproduced in the book.

Key claims

• Electrical input did not rise (voltage fell from 38.5 V to about 29.4 V at about 1.85 kW) as pressure rose from 1 atm to 2,450 psi [read: pp.2018-2022, page images].
• Pressure produced during electrolysis is 'over-unity energy' obtained 'without additional energy input' [read: p.2035].
• Cell voltage falls to 0.94 V at 1,000 C and 0.68 V at 2,000 C (Bockris, calculated), giving 1.49 kW of hydrogen heating value for 1 kW in at 2,000 C [read: pp.2032-2033].
• At 150,000 atm the loop yields 1,235 Wh from 1,000 Wh in; break-even at about 66 kAtm; a 50 MW station needs 170 MW 'continually looped' [read: p.2035].
• A hydrogen / oxygen engine on a pressurised store supplies 20 to 40 kW continuously to a passenger car [read: p.2036].

Relevance: Gives claim 5 its most elaborate 'closed loop' proposal, with measured and calculated figures separated. Interested party: the patentee (Spiro Ross Spiros), who writes 'This now demonstrable fact' of his own results.

Mainstream conflict: Self-compression of electrolysis gas is paid for by the electrolyser's own input (the energy of compression is not counted as input), the Bockris voltages are thermodynamic minima with the heat T times ΔS supplied from outside, and no measured energy is recovered; the loop as stated conflicts with the second law unless an external heat or energy source is counted. Reviewers to judge.

Every carburettor patent opens with Kelly's compiler paragraph that the carburettor 'was able to produce very high mpg figures ... but ... the oil industry does not want functional high mpg carburettors to be available to the public'; that statement is not in the patent texts and carries no source. The patent texts themselves give a number in only three cases, each a single sentence by the patentee: Shelton US 2,982,528 ('approximately eight times the mileage', object statement, no vehicle or test; Kelly prints 2 May 1940 although that patent number belongs to the early 1960s [memory, medium]); Schwartz US 3,294,381 (1966: 'by over 200%' in a six-cylinder car 'under normal driving conditions', no baseline or speed; 'over 200%' may mean a ratio above 3 or about 2); Ogle US 4,177,779 (1979: 'in excess of one hundred miles per US gallon' on a V-8 1971 American car, no speed, route or method). Pogue (US 1,938,497 of 5 Dec 1933 is the number his later patents cite; Kelly prints 'US 642,434, 12 Nov 1932' for the first, an inconsistency in the book), Newberry US 2,218,922 and Tucker US 3,653,643 give no mpg figure. Common idea: fully vaporise the fuel by exhaust, coolant or electric heat. Boosters: Hotsabi, single cell on the full vehicle voltage, 15 A, raised a 1992 5-litre Chevrolet Caprice from 18 to 27 mpg (+50%), 'average mpg' with no method; Kelly notes much of the power heats the electrolyte (p.2288). Smack's Booster ('Eletrik', July 2008): 1.7 L/min at about 20 A, no mpg figure. Les Pearson (a seller of tuning chips and kits, stake stated): a 2002 Saturn SL courier car from 26 to 44-46 mpg over three months with a programmed chip, 'over 500 miles on a single tank', one 'carefully driven run' at 88 mpg, 'high 40s to mid 50s' later; about 1 L/min of gas at 8-10 A; a lower dose gave 'mixed results ... 25% to 30% reduction ... and sometimes no difference'; the improvement comes from leaner ECU maps, so hydroxy and the chip are not separated. Kelly and Pearson both say the engine computer cancels the gain on computer-controlled cars unless it is reprogrammed. Energy bounds (deep reader's arithmetic, with stated road-load assumptions, for the reviewers to confirm): gasoline about 121 MJ/gal; at a steady 55 mph the Saturn at 88 mpg needs about 21 kW of fuel power against a road load near 8.5 kW (about 40 percent tank-to-wheel), and a 1971 V-8 at 100 mpg would need about 74 percent; 1 L/min of hydroxy holds about 0.11 to 0.13 kW, so a 34 kW fuel saving (18 to 27 mpg) is about 300 times the combustion energy of the gas; the gain cannot come from the gas as fuel but only from a change in how the engine converts fuel.

Key claims

• Shelton: a heated vapour fuel system gives 'approximately eight times the mileage' of a conventional engine [read: p.2067].
• Schwartz: a pre-heated low-pressure carburettor improved a six-cylinder car's mpg 'by over 200%' [read: p.2071].
• Ogle: a vapour system gave 'mileage rates in excess of one hundred miles per US gallon' on a 1971 V-8 car [read: pp.2077, 2087].
• Hotsabi's electrolysis booster raised a 1992 Caprice from 18 to 27 mpg [read: pp.2280, 2287].
• A programmed ECU chip with a hydroxy cell raised a 2002 Saturn SL from 26 to 44-46 mpg, with one run at 88 mpg [read: pp.2312-2313].

Relevance: Supplies the mpg claims of claim 5 with their vehicles, speeds and (absent) test methods for the energy-bound check. Interested parties: the patentees (seeking patents), Les Pearson (sells chips and kits), Kelly as compiler.

Mainstream conflict: Fuel energy per mile against road load limits what a spark-ignition car can reach; no document in these pages gives a speed, a distance, a fuel-measurement method or a witness for any mpg claim; original reports (the Hotsabi forum post, Pearson's article) and the original patents (for Shelton's date) are the records to obtain. Reviewers to judge.

Papp patent (the only place where Papp's mechanism is stated): a closed reciprocating engine fuelled by a mixture of 35.6% helium, 26.3% neon, 16.9% argon, 12.7% krypton and 8.5% xenon by volume at 1 atm (calculated 'to give the maximum operation time without refuelling'; the calculation is not shown). Four electrodes per cylinder; the cathode container holds about 4 g of thorium-232 in argon, the anode about 2 g of 'rubidium-37' and 3 g of 'phosphorus-15' in mineral oil (the numbers are atomic numbers, so ordinary rubidium and phosphorus; no activities given). Three coils of about 100 mH and capacitors of 1.3 and 2.2 uF per cylinder. Supply: 24 V battery, 24 V to 3.5 V transformer, 40,000 V ignition pulses, and a high-frequency source of 27.12 MHz at 3.4 to 8.4 A (2.057-27.120 MHz on the largest class); no RF voltage or power is stated. Mechanism ('It is calculated that ...'): gases layer with helium in the centre; an ignition discharge in which 'the helium splits into hydrogen in a volume not larger than 2 or 3 x 10^-6 cubic millimetres at a temperature of approximately 100,000,000 degrees F ... Consequently, there is a minute fusion reaction in the helium consisting of the energy conversion of a single helium atom' driving the piston; plasma of 10^-6 s; 'a cylinder can run at 1200 rpm approximately 1000 hours, if not more, on a single charge of gas'; the summary of concepts calls it a 'thermonuclear energy production process' and in one place 'fission'. Measured output: none; the 300 hp Volvo test, the 1968 detonation and the 1983 certification test appear only in Kelly's chapter text (p.643), not in the patent. Internal conflict: Kelly's p.37 table gives the Papp demonstration as '300 HP for 40 min' against 35 minutes on p.642. Deep-reader checks [calc/memory]: converting the entire rest mass of one helium-4 atom gives 6.0 x 10^-10 J, about 11 orders of magnitude short of the roughly 10^2 J of a conventional 100 cc cylinder stroke; splitting helium into hydrogen absorbs energy (binding energy about 28 MeV) rather than releasing it; one 100 cc charge holds about 8.9 x 10^20 helium atoms, so the 1,000-hour figure is not derived. Probable unit slips in the mixer text ('27,120 MHz', '120 V, 8.4 amp, 560 watt'; 120 x 8.4 = 1,008 VA) are reported as printed. Britt: a mirrored spherical chamber with noble-gas mixture ('xenon, krypton, helium and mercury'), 500 V and 40,000 V supplies, photon 'chain reaction'; no fusion claim, no radioactive material, no measured output.

Key claims

• Papp's inert-gas mixture, ionised and layered, undergoes 'a minute fusion reaction' of a single helium atom per stroke at about 100,000,000 F [read: p.2219].
• One charge of gas runs a cylinder at 1,200 rpm for about 1,000 hours [read: p.2220].
• Input is a 24 V battery plus 27.12 MHz at 3.4-8.4 A (RF voltage and power not stated) [read: pp.2216-2217].
• Britt's mirrored chamber turns a noble-gas photon chain reaction into pressure work [read: p.2234].

Relevance: Gives the arbiter's Papp verdict its source mechanism: the patent claims fusion (not plasma recombination) and reports no measurement. Interested parties: Papp and Britt as patentees; Kelly's reproduction is a re-typeset and re-worded version.

Mainstream conflict: Nuclear fusion of helium to release useful energy at 1 atm and a 'minute' scale conflicts with nuclear physics (helium-4 is the end product of fusion, not fuel, and one atom per stroke cannot supply a cylinder's work). Reviewers to judge; the original claims (USPTO or Google Patents) should be read before saying what the patent 'claims'.