Linerman-Peter · Source catalogue

An 8-page advocacy essay by Lindemann. It asks why the free electricity predicted in the 1880s never reached consumers, and answers that real 'free energy' technologies exist but have been kept off the market. He lists seven categories he says are 'proven beyond all reasonable doubt': (1) radiant energy (Tesla, Moray, Gray, Baumann/Methernitha Testatika), (2) permanent-magnet devices (Adams, Bearden's MEG, Naudin's claimed duplication, Richardson, Reed), (3) mechanical heaters (rotating cylinders by Frenette and Perkins; magnet/eddy-current wheels), (4) 'super-efficient' electrolysis (Stan Meyer, Xogen Power, Freedman alloy), (5) implosion/vortex engines (Schauberger), (6) cold fusion (the March 1989 BYU announcement), (7) solar-assisted heat pumps. The second half is a 'Four Forces' argument: the Wealthiest Families and central banks, national governments, deluded inventors and con men, and 'all the rest of us' together prevent public availability; he says 'conspiracy' is too superficial an account and that in the end only one force exists, the 'unspiritually motivated behavior of the human animals'. He advises readers to build devices themselves, makes millenarian predictions of wars and a world government, and ends with a resource list and eight US patent numbers. Every technical statement is Lindemann's own assertion; no test reports, instruments, testers or places are given except one undated '1970's' heat-pump test. The deep read also records internal tensions: he disclaims a conspiracy yet lists murder and arson as weapons of the first two Forces; the heat-pump COP counts solar heat as free; the 'ten times more heat' baseline is unclear; he declines to call Keely, Hubbard, Coler and Henderschott either real or fake.

Key claims

• Seven categories of 'free energy' technology (radiant energy, permanent magnets, mechanical heaters, super-electrolysis, implosion/vortex, cold fusion, solar-assisted heat pumps) are 'proven beyond all reasonable doubt'.
• These technologies use a small amount of one form of energy to control or release a large amount of another, and many tap the Aether field.
• Bearden's permanent-magnet transformer (MEG) produces 96 W of electrical output from a 6 W control input with no moving parts, and Jean-Louis Naudin duplicated it in France.
• One Robert Adams permanent-magnet device draws 100 W, returns 100 W to recharge the source and produces over 140 BTU of heat in two minutes (about 1.2 kW, if the figures are as stated).
• Mechanical heaters (rotating cylinders, magnet wheels) produce ten times more heat than standard methods using the same energy input.
• Stan Meyer showed water hit with its own molecular resonant frequency splits into hydrogen and oxygen with very little electrical input; a 1957 Freedman patent covers an alloy that splits water with no outside input.
• A solar-assisted heat pump tested in the 1970s produced 350 hp on a dynamometer from 100 sq ft of collector with under 20 hp of compressor input (over 17:1); COPs of 8 to 10 are 'easily attained'.
• Cold fusion is real: excess heat has been repeatedly documented and dozens of low-energy transmutation reactions catalogued.
• Four forces (wealthy families and central banks, governments, charlatan inventors, the public) suppress free energy; the first two use intimidation, buying and shelving technology, patent suppression, harassment, arson and murder.
• The only way the public will get a free energy machine is to build it themselves.
• A Methernitha community in Switzerland has 5 or 6 working fuelless, self-running devices (Testatika).
• A free-energy con man in the USA has raised more than $100,000,000, been barred from business in Washington State and jailed in California (unnamed).

Relevance: Lindemann's own overview of his worldview and the scope of his claims. It frames the Gray/Tesla book as one 'radiant energy' item among seven and gives his theory of suppression. It is the main source for his non-Gray claims and for his stance on interested parties, including his own books and the website free-energy.cc.

Mainstream conflict: Claims of output exceeding input (MEG 16:1, Adams device, heat-pump 17:1 not counting solar input, self-running Testatika, Freedman alloy) conflict with conservation of energy and the laws of thermodynamics as mainstream science states them. The cold-fusion and aether claims are rejected or unconfirmed by mainstream science (the cold-fusion record is contested). The suppression claims (murder, arson, phone taps, patent denials) are unsupported by any document in the file.

Lindemann's 27-year account of trying to understand Edwin V. Gray's 'cold electricity'. Gray (1925-1989 on the biography page; the contents page prints 1923-1989; a VA-derived record gives death on 20 April 1990, see the Gray biography entry) claimed in 1973 press demonstrations that capacitors and a small battery could power lamps, a TV, radios and an electric motor without running the battery down. Lindemann received a copy of Gray's 1975 motor patent in 1978 and writes (p.16, PDF page) that 'if you try to build this motor according to the principles outlined in this patent, it doesn't perform anything like what was described'; he gives no build record, date, circuit values or measurements (the deep read of pp.7-21 checked the wording: it is a conditional statement that implies first-hand experience, not a described build). In 1999 he found two further Gray patents (circuit and switching tube). He then read Gerry Vassilatos's account of Tesla's 1889-92 disruptive-discharge work as a 'Rosetta Stone' and concludes Gray's 'conversion switching element tube' produces Tesla's 'Electro-Radiant Event', and that Gray, Tesla, Moray, Baumann/Testatika and others all tap the same ether-borne 'radiant energy'. He supplies a 'probable schematic' for Gray's circuit (Fig. 34) with corrections to Gray's drawing. He rejects Gray's own explanation of the gain mechanism as impossible and calls Gray's '1% used, 99% returned' statement a meaningless explanation; he says all primary-circuit energy is lost in the spark gap and the claimed gain comes from the radiant event. The book then reprints three Gray patents, three Tesla patents and two of Lindemann's articles (see the separate entries below). The final page carries testimonials from Constable, Desborough and Rauen and promotes the book itself, so Lindemann has a commercial stake. The digest is page-by-page but pp.7 and 85-91 are heavily garbled OCR. Deep-read additions (QE round): none of the book's own first-hand items is a build or measurement of a Gray device. They are an undated 'dozens of methods' negative result (p.67), a 1986 bulb test with Tom Brown near Eric Dollard's transmitter (pp.50-51), and a hand-lettered 'probable schematic' signed August 2000 (p.66). The book gives no input or output energy for the '100 times' claim. Page numbers in all deep reads are PDF pages (printed page = PDF page minus 8).

Key claims

• Edwin Gray's 'cold electricity' circuit (US 4,595,975) works by discharging a high-voltage capacitor through a spark gap so that a Tesla-type 'Electro-Radiant Event' is released and picked up by charge-receiving grids.
• Tesla's 1889-92 high-voltage DC disruptive-discharge experiments and his Magnifying Transmitter and Gray's cold-electricity circuit use the same phenomenon, radiant energy.
• Radiant energy is a longitudinal, electrostatic, ether-borne phenomenon that travels instantaneously, is cool, and does not obey Ohm's law, so the laws of thermodynamics and Maxwell's equations do not apply to it.
• Gray's 'tube' circuit yields output about 100 times the energy lost in the primary discharge (Fig. 36 Testatika: about 1,000 W of light with a gain near 1000:1).
• Lindemann reports, without build details, that a motor made 'according to the principles outlined in this patent' did not give cold electricity (dangerous discharges, negligible recovered energy), so he concludes the motor was secondary and the circuit was the secret (p.16; his statement, not a documented test).
• Gray's 1973-76 history as Lindemann tells it (demonstrations, a July 1974 Los Angeles DA raid, a grand-theft charge he says was dropped, a March 1976 plea to two minor SEC violations, prototypes never returned, death in April 1989 'under mysterious circumstances') shows an inventor persecuted rather than a fraud; no court or SEC record is reproduced in the book, and one other source in the folder (NewsReal 1977) reports the plea.

Relevance: The central document of the project: it holds Lindemann's interpretive theory (Gray = Tesla radiant energy) and reproduces the primary patents.

Mainstream conflict: Its main thesis is that a capacitor-spark-gap circuit releases an ether-borne longitudinal 'radiant' energy outside ordinary electromagnetism and thermodynamics. Mainstream physics holds that capacitor-discharge circuits conserve energy and that Maxwell's equations apply. The ether and superluminal-propagation statements conflict with relativity and the measured speed limit of signals.

Chapter 1 reprints and quotes two National Tattler articles by Tom Valentine (July 1 and July 8, 1973), a Probe The Unknown article by Jack Scagnetti (thumbnail only, body illegible) and a 1977 NewsReal piece, and gives Lindemann's own story. Demonstration 1 (Gray's Van Nuys laboratory, as Valentine reports): a 6 V car battery and capacitors; Fritz Lens operated the battery, a voltmeter rose to about 3,000 V (the digit is small on the page image; Lindemann's retype says 3,000), Gray closed a switch with a loud pop, and a 1.25-lb electromagnet hurled more than 2 ft was caught by Richard Hackenberger, who said 'only 1% of the energy was used - 99% went back into the battery'. Gray said the same magnets would drain the battery in 30 minutes and get hot if driven directly; the original also has Gray saying the magnets had been 'popping' for 18 months on the same battery (omitted in Lindemann's retype). Two unnamed 'knowledgeable physicists' were present. Demonstration 2: a 15-amp motorcycle battery plus two capacitors ran six 15 W bulbs, a 110 V TV and two radios; C. V. Wood Jr., president of McCulloch Oil, 'began looking around for hidden outlets'; a 40 W bulb lit under water, and neither Gray's hand nor the reporter's finger felt a shock; Hackenberger: 'a new manifestation of electricity'. Only a voltmeter is mentioned; no ammeter, energy meter, thermometer, durations or capacitances are given, and the 1%/99% figure is Hackenberger's spoken statement. Second article (page image p.11): EMA motor, 42 x 18 x 22 in, four 6 V batteries, 'better than 2,500 rpm for more than 30 minutes', batteries 'as fully charged as at the beginning', stated as '100 horsepower and 66 pounds of constant torque' with a line 'brake horsepower tests out at 32.06' (small print); the deep reader notes the units and the 100 hp versus 32.06 bhp figures are not reconciled on the page. Gray said he was offered 20 million shares at $25 by Wall Street interests, and the Tattler mentions Japanese interest. Lindemann's own story: he first saw the articles in summer 1973, got a letter from Renate Gray dated 11 Oct 1973 refusing information 'due to our security', found the 1977 NewsReal article, and received the 1975 patent in 1978. His statement on p.16 about the motor is reported in the book entry above (conditional wording, no build details; his stake is that he sells the later 'cold electricity' explanation). NewsReal 1977 (p.15) reports a guilty plea to 'a minor Securities and Exchange violation' and quotes a 'Dr. Chalfin' (no first name or affiliation) that 'there is no loss of energy in the system'. Tattler gives Gray's age as 48 and one of 14 children; NewsReal says one of six children and left school at 14.

Key claims

• A 6 V battery and capacitors charged to about 3,000 V threw a 1.25-lb magnet 2+ ft, with 99% of the energy returning to the battery (reported by Valentine, quoting Gray and Hackenberger; only a voltmeter is mentioned).
• A 15-amp motorcycle battery plus capacitors ran six 15 W bulbs, a TV and two radios in the demonstration without discharging (C. V. Wood Jr. and Hackenberger quoted as witnesses; no durations or meters).
• A 40 W bulb in water gave no shock to a hand or finger in the water (as reported).
• Gray's EMA motor ran at over 2,500 rpm for 30+ minutes on four 6 V batteries that ended as fully charged as at the start (second Tattler article; the page gives 100 hp and also 32.06 bhp).
• Gray said the magnet-popping demonstration had run for 18 months on one battery that was 'still got a full charge' (original Tattler text, not in Lindemann's retype).

Relevance: The only first-hand witness material for Gray's 1973 demonstrations, via one reporter (Valentine); the book rests Gray's claims on it. Named people: Gray, Hackenberger (VP Engineering), Lens, C. V. Wood Jr. (McCulloch Oil); two physicists and a UCLA professor are unnamed.

Mainstream conflict: If the battery truly stayed charged while powering about 90 W of lamps plus a TV and radios for more than the capacitors' stored energy would allow, this would exceed energy conservation; the Tattler gives no durations, input/output measurements or independent tester.

Biography page as printed (all items are Lindemann's uncited narrative, with no document reproduced): heading 'Edwin Vincent Gray (1925 - 1989)', while the contents page prints '(1923-1989)' [read: contents page, per QE spot check]. Born Washington DC, one of 14 children; age 11 interest in electronics from watching the first radar tests across the Potomac; left home at 15, Army advanced engineering school for a year until discharged for being under age; Navy after Pearl Harbor with three years of Pacific combat duty; after the war a mechanic. 'Learned to split the positive' 1958; first EMA motor model 1961; 'His third EMA prototype was successfully tested for 32 days straight before it was torn down for analysis' (no load, power, instrument or witness given). Turned down by every major corporation and venture group; limited partnership 1971; by early 1973 EVGray Enterprises of Van Nuys had hundreds of private investors and a #4 prototype. A 'Certificate of Merit' from Governor Reagan (no date or document). Summer 1973 demonstrations; later 1973 teamed with designer Paul M. Lewis to build 'the first fuelless, electric car in America' (the Tattler/NewsReal headline 'Gasless Auto Gets $6-Million Backing' is in the Investigator's saved rexresearch file). July 22, 1974: the Los Angeles DA's office raided the office and shop and took business records and prototypes; for 8 months the DA tried to get stockholders to file charges and none would. 'Gray was eventually charged with grand theft, but even this bogus charge couldn't stick and was finally dropped'; by March 1976 he pleaded guilty to two minor SEC violations, was fined, and the DA never returned the prototypes. A 1975 AP wire (Investigator, rexresearch) reports 12 counts filed May 1975 (1 conspiracy, 8 grand theft, 3 securities) and no outcome; NewsReal 1977 (p.15 of the book, also by Valentine) independently reports 'a minor Securities and Exchange violation' guilty plea and nearly two years of legal entanglements. First patent June 1975; February 1976 nominated for 'Inventor of the Year' 'for discovering and proving a new form of electric power' by the 'Los Angeles Patent Attorney's Association' (name as printed). Late 1970s 'Zetech, Inc. acquired Gray's technology and EVGray Enterprises ceased to exist'. Early 1980s he offered the technology to the US Government for SDI, wrote to every member of Congress, the President, Vice President and Cabinet, and 'did not receive a single reply or even an acknowledgment'. Council, Idaho (the 1986 and 1987 patents); by 1986 a facility in 'Grande Prairie, Texas' (sic); shops also in Sparks, Nevada. 'Died at his shop in Sparks, Nevada, in April 1989, under mysterious circumstances. He was 64 and in good health' (no cause or report given). Death-year sources differ: 1989 (Lindemann), 20 April 1990 (VA-created Find a Grave and a FamilySearch tree, per the Investigator), April 1993 in Riverside CA (an anonymous KeelyNet informant, 2000). Birth year: 1925 (biography page and Tattler 'age 48' in 1973) versus 1923 (contents page); 8 Jan 1925 per the Investigator's web records. Lindemann also writes that after the late 1980s he 'only heard rumors' and no further news appeared. The Tattler's 'learned to split the positive in 1958' year is small print; one year on the second Tattler article is blurred (1958 or 1968) and unresolved.

Key claims

• Gray's company was raided by the Los Angeles DA on July 22, 1974 and its prototypes were never returned (Lindemann; the 1975 AP wire confirms a seizure of the prototype, plans and records).
• Per Lindemann, Gray was charged with grand theft, the charge was dropped, and in March 1976 he pleaded guilty to two minor SEC violations; the AP wire gives 12 counts filed May 1975 with outcome unknown; NewsReal 1977 reports a plea to one minor SEC violation.
• Gray died at his Sparks, Nevada shop 'under mysterious circumstances' while in good health: April 1989 per Lindemann, 20 April 1990 per VA-derived records, April 1993 per an anonymous KeelyNet informant.
• A third EMA motor prototype 'successfully tested for 32 days straight' (no instrument, load or witness given).
• Gray was nominated Inventor of the Year (Feb 1976) by the Los Angeles Patent Attorney's Association and received a Reagan Certificate of Merit (both uncited).
• Gray offered the technology for SDI in the early 1980s and wrote to every member of Congress, the President and the Cabinet without any reply (Lindemann only).
• Zetech Inc. acquired Gray's technology in the late 1970s and EVGray Enterprises ceased.

Relevance: The documented-by-one-source story of how Gray's venture was resisted or ended; a candidate for the Investigator's court, SEC and company-record searches.

Mainstream conflict: none (biographical; the endurance, suppression and mysterious-death framing rests on Lindemann alone in this folder)

Vassilatos's account of Tesla's 1889-92 experiments: Tesla failed to reproduce Hertz's results, instead found capacitor discharges with abrupt unidirectional impulses (no current reversal) produced shock-wave, penetrating, 'radiant' effects through glass and copper, explosive wire vaporisation, and a conical or helical 'secondary' that produced voltage but zero measured current (10,000 V per inch of axial coil surface claimed). A U-shaped copper bar short-circuited across incandescent lamps lit them cold. Effects depend on impulse duration (over 0.1 ms pain and wire motion; 100 microseconds or less no pain; about 1 microsecond heat; shorter, cool room light). Vassilatos argues the carrier is not electrons but aether streams, which are nearly massless, incompressible, move superluminally and instantaneously, and are 'fractionated' from electrons by magnetically quenched arcs. Cites Joseph Henry (1842) and Elihu Thomson (1872) as earlier accidental observers and Tesla's 'The Dissipation of Electricity' (1892). Eric Dollard is named as having reproduced the effects. Deep-read findings: the chapter is Vassilatos's narrative with no footnotes, reference list, figures or data tables. The only primary source named is Tesla's lecture 'Dissipation of Electricity' ('just prior to Christmas of 1892'), quoted in two short phrases; Henry 1842 (name and year only) and Elihu Thomson 1872 (Scientific American 'later in the same year', no issue) are the other cited works, and no Tesla patent number appears. Numbers given, none with a method or instrument: pulse-duration bands (above 0.1 ms pain and wire motion; 100 microseconds or less not sensed and harmless; about 1 microsecond heat; shorter, cool breezes and light), a 1-inch disrupter gap giving 'a measured length of over two feet', '10,000 volts per inch of axial coil surface' (24-inch coil, 10,000 V to a maximum of 240,000 V; the text does not reconcile the two figures), zero secondary current ('Tesla measured'; no instrument), a 2-inch oil depression, a 50 ft 'sting' distance, a 3 ft dartlet, 'a yard' of cool streamers. The U-shaped copper bus bar with lamps across the legs is described with unnamed witnesses and no date, ratings or circuit values (single account). Eric Dollard 'also successfully obtained the strange and distinct effects claimed by Tesla' (one sentence; no date, place, apparatus or publication), is cited for 'interception current' of hundreds or thousands of amperes and for 'proofs' of the aether, and is the only modern experimenter named. Also stated: Tesla's 1889 visit to Hertz (Hertz 'about to withdraw his thesis'), single-source here; the claim that radiant electricity violated Faraday's shielding result; light 'exceeding Edison filament lamps by several factors'. The 100-nanosecond threshold that Lindemann's list uses is NOT in this chapter (only 'shorter impulses' with no figure). The 'superluminal' statement is 'Should the path be 300,000 kilometers long, the impulse at the source end will reach that point as quickly as at all other points' (presented as Tesla's view, no source).

Key claims

• Abrupt unidirectional high-voltage DC impulses (no current reversal) produce a 'radiant' effect that penetrates metal and insulators and differs from high-frequency AC.
• A helical coil in a Tesla disrupter field gives rising voltage with zero measurable current, about 10,000 V per inch of axial coil surface.
• Impulses of 100 microseconds or less are not sensed and do no physiological harm; about 1 microsecond gives heat; shorter ones give cool breezes and lighting (the text gives no figure in the nanosecond range).
• The carrier of radiant energy is aether, nearly massless and propagating instantaneously, not electrons (no source given).
• A heavy U-shaped copper bus bar across a disrupter primary lit lamps placed across its legs to cold white brilliance, which Tesla used to show 'fractionation' of electronic from neutral currents (unnamed witnesses; single account).
• Eric Dollard reproduced the effects Tesla claimed (one uncited sentence).

Relevance: The theoretical source Lindemann uses to equate Gray's circuit with Tesla's radiant energy.

Mainstream conflict: The aether-carrier, superluminal and zero-current statements contradict standard electromagnetism and relativity. The physical effects Tesla described (impulsive discharge shocks, capacitive and displacement-current effects, short-lived transients) are explained in mainstream theory without aether. Whether they are real effects with a mainstream explanation is for the reviewers.

Chapter 3 quotes Tesla (Century Magazine, June 1900, 'The Problems of Increasing Human Energy'; Electrical World, March 1904; the 1893 London Institution lecture) and Tesla's 1897 transformer patent to argue that Tesla charged capacitors with high-voltage DC and discharged them through magnetically quenched spark gaps to make 'Radiant Energy' (the 'Electro-Radiant Event', nine listed characteristics). Eyewitness account (1986): Alison Davidson photographed Eric Dollard's Magnifying Transmitter with an estimated 400,000 V and over 4 A to ground drawing under 2,000 W from the wall; Lindemann and Tom Brown lit a bulb six to eight feet away with no shock. Chapter 4 compares Gray's patent 4,595,975 with Tesla's circuit component by component (capacitor 16, spark gap 62, vacuum tube 28, grids 34, load 36) and says Gray's schematic is a block diagram with unconnected parts (#42 shorted, #28 grid unconnected, #36 has no coil symbol). A photograph of Gray's #6 motor shows capacitors marked '2 micro-farads' and '4000 Volts DC'. Lindemann's 'Probable Schematic' (Fig. 34): battery #40, multivibrator #20, transformer #22, bridge #24, capacitor #16 charged to 3,000 V, discharged in under 50 microseconds through the tube spark gap clipped by a vacuum tube, grids connected to an air-core transformer primary, step-down secondaries for loads and a battery-charging path. Gray's own explanation of the gain (combining voltage from one source with current from another) is declared impossible; the '1% used / 99% returned' statement is called meaningless. Claimed output is 100 times the energy lost in the primary discharge. Appendix-to-Chapter text on Testatika (Fig. 35-36, claimed 1,000 W of light, gain near 1000:1) and Steiner's four ethers (Light, Warmth, Chemical, Life) follows, listing Keely (1872), Stubblefield (1880), Moray (1926), Schauberger (1920s), Reich (1940), Constable and Adams as ether-tappers. Deep-read findings (QE round): (1) The nine Electro-Radiant Event characteristics (Fig. 25 box, p.52) cite no source and no measurement; items 8 and 9 use 100 microsecond and 100 nanosecond thresholds that Vassilatos's chapter does not give for the nanosecond case. Item 5 says it 'propagates instantaneously as a longitudinal, electrostatic light-like ray'. (2) Tesla's 'thousands of times greater' is read by Lindemann as 'a gain in power'; the quoted patent sentence says 'electrical movement'. (3) Fig. 24 text: Dollard's Magnifying Transmitter, photo by Alison Davidson 1986 provided by Tom Brown in New Zealand; coil top about 8 in; voltage 'anyone's guess, but certainly mast [must] be approaching 400,000 volts'; 'more than 4 amperes' into ground 'measured on a radio frequency ammeter'; 'less than 2000 watts from the wall'. Who measured, the ground impedance and any output power are not given. (4) Bulb test, same day, 1986: Lindemann held a bulb by its screw base, Tom Brown touched the other contact, the filament lit; Lindemann about 6 ft and Brown about 8 ft from the transmitter, no instruments (first-person account; the book gives no ordinary near-field explanation). (5) Energy accounting, exact: 'capacitor #16 discharges through the Electro-Radiant Transceiver back to the positive of the battery ... The voltage drop at the spark gap reduces the amount of energy that can be returned to this battery to near zero. So this cannot be the recharging mechanism' (p.65); 'all of the energy in his primary circuit is lost ... 99% of the work potential of the energy is lost in the voltage drop ... This work output is 100 times greater than the energy lost to create it' (pp.67-68). No input or output energy supports the '100 times'; it may restate Gray's 99:1. In the same book he also writes that Gray 'was able to reconvert some of this excess energy back into ordinary electricity, and recycle enough of it to actually recharge his battery' (pp.56/59) and 'By switching the batteries back and forth periodically, Gray could keep the system going indefinitely' (p.67), so the book's own statements on recharging are not consistent. (6) Gray's power 'cross-product' theory is rejected: 'I have tried dozens of methods to combine the voltage from one source with the current from another ... It doesn't work' (p.67; undated, no data). (7) The critique of Gray's FIG.1 was checked on the page images in the Gray circuit-patent deep read and holds (see the US 4,595,975 entry). (8) Fig. 34 'Probable Schematic' is signed 'Peter Lindemann D.Sc., August, 2000' and is a hand-lettered design, not a build or test; Lindemann says 'A wide variety of options need to be tested here' (p.60). It has internal inconsistencies: the roles of batteries 18 and 40 are swapped between p.55 and Fig. 34, the timer box says 10 microseconds while the text says 10 to 50, and a line or two of text is missing at the p.64/p.65 column break. Its timer, pulse range and air-core transformer are Lindemann's proposals; the 3,000 V gap rating is from Gray press quotes, not the patent. (9) Photo readings (a '2 micro-farads', '4000 Volts DC' capacitor, 1/4-inch grid spacing, a 4-inch PVC former with two layers of ten turns) are Lindemann's readings of coarse images the deep reader could not verify. The deep reader's arithmetic from his figures: 0.5 x 2 uF x (3,000 V)^2 = 9 J per full discharge (16 J at 4,000 V). No build or measurement of any Gray-type device by Lindemann appears in these pages.

Key claims

• Gray's 'conversion switching element tube' (spark gap plus charge-receiving grids) is the source of 'cold electricity', and Gray's own circuit explanation of the gain (combining voltage from one source with current from another) is wrong (Lindemann: 'I have tried dozens of methods ... It doesn't work', undated, no data).
• The Electro-Radiant Event output is 'about 100 times' the energy lost in the primary discharge, which Lindemann says is 100% lost; no input or output figures are given.
• Lindemann says the discharge through the spark gap returns almost no energy to the battery ('near zero'), so the spark-gap path is not the recharging mechanism, yet elsewhere he says Gray recycled enough energy to recharge a battery.
• Eric Dollard's Magnifying Transmitter in 1986 gave a discharge Lindemann guesses at about 400,000 V with over 4 A to ground (RF ammeter) while drawing under 2,000 W from the wall.
• In 1986, Lindemann and Tom Brown lit a filament bulb held 6 to 8 ft from Dollard's transmitter by touching its base and tip, with no shock (first-person; no instruments).
• Electricity is 'an unnatural combination of Warmth Ether and Light Ether' (Steiner); Light Ether propagates instantaneously, is cool, and is not governed by Ohm's law, thermodynamics or Maxwell.
• Gray's FIG.1 schematic (US 4,595,975) is a block diagram rather than a working schematic: #42 drawn shorted, #28 grid unattached, #36 no coil symbol, #38 no return loop (checked on page images; see the patent entry).
• Testatika lights a bulb with about 1,000 W of light at a gain near 1000:1 (the 1,000 W is the photo's claim; the 1000:1 is Lindemann's inference with no input figure).

Relevance: These pages carry Lindemann's actual interpretive argument and his 'probable schematic', the only constructive proposal in the file.

Mainstream conflict: The 400,000 V / 4 A / under 2,000 W figure is an estimate (about 1.6 MW instantaneous) from a Tesla-coil discharge, which is a peak, stored-energy figure and not a continuous power measure. The gain, ether and Light-Ether statements are not recognised in mainstream physics. Gain figures (100:1, 1000:1) are single-source assertions with no measurement protocol given.

The patent describes a rotary 'engine' with nine stator electromagnet pairs (40 degrees apart) and three rotor pairs (120 degrees apart) in which capacitors, charged to high voltage through ignition-coil step-up circuits, are discharged through spark gaps into the juxtaposed coils so cores repel. Firing occurs 27 times per revolution at 13 1/3 degree steps (the digest's '134 degrees' is an OCR misreading of 13 1/3, checked on page images). Table I (27 steps) and the stated angles agree with each other. A control head (clutch) shifts firing by plus or minus 6 2/3 degrees to speed up or slow down. The 'discharge overshoot' or back e.m.f. goes to a second battery, which the patent says recovers 'a part of' the energy consumed; the machine is stated to run only while the primary battery keeps charging the capacitors. No horsepower, watts, torque, efficiency, capacitance or test result appears; the only ratings are 12 V batteries and 18 capacitors at 3,500 V on the FIG.2 drawing. Real text defects: '450 degrees' for 240 degrees, a FIG.7 passage naming a different firing pair than Table I, unreconciled counts of capacitors and magnets. The deep reader notes that firing at exact alignment gives no tangential force for a symmetric repulsion, which the patent does not discuss. Interested party: this is Gray's own description, drafted by his attorney. Examiner: Robert K. Schaefer.

Key claims

• A capacitor-discharge repulsion motor (9 stator pairs, 3 rotor pairs, 27 firings per revolution) can develop considerable torque.
• Back e.m.f. 'overshoot' from the coils is returned to a second battery, recovering part of the energy consumed.
• Rotation continues only as long as d-c power charges the capacitors (the patent does not claim self-running or over-unity).
• Speed is controlled by shifting firing 6 2/3 degrees before or after alignment, within one-ninth of a revolution.
• Table I and the 40/120/13 1/3 degree geometry are mutually consistent (27 x 13 1/3 = 360).

Relevance: The only primary technical document on Gray's motor; the one Lindemann built from in the 1970s. It is more modest than Gray's press claims.

Mainstream conflict: none in the claims as written (partial energy recovery with continuing input is conventional); the press and Lindemann's gain claims for the machine go further than the patent.

Describes an 'Electrical Driving and Recovery System': a low-voltage battery feeds a vibrator, step-up transformer and bridge rectifier that charge a capacitor; the capacitor discharges across a spark gap in a 'conversion switching element tube' (low-voltage anode, high-voltage anode, charge-receiving grids). The grids electrostatically couple a short, high-energy pulse to an inductive load; the collapsing field's back e.m.f. goes through a second capacitor into a second battery. Stated on theory to convert low-voltage energy 'more efficient than that capable from energy source directly' (Lindemann calls this a 'sneaky way of saying free energy'). Items 42, 44 and 46 (spark-gap protector and diodes) dump excess overshoot. The text says tube design is 'well within the capabilities of intensive research and development'. No numbers, test or power figures are in the digest. Interested party: the inventor's own patent text. Deep-read findings: front page p.110 gives patent date 17 June 1986, Appl. No. 662,339 filed 18 Oct 1984, Int. Cl. H02M 3/42, cited UK 2030801, examiner William H. Beha Jr., attorneys Nixon and Vanderhye, 8 claims; no foreign priority appears. The text says the gain is 'on theory' and 'in the opinion of the inventor'; the stated mechanisms are 'optimum timing' of the pulse and capture of 'a significant portion' of the collapsing-field energy; no number of volts, amperes, farads, ohms, hertz, joules, watts or efficiency percent appears anywhere in pp.110-123, and the patent makes no over-unity or radiant-energy claim. The words 'electrostatic' or 'impulse' energy do appear. Lindemann's four criticisms of FIG.1 were tested on the page image: #42 is drawn with a solid line joining its left and right terminals (confirmed as drawn: it would short the high-voltage node to ground, bypassing capacitor 16) while its third terminal ends open; #28 is a triode symbol whose grid has no lead and which has no heater (confirmed); #36 is a plain rectangle with a curved and a straight arrow and no coil symbol, though the text calls it the load inductance (confirmed); #38 is wired to batteries 18 and 40 through switch 48, so Lindemann's 'no discharge path' is right that no loop through the load is drawn but wrong that #38 has no connection (partly confirmed). Conclusion of the deep read: the charging chain (18, 20, 22, 24, 16, 12) is a conventional readable circuit, while the discharge, control and recovery parts are not closed, so FIG.1 is partly a schematic and partly a block diagram; the patent itself calls it 'a schematic circuit diagram' and gives no component values. Numbering slips: 'anodes 12 and 22' (should be 32), 'the battery 12' (should be 18). The tube drawings are on p.116; p.124 is blank.

Key claims

• A vibrator, transformer, rectifier and capacitor can build a high-voltage pulse that a spark-gap 'conversion switching element tube' delivers to an inductive load more efficiently than the source can directly.
• Back e.m.f. from the load's collapsing field is captured through a second capacitor and charges a second battery.
• The tube absorbs the pulse in electrostatic grids and transfers it to the load without damaging the circuit.
• FIG.1 as printed has #42 drawn shorted, #28 with an unconnected grid and no heater, #36 with no coil symbol, and no closed current loop through the load and #38 (checked on the page image; the patent calls it a 'schematic circuit diagram' and gives no component values).
• The patent claims 'better efficiency' and recovery of 'a significant portion' of the collapsing-field energy 'on theory', with no efficiency figure, test or over-unity claim.

Relevance: The circuit patent Lindemann takes as the key to cold electricity; he finds its schematic unclear and 'corrects' it.

Mainstream conflict: none as stated about regeneration (back-EMF recovery is standard); any gain beyond that lies in Lindemann's interpretation, not in the patent text.

A division of 4,595,975 claiming the tube itself: a housing with a low-voltage anode, a high-voltage anode, electrically conductive grids around the high-voltage anode spaced from it but not connected, and an output terminal on the grids. The text is largely the same as 4,595,975 (about 80% identical, per Lindemann). Efficiency increase is attributed to 'optimum timing' of delivery to the load and to capturing the collapsing-field energy in a second storage device. No numbers or test data in the digest. Interested party: inventor's own text. Deep-read findings: front page p.117 gives patent date 28 April 1987, Appl. No. 791,508 filed 25 Oct 1985, 'Division of Ser. No. 662,339, Oct. 18, 1984, Pat. No. 4,595,975', and, word for word, '[30] Foreign Application Priority Data / Dec. 16, 1983 [GR] Greece 24388' [read: p.117]. So the priority is a Greek application, no. 24388, of 16 December 1983, about ten months before the US parent filing; the digits were read from the text layer, not a page image. Nothing in the folder says who filed it or why an inventor in Council, Idaho filed in Greece. Both patents carry the same specification and five figures; the abstract of '747 is a copy of the circuit abstract though its four claims cover only the tube (housing, low-voltage anode 32, high-voltage anode 12, grids around anode 12 'spaced therefrom', output terminal 60). The tube drawings show grids lying alongside the shaft of anode 12 and the arc at its end; no dimensions, materials, gas fill or pressure are given. Cited references: Kopp, Boettcher, Edson, Sullivan, Harris and Weiner patents and a USSR document. No quantitative or efficiency figure appears; every performance statement is the inventor's 'contention' on theory.

Key claims

• A two-anode spark tube with unconnected charge-receiving grids captures a short high-voltage pulse and passes it to an inductive load.
• The system captures energy from the collapsing field of the load and stores it in a second battery.
• Efficiency gain is due to timing the delivery of energy to the load.
• The US 4,661,747 front page claims priority from Greek application no. 24388 of 16 December 1983 (printed in the folder; the Greek filing itself is not).

Relevance: The 'conversion tube' patent that Lindemann identifies as the heart of cold electricity.

Mainstream conflict: none in the patent text as stated (see 4,595,975)

593,138: a spiral or conical secondary coil of about one-quarter wavelength with a grounded primary for high-potential transmission. 685,958: a metal plate exposed to radiant matter (sun, arc lamp, Roentgen or Lenard tube) charges a condenser connected to ground, and the stored energy is discharged periodically to drive a receiver; Tesla ascribes the charging to positively charged particles streaming from the source. 787,412: establishing stationary waves in the earth through a resonant grounded coil with elevated terminal, with the earth treated as a conductor with capacity and self-induction and a stated lowest frequency of 6 per second. The three-requirement resonance conditions and six claims are listed in the digest. Included in the book because Lindemann reads these as the Magnifying Transmitter and the 'radiant energy' receiver. Patent numbers differ by typing error in the digest (593,138 / 593,188 / 693,138); the ebook lists Tesla 685,957. Deep-read findings (PDF pages): 593,138 is dated 2 Nov 1897 (filed 20 Mar 1897); its worked example is 185,000 miles per second at 925 per second, a 200-mile wave and a 50-mile secondary, and 185,000 miles is about 297,700 km, just under the speed of light. 685,958 is dated 5 Nov 1901 (filed 21 Mar 1901); its explanation of the charging is explicitly charged matter particles from the sun or a Roentgen tube with the ground as a 'reservoir of negative electricity', preferred over the 'ether vibrations' and ionization accounts, with the hedges 'I believe' and 'these supposed particles', and 'indefinite accumulation' stated without data. 787,412 (patented 18 Apr 1905; filed 16 May 1900, renewed 17 June 1902) states three resonance requirements [read: page image p.136]: the earth's diameter an odd multiple of a quarter wavelength using the velocity of light; frequency below about 20,000 per second with 'six per second' the lowest; and a wave-train lasting 'not less than one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second', taken in passing to and returning from the antipode 'over the earth's surface with a mean velocity of about four hundred and seventy-one thousand two hundred and forty kilometers per second' (471,240 km/s, about 1.57 times the speed of light; the patent gives no derivation and does not say it exceeds c). Deep-reader arithmetic (not in the patent): 471,240 is about (pi/2) x 300,000 km/s, the ratio of the half-circumference to the diameter; 0.08484 s x 471,240 km/s is about 39,980 km, about the Earth's circumference. Whether it is a surface-path convention or a superluminal claim is not settled by the text. The same page also states magnification: 'an electrical movement thousands of times greater than the initial ... many tens of thousands of horse-power', with the proportionality 'directly to the inductance and frequency and inversely to the resistance' (the form of a resonant-circuit quality factor, [memory] high confidence); it is amplitude magnification of the oscillation, not stated as an energy gain, and no measured values are given. None of the three patents gives measured data, test sites or test witnesses (only patent witnesses). The book reprints them without commentary on these pages.

Key claims

• A resonant grounded spiral coil can magnify electrical movement 'enormously' and transmit energy over long distances.
• A plate exposed to sun or other radiation of matter charges a condenser and can operate a mechanism by stored energy alone.
• Stationary electrical waves can be established in the earth and used to transmit energy and signals.
• Patent 787,412 states a 'mean velocity of about 471,240 km/s' for a wave-train passing over the earth's surface to the antipode and back (about 1.57 times the speed of light; no derivation or measurement given), while requiring a quarter-wave condition based on the velocity of light.
• Patent 685,958 attributes the charging to positively electrified particles of matter thrown off by the sun, and explicitly prefers this to an ether-vibration or ionization explanation.

Relevance: Primary Tesla sources Lindemann uses to tie Gray to Tesla. Note the 1901 patent describes radiant matter streams and ordinary charge, not Vassilatos's aether.

Mainstream conflict: Tesla's earth-resonance and 'enormous magnification' claims are not accepted as an energy source by mainstream physics; the patents themselves state theory in terms of charged particles, not aether.

Lindemann argues that mainstream science dismisses 'over-unity' because of the Second Law, that Helmholtz (1847) and Clausius (1850) built a generalised First Law on top of the Carnot and Joule experiments, and that these laws are not universal. He claims etheric energy can be drawn in concentration without work: Trevor Constable's Atmos Engineering etheric 'projectors' cause enough atmospheric etheric potential to precipitate millions of gallons of water, with a hydroelectric gain 'on the order of 100,000 to 1' against a few hundred watts of motor input, and says this is not 'over-unity' because the gain occurs outside the equipment. He cites the Space Power Generator (Bruce DePalma, Paramahamsa Tewari) as having less mechanical drag per electrical output and giving twice as much electrolysis hydrogen as the same output run directly, and proposes 'ethericity' as a term for 'static electricity'. Heat is described as a fourth state between matter and ether (after Rudolf Steiner and Reich's accumulator). Bibliography of seven items (Reich, Lehrs, Constable, Steiner, Wachsmuth, Vassilatos, Constable). Interested party: Lindemann's own article. Deep-read findings: an essay with no derived equation, data table, graph or test protocol. Lindemann accepts a narrow Second Law ('in a thermally closed system the temperature does not increase unless work or energy is added', 'backed up by mountains of experimental data') and rejects the general form. His 'flawless logic' sentence is 'The line of logic embodied in the Laws of Thermodynamics is flawless ... The problem exists in certain interpretations of these Laws' (the premises, not the deduction). On the rotating-magnet generator he writes that 'evidence suggests that electric charges are appearing at the periphery of the generator and disappearing at the center', that 'energy is probably not being created or destroyed in the universal context' but appears and disappears locally; no author, date or measurement is cited. The Tewari hydrogen claim is the single sentence 'twice as much hydrogen can be generated from an electrolysis cell run from the output of a SPG than if the cell is run directly' (no apparatus, baseline or source). The Constable passage: 'millions of gallons of water will precipitate ... for hours at a time' seen 'personally' by Lindemann, then a motorised-projector input of 'a few hundred watts' and a hypothetical hydroelectric gain 'on the order of 100,000 to 1', which he says is 'theoretical in the sense that it has never been done' in the same paragraph where he calls it 'a practical reality today'; no catchment, head or rainfall figure is given (the deep reader's illustration with assumed numbers puts the water needed near 300 million gallons, not 'millions', purely as an order-of-magnitude check). He also cites Joule's 772.5 ft-lbf and 778.26 ft-lbf per BTU, an unnamed patent for rotating disks heating water with 'less than half the mechanical expenditure', Reich's orgone accumulator ('the best documented', no data), and the claim that over-unity is 'an oxymoron' to be dropped. The author note says Lindemann joined the Borderland Sciences Research Foundation in 1975 and its board in 1988, and the articles appear in its journal and cite its own books (an interested party).

Key claims

• The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are not universally true; only the Carnot and Joule experiments stand.
• Constable's etheric projectors precipitate millions of gallons of rain and give a hydroelectric gain of about 100,000:1 on a few hundred watts of input.
• The DePalma/Tewari rotating-magnet Space Power Generator has less drag per unit output than a standard generator and doubles electrolysis hydrogen.
• Heat is not just random molecular motion; it is a fourth state between matter and ether.
• Lindemann reports he has 'personally seen' Constable's etheric projectors precipitate millions of gallons of rain (undated, no place or gauge data); the 100,000:1 hydroelectric figure is a hypothetical he says has 'never been done'.
• The narrow Second Law (heat in a thermally closed system) is 'basically true' and experimentally founded; only the general form is rejected (p.147).

Relevance: Lindemann's explicit argument that his claims do not violate physics because the energy comes from the ether.

Mainstream conflict: Rejects the second law as a general rule and heat as molecular motion; cloud-busting and DePalma generator gains are not accepted by mainstream science.

Lindemann reviews Tesla's June 1900 Century Magazine article and its proposal for a 'self-acting' engine that cools part of the surrounding medium below ambient and runs on the heat extracted, citing Linde's 1895 air liquefaction as practical proof. He uses isopropyl-alcohol evaporation, dry ice and steam and heat-pump cycles to explain a machine that combines a heat pump with a steam-type engine using a low-boiling fluid with no condenser. He cites Rudolf Doczekal's 1930s Austrian benzene/water engine (patent NR 155744 of 1939), said to beat the Carnot limit, and two 1995 efforts: German physicist Bernhard Schaeffer and Albert Serogodski (German patent DE 42 44 016 A1) and Canadian George Wiseman (HEAT Technology Series), plus a Copeland scroll compressor and impulse turbines. Says working models turn ambient air heat into mechanical energy with refrigeration as a by-product. Interested party: Lindemann's own article. Deep-read findings: Tesla's text is from 'The Problems of Increasing Human Energy' (Century Magazine, June 1900); Tesla says 'I cannot hope to produce a self-acting machine deriving energy from the ambient medium for a long time yet'. Lindemann writes 'To my knowledge, Tesla never finished the work on this invention' and also records a counter-statement: 'The patent office is crammed with hundreds of permanent magnet motors, none of which work, to my knowledge.' His description is a two-phase fluid cycle with no condenser in which a turbine is said to produce more mechanical energy than the compressor needs. Doczekal: 'In the 1930's, an Austrian engineer named Rudolf Doczekal successfully built a steam engine that ran on a combination of water and benzene ... Its efficiency was well above the calculated Carnot Cycle maximum. He was granted a Patent on this system in 1939 (NR. 155744). It took 39 years, and someone else to prove it'; no efficiency figure, temperatures, witness or the 1978 'proof' is identified, and Doczekal is not in the reference list. Schaeffer/Serogodski: 'granted German Patent # DE 42 44 016 A 1' (Lindemann's word 'granted'; the A1 suffix normally marks an unexamined published application, [memory] medium) 'capable of being embodied as a refrigerator that produces electricity rather than consumes it'; reference Schaeffer and Bauer, WDB-Verlag, 1991; no data. Wiseman: HEAT Technology Books 1-3, Eagle Research, Eastport, ID, $15 each (a sales pointer by Lindemann for a publisher). The article names no demonstrator, location, output or efficiency for the 'working models' it says exist, and says the working details 'are complicated'. This is a heat-engine-on-ambient-heat claim, distinct from the etheric argument of the 1994 article, and it sits in tension with his acceptance of the narrow Second Law.

Key claims

• A machine can run on heat extracted from the ambient medium while producing refrigeration, and this does not violate Tesla's reading of Carnot and Kelvin (their statements apply to living beings only).
• Doczekal's 1930s benzene/water engine beat the calculated Carnot maximum (Austrian patent 155744, 1939).
• Working models of ambient-heat engines exist (Schaeffer/Serogodski, Wiseman).
• Lindemann says Tesla 'never finished' the self-acting engine and that permanent-magnet motors in the patent office 'none of which work, to my knowledge' (a statement against some free-energy devices, recorded for balance).
• No quantitative test, efficiency, power or temperature figure is given for any of the engines named (Doczekal, Schaeffer/Serogodski, Wiseman).

Relevance: Lindemann's second-law argument in its practical form; links to the 'solar-assisted heat pump' claim in the ebook.

Mainstream conflict: Directly contradicts the Second Law (Kelvin-Planck statement): continuous work from a single reservoir.

Reference list: books (Adams, Tesla, Vassilatos, Wachsmuth), National Tattler periodicals 1973-77, six US patents (593,138; 685,958; 787,412; 3,890,548; 4,595,975; 4,661,747), Borderland Labs videos 1987-88, and unpublished photographs and unreleased video footage of experiments 1986-89 (an unseen record). Back cover has testimonials from Trevor Constable ('dynamite'), Brian Desborough (incoming spikes over 1,000 amps in free energy research circuits) and Ken Rauen, and promotes Lindemann's four-part book. These are endorsements by associated parties, not tests.

Key claims

• Brian Desborough reports incoming spikes of over 1,000 amps in free-energy research circuits.
• Unpublished photographs and unreleased video footage of experiments from 1986-1989 exist (cited, not reproduced).

Relevance: Names records the review does not have (the unreleased 1986-89 footage, Borderland Labs videos, Tattler issues) and shows Lindemann's commercial stake.

Mainstream conflict: none