Smith-Don · Source catalogue

Page 1 is the title page of a compiled binder: 'Resonance Energy Methods', Donald L. Smith, TransWorld Energy, CEO, dated September 23, 2002, with a fax/phone number and e-mail. Pages 2 and 20 are plain blue divider sheets with a punched binding margin; pages 95 and 96 are blank (light-blue and pale-yellow paper). The PDF is therefore a compilation of Smith's papers from different years (1992-2003), not a single document written in 2002: it contains items dated 1994, 1995, 1997 and an image URL dated 8/17/2003.

Relevance: Dates the compilation and shows it is a collection assembled by or for Smith; the dated items inside show when each idea was written.

Mainstream conflict: none

Seven pages of colour photographs with no captions, dates, labels or measurement values. The text layer is empty, and the earlier digest recorded these pages as 'blank'; that was wrong (see claims.md, Corrections). What is visible: p.3, a flat spiral of red-insulated wire on a board next to a terminal strip and a high-voltage module, and a second board with three upright metal cylinders and a 'DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE' label; p.4, a plasma globe with a red-and-white coil ring on top, and a black box on a floor with a cable; p.5, two views of a board carrying a PVC tube wound with white wire (a red band around the winding), a row of capacitor- or transformer-like cases and a terminal block, on a quilted bed cover with an oscilloscope, a multimeter and two analogue meters nearby; p.6, a board with a 'DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE' module and copper straps, and two blue cased units whose labels are only partly legible (they appear to read 'DRI-VAR' [uncertain]); p.7, a toroidal copper-wound coil with a small module on a green wire cart, and a close-up of the toroid; p.8, a wooden panel carrying red cylinders (capacitor-like) with a digital multimeter beside it, two views; p.9, a clear vertical tube through a metal plate with leads attached, and a close-up of the plate. No scope trace, meter reading or dimension is legible in any photo.

Relevance: The only pictorial evidence in the folder that Smith built hardware. The photos show things built; they record no measurement, input, output or load, so they say nothing about energy balance.

Mainstream conflict: none (no claim is made on these pages)

A patent-style specification, 'Dipole Transformer Generator', pp.11-15 (footers 'Page 1 of 5' to '5 of 5'), with four line drawings (pp.16-19, 'Not to Scale', reference numerals only). No inventor name, application number, filing date or office stamp appears on the pages. p.10 is not part of it: a web printout (ionvalve.com/iw/2003/smith_coil2.jpg, 8/17/2003) of a colour rendering captioned 'Don Smith's Rotating Seperator Coil' showing a 12 V 7 A battery, a variable-speed motor turning a 'Rotating Magnetorestrictive Metal Wheel' between two coils with neodymium magnets, capacitors and a transformer; it is a different device, not described in the typed specification, and who drew it is not stated. Specification: technical field is loaded dipole antenna systems and their radiation; used with an energy collector it becomes a transformer generator that collects energy 'which, with conventional devices is radiated and wasted.' Background: an international patent-database search 'did not reveal any prior Art.' Disclosure: 'Gauss Meters show that much energy from conventional electromagnetic devices is radiated back into the ambient background as wasted' (no readings); capacitor plates inserted at right angle to the current flow of a dipole 'allows magnetic waves to change back to useful electrical (coulombs) energy'; each set of plates 'makes an exact Copy of the full force and effect of the energy present' and the source 'is not depleted or degraded.' The dipole may be metal rods, coils or plasma tubes. Drawing 1: dipole N/S, resonate high-voltage induction coil, dielectric separator, plates, with item 4 'Heaviside current component' drawn as dashed lines parallel to the rod crossing the plates. Drawing 2A: upper aluminium and lower copper capacitor sheets, thin plastic dielectric, deep-cycle battery, inverter (DC in, 120 V at 60 cycles out); 2B: soft-iron-type rod fed from a neon-tube transformer. Drawing 3: 'Proof of Principal Device using a Plasma Tube as an active Dipole', tube 4 feet long and 6 inches in diameter. Drawing 4: 'Manufactures Prototype, Constructed and fully tested' (rod, coil, clamps, packet of capacitor plates feeding a battery and inverter). Four claims restate that radiated flux intercepted by plates at right angles becomes useful electrical energy; claim 3 defines the dipole as 'any resonating substance such as Metal Rods, Coils and Plasma Tubes'. Statements of testing (all of them): 'Examples here presented exist as fully functional prototypes and were engineer constructed and fully tested for utility by the Inventor' (p.12); Drawing 3 is a 'proof of principle'; Drawing 4 is 'Constructed and fully tested' (p.13, and 'Manufacture's Prototype' on the drawing). The only tester named is the inventor. NOT given anywhere in pp.11-19: any dimension of rod, coil or plates; coil turns, wire gauge or inductance; plate area, spacing or capacitance; drive frequency or high-voltage level; any measured input or output power, efficiency or gain; any instrument, test date, place or witness. The only hardware numbers are the 4 ft by 6 in plasma tube and the 120 V, 60 cycle inverter output. The term 'Heaviside current component' (also spelled 'Heavyside') occurs three times (key item 4, claim 4, abstract) and is defined nowhere; the text does not say whether 'current' means conduction current, displacement current or an energy-flow component. The pages are Smith's own description, with his stake as inventor. Comparison with the Mexican application MX NL02000035 A (filed 15 Nov 2002, published 20 May 2004; applicant and inventor Donald Lee Smith, Spring, Texas; 15 pp.: cover, description pp.2-8, claims p.9, abstract p.10, five figures pp.11-15; the text is the inventor's own, IMPI added only bibliographic data). The two are plainly the same application but not identical. MX ADDS: self-powering ('once the invention is started, it can feed itself, by means of a coil connected to the electrical output', repeated in claim 4 and as item 21); the numeric '90 degrees' for the plate angle; a 'potential-generating means perpendicular to the magnetic flux'; a half-wave-antenna example; coils fitted around the plasma tube; variable materials, shapes and sizes; plates glued or separated; non-metal plate materials; the plate metals in the opposite order (copper upper, aluminium lower); 'casi toda' (almost all) of the energy of conventional devices radiated back, where English says 'much'; a fifth figure (2A/2B become Figs 2 and 3); 'air conditioning' and 'without access to electric connections'. MX DROPS: 'Heaviside' by name (item 4 is rendered 'Campo pesado del componente de corriente', 'heavy field of the current component', and the abstract says 'induction current component'); the heading 'Constructed and fully tested' for the prototype; 'engineer constructed' and 'for utility' in the testing sentence (MX: built, designed and functionally tested by the inventor); the inverter's '120 Volts at 60 cycles'; the 'loaded dipole antenna' framing; and 'spun' electrons (MX: 'attracted'). The MX claims are entirely reworded (plate stack of copper, dielectric and aluminium; potential generator preferably a coil, plasma system or plasma plus coils; self-feeding). The same in both: the no-prior-art statement, the Gauss-meter statement, plates at right angle, the 'exact copy' and no-depletion statements, battery plus inverter, the 4 ft by 6 in tube, the neon-tube-transformer input, and no dimensions, voltages, frequencies or test data. Within MX the numerals 18-21 are reused inconsistently between Fig.4 and Fig.5.

Key claims

• Capacitor plates set at right angles to the current flow of a resonating dipole convert the dipole's radiated magnetic flux into usable electrical energy.
• The 'Heaviside current component' of a dipole's emission can be changed to electrical energy by a capacitor-plate collector.
• Prototypes (a 4-ft plasma-tube dipole and a manufacturer's prototype) were built and 'fully tested for utility' by the inventor.
• The Mexican application (not the English pages) adds that once started the device 'can feed itself' through a coil on its own output (self-powering).

Relevance: Smith's formal statement of the 'dipole' idea in patent language and the basis of the only patent-office filing located (MX NL02000035 A, an application, later discontinued). It is the only place in the folder where he claims specific tested prototypes, but no test result is printed in either text.

Mainstream conflict: The claim that capacitor plates collect otherwise-radiated energy and produce net useful power has no stated input or output measurement; whether it conflicts with energy conservation depends on the input power, which is not given. 'Heaviside current component' is not defined in the printed text. The MX addition that the device can feed itself from its own output is a self-powering claim of the same kind as claim 3 (no input measurement, no energy account).

Cover letter dated September 23, 2002 (Houston, Texas), signed Donald L. Smith, CEO. States that the company has done R&D 'for more than 15 years', that devices were 'demonstrated throughout the World', that the book has over 40,000 copies in circulation in seven editions and many languages, and that he receives about fifty e-mails a day; 'The technology for doing this has been around since the 1820's' and 'Selfish special interest has made sure that the technology remains discredited.' The following pages describe generation as electrons stimulated to give magnetic and electrical impulses, replacing coils and magnets with 'resonate magnetic induction, using radio frequency', with transfer 'related to the ratio of the square of the cycles per second'; operation 'at millions of cycles per second versus the conventional 60 C.P.S.'; electrons come 'from the surrounding Air and Earth Groundings'; 'Patent Pending # 08/100,074', 'No prior art' per 'the Patent Office response'; development 'during the past seven years'. p.23: the electron's 'flip side' gives magnetic waves, 'an open system, not subject to heat death'; 'Ohmic resistance does no apply to Magnetic Resonance'; a piano sympathetic-string example is offered as 'more energy out than in'. p.24: spin and gravity linked by a milk-and-cream separation example and 'spinning magnetic fields' as 'a functional motor source as in flying saucer's'. Deep-read additions (all Smith's own statements, none with a source or measurement): p.21 lists translations into Japanese, Arabic, Portuguese, French, Italian, Russian, Chinese, German and Spanish, 'about 1,500' e-mails a month, and a web site visible on 'more than 2,000' search engines; p.22 says 'The System is presently being introduced into the World Market', 'in the developmental stage during the past seven years', 'No prior art exist based on the Patent Office response', and that it is 'a direct replacement to all now existing Energy Systems' for manufacturing, homes, rail, automobiles, grids and more (the 'past seven years' sits beside the letter's 'more than 15 years'; p.22 is undated and may be older than the 2002 letter). p.23: the piano analogy ('Magnetic Resonance Energy clearly amplifies it's self demonstrating more energy out than in') and the phrase 'putting a stake through the Heart of Antique Physics'. p.24 (gravity as a spin phenomenon, 'a functional motor source as in flying saucer's') is the full note; see also pp.29-30 in the next entry.

Key claims

• Resonant RF magnetic induction delivers energy in proportion to the square of the cycles per second.
• Ohmic resistance does not apply to magnetic resonance.
• Devices have been demonstrated worldwide and the technology is suppressed by 'selfish special interest'.

Relevance: Smith's own 2002 summary of what he claims and who he says has blocked it; the circulation figure (40,000 copies) and demonstration claims are self-reported with no source.

Mainstream conflict: Ohm's law and energy conservation are said not to apply to the resonant magnetic system; spin is linked to gravity. Both conflict with standard circuit theory and gravitation.

The theory half of the compilation. p.25 abstract: devices collect energy from the Earth's 'Ambient Electrical Background'; resonant magnetic waves 'replicate upon spinning the locally present electrons'; each spun electron 'yields both magnetic and electric waves in equal proportion'; the electrical component 'is a closed system limited by Ohms Law', the magnetic component 'an open system not limited'; devices become 'self sustaining once started.' p.26: non-linearity, resonance and explosions (gasoline, atomic) are cited as showing 'more energy out than in'; 'many Physicist' are said to have called such claims silly (none named). p.27: Earth mass 5.98 x 10^24 kg (citing Serway, p.288, Table 14.2); 'the Earth is an Energy Sink'; the cost of harvesting free energy 'is a function of Human Stupidity.' p.28 is a product sheet for a 'Resonance Circuits Demo' from The Science Source (Waldoboro, Maine; item 8486, $49.95; a transmitter pulsed from 1.5 V and a receiver lighting a 70 V neon lamp), a conventional two-circuit demonstration. p.29-31: the Sun, Solar System and Galaxy as 'vast ambient energy reservoirs', four sources (cosmic, galactic, solar, Earth's ambient electromagnetic background), a harvest scheme of 'Catalyst, a Collector and a Pump', USGS magnetic flux maps as evidence of ambient energy, ocean waves on windless days as 'visible Proof of the overhead incoming magnetic flux', radio-telescope images at 408 MHz, and the statement that 'Energy Conservation Laws ... are excluded because of existence of External forces, open and nonlinear systems a la Einstein.' p.32-33: construction suggestions using a magnetostrictive rod (Terfenol-D, a rod 1 1/2 in in diameter by 10 in long said to cost over $5,000 each (the digest's '1-1/8' was a misreading of a garbled OCR '1%'; the deep read reads 1 1/2 in)) as receiving antenna and output transformer, PVC tube coils, and a claim that 'magnetic permeability is the counterpart of negative resistance', with a table whose column is headed 'Negative Magnetic Permeability' but whose entries are ordinary positive numbers (Permalloy >80,000; Sendust 30,000-120,000; Metglas >200,000; iron with 34% cobalt 13,000; 'New Technology' >1,000,000). p.34: a classification of methods (direct from incoming magnetic waves; indirect via electron stimulation or dynamos, including 'Pons & Fleischman', Marx generators and Leyden bottles 'inserted in Lakes'; transfer mechanisms) and the statement that Einstein 'as a direct quote from his biography' excluded open systems from conservation of energy. p.35: an 'Ambient Energy Sources' table and the claim that the Earth's ambient background has 'multi Billions of Volts'. No measurement of any kind is given. Deep-read additions [read: pp.21-35]. ENERGY SOURCE: the abstract (p.25) says the devices collect energy from 'the Earth's Ambient Electrical Background'; instruments cannot see it because they use the ambient background as their reference ('A spoon full of water lifted from the Ocean does not define the Ocean', p.29; 'the bird sitting on the million volt power line and sensing nothing', p.35). The four sources (cosmic, galactic, solar, Earth) are tabulated on p.35 with 'Reflection, Deflection and Absorption' and 'Faraday's action at a distance'. 'The Galaxy ... being billions of times greater than that of the Sun' (p.30). The harvest scheme (pp.30-31) is 'a Catalyst, a Collector and a Pump' (doping, air and earth groundings; capacitors, coils, transformers; induced movement onward); 'Generators do not make electricity, they collect it from the Ambient Background.' The 'multi Billions of Volts' figure (p.35, checked on the page image) has no derivation, instrument or reference; the page says reconstruction 'from indirect information' establishes the levels but shows none. CONSERVATION: p.31 'Energy Conservation Laws related to the systems herein relate to gray areas and when understood are excluded because of existence of External forces, open and nonlinear systems a la Einstein'; p.34 'Albert Einstein as a direct quote from his biography states that these are excluded from the conservation of energy laws.' No quotation marks, biography title, author, edition or page are given anywhere in pp.21-35; the sentence is Smith's attribution to an unnamed biography. SELF-SUSTAINING: p.25 'the Device becomes self sustaining once started'; but the construction on pp.32-33 needs a 'power input module' and a 'POSITIVE DC INPUT', and the pages do not say how the input is removed. p.23 says 'Ohmic resistance does no apply to Magnetic Resonance' while p.25 says 'The electrical component is a closed system limited by Ohms Law'. EARTH, GRAVITY, OCEANS (pp.24, 27, 29-30): the Earth's rotation is said to be driven by deflected magnetic flux ('the Motor System that spins / rotates the Earth'); the Earth's mass 5.98 x 10^24 kg is cited to Serway, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, 2nd ed., p.288, Table 14.2, and the watts required 'may be calculated' but the calculation is never carried out and no spin rate is given; p.27 says movement is at right angle to the current and pp.29-30 say it is in the direction of current flow; gravity is 'frictional drag from inflow current' and 'a function of spin'; the Earth's hot interior is 'cooked from the inside out by the microwave back ground'; 'Water is strongly diamagnetic and Ocean waves present on windless days provide visible Proof of the overhead incoming magnetic flux' (no height, place, date or susceptibility value). USGS magnetic-flux maps are cited as showing a 'very large Ambient Electromagnetic Energy Source'; a 408 MHz radio-telescope photograph is described on p.30 but is not on the page. MAGNETOSTRICTIVE DESIGN (pp.32-33): p.32 calls it 'the Basic Sonar Power System which permits submarines to see approximately 50 miles' working 'better at higher frequencies into the Gigahertz' (no source), with the rod as 'a combination receiving antenna and a vastly superior output transformer' and an output inverter 'diode bridge plus output transformer'; p.33 'Magnetic Resonance Power System for Water Systems' (by Donald L. Smith) is a one-transistor feedback oscillator drawn with a 'NEGATIVE MAGNETOSTRICTIVE ROD', 'NEGATIVE PULSATING DC' output and no component values, with the text 'Magnetic permeability is the counterpart of negative resistance. Resonate with negative magnetic resistance it pumps energy from the Earth's ambient background', and a footnote that magnetostrictive materials 'are piezoelectric in character, have very high resistivity'. The table under 'Negative Magnetic Permeability' lists Permalloy >80,000, Sendust 30,000-120,000, Metglas >200,000, iron with 34% cobalt 13,000, 'New Technology' >1,000,000, with no unit, conditions or source; Smith's own definition on the page is the ratio of flux density to magnetizing force. p.28 is a vendor catalogue entry (The Science Source, Waldoboro, Maine, no. 8486, $49.95: a transmitter pulsed from 1.5 V lights a 70 V neon lamp in a receiver), reproduced without comment by Smith; the vendor describes it as teaching wireless communication; the voltage rise is resonant L/C step-up, not a statement about power. COMMERCIAL AND SCALE CLAIMS (Smith's own, see also the pp.21-24 entry): see that entry and pp.61-66. No measurements of input, output, efficiency, witnesses, dates or places appear on pp.21-35; the only demonstration claim is the general one on p.21.

Key claims

• Each spun electron yields equal magnetic and electric waves; the electrical part is a closed Ohm's-law system, the magnetic part an open system with no such limit.
• Open, non-linear and resonant systems are excluded from the energy-conservation laws.
• The Earth's ambient electromagnetic background (cosmic, galactic, solar, terrestrial) is a harvestable source with 'multi Billions of Volts'.
• Magnetostrictive rods act as receiving antennas and have negative magnetic permeability, the counterpart of negative resistance.
• Gravity is 'frictional drag from inflow current', and deflected magnetic flux is the 'Motor System that spins / rotates the Earth' (power required said to be calculable from the Earth's mass and spin; the calculation is not given).
• Ocean waves on windless days are 'visible Proof of the overhead incoming magnetic flux'.
• The devices are 'self sustaining once started' (while the construction on pp.32-33 requires a DC input).

Relevance: States the energy source Smith relies on (ambient field energy, drawn in via grounding and resonance) and his justification for exempting the devices from conservation of energy.

Mainstream conflict: Energy conservation is not suspended for open or non-linear systems; open systems exchange energy with their surroundings, and the exchange must be accounted for. A 'multi billions of volts' ambient background is not what atmospheric-electricity measurements show (global ionosphere-to-ground potential is of order 200-300 kV [memory, high]). Magnetic permeability is not a negative resistance, and the quoted values are ordinary (positive) relative permeabilities [memory, high]. The Einstein 'direct quote from his biography' is given without a title, author or page, and no quotation marks. The table headed 'Negative Magnetic Permeability' lists positive values. The sonar range and the radio-telescope photograph are given without source. Gravity as a frictional drag of incoming flux, Earth rotation driven by electrical inflow and ocean waves as proof of incoming flux are not mainstream explanations of any of these; no calculation or measurement is offered for any of them [memory, high].

The mathematical core of Smith's claim. p.36 (dated 17 January 1997): schematic 'Electrical Energy Generating System', 'Patent Pending 08 / 100,074', 17 numbered parts (gel-cell 6 or 12 V; varactor diode; high-voltage module 'constituting the L-1 and L-2 Coils'; a TDK 10.9 pF 30 kV capacitor; a small-engine spark plug as spark gap, gap 0.0025 in; transfer coil L-3 and receiving coil L-4; 200 ns RF diode bridge over 100 kV; voltage dividers; electrolytic smoothing capacitor; earth ground; 60 Hz inverter and output transformer). Notes on the drawing say that if a wire length matches a wavelength component 'THE BATTERY WILL RECHARGE IT'S SELF AT THE SAME TIME IT IS BEING USED' (two opposed LEDs suggested to show it), and that capacitor 12 'SHOULD BE A BANK OF CAPACITORS. WILL HAVE TO EXPERIMENT FOR CORRECT NUMBER.' pp.37-38: Morgan/Edison/Tesla meeting story (no date, place or source), 'Tesla's Idea of Free Energy', all electrical energy 'is free'; electrons as left- and right-spin 'doublets' supplying volts and amperes; the formula 'E = (Volts X Amperes) X Cycles Per Second squared' as 'the electrical equivalent of E = MC squared'; a list of 1860-1880 high-frequency-coil workers and a D'Arsonval claim list. p.39: remote flux readings must be 'squared' in distance; flux lines 'increase as the law of squares'; 'a second round for the law of squares' from frequency; ambient potential 200,000 V on a quiet solar day in the central U.S., half at night, five times on active days, about 500,000 V at the poles (no instrument, place or date). p.40-41: flux chart; a 'Bloch wall' in a bar magnet with left-hand spin = source of volts, right-hand spin = source of amperes. p.42 (2 Nov 1995): 'Tesla Coil Geometry' drawing: L-2 volts end, L-1 centre, amperes end; measure with an electrostatic voltmeter (volts) and Hall-effect devices (amperes) 'by the inverse square law'. p.43: one volt, two volts = four, four volts = sixteen 'flux lines'. p.44: capacitor formula W = .5 x C x E x C.P.S. and inductor formula W = .5 x L x I x C.P.S., with E and I 'squared' only in the definitions (f to the first power); 'Both one henry and one farad equal one volt.' p.45: 12 V gel-cell to 8,000 V into 4 turns of L-1 = 2,000 V per turn, 'overunity is present in large amounts', 'a megawatt sized unit will sit comfortably on a breakfast table.' p.46: 'Power Triangle' with A = volts x amperes (available), B = volts x amperes x time (used), C = volts x amperes x reactive (resonate power). p.47-49: 'Joules = [0.5 C x V's squared] x C.P.S. squared', with C 'in microfarades'; impedance becomes zero at resonance = 'superconductor conditions at room temperature'. Worked example A: 60 Hz, 120 V, 10 uF: 0.5 x 0.00001 x 14,400 = 0.072, x 3,600 = 259.2 'Joules', against 'less than 10 Watt Seconds' by 'the Establishment's method'. Worked example B: 1 MHz, 100,000 V, 10 uF: 50,000 x one million squared is left blank, and the stated answer is 'greater than 50 Mega K-Joules [Watts]'. Example B appears with four different printed or computed numbers across the binder and the 1996 ExtraOrdinary Science printing (magazine p.37; page images): 5 x 10^8 J (the magazine's 'more than 500 MegaJoules', with an intermediate '500' that should read 50,000), 5 x 10^10 (the binder's '50 Mega K-Joules'), 5 x 10^14 (the magazine's own intermediate carried through) and 5 x 10^16 (the printed formula applied to the binder's numbers). Deep-read recomputation: every printed intermediate step is arithmetically correct; B's formula gives 5 x 10^16, the stated 50 Mega K-Joules is 5 x 10^10 (a factor 10^6 lower, i.e. the first-power formula of p.44); example A uses f squared, B's answer uses f; 1/2 C V^2 x f is watts (and is 1/(4 pi) of the reactive volt-amperes of a capacitor on AC, energy that returns to the source each half cycle), 1/2 C V^2 x f^2 has no standard physical meaning. pp.50-51: a list claiming 'Infinite Q at resonance confirms that voltage and amperage is squared', 'square waves are clipped infinite Qs', and that the Patent Office sending over-unity applications to its 'metering group' is 'direct and absolute evidence' it accepts the square law and knows over-unity exists. pp.52-53: reading list of 47 mainstream high-voltage, geomagnetism and radio texts, none cited at any point. No measurement, witness or test record appears on any of pp.36-53; every number is an illustrative calculation.

Key claims

• Energy delivered by resonant induction scales as one-half C V squared times the cycles per second squared (not to the first power).
• Impedance is zero at resonance, so resonant RF air-core systems act as room-temperature superconductors.
• Each unit increase in voltage squares the flux lines present, and the extra flux disturbs earth and air electrons not previously part of the system, giving over-unity output.
• In example B a 10 uF capacitor at 100 kV and 1 MHz yields more than 50 mega-kilojoules.
• A 12 V gel-cell source stepped to 8,000 V into 4 turns of L-1 gives 2,000 V per turn which adds along the many turns of L-2.
• Volts and amperes come from opposite electron spins, which are separated at the two ends of a Tesla coil.
• The Patent Office routing of over-unity applications to its metering group proves it knows over-unity exists.

Relevance: This is where Smith states the formula the whole claim rests on and the one place he gives worked numbers, so it is the document a verdict on the frequency-squared claim turns on.

Mainstream conflict: Frequency does not multiply stored energy; 1/2 C V^2 times f is a power and times f squared has no meaning. At resonance a series circuit's impedance falls to its resistance R (not zero) and a parallel circuit's rises; RF current crowds to the surface (skin effect) so resistance rises with frequency. Transformer volts per turn are equal on a tightly coupled secondary and add linearly with turn count, not as squares. 'One henry and one farad equal one volt' is dimensionally false. Net energy output above input would violate conservation of energy unless an external source is measured. The Bloch-wall/spin 'volts and amperes' picture is not mainstream magnetism.

A short paper. Electrons on meeting a moving magnetic field spin and give off an electric impulse, then a magnetic one on collapse; they are drawn 'from Earth and air grounding'. Earth-energy numbers with no source: 4.5 billion years of accumulation 'at a rate exceeding 3.9 exajoules per year' and a cumulative '17.6 X 10 to the 18th power' exajoules (the product of the stated rate and age is 1.76 x 10^10 EJ, so the printed total is 10^9 times larger than its own inputs give); one exajoule = 125 million barrels of oil; lightning about 10 trillion joules; 200,000 'emissions' a day (2 x 10^18 J, consistent with the lightning figure); 70% of exposed crust 'silicone related non-metals'. Units claimed to be 'correct with values taken from their original definitions': Gauss = 100,000 volts, Oersted = 50,000 volts, gamma = 10 volts, Tesla = 10,000 Gauss. Worked example: 1,600 gammas at 1,000 ft: 1,000 x 1,000 x 1,600 = 1.6 trillion gammas x 10 V = 16 trillion volts (ordinary arithmetic gives 1.6 x 10^9 gammas and 1.6 x 10^10 V; the stated result is 1,000 times larger). The resonance claims: 'system resistance (Z) becomes zero at resonance', 'volts and Amperes are equal (V.A.R.) until work is introduced', and a 60-million-cycle system giving 'one million times the energy' of 60 Hz. 'Patent Pending # 08/100,074, Electrical Energy Generating System, 4 February, 1992.' Bibliography of about 25 books (Bleaney and Bleaney, Hayt, ARRL Handbook 'for V.A.R. information', Nishida, Rokityansky, Chapman and Bartels and others). p.60 (rotated page, printed page 4): the 'Alternating Impact Energy Transfer Analogy', a Newton's-cradle row of swinging steel balls beside a loop drawing captioned 'Electrons do not Travel.' Note on the dating: serial prefix 08 was assigned from 1 January 1993 and number 100,074 falls in 1993 [web: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/filingyr.htm, via the arbiter's search], so a 4 February 1992 date (also printed 2/4/92 on p.67, and the p.22 letter says only 'Patent Pending # 08/100,074') conflicts with the serial; either the date is Smith's date for an earlier parent filing or a slip. Note on the 60-million-cycle claim: the ratio 60,000,000 / 60 = one million is the FIRST power of frequency; it contradicts the squared law (which would give 10^12) used elsewhere in the binder. p.22 adds that the Patent Office response showed 'No prior art' per Smith, which suggests an Office action was received; no document is shown.

Key claims

• The Earth's electrical field holds more than 17.6 x 10^18 exajoules, accumulated at over 3.9 exajoules a year for 4.5 billion years.
• One gamma equals 10 volts and one Gauss equals 100,000 volts.
• A 1,600-gamma aerial reading at 1,000 ft corrects to 16 trillion volts.
• A 60-million-cycle resonant system produces a million times the energy of a 60 Hz system.

Relevance: Gives Smith's stated energy source (a very large Earth reservoir) and his unit conversions, which are the basis of the 'ambient voltage' figures used elsewhere.

Mainstream conflict: The gauss, oersted and gamma are units of magnetic flux density or field strength, not of voltage; they cannot be converted to volts. The printed total 17.6 x 10^18 EJ disagrees with its own stated inputs by 10^9.

p.61: with alternating current 'electrons do not move from point A to point B'; the potential at A causes 'harmonic electron activity at B' with B 'supplying its own electrons' once the grounding switch closes. Conventional 60 Hz generation and iron-core transformers are 'handcuffed by the inverse relationship of volts to amperes'; coverage is air-core transformers 'at radio frequency and upward'. Two-coil example: L-1 with ten turns at 1,200 V gives 120 V per turn, replicated in each turn of L-2 ('one or many hundreds of turns'). 'Each time the Hz's. are doubled, the effectiveness of induction is squared.' Above about 20,000 Hz 'the electrons begin spinning free, outside of the inductor.' p.62: 'additional, not previously available electrons become incorporated for a very large net gain ... This gain is real!'; 'millions of times more efficient than any known conventional method'; 'no moving parts ... Once operating, this system could last forever'; small mobile units 'presently available as replacements for the batteries used in electric automobiles' (no vendor, date or test). Three modules: a high-voltage transformer module 'similar to a TV flyback and/or automobile ignition coil' (ratio from less than 1/100 to greater than '141,000', OCR of probably 1/1,000), an air-core coil module (L-1, L-2, RF capacitor to ground) and an inverter module. pp.64-65 (page images): schematics 'Domestic Use Range Module, up to two million volt-amperes-reactive output, Plan A' and 'Plan B, Electrical Automobile Energy Source'; each is a battery-fed transistor oscillator driving a high-voltage transformer into a spark-gap and air-core coil pair with a capacitor and ground; 'Larger modules go to 10 million plus.' No component values on either page. p.66: a log-log chart of reactance against frequency, 'Fig 44 ... Chart, Courtesy of A.R.R.L., 1992 Ed.', not Smith's own diagram.

Key claims

• With alternating current, electrons do not travel from A to B; the potential replicates at B, which supplies its own electrons.
• In a two-coil air-core system, each L-1 turn's voltage replicates in every L-2 turn, so output grows with the turns of L-2 (net gain).
• Doubling the frequency squares the effectiveness of induction.
• A battery-powered E.E.S. II unit can output up to two million volt-amperes reactive and can replace an electric car's batteries or power buildings.

Relevance: Smith's system description and block diagrams of the device in its 1990s form, with his turn-ratio argument for gain.

Mainstream conflict: Volts per turn are equal in the primary and secondary of a coupled transformer, so voltage ratio follows turn ratio, which gives voltage gain but not power gain. Frequency does not square induction (induced EMF is proportional to frequency). A zero-impedance resonant circuit is not a feature of resonance (impedance falls to R). Output power cannot exceed input power from the battery unless an outside source is measured; none is.

Typescript speech headed 'Electrical Energy Generating System, Patent Pending # 08/100,074, 2/4/92', with 'INSERT AND DISCUSS' placeholders for slides (including 'Aerial Magnetometer Map GP-948, East-Central United States') that are not in the PDF. Largely repeats pp.54-56 (same Earth-energy figures, unit conversions and 16-trillion-volt example, now 'using the inverse square law' where the paper says 'Coulomb's law') and adds: Maxwell (1891) and A. Nishida cited for alternating current in the crust; an 'Energy Verses Mass' table; 'Functions of active Electrons' (electrons as the source of electricity, magnetics, 'gravitational thrust as in Electric Motors' and light; moving in an infinity-sign loop, half magnetic and half electrical); 'My Concept of the Forces of Nature' (a weak and a strong force each made of electric, magnetic and gravitational parts, any two making the third); a two-battery demonstration (no numbers); 'OHM'S LAW WITH CORRECTIONS' (Volts = energy available, Ohm = scattering, Ampere = rate of dissipation, 'In no way is the potential diminished by low amperage'); 'EXAMPLES OF OVERUNITY' (a row of dominoes, the electron itself, electrons at the power station not being the ones used in a house, radios not diminishing the transmitter, an air-coil L-1/L-2 example, ping-pong balls, radio tubes and op-amp negative feedback); a '220 Mhz. Device' (the paper says 60 million cycles per second) and 'Efficiency of induction relates to the square of the cycles per second'; claims that conventional devices run at 2-3% and the resonant system near 100%; 'Magnetic imbalance causes the gravitational effect'; and a hope for endorsement by 'States with pollution problems'. No measurement, instrument reading or test of a device is reported. p.73 (deep read, QE round; page image): the 'EXPECTED RESULTS / ACTUAL RESULTS' table compares '(Energy Potential as Volts) / (Dissipation) = Rate of Dissipation' with 'Super Conducter Conditions take over' where 'OHMS / DISSIPATION, IN AIR COIL RESONATE INDUCTION SYSTEMS, RESISTIVITY BECOMES ZERO AT RESONANCE'; it is Ohm's law written in words (volts over resistance, which is current, not a 'rate of dissipation') with no numbers or circuit; the page compares 60 c.p.s. with 'my 220 Mhz. Device' (ratio 3.67 x 10^6, squared 1.34 x 10^13) and calls the result 'V.A.R.' over unity relative to an iron-core transformer. p.74: ping-pong-ball analogy; 'the energy factor is near 100 %, not 2 and 3 %'; p.75: 'Magnetic imbalance causes the gravitational effect' and 'Endorsement and Certification of The System can be anticipated by States with pollution problems'. In a series RLC circuit at resonance the impedance falls to its minimum, the resistance R, not zero [memory, high].

Key claims

• Ohm's law with 'corrections': volts are available energy, ohms are scattering, amperes are the rate of dissipation, and low amperage does not diminish potential.
• If L-2 has more turns than L-1 there is a 'net gain in the Energy present', as with a row of dominoes.
• A resonant air-core RF system is near 100% efficient against 2-3% for conventional devices, and operates at 220 MHz.
• Magnetic imbalance causes the gravitational effect, as in electric motors.
• The Earth's crust is 'an unending source of electrical energy'.

Relevance: A dated (23 July 1994), public statement of Smith's claims, useful as the earliest firmly dated version of the frequency-squared and zero-impedance arguments and as evidence of his presentation to the International Tesla Society.

Mainstream conflict: Ohm's law is a definition of resistance in ohmic conductors, and current in a lossless reactive element is not dissipation. More turns on L-2 give more voltage but proportionally less current: the transformer relation fixes the ratios with power conserved. Electric motors turn by electromagnetic force, not by 'magneto-gravitational displacement'. The domino analogy counts stored potential energy released from pre-existing sources, which is a conserved quantity.

Step-by-step construction instructions, 'Air Core Induction Coil Builders Guide', Donald L. Smith, Energy Consultant (a two-page sheet, pp.76-77; undated; it cites a 'Chart A' that is not in the document, so the build cannot be completed from the binder alone). Step 1: use RF above 20,000 Hz and match wire length to frequency (feet = 247/MHz quarter wave, 494/MHz half wave, 998/MHz full wave). Step 2: each L-1 turn divides the input voltage and each L-2 turn receives that voltage ('an additive process'); 2,400 V into a 10-turn L-1 gives 240 V per turn; an L-2 of 100 turns gives 24,000 V, 500 turns 120,000 V. Step 4: 24.7 MHz, 247/24.7 = 10 ft (120 in) of wire; 24 V per L-1 turn and a desired 640 V need 26.67 turns; a 2-inch coil of 20-30 turns is chosen from the missing Chart A, then 30 turns are selected from a ready-made Barker and Williamson stock coil; the output clamp is placed at 'the node of maximum intensity' using a grounded neon-lamp probe (Radio Shack 272-1100b). Step 5: a 2,400 V high-voltage module 'similar to those used for laser technology' (DC or AC and current not stated). Step 6: L-1 is a 10-turn piece of a 3-inch coil at 10 turns per inch; an LCR meter measures the natural capacitance and inductance; a matching capacitor across L-1's input and a spark gap are required (no values). Step 7: L-2 may be earthed at its base. Supply list: ham-radio stores, a Houston 'air inductor' supplier, 'Baker' (p.76: 'Barker') and Williamson, Bristol, Pennsylvania. p.78 is a blank 'NOTES' page. p.79: 'Figure 3 - Impulse Transformer Assembly', a coaxial, oil-filled PVC-housed transformer with a LAMINATED IRON CORE (not air core), primary wound on 2-inch PVC pipe, secondary on 3-inch pipe (the smaller coil is the primary, the reverse of the guide's 3-inch L-1 around a 2-inch L-2), a feedthrough high-voltage terminal and oil insulation; 'modified per text' refers to text not found, and no turns, wire gauge, core size, oil or voltage rating is given. Number check (QE deep read): the voltage-ratio arithmetic is right (10 x 240 = 2,400; 240 x 100 = 24,000; 240 x 500 = 120,000; 640/24 = 26.67; 247/24.7 = 10 ft = 120 in). Errors and inconsistencies in the sheet: the full-wave constant 998 is inconsistent with its own 247 and 494 (4 x 247 = 988; probable typo); 26.67 turns are calculated but 30 are selected (30 x 24 V = 720 V, not 640 V); the 10 ft of wire called for fits only about 19 turns on a 2-inch form (one turn = 6.28 in), while 26.67 turns need 13.96 ft (quarter wave at 17.6 MHz by the guide's own constant) and 30 turns need 15.7 ft, so the guide's turn count and its own frequency cannot both hold; step 2 uses a 2,400 V input and step 4 a 24 V-per-turn example equal to 240 V in. Wheeler's approximation gives L-2 about 20-23 uH and L-1 about 9.6 uH; resonance near 24.7 MHz needs a few picofarads and is set by the unmeasured self-capacitance, not by the wire-length rule [deep reader's calculation, assumed 2.5 pF, [memory, medium]]. The sheet is a voltage-gain recipe: it contains no instruction for measuring input power, output power or energy, so it cannot test the over-unity claim of p.73 as written. It tells the builder to probe a live coil 'with your hand as a ground' from a 2,400 V module and gives no safety warning [memory, high]. The Radio Shack part number and the supplier address and telephone number were not checked on the web.

Key claims

• Secondary voltage in an air-core coil pair rises in proportion to the number of L-2 turns at a fixed volts-per-turn from L-1 (2,400 V in gives 24,000 V with 100 turns); this is the ideal tight-coupling turns ratio, ignoring coupling coefficient, load and losses.
• The point of maximum voltage along L-2 can be located with a neon lamp and is the natural resonant point.

Relevance: Smith's only construction recipe; it gives replicators a concrete, testable build, though it specifies only voltage gain and no power measurement.

Mainstream conflict: The voltage step-up from turn counts is ordinary transformer and Tesla-coil behaviour and is consistent with mainstream physics if coupling and resonance are respected (a closely coupled turns ratio gives an upper bound before resonance and Q effects; an air-core pair has k well below 1). The quarter-wave factor 247/MHz is within 0.5% of the free-space value (245.9) [memory, high]. No claim of net power gain is made on these pages; the sheet specifies no power measurement.

pp.80-90 are a general primer on electrical power, terminology and safety: generation at 13,800-22,000 V, transmission at 69,000-750,000 V, distribution at 7,200-14,000 V, 120/240 V service, kilowatt-hours, AC and DC, transformers, single- and three-phase service, short circuits, fuses, circuit breakers, horsepower (746 W), the National Electric Code, cost calculations (a 120 V, 5 A item for 10 hours: 600 W, 6 kWh, 48 cents at 8 cents/kWh), series and parallel circuits, safety grounding, fusetrons, fustats, thermal and magnetic breakers and ground-fault interrupters. pp.91-94 are an appendix 'Additional Electrical Units' with a conversion-factor table (emu, esu and mksa units; the footnote cites W. R. Smythe, Static and Dynamic Electricity, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill 1950) and instructions for using it, including a worked conversion of 5.5 x 10^4 gauss to weber per square metre using 1 x 10^-4 weber/m^2 per gauss. The appendix footnotes show it was copied from a textbook, so it is a standard table bound into the binder Smith compiled, not Smith contradicting himself. The table lists the gauss as 1 x 10^-4 weber/m^2 (a magnetic flux density) while Smith's pp.55 and 68 give the gauss as 100,000 volts; the two cannot both be right. Some table cells are garbled in OCR.

Key claims

• The gauss converts to 1 x 10^-4 weber per square metre (a standard textbook table bound into the binder; it conflicts with Smith's 1 gauss = 100,000 volts on pp.55 and 68).

Relevance: Background reference matter bound into the compilation; the conversion table is a standard source against which Smith's volt-per-gauss equivalences can be compared.

Mainstream conflict: none (standard reference material)

SECONDARY SOURCE: a later author's reconstruction of what he thinks Don Smith was doing; it is not Smith's words and records no measurement. Lagace states that 'the goal of this publication is to go beyond Don Smith's surface-level hints' (p.3) and that Smith 'never fully explained this process' (p.2). He recounts Smith's 'mirror effect' (a charged capacitor plate seems to charge a second plate at a distance; grounding the mirror plate lets current be drawn; Figure A, a plate capacitor with a plastic sheet between metal plates, a coil-wound rod, a load and an earth symbol) and Smith's claim that a single 1 F capacitor could produce 1 kW (p.2; no source, date or occasion; 1 kW for one second takes 1 kJ, the whole energy of 1 F at 44.7 V). Chapters 1-2 argue the driver circuit (neon-sign transformers, Tesla-like resonance; Figure B shows a 12 V to 2,500 V, 12 mA driver, diodes, 22 kohm resistors, neon lamps and an 874 nF, 2,100 VAC capacitor) only charges the capacitor and 'the capacitor is not a power source'. Chapter 3: capacitor A (10 uF, 10 V) shares charge with an equal capacitor B; 5 V each and half the energy lost, which the deep read confirms is right. The initial energy, however, is misprinted by a factor of 10: 1/2 x 10 uF x (10 V)^2 = 0.5 mJ, not the printed 5 mJ ('0.001 joules divided by 2 equals 0.005 joules', _text line 183) [read; computed]; the deep read, physicist, mathematician and arbiter all record this slip. Polarity flip: A at -5 V and B at +5 V reconnected give 0 V and 0 V; the text says A 'holds all the energy that was previously in Capacitor B' although at 0 V a capacitor stores no energy. Chapter 4: a transformer primary in the discharge path and a rectifier capture 'displacement current' pulses into capacitor C (1.25 mJ per pulse, 2.5 mJ twice = '5 millijoules total', 'No energy was lost'), where the printed numbers disagree with each other by factors of 2. Chapter 5: the transformer primary 'does not feel' the secondary load because there is 'no closed current loop' and the transformer is a 'displacement current detector'; Lagace also writes that the primary 'must supply all the energy transferred' in the conventional case. A Bearden quotation ('There's no rule in physics that says you can't transfer a joule of energy from one capacitor to another with nearly perfect efficiency', 'Energy from the Vacuum' series, no locator). Chapter 6, 'Moving Beyond 100%': 5 mJ input, outputs totalling '10 millijoules' ('200% efficiency', 'over-unity by operator standards'), by counting recharged capacitor A (5 mJ), capacitor C (2.5 mJ) and an auxiliary load (2.5 mJ); the deep read finds the printed state after the first step already totals 6.25 mJ for a 5 mJ input. Chapter 7 scales to C = 1 F and V = 100 V (5 kJ in capacitor A; 50 V each after sharing; 2,500 J left, 2,500 J 'released'), then prints: 1,250 J captured in capacitor C per redistribution, two per cycle = 2,500 J; an auxiliary load receiving 2,250 J at an assumed 90% return-path efficiency; 4,750 J total output; battery input 500 J per cycle (4,500 J recovered through the return path), '9.5 times more energy than the operator supplies' ('Efficiency: 950%'); at a 1 s cycle 2,500 W plus 2,250 W = 4.75 kW; 0.139 Wh in and 1.32 Wh out per second. The arithmetic of those steps is correct as written (5,000 x 0.9 = 4,500; 4,750/500 = 9.5; 500 J = 0.139 Wh), but the 4,750 J output comes from a 2,500 J transient loss plus a 500 J input: the printed balance does not say where the other 1,750 J (more, since the 4,500 J recovered is also counted) comes from. Final chapter: Lagace says the frameworks are 'sound', the system needs implementation with Arduino/MOSFET switching, 'I guarantee you will fail' without electronics background, 4 primary coils in the loop are fine and 100 are 'impractical', loop impedance under 2 ohms is ideal, and that this scheme 'solves the mystery of Don Smith's claims of achieving over 1 kW ... with a 1-farad capacitor'. Figures C and D look like circuit-simulator screenshots (a 5.0 V voltmeter reading is the only simulated value printed); capacitors are labelled 10 mF in the figures but '10 microfarads' in the text, a factor 1,000 between them.

Key claims

• Charging a capacitor from another capacitor through a transformer primary lets a rectifier capture the 'lost' half of the energy as displacement-current pulses in a third capacitor.
• The transformer primary does not feel the secondary load because no closed current loop exists, so the secondary can be loaded without back-reaction.
• Starting from 5 mJ input the scheme outputs 10 mJ (200%), counting the recharged capacitor A as output.
• At 1 F and 100 V the scheme delivers 4.75 kW from 500 J input per second (950% efficiency), which Lagace says explains Smith's 1 F, 1 kW claim.
• Smith claimed a single 1 F capacitor could produce 1 kW (reported, not sourced).

Relevance: The only document in the folder that attempts a quantified mechanism for the capacitor method; it is also the source of the 1 F / 1 kW claim and of the 'mirror effect' description, both reported at second hand.

Mainstream conflict: Inside a capacitor the displacement current equals the conduction current in the leads, so a transformer primary in series carries ordinary conduction current and reflects its secondary load back to the primary. The printed energy tallies exceed the 5 mJ (or 5 kJ) available unless an external energy source is supplied, and none is quantified. A capacitor at 0 V holds no energy. The 'no energy lost' recovery (p.15) and the 10 mJ total (p.28) fail on the document's own numbers.

Image-only scan of Smith's 1996 article in the International Tesla Society's magazine, with the 1996 International Tesla Symposium programme (Colorado Springs, 18-21 July 1996; workshop 'Don Smith, Free Energy Device', Thursday 18 July, 9:00-12:00; the same programme lists 'Bruce Perrault - The Radiant Energy Device' on 20 July). The article is a theory paper: the Morgan/Edison/Tesla meeting and 'Agents for Morgan and Friend include the U.S. Patent Office and Academia' (p.33); the electron-doublet model, with left spin as the source of volts and right spin of amperes separated at a Bloch wall, and 'Magnetic imbalance causes the gravitational effect' (pp.33-34; the earliest dated print of the model in the files); E = (V x A) x CPS^2 (p.34); the Tesla Coil Geometry drawing marked 'proprietary information related to Patent Procedure' (p.34); a Power Triangle in which resonant transfer duplicates a source 'which in no way diminishes the original source' (p.36); a formula box with the first power of C.P.S. (p.36) beside CPS^2 in the text and examples (pp.35, 37); examples A and B, the Benefits box and the Evidence Against Under Unity box (p.37); and a 47-item reading list (pp.37-38). It describes no demonstration, apparatus, measurement or witness.

Key claims

• Resonant induction energy equals (V x A) x (cycles per second)^2, while the same article's formula box prints the first power of cycles per second.
• Impedance becomes zero at resonance, giving superconductor conditions at room temperature.
• Electrons exist as doublets; left-hand spin is the source of volts and right-hand spin of amperes, separated at a Bloch wall.
• Magnetic imbalance causes the gravitational effect and makes electric motors rotate.
• Resonant induction lets other resonant systems duplicate a source without diminishing it.
• The U.S. Patent Office and academia act as agents of the Morgan/Edison interests; referral of over-unity applications to a metering group shows the Office knows over-unity exists.
• Device B sits on a breakfast table, and a small starting source stays fully charged from the system.

Relevance: Smith's own 1996 published statement of claims 1, 2, 7 and 8, dated, from the year of the suitcase workshop; confirms the workshop date; shows the f against f^2 inconsistency inside one article; contains no performance data.

Mainstream conflict: Same as claims 1, 2 and 8: f^2 energy law (units J/s^2), zero impedance at resonance, spin as a source of volts or amperes, gravity from magnetic imbalance.

An earlier version of Kelly's Smith chapter, in four parts. (1) Kelly's statements: Smith repeated the experiments in Martin's Tesla book; 'nearly fifty' / 'forty eight' devices; a table-top rotating-disc device 'commercially produced in Russia' giving '400 kilowatts' (eight coil pairs at 1,000 V and 50 A); a board device of '160 kilowatts (8000 volts at 20 amps) from an input of 12 volts 1 amp (COP = 13,333)'; a 100 kW plasma-tube device; Smith's web site 'taken over by Big Oil'; and Kelly's own check that 'Don's calculations go adrift' in the coil recipe (about 19 turns and 458 V, not 26.67 turns and 640 V). (2) A reworded copy of the Mexican application, called a 'patent'. (3) Smith's first-person document 'Resonate Electrical Power System': piano strings, the bird on a high-voltage line, lightning summed to 57.6 trillion volts a day, 1,900 gamma 'corrected' to 1.9x10^9 gamma, '1 gamma = 100 volts RMS' but 1.9x10^9 gamma = 1.9x10^8 V, '1 milligauss = 100 volts', photomultiplier patents as over-unity, and build steps with a plasma globe and speaker-cable coil. (4) The 1996 suitcase schematic ('Patent Pending 1994'): 12 V 7 Ah gel cell, Bertonee NPS-12D8 neon-tube transformer, 8,000 uF / 480 V DC, output transformer '480 V @ 60 Amps', '28.8 KVA'. An unsigned paragraph after it refers to 'Don' in the third person: 'newer versions have atomic batteries and power output ranges of Gigawatts', 'Commercial units of Boulder Dam size are currently being installed', the information incomplete for 'Don's personal security and contract obligations'. Kelly then describes the '1994 build' board (neon driver 9,000 V at 35.1 kHz, Variac, Barker & Williamson L2 of two 17-turn sections, 2 uF / 8 kV output capacitors, Smith's statement of '8,000 volts at 20 amps'), battery recharging by quarter-wave leads or a choke winding, Smith's remark that 'some two hundred replications have already been built', and a transmitter with three receiver coils. No measurement, instrument or witness is given anywhere.

Key claims

• The 1996 suitcase model used a 12 V 7 Ah gel cell, a neon-tube transformer and an 8,000 uF / 480 V capacitor bank, and its output transformer was rated 28.8 kVA (480 V at 60 A).
• Newer versions have atomic batteries and gigawatt outputs, and Boulder Dam-size units are being installed worldwide (unsigned passage).
• A 1994 table-top board device produces 8,000 V at 20 A (160 kW) from a 12 V, 1 A input (Kelly's account of Smith's statement).
• A table-top rotating-disc device commercially produced in Russia gives 400 kW (Kelly).
• About two hundred replications of a simplified board circuit have been built (Smith's remark as reported by Kelly).
• One gamma of magnetic flux equals 100 volts RMS, while the same passage converts 1.9x10^9 gamma to 1.9x10^8 volts.
• Any number of receiver coils near a Tesla-coil transmitter each receive full power without increasing the transmitter's input (Kelly's account).

Relevance: The only parts list for the 1996 suitcase unit in the record; several commercial and scale claims (claim 10); a further set of gamma-volt conversions (claims 3 and 4); an independent check of the coil-recipe defect; the source of most of Utkin's Smith diagrams.

Mainstream conflict: Output above input from a neon-tube driver chain (energy conservation); a 2 uF / 8 kV store holds 64 J, 0.4 ms at 160 kW; a commercial neon driver delivers at most a few hundred watts [memory, medium]; receivers load a resonant transmitter (reflected impedance); photomultiplier gain is powered by its high-voltage supply; sound is a mechanical wave, not electromagnetic.

An illustrated essay arguing that 'electromagnetic feedback' breaks interaction symmetry, so that 'All asymmetrical systems are outside the area covered by the Energy-Conservation Law'. It includes Utkin's own bench tests of a switchable inductance (47 nF, about 2 mH, 12 V; remaining energy 'more than the capacitor gives to the coil', accuracy 20%, later 10% and 5%) and a 4x 'current amplification'. About twenty figures are labelled 'By Don Smith' or 'From Don Smith', and only one source is named (Smith.pdf on Kelly's site). p.13: Utkin's caption 'the capacitor is charged by sparks and powerful displacement current is produced' sits over a 2006 rendering titled 'Don Smith Device', credited to Zero Point Films (12 V battery, ignition coil, spark gap, copper/glass/aluminium plates, MetGlas cobalt transformer; its own caption speaks of 'radiating electrons' and 'a proper earth ground'). p.16: 'Don Smith named this technology Bird on the wire', no source. p.80 reuses Kelly's diagram of the 1994 board (35.1 kHz driver; Utkin infers a 60-70 kHz resonance by frequency doubling). p.87 shows photographs of the rotating-disc device. No measurement by Smith is reported.

Key claims

• Smith grounded the spark gap in his devices, as Gray did (Utkin's opinion).
• A spark-charged plate capacitor coupled to a ferromagnetic-core transformer collects displacement current (Utkin's caption for a 2006 'Don Smith Device' rendering).
• Smith named the technology 'Bird on the wire' (Utkin, no source).
• Smith built a free-energy device by combining two crystal detector receivers (Utkin, citing Smith.pdf).
• Asymmetrical systems lie outside the energy-conservation law (Utkin's thesis).

Relevance: Related work and a second-hand channel for Smith material; the claim 6 attribution of the displacement-current idea to Smith rests on this file and turns out to be Utkin's interpretation of a 2006 illustration.

Mainstream conflict: Energy conservation holds for all interactions, symmetric or not [memory, high]; Utkin's tests meter capacitor voltages, not input and output energy.