Stiffler · Source catalogue

Author's account of air-core coil switching circuits (ECAT) he built while 'on the team of the Advanced Technology Group' (organisation not identified); the page says 1993-96, while a 2009 forum post dates the first ECAT tries to 1990 with notebooks from 1985 [web, Investigator]. Hundreds of coil designs were tried, empirically. Stated theory: 'cross phasing' of frequencies ('Poly-Phasing') makes a 'virtual energy pump' capturing external energy during the MOSFET OFF period. Text: 12 V DC, single MOSFET, 50% duty trigger at 4.3 kHz, large air-core power coil with inner load coil, saturating 'Theta-core' polyphasing transformer, 60 Hz matching transformer to a 120 V 12 W lamp. Reported figures: input 8.25 W; lamp 12 W; matching transformer 'wastes some 6 watts'; 'total power produced 18.11 W'; gain 18.11/8.25 = 2.194; quiescent current 90 mA 'during a load condition'. Figures (deep read 2) [read: images]. Schematic ecatcir000 (no component values): two sources, V1 (pulse generator, drives the gate through R2, with R1 to the source node) and V2 (DC supply, through D2); one MOSFET M1; source resistor R3 (value not given) at test point TP-5; polyphase transformer L1-L4 wired as two bucking pairs; air-core power coil L5 and load coil L6 with R4; D1, C1-C4. Scope readouts: TP-1 (drain) 106 V at 50 V/div, 100 us/div, about 4.3 kHz; TP-2 172 V; TP-3 94.5 V; TP-5 (across R3) 0.31 V peak-to-peak at 500 mV/div; no current trace anywhere. Two operating points are on the page: the 4.3 kHz / 12 V schematic design, and the lamp version (photos ecat006-012), whose drain photos (ecat010/011) repeat at about 1.1 kHz and peak at 205 V, with an HF matching-transformer secondary at 304 V peak and about 1.17 kHz (ecat012). The supply photo ecat009 (Protek 3006B) reads 25.0 V and 0.33 A, which is exactly the 8.25 W; so the 8.25 W belongs to a 25 V supply, not the 12 V of the text, and it appears to be V2 alone (V1's power is not stated; estimated well under 1% of 8.25 W [calc, assumed MOSFET values]). No figure measures the 12 W lamp (nameplate; photos only) or the 6 W transformer loss. Pattern noted as inference only: 25.0 V x 0.09 A = 2.25 W and 8.25 - 2.25 = 6.00 W, so the '6 watts' may be a difference in supply draw between configurations, not a measured transformer loss; competing reading: the 90 mA belongs to the 12 V design and the match is a coincidence. The page decides neither. The page also says 'the MOSFET and its heat sink is cool (not cold like the transformer) but cool' (no temperature measured; it does not say which transformer), which sits awkwardly beside a 60 Hz transformer 'wasting some 6 watts' if that is the transformer meant [memory, medium: such a loss would normally run warm]. Page-level accounting: 12 W + 6 W = 18 W against the stated 18.11 W (0.11 W unexplained); the page gives no measurement method (no meter type, no waveform integration, no calorimetry) and no replication. Earlier wording that the 'arithmetic does not close' or has a 'logic problem' is withdrawn: the sentence on the 6 W loss is ambiguous, and the 8.25 W / 90 mA basis cannot be reconciled from the page alone (arbiter, 'Corrections to earlier documents'; deep read 2 correction 2: the earlier step '8.25 W at 12 V = 0.69 A' rested on a 12 V supply that the lamp-version photo contradicts). Author says versions on ferrite/metal cores lost the anomalous gain. Argues the 'acid test' (self-running over-unity) is a diversion put forward by those who wish to suppress research (assertion; no named persons or documents). Says Free Energy builders who changed the design had 'total failure' replicating ECAT (no attempts named). Calls Naudin's TEP (Time Energy Pump) an unacknowledged offshoot that 'fell short of sustained usable excess energy'. A forum member (Kokomoj0, thread 9344 post #3) estimated from an ECAT video 'an addictional 4 watts roughly' and said proper measurement needs DC conversion and a load [web, Investigator; a third-party estimate, not a measurement].

Key claims

• An air-core ECAT coil circuit driven by a single-MOSFET trigger (text: 12 V supply, 4.3 kHz; the lamp-version photos show 25 V and about 1.1 kHz) produces anomalous power gain by capturing external energy during the MOSFET OFF period.
• In the lamp version, 8.25 W input (photographed as 25.0 V x 0.33 A) yields 18.11 W total power (12 W nameplate lamp plus about 6 W transformer loss), a power gain of 2.194.
• Replacing the air-core power and load coils with conventional ferrite or metal-core transformers removes the anomalous gain.
• COP greater than 1 need not mean a self-running device; capture of external energy with continued input is the right claim.
• Internet attempts to copy ECAT with modified designs failed because the builders changed the design.

Relevance: Earliest and broadest statement of Stiffler's claim (1993-96 origin of his later 'Spatial Energy Coherence' work); the only document giving a numerical COP figure for his own circuits.

Mainstream conflict: A sustained power gain above 1 (output exceeding supply input) contradicts energy conservation unless input is mismeasured; the page gives no measurement method, so a measurement artefact (high-frequency ringing, DC meter on pulsed input, lamp nominal rating used as measured power) is not excluded. 'Poly-phasing' and 'virtual energy' have no equations. The figures add no current trace and no R3 value, so no power balance can be built from them; the input is the supply panel meter of one source (V1's drive power is not counted), the 12 W is a nameplate rating and the 6 W loss is not measured.

Unfinished page (ends with an under-construction icon) describing Stiffler's test of the Rosemary Ainslie MOSFET heating circuit. Cell: Pyrex test tube with 20-25 mL distilled water, nichrome (NiCr) wire coil wound on the outside as the circuit's inductor, no stirrer; thermometer later replaced by LM335 sensors 'calibrated before each run to a NIST traceable standard'; foam-block 'adiabatic' enclosure (about $10), or nested cups. Energy readings with AC components 'taken by signal integration at a 40 MHz sampling rate' across 0.1-1.0 ohm carbon-composition shunts. Circuit: 555 PWM driver, MOSFET; with split supplies he saw a 149 V spike and 1.49 MHz ringing (spike 'integrates to very little energy', ringing 'integrates with interest', no numbers). Fig 15 screenshot of his 'Temperature Monitor' software gives the only quantitative result: 20.00 V, 0.096 A, 600 s, Sum(V*I*T) = 1198.759 J in; 25 g water 26.15 to 41.25 C; Q = 4.187*25*15.10 = 1580.593 J; CEC = 1.319 (checked, arithmetic correct). In cups, 'unable to sustain a CEC>1 once the temperature reached 42 C', later levelling near 83% (attributed to heat loss). Argues returned energy to the battery is insignificant (flyback diode D1 keeps current in the coil loop). Last text: 'A second inductor is added', no details. Observed gate/drain oscillations 'orders of magnitude higher' than the Ainslie documentation. Digest said no numeric result existed; the deep read corrects this (Fig 15). QE additions. (1) Sensitivity: the CEC is directly proportional to the mass entered (25 g gives 1.319, 20 g gives 1.055; an 8 g Pyrex tube at an assumed 0.84 J/g/K would raise it to about 1.40, so the omitted glass and losses raise, not lower, the apparent ratio); the sensor sits in an unstirred 20-25 mL tube; it is not stated whether Fig 15's input includes the 1.49 MHz ringing. (2) Link to the sister review review/Ainslie-Rosemary-Ann: Fig 11 reads 2.38 kHz at 3.80% duty, matching the Ainslie documentation's 2.4 kHz and 3.7% (2002 Quantum article and the 2009 reprint) within a few percent; the page says the settings are 'close to the inventors' specifications' and the tests 'follow a similar protocol to the originals'. The flyback diode topology (diode across the coil, cathode to the positive rail) is the same as Ainslie's own, which states 'A flyback diode (D1) is placed in parallel with (RL)' (1N4007 in hers; Stiffler uses a 2 kV 3 A fast diode). Differences or unknowns: Stiffler gives no coil L or R (inferred about 5 uH and 8-10 ohm), no MOSFET type, uses a 'CMOS' 555 and a 20 V bench supply (hers: NE555, 24 V lead-acid with a separate gate battery), and his 1.49 MHz oscillation is 7-10 times her documented 143-200 kHz self-oscillation state (over 500 kHz in a third-party report), so he did not report reproducing her documented state although his regime is the same kind of MOSFET self-oscillation. (3) Dating: c.2009, circumstantial (folder name 'Ainslie', the term 'Ainslie Documentation', the 2 February 2009 reprint, other Stiffler pages 2007-2009); a Google snippet names 'Dr Stiffler' in the Ainslie et al. Scribd group paper of 2009-12-01 (open-source evaluation, claiming COP above 4.0) but that page text does not show it; whether this page was part of that evaluation is unknown. (4) Flyback energy recomputed with the documented L = 8.64 uH: 17-27 uJ per cycle, 35-64 mW, about 2-4% of the input at 2.4 kHz and 3.8% duty (replacing the earlier 2-19% range); it all circulates through the freewheel loop and none returns to the battery. The model reproduces his 0.096 A mean current within about 25% [calc].

Key claims

• In one 600 s run, 1198.759 J of electrical input produced 1580.593 J of heat in 25 g of water (CEC = 1.319).
• With foam-cup insulation the heat/input ratio could not stay above 1 beyond 42 C and levelled near 83%, which the author attributes to heat loss.
• The energy returned from the collapsing inductor field to the battery is insignificant; the field-collapse current heats the coil and diode D1 instead.
• Under some conditions the Ainslie MOSFET circuit oscillates at frequencies orders of magnitude higher than Ainslie's documentation (1.49 MHz ringing on the 20 V supply).
• The 149 V spike carries little energy, while the 1.49 MHz ringing integrates to a significant amount.

Relevance: The only calorimetric measurement in the Stiffler folder, and the one place where a stated CEC above 1 can be checked arithmetically; also documents Stiffler's test of Ainslie's circuit.

Mainstream conflict: A heat/input ratio of 1.32 would be an apparent excess unless the input is under-measured. The page does not say whether Sum(V*I*T) includes the 1.49 MHz ringing component, whether the Fig 15 run used cups or foam, or whether the mass entered (25 g versus the stated 20-25 mL) is right: with 20 g the ratio would be 1.055. No calorimeter calibration, blank DC run, repeats or error bars are reported. Ainslie's own claims are outside this folder. Sensitivity: the ratio scales with the mass entered and the sensor is unstirred.

Construction and test notes for the ferrite-bar antenna coils used in SEC circuits. Self-resonance test: a 50 ohm resistor in the ground return, resonance seen as a voltage minimum across it. Tabulated resonances (Hz): bare secondary 7,061,800; with primary 5,597,529; primary-side tests (C1 400/330 pF, L1 800 nH) 4,758,184 / 4,787,230; secondary-side tests 4,451,374 / 4,481,603. Changing C1 by 17.5% shifts the null by only 0.6-0.7%. 'Amplification' is said to occur at about 12.0, 15.1 and 18.6 MHz (15,163,935; 15,185,340/15,184,340; 18,612,282/283), but amplification is never defined or given a number; the two 12.0 MHz values are numerically the +6 dBV points of the secondary tests. An unlabelled table of measured 3.9866, 10.4230, 12.3340 MHz with x2, x3, x4 multiples is arithmetically correct; 3 x 3.9866 = 11.9598 MHz is within 0.04% of 11,963,991 Hz. Impedance Tables 1-6 (series C1-L1 with 1 ohm): Xc and Xl are right, but the Z column equals sqrt(|X|+R) instead of sqrt(R^2+X^2), so every tabulated Z is wrong (about 9 times too small at |X| = 80 ohm); the header '2.2 mH' is really 2.2 uH. Input-power method: Rg resistor, Vg, Vin, Vd with Pin = Vin x Iin (no phase). Output tests: a black aluminium plate with LEDs showed no temperature rise; a thermal-bottle test (2 W resistor at matched DC power versus the board, 4-minute readings for 1 hour) is described but no result is given. Claims instruments must be battery powered and ungrounded because grounding 'will detune the AV Plug to where it no longer will interface with the Spatial Lattice'. Figures (deep read 2) [read: images]. Fig 10 ('Coil(s) Response'), Fig 11 ('Amplification Points', 3-D cones at about 15.2, 15.2 and 18.6 MHz) and Fig 13 ('Primary & Secondary Power Peaks', five cones at about 15.2, 15.2, 18.6, 12.0, 12.0 MHz) plot frequency only (axis 'Hertz'); none holds a voltage, gain or power value, so 'amplification' on this page has no measured magnitude in text or figures. The only level data are scope shots Figs 4-6 (generator held at 10 V p-p; the 50 ohm trace is tens of mV). Fig 14 is the input-power schematic (Vg, Vin, Vd, Rg 50 ohm; Pin = Vin x Iin without phase) with no values. Fig 15 is a photograph of the thermal-bottle apparatus (display digits unreadable) and Fig 16 a photograph of about 20 lit white LEDs on a breadboard under a dark slab (probably the black plate); neither holds temperature data, and the bottle test result is absent from the text and every image (the missing result is an anomaly to chase, not a neutral gap). RFF03 is a two-line LC low-pass filter (22 uH chokes, 0.01/0.1/1.0 uF shunts, ferrite beads); RFF01 shows it monitoring a Sidac/bulb circuit. The unlabelled 'Measured (MHz)' table (3.9866 / 10.4230 / 12.3340) is very probably the same three 'Energy Peaks' as single-wire white paper Fig 18 (p.14: 3.9066 / 10.42302 / 12.334 MHz, the LED light-output peaks versus drive frequency); the first value differs by one digit (3.9866 versus 3.9066), most likely a typo in Fig 18 (all twelve multiples in the table use 3.9866; 3.9066 appears nowhere else), unproven, both kept on the record. These are not the coil self-resonances (4.149 / 7.062 / 10.225 MHz) and not the 12.0 / 15.1 / 18.6 MHz 'amplification' points. Impedance minima in Tables 1-6 fall at the right frequencies even though every Z value is wrong.

Key claims

• Specific drive frequencies near 12.0, 15.1 and 18.6 MHz produce 'amplification' when a series C1-L1 circuit feeds the power coil.
• Grounding the AV Plug or using a grid-powered oscilloscope detunes it so that it no longer interfaces with the 'Spatial Lattice'.
• Adding a primary winding lowers the secondary's self-resonance from 7.06 MHz to 5.60 MHz.
• A thermal-bottle comparison of the board against a resistor at equal input power can show whether the board produces excess heat (result not stated on the page).
• The LED/black-plate quick test showed no temperature increase.

Relevance: Shows the coil and test practice behind the SEC exciters, contains the page's own negative thermal result, and records the claim that grounded instruments cannot be used (which, if true, bars standard measurement).

Mainstream conflict: 'Amplification' is undefined (no units or gain figure). The grounding-detuning claim is stated as loss of interface with a 'Spatial Lattice' (undefined); a conventional reading is stray capacitance or ground-loop loading of a high-impedance RF node. The Z-column error means the impedance tables cannot be used for Q or power. No energy gain is reported.

Catalogue of single-transistor 'Exciter' circuits. SEC15-3 is the basic circuit (15-20 V, MPSA06 transistor, 400 pF, variable inductor 2-20 uH, diode pair called the AV Plug, neon load); variants: SEC15-3 multipurpose loads (neon, LED chains, electrolysis cell; motors and incandescent lamps 'viable'), a 'parasitic plate' version, SEC15-20 (9 LEDs plus neon, single-wire chain), SEC15-10sx (fan motor plus 9 LEDs). Generation II: SEC14-1G2 'Energy Doubling Output' (stacked AV Plugs, voltage doubler) with a worked example: 20 uF at 135 V = 1.8225E-2 J, then 10 uF at 270 V = 3.6450E-2 J, 'doubling the energy output'. Recomputed: the correct values are 0.18225 J and 0.3645 J (printed exponents wrong by a factor of 10); the example is stored-energy bookkeeping for two capacitors with no input measurement, and 135 V is an assumed value. Text says each stacked plug supplies what one plug would (1/3 J per plug hypothetical), stacking is limited by the minimum energy needed 'to stimulate the Energy Lattice to a point that excess energy can be cohered', and 'Empirical data to date supports the following formula' but no formula is present (raw HTML checked). SEC14-1G1: a three-stage unit 'multiplying excess energy by a factor of three' by 'voltage tripling', supported by a photograph of neon brightness (not a measurement). Diode note: 1N4148 cannot be used between stacked plugs; 1N4007 worked.

Key claims

• Stacking two AV Plugs (SEC14-1G2) doubles the exciter's output energy; stacking three (SEC14-1G1) multiplies 'excess energy' by three.
• Each stacked AV Plug supplies the same energy as a single plug.
• Stacking is limited by the minimum energy needed to excite the 'Energy Lattice' so that excess energy is cohered.
• An empirical formula predicts the energy that can be cohered (formula not on the page).
• The SEC15-3 can drive neon lamps, LED chains and an electrolysis cell from a single transistor oscillator.

Relevance: Defines the SEC exciter family and Stiffler's 'multiplication' language; the doubling example is the clearest place where a stated figure can be checked, and the missing formula is a gap in the record.

Mainstream conflict: The doubling example is ordinary capacitor-energy arithmetic (E = CV^2/2) and shows no input-output comparison, so by itself it does not conflict with mainstream physics; the claims of 'excess energy' and a 'Lattice' that 'spontaneously returns' it would conflict with energy conservation if backed by measurement, but no measurement is given.

Winding notes for coils in the SEC 15-3/20 circuits. The standard L1 form's original coil measures 1.313 uH with the core out and 2.254 uH with the core centred. Builders wind #24 enamel wire to half and to full form length to try other inductances. L2 (collector coil) is wound on a plastic sewing-machine bobbin with #24 wire to 8.8 uH. L3 form is 1 mm LDPE/HDPE (L3 not introduced in text). L4 is for the 'SGate' project (captions only). A surplus-supplier URL for coil forms is given. Figures are captions only.

Key claims

• The standard SEC 15-3/20 L1 coil tunes from 1.313 uH to 2.254 uH.
• Coil L2 wound to 8.8 uH on a sewing-machine bobbin suits the SEC circuits.

Relevance: Supplies the component values (L1 and L2) used in the other SEC documents; no claims of anomalous energy.

Mainstream conflict: none

Overview of Stiffler's single-wire coil work 'similar to that conducted by Nikola Tesla, S. V. Avramenko and Alexander V. Frolov', leading to the 'Spatial Energy Coherence' (SEC) theory (defined only in a reference note: 'A theory developed by Dr. Ronald Stiffler on the Coherence of energy from the Energy Lattice and utilizing it as an Alternative Energy Source'; no derivation). Defines CEC (Cohered Energy Coefficient), CEC% = (Uout/Uin)*100, with U in 'Joule Seconds' in the equation but energy units in the note (inconsistent), and a relative output power Pout = Ptest x LEDs x n from LED light-meter readings (n undefined). Neither is ever evaluated. Setup: ferrite loop-stick coil (686 uH), 9-turn primary (6.18 uH), 23 pF inter-winding capacitance, series 400 pF and 8.8 uH L1, 50 ohm R1, 1 ohm monitor R2, 1N4148 Avramenko plug, white LED, 10 MHz generator drive at 4.32 V p-p. Scope traces: 4.32 V p-p at points A and B, 26.5 V p-p at point C (voltage ratio 6.1). Free end of secondary 'in excess of 130 volts' lit a neon through body capacity; 168 V measured at 12 MHz, equated to a series string of about 62 LEDs (168/2.7). Fig 18 'frequency response' plots five points with axes swapped and an unitless 'relative power' axis (peaks 3.9066, 10.42302, 12.334 MHz; the same three numbers appear unlabelled in SEC Special Coil.htm as 3.9866 / 10.4230 / 12.3340, so 3.9066 is probably a one-digit typo, unproven). The paper gives no input/output power, no CEC percentage, and no evidence that output exceeds input; calc input into R1 alone is about 47 mW. Resonance values from the listed L and C (2.68, 2.06, 1.27 MHz) do not explain the 10-12 MHz response. Says hundreds of LEDs in series can be driven (in later papers, not shown).

Key claims

• A primary-driven ferrite coil with an Avramenko plug lights a white LED intensely and lights a neon through body capacity from one end only.
• The free end of the secondary reaches 130 V and as much as 168 V at 12 MHz drive, enough for a series string of about 62 LEDs.
• LED light output versus drive frequency peaks near 12.3 MHz (relative output only).
• Output of circuits in 'Spatial Energy Coherence' mode can be expressed as a Cohered Energy Coefficient CEC% = Uout/Uin x 100.
• SEC circuits recover energy from an 'Energy Lattice' (no data presented in this paper).

Relevance: Stiffler's most complete statement of SEC and the CEC metric; shows that the paper's data are voltages, frequencies and photographs, not an energy balance.

Mainstream conflict: High voltage at a high-impedance node, a lit LED or neon, and a resonant voltage step-up are ordinary resonance/step-up behaviour and do not by themselves imply output energy exceeding input; the 'Energy Lattice' is not part of mainstream physics. No result here conflicts with energy conservation because no energy balance is given. CEC unit inconsistency (J-s versus energy) is internal.

Kit manual for a printed circuit board of the SEC 15-3 exciter or its expanded 15-20 demonstration version. Gives the parts list (MPSA06 transistors, 1N4148 and 1N4001 diodes, ultra-bright white LEDs, 10 uH and 22 uH chokes, tunable coil L1, 1 ohm and 1 Mohm resistors, 10 uF/470 pF/0.1 uF/0.01 uF capacitors, two neons), assembly cautions, an LED orientation correction (printed flat side is wrong), the 15-20 upgrade (6 more diodes, 3 chokes, 9 LEDs; neon must move or the circuit is 'unbalanced and will not work properly'), tuning (maximum neon glow and minimum supply current for the 15-3; maximum LED and neon brightness for the 15-20) and limits: at most 20 V DC with under 2% ripple, input current never above 175 mA (75 mA without a heat sink), no AC, fuse trace burns on reverse polarity. The 15-20 is called a research board for powering multiple stages 'using a single wire'. No performance claims or measurements.

Key claims

• The SEC 15-20 board demonstrates how exciters can power multiple stages of circuitry through a single wire.
• A correctly tuned 15-3 gives maximum neon glow at minimum supply current.

Relevance: Shows the exciter was sold or shared as a kit with specified limits and a tuning criterion (supply current minimum at maximum glow), useful for replication.

Mainstream conflict: none (assembly manual; no energy claims)

Construction guide for a demonstration shown in a YouTube video (id y9aJohml130; video not seen by the reader). A 24 V single-transistor oscillator (MPSA06; 1 Mohm base resistor; 400 pF; 3.5-13 pF trimmer tuned for brightest LEDs; 9 uH choke) with L3, a 143-turn coil tapped at 37 turns on a 12.5 mm Lucite rod 5.75 in long, topped by a 'top hat' of two stainless condiment cups; a receiver L4 identical (tap unused) with top hat and a 48 white-LED board (1N4148 diodes required) connected to the transmitter only through a 12 ft #24 enamel wire. Tuning is by LED brightness only, with one sharp spot (hand capacity detunes it). No frequency, inductance, current, power or efficiency is stated; measurement is deferred to the 'Measurements for SEC Exciters' document. The guide warns of headache, skin rash, tingling, interference with communications and damage to electronics 'within its field', i.e. the author acknowledges strong surrounding fields. Wire gauge of L3/L4 and L2 turns are not given. The 'wireless' variant in the title is not described.

Key claims

• A 24 V transmitter and a 12 ft single wire can light a 48-LED receiver with no return conductor.
• The receiver lights only at one sharp tuning point of C2 (a second weak spot is to be ignored).
• Metallic objects near the single wire degrade the operational efficiency.
• The device's fields can cause physiological effects and damage electronics.

Relevance: The most reproducible demonstration of 'one-wire' transmission in the folder, with full parts list; also the best test for whether the receiver is powered by a displaced or radiated field rather than a return path.

Mainstream conflict: Lighting a receiver through one wire and a capacitive top hat is consistent with displacement-current/capacitive coupling to the surroundings (ground and the other top hat close the circuit), which the author's hand-capacitance and metal-proximity remarks suggest; whether it conflicts with mainstream physics depends on the unmeasured power balance. No efficiency is claimed.

Method note on measuring SEC exciters despite their strong fields. Pp.1-10: a ferrite-bead/ceramic-capacitor supply filter, neon-bulb and diode-LED field probes (the Avramenko-plug probe), cell-phone detector, spectrum analyser and oscilloscope advice, and meter choice. Pp.11-21: meters must be battery powered and floating, with short leads, a ferrite filter, and a rule to move the meter (if the reading changes, the field is affecting it). Eq 1 Pload = (Vr/R)^2 R; Eq 2 PLED = VLED n Is + DAV Is (DAV about 0.6 V; the text slip '0.001 V = 0.001 mA' should be 1 mA with 1 ohm); input energy by integrating Vin x Iin across a 1 ohm shunt (Eq 3) because the PSU meter is disrupted; single-wire input needs an isolation/differential probe costing hundreds of dollars; Eq 4 CEC = Uout/Uin, with the claim that UCEC > 1 implies PCEC > 1 (true only for equal intervals); sniffer coil and diode-on-probe for relative field strength; the paper concedes that field energy can couple into the probe or cable and give meaningless readings. Near-field boundary: Eq 5 lambda = 300/f(MHz); Eq 6 7.353 m at 13.6 MHz; Eq 7 lambda/2pi = 3.511 m; Eq 9 printed with pi instead of lambda (dimensionally inconsistent as printed). Reports no measured data at all.

Key claims

• Input energy to an exciter is best found by integrating the voltage across a 1 ohm sample resistor on a filtered supply, because supply-unit meters are disrupted by the exciter's fields.
• If the energy ratio UCEC = Uout/Uin is above 1 then the power ratio PCEC is above 1.
• Output from an LED string can be computed from LED voltage, string current and the 0.6 V AV-plug diode drop.
• The exciter's dominant frequency (13.6 MHz example) places the reactive near field edge at 3.5 to 7.4 m.
• Direct probe or meter connection can corrupt readings, so ungrounded, battery instruments and field-isolating filters are required.

Relevance: The only document stating how Stiffler's input and output are measured, so it bounds what any 'CEC' number means; it concedes serious instrument-pickup problems.

Mainstream conflict: The methods are standard in outline (shunt integration, LED forward-drop power) but assume DC-like output and do not address RF power conversion or phase; the admission that field pickup can give meaningless readings undercuts the reliability of any exciter measurement. Eq 9 as printed is dimensionally wrong; 'Joule seconds' is not an energy unit.

Image folders belonging to the five saved web pages. They are not browser junk: they hold the scope photos, schematics and charts that carry the pages' data. ECAT: schematic and scope readouts (TP-1 106 V, TP-2 172 V, TP-3 94.5 V, TP-5 0.31 V p-p, drain 205 V) and the supply panel photo (25.0 V, 0.33 A); no current trace. SEC Special Coil: the 'amplification' charts hold frequencies only and the Fig 15/16 photos hold no temperature data. Only the coils.htm images remain unviewed (peripheral).

Relevance: Source of the ECAT 8.25 W basis (ecat009) and of the schematic with two sources; shows that SEC 'amplification' has no figure-held magnitude.

Mainstream conflict: none