----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Jordan"
There is this patent that can be related:
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat3781601.pdf
And ... check out the rather amazing claim on page 65 of this
document, 2/3 down the left column. That would be clearly
overunity yet... this patent has been around for 35 years now and
Imris is not exactly a houshold word - nor is the technique is
general use, which it should be if it were true - and with patents
expired and many companies desirous to save power on lighting....
strange.
Mark has commented on this on Keeleynet but they are using the
substandard eScribe server and very little will come up.
But further - and on a curious (and convoluted note) the assignee:
Ecotrol - is now apparently a trademark of the EcoSmart company in
Tennessee, among whose many patents for pesticides are quite a few
under the name of Paul Sprain, who apparently has switched his
focus these days to magnetic overunity. At any rate, he seems to
be quite the ecologist and creative genius - but certainly not a
publicity seeker... and there is no reason to believe that there
is anything other than a coincidental connection of these similar
names.
Jones
Imris patent 3,781,601 - Inv: Pavel Imris, West Haven, Conn.
Assigned to: Ecotrol, Inc. Md,
Describing the circuit on page 6...the face of the electrode can
be any
desired shape. However, a conical point of 60 degrees has been
found to be satisfactory and it is believed to have an influence
on the
efficiency of the generator.
In addition, the type of gas selected for used in the tube 26 as
well as
the pressure of the gas in the tube also effect the efficiency of
the
generator, and, in turn, the efficiency of electrical circuit.
....Across a single fluorescent lamp, the voltage is 60 V and the
current is 0.1818 A; therefore the input energy to the lamp 42 is
10.90 W. The output of the fluorescent lamp is 3,200 lumens
which represent 8.8 W power of light energy. Thus, the one
fluorescent lamp is operating at 80.7 percent efficiency under
these conditions.
....In Fig 3, still another embodiment of the optical
electrostatic
generator 20b is shown. The generator is also particularly
useable in a circuit including electrostatic particle
precipitation in air pollution control devices, chemical
synthesis in electrical discharge systems such as ozone
generators, and charging means for high voltage generators of the
Van de Graff type, as well as particle accelerators.
....However, when the optical generator is the same as described
for Test No 18 and there are 100 fluorescent lamps in series in
the circuit, the total power input is 227.7 watts for the optical
generator and 1,090 watts for 100 fluorescent lamps or a total of
1,318 watts. The total power input normally required to operate
the 100 fluorescent lamps in a normal circuit would be 40 watts
times 100 or 4,000 watts. Thus, by using the optical generator
in the circuit, about 2,680 watts of energy are saved.
It was already 80% efficient, we are told and yet now the power
input has been reduced to a third of the previous power indication
a COP of at least 2.4
At higher pressures, the device deffinitely becomes Over Unity in
the claims. For instance, with a Xenon filled tube at 5,000 torr
in a series circuit with 100 40 Watt flouresent lamps (with a
single wire going to each end of each lamp), the optical
generator pulls 332 Watts, with each lamp pulling 9 tenths Watt
(at 5 Volts) for 3,200 lumens output (8.8 Watts) per tube - giving
a total for the circuit of 880 Watts output for 442 Watts input.
Hmmm.... something doesn't add up here, no?
