Storing Cookies (See : ) help us to bring you our services at . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !  (Read 77978 times)


  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
« Reply #45 on: February 10, 2007, 06:12:38 PM »
Since development is still much slower than it might be with additional funding, all estimates are subject to change. Adequate funds might be en-route. If, and when, they arrive we will be able to accelerate development.

ha ha ha..................


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
« Reply #46 on: November 21, 2007, 11:35:22 PM »
Nice one. No need to tell you they are not cheap I think. So with that core you could test this Graham Gunderson system. Just start drilling those holes... ;) and hope it works.

Yepp!! US$105, plus shipping, plus US$41 UPS brokerage. I bought one for a replication I'm attempting.

Hal Ade
Gatineau, QC.


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
« Reply #47 on: December 01, 2007, 07:21:23 PM »
If they are indeed real & independently verifiable, MPI's claimed developments are exciting.
But I do wonder if MPI's patent application is valid, since in my understanding to get a patent one must disclose sufficient information to enable one skilled in the relevant art to practice (i.e., make) the invention, but it appears that a lot of skilled engineers on this forum have been unable to reproduce the device and/or are uncertain how to do so based on the patent.

A patent is a type of quid pro quo:  the inventor discloses to the public how to make the invention in return for the government's grant to the inventor of a time-limited monopoly on the invention.  In the U.S., unless the inventor satisfies his part of the bargain by meeting numerous statutory (i.e., legal) requirements,  the patent won't issue or will be revoked on challenge: 

"In order for a patent to be valid, the requirements of 35 USC section 112 of written description, enablement, and best mode have to be met. . . . The written description requires that the inventors show full 'possession' of their inventions by describing them in words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. . . . To satisfy the enablement requirement, the description also has to teach how to make and use the invention without undue experimentation."  ((Biotechnology Law Report, October, 2003, p. 473-74.)  So, if skilled artisans can't create follow the MPI patent to create a working MPI device, I wonder if the inventor has satisfied the written description and enablement requirments?  (That's a question for an attorney to answer.)

In short, the MPI patent application must claim that the device does something.  The question is:  given the amount of apparently unsuccessful experimentation documented by those posting in this forum who have apparently tried but failed to create the device disclosed in the MPI patent, is the MPI patent valid.?  As one noted author said, "there's the rub!"


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
« Reply #48 on: February 20, 2008, 06:06:37 PM »
Hal, all,

The core is a special type of Metglas. The holes MUST be drilled electrically and the core then reprocessed by the manufacturer.

This first Patent Application on this invention will be followed by a second in the future. As shown, even when done correctly, it will only go to 99% efficiency. To exceed unity (the first prototype had an output more than 100 times the input at an extremely low power level < 1 watt) other, not yet disclosed, information is necessary.

Seeking a solution to the complexity of manufacturing this design happily led to the breakthrough family of generators that we now call GENIE (Generating Electricity by  Nondestructive Interference of Energy). GENIE is now patent pending. It so far appears much easier to manufacture various GENIE designs and therefore the design in the published Patent Application is on hold.

Sorry, beyond what appears on our website: no further details or information can be made available, except to qualified parties who sign a NonDisclosure Agreement.

Mark Goldes


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent application
« Reply #49 on: February 22, 2008, 04:06:14 PM »
I meant to say that given what we have learned since the original patent application was filed, any attempt to build this device, by an individual, is extremely unlikely to succeed!
...unless, of course, that individual were to be smarter
than yourgoodselves, in which case he or she might develop
ideas that improved upon your work. And of course, this has
happened, as well we all know.


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
« Reply #50 on: February 22, 2008, 11:49:47 PM »
We welcome improvements.

The planetary energy crisis is serious enough, that anyone who can make a contribution is helping to solve important problems.

Feel free!

If you get something to work Over Unity and it can withstand serious testing, we might even be interested in assisting.



  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
« Reply #51 on: July 28, 2011, 02:17:47 PM »

I came across this old post from Graham that reminds me of his patent. There is an image of a spiral transformer with a unique design that, at least to me, looks like the solid state generator patent.


Hi all,

I’ve got a question, referencing the attached drawing.

This is a FEMM simulation of a harebrained idea I had.

The reversing spiral is defined in the simulation as silicon core iron.

The ends of the spiral wrap around copper conductors, each carrying current in opposite directions.

The surrounding media is air.

The original idea was that the permeable reversing spiral would ferry flux from one conductor to the other – causing a sort of magnetic paradox. (If you consider the field between two wires carrying opposite currents, the reasoning behind the reversing spiral may be clearer)

I was not expecting any paradox but I wanted to see why it wouldn’t work, or how the flux would leak out and maintain its inherent loops.

Even though it looks like the spiral core is carrying flux from one wire to the other (the metal’s “full of flux”, the actual flux (if you follow it with your eye) leaks out the side of the “core” at right angles, and circles back. You can see, if you look closely, that not a single flux line actually makes it through the whole spiral iron – there’s the appearance of that, but it’s an illusion.

It begs the question, then, what happens if we load this “illusion”.

What I’m curious about is, what’s the effect on this thing if we wrap a coil around this spiral iron and then energize the copper conductors that are shown in the drawing with AC? This places varying flux in the iron – so we get an emf we can power a load with.

But what’s the effect of the back emf on the wires in the drawing? Does it load their mmf at all, or is this nonreciprocal?

Remember – this is not the same thing as a toroid, it’s a different argument than if the iron were closed loops and not a spiral.

In a toroid, the flux loops are completely surrounded by windings. Here, the flux loops are never completely surrounded by windings – they slip out the side of the core, going through air to complete the circle. This “slipping out” means the EM situation here is fundamentally different than that for toroids (though it may remain as energy conservative as toroids are, who knows).

We don’t have a closed path, like a toroid. The core, if it has output windings on it, is just a curvy solenoid.
I’m just having trouble seeing how back emf (from a coil around the spiral iron) could induce back into the “field conductors” in the drawing. It probably does somehow but I’d like to know how. Does anyone have some comments?

(It seems that if a coil were wound over the whole length of the iron spiral, that energizing it would show quite the same field that we see here – that’s a reciprocal reaction again, and nothing special. But is this really what happens?…)



  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
« Reply #52 on: September 21, 2011, 11:09:52 PM »
The 2nd Patent is now published and available:


Anybody interested in continuing replication?


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
« Reply #53 on: May 27, 2012, 05:23:11 PM »
The 2nd Patent is now published and available:

Did any new information appear in this patenet compared to what was available in 2005 ?