Theories concerning Hans Coler's Stromerzeuger

[antigrav89]

Although I have only just joined this forum I have been concerned with OU science for the past 16 years.  Among other things I have researched the Hans Coler devices and being in the UK I have tracked down everything I can find in the UK National Archives about Coler.  Actually Coler appears to be Unruh's assistant and the real inventor was Unruh.  Unruh demonstrated a Stromerzeuger in public in 1920, but after being arrested as a fraudster he seems to have used Coler as his front man.  After Unruh's death Coler continued with the devices but in my opinion he was out of his depth technically which could explain why he was not successful in replicating the devices after the War.  I have copies of the 1920 newspaper articles, copies of all the National Archive material, a copy of the British Intelligence report and Coler's death certificate (he died here in the UK).

In the corrected Hudson letter, in your article, we can find the following paragraph :

"During the four weeks the apparatus was partly or wholly reconnected several times in an endeavour
to re-discover the correct connections of the polarity of the magnets relative to the flow of current and of
the chirality of the winding to which it was connected, the direction of the magnetic field through the
flat coils and copper plates and the manner in which these circuits were linked through the coils on the
electromagnets, these being the chief variables."

This letter also refers to the B.I.O.S Report 1043, item N°31 in which we can find, in a paragraph giving a short description of the apparratus in the Appendix IV (report by Hans Coler and Dr Heinz Frohlich) , the following sentences :

"Figure 1 shows diagrammatically and in plan these interwound parts (anchor in red, field in
green, directing circuit in blue).
Figure 2 the so called basic diagram, shows the connections between these different
parts. This basic diagram shows the conditions necessary for self-interruption."

These two figures are absent from the unclassified document but one can reasonably assume they were present in the original classified document, because, had they not been, then why having mentionned them in the report?

So, if the informations about the connections between the different parts of the device were available in a detailed diagram in the B.I.O.S. report, why would they have to re-discover them?
This seems to me somewhat incoherent.
Do you have an explanation about this point?

[Smudge]

Hi Antigrav89,

I have no reason to believe that the original classified B.I.O.S report 1043 did have copies of the figures mentioned in that appendix.  I have seen two surviving copies of that B.I.O.S. report, one is at the Imperial War Museum and the other is in the National Archives.  They are identical and appear to be as originally published, classified Confidential then later declassified, and they do not contain the two figures to which you refer.  I do not know of the existence of any copies of the original German Coler/Frohlich report where you would find those two figures.  My guess is the work being done in the UK and reported in the Hudson letter also did not have access to those two figures.  And it would appear that the Norrby patent (on which the Stromerzeuger is based) also was not known to them at that time.

Smudge

[tinman]

Hi Antigrav89,

I have no reason to believe that the original classified B.I.O.S report 1043 did have copies of the figures mentioned in that appendix.  I have seen two surviving copies of that B.I.O.S. report, one is at the Imperial War Museum and the other is in the National Archives.  They are identical and appear to be as originally published, classified Confidential then later declassified, and they do not contain the two figures to which you refer.  I do not know of the existence of any copies of the original German Coler/Frohlich report where you would find those two figures.  My guess is the work being done in the UK and reported in the Hudson letter also did not have access to those two figures.  And it would appear that the Norrby patent (on which the Stromerzeuger is based) also was not known to them at that time.

Smudge

Wow,this thread just popped up from years gone by.

Smudge,is this the correct device you are referring to ?



Brad

[antigrav89]

I have no reason to believe that the original classified B.I.O.S report 1043 did have copies of the figures mentioned in that appendix.

Hi Smudge,

Then, how to explain why the appendix refers to these two figures if they were not present in the original B.I.O.S. document?
A mistake from the person (presumably R. Hurst) who wrote the appendix (and the whole report) from parts of the original German Coler/Frohlich report and would have omitted to remove the part of the text referring to these figures?
Perhaps, these two figures, which would have been of prime importance for reproducing the stromerzeuger (which was not protected by a patent), were purposely removed from the final version of the B.I.O.S. report or the original German report by Captain Hans Coler and/or Captain R. Sandberg, to protect their interest in the invention.

Antigrav89

[Smudge]

Hi Smudge,

Then, how to explain why the appendix refers to these two figures if they were not present in the original B.I.O.S. document?
A mistake from the person (presumably R. Hurst) who wrote the appendix (and the whole report) from parts of the original German Coler/Frohlich report and would have omitted to remove the part of the text referring to these figures?
Perhaps, these two figures, which would have been of prime importance for reproducing the stromerzeuger (which was not protected by a patent), were purposely removed from the final version of the B.I.O.S. report or the original German report by Captain Hans Coler and/or Captain R. Sandberg, to protect their interest in the invention.

Antigrav89

All I can say is that this was the days before we had photocopiers and it is clear that the whole report (except the front page) was reproduced using stencils.  (I worked in the UK Ministry of Supply as a young 16 year old lad and I remember those days. )  It is clear to me from the page numbering, and a close inspection of the stapling that holds the pages together, that the reports I've seen haven't been tampered with.  Whether the figures were deliberately left out of the original draft I can't say, but my gut feeling is that this was a time when the intelligence teams were writing a large number of reports and the typing pool was under pressure to get them all published and so the figures from the German original never got reproduced because they did not have access to them.
Smudge