There are many different circuits out there using one form or another of an arc in the circuit, claiming additional energy using or not using the arc.

I would offer a simple experiment and two questions.

Question #1 & #2:
When you produce an arc between to masses, example, one large copper wire and a small copper wire, if all conditions remain the same, except for the polarity of the applied voltage, will the kinetic energy of the arc be different?, resulting from a polarity change only?

Would not logic state that there should be no difference if everything remains the same except for polarity?

Do you think these are strange questions? Have you every tried such an experiment? And what reasoning explains the results?

One of the circuits claiming overunity from a spark gap is the carbon rod arc circuit listed on this forum by dr. whodini.  His circuit shows more energy collected in a capacitor with the gap (compared to without the gap) - however... since his input is DC and his cap is on the other side of a transformer... and since only alternating current will pass to the secondary circuit... all he is showing is that the gap causes alternations in the current flow to the primary coil in the transformer.  This is not overunity - matter of fact it's not even news.

Is there another circuit you can cite?

On the subject of spark gaps though... an ionization takes place in the gap to create a path for the current to flow.  Tesla showed that a disruptive discharge across a gap - one that created the ionized path, without completing the discharge (I'm assuming here) left a voltage that would travel up a coil and transform or 'step up' at a rate of 10,000 times per foot of coil.
My assumptions are only about the details of the process.  The facts are that he was able to step up this voltage... it's the same principle used in the popular Tesla coils - also the same principle used in the Gray Motor.
I haven't read anything by Tesla claiming more usable energy out than he put into his device... but he did allude to being able to pull energy out of the air in his later years.  He was very patriotic and loyal to America... with the wars going on, it's possible that he was gagged by national security -or- he chose to hide his secret for fear of what he might unleash.

With all this in mind, it's possible that electricity is not the interaction of materials to move electrons... but is instead the interaction of materials to siphon energy from the electrostatic field between the ground and the ionosphere.  Solar collectors would capture energy from the sun in the same way that our atmosphere does... that would explain how space probes are able to operate.

Concerning the different sizes of nodes in a gap... I would consider that a gap is capacitive... and that a cap with two different size "plates" will result in the larger plate being attracted to the smaller plate.  There's some discovery or law that says that... but whatever, it's evident when you see the "lifters" or "flying caps."
So... I would suggest that if the two nodes were locked down so they didn't move... the force that would otherwise cause the attraction is still there and must be expended in some way.  Who knows what odd affects it could produce if we understood exactly what was taking place.

Consider that the air all around you is like the field between the plates of a capacitor. Actually, each layer of the atmosphere is a field - with the van allen belt being the first in a series of plates... and the core of the earth being the last... with a few inbetween (the different layers of earth and the different layers of atmosphere.)
The problem to solve is how to extract the energy from the space between the plates of the cap.  We already do it by disturbing the field with magnets... but that requires motion.  I'm sure there is a way to do it without motion... but I'm not there yet.

There is a link somewhere in this forum to something called a C-Stack.  The guy who is experimenting is off on a tangent... but he is on to the solution.  Check that out.

A very descript reply and I am somewhat in agreement with you over all the OU claims out there from the people using arc's in their circuits. The reason I state somewhat is that many of them do not understand impedance matching and what happens between a direct connect path and a path including an arc. If you match the impedance better with an arc then you obtain a better energy transfer.

I must say although that you must try the experiment I have described. Our current physics would treat the issue as a resistance which should not very dependant on polarity, assuming all other conditions remained equal. I am stating conditions that do not change, such as increased %RH, Ambient Temp etc. Now if you want to include Bifield Brown effect and state that one polarity is better than the other because the arc is more inclined to move from one to the other than do you not open a large can of worms? I fully understand the Lifter effect, yet if one can show that the polarity of a circuit containing and arc does indeed differ than do we not have to look a bit closer at some of the claims?

I am sorry if I implied was unknowing in this area. What I was trying to do was get some of the readers to perform a simple experiment that would for sure impress and cause for pause. I do already have the answers to my questions, as I have performed over 50 different experiments in this area. What I have found is the very real possibility that under the correct conditions (excluding impedance, mass consumption, et.al., that there is something very different and not readly explained).

It sounds as you are informed and I hope not quick to jump to a decision. Let me explain a simple setup.

Use a small Cu wire ~#36-26 and a place of Cu, or Al about 2cm/sq. Fix the experiment that the components can not move. Connect you HV supply (-) Negative to a good earth ground. Start by connecting the (+) to the small wire and the (-) to the plate. Adjust the voltage to where an arc is just established. Disconnect the supply and reverse the polarity so the plate is now (-) and the wire is (+). Observe the results. Now to see something far mor interesting, take a small section of printer or Lazer paper and cut it to 2cm/sq. Place the paper over you place and dim your lights. Perform the same procedure and observe the different current patterns. So now can you say this is just still everyday science?

To "Elvis":if you resolve your own question you will get the
Casimir-Generator,but this field is extreme,Angstrom-distance !
Van der Waals,Lamb and so,you know !Actual also Valone.
Probably there is a "charge-dynamic paradoxon" !

TEG,Hector Guevara,US200301925382,page 2,(0024/25):
In the March 1939 issue of Physica,C.J.Baker and G.Heller
showed this power to be:kT/t,with k being Boltzmann`s constant,
T being the absolute temperature,and t being the mean time between collisions for an electron. ...
For example ,the available electric fluctuation power from a layer
only -one millionth of a centimeter thick- can be as much as
100 millions watts per square meter.


Sincerely
            de Lanca 

To RonS :
Mark W Dewey,1890,US484182
METHOD OF ELECTRICAL REFRIGERATION

F.R.BICHOWSKY,1949,US2635431
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR INTERCOVERSION OF HEAT AND ELECTRICITY

All OU/FE-systems are motion/temperature/voltage-spread related !

S
  dL