Newest test on the 90% Eff. Lighting Circuit
courtesy of Wesley Crosiar
Subject: Re: High efficiency lighting system
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 00:08:06 -0700
I purchased the high efficiency lighting system detailed in
Popular Electronics. I have just finished my testing of the device.
On the cold wire, before the electrical converter box we placed a
one Ohm resistor. Across this resistor we placed the scope.
There was a seventy volt spike at approximately 1/60th of a [cycle].
1/60th of a [cycle] times [1/10]cycle is approximately
1/600th of a second or approximately 1.66 milli/sec.
L=1/10th cycle in width + or - 10%
16,666 mil/sec + or - 10% divide by ten = 1.66MS
V=I amp times R
Seven volts over 1 ohm = 7amps spike @ 115V AC 60HZ
or approximately a 700 watt spike + or - 10%
for 1/10th of the cycle, which would be
70 watts + or - 10% at 60HZ.
I then compared the light to a standard one hundred watt light with
a light meter.
The results were that the 100 watt bulb was brighter than the light
from the bulb in the high efficiency lighting system that is supposed
to equal a 100 watt lightbulb, although it was more than a fifty watt
By using a light meter I found that this high efficiency lighting
system really put out only seventy five watts.
At this point I assumed that the High efficiency lighting system must
fool the Power companies meter, so I hooked it up to a regular house
Here are the results.
The high efficiency electrical system that had a lamp that is supposed
to put out 100 watts but actually only puts out seventy to seventy
five watts, spins the meter exactly the same speed as a normal seventy
five watt, one hundred and ten volt bulb does. This test was done with
a stop watch and a regular Pacific Gas and Electric power meter.
My conclusions: Mr. Rosenthal's device is a fraud. He makes the claim
that his device uses seven watts of electrical energy to produce one
hundred watts of light. This message can be forwarded to vortex-L or
Newmans list or anywhere else anyone wishes to save anyone else from
being duped by fraud.
PO BOX 268
SAN ANDREAS CA. 95642
I should have proofread the earlier post, 1/60th of a "second" should
have read 1/60th of a [Cycle].
To make it more clear It should have read something like One HZ,
which is 1/60th of 60 Hz times 1/10th of a HZ
[the duration of the spike] = one 600th of a second or 1.66 Mill/Sec.