Like us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter


Talk:Directory:Pete's "Zero Amp" Electronics

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:13 am.

  • 2 errors has been found on this page. Administrator will correct this soon.
  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.


post here

(Just click on the "There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1].)

March 30, 2009 Data Not Conclusive
Image:PeteSumaruck 090330 demo 95x95.jpg
Directory:Electromagnetic > There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1] > Review:Thomas Valone on Sumaruck's March 30, 2009 Video - New Energy pillar, Dr. Valone, gives reason for skepticism on the Zero Amps generator demo video recently posted. "The video looks interesting but there are TWO BIG problems called storage batteries, along with no acknowledged consideration by Peter of the POWER FACTOR as he does his calculations." (PESWiki April 23, 2009)
Zero Amp Tech

Eddie wrote Dec. 2, 2008


"Not sure if your out with Peter, but if you are, would you ask him to do this test?

Use the the terminal strip where all the motors are connected together and have him connect a simple 500 watt halogen light (single phase) you can buy one from home depot for ~$50 bucks. If that light works and you can run all the motors without changing the input wire, then maybe, just maybe Peter has something. If the input wires blow out, then it's not working as advertised. What your measuring is just reactive power i.e. circulating current which is just flowing back and forth between to the variable AC driver and the motors. This energy is just washing back and forth without doing any real work."

Bo wrote Dec. 2, 2008


I watched the video on the Zero Amp Tech. It seems to me when the motors are running there is a load on the generator.

The plug that plugs into the 240V slot on the generator. It looks like to me that it is a small transformer stepping the voltage up to around 15,000 volts in those little wires. I bet then he has some capacitors in that box that need to charge before he can start the motors.

Has anyone confirmed the voltage in those little wires to be 240V?

There might also be a transformer hidden inside the generator stepping the voltage up.

Just my 2 cents."

Thanks, Bo

Robert Pritchett wrote

Regarding fuse wire we used that for phone systems on the telecom backboards, by using the finer wire gauge as the sacrificial link in case of overvoltage in the telephone circuit. We also used the fancier 66/110 block resetable gas fuses, but the fuse link did wonders for the 47-Volt telephone systems, as a way to reduce damage that could be caused by lightning strikes. Sizes for telecom wiring is 22, 24 and 26-gauge. 26-gauge was the fuse link size. We mostly punched down Category 5 wire, which was 24-gauge solid wire and the 26-gauge wire was the surge suppressant sacrificial lamb.

To use said wires for protecting generators, I found to be somewhat unique. Probably good for a show ("Look!, it works on small gauge wire!"), but not practical for electric motors, especially using silver satin telephone wire (stranded copper). That is just plain gimmicky."

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1]

"Being intimately familiar with telephone wire and gauges, I can tell you that the photograph shown of the wire Pete was using was probably 24-gauge. It certainly wasn't any smaller than 26-gauge, let alone 60-gauge."

ZeroAmp Tech Demo

Telephone stranded wire

These might help too - Wire Gauge Tables and Amperage", American Wire Gauge Characteristics.

PES Saga

PESWiki is angry and vengeful

On Dec. 1, 2008, Charlotte Wilson, Pete's representative, wrote:

Because of a variety of connections I made with individuals in the New Energy community, on November 20, people started pouring in, wanting Peter Sumaruck to give them demonstrations of his technology - the tsunami began. You have heard of Warren Buffett's Snowball, Think of this as Pete's tsunami it was big, quick and to the point. People flew in, drove in, up to Pete's garage - they wanted to see for themselves. That's how it is, seeing is believing. PESWiki contacted me, asking me to fill in the blanks on this site. What you see is part PES, and part Charlotte Wilson

Several groups made him offers for his invention. One of those offers was presented by the PES people connected to interested parties with the financial backing. Mr. Sumaruck did not choose to go with Pure Energy Systems because after some gleaning of information, he came to believe that his invention would be suppressed, never to reach those factories, homes, communities, cars and trucks he so sorely believes should have it.

Now PESWiki is angry and vengeful - they didn't get the deal. They have begun a campaign to besmirch Mr. Sumaruck. They continue to insert denigrating material about him on this site and in another article. If the winning group believed enough in Pete's product then that is their business - buyer beware, and they are, and they are happy. PESWiki is not. How churlish and childish. They just can't stand to lose.

Does this sound like a book, or a future movie - yes, the aforementioned are works in progress. Stay tuned for continued reports. Will there be a denouement? We shall see.

Sterling's Response to Charlotte

On Dec. 2, 2008, Congress:Founder:Sterling D. Allan, CEO of and the New Energy Congress replied:

After viewing the demonstration on Nov. 24, I was impressed and the following day I did present a preliminary offer to Pete, contingent upon approval by Directory:James Dunn, who required adequate proof before proceeding with such a contract. Jim also had been impressed, but did not feel that the demonstration as given was adequate.

Subsequently, upon receiving input from fellow New Energy Congress members, we came up with several points that cast serious doubt on the adequacy of Pete's demonstration as then constituted to show overunity. I published those points on Nov. 30, at

So I think it is more accurate to say that we backed off, rather than the other way around.

Some notable observations include:

Pete was measuring input current in parallel rather than series, so the full current was not going through the meter.

The 6.5-HP genset lugged when the motors were turned on -- something it would not do if mere sub-milliamps were being pulled.

22-26-gauge telephone wire can handle as much as 10-20 amps of current before melting down, and it did fail at one point in the demo.

Pete was saying the gauge of the telephone wire was 60-gauge. A photo that I took of the wire shows that it clearly was more in the range of standard telephone wire which is 24-gauge.

The output reading could have been high for a number of reasons, including square wave form, which tends to give a false high reading and can't be determined accurately without either a load test or an adequate oscilloscope.

Also noteworthy is that in a video Ken Rasmussen shot, Pete was saying his system is "100% efficient", "not 99.999". Pete doesn't seem to understand that if his system really is outputting more than what is input, then this would be far in excess of 100% efficient. That is early Junior High level math.

In that same video, Pete is talking about how if he were to plug this set-up into his house, that because the city meter doesn't register "milliamps" of current, that the net current pull would be zero. [This is perhaps where he came up with the name of his technology: "Zero Amps".] In the video, Jim Dunn points out to him that even though the meter might not be detected registering milliamps of current at any given time, that it would integrate it over time, and would register over time. That point seemed to go over Pete's head (not to mention the fact that probably a lot more than just a few milliamps were passing through his wire, as exhibited by the lugging of the 6.5-HP generator when he powered up his motors.)

I'm not saying that Pete's lack of understanding about gauges, meter set-up, integration, and percentages disqualifies him as an inventor, for I certainly am aware that a person can be a savant at inventing while being oblivious to what laws of physics are being broken or complied with. However, it is important to realize that even though he touts himself as a "master electrician" he clearly lacks some foundational knowledge about electrical terminology and practice. I'm not an electrical engineer, but I have wired three houses from beginning to end, which is much less than Pete says he has done in his professional career. There just seems to be a significant disconnect between what he says and what he exhibits.

That is relevant when considering his other claims that have not been verified -- about building and running a self-looping generator for the Army that produced net 36 kW. With his apparent lack of grasp of actual terminology usage and electrical function, what is the true story there?

Personally, I am still curious, and have not written off Pete's operation as being completely bogus, as some other NEC associates have. In my world view, it is entirely plausible that someone who appears to be clueless about the facts of science could actually come up with something that in fact defies known laws of physics. In fact, it is precisely such a person that is more likely to do so, than someone who "knows what he is doing." Pete doesn't know what he's doing, and that may be precisely why he stumbled onto something there at Ft. Hood.

Clearly I do not have the personality to interface with Pete, as he doesn't take well to honest skepticism. But I do wish the best to those who may be more able to pander to his innocent violation of the vernacular, practice, and rules of science.

Good luck, I say. And I mean it sincerely.

PESN has no history of vengeance

--Penny Gruber 11:50, 2 December 2008 (PST)

Charlotte, if PESN is guilty of anything it is of being overly trusting of free energy and "new science" claimants. I am not a member of the NEC and have no financial affiliation with PESN. My assessment expressed below that Pete is just another free energy scam artist is mine and mine alone.

Pete's problem is that he has done nothing to evidence his claims. He has however spewed lots of false nonsense in both that video and his audio interview. If Pete wants anyone rational to believe his claims the burden of supporting evidence is his. Pete can spend a small amount of money and EarthTech International will be happy to test his device under air tight nondisclosure of the underlying technology. Like PESN and most if not all the NEC members, ETI is eager to document the discovery of a free energy technology.

From what I saw, Pete isn't going to do any such thing. So far, like many scam artists before him he's following the old Keely script.

You claim that Pete has 14 issued patents. The USPTO shows no patents issued to any inventor with the name Sumaruck, and no published applications to any inventor named Sumaruck. Care to share the patent numbers? How about the application numbers?

Pete claims he had a contract with Fort Hood before conflicted politicians shut it down. Care to share the Army contract number?

Pete claims he only needs 0.24mA from a 240V source. Good news! This can easily be tested by inserting a passive current limiter in series with the generator output. Such a thing can be built for under $20. It's operation is easily proven on the bench with resistive or reactive loads. With this device it is then not necessary to measure the current into the AC drive as the current limit will be rigorously enforced.

A less sophisticated alternative would be to replace the generator with a stack of 27 ordinary zinc carbon 9V batteries. They'll actually support a surge many times greater than the 0.24mA Pete's inaccurate measurement set-up shows, but won't be able to deliver much more than 100 Watts peak. The AC drive doesn't care if the generator side is AC or DC, so there is no credible argument against using batteries instead of the 3500W generator Pete's been using so far.

Does Pete care to demonstrate using either method? I'll be happy to put together either the current limiter or the battery stack and send it to Sterling or anyone else willing to revisit Pete. Neither method exposes any of Pete's doings to measurement or other scrutiny that could possibly reveal his secrets. Neither would corrupt the operation of the VS AC drive. Either would readily expose the falsity of Pete's low input power claims.

Other Comments


On April 28, 2010, YouTube user ke6gwf wrote:

Hey! I recognize that green motor drive controller! A former job I had I programmed those! Funny thing is that I could program one of those to do what he is showing (running several motors with no load off of just a few amps at 240 volts)

They start and stop at the same time because they are Synchronous 3-Phase AC Induction motors, and so they lock to the waveform being generated by the VFD controller which is ramping them up and down. The amp draw isn't being measured correctly either.


Resonance Q vs Cop

Ken Petros wrote Nov. 26, 2008


The ratio of currents in a resonant circuit is commonly called 'Q' and power ratio is 'Cop'. I was overwhelmed when I first read of Peter's invention, now I am only incredibly impressed.

His 'Q' is ~70,000 which is te highest that I have ever seen demonstrated in a resonant circuit. Most amazing is that it is achieved in a circuit with both electrical resistance and friction. I cannot imagine that he hasn't proved, once and for all, that that absolute conservation of energy is pure nonsense.

The problem with high 'Q' systems is that they work only over a narrow band. Peter stated 'exactly 60 hz output' which may be a bad sign. Between phase idling is synchronous (1800/3600 rpm), but induction motors cannot put out any useful torque until they go asynchronous (1725/3550rpm).

I suggest you run two tests. Get a three post terminal block and run 3 wires between the speed control and the terminal block. Connect the motors to the terminal block. This will allow you measure the current out of the speed control with a simple clamp on current meter. That is what is important and it won't be anywhere near 16 amps or the sum of the motor currents. I am very surprised that you, an EE trained in my era would claim that 16 amps, 220vac in an 3ph inductor equals 4000 watts. In a pure inductor it equals zero watts. The second test is simply testing the rpm of the motors, 3600 +/-1 is not good.

Forty years ago I was assured that free energy existed and warned that if I pursued it my life would be ruined. Advice came from a Princeton Phd. His prediction will probably prove to come true, maybe more so for me than you.

Peter has an 'off the the shelf' speed control that allows him to program the acceleration rate and adjust the current phase. It seems that he has tuned the program to produce a near perfect power source for an inductive load. I am pretty sure he has also created some energy but I expect you will find the free energy is closer to 40 watts than 4000. This low yield/ low grade power problem is exactly what PhD Hanson warned me I would find.

I hope this letter is taken as a friendly gesture or free advice that can be easily overlooked."

Yet Another Very Obvious Free Energy Scam

--Penny Gruber 00:22, 1 December 2008 (PST)

Geez where to start?

How about: 70,000 times out versus in but it doesn't self run.

How about: Inventor refuses to allow connection of proper instruments to verify his claim.

How about: Inventor spews baloney that observation of the form of power out would reveal his secrets of generating free power.

How about: The observed audible loading of a multithousand watt generator when the magic gadget is supposed to only consume milliwatts.

How about: Inventor refuses to load the motors, ie refuses to let the motors do anything other than overcome the tiny bearing and windage losses.

How about: Inventor freely exchanges incompatible terms for energy, power, force, torque, current, voltage, etc.

How about: Inventor has a free energy source but is still personally connected to the grid.

How about: The laws of thermodynamics remain with us, and the inventor provides no evidence to the contrary. There was an error working with the wiki: Code[2].

The audio interview with the inventor is full of tall tales.

:He said that no engineer could show him the math that says he couldn't have his free lunch.

:As long as the present laws of thermodynamics remain with us TANSTAAFL holds, and any trained engineer can show that.

:He claims that it is well established that Ohm's Law and the laws of thermodynamics are wrong.

:Neither Ohm's Law nor the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed.

:He claims it takes a $26,000. oscilloscope to look at his modified off-the shelf VS AC drive.

:There is nothing in any VS AC drive that cannot be viewed with an ordinary 200MHz, IE a $2000. oscilloscope.

:He claims existing AC motors are only 12% efficient and that that the highest efficiency motor he ever found was a Japanese motor with solid gold windings attaining 41%.

:96% efficient AC motors are readily available from multiple manufacturers using ordinary copper, not gold wire. Gold is actually a poorer conductor than copper. Gold plating is used for its resistance to corrosion.

:He claims that his scheme makes motors 100% efficient, while representing that they put out many times more power than he puts into his modified drive.

:More power out than in requires an efficiency greater than 100%. The laws of thermodynamics prohibit the existence of such a thing. Those hoping to find a free lunch hope that someday someone will find and tap an energy source that is both currently unknown and virtually inexhaustible. No such thing has ever happened.

Want to reproduce his miracle? Want to power a VS AC drive that runs a motor with thick wires through little skinny wires? Run a speed ramp control signal into an ordinary VS AC drive powering an unloaded motor. This can be done with a dollar's worth of parts. The current draw will be low throughout the ramp and after the motor has come up to speed. As long as one does not load the motor, those skinny wires will do a fine job of supplying the small amount of power needed to overcome the friction and windage losses.

How Much Power?

On Dec. 4, 2008 -

Zenduki asks - Ok i'll ask, if the generator was to run normally, how many motors could it power?