An original copy of the British Intelligence report on Coler’s devices can be seen by visiting the Imperial War Museum here in the UK.
http://collections.iwm.org.uk/
You can obtain a photo-copy by paying a fee, mine cost me 5 pounds. The archivist there will tell you not to waste your money because copies are available on the Web at no cost. I can verify that the html versions on the Web are an accurate representation of the archived document.
The report originated from the Ministry of Supply, not Aviation. At the time the MOS were responsible for all the UK munitions factories and also operated all the research facilities. Much later, under successive governments, the name changed to Ministry of Aviation Supply (MAS). Ministry of Technology (MinTech) and is now Ministry of Defence (MOD).
When the Allies conquered Germany the three super powers (USA, USSR and UK) all sent in teams to pick over the bones searching for technology. Much of this was for civilian use, for instance from the titles of other British Intelligence Reports there was great interest in coal mining and industrial coal burning techniques. The MOS would have supplied their scientists to support the Intelligence activities because the intelligence agencies themselves could not have coped with this sudden demand.
The bulk of the report is not well typed and the reproduction is what one would expect from the old Roneo duplicating system where the words were typed directly onto stencils. This was standard for that period. The front page is not duplicated in this manner, it is of printed form on green paper. Again this was standard for that period. (My first job when I left school in 1950 was as a Scientific Assistant working in Woolwich Arsenal, one of the MOS Research Establishments, so I have seen MOS reports in the past.) Quite a lot of copies were produced at the time, all individually numbered. I have a photocopy of number 306. This is not surprising when you think of the various military and civil agencies all wanting to have a peek at this intelligence in case they missed out on something important.
There is anecdotal reporting that there was either a much larger 200 page report or that the existing 34 page one was originally larger. Certainly page 34 contains only the hand written word (END), which is not the usual way of ending a report. And there are inconsistencies, such as figures that are not referenced in the text and text references to figure that are not there. My professional career in the defence industry gave me access to other sources of information, such as the former DRIC (Defence Research Information Centre). They, the Imperial War Museum and the National Archives have told me that they do not hold any copies of the complete report.
There is no doubt that the truncated report exists in British Archives, it is not a scam. IMO the report is genuine, the reported interviews did take place as did the replication attempt. That there was no follow up and the report was effectively buried is very likely due to the results of the replication being disappointing, they could only be claimed as a partial success and were certainly open to criticism. The scientist involved would be lowly servants: the decision to spend money on further research would be made at a much higher level and I can’t see the Government Chief Scientist putting his reputation on the line by being seen to give serious consideration to such heresy. I can imagine his reaction, “energy from space? Bunkum!!”.
People ought to know that Coler invented two devices, both of which are covered by the British report. The “Magnetstromapparat” has received most attention because the report gives significant detail about its construction. This device does not use batteries. It consists of an array of magnets each of which is wound with wire, and connected in a certain manner via a variable transformer, and produces AC at about 180KHz. The reports by Professors Klosse, Franke and Schumann do not apply to this device.
British intelligence decided to ask Coler to replicate the Magnetstromapparat, and the results of that replication are reported. There have been a number of unsuccessful attempts since the report became public, photos will be found on the web. As far as I can tell the experiments consist of fiddling with the adjustments while watching the meters and hoping for something to happen. That is not really a scientific way to proceed, and perhaps that says something about the academic abilities of the replicators. When making adjustments one need something to “tune against”. The joke among high power transmitter engineers used to be “tune for maximum smoke”. I have personally had experience of transmitters using old fashioned valves (vacuum tubes) where the anodes ran red hot, and one could adjust the antenna coupling circuit by “tune for minimum redness”.
It is the Magnetstromapparat that Aspden refers to with his analysis that suggests the operating frequency is at the acoustic resonance of the magnets. It should therefore be possible to deliberately energise the apparatus at or around this frequency, which then gives one something to measure. It should be possible to find that acoustic resonance, set the signal generator to that frequency, then do the coil and magnet adjustments. If there is any credence to Colers claims and Aspden’s theory the adjustments would show excess energy getting into the circuit, even if the system can’t self run. I can find no evidence that this type of experiment has been attempted.
Coler’s second device is the “Stromerzeuger”. This requires batteries, uses electro-magnets and produces DC. It is this device the Professors investigated, and their independent assessments in my view give this device more pedigree. The fact that they were measuring DC eliminates all the problems of imaginary (phase shifted) values. They even went so far as to perform photometry comparison tests of the light emitted from a bulb lit by Coler’s device and an identical bulb lit by direct connection to a battery. All their measurements showed OU.
Unfortunately the British report does not give drawings for the Stromerzeuger. There are some figures related to Coler’s explanation of the theory behind it, which many people claim are circuits for the device, however when you read the verbal descriptions given by the Professors it is evident that is not the case. One feature common to both Coler devices is that current flows through the ferromagnetic parts. The AC device uses permanent magnets, probably an early Alnico. The DC device uses iron cored electromagnets.