LINEAGE CLOSED: FIG. 20YID (1982) "energized light bulb consuming electrons" = Memo WFC 423 DA (1994) Fig 4-10 "AMP CONSUMING DEVISE (44)" — extraction load sits in series in the drive leg

SERIES A Figures 4-9 and 4-10 of Memo WFC 423 DA, both printed on page 4-11 (header "RE: Water Fuel Injection System / Memo WFC 423 DA", footer "Stanley A. Meyer 4-11"). These are the sheets predicted by the page 4-2 narrative and sought in #3377/#3378.

• FIGURE 4-9 — VOLTAGE INTENSIFIER CIRCUIT (110)

• input pulse train (54a xxx 54n) -> STEP UP PULSING TRANSFORMER (53) -> SWITCHING DIODE (52) -> RESONANT CHARGING CHOKE (49) -> pulse train (46a xxx 46n) -> VOLTAGE IGNITOR CAVITY (180) across electrodes E7/E8 containing PROCESSED WATER FUEL (45/46/47) -> RESONANT CONTROLLED THERMAL EXPLOSIVE ENERGY (GTNT) (16); return leg via RESONANT CHARGING CHOKE (51).

• Canonical VIC architecture — step-up transformer, blocking/switching diode, one resonant charging choke in each leg bracketing the cell.

• FIGURE 4-10 — ELECTRON EXTRACTION CIRCUIT (120)

• Identical topology — (61a xxx 61n) -> STEP UP PULSING TRANSFORMER (59) -> SWITCHING DIODE (58) -> RESONANT CHARGING CHOKE (56) -> (62a xxx 62n) -> VOLTAGE IGNITOR CAVITY (180), E7/E8, processed water fuel (45/46/47); return via RESONANT CHARGING CHOKE (57).

• PLUS TWO ADDITIONS — (a) "AMP CONSUMING DEVISE (44)" in SERIES in the top leg, between the choke and the cavity; (b) "LASER INJECTION (55)" at the cavity.

• LINEAGE NOW PROVEN (satisfies the both-drawings-cited constraint of #3370):

• FIG. 20YID, copyright 1982, page G39 — extracted electrons leave Electron Extractor Grid (51) via 56 -> 52 -> ENERGIZED LIGHT BULB (180) / filament wire (53,55), annotated "CONSUMING ELECTRONS", then blocking diode (57) to B+ (54). Laser injection port (44).

• FIGURE 4-10, 1994 — same function generalised to "AMP CONSUMING DEVISE (44)" in the same series position, with LASER INJECTION (55).

• Twelve years apart, renamed, same role. This is the second hard lineage link after VIC coil-assembly (530) (#3371), and it is the one Scotchn predicted from the rename pattern.

DESIGN CONSEQUENCE (answers the standing extraction-electrode question; refines #3367): the extraction current does NOT run to a separate bias supply. It runs THROUGH A LOAD IN SERIES WITH THE DRIVE LEG. The amp-consuming device is the ballast that permits electron removal without collapsing the field — the same role the bulb filament plays on 20YID. Build the extractor with a series resistive/consuming load in the leg, not as a shunt to a bias rail.

CONFIRMS SCOTCHN'S TRANSITIONAL BRIEF: the brief argued that the two loads share identical driver circuitry and that "the only topological difference is that the Gas Resonant Cavity requires the additional charge collection loop to physically extract the electrons". Figures 4-9 and 4-10 are precisely that — one circuit drawn twice, differing only by the extraction load and the laser injection. The claim can now cite a drawing.

INDEX NOTE — COMPONENT NUMBER REUSE: chokes are (49)/(51) in Fig 4-9 and (56)/(57) in Fig 4-10, whereas the classic VIC choke pair is (56)/(62). (44) is the amp-consuming device here but the laser injection port on 20YID. (180) is the Voltage Ignitor Cavity here but the light bulb on 20YID. Component numbers are scoped per drawing and must never be treated as global identifiers.