QE (Step 4b): HiIQ-Youtube

QE agent, 2026-10-06. Read in full: prompt.txt; _text/manifest.json and _textprep.log; the one digest (digest/videoplayback-3c5c77.01.md); the extracted transcript (_text/videoplayback-3c5c77.txt); facts.json; claims.md; sites.md and all eight research/ notes; physicist.md, mathematician.md, contrarian.md; arbiter.md; primer.md; example.py (run). There is no deep/ folder. Independent checks done by QE (all read-only on the sources, scratch files in /tmp/qe_hiiq): - Frames from the source video, one every 3 s (51 frames, against the Investigator's one every 6 s), viewed as contact sheets [read: video frames]. - The text layer of Guidelines v2.7 and the 2011 Self-Assisted paper (pdftotext -layout), searched for every quote that a verdict or the primer uses [read]. - Page images of Guidelines v2.7, all 49 pages at low resolution, plus pp.1, 16, 38, 39 at 60 dpi [read: page images]. - The saved Wayback copy of overunity.com thread 15395, page 1, converted to text [read: research/files/overunity-com-15395-p1-wayback-20150923.html].

Tags: [read] = QE read it in the named file; [calc] = QE ran it; [memory] = recalled, with confidence.

Verdict: MINOR

The central verdicts hold. Every strong-form verdict ("Refuted by calculation" for a passive coil set, "Never properly tested" for an active, nonlinear or magnet-assisted device) rests on a theorem that covers any coupling, winding sense or connection. None of the new material below would move them. But three things need fixing in facts.json, claims.md, the arbiter and the primer. (1) Step 1 was never brought up to date after the Investigator's findings. (2) The reviewers, the arbiter and the primer treat the circuit as uncertain, but the inventor's own schematic answers that question. Nobody looked at it. (3) A specific performance figure, "COP 1.7", and the inventor's own "Not Free Energy" remark on his feedback experiment are in files already in hand, and nobody picked them up.

---

1. Coverage

There were no skipped files. The manifest lists one document, and the log shows one document and one chunk [read: _textprep.log].

Digest fidelity. Digest line 2 renders "increase the separation of the input coil" as "increase the separation (or field strength) of the input coil". The phrase "or field strength" appears neither in the transcript nor in the captions [read]. The digester added an interpretation, which Step 1a forbids. The physicist flagged it. It did no downstream harm, because facts.json did not adopt it.

Process note for the pipeline (not a project defect). tools/textprep.py should OCR sampled frames of videos (for example one every 2 s with tesseract, deduplicated) as well as running whisper on the audio. Captioned explainer videos are common in these folders.

2. Shortcuts

• No deep read of anything. The only manifest document is short, so a digest of its narration was acceptable for the narration alone. The central evidence turned out to be the Investigator's documents in research/files/ (Guidelines v2.5/v2.7, the 2011 paper, the forum page). All three reviewers read the text layers of those documents themselves, which is acceptable for the prose.
• Defect: the figures in the inventor's key document were never viewed. The Guidelines have 1 to 3 images on 42 of 49 pages [read: pdfimages -list]. Every file repeats the caveat that "no power measurement" means "none in the text layers". The caveat is honest, but it is a shortcut on the central document, and a sampled key document counts as a defect under the Step 4b rules. QE's own look at the page images shows what it cost. Page 38 holds the inventor's test schematic: function generator, then power amplifier, then a single input coil L1, with partnered coils L2 and L3 joined in series through one 10-ohm resistive load. It also holds an "Output Configuration guide" with two wirings, "CW/CCW Coils" and "CW/CW 1 Flipped Coils" [read: page image p.38]. That schematic answers the arbiter's first open question (see section 4). In the low-resolution pass QE saw no oscilloscope trace or meter reading that gives input and output power. That pass is not a substitute for a proper page-image read, so it is requested below (DR1).
• The 2011 paper's figures were not viewed either. Figures 2 to 4 are oscilloscope traces, Fig. 4 being "Voltage and Current with an Automotive Globe - 3.6 Watt Load", and there is a "Specifications section" [read: sa.txt]. The contrarian quotes its 15.2 W DC input. Nobody read the traces to see whether an output power can be worked out from them (DR2).
• Only page 1 of the 350-page forum thread was available. That limit is acceptable for this run and the files record it honestly. But page 1 itself was not fully used (section 3).
• Cohn 1949: only p.1 was read, from a page image. That is acceptable, since it is peripheral (DR4, low priority).

3. Missed material (in files already in hand)

1. A specific performance claim: "COP 1.7". On page 1 of the thread, the critic "MileHigh" (reply #8, 2015-01-16) writes of "building and testing your alleged COP 1.7 device" and asks "how are we even supposed to know that your COP 1.7 claim is even credible? I looked through your pdf doc and I didn't see anything like that". He asks about "a rectangular core that forms a closed magnetic circuit ... If there are diodes" [read: overunity-com-15395-p1 HTML]. Sykes quotes the post in reply #11, calls it "sensible and logical", and does not dispute the 1.7 figure. He answers "I have decided that the only proof is in the eyes of the end user ... It only makes sense to build and test for ones self!" [read]. COP stands for coefficient of performance, output power over input power. This is the only number for the device's claimed performance anywhere in the record. facts.json, claims.md, all three reviews, the arbiter and the primer all say no figure exists, apart from the Prezi "1 to 100" lead. The COP 1.7 figure is attributed to Sykes by a hostile party and documented in one source so far. Sykes did not deny it in his reply. Its origin is probably the "Net Zero Magnetic Field.png" attachment, or the earlier thread overunity.com topic 14974 "from about page 76 on", which Sykes cites in the opening post [read]. The figure belongs in the evidence table, stated as exactly that.
2. The named prospective testers. The same post names "TK or Itsu ... with some help from MarkE and/or Picowatt" as the team whose replication "will be definitive" [read]. These are the people to search for in the later pages, and that is a concrete lead for the next Investigator run. MileHigh's 10-point test protocol (measure the load resistor, state both test points, give error tolerances, do not trust bench-supply current displays) is a fair statement of measurement standards from a critic. It belongs beside the arbiter's deciding test.
3. Sykes on energy conservation and coupling, in his own forum words. Reply #7: "Energy can not be created or destroyed. You and I agree with Science on this one!". Reply #4: "Lenz's Law is ONLY apparent when Current is drawn ... So Energy is not Generated at all! It was already there!". Reply #11: "Loose Coupling is a requirement!" and the cost "no more than $20.00 - Most here will already have the materials!". Reply #12: "To-date, I have found 3 configurations to work! I have not included one ... On the input, really anything that works! I have always used a single coil" [read]. This is the inventor's own framing: he does not claim to break conservation, and he names an energy source outside the circuit (the Dirac sea, "the Aether" on p.47). The primer touches this only through the hyiq.org Wayback note. The forum quotes are clearer and should be used.
4. The inventor's own "Not Free Energy" on feedback. Guidelines p.48, "Experiment": an automotive alternator driven by an electric motor, with its field coil shorted or in series with the output coils, gives "enough Feed Back ... to get an Electrical Output". Then: "Not Free Energy, but this shows that Feed Back Techniques can excite the Coils ... ONLY because of Lenz Law, Resistive Mechanical Force is applied on the Shaft in Opposition to the applied Input from the Electric Motor!" [read: g16 text, p.48]. That is self-excitation, a standard feature of generators [memory: high], and the inventor himself presents it as not a gain. It bears directly on claim 4 (feedback) and on the "claim hardened from 2011 to 2015" narrative, which the arbiter and the primer present without this counter-example. None of the review files mentions it.
5. Video 3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSadMqEnO7I) is listed in the opening post [read], but sites.md lists Videos 1, 2 and 4 and other channel videos, not this one. It is a lead for the next run.
6. What the animation shows [read: video frames]. The single green input coil sits over one of the two gold partnered coils. The two gold coils are one continuous wire, joined end to end, and their red field arrows point toward each other. This is the inventor's p.1 requirement 6 ("input coil ... only one half of the Power Coils geometry") and the p.38 schematic: a series-connected pair with asymmetric coupling. That is case B4 in example.py. Cases B1/B2, and the reviewers' "each secondary on its own load" examples, are not the inventor's circuit (see section 4).
7. Smaller items kept for the record. The inventor's "very simple experiment" with CRT magnets (p.23, "squeezed Nearly to Zero - NO MAGNETIC FIELD!!!") and the claim "Mechanical Energy is NOT the Source" (p.8) are judged in physicist.md but dropped from the arbiter and the primer. On p.11 the inventor says he has "studied Floyd Sweet and his VTA for some fifteen years". The 2011 paper captions its own VTA schematic "Authenticity not verified", and the phrase "Feed Forward and Feed Back" first appears in that 2011 paper (item 7 of its notes) [read: sa.txt]. The video container's creation_time is 2015-05-04 (Investigator note; it is not in facts.json).

4. Accuracy spot checks

5. Retention check

The question is whether pertinent material from the sources or the Investigator was left out of the arbiter or primer because a reviewer judged it negatively. - Investigator leads: retained. Both the arbiter and the primer keep, with fair descriptions and single-source wording: the gratisenergi.se "no Free Energy" snippet; Cyril Smith 2015 (title and first line, unread); the Prezi "1 to 100" lead; reply #3589; the Energetic Forum inverter; the 2025 aboveunity threads; the prior art Sykes names (Koenig checked on the web by the arbiter); Cohn's "do not work" line ("cuts both ways"); "PayPal De-Platformed me" as his own account; and the record going dark, analysed with competing explanations. This meets SOURCE HONESTY. The 2011 "below unity" concession is kept, and the inventor's candour passages are kept. - Inventor material judged negatively by the physicist and dropped downstream (minor defect). The CRT-magnet "simple experiment" and the claims "Mechanical Energy is NOT the Source" and "A is the Electric Component of the Magnetic Field" appear only in physicist.md ("Errors in the background claims"). They are the inventor's own experimental claims and principles. They belong in the arbiter's "Evidence that stays in the record" and, briefly, in the primer's record section, with the physicist's judgement beside them. - Material missed rather than dropped (section 3, items 1 to 4: COP 1.7, the named testers, the forum statements on conservation, the p.48 "Not Free Energy" alternator experiment). These were not removed for a negative reason, but they are pertinent and absent. Item 4 matters for balance in the inventor's favour: it shows he separated self-excitation from free energy. The narrative that "the claim hardened from 2011 to 2015" should be qualified by it. - No instance was found of a claim, experiment or witness account removed because a verdict went against it.

6. Process

• Source tags: present and mostly honest. Reviewers mark second-hand material as "[read, per Investigator]" or "[web per Investigator]", which is good practice. One weakness: in the primer, "[read: Self-Assisted paper]" and "[read: p.45]" style tags were checked by QE and are correct, apart from the p.16/p.17 slip.
• Web checks. Physicist: 2 calls, documented. Mathematician and contrarian: none, each stating that no verdict rests on a medium- or low-confidence [memory] fact. QE agrees: the physicist's "Bloch wall" remark [memory: medium] and the contrarian's Sweet/VTA history [memory: medium] carry no verdict. Arbiter: the heading says "budget 8; 8 calls made", but six checks are listed. Defect (minor): reconcile the count, or list the two missing calls.
• Verdict scale. Applied consistently across the arbiter's split verdicts. Two labels are not scale terms: "Established in direction" (claim 4) and "Established as a feasibility statement" (claim 5, not a physics claim). The qualifiers explain them and the Curator can map them, so this is acceptable. Wording them as "Established (direction only); Plausible, untested (magnitude)" would be cleaner.
• Primer. It follows STEP 4 in order (sections 1 to 9 plus answers), defines every symbol on first use (Φ, ε, L, M, k, ω, j, I^H, MMF, ℛ, COP, RMS), introduces phasors from scratch, and builds the worked example on real numbers. It is well matched to the reader profile. The textbook citations give chapter numbers only for Griffiths and Feynman, both [memory: high], which complies with the instruction to name chapters only if certain.
• example.py runs with the project venv (exit 0) [calc]. Every number in primer section 5 matches the output: Part A 25.92 W and 1/6; B1/B2 1.5444 A, 0.2497 A, 13.85/12.47/1.38 W; B3 0.191 A with zero load current; B4 0.3266/0.2925/0.0341 W; Part C rows; Part D 18.53 VA, 0.748 and 2.304 VA, 0.109; Part E maximum 0.9933; Part F as above.
• Step 1 not updated. facts.json still gives author and year as "unknown", claim 4 as "separation of the input coil", and how_read as "audio transcript only". claims.md claim 4 is wrong in the same way, and its Source gap note says the author is unknown. All three reviewers and the arbiter issued corrections, but the files themselves were not changed. Step 1 runs before the Investigator, so this is expected at that stage, but it must be fixed in remediation, because the Curator and entry writer read facts.json and claims.md.
• Arbiter's "Corrected claim list" for claim 1 should note that the inventor's schematic connects L2 and L3 in series through one load (section 4, check 10). The physicist's and contrarian's worked numbers assume one load per coil. They remain valid as energy bookkeeping, but they do not model the inventor's circuit.

7. Remediation actions

Deep reads (most important first; at most 8)

(The manifest has only one slug, videoplayback-3c5c77. DR1 and DR3 to DR5 are Investigator documents in research/files/, so they are given new slugs for deep/ file names.)

Investigator (next run; recommended, not a deep read)

• Wayback captures of overunity.com topic 15395, later pages. Search them for "COP", "TinselKoala", "itsu", "MarkE", "picowatt" and for posts with input and output power tables. Also topic 14974 "Magnet Myths and Misconceptions", from page 76 on (the likely origin of COP 1.7) and the "Net Zero Magnetic Field.png" attachment.
• Video 3, zSadMqEnO7I, and Videos 1 and 2, for any on-screen measurements.

facts.json

• Rewrite the videoplayback.mp4 entry. Author: Chris Sykes (EMJunkie), hyiq.org. Year: 2015 (on or before 16 January). Title as on YouTube. how_read: "digest + deep read (video frames)" once DR2 is done. key_claims: claim 4 corrected to "Feed Back and Feed Forward ... can Increase the Seperation of Charge Carriers and Excess Output Energy can be obtained". "Jaker" changed to Jaycar. Drop the digest's "(or field strength)".
• Add an "Investigator documents" note, or entries flagged as research/files sources, for Guidelines v2.5/v2.7, the Self-Assisted paper (2011), Cohn (1949) and overunity.com page 1, so the Curator's artifact count sees them.

claims.md

• Update the Source gap note: author and date are known, the written source is in hand, and what remains is the figures (until DR1 and DR3) and the forum's later pages.
• Correct claim 4 as above, splitting it into (a) "separation of charge carriers" and (b) "excess output energy".
• In claim 1, state the circuit: one input coil over one of two partnered coils joined in series through one load (p.38, video).
• Add the record that the inventor's device is described by a critic as "COP 1.7", undisputed in the inventor's reply. State it as a claim attributed to him, documented in one source so far.

arbiter.md (add a "QE revision" section)

• Resolve open question 1 ("which circuit"): one input coil, series-connected partnered pair, asymmetric coupling, single 10-ohm load (p.38; forum #12; video). State that the verdicts are unchanged, because the passivity argument covers any connection, and that example.py B4 is the inventor's circuit.
• Add to the evidence record: COP 1.7 (attributed by MileHigh, not disputed by Sykes); the named testers; Sykes's "Energy can not be created or destroyed"; the p.48 alternator experiment, "Not Free Energy". Qualify the "claim hardened 2011 to 2015" statement with p.48.
• Add the inventor material now only in physicist.md: the CRT-magnet experiment (p.23), "Mechanical Energy is NOT the Source" (p.8), "A is the Electric Component of the Magnetic Field". Keep each beside the physicist's judgement.
• Reconcile the web-check count (8 claimed, 6 listed).
• Report any number found by DR1 and DR3. If a figure shows a measured input and output power for a partnered-coil device, re-weigh claims 1, 3 and 4 ("Never properly tested" may become "tested by the inventor, not replicated"; the passive-form verdicts stand).

primer.md

• Section 4: replace "These are different circuits, and no equivalent circuit is given" with the p.38 schematic description. Make case B4 the headline realistic case in section 5, Step 4, since it is the inventor's own circuit, and say that B1/B2 illustrate winding sense only.
• Section 6 (evidence table) and section 7 ("record"): add COP 1.7 with its provenance, the p.48 "Not Free Energy" alternator experiment (claim 4 row and the inventor's history), and Sykes's forum statement that energy is conserved and comes from outside the circuit. Add a one-line mention of the CRT-magnet experiment with the physicist's comment.
• Section 7, "What is genuinely open": remove the "which circuit" bullet (resolved) and add "the source of the COP 1.7 figure".
• Fix the citation of the Sweet quote: p.17, not p.16.
• Section 9: add Video 3 (zSadMqEnO7I) to the inventor's videos.
• Add any numbers from DR1 and DR3 to section 6 with page citations.

example.py

• No change required. Optionally, add a comment to Part B4 saying it is the configuration in Guidelines p.38 and the video.

Recheck

QE recheck, 2026-10-06. Read the current facts.json, claims.md, arbiter.md, primer.md, example.py and the new deep/ files (hyiq-guidelines-2016, hyiq-self-assisted-2011, overunity-15395-p1, cohn-1949, videoplayback-3c5c77), and grepped each for the items below [read].

No verdict moved. No new defects were found in the changed files.

Final: PASS