HiIQ-Youtube · Source catalogue

A 143.6 s computer-rendered 3D animation (black background, white grid floor, hyiq.org watermark) with on-screen captions; the 1,068-character whisper text of the audio track carries the same wording in shortened form. [read: deep/videoplayback-3c5c77.md] Captions in order: a voltage on the Primary Coil gives a magnetic field; a Secondary Coil under load produces, by Lenz's law, a field opposite to the primary's; 'Now we add our Partnered Secondary Coil!'; 'The Vector of each Magnetic Field Sum to Zero!'; 'Each Partnered Output Coil has 3 times the turns of the Input Coil in this example. Giving a 1:3 Ratio.'; 'This steps the Voltage Up'; 'Current is NOT stepped down as a result!'; 'Feed Back and Feed Forward in the Partnered Output Coils can Increase the Seperation of Charge Carriers and Excess Output Energy can be obtained!'; 'You can start from around $20.00 if you already have some simple test equipment'; 'Places like Jaycar, Radioshack and even Amazon can help with materials!'; 'Learn it, Use it, ... Share it!'; and an end card pointing to http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Guidelines%20to%20Bucking%20Coils.pdf with 'I have given everything freely, all I ask in return is to give credit to those who deserve it!'. Geometry [read: frames]: ONE thin green input coil, drawn over only ONE of two thick gold output coils that sit end to end on a common axis; the two gold coils are joined by a short wire in the gap, with one lead at each outer end (one wire in series, output across the two free leads); their red field arrows point toward each other (opposing). The gold coils show about 2 to 2.5 times the green coil's turns by eye, against the caption's 3x. No load, meter, waveform, circuit diagram or feedback loop is drawn for the feed back/feed forward caption. The narration does not name the author; the watermark, the PDF link, and the forum thread that lists this video identify Chris Sykes (hyiq.org). The video is promotional material from the technology's own proponent, so its statements are the proponent's description. The digest rendered 'separation of the input coil' as 'separation (or field strength) of the input coil'; neither the transcript nor the captions say 'or field strength' (QE check).

Key claims

• Two 'partnered' output coils whose magnetic field vectors sum to zero can be driven from one input coil (the animation shows one input coil over one of the pair, the pair joined in series).
• With each partnered output coil having 3 times the input coil's turns, the voltage is stepped up 1 to 3 in the partnered output coils.
• In this arrangement the current is NOT stepped down as the voltage is stepped up.
• Feed Back and Feed Forward in the partnered output coils can increase the separation of charge carriers.
• Excess output energy can be obtained (caption; no measurement or circuit shown).
• The technology can be tried from about 20 dollars of parts if one already owns simple test equipment (Jaycar, Radioshack, Amazon named).

Relevance: The only document in the manifest. It carries the project's headline claims in the inventor's own words, and its captions contain the project's one explicit energy claim ('Excess Output Energy can be obtained!') that the narration omits. Its geometry (one input coil, a series-connected pair of opposed output coils) matches the Guidelines p.38 schematic and the inventor's forum statement 'I have always used a single coil' on the input, so the circuit is not ambiguous. The claim that current is not stepped down while voltage is stepped up is the one an energy-balance review turns on; it is shown with no power measurement.

Mainstream conflict: The ideal-transformer relation is V_out/V_in = N_out/N_in and, by power conservation, I_out/I_in = N_in/N_out, so a 1:3 voltage step-up normally steps current down by about 3. The claim that current 'is not stepped down' conflicts with that unless extra input is supplied; the video gives no power figures. The caption 'Excess Output Energy can be obtained' conflicts with energy conservation if it means net energy beyond the electrical input; the inventor's own forum and 2011 writings say he does not claim creation of energy and that the 2011 device is below unity (see the Self-Assisted entry). Opposed coils whose fields cancel are not in themselves in conflict with standard electromagnetism. 'Increase the separation of charge carriers' is not defined. (Recorded as what the document claims; no verdict.)

49-page document, the written source of the video (sentences match word for word). Requirements for a 'Power Output Coil' of at least two partnered coils with opposed magnetic fields, one input coil; 'Magnetic Field Component must cancel and the Electric Field Component must add'; charge-separation reading of induction; Lenz's law argued to be a result of output current, not its cause; reproduced Floyd Sweet, Stanley Meyer, Bedini and Bearden material. Experiments described: a bifilar-coil test (pp.14-16) with two OWON scope screens across a 1 ohm sense resistor (rise time about 75 ms inductive against about 650 microseconds non-inductive; this is RL charging, and the author calls it 'expected behaviour'); a rotor test (p.45, prose only: 'No or next to no Lenz's Law and at the same time, Electricity is Generated'); a CRT-magnet experiment (p.23: field 'squeezed Nearly to Zero'); an alternator feedback experiment (p.48: 'Not Free Energy, but this shows that Feed Back Techniques can excite the Coils'). The p.38 build schematic: function generator, power amplifier, ONE input coil L1 coupled by a shared core to partnered coils L2 and L3 in series through one 10 ohm load; the 'Output Configuration guide' shows CW/CCW coils (L2 and L3 in parallel across the load) and CW/CW with one coil flipped (series loop). No polarity dots are marked. In the pages deep-read there is NO measured input or output voltage, current or power for any partnered-coil device, the rotor test or the alternator test; the only instrument readings are the bifilar RL screens. The one power figure for a bucking-coil device is a quoted claim about Floyd Sweet's Generation Six VTA, 'in the order of 5000 Watts' (p.13), given with no source. Parts list about $58.66 (pp.36-37). The author writes 'It took me a long time to see that there was no new form of Energy' (p.47) and 'expect 1 in 10 devices to work' (p.45). Author is an interested party; all statements are his characterisation.

Key claims

• A Power Output Coil needs at least two partnered coils that act in opposition: the magnetic field component cancels and the electric field component adds.
• Current is not stepped down in a partnered-coil step-up (p.10-11).
• Lenz's law is a result of electrical output, not its cause (p.48), and the reflected load can be reduced in partnered output coils.
• A bucking-coil rotor test shows 'No or next to no Lenz's Law and at the same time, Electricity is Generated' (p.45, no data).
• Feed back and feed forward in the coils (an LC-tank input helps) improve results (p.24, p.46).
• Floyd Sweet's Generation Six VTA delivered about 5000 W (p.13, quoted claim, no source).
• The author's own device is not free energy in the sense of a new energy form: 'there was no new form of Energy' (p.47).

Relevance: The inventor's key written work and the source for every claim in the video. It supplies the circuit (p.38), the experiments, the inventor's own caveats and the absence of any input/output power measurement.

Mainstream conflict: Passive linear coupled coils obey energy conservation whatever the winding sense or connection, so a passive partnered-coil step-up cannot deliver more power than it receives; 'current is not stepped down' conflicts with that for a passive device. Total flux cancellation is stated by the author himself to be impossible (p.45). The bifilar test shows ordinary RL behaviour. The magnet-assisted, nonlinear or active forms (Sweet, magnetic gating) are not covered by that argument and are untested in the document. (Recorded as what the document claims; no verdict.)

Describes a transformer-type device with an input coil (600 turns) and two shorted 'A Vector' coils on a permanent-magnet core, driven at about 200 Hz. Central claim: 'if I short the Coils, the Output Load is increased at no extra cost to the Input.' Scope screens (OWON): Fig 2 input coil 15.78 V RMS and A-Vector coils 8.557 V RMS; Fig 3 output coil 1 at 3.659 V RMS; Fig 4 coil voltage 1.977 V RMS with a 'current' channel of 82.41 mV RMS across an unstated shunt, lamp load '3.6 Watt' (nameplate 12 V 300 mA). The document gives 'drawing only 15.2 watts DC' in prose, but no input voltage and current, no output power, no efficiency, no with-load against no-load input comparison and no phase reading; the Specifications section has none of those either. Output power from Fig 4 depends on the unstated shunt (about 0.16 W for 1 ohm, about 1.6 W for 0.1 ohm); a full 3.6 W would be 23.7 percent of 15.2 W. Statements by the author: 'The device I have shown is below unity' (p.1); 'The device I have shown is not an Over-Unity Device' (p.4); 'two sources of input energy', the electrical input and 'the Permanent Magnet' (p.2); 'No to minimum (0 - 5%) Phase angles'. Fig 7 'Famous VTA Schematic - Authenticity not verified'. Cites Kron, Sweet, Rosenthal, Bedini. Author is an interested party.

Key claims

• Shorting the A Vector coils increases the output load at no extra cost to the input (video-based, no data in the document).
• The device shown is below unity and not over-unity (author's statement, twice).
• A permanent magnet is a second input energy source, so output may exceed the electrical input without being over-unity.
• Phase angles between voltage and current are small (0 to 5 percent, stated; not measured on the scope screens).

Relevance: The inventor's earliest written account and his own concession that the 2011 device is below unity. It is also the only document with scope screens of the device, and they do not allow an input or output power to be calculated.

Mainstream conflict: A permanent magnet in a core does not supply continuing energy; an alternating signal still transfers energy as in an ordinary transformer. The document's data cannot show otherwise. The 'A vector' reading is the author's interpretation. (Recorded as what the document claims; no verdict.)

A mainstream engineering paper recommended by the inventor, separating motional induction (flux-cutting law, EMF = integral of v x B . dl) from transformer induction (flux-linking law, EMF = -d phi/dt), with worked paradoxes (Faraday's disk, d-c generator, others) showing the two laws must be applied consistently and the total EMF is measurable. p.1: 'The most outstanding by-products of this misunderstanding are the innumerable d-c generators without moving contacts which have been invented (and do not work).' Cohn does not treat coupled windings, bucking coils, load current, Lenz back-reaction or power transfer, and the phrase 'charge separation' does not occur in his seven pages; the link to bucking coils and to charge separation is Sykes's reading, not Cohn's.

Key claims

• There are two kinds of electromagnetic induction, motional and transformer, and the correct total EMF is their sum within one consistent field theory.
• D-c generators without moving contacts, which arise from misapplying the induction laws, do not work.

Relevance: Peripheral background the inventor cites for his charge-separation reading. It supports the physics of induction and does not discuss his device.

Mainstream conflict: none (mainstream paper)

Opening post (2015-01-16): links to the Guidelines PDF and four videos (iJsVSMQqCOM, ZhQgch4L5XY, zSadMqEnO7I, Z-V1z2TdQJA) and the attachment 'Net Zero Magnetic Field.png' (not rendered). Sykes: 'Energy can not be created or destroyed. You and I agree with Science on this one!' (#7); 'Lenz's Law is ONLY apparent when Current is drawn from the resulting Charge Separation ... So Energy is not Generated at all! It was already there!' (#4); 'Loose Coupling is a requirement!' and a cost of around $20.00 (#11); 'I have found 3 configurations to work' and has not published one; 'On the input, really anything that works! I have always used a single coil' (#12); he asks participants to know the provided data (#14). Critic MileHigh (self-described 'hostile witness') writes, in reply #8, of 'your alleged COP 1.7 device' and 'your COP 1.7 claim', says he saw no data of that kind in the PDF, asks for build data and a measurement protocol, and names TK, Itsu, MarkE and Picowatt as the people whose replication 'will be definitive'. COP is coefficient of performance, output power over input power. The figure 1.7 appears nowhere in Sykes's own posts on this page. In #11 Sykes does not confirm, correct or dispute it and supplies no power data. So 'COP 1.7' is a critic's attribution of a performance figure to the inventor, documented in one source so far; its origin (the PDF, the videos, or the earlier thread overunity.com topic 14974 'from about page 76 on') is not stated. No replication result appears on page 1.

Key claims

• The device is described by a critic as a 'COP 1.7 device' (MileHigh, #8; attributed to the inventor, not confirmed or disputed by him on this page).
• Sykes states that energy cannot be created or destroyed and that energy in the device 'was already there' (#7, #4).
• Loose coupling is a requirement, and the input side is a single coil (#11, #12).
• Three working configurations exist, one unpublished (#12).

Relevance: Contains the only numerical performance figure in the record (COP 1.7, a critic's attribution), the inventor's own forum statements on conservation and coupling, and the named prospective testers, who are leads for later pages.

Mainstream conflict: A COP above 1 for a passive coil set would conflict with energy conservation; the page gives no measurement. Sykes himself states conservation as a premise. (Recorded as what the document claims; no verdict.)