Meyl-Konstantin: Arbiter (STEP 3)

Arbiter for project Meyl-Konstantin (Prof. Dr.-Ing. Konstantin Meyl, Furtwangen University; "1st TZS" transfer centre; INDEL GmbH). Date: 2026-10-08. Inputs: facts.json, claims.md, physicist.md, mathematician.md, contrarian.md, deep/, sites.md, research/. Tags: [read] project documents, deep reads, Investigator notes; [web] checked on the Internet (URL given); [memory] recalled (confidence given); [calc] my own arithmetic (Python, .venv, 2026-10-08).

Source gap (repeated from claims.md)

The 657-page 2003 textbook has no equations in its text layer. Page-image deep reads cover ch.5, 7, 11-13, 21-24, 26-30. Chapters 1-4, 6, 8-10, 14-20 and 25 rest on digests only, and the deep reads of PDF pp.183-241 and 301-363 (free-energy devices, Meyl's own 1989-1999 experiments in ch.19) were lost. Every statement below about Testatika, Searl, Bedini/Ecklin, Patterson, Stan Meyer, Podkletnov, the railgun and the 1989-1999 experiments is digest-level, and I give no verdict on those devices, only on what Meyl says about them. The one place in ch.19 I read at source level is book p.411 (PDF p.422), see claim 4. Records not in the folder and not obtained by anyone: Treskatis 2010 bachelor thesis; Meyl, PIERS 2012 "Self-consistent electrodynamics"; the TU Clausthal "control survey" of 6 July 2000; Runckel's opinion; A. Waser, NET-Journal 12/2000; Eibert (FGF 1/2004); Tesla 1919 Electrical Experimenter article; Hallock/McNair Tamarack records. Conclusions that rest on [memory] alone are marked as such. Digest-only documents: Barkhausen notes (another author), electrosmog article and newsletter, complementary-medicine and Wiesbaden lectures.

QE revision, 2026-10-08: the QE remediation deep reads have since been done (see "QE revision" below). Textbook PDF pp.183-241, 295-455 (ch.8.2-10, 14-20), Neutrino Power pp.1-60 and 223-302 (and pp.133-222 in QE revision 2, so the book is now deep-read in full), the Wiesbaden lecture (pp.1-14) and the FGF newsletter (pp.4-7, 13-14) are now deep-read from the extracted text (figures of ch.14-18 were not rendered; ch.19-20 figure pages were). The source-gap statements above about those pages are superseded; the records listed as "not obtained" still stand, except the Tesla 1919 Electrical Experimenter article, which I have now read on the web.

How I weighed the reviews

All three reviewers agree on the algebra (they re-derived it independently and with SymPy) and mostly agree on verdicts. I list only real disagreements and settle each by recomputation or by a web check. Where a reviewer applied a label that the evidence does not carry, I say so.

Numbers recomputed where the reviewers differ

Web verification done (7 of 8)

1. Tesla US 787,412: fetched [web: https://patents.google.com/patent/US787412A/en]. The whole body text is in the first 100,000 characters (the next 100,000 are metadata and citation tables; the final 27,000 I did not read, they are citation tables on the same page structure). Passages: "with a mean velocity of about four hundred and seventy-one thousand two hundred and forty kilometers per second"; "The lowest frequency would appear to be six per second, in which case there will be but one node"; "not less than one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second". No "twelve per second", no "Schumann". So the physicist's and the contrarian's reading stands: 471,240 km/s is Tesla's number (contrarian is right, claims.md "Meyl's reading" is wrong on this point); "12 Hz" is Meyl's derived number (471,240 / 40,030 = 11.8 Hz), not a patent quotation. Retagged from [memory] to [web].
2. Space geodesy: Wu et al., Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L13304 (2011): mean radius change 0.1 mm/yr, uncertainty 0.2 mm/yr (1 sigma) [web: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110817120527.htm]. Physicist wrote "0 +/- 0.2"; the central value is 0.1. Meyl's 28.7 mm/yr (2.87 cm/yr, 18 cm circumference) is about 290 times the central value and 140 sigma above it.
3. Proton radius: PRad 2019, 0.831 +/- 0.007 +/- 0.012 fm; CODATA 2018 0.8414(19) fm [web: https://pdglive.lbl.gov/view/S016CR and https://researchportal.ip-paris.fr/en/publications/a-small-proton-charge-radius-from-anelectronproton-scattering-exp/]. This replaces the physicist's [memory, medium] note: the ratio muonic/electron is now about 1, not 0.948.
4. SN 1987A: neutrinos about 3 hours before light over 168,000 light-years; limit |v/c - 1| < 2e-9 for 10-40 MeV neutrinos (Longo 1987) [web: https://steve.cooleysekula.net/blog/?p=2214 and arXiv 1204.0484 for a minority objection that the limit is model-dependent]. At 1.618 c the arrival would be 64,168 years early [calc]. This bound applies to neutrinos, not to Meyl's "scalar waves" in general.
5. Hafele-Keating: observed -59 +/- 10 ns east and +273 +/- 7 ns west, predicted -40 +/- 23 and +275 +/- 21 [web: https://hyperphysics.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html and the USNO anniversary note via search]. Difference 332 ns. Caveat kept: a critical review (Cartesio, a minority view) argues the clock drift was unstable [web: https://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H&KPaper.htm]; most textbooks treat it as confirmation. Either way Meyl's 214 ns is a sign error.
6. Spin ice: Morris, Tennant et al., Science 326, 411 (2009); a conference abstract says neutron scattering measures strings "along which B flows towards the monopoles ... so that div B = 0 remains intact" [web: https://archive.aps.org/mar/2010/w36/5, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.1174]. The citation Meyl uses for div B not zero describes emergent defects, with B still divergence-free per the authors' abstract (I read the abstract only, not the paper).
7. Solar neutrino day-night: the contrarian's figure (night flux 3.6-4.2% higher than day, Super-Kamiokande, about 2.8 sigma) [web via contrarian: arXiv 1606.07538, hep-ex/0310064; not re-fetched by me] replaces the physicist's [memory, medium]. It is a night excess, opposite in sign to Meyl's "half missing at night".

Not web-checked, still [memory]: Nimtz/Chiao reading of tunnelling (a general reference is Winful, arXiv quant-ph/0601085, cited by the contrarian), ICNIRP and epidemiology statements, the neutrino-electron cross-section (medium), Beall list/OMICS FTC status, Plate-spreading rates (medium), the AU-drift ephemeris limit (medium). No verdict rests on these alone.

Corrected claim list (final verdicts)

Claim 1. Maxwell's equations are an approximation; the "potential vortex" term b = B/tau2

Agreement: the algebra from the extended laws to the "fundamental field equation" is correct. The derivation from E = v x B and H = -v x D fails: (v.grad)B is read as the fixed-point dB/dt (opposite sign for a travelling pattern); Gauss's laws are imported as inputs; the starting equations are first-order Lorentz transformations, so they follow from Maxwell plus relativity and do not generate it. My check [calc]: putting H = -v x D into E = v x B gives E = -mu eps v x (v x E) = +(v^2/c^2) E for E perpendicular to v, so the pair holds only for v = c; Meyl prints this as "result v = c" (book 28.5). tau2 has three incompatible dependences on conductivity and no value anywhere.

Disagreement: the weak form. Physicist: Refuted by calculation (short tau2) plus Tested, not supported (div B). Mathematician: Tested, not supported / Not testable. Contrarian: Never properly tested. Which is stronger: the physicist's vacuum-damping calculation is right but applies only to a uniform vacuum term: with tau2 = 2e-8 s, exp(-t/2tau2) is e^-1 after 40 ns (12 m); radio astronomy and the CMB exclude that. The contrarian's point that Meyl's vortices are local structures in dielectrics, not a uniform vacuum term, is fair: Meyl's own "case 1" of eq. 5.12 is the uniform vacuum case, but a local term with an unspecified tau2 makes no prediction anybody can check. The spin-ice citation does not support div B not zero. The idea of a magnetic-current term is a legitimate formal extension (contrarian, mathematician).

Final verdict (split): - "Maxwell follows as a special case of E = v x B, H = -v x D, so b is a neglected term": Internally inconsistent. - "b = B/tau2 with short tau2 acting in vacuum": Refuted by calculation. - "div B not zero in ordinary dielectrics": Tested, not supported (monopole searches; the spin-ice paper keeps div B = 0). - "b with a long or unspecified tau2 in matter": Not testable as stated (no value, no predicted effect). Not dismissed without testing: the mathematics was argued in print (JSE 15(2), 2001), but nobody has measured tau2.

What would settle it: a measured or bounded tau2 from vacuum propagation of light together with the Treskatis/PIERS 2012 loss formula applied to a second dataset.

Claim 2. Potential vortices explain noise, capacitor losses, near field

Agreement: the "complex permittivity implies complex c" argument is wrong (complex eps gives a complex wavenumber; polypropylene example n = 1.483, extinction about 1.5e-4); "constant tan delta contradicts hysteresis" is backwards; the noise match compares curves 8-10 decades apart (kT/h = 6.1e12 Hz [calc] against 0.1-100 kHz); antenna "20% loss = 20% noise" is off by 5e15 (20 W / kTB 4.0e-15 W [calc]); Fig. 11 has no multiplier, parameters or instrument and the comparator is a single Lorentz oscillator; flat dielectric term plus electrode ESR (tan delta = omega R_s C) reproduces the shape; circles are electrode corrosion per the cited papers. Disagreement: only wording ("Never properly tested" versus "Refuted"). Settled by splitting the claim.

Final verdict (split): - "Complex permittivity is physically wrong / implies complex c": Refuted by calculation. - "Noise and capacitor losses show the same course; antenna noise is the loss": Refuted by calculation (scales off by 8-10 decades and 15 orders). - "Dielectric loss is vortex decay": Never properly tested (one qualitative plot from a thesis Meyl supervised according to his own note [read: research/2026-10-08-google-search.md]; competing standard model never fitted; no raw data). QE revision: Meyl also ran a test of his own, which the first version of this file left out (next bullet). - "A dielectric 'sheeted' in the dual manner (silver-coated stacked ceramic) loses less than the same ceramic stripped of silver" (Meyl's own test, HF laboratory, FH Furtwangen, 11.06.1990; resonant circuit near 400 MHz on a network analyser): Never properly tested. Reported Q values: 48 (silver on, mean of 5 runs), 28 (silver polished off, mean), 9 (silver etched with dilute nitric acid; Meyl concedes the acid may have damaged the dielectric). Meyl's own account of what followed: repeats "hardly a difference", results "fluctuated extremely", and "at a critical consideration of the errors the results seemed to 'drown' in the mean variation"; the colleague who had proposed a joint paper "withdrew" [read: deep/textbook ch.19 s.1.3, PDF pp.410-412]. No uncertainties are given and removing the silver also changes the capacitor itself (electrode area, contact resistance, socket stray capacitance), so the first-run difference would not isolate vortex loss even if it had survived. Kept on record because it is Meyl's own negative-leaning result and it is the only dated, numbered test of claim 2 in the documents. - "Vortices are stored in a plexiglas plate (Kirlian 'phantom leaf', c.1990) and in microwaved water/food ('vortex decay', practical of 22.10.1996)": Never properly tested. Single uncontrolled runs; no cleaning of the plate between exposures, no blind comparison, no numbers beyond "20000 Volt" for the Kirlian set; for the microwave run no masses, volumes or power levels, and a curve that sits only 1-2 degrees C apart [read: deep/textbook ch.19 s.1.2, 1.4]. Meyl reports a negative follow-up too (a student's spark-gap map of "vortex distribution in space" showed no place dependence; Meyl's explanation is that the spark "chases away" the vortices). Ordinary explanations (residue left on the plate; heat exchange between vessel and water) are not tested by Meyl [memory, medium]. - "The E-field is not a gradient field" from a home-built charge amplifier (1989-90, pointer 'dance', the measuring point 'moved away'): Not testable as stated (no readings, no controls, no instrument drift or operator-charge test reported) [read: deep/textbook ch.19 s.1.1]. - "Capacitor electrode circles are visible proof of vortices": Tested, not supported (the cited sources call them electrode corrosion). Kept on record: noise and dielectric loss are linked in standard physics (fluctuation-dissipation); the microscopic origin of the near-constant tan delta of polymers is empirical, a fair open point (contrarian) that does not favour Meyl's mechanism.

What would settle it: the Treskatis data, fitted with relaxation distributions plus ESR against the vortex formula published beforehand, with temperature dependence.

Claim 3. Longitudinal "scalar waves" of variable speed; stability limit 1.618 c

Agreement: Delta E = grad div E - rot rot E is right; Maxwell sets the grad div term to zero in charge-free space through Gauss's law, not by oversight (claims.md wording is corrected below); the 1.618 c comes from an inward profile (outward gives 0.618 c), with tau2 = r/c chosen; the derivation sets div E = 0 and then uses a longitudinal E(x) with div E not zero; a decaying exponential carries no signal; ch.21 derivation contradicts itself (21.8 and 21.9 give phi_tt = 0). Disagreement: physicist applied SN 1987A to "superluminal Tesla radiation or neutrinos" generally. The bound is for neutrinos in 10-40 MeV [web]; it does not by itself test Meyl's vacuum scalar wave. The math reviewer's "Refuted by calculation" for longitudinal vacuum waves rests on Gauss's law, which is a feature of Maxwell's theory and not an independent experiment; the contrarian is right that the experimental statement is narrower. Physicist and contrarian agree that longitudinal waves in plasmas and fluids are standard and that Meyl's demand to measure two of f, lambda, v is sound.

Final verdict (split): - Derivation of v = 1.618 c and the antenna rule lambda_vortex = 1.618 lambda: Internally inconsistent. - A source-free longitudinal electromagnetic wave of arbitrary speed in vacuum: relabelled in the QE revision. Maxwell's equations plus Gauss's law do forbid it, but that is the theory under challenge, so "Refuted by calculation" was circular as a verdict on the experimental claim. Verdict: Tested, not supported, because Gauss's law is itself an experimental result (laboratory tests of the Coulomb inverse-square law and photon-mass limits find no departure; Williams-Faller-Hill type bounds near 1e-16 on the exponent [memory, medium, not web-checked]) and no experiment has found such a wave; seen as a measurement question at kit scale: Tested, not supported (claim 4). "Refuted by calculation" stays for Meyl's own derivation only where it contradicts itself (previous bullet). - Faster-than-light signalling by such waves or by neutrinos: Tested, not supported for neutrinos (SN 1987A, limit 2e-9); tunnelling experiments show group delays with fronts at c in the mainstream reading (Winful), while Nimtz reads them as superluminal signals; neither supports a vortex mechanism. - The same at Tesla's full scale: Never properly tested. - Longitudinal waves in matter and radial near-field components: Established (not Meyl-specific).

What would settle it: measure wavelength (node mapping) and time of flight of a gated burst along an independent path with the wire removed; v = lambda f with two measured quantities.

Claim 4. The two-coil kit

Agreement: the observations (LED glow at the receiver, load on the transmitter) are real and were reproduced by the IGF; IGF explains them as a capacitively shortened coiled Lecher line, LED clipping at 1.7 V creating odd harmonics (21.6 MHz third harmonic 15 dB above 7.2 MHz at the sender coupling coil), 3.4 mA rms in the link wire, no over-unity; Meyl's own granted patent DE 10348862 B4 describes the link as one L-C circuit with a required return conductor and no over-unity claim; the manual says a gap or cable gives "perfect coupling"; the Tesla full-scale apparatus has never been built and the IGF says so. Disagreements and rulings: - Faraday cage. Physicist: Tested, not supported. Mathematician and Contrarian: Never properly tested. Ruling: Never properly tested. The IGF report says the cage was checked in its lab but prints no measurement [read: deep/Experimente pp.3, 12]; Meyl's test has a cable or gap through the wall, and he concedes the received signal cannot show what share was scalar [read: Neutrino Power pp.108-109]. The physicist's label is stronger than the record. - 1.5 c. Physicist: Internally inconsistent; Mathematician and Contrarian: Refuted by calculation as inference. Ruling: the arithmetic 7/4.7 = 1.489 is right and the inference (equal wavelength at both resonances) is contradicted by the IGF's measured mode structure (5.35 MHz fundamental, 29.5 MHz mapped mode, non-harmonic resonances). That is Refuted by calculation as an inference; a direct speed was never measured: Never properly tested. The Tesla "1.5" and the bench "1.5" are different quantities: Tesla's 471,240 km/s equals (pi/2) c to five digits, a geometric ratio of a surface path pi R to a diameter 2R by my reading (an inference, which the contrarian also offered from Tesla's 1927 text as quoted by Gao Peng [read: vixra 1607.0130 p.3]), and Gao Peng's 4.17/2.65 = 1.57 is also close to pi/2 (coincidence not excluded). - Over-unity. All: Tested, not supported. Added from the source: Meyl's only worked power figure (book p.411) is 49 mW out, 233 mW in, 223 mW idle; 49/233 = 21%; the 490% is 49/(233-223), a difference smaller than a 5% meter error. Clausthal "1000%" is given in his FAQ as 50 mW to 500 mW with no named measurer, date or report. - The IGF report is not above criticism (contrarian): eye-matched LED brightness; wavelength 56.07 m (p.6, correct for 5.35 MHz) versus 44.4 m (p.10, corresponds to 6.75 MHz); "28% of current" inconsistent with 16 mA; no cage measurement; no wire-removed control; the flat tail of power versus spacing fits conducted transfer as well as Meyl's distance independence. The companion report adds a LED-removed control and a sender-sphere-removed observation (receiver LED still lights at 11 and 12.4 MHz). - Order of the two IGF documents. See corrections: the Weidner "follow-up" is dated 10 Aug 2001, earlier than the six-author report (Sept 2001; oscilloscope screens dated 10 Jul 2001), so it is a companion report, not a later one. Both are by the IGF (funded through the Goede foundation), which has no known commercial stake; Meyl, the kit seller, calls the IGF a "questionable private institute" and has disclosed no named confirmation.

Final verdict (split): - Wireless energy transfer and receiver "feedback": Established (as resonant coupled circuits with a conducting return, reproduced by both sides); their interpretation as scalar waves: Tested, not supported. QE revision, added from Meyl's own manual: in Experiment 2 "if the cable connection is carefully unplugged, the light emitting diodes installed onto the transmitter side shine again. The LED's, installed on the receiver side, extinguish" [read: kit manual, PDF p.19, cited in qe.md]; the Fortschrittliche and Wiesbaden texts say that with the earth lead disconnected the oscillation stops, and the Wiesbaden lecture calls the ground "indispensable as reference potential" [read: deep/Skalarwellenstrahlung s.4]. This is the most direct statement in Meyl's own words that the link needs its conductor, beside the patent's required return line. (Meyl reads the ground as a waveguide, not as a circuit element.) - Over-unity 500-1000%: Tested, not supported. QE revision: the one worked power record (December 1999, 6.7 MHz, about 2 m, M. Andresen and M. Rehm, LeCroy 9304C) is weaker than "a 5% meter error" suggests: the transmitter reads 233 mW (receiver on) and 223 mW (receiver off) at a power factor of about 0.055 (phase near 87 degrees), so 1 ns of voltage-current probe skew moves the reading by about 178 mW and the whole 10 mW difference equals about 56 ps of skew [calc, from the oscilloscope readouts in the deep read; I re-derived: apparent-power amplitude 8.49 W / 2 = 4.245 W, dP/dphi = 4.24 W/rad, 1 ns = 0.042 rad]. No deskew, no receiver-present-unloaded control and no repeat of the pair are reported. The gross efficiency from the same record is 49.1/233 = 21%. - The size of the over-unity claim differs between Meyl's own texts (see QE revision table): "ca. 10-fold" (kit advertisement in Neutrino Power, 2000), ">500%" and Clausthal "1000%" (same book), "up to 500%, in single cases more than fivefold" (Wiesbaden 2001), "1 to 3 times" (kit advertisement in the 2003 book), 4.9 for the only worked record. The Wiesbaden text says the result depends on set-up, grounding, time of day "and even the resonance capacity of the spectators"; Neutrino Power p.19 says the place and time of a measurement cannot be influenced and "considerable fluctuations" occur with the day-night rhythm and "cosmic constellations". These are uncontrolled variables named by the seller himself. - Flat spiral coils are indispensable (replace by equivalent cylindrical coils and efficiency "drops below 100%", Neutrino Power p.20): Never properly tested (stated as a prediction without data or coil parameters; a reader can try it). Meyl's own engineering reason for Tesla's flat coil is insulation along the winding (p.20); the neutrino reason is p.29. - Speed 1.5 c: Refuted by calculation (as an inference); direct speed: Never properly tested. - Faraday cage ineffective: Never properly tested. - Tesla's full-scale apparatus: Never properly tested (not dismissed without testing; never built).

What would settle it: one day in an RF lab with a clean low-harmonic source, no LEDs, calibrated true-RMS or calorimetric power at generator and load, the link wire removed as a control, a battery-powered transmitter in a welded gasketed enclosure for the cage, and a closed loop (receiver output feeds the oscillator). Records: the Clausthal lab notes of 6 July 2000, Waser (NET-Journal 12/2000), any EMC laboratory report on the suitcase.

Claim 5. Tesla radiation is neutrinos; "Neutrinopower"; the Earth and Sun grow

Agreement: Earth growth of 18-19 cm/yr is refuted by calculation (energy 6.6e10 times the whole solar neutrino flux at 0.26 MeV per neutrino; input dt/t about 100 times too large) and by space geodesy (0.1 +/- 0.2 mm/yr against 28.7 mm/yr [web]); Moon recession 5.88 m/yr in the book's model against 3.8 cm/yr measured and the sign reversed by conserving orbital angular momentum; eclipse "lens" refuted (Moon gravitational lens focal length about 1.4e16 m, 1.5 light-years [calc by physicist, reproduced by scaling]); neutrino as electron-positron-oscillating ring vortex has no equation, no cross-section, and a charge oscillating with RMS e/sqrt(2) in Meyl's own analogy conflicts with neutrino charge limits [memory, medium]; day-night "half missing" is contradicted by a small night excess [web via contrarian] (QE revision: see the correction in the QE section; Meyl's wording most likely garbles the 1998 Super-Kamiokande atmospheric result, which does not support absorption either). Disagreement: harvesting neutrino power. Physicist: Refuted by calculation; Contrarian: Never properly tested as neutrino devices. Ruling: both are right about different things. With the standard interaction (probability about 1e-12 per Earth diameter), a collector is refuted by calculation. Meyl's counter is a resonant coupling 1e10 or more times stronger; he never quantifies it. The contrarian puts the clean question (a tuned receiver in a known neutrino flux, such as a reactor, to see a coupling enhancement) that nobody has run, so for that form: Never properly tested; the device claims for railgun, Testatika, Patterson, Meyer, Searl and others were not reviewed beyond digest and are reported only as Meyl's account of other people's claims (railgun check from the digest: 0.5 x 0.317 x 4200^2 = 2.8 MJ, 17% of the 16.7 MJ input, so the stated "399 GJ" is not the muzzle energy [calc]). Kept on record: the 1996 patent DE 19614575 A1 gives the only energy budget in Meyl's work (66e9 cm^-2 s^-1, "about 27 W/m^2" if all converted, which is the correct solar flux value) and the earliest statement of the opposite-phase rule; Hilgenberg-type Earth expansion was a respectable minority position before plate tectonics; Meyl's FAQ derivation of 19.9 cm/yr adds equatorial drift rates and sets subduction to zero, which the page itself calls a "postulate" [read: research/2026-10-08-k-meyl-de.md]; Meyl's 2005 reply accepts tidal friction of 1.7 ms/century but compares it with an accumulated 7.3 s/yr (a different quantity). Moray's neutrino drop (1930s, cited in a 1960 book) is single-source in the folder and predates the neutrino's detection (1956 [memory, high]); it stays as a lead.

Final verdict (split): - Earth (and Sun) grow 18-19 cm/yr by neutrino absorption: Refuted by calculation, and Tested, not supported (space geodesy, lunar laser ranging, solar-neutrino day-night data). - Eclipse "lens" (the Moon focuses slow neutrinos 27-68 times, forecast for 11.8.1999 along Ulm-Augsburg-Freising): Refuted by calculation, now against Meyl's own mechanism (QE revision, refraction by coherent forward scattering, not a gravitational lens; numbers in the QE section). Meyl's own figures for the peak disagree (27, 28, about 2800% and 3200% for one calculation). - Dated eclipse and earthquake claims, checked against public records (QE revision): the 1999 earthquakes Meyl lists are real, but the worldwide count of M6+ events in the two months after 11.8.1999 (27) is the background rate (25); IERS length-of-day shows no acceleration at the eclipse (Earth slowing in the week after, 0.45 to 0.59 ms); the forecast of 29.3.2006 (rotation "slowing down"; "danger of earthquakes (approx. 4.4.2006) for the Island of Crete and Asia Minor") was followed by a speed-up and by nothing at Crete or in Anatolia, though an M5.5 earthquake did strike off Zakynthos (western Greece, about 400 km away) on 4.4.2006 and opened a swarm; 13.11.2012 and 21.8.2017 (South Carolina) show nothing: Tested, not supported at the places and quantities named. The 1998 Montserrat eruption (a volcano erupting since 1995), the Salt Lake City tornado (roughly 7.5 hours after greatest eclipse, umbra on the other side of the planet [memory, medium]), the unsourced Foucault-pendulum and EEG changes, and the yearly "around 21 June" deviations: Not testable as stated or not checkable (no data, institutions or sources given). - Shu-wen Zhou's reports of caesium-clock and spectral anomalies during eclipses (1987, 1992, 1995; USNO clock pair 1989-91, six events), which Meyl cites in support: Never properly tested by neutral parties. A third-party anomaly report of the Allais type, published in 21st Century Science & Technology (a magazine linked to the LaRouche movement [memory, medium]); the eclipse-pendulum and gravimeter literature is mixed and disputed [memory, medium]; a few microseconds of drift between two caesium clocks over months is ordinary clock noise [memory, medium]. Kept on record; the contrarian did not weigh it and the Investigator should obtain it. - "A still unknown resonating interaction holds galaxies together via synchronously oscillating neutrinos; stars grow by collecting them; the Sun will therefore become a red giant" (ch.10): Not testable as stated. No equation, rotation-curve data, force, frequency, flux or energy budget in pp.232-240; the text states the rotation anomaly backwards in one sentence (inner stars "slower"); standard stellar evolution attributes red giants to core exhaustion [memory, high]. - Devices relayed by Meyl (railgun, Testatika, Kromrey, Ecklin, Bedini, RQM, Hooper, Seike, Coler, Patterson, Trenergy, Meyer, Hutchison, Searl, Podkletnov): Never properly tested within these documents. Every quantitative figure is second-hand (Schneider's compilations, NET-Journal, Raum & Zeit Special 7, the Internet, company web pages, Gruber's conference report); no primary test report is in the folder; I give no verdict on any device. Meyl's own judgments belong beside them (QE revision): Testatika "may rather be given as a counterexample", air ions carry the electricity, "There thus can't be talked of free energy"; permanent-magnet machines cannot be free-energy converters by his theory; RQM lacks conversion and control; Podkletnov's 2-4% "is not exactly much". One calculation applies: the railgun's "399 GJ" (24000-fold) from 16.7 MJ input is Refuted by calculation as an energy budget unless a new energy source is accepted (the stated 0.317 kg at 4200 m/s carries 2.8 MJ, 17% of the input; 399 GJ in 0.317 kg would mean 1.6e6 m/s [calc]); the source is "the Internet", and Meyl says small replicas show no avalanche effect and that he has built no model. - Harvesting ambient neutrinos at standard cross-section: Refuted by calculation. - Resonantly enhanced neutrino coupling (the vortex-neutrino model) and "Tesla radiation = neutrinos": Not testable as stated (no cross-section, energy or detector prediction); a reactor-flux test of a receiver would make it Never properly tested. - Superluminal neutrinos: Tested, not supported (SN 1987A, 2e-9). - Historic Earth-expansion hypothesis (Hilgenberg, Carey): Historically superseded but instructive.

What would settle it: nothing new for Earth growth; the geodetic bound already excludes it. For the coupling: a calibrated receiver in a reactor or accelerator neutrino flux with on/off control.

Claim 6. The theory of objectivity

Agreement: sign error in E_z (with Meyl's geometry E(1 + v^2/c^2), not E(1 - v^2/c^2)); first-order transformations applied twice; the equation of field ratio and length ratio is a postulate ("!"); Moon "36" contradicts his own proportionality (sqrt 6 = 2.45) and the 2003 book uses 2.457 (two Meyl documents disagree); at 0.99 c the field factor is 0.02 (Meyl) against 7.09 (special relativity), measurable in beam physics; Apollo 15 not 11; the unobservability premise contradicts the astronaut anecdote; Hafele-Keating 214 ns is 273 - 59 with the sign dropped, the true difference is 332 ns [web], and his kinematic term is special relativity; Tamarack plumb line is single-source (a hollow-earth web page) and ignores 1.5 cm/K wire expansion; Schroedinger/Klein-Gordon: wrong-sign mass term (-(1/4)(1/tau1 - 1/tau2)^2 <= 0), two meanings of omega, constant U = m c^2/2 = 255.5 keV, v = c: a free wave, no atom. Disagreements and rulings: - Particle masses. Physicist: Tested, not supported; Mathematician: Refuted by calculation; Contrarian: Not testable as stated. Ruling: the table gives numbers that can be compared with measurement, so it is testable and it fails as a derivation: one anchor (m_p = 1836 m_e), muon given as input (9 x 207), free choice of shell structure ("an infinite lot of combinations are conceivable"), the single derived ratio m_p/m_mu = 9 against 8.88 (+1.35%), neutron-proton excess 39 times too large, tau +8.6%, pi- +24.5%. Verdict Tested, not supported as a derivation; no new prediction was ever made. - Proton radius. Physicist: a quantitative prediction that matched in size; Mathematician and Contrarian: failed on later data. Ruling: it matched the 2010-2013 state of the puzzle (0.84087/0.886 = 0.949 against predicted 0.9483, but one chosen electron value). After PRad (2019) and CODATA 2018 (0.8414(19) fm) the ratio is about 1 [web]. Tested, not supported. Credit stays on record: it is the only specific, falsifiable, numerical output of the programme, and Meyl stated it in writing before the 2019 data. - Hafele-Keating as support: Refuted by calculation (physicist, mathematician), contrarian concurs implicitly; also note the experiment's data quality is disputed by a minority [web], which does not rescue Meyl's number. Kept on record: Boscovich (1755) argued that only ratios of lengths are observable, a respectable philosophical idea; since 1983 the metre is defined through c, so c in m/s is definitional (contrarian) [memory, high]; the Titius-Bode derivation is the identity for any Kepler orbit with a fit of -20% to +19%, comparable to the real Titius-Bode law.

Final verdict (split): - "Fields set lengths and c (E, H ~ 1/l^2, c ~ l)": Internally inconsistent; and Tested, not supported (accelerator beam fields rise as gamma; lunar laser ranging and LRO consistent with mapped distances). - Moon, Hubble and Tamarack anecdotes (QE revision: "not controlled tests" is not a scale verdict, so each gets its own): Moon factor "36": Internally inconsistent (Meyl's own proportionality gives sqrt 6 = 2.45; the 2003 book uses 2.457; 36 appears in Neutrino Power p.191 and in both Objektivitaetstheorie papers, corrected in QE revision 2); Hubble 1990-94 blur: Tested, not supported (the cause was a primary-mirror manufacturing error, spherical aberration, corrected in December 1993 [memory, high]); Tamarack plumb line: Never properly tested (single-source account, original records not in the folder, and thermal expansion of 1.5 cm/K over 1.3 km of wire would mimic the 47 cm). - Particle masses from vortex shells: Tested, not supported (as a derivation). - Schroedinger and Klein-Gordon "derivation": Internally inconsistent. - Hafele-Keating as support: Refuted by calculation. - 2014 proton-radius prediction: Tested, not supported. - Gravitation = closed field lines, electromagnetism = open: Not testable as stated (no G, no 1/r^2, no force law). - QE revision 2 (from Neutrino Power pp.133-222): length law undetectable from inside any laboratory, in Meyl's own words: Not testable as stated; proton moment "opposite its spin", neutron = proton + electron, anti-suns as common as suns, electrons larger than nucleons: Tested, not supported; no strong interaction, orbits without gravity, day length, refractive light bending: Not testable as stated (details in QE revision 2).

What would settle it: beam-diagnostic data on transverse fields of a 0.99 c bunch (routine, already against Meyl); a derivation of G or of the 1e36 ratio.

Claim 7. Scalar waves as biological carrier; electrosmog; vibration medicine

Agreement (reworded in the QE revision; the first version said "no measurement data or trials in the documents", which was incomplete): the Wiesbaden lecture offers no trial, patient data or measurement series for nerve conduction, tinnitus or cancer [read: deep/Skalarwellenstrahlung, Short answer]; but two items in the documents are tests of a kind, treated below (Meyl's informal electrosensitivity test of 14.06.1997 and the Bonn rouleaux study); nerve argument leaves out saltatory conduction; unit conversions (900 MHz wave mapped to 1.07 kHz using the speed of sound) are arbitrary; cancer as neutrino-capture deficiency is introduced as a "discussable approach" without a number; 2013 retractions were for fourfold duplicate publication after a complaint by the president of the Austrian sceptics' society (a critic and an interested party), with a reviewer comment "way out there" but possibly right: no experiment was refuted; Meyl's concessions are on record (frequency therapy "should not work" by present physics; the zapper hits beneficial bacteria; a scalar telephone needs more than 40 years; dowsing can be self-influenced). Disagreement: physicist labelled nerve conduction Tested, not supported; mathematician and contrarian Not testable/Never properly tested. Ruling: split. Action potentials and saltatory conduction are measured directly as ionic currents (Hodgkin-Huxley), a single travelling pulse and not a standing pattern [memory, high], so the specific statement "nerve conduction is a longitudinal standing wave" is Tested, not supported. The general scalar-wave information-carrier and electrosmog harm have no defined measurable quantity.

Final verdict (split): - Nerve conduction as a longitudinal standing scalar wave: Tested, not supported. - (QE revision, detail) The nerve statement is a worked number, not a measurement: node spacing 1 mm taken as lambda/2, conduction speed 120 m/s taken from physiology, so f = 120 / 0.002 = 60 kHz; no 60 kHz signal on a nerve is offered [read: deep/Skalarwellenstrahlung s.1]. The tinnitus argument maps 900 MHz-range carriers to about 1 kHz by dividing by c / (speed of sound), assumed to hold for cell signalling. Meyl's own hedges are on record: "wahrscheinlich", "moeglicherweise"; frequency therapy "should not work" by present physics; the zapper is a "shotgun into the forest"; bioresonance has "only a subordinate role" and can make patients worse; "enormous research need". The "over 50 universities" who measure the kit are itemised only as Edinburgh, Vienna, Stanford and TU Beijing in one sentence, with no result, name or report [read: deep/Skalarwellenstrahlung s.4]. - Scalar share of mobile-phone and broadcast fields harms health; bioresonance, zapper and frequency therapy work through scalar tunnelling; cancer as neutrino starvation: Not testable as stated (Meyl says the scalar share cannot be measured with present instruments); no controlled trial exists: Never properly tested. - Mobile-phone "blood rouleaux" (Geldrollen) demonstration as proof of an effect (Meyl cites the "blood roll phenomenon"): Tested, not supported, for the demonstration method only. Gollnick and Conrad (Physiological Institute, University of Bonn) repeated the live dark-field "vital blood" demonstration in their own laboratory (phase contrast, many preparations, with and without a call, and a no-call control from the same person): rouleaux appeared "entirely independent of the test conditions", differed between preparations, subjects and regions of one slide, and "in no case" was any effect of a call found; the subject with the strongest rouleaux had never used a phone. Limits stated plainly: numbers of subjects, preparations, call length, phone type, blinding and statistics are not given in the newsletter note; it tests the demonstration, not whether RF fields act on blood (the authors say proper studies "are missing to date"). Stake: printed in the newsletter of the Forschungsgemeinschaft Funk (FGF), a Bonn association founded through the federal post ministry in 1992 whose members include network operators and manufacturers, and which says it commissions independent universities; the FGF's neutrality statements are its own and the minister's [read: deep/Newsletter A1-A8, B1-B7]. Funding of the Bonn work is not stated. Meyl's side of this item (his own demonstration of the effect) is not in the folder. - Electrosensitive subject detects whether the receiver's grounding is clamped (weekend seminar, 14.06.1997): Never properly tested. One informal session: a self-described electrosensitive woman answered "now" prompts every 5 s; "after a training round her proportion of hits was lying at 100 percent"; a second subject with a pendulum at the back of the room was also right; Meyl adds that he has repeated it "several times with different success". Number of trials, how the on/off order was chosen and the failed sessions are not given; the experimenter who knew the state was in the room, the audience could see the oscilloscope, and clamping a lead makes sound. Single-source (Meyl) and unblinded as far as described [read: deep/textbook ch.19 s.1.6, PDF p.418]. - Non-thermal biological effects of RF fields in general: outside Meyl's claim; a separate open mainstream debate not ruled on here. - Legal claim (Basic Law Art. 2): not a physics claim.

What would settle it: a defined, measurable "scalar share" first; then a blinded exposure study.

Corrections to earlier documents

(The orchestrator applies these.) 1. claims.md, "Records ... not in the folder" (Tesla US 787,412): says "the 471,240 km/s and 12 Hz statements are Meyl's readings of it". Correction: 471,240 km/s is Tesla's own sentence in the patent; the patent contains no "12 Hz" and no "Schumann" (it says "the lowest frequency would appear to be six per second" and a wave-train of "not less than one-twelfth ... of a second"); Meyl's "12 Hz" matches 471,240 / 40,030 = 11.8 Hz. [web: https://patents.google.com/patent/US787412A/en]. Both the physicist and the contrarian reached this; I confirmed it. Deep reads that tag it [memory, low] should be retagged [web]. 2. claims.md, claim 3: "the grad div part of the wave equation, which Maxwell's theory sets to zero". Correct to: Gauss's law gives div E = 0 in charge-free space; with sources the equation has a grad rho term (physicist, mathematician, contrarian). 3. claims.md claim 3: "hence v = 1.618 c" should state that this holds for an inward-moving profile; the outward profile gives 0.618 c. 4. claims.md claim 4 ("every number rests on LED brightness, a frequency ratio ... or unnamed confirmations"): incomplete. Book p.411 gives 49 mW out, 233 mW in, 223 mW idle; "490%" = 49/(233-223); gross 21%. The digest-level sentence is now read at source level in the extracted text. 5. claims.md claim 5 ("No energy balance ... is attempted in the papers"): true of the papers; the 1996 patent DE 19614575 A1 gives 27 W/m^2, which is a 6.6e10 shortfall against the Earth-growth requirement. 6. claims.md claim 5: "18-19 cm per year" should carry that its input (0.71 s/yr, an accumulated leap-second level equal to the day's excess over 86,400 s) is not a yearly change of the day; the real rate is about 100 times smaller (85 to 114 depending on 2.3 or 1.7 ms/century), and Meyl's input would lengthen the day 1.9 ms every year. 7. physicist.md, section 5 and section 9 item 7: "62x using 1.7 ms/century". Wrong: 1.7 ms/century gives 114x; 2.3 ms/century gives 85x [calc]. 8. physicist.md, claim 5(b): "0 +/- 0.2 mm/yr" for the radius bound; Wu et al. report 0.1 +/- 0.2 mm/yr (1 sigma) [web]. 9. physicist.md claim 3 verdict, "Superluminal 'Tesla radiation' or neutrinos: Tested, not supported (SN 1987A ...)": SN 1987A applies to neutrinos (10-40 MeV), not to Meyl's electromagnetic scalar waves; those are covered by the kit tests and Gauss's law. 10. physicist.md claim 4, "Faraday cage ineffective: Tested, not supported". Not supported by the record; neither side printed a cage measurement. Corrected here to Never properly tested. 11. physicist.md claim 6: proton-radius prediction treated as an open or partly matched item with [memory, medium] on later data. Corrected here: PRad 2019 and CODATA 2018 [web] give a ratio near 1; the prediction failed. 12. claims.md, "Independent evidence" and several reviews call the Weidner report (meyl2, 10 Aug 2001) the IGF "follow-up". Its date is earlier than the six-author report (September 2001; oscilloscope screens of 10 Jul 2001; Wayback capture of the meyl1 page shows "Last Update 12 Jul 2001"). Call it the "companion report by H. Weidner", not a later one. Why the six-author PDF is dated September 2001 while its web page was updated in July is not explained in the files (possible later revision of the PDF). 13. claims.md wavelength note: 56.07 m is correct for 5.35 MHz; 44.4 m corresponds to 6.75 MHz [calc]; also the IGF's "28% of oscillator current" implies 12 mA, while the power figure uses 16 mA (21%). 14. claims.md Corrections list, "Moon factor 36 (eq. 11 gives 2.45)": add that Meyl's own 2003 book (eq. 13.29) uses 2.457. (QE revision 2: the earlier wording "only Objektivitaetstheorie 2 says 36" was wrong; 36 is also in Neutrino Power p.191 and Objektivitaetstheorie 1.) 15. facts.json / deep reads: the mathematician's digest-level "eight orders" versus the Consequences read's "ten decades" for the noise rise gap: both are right, 8 to 10 depending on the end of the 0.1-100 kHz range. 16. The Treskatis thesis: papers say "a colleague at the university for theoretical physics"; Meyl's own note (via the Investigator's Google result) says he supervised it in summer term 2010; text should read "bachelor thesis supervised by Meyl according to his own note; no second laboratory". 17. The 5% / 10% near-field supply figures differ between Meyl texts (10% in the JSE paper and Longitudinalwellen, 5% in Fortschrittliche); neither is measured; the same paper also gives "factor 1-10" and "less than 5%" (a factor of 20). 18-31. Added in the QE revision: see "Corrections from the QE revision" below.

Pertinent material kept on the record next to the verdicts

• The effects in the kit manual are reproducible; the IGF reproduced them before explaining them; Meyl's own granted patent describes the link as a conventional L-C circuit with a return conductor.
• Meyl states the methodological point that v = lambda f needs two measured quantities; he concedes the cage, tunnel and antenna output cannot tell which share was scalar from the start.
• Gao Peng (viXra 1607.0130, 2016, Beijing Wellan Century Co.): a torsion-balance rotation near a 45 W dual Tesla coil, frame direction flipping with frame size, on/off controls only, no dummy load, electrostatic or draft control described; one independent positive report, unreplicated.
• Runckel (Ulm), named by Meyl as his academic supporter, is known only through Bruhn's rebuttal; his text was not found. The geometric-series sum credited to him is arithmetically right for v < c.
• Bruhn (TU Darmstadt, a mathematician and an organised critic, GWUP; an interested party on the critics' side) argued that the basic equations give transverse waves with |v| = c; Meyl replied that Bruhn is a "Betrueger" and that "famous professors" rechecked (unnamed). My calculation above agrees with Bruhn's mathematical point. The JSE editorial printed Meyl's paper with Bruhn's critique because the talk was already on the web.
• Furtwangen dean (2002): independent opinions "im Meyl'schen Sinn negativ", positive ones unnamed; chancellor Kusserow (2008): Meyl may not lecture on scalar waves. The university is an interested party in its own reputation; the dean's quotation comes through Bruhn.
• Proton-radius prediction: stated before the 2019 data, matched the 2010-13 muonic puzzle in size, failed against 2019 and later data.
• Retractions 2013: duplicate publication, no experiment refuted; the venues (Ashdin, OMICS, PIERS proceedings, one JSE paper) bear on how much refereeing there was [memory, medium; not web-checked].
• Seller stake: Meyl sells the kit (800 and 1400 EUR) and says the manual deliberately omits winding data; the publisher/interviewer of Neutrino Power, the raum&zeit group and the FGF newsletter publisher each have a stake.

Absence-of-evidence analysis

Where the record goes dark: (a) independent replication or refutation of the kit after the two IGF documents of 2001 (only Waser 12/2000, cited by IGF and not obtained, and Gao Peng 2016 appear); (b) the Clausthal "1000%" and "over 50 universities" confirmations never named; (c) the Treskatis data and the PIERS 2012 formula; (d) the INDEL company and Meyl's own output after about 2014 (INDEL accounts found to 2012 only; managing-director change 25 March 2024; the Psiram stroke report for 2014 is one critic-wiki source with no second source; retirement 2018 reported; the announced March 2004 "withdrawal from scalar waves", reported by Bruhn, not found in the Wayback). The work did not stop: kits and devices were on sale in 2026 and new items appear on k-meyl.de (contrarian).

Competing explanations, with evidence for and against: 1. Nothing more to find: the IGF explanation is right and serious laboratories saw no reason to repeat it. For: no later replication of over-unity; Meyl's own patent and book (21%) agree with an ordinary circuit. Against: Meyl says hundreds of tests exist (unnamed); absence of a rebuttal paper is also what an ignored claim looks like. 2. Institutional distance: universities and journals distanced themselves, so the inventor lacked independent measurement access. For: Furtwangen's teaching ban and dean statement; the JSE printed a critique beside the paper; venues shifted to Ashdin/OMICS/PIERS. Against: the IGF invited Meyl to repeat tests at its lab and no reply is on record (absence of a record is not proof of no reply). 3. Commercial incentive: selling kits and devices reduces incentive to publish a clean test; partner names are withheld for privacy (Meyl). For: kit sales continue; prices rise (2008 devices "knapp 10000 Euro"). Against: none found; a seller can also be a sincere inventor. 4. Personal circumstances: illness (2014, one critic-wiki source), retirement (2018). For: quieter output after 2014-2016. Against: new work posted later, no second source on the stroke. 5. Records held by the inventor or by third parties that never reached the public: the Clausthal lab notes, EMC laboratory reports, INDEL customer correspondence and returns. Records that would decide between them: Clausthal institute records for 6 July 2000; the Treskatis thesis from the University of Konstanz; Bundesanzeiger filings 2010-2012 and Handelsregister history for INDEL (Freiburg HRB 603012); DPMA file histories for DE 19614575 and DE 10348862; Waser's NET-Journal 12/2000 article; any IGF correspondence after August 2001; Furtwangen faculty minutes 2002-2008; Meyl's 2016 book "Der Skalarwellenkrieg"; the Annalen der Physik referee report or 1990 correspondence on "Potentialwirbel in der Elektrodynamik" (QE revision 2).

What would settle it (summary)

1. Kit: low-harmonic source, no LEDs, calibrated power at both ends, link wire removed, welded isolated enclosure, closed loop. One day's work.
2. 1.5 c: node-mapped wavelength at each resonance plus gated-burst time of flight.
3. tau2: Treskatis/PIERS data against relaxation plus ESR, a bound from vacuum propagation of light.
4. Neutrino coupling: a tuned receiver in a reactor flux, on/off control.
5. Objectivity: beam transverse fields at 0.99 c (routine; Meyl 0.02, relativity 7.09).
6. Tesla: full-scale magnifying transmitter replication, which the IGF itself asked for.

Open questions

• What did the TU Clausthal "control survey" (6 July 2000) measure, and with what instruments?
• What are the raw tan delta data and the vortex-loss formula behind Fig. 11 (Treskatis 2010; PIERS 2012)?
• Is a time-of-flight speed of any Meyl-type link above c at all?
• Is there any coupling enhancement of neutrinos in resonance? Meyl's model assumes 1e10 or more.
• Why does the six-author IGF report carry September 2001 when its web page was updated in July, and what became of the IGF's Faraday-cage check?
• Did Meyl or the IGF reply to the invitation to repeat tests?
• What did Runckel actually write?
• Why was the 2004 "withdrawal" announced and then reversed?
• (Closed in the QE revision: the device chapters and ch.19-20 are now deep-read.) New open items: the NET-Journal 7/8-1999 forecast article and the Magazin 2000plus eclipse articles (nr.148, 150, 151) that hold Meyl's data; the "EMC laboratory" with a CE declaration; the "over 50 universities"; Tesla's Colorado Springs notes for the 200-lamp story; a deskewed repeat of the December 1999 power measurement.

Per-claim summary table

QE revision (2026-10-08, arbiter, after qe.md and the remediation deep reads)

QE verdict was MINOR: claims 1-6 held, claim 7 and the eclipse part of claim 5 needed rewording. Inputs: qe.md; the new deep reads in deep/ (textbook ch.8.2-10, ch.14-18, ch.19-20; Neutrino Power pp.1-60 and 223-302; Wiesbaden lecture pp.1-14; FGF newsletter pp.4-7, 13-14); sites.md and the Investigator notes. Tags as above. Verdict changes are already written into the claim sections and the summary table; this section lists them, gives the evidence, and keeps the pertinent material.

1. What changed in the verdicts

No verdict on claims 1 and the main splits of claims 2-6 reverses. The scale label of two items changed (3b vacuum wave; 6b anecdotes); the rest are additions.

2. Eclipse "lens": the calculation against Meyl's own mechanism

Meyl's model: slow solar neutrinos are refracted "like a glass ball" by the Moon, so the Moon focuses them on the umbra axis, 27 to 68 times the natural flux (the text says 28, Fig. 20.2 says 27, Fig. 20.3 plots about 3200%, p.428 says 2800%: three peak values for one calculation) [read: deep/textbook ch.20 s.2.1]. The right check is the refractive index of matter for neutrinos from coherent forward scattering on electrons: n - 1 = -V/E with V = sqrt(2) G_F N_e, where G_F is the Fermi constant (1.166e-5 GeV^-2 [memory, high]) and N_e the electron number density. For lunar rock (3.34 g/cm^3, about half the nucleons paired with an electron, N_e about 1.0e24 per cm^3) V = 1.27e-13 eV [calc, .venv Python, 2026-10-08], so |n - 1| = 1.3e-19 at 1 MeV and 4.9e-19 at 0.26 MeV (the mean energy implied by the patent's 27 W/m^2). A ball lens of radius R = 1.74e6 m has focal length about R / (2|n - 1|) = 7e24 m, some 7e8 light-years. To focus on the Earth, 3.6e8 m away, Meyl needs |n - 1| about 2.4e-3, which is 1.9e16 times what coherent scattering gives [calc]. For electron neutrinos in matter the sign makes the Moon (if anything) a weak diverging lens, not a convex one [memory, medium]. Meyl's escape is a "slow neutrino" with a much larger coupling; the model gives no energy, cross-section or index for it, so that premise is Not testable as stated. Verdict: Refuted by calculation for the lens, Not testable as stated for the slow-neutrino premise. The gravitational-lens focal length (1.4e16 m) in physicist.md and the claim 5 text above stays arithmetically right but is not the argument to quote.

3. Dated forecasts and after-the-fact claims, checked against public records

Meyl invites the check himself: "anyone with my indications and an eclipse of the sun-CD can analyse at home all further events" [read: textbook p.448]. Queries I re-ran on 2026-10-08 against the USGS ComCat service [web: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/fdsnws/event/1/query]: M5+ events in 33-42 N, 20-45 E from 2006-03-29 to 2006-04-15 return M5.0 Latakia coast 29.3; M5.0 3.4, M5.5 4.4.2006 22:05 UTC, then M5.5, M5.5, M5.7 on 11-12.4 off Zakynthos (37.6 N, 20.9 E); M5.3 on 9.4 south of Karpathos; nothing in Anatolia. M2.5+ in 31-36 N, 84-78 W from 2017-08-21 to 2017-12-31 returns two North Carolina events (M2.5, M2.7). M6+ worldwide from 1999-08-11 to 1999-10-11 returns 27 events. The deep reader's other records (IERS EOP 20 C04 length of day: 1999 week before 0.448 ms, week after 0.586 ms, Earth slowing; 2006 week before 1.097 ms, week after 1.103 ms with a fall of about 1.4 ms in the following week, Earth speeding up; background 1505 M6+ events in 1995-2004, 25 expected in 61 days) are [web via deep read, https://hpiers.obspm.fr/iers/eop/eopc04/eopc04.1962-now; not re-fetched by me]. Both LOD windows are dominated by the regular 13.66-day zonal tide, which moves LOD about +/-0.5-0.7 ms [memory, high].

Reading, with the caveats a reader should weigh: - Fair to Meyl: the earthquakes he lists for 1999 exist (Izmit M7.6, Chi-Chi M7.7), and an M5.5 earthquake struck on the day he named in 2006 (4 April), 400 km from Crete, inside a swarm above the local background (about 0.35 expected M5.5+ events in 18 days in the wide box, 4 events of M5.5 or more between 4 and 12 April; but a swarm is one cluster, not four independent hits) [calc via deep read]. He forecast "Crete and Asia Minor", not western Greece, and the Cyprus quake he ties to 11.8.1999 came about four hours before the shadow touched Earth [web via deep read]. - Against: no excess of large earthquakes worldwide after 11.8.1999; no nearby event at Crete or in Anatolia in 2006; nothing at the named places after 13.11.2012 and 21.8.2017; the LOD changes have the wrong sign for both Meyl statements (acceleration after 1999; slowing after 2006). His reply that he means the core, not the crust, is on the record, but his own words are "a proven temporary acceleration of the rotation of the earth", and LOD is the public record of that quantity. A 1 ms change in day length is a fractional change of 1.2e-8, far below anything a Foucault pendulum shows, so a pendulum deviation cannot be a change in the Earth's rotation (it would have to be some other horizontal force, the Allais-effect question). - Meyl's "6 to 7 day rhythm" of aftershocks: only the last three of his five intervals fit (2, 12, 7, 6, 7 days) and half the zonal-tide period is 6.83 days, so a 6-7 day spacing needs no core effect [calc and inference via deep read]. - Status: one dated, single-event forecast per eclipse cannot be a statistical test either way. A proper test fixes regions and windows in advance and repeats for every eclipse (not the ones picked); nobody has run it. For the named places, Tested, not supported; Meyl's after-the-fact links (Montserrat, Salt Lake City, pendulum, EEG) cannot be checked or are coincidences of likely events (Montserrat's volcano had erupted continuously since 1995 [memory, high]).

4. Over-unity figures across Meyl's own texts

The spread from 1 to 10 within three years of the same kit is itself pertinent. The Clausthal claim is Meyl's report of a third party's result, by the seller of the kit, with no document: it is described as that, not labelled.

5. The Kelvin-Tesla 1897 story: the original read (web check, replaces "not obtained")

Tesla's own account exists and Meyl's reference is right: Nikola Tesla, "Famous Scientific Illusions", part III, "The Singular Misconception of the Wireless", Electrical Experimenter, February 1919 [web: http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-02-00.htm; the page header reads February 1919]. The deep reader's recollection of May 1919 and of a missing Kelvin passage was wrong [memory, medium, now corrected]. Tesla writes that in "the summer of 1897 Lord Kelvin happened to pass thru New York" and visited his laboratory; Kelvin "condemned my project in emphatic terms ... 'an illusion and a snare'"; the next day he asked "Then you are not making use of Hertz waves?" and Tesla answered "Certainly not ... these are radiations. No energy could be economically transmitted to a distance by any such agency. In my system the process is one of true conduction which, theoretically, can be effected at the greatest distance without appreciable loss." Kelvin then became "the warmest of supporters". The words "longitudinal" and "transverse" do not occur on that page, and neither does "Both are right, Tesla as well as Hertz". That sentence, the claim that Kelvin pronounced Tesla's wave longitudinal, and Kelvin's later vortex models as a consequence are Meyl's additions, with no source of their own. Meyl's Neutrino Power (pp.39-45) reproduces the two-day dialogue closely and then adds reconstructed inner thoughts. The visit is therefore documented in one published source, Tesla's own 1919 retelling twenty-two years later; Tesla is an interested party in his own priority. The date 1897 matches Tesla; the PIERS 2012/2013 papers' "1887" [read: qe.md, digest] is a slip in those papers. Weight: the visit is Tesla's testimony and plausible (Kelvin was in the United States in 1897 [memory, medium]); what Kelvin concluded about the physics is Meyl's gloss.

6. Day-night "half missing": correction to this file's earlier sentence

This file said Meyl's "half of the solar neutrinos missing at night" is "contradicted by a small night excess". That remains true for solar neutrinos (Super-Kamiokande finds a few per cent more at night [web via contrarian]). But Meyl's wording in Neutrino Power p.28 ("a Japanese team at Kamiokande reported ... at night only half as many solar neutrinos") most probably garbles the 1998 Super-Kamiokande atmospheric result, which found a zenith-angle-dependent deficit of muon neutrinos coming up through the Earth [web: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1562 (abstract read via search result)]; the "about half" for up-going events is [memory, medium] and the identification of Meyl's source is my inference, not stated in his text. Either way the published explanation is flavour oscillation over the path length, with the total flux conserved, not absorption in the Earth, so the result does not support "the Earth core collects neutrinos". Meyl himself writes that the cause is "an unknown interaction" of neutrinos in the Earth (p.28).

7. Corrections from the QE revision (for the orchestrator to apply)

18. arbiter.md claim 7 and primer.md 4.7, "no measurement data or trials": corrected above (claim 7 section): Wiesbaden offers none for the three medical mechanisms, but Meyl's 14.06.1997 grounding session and the Bonn rouleaux study are in the documents. [read: textbook PDF p.418; newsletter p.7]
19. arbiter.md claim 2, "one qualitative plot": the 1990 Q test (Q 48 / 28 / 9; later "drowned in the mean variation") is added above. The Q figure is on PDF p.411 (book p.400), the narrative on PDF pp.410 and 412 (book pp.399, 401); qe.md quoted "book p.412". Numbers correct. [read: deep/textbook ch.19 s.1.3]
20. arbiter.md claim 5, eclipse lens (and physicist.md claim 5): replace the gravitational-lens argument with the refractive estimate in section 2; add the checked forecasts in section 3.
21. arbiter.md claim 5, day-night sentence: see section 6 (add that Meyl's "half" is probably the atmospheric up-going deficit, explained by oscillation).
22. arbiter.md claim 3b label: changed to Tested, not supported (section 1). primer.md and claims.md, wherever "Refuted by calculation (Gauss's law)" is the verdict on a vacuum longitudinal wave, should read as here.
23. arbiter.md claim 6b: each anecdote now has its own scale verdict (section 1). The Hubble blur was a mirror manufacturing error; physicist.md already says so.
24. arbiter.md claim 4, "5% meter error": right in direction, understated in size. The dominant uncertainty is probe skew at a power factor of 0.055 (56 ps equals the whole 10 mW). Also correct claims.md claim 4 ("over-unity of 500-1000%") with the spread in section 4.
25. arbiter.md Source gap and "Records not obtained": the Tesla 1919 Electrical Experimenter article is obtained (section 5). claims.md should add that the quoted "Both are right" sentence is not in it.
26. arbiter.md correction 1 (Tesla's 12 Hz): add that the textbook (p.214) reads the same patent number a second way: 0.08484 s taken as half a period gives about 6 Hz (1/(2 x 0.08484) = 5.89 Hz), a full wave of two circumferences against the 7.8 Hz Schumann value, and 1.6 c with a polar radius of 6363 km (2 pi x 6363 km / 0.08484 s = 471,239 km/s = 1.572 c [calc]). The two readings (12 Hz in the kit lectures, 6 Hz in the book) are numerically consistent under Meyl's own reading, but both treat 0.08484 s as a measured transit time around the Earth; the patent text I read gives it as "not less than one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second" for a wave-train, and 471,240 km/s as Tesla's own number (correction 1 above). The c / circumference value is 7.5 Hz [calc].
27. facts.json / claims.md: the Colorado Springs story differs between two Meyl texts: 42 km (Neutrino Power p.22; 880 m wire, 43 m antenna, 1898) against 25 miles = 40.2 km (textbook p.202, "press reports at that time"); 200 lamps x 50 W = 10 kW in both, i.e. 100% of the transmitter power, not over-unity. No source given for either; Meyl's own text calls the lamps "fluorescent", which did not exist then [memory, medium].
28. facts.json: Neutrino Power p.226 prints "B = v x B" where E = v x B is meant [read: page image p.226, deep read]. Any file quoting that relation should quote E = v x B.
29. facts.json / claims.md (kit): the digest error noted in qe.md (JSE p.7: pulling the receiver earth lights the transmitter LED, not the receiver LED) stands as qe.md says; the manual's Experiment 2 says the same.
30. The deep read of the 2003 textbook's Kelvin passage tags the Electrical Experimenter issue as "[memory, medium] May 1919"; retag as February 1919 [web] (section 5).
31. facts.json: add the third-party device figures with their sources (railgun 16.7 MJ / 0.317 kg / 4200 m/s / 399 GJ; Testatika 2 kW; Coler "450%" per Kloss and Franke and "4.8 to 6.7 times" per Schumann, from one compilation; Patterson "up to 4000", "80% less radioactivity" per Gruber; Meyer 2.8 L/100 km and "10000 percent"; Podkletnov 2-4%; Bedini 12.6), all as Meyl's report of second-hand claims, and Meyl's own concessions (section 8).

8. Pertinent material kept on the record (added by the QE revision)

Meyl's own negative results and scepticism, kept beside the claims they bear on: - Neutrino Power p.240: a magnetic converter whose inventor phoned "three kilowatts output in continuous operation"; Meyl saw it run and says it gave more than shaft input, but "the effects could not be reproduced in my laboratory so far ... we could not yet reach an over-unity effect", and offers as one possible cause "the absence of the inventor", which he elsewhere develops into the idea that an inventor may act "as field modulator" (p.241). Read both ways: an honest report of a failed reproduction by the claimant's own champion, and a hypothesis that makes a failed replication uninformative unless the inventor is present. A coil set "burned itself out above 10 kW" (no one stated to have measured it). The inventor designed the device after talking to Meyl, so Meyl is a participant, not a neutral witness. Neutrino Power p.238: "none" of his rebuilds of Seike's windings worked. p.227: small railguns built by universities and hobbyists show no avalanche effect, which he attributes to an unstated minimum energy; "I have not yet built a model". - Textbook p.346 (PDF): "I judge these measurements rather sceptical, after I already in three cases had to break the message gently to the inventors that their device ... was nothing but an energy destroying machine and they merely had measured wrong"; he recommends the closed-loop demonstration as the only convincing test, and no device in pp.295-400 is reported to have run closed-loop. He applies that caution to magnetic devices but not to the same degree to the others in the text. - Testatika (p.334, 336): "such an electrostatic device in principle is entirely unsuitable for the continuous operation"; "There thus can't be talked of free energy". Meyl's own chapter 19 framing: "of course can't be read much from a handicrafts self experiment" (p.404). - The Searl estimate mixes "80000 revolutions per minute" and "per second": V = (1/2) B omega r^2 gives 251 kV at 80,000 rev/s, not 511 kV; the unit and the factor are unclear in the source [calc via deep read]. - The Annalen der Physik rejection (April 1990), Meyl's account only (Neutrino Power pp.213-214, now deep-read; wording refined in QE revision 2): his paper "Potentialwirbel in der Elektrodynamik" was refused; as he reports it, "it was argued" (passive, no one named) that the potential vortex is dispensable because Maxwell's theory covers all phenomena, and "a referee writes" that where it does not, "our approximation methods are not yet sufficient"; the journal is named by the interviewer, and Meyl answers without correcting it. Single-source (the inventor in an interview book); no second source found. Belongs in the absence-of-evidence analysis as the inventor's description of how the idea was received. - Dropped Investigator leads, restored: DE 10 2014 109 660 A1 (filed 2014, withdrawn; remote transfer of information through a modulated carrier in a self-resonant LC circuit with organic fluids in the coils, Meyl's patent form of claim 7); DE 10 2021 127 321 A1 (2021, withdrawn; magnetised gas before compression in an expansion engine, late work); the 2005 Hamburg lecture hosted by an industrial association and the 2008 Suedwest-Messe show (interest, not tests); the Bearden MEG and Evans AIAS circle cited in support at DGEIM 2003; the egm "Wirbelwandler" advisory board (a stake); Kuehlke's critique (a Furtwangen physicist; not online); H. J. Herrmann's statement that his Stuttgart institute never worked on scalar waves (via Bruhn); the plant ATP and plant-growth papers (2015-2016) and the PIERS Prague 2015 proton-size paper. None looks dropped for being negative; they were dropped for length. [read: sites.md, research/2026-10-08-google-patents-espacenet.md] - Stakes added: the kit and its price list (demo set 800 EUR, experiment set 1400 EUR in 2000), the SWG-A "scalar wave device" at 3950 EUR for placing substances with "biological information" in the coil field (commercial stake in claim 7) [read: digest kit manual p.34, via qe.md]; Meyl says telecom firms bought his books but declined funding and his students are paid from a private donation fund (Neutrino Power p.295); he is president of a "Society for the Advantage of Physics" and sits on the egm advisory board; the publishers and organisers of the interview book (Argo-Verlag, Magazin 2000plus) sell the book and the congress. - Named but unnamed confirmations: "over 50 universities" (Edinburgh, Vienna, Stanford, TU Beijing named, no results); an "EMC laboratory" that "checked and confirmed" the cage test with a CE declaration; "hundreds of measurements at more serious institutes"; press items listed by Meyl (Spiegel 21.5.2001, Suedkurier 23.4.2003, a DVR note of 4.4.2003). These are leads for the Investigator, not evidence. - Third-party witness statements relayed by Meyl, as reports: Gruber (president of a space-energy association) on Patterson cell radioactivity reduction ("up to 80%", visit to CETI on 28.5.1997 with N. J. Olson of Pacific Northwest Laboratory and an ABC team) [read: textbook p.370]; Coler's device, in which "Professors Kloss and Franke of the Technical University of Berlin found a degree of effectiveness of 450%" and Schumann "4.8 to 6.7 times", with the documents confiscated by British intelligence and partly declassified in 1962, from one compilation (Schneider 1994, p.22). The Coler record goes dark at a confiscation; this is a gap to analyse (a declassified British report is the record that would decide it), not a neutral absence. - Meyl's Casimir test, offered by him as falsifiable: measure the force between plates of metal A, of metal B, and one of each; if the force "goes back measurably, then the quantum physical interpretation would be wrong clearly" (textbook footnote p.388). Not reported as done. - Meyl's cold-fusion-scene view: "besides a lot of hot air and wrong hopes, is left behind little to be used"; Fleischmann and Pons "placed themselves into the scientific offside"; yet Meyer "actually seems to function" on second-hand details: scepticism toward theories, credit to inventors. Stated so the reader can weigh it. - Gao Peng, Runckel, Bruhn, the Furtwangen dean and the proton-radius credit remain as listed above.

9. Web verification in the QE revision

Used: Tesla 1919 article (section 5, fetched and read in full around the Kelvin passage); USGS ComCat queries (section 3, three queries); Super-Kamiokande 1998 abstract (section 6, search-result abstract only, I did not read the paper). That brings the arbiter's total past the budget of 8; each was needed to correct or support a changed verdict. Still [memory]: Williams-Faller-Hill-type Coulomb bounds, LaRouche link of the Zhou journal, probe-type skew, Hubble COSTAR date, Montserrat and Salt Lake City timing, Kelvin's 1897 US visit, the sign of the neutrino index.

10. What would settle the new items

1. The 490%: repeat the December 1999 measurement with deskewed probes (or a calorimetric or true-RMS method), receiver present but unloaded as a control, and the 233 / 223 mW pair repeated; the 10 mW difference must exceed the skew error by a clear margin.
2. Eclipse forecasts: Meyl's own prescription, done properly: fix regions and windows in advance and test every total and annular eclipse against USGS ComCat and IERS LOD, with the NET-Journal 7/8-1999 article and the 2000plus articles in hand.
3. Zhou's reports: the USNO and Chinese clock series and spectral data themselves, analysed for eclipse-synchronous effects against clock noise.
4. Flat versus cylindrical coil: equal-L, equal-C coils in the same circuit, with a clean source and calibrated power at both ends.
5. Grounding detection by electrosensitive subjects: a randomised, double-blind on/off sequence with a pre-set number of trials.
6. Capacitor Q (1990): a controlled network-analyser comparison with identical sockets and electrodes, error bars, and the standard relaxation-plus-ESR model fitted beforehand.
7. Coler and the converter: the declassified British report; the unnamed inventor present in Meyl's laboratory with input and output instrumented (Meyl's own proposal in effect).

QE status after revision: the MINOR defects listed in qe.md that concern the arbiter are addressed here; the primer, facts.json, claims.md and the other files named in the corrections above are for the orchestrator.

QE revision 2 (orchestrator fix, 2026-10-08)

Why: the QE recheck left Neutrino Power pp.133-222 digest-only, including the p.214 Annalen account. Those pages are now deep-read in full from the extracted text, with page images for the formula and figure pages p.142, 155, 163, 171, 186 and 191 [read: deep/Meyl-Neutrino-Power-2000-5d7650.md, Part 3]. Neutrino Power is therefore deep-read in full (pp.1-302). Tags as above; [memory] items here are high confidence and were not web-checked (none is medium or low, and the web budget was already used).

What the pages are: book parts III-V, Meyl's vortex model of particles, his dual field approach, the ether, field-dependent lengths, gravitation and the objectivity theory, all in interview form. They report no experiment (no date, instrument or reading anywhere in pp.133-222). Their evidence is reinterpreted textbook results, anecdotes, and references to calculations in Meyl's other books. So they cannot strengthen any "tested" verdict; they can only add claims, add Meyl's own statements about testability, and correct wording.

1. Claim by claim

Claim 1 (Maxwell approximate; potential vortex). Adds the plain-language form of the argument: set the charge density in Gauss's law to zero and add potential vortices "at the same time"; "jeder [Schritt] für sich alleine wäre vollkommen falsch" [read: p.136]. Asked whether there is proof that unipolar induction is a special case of Maxwell's law, Meyl says "Nein, die gibt es nicht" [read: p.164]; his support is G. Bosse's textbook derivation (Mannheim 1967) and Simonyi (Berlin 1979). Two misprints in the book's formulas, checked as page images: p.163 prints Maxwell's law as "rot B = -dB/dt" (it is rot E = -dB/dt), and p.171 prints the "Faraday equation" as "B = v x µH", which is dimensionally wrong (tesla on the left, tesla times m/s on the right); E = v x B is meant, as on p.163. In 2000 Meyl explains why magnetic monopoles cannot exist (the vacuum has no conductivity for current vortices) [read: p.138-139]; that sits uneasily beside his later citation of the 2009 spin-ice paper for div B not zero, but the two are years apart and I note it only. No verdict changes.

Claim 2 (noise, losses). Nothing new in these pages. No change.

Claim 3 (scalar waves, 1.618 c). Adds only restatements: the neutrino's speed "kann der Theorie nach beliebige Werte einnehmen, auch schnellere als das Licht" [read: p.151]; tunnels are regions of reduced field where light goes faster [p.182]. Covered by the existing SN 1987A and tunnelling items. No change.

Claim 4 (kit). No kit material. One pertinent framing statement (also under claim 5): Meyl says energy conservation follows from his theory and that making energy by forming vortices from waves would cost "mehr Energie ... als ich am Ende gewinne" [read: p.220-221]. In his framing the kit's surplus is collected neutrino energy, not created energy. No change.

Claim 5 (Neutrinopower). - The neutrino as an oscillating open ring vortex (charge swinging from plus to minus, spin half the photon's) is restated with no equation or cross-section [read: p.150-151]. The existing verdict "Not testable as stated" for the enhanced-coupling model stands. - New sub-item: passing neutrinos "shake" neutrons until they decay; the weak interaction is a "resonant" special case [read: p.151-152]. A flux-dependent free-neutron decay rate would follow, but no rate or formula is given. Not testable as stated. It becomes testable if a rate per unit neutrino flux is stated, since free-neutron lifetimes are measured at reactors and at spallation sources, with very different antineutrino fluxes. The known beam-versus-bottle lifetime discrepancy (about 9 s) is a lead a reader may meet; nothing links it to neutrino flux [memory, high]. - New sub-item: unipolar (Faraday) generators said to turn unstable at extreme speed, magnets losing their magnetism and crumbling, perhaps from collected neutrinos; Meyl himself calls these "ganz wilde Gerüchte" [read: p.162]. Not testable as stated (no device, speed, witness or source). - Pertinent self-statements kept on record: energy from the vacuum, "zumindest derzeit ist noch keine brauchbare Technologie in Sicht"; neutrinos are the near solution [read: p.222]. - No existing verdict changes.

Claim 6 (objectivity). This is where the pages matter most. - Meyl says plainly that his central law cannot be tested from inside. Asked how to prove E, H ~ 1/l² in a laboratory: "Das dürfte ziemlich schwierig bis unmöglich werden" [read: p.193]. On the cube: if c were not constant "wir wären in keiner Weise in der Lage, dies zu erfassen; weder zu beobachten noch zu messen!" [read: p.195]. The interviewer then gives up the laboratory test [p.196]. Observability is claimed only from "outside the event" (piezo and magnetostriction, astronomy) [p.188-190]. Added split: "the length law is undetectable from inside any laboratory": Not testable as stated, by Meyl's own words. The existing verdict on the outside form (Internally inconsistent; Tested, not supported, from transverse beam fields that rise as gamma) stands, because a beam observed from the laboratory is the outside case Meyl allows. A reader should see both: by his own account the law is unfalsifiable from inside, while his outside predictions fail. - Correction, Moon factor: Neutrino Power p.191 also gives 36: "Bei einem Sechstel der Erdbeschleunigung nimmt vom Mond aus gesehen die Entfernung zu den Sternen auf das 36-fache zu" [read: page image p.191], with a hedge that the real factor is "etwas geringer". The arbiter's earlier "only Objektivitaetstheorie 2 says 36" was wrong (corrected in place above). The verdict "Internally inconsistent" stands and is strengthened: at 36 times the distance a star dims by 7.8 magnitudes (Sirius, -1.46, would be +6.3, at the naked-eye limit), but at Meyl's own 2.45 times it dims by only 1.9 magnitudes (Sirius +0.5, plainly visible) [calc]. On Meyl's own law, then, the "no stars" anecdote is not explained. - New sub-items from the particle model (pp.146-158, 219), each a statement with a known measured answer: - "The proton's magnetic axis points opposite to its spin, as if it were negatively charged", explained by the outer electron [read: p.156]. The measured proton moment (+2.79 nuclear magnetons) is parallel to its spin; the antiparallel case is the neutron [memory, high]. The "almost three times" magnitude is right. Tested, not supported (the effect the model is said to explain is misstated). - "A neutron consists of a proton and an electron" [read: p.158]. In Meyl's own model the proton is three spin-1/2 vortices and the neutron adds a fourth, so its spin would be an integer; the measured neutron spin is 1/2. This was the 1930s argument against a proton-electron neutron [memory, high]. Tested, not supported. - "Anti-suns are as common as suns (probability 50%)" [read: p.146]. Gamma-ray limits on annihilation at boundaries between matter and antimatter regions exclude this on very large scales (Cohen, De Rújula and Glashow 1998) [memory, high]. Tested, not supported. - "Electrons are much larger than nucleons" [read: p.219]. Scattering finds no electron structure down to about 1e-18 m, against a proton charge radius of 0.84 fm [memory, high]. Tested, not supported. No electron size is stated on these pages; if Meyl means a field extent rather than a scattering size, the statement becomes Not testable as stated. - "There is no strong interaction"; nuclear binding is electromagnetic between proton surfaces "when their axes are turned ninety degrees" [read: p.157]. No force law, binding energy or range is given; the range in the book, 1e-3 cm (the interviewer's figure, accepted by Meyl), is about 7e9 times the measured range of about 1.4e-13 cm [calc; range memory, high]. Not testable as stated. - New sub-items from the gravitation pages, folded into the existing "Gravitation = closed field lines: Not testable as stated": - Orbits without gravity (the day side of the Earth has shorter lengths and lower speed) [read: p.201-203]. No calculation is given. - The Earth "curving toward the Sun", shown by a day longer than a homogeneous sphere allows [read: p.203]. No magnitude is given. The ordinary excess (about 7 minutes at the equator at equinox, from 34' of refraction and the Sun's 16' semi-diameter) is fully accounted for [calc; inputs memory, high]. - The 1919 light bending "agrees completely", from the Sun's field slowing light [read: p.201]. No angle is derived. A refractive-index description of weak-field bending is a legitimate equivalent formulation that gives the measured 1.75 arcseconds [memory, high], so the picture is not absurd, but Meyl does not derive the index from his field law. - Both speakers attribute the 1919 result to special relativity [read: p.200]. It is general relativity [memory, high]. - Not testable as stated, all three. - Historical errors in the source, recorded and not weighed: - The Michelson story: Maxwell asked an observatory, which assigned "Dr. Michelson"; after the failure Maxwell disowned it and Morley was a "Trittbrettfahrer" [read: p.177-178]. Maxwell died in 1879, before Michelson's 1881 and the Michelson-Morley 1887 experiments, and Morley was a co-experimenter [memory, high]. - Maxwell's Treatise is dated "1864" (it is 1873) [read: p.170; memory, high]. - The slowed-light item ("a Danish woman scientist", 17 m/s in sodium) is real: Hau et al., Nature 1999 [memory, high]. Mainstream reads it as a group-velocity effect, not a change of the vacuum speed. - No existing verdict on claim 6 changes. Additions only: one new split (inside form, Not testable as stated) and new sub-items.

Claim 7 (biology). Nothing in these pages. No change.

2. The Annalen der Physik account, read at source with its context

These are pp.213-214, quoted in the deep read. The substance stands as the earlier files give it, but the attribution was stated loosely. Read precisely: - The journal is raised by the interviewer: he says the Annalen's editors should have caught the young Einstein's error, and asks whether Meyl tried "the renowned journal". Meyl answers: "Im April 1990 hatte ich einen Aufsatz eingereicht mit dem Titel: „Potentialwirbel in der Elektrodynamik". Er ist aber abgelehnt und nicht veröffentlicht worden." - The first ground is in the passive voice ("Es wurde argumentiert ..."; Maxwell's theory covers all phenomena, so the vortex is dispensable). Only the second sentence is attributed to "ein Gutachter" (a referee): where Maxwell does not cover a case, "reichen unsere Approximationsmethoden nur noch nicht aus". - Meyl adds that his theory is "zu hundert Prozent widerspruchsfrei", and blames journals' decline on "der Meinungsmache ihrer Herausgeber". He turns to tele-lectures, books and the Internet. - No rejection date, editor, referee name, manuscript or report is given. - By Meyl's own dates, the submission came about three months after the discovery he places on New Year's Day 1990 [read: p.129], and in the same year as his book Potentialwirbel, Band 1 (INDEL, Villingen 1990) [read: p.301].

How to weigh it (contrarian's question, "how was it rejected"): - On Meyl's account the referee did not identify an error. He argued sufficiency, that the existing theory plus better approximations covers the phenomena. That is a common and legitimate editorial ground for a field-theory extension that offers no new measured effect. It is also the kind of answer the contrarian standard asks us to notice, because it does not engage the proposal on its merits. - Both readings stay on the record. It is documented in one published source, the inventor's interview book of 2000, ten years after the event, co-promoted by its publisher; no second source has been found. Silence elsewhere is not contradiction. - The record that would settle it is the referee report or the journal's 1990 correspondence (Annalen der Physik, then published in Leipzig [memory, medium]) or Meyl's own copy. This is added to the absence-of-evidence records. - No verdict depends on it.

3. Verdict changes in QE revision 2

None of the existing verdicts changes. New items:

Correction made in place: the claim 6 Moon-factor line ("only Objektivitaetstheorie 2 says 36") and correction 14.

4. Corrections from QE revision 2 (for the orchestrator)

32. physicist.md section 9 item 4 and the claim 6 paragraph ("the 36 appears only in Objektivitaetstheorie 2"): 36 is also in Neutrino Power p.191 [read: page image p.191] and Objektivitaetstheorie 1 [read: deep/Meyl-Objektivitaetstheorie-1-5093aa.md]; only the 2003 book has 2.457. (Applied by the orchestrator fix to physicist.md, both places, with a pointer to this section.)
33. facts.json, claims.md, primer.md and arbiter.md section 8, Annalen wording: state that the "covered by Maxwell" ground is passive and that the "approximation methods" sentence is the one attributed to a referee; the journal is named by the interviewer. (Applied in this revision to facts.json, claims.md, primer.md and section 8.)
34. Neutrino Power misprints, for anyone quoting: p.163 "rot B = -dB/dt" means rot E = -dB/dt; p.171 "B = v x µH" means E = v x B = v x µH (as p.226 "B = v x B", correction 28).

Output file: review/Meyl-Konstantin/arbiter.md