Meyl-Konstantin: Science Contrarian review (STEP 2)

Reviewer: Science Contrarian. Standard: judge by experiment, not by consensus or reputation; separate "tested and failed" from "never properly tested" from "dismissed without testing"; build the strongest honest case; apply the same rigour to the inventor as to his critics. Source tags: [read] from a document in the folder or the Investigator's saved files, [web] with URL, [memory] with confidence, [calc] my own arithmetic.

Project: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Konstantin Meyl (Furtwangen; "1st TZS"; INDEL). Inputs read: claims.md, facts.json (via claims.md and deep reads), all 19 files in deep/, the digests that bear on the device chapters, sites.md "Leads for review", the Investigator's research notes, and these Investigator files: the IGF follow-up report (Weidner, 10.8.2001), Gao Peng's viXra paper, the proton-radius PDF, DE19614575A1 and DE10348862B4 as summarised in the notes.

Source gap (repeated from claims.md, and what I could close)

• The 2003 textbook (657 pp.) has no equations in its text layer. Deep readers covered ch.5, 7, 11-13, 21-23, 26-30 from page images. Ch.1-4, 6, 8-10, 14-20 rest on digests. The earlier deep reads of PDF pp.183-241 and 301-363 (free-energy devices) were lost. I read the digests of pp.205-209, 333-380, 389-396 and the source text of the one place where Meyl reports his own device measurement (book p.422, below). Every verdict about Testatika, Searl, Bedini/Ecklin, Patterson, Meyer cell, Podkletnov and the railgun therefore rests on digest-level evidence, and on the book's own account of other people's claims. I give no verdict on those devices, only on what Meyl says about them.
• Not in the folder and not obtained by anyone: Treskatis 2010 thesis; PIERS 2012 "Self-consistent electrodynamics"; Eibert (FGF 1/2004); Kühlke; the TU Clausthal "control survey" (6 July 2000); Waser, NET-Journal 12/2000; Runckel's opinion; Hönl's "independent opinions on the case".
• Digest-only documents with no deep read: Barkhausen detector notes (another author), electrosmog article, complementary-medicine and Wiesbaden lectures, FGF newsletter, G-Com article (deep-read, and it is not about Meyl).

Corrections to Step 1 (and to the Investigator)

1. claims.md, "Independent evidence", the IGF gap list ("no cage measurement, no wire-removed control"). Partly out of date. The recovered follow-up report [read: research/files/IGF-gravitation.org-meyl2-2001-...html] contains two controls the first report lacked. (a) With a low-harmonic oscillator and the LEDs desoldered, "existieren ... die von Meyl beschriebenen Effekte überhaupt nicht mehr". (b) With the sender sphere removed, the receiver LED still lit at about 11 MHz and 12.4 MHz, which contradicts Meyl's sphere-to-sphere picture and fits the shortened-dipole picture. Still absent: a measurement of Meyl's cage experiment itself. The follow-up argues that Meyl's suitcase has no contact springs and loose hinges, so "has nothing to do with a Faraday cage", and proposes a crystal-oscillator-in-the-suitcase check. It reports no result for it [read]. No test with the link wire removed and the coils otherwise isolated is reported in either report.
2. claims.md and the Investigator's correction on the IGF report: signed by Herbert Weidner alone (10.8.2001). Confirmed [read]. The first report's 45% (eye-matched LED brightness against 19 mW of oscillator power, whole link) and the follow-up's "about 99%" (copper loss of one coil, R I^2 = 13.1 ohm x (3.4 mA)^2 = 0.15 mW of 19 mW) are different quantities. Neither should be quoted as "the efficiency".
3. claims.md, last bullet of the missing-records list: "the 471,240 km/s and 12 Hz statements are Meyl's readings of [Tesla's patent]". Corrected. "About four hundred and seventy-one thousand two hundred and forty kilometers per second" is in US 787,412 itself [web: https://patents.google.com/patent/US787412A/en]. It is Tesla's number, not Meyl's reading of it. The patent text I could read (first 100,000 of 227,000 characters) says "the lowest frequency would appear to be six per second"; I did not find "12 cycles per second" there. Meyl's "12 Hz against Schumann 7.8 Hz" is therefore not a patent quotation as far as I could check, and the comparison with a resonance first predicted in 1952 is anachronistic [memory, high]. Tesla's 1927 article, as quoted in Gao Peng's paper [read: vixra-1607.0130, p.3], gives the same figure and explains it: the wave "starts with a theoretically infinite speed, slowing down first very quickly ... The mean surface speed is thus about 471,200 kilometers per second". A signal that crosses the Earth along a diameter (2R) at c while the surface distance to the antipode is pi R has mean surface speed (pi/2) c = 1.5708 x 300,000 = 471,239 km/s [calc]. Tesla's figure equals this to five digits. That reading is mine and I have not checked it against the whole patent. It means "1.57 c" may be geometry, not a speed measurement. It also matches Meyl's "1.5 c" bench ratio only by coincidence.
4. claims.md claim 5 ("no energy balance ... attempted"), and the Investigator's amendment ("none in the papers; one in the 1996 patent"). Agreed, with a calculation added. The patent's 27 W/m^2 is realistic as the energy flux of solar neutrinos (66e9 cm^-2 s^-1 x about 0.26 MeV) [calc, from the Investigator's arithmetic]. Over Earth's cross-section (1.275e14 m^2) it is 3.4e15 W, or 1.1e23 J per year. The Earth-growth mass (8e16 kg/yr, E = mc^2 = 7.2e33 J/yr) is larger by a factor of 6.6e10 even if every neutrino were fully absorbed [calc]. Meyl's JGG paper says "entirely different orders of magnitude are collected here" and gives no number [read: deep/earth-expansion...].
5. Investigator, k-meyl.de note on "Zur Berechnung des Protonenradius": "year not on p.1; check the root sign". Resolved from the PDF. It is NET-Journal Jg. 19, Heft 11/12, November/December 2014 [read]. The root is present (the underscore line in the text layer is a radical sign): (1836.15+1)/(1836.15+206.77) = 0.8993, its square root 0.9483, which the page prints as "0,9483" and "5,17%". Meyl then compares it with 0.84087 fm / 0.886 fm = 0.949, where 0.886 fm is one electron-scattering analysis (Sick 2011/2012) [read: p.1-2].
6. Deep read of the Experimente document, section 5: "A test with the link wire removed is not reported". Correct for that document. See item 1 for the sphere-removal control in the follow-up.
7. Deep read Faraday-or-Maxwell, section 4.3 and Objektivitaet 1 and 2: Maxwell's own 1865 equations contain a v x B term, so Meyl's account of Maxwell choosing a notation that dropped it is wrong [memory, high; not web-checked]. This does not weaken the contrarian point that the four-equation form plus the Lorentz force is a later (Heaviside, Hertz) packaging.
8. Not an error but a gap in Step 1: the digest of book pp.420-422 shows that Meyl reports his own over-unity measurement with numbers. Neither claims.md nor the reviews so far use it. See claim 4.
9. Items in the deep reads that carry the books' own errors (already listed in claims.md) stand: "growth less than 0.1 mm per year" (the book's own mean is 29 mm/yr diameter), "18.84 h day 200 Myr ago", "Hafele-Keating 214 ns" (sign-correct difference 273 - (-59) = 332 ns [memory, high; not web-checked]), "Moon factor 36" (his eq. 11 gives 2.45 [calc]), "Apollo 11" (Apollo 15 [memory, high]).

How I applied the four questions

a. Is the mathematics internally consistent? b. Is it consistent with established experiments, which ones? c. Has it been tested, by whom, replicated? d. If true, what would have to change?

The Mathematician is the specialist on (a). I give my own reading where the deep readers' SymPy checks bear on whether the claim is testable.

---

Claim 1. Maxwell's equations are an approximation; a "potential vortex" term b = B/tau2 (div B not 0) completes them

a. Mathematics. The algebra after the postulate is correct. The extended pair rot H = j + dD/dt, -rot E = B/tau2 + dB/dt gives c^2 Delta E = E_tt + (1/tau1 + 1/tau2) E_t + E/(tau1 tau2); the deep reader reproduced it in SymPy and found it self-consistent (the divergence of the extended law gives (d/dt + 1/tau2) div H = 0, so div B = 0 is preserved if it starts at zero) [read: deep/Scalar-Waves ... sec.2]. The extension is a magnetic-current term of the kind engineers use in dual Maxwell equations and in perfectly matched layers [memory, high]. The derivation Meyl offers for it does not work. (i) E = v x B and H = -v x D are first-order (in v/c) limits of the Lorentz field transformation. They follow from Maxwell plus relativity, not the other way round. (ii) The step (v.grad)B = dB/dt turns a convective derivative into the partial derivative at a fixed point; this holds only for a static field crossed at constant speed [read: deep/Faraday-or-Maxwell 4.2 item 2; deep/Objektivitaet-1 sec.3]. (iii) Feeding each transformation into the other applies the boost twice. With Meyl's own vector geometry the result is E_o = E(1 + v^2/c^2), not E(1 - v^2/c^2) (SymPy, deep/Objektivitaet-1). (iv) Meyl admits the starting equations "can't be derived", and that the general case E(r,t) produces "further additional terms" which he avoids by restricting to E(r(t)) [read: deep/Scalar-Waves ch.30]. That contradicts "free of postulates". (v) tau2 is given three incompatible dependences on conductivity (tau2 ~ mu sigma in eq. 5.11, which is also dimensionally incomplete; tau2 growing as sigma falls on p.70; finite in vacuum in case 1), and no value of tau2 appears anywhere [read: deep/Scalar-Waves sec.3 item 4]. The units slips (sigma in Vm/A; b in V/m instead of V/m^2) are minor.

b. Established experiment. div B = 0 has been probed by monopole searches without a positive result [memory, high]. The 2009 Helmholtz-Zentrum spin-ice result that Meyl cites in 2012 and 2013 is real [read: deep/Consequences], but the objects are emergent quasi-particles that are sources of H and M inside a crystal. The microscopic B stays divergence-free [memory, high; not web-checked]. It does not support div B not 0 in a dielectric. In vacuum the "case 1" equation predicts a frequency-independent decay exp(-t/2 tau2) of any wave. Light that has travelled for 10^13 to 10^17 s from distant sources is a one-line test of how small 1/tau2 must be; I did not run it, and Meyl's vortices are local structures, not a uniform vacuum damping, so the test would bound the uniform case only.

c. Tested? No test of tau2, of div B in a dielectric, or of the "no-postulate" derivation by anyone. Critics did examine the mathematics: Bruhn (TU Darmstadt, a mathematician and organised sceptic, so an interested party on that side) argued in JSE 15(2) pp.206-210 and on his pages that Meyl's two basic equations give transverse waves, that non-trivial solutions exist only for |v| = c, and that superposition is violated [read: research/2026-10-08-tu-darmstadt-bruhn.md]. Meyl's reply (CoMed 01/03) is that "famous professors of mathematics" re-checked the calculations, with no names, and that Bruhn is a "Rentner" and a "Betrüger" [read: deep/Kreuzfeuer Q2]. The one named supporter is H.-J. Runckel (Ulm), whose opinion Meyl produced when his dean pressed him; it is known only through Bruhn's rebuttal, and its text was not found. I weigh that as one academic opinion on record, not as a check.

d. If true. The Gauss law for magnetism would have to fail in ordinary insulators (a magnetic-current term), "complex epsilon" would have to be replaced by a new loss mechanism, and light would have to show a new damping term. Special relativity and the Lorentz-force picture would not need to change; Meyl wants them to.

How it was handled. The criticism was published and answered (JSE printed both). Meyl's own paper was withheld from consideration as a regular JSE article because it was already on the web, and was printed alongside Bruhn's critique (JSE editorial, as quoted by Bruhn). No funding or publication was blocked as far as the record shows. The record is thin because the mathematical critics were hostile, and the inventor answered with personal attacks (a pattern, not an argument). I record both facts.

Strongest honest case. (1) Textbooks do treat "Maxwell + Lorentz force" as two statements, and Faraday's unipolar disc is computed with the force law, so Meyl's complaint that the induction law alone gives E = 0 in the static case is a fair description of how the subject is organised, even though the mainstream calls the two complementary. (2) A magnetic-current term is a legitimate formal extension; every experiment that bounds it (monopole searches, vacuum dispersion) bounds it very tightly but not for his specific dielectric term. (3) The extension is self-consistent. (4) His one clean prediction here would be a vortex-decay signature in dielectric loss (claim 2).

Weak points on the inventor's side. The "derivation without postulate" is the claim that fails on its own terms. The invariants it tries to derive (Maxwell as a special case) are, as the deep readers show, the inputs. He also pre-empts testing: "neither the measuring of effects, nor the observation of phenomena of a vortex would suffice as a scientific proof ... Only a mathematical description" [read: About Vortex Physics, p.1], while saying in the same sentence that repeats of a measurement would "lose their repeatability". That is an unfalsifiable move, and the same paper then prints no field equation for the potential vortex.

Verdict. Split. - Strong form ("Maxwell follows as a special case of E = v x B, H = -v x D without postulates; b = 0 is the Maxwell approximation"): Internally inconsistent (restricted-case assumption admitted; sign error; boost applied twice; tau2 contradictory). - Weak form (a dual magnetic-current term B/tau2 exists in dielectrics): Never properly tested. Not dismissed without testing: the mathematical critique was argued; no experiment aimed at it has been designed.

---

Claim 2. Potential vortices explain noise, dielectric (capacitor) losses and the near field

a. Mathematics. The "complex speed of light" objection confuses the vacuum constant c with the phase velocity in a medium: a lossy epsilon gives a complex wavenumber and refractive index, which is textbook (polypropylene example in the deep read: n = 1.483, kappa = 1.5e-4) [read: deep/About-Vortex 4.2; memory, high]. Complex epsilon and a relaxation term D/tau1 are the same mathematics in two domains, not "mutually exclusive". The noise-capacitor "correlation" compares curve shapes on unscaled axes: the quantum rise of Nyquist noise sits at kT/h = 6.1 THz (293 K), the capacitor tan delta rise in Meyl's Fig. 11 is between 0.1 and 100 kHz, 10^8 apart [calc, deep reader, SymPy-reproducible]. The tan delta axis lacks its multiplier (values 4 to 20 must mean 10^-4 units). The "orthodox" comparator is a single Lorentz-oscillator tail (slope 1); the mainstream models are relaxation distributions (Cole-Cole, Havriliak-Negami, Jonscher) plus series resistance (tan delta_ESR = omega R_s C). A flat dielectric term plus a rising ESR term reproduces the plotted shape without new physics [read: deep/About-Vortex 6.2; memory, high]. The paper prints no formula for the "Meyl model" curve (c).

b. Established experiment. Antenna noise level and spectrum (kTB, sky noise, man-made noise) are predicted without a scalar component [memory, high]. The circular marks in metallised-film capacitors that Meyl presents as "visible proof" come from Yializis et al. 1980 and Taylor 1984, whose titles describe them as electrode corrosion [read: deep/About-Vortex sec.7]. A radially spreading front from one nucleation point also makes circles that grow with time, as in his own Fig. 12 (40 h to 52 h at 450 V, 60 Hz, 100 degrees C, 110x). Honest point for the other side: the microscopic origin of the nearly constant tan delta in polymers (the "universal dielectric response") is empirical and has no single accepted first-principles derivation [memory, medium]. So "a physical mechanism for the loss is not settled" is fair. It does not make Meyl's mechanism the answer.

c. Tested? One qualitative three-line plot (Fig. 11, "qualitative comparison"), taken in a bachelor thesis (Treskatis, Konstanz, 2010). The Investigator's search shows Meyl himself was the supervisor of that student (summer term 2010) [read: research/2026-10-08-google-search.md]. So the "conclusive proof" is a thesis he supervised, not independent. The thesis is not online. Meyl's own earlier statement is that in 1990 repeats of a capacitor-loss measurement "drowned in the mean variation" [read: claims.md]. The fitted parameters, temperature, instrument, voltage and capacitance are missing from the paper. That is not a controlled test of the vortex model against relaxation + ESR.

d. If true. Dielectric heating would have to be a decay of vortices with no relation to the permittivity spectrum, and the capacitor industry's loss modelling (and the Kramers-Kronig relations between epsilon' and epsilon'', which follow from causality [memory, high]) would have to change.

Strongest honest case. A cheap, decisive test exists and the data are probably still in Konstanz: fit tan delta(f, T) of film capacitors with (relaxation + ESR) against the vortex-decay formula, with the formula published in advance. Meyl's claim would stand or fall on it. The Treskatis thesis is the record that decides.

Verdict. Split. - "Complex epsilon is physically wrong" and "noise and capacitor losses correlate": Refuted by calculation (c is not made complex; the two rises are 10^8 apart in frequency). - "Dielectric loss is vortex decay": Never properly tested (no formula published, one unreproducible plot, comparator not the mainstream model). Not dismissed without testing: nobody has tested it. - "Circles in capacitor electrodes prove vortices": Not supported; the cited sources attribute them to electrode corrosion.

---

Claim 3. Vortices travel as longitudinal "scalar waves" of variable speed, stable above 1.618 c; antenna rule lambda = 1.618 lambda

a. Mathematics. The identity Delta E = grad div E - rot rot E is correct, and longitudinal waves exist in matter (plasma, sound, P-waves) [memory, high]. In charge-free vacuum Gauss's law makes the grad div E term zero, so Maxwell's equations do not "leave it out" [read: deep/Scalar-Waves ch.21-23 sec.8; deep/Scalar-Waves-Theory (JSE) sec.6 item 1]. The golden-ratio derivation (book 29.11-29.19): the algebra is right, but (i) with E(x - vt) for an outgoing wave dE/dt = -v dE/dx, and the same steps give v = 0.618 c; Meyl's 1.618 c belongs to an inward-moving profile; (ii) the setup sets div E = 0 and then inserts a purely longitudinal E(x) with non-zero div E; (iii) the golden ratio appears because he sets tau2 = r/c and the decay length equal to r. With a general decay length and damping time there is a one-parameter family with no special value; (iv) a pure exponential profile is not a signal [read: deep/Scalar-Waves ch.28-30 sec.D2, SymPy-checked]. The variable speed (E, H ~ 1/v^2, eq. 21.10) is imported from the "theory of objectivity" and fails for negative E as written [read: ch.21-23 sec.5].

b. Established experiment. (1) Fast neutrino and tunnelling claims: SN1987A timing and later speed measurements constrain neutrino velocity to c within tiny margins [memory, high; not web-checked]. (2) Tunnelling is real, but the dispute is about interpretation. Nimtz's microwave experiments measure delays shorter than free-space transit; Winful argues that the delay is the lifetime of stored energy and not a traversal time, and that a Maxwell-describable experiment cannot violate causality [web: https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0601085 and https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.3155]. The Nimtz side's view is that this is a superluminal signal. Neither of them supports a vortex mechanism. I found no source for Meyl's statement that "all renowned universities" repeated the experiments [read: deep/Neutrino-Power sec.2.4, uncorroborated]. Meyl himself concedes that once a signal passes through a cage or tunnel one cannot say which share was scalar from the start [read: Neutrino Power pp.108-109].

c. Tested? The kit (claim 4) is the only experiment. Gao Peng's torsion balance (viXra 1607.0130, 2016; Beijing Wellan Century Co.) is the one independent positive report I have: a wooden frame suspended in a hardboard box hung from the receiver sphere of a two-coil set driven by a 45 W RF amplifier; the frame turned, and in a second run with a frame of different size it turned the other way, which the author reads as "left- and right-handed torsion fields" and a "dual vortex". I weigh it as a real observation of a mechanical effect near a high-power resonant set, with no control described for electrostatic force on the frame or its line, air currents, heating or a dummy load, no repeats with the set off or detuned in the same run (the return to rest after switch-off is described but not logged in the first video), and with a frame sign that flips with frame size [read: vixra-1607.0130, pp.3-6]. His 4.17/2.65 = 1.57 frequency ratio is the same equal-wavelength argument as Meyl's and is, by coincidence or not, close to pi/2.

d. If true. Vacuum would carry a free longitudinal E-wave (a third wave type) with controllable speed, travelling through shields; Lorentz invariance would have to fail for the signal front.

Strongest honest case. (1) Meyl's methodological demand is sound: v = f lambda has three variables, and a claim about speed needs two of them measured, not one plus a guess [read: Neutrino Power p.82; ch.22]. (2) Capacitive near-field power transfer exists and is efficient at short range (Meyl's own 6.78 MHz devices are in the ISM band used for mainstream resonant wireless power [memory, medium]). (3) Tesla's full-scale apparatus has not been replicated; the IGF itself says so: the kit differs "in geometrical size and in power consumption" so much that it "cannot be called a replica", and "the experiments of Tesla have not yet been exactly replicated because the financial means were not available" [read: IGF report 1, p.13].

Verdict. Split. - Golden-ratio stability limit at 1.618 c and the antenna rule: Internally inconsistent (sign, div E, tau2 = r/c chosen). - Free longitudinal vacuum waves of arbitrary speed and shield-penetration, at kit scale: Tested, not supported (claim 4). - The same at Tesla's full scale and over long distances: Never properly tested. This is not "dismissed without testing" for the kit, but it is for the full-scale claim.

---

Claim 4. The two-coil kit shows scalar-wave effects: energy transfer, receiver feedback, over-unity of 500-1000%, speed 1.5 c, ineffective Faraday cage

This is the only claim where a neutral test exists. I took most care with it.

What Meyl states and measures. The manual and the JSE paper rest on LED brightness, two frequency readings (7 MHz and about 4.7 MHz) and an assumed equal wavelength, and unnamed confirmations. The most informative of Meyl's own numbers is in the 2003 book, p.422 [read: _text/Meyl-Scalar-Waves ... line 14615 ff.]: output 49 mW into 100 ohm, transmitter input 233 mW, transmitter consumption with the receiver switched off 223 mW. The book subtracts the 223 mW idle power and gets 10 mW "available" and "490%". Simple efficiency from the same figures is 49/233 = 21% [calc]. The 490% rests on a difference of two numbers close to 5% apart. A 5% error in a reactive-load power measurement at 7 MHz (the oscillator carries mostly reactive current) is 12 mW, larger than the 10 mW in question [calc]. Subtracting the idle power also assumes the unloaded transmitter would dissipate the same 223 mW with a load coupled in; in a high-Q resonant pair, loading changes the standing-wave current and the transmitter's own loss, so 39 mW of "missing" supply is exactly what ordinary mistuning or load-dependent loss can hide. The book itself asks "did some parts evade our power measurement?". TU Clausthal "1000%": the inventor's FAQ (2009) gives it as 50 mW to 500 mW, measured by "Messtechniker der TU Clausthal"; no name, date or report found by the Investigator [read: research/2026-10-08-k-meyl.de.md]. The manual states that the 6 m ground cable is a conductor needing a return path [read: deep/Scalar-Wave-Technology p.16], and the granted patent DE10348862B4 says "ist eine Rückleitung erforderlich. Diese kann als einadriges Kabel oder als Masseverbindung ausgeführt sein" and describes the link in ordinary L-C circuit terms with no over-unity claim [read: research/2026-10-08-google-patents-espacenet.md].

The independent test. IGF, Waldaschaff (six named authors; funded through the Göde-Wissenschaftsstiftung per the Investigator's note; no commercial stake known). Instruments: Tektronix TDS 3054 500 MHz, HP 8594EM spectrum analyser, Fluke meters, Kathrein field meter, battery/DC operation, EMC cabin [read: deep/Experimente sec.4; IGF follow-up]. First step: they reproduced the manual's effects exactly [read: IGF 1, p.5]. This matters: the observations are real; the dispute is about their cause. Findings: the pair behaves as a capacitively shortened coiled Lecher line / dipole with resonances at 5.35 MHz and at 29.5 MHz, with mapped current nodes and 180 degree phase flips; the one-wire link carries 3.4 mA rms (28% of the oscillator current) where Meyl says it should carry zero; the antiparallel LEDs clip at 1.7 V and generate strong odd harmonics (the 3rd harmonic at 21.6 MHz is 1.4x the 7.2 MHz fundamental over the receiver coil); the "feedback" effect (sender LEDs out, receiver LEDs on at 7.2 MHz) is the oscillator being loaded below 1.7 V by the 21.6 MHz resonance of the 18.8 m total wire; with a low-harmonic oscillator and LEDs removed, Meyl's effects "do not exist any more" [read: IGF 2]. The sender sphere can be removed and the receiver LED still lights at 11 and 12.4 MHz [read: IGF 2]. Efficiency by eye-matched LED brightness: 8.5 mW / 19 mW = 45%.

Where the IGF work is weaker than the summary suggests. (1) Brightness matching by eye, 45%, is a rough measurement, and the "8.5 mW" wording is ambiguous (per LED pair or total) [read: deep/Experimente sec.8]. (2) Fig. 4 (received power against sphere spacing: about 8 mW at 17 cm, 3.3 mW at 37 cm, flat at 3.1 mW from 47 to 67 cm) is called "the first clear sign" against scalar waves, but a flat tail is what both Meyl's distance independence and conducted transfer through the link wire predict [read: deep/Experimente sec.8]. (3) The wavelength is given as 56.07 m on p.6 and 44.4 m on p.10 for the same 5.35 MHz; the correct value is 56 m [calc]. This changes the shortening factor but not the argument. (4) No measurement of the cage experiment as Meyl performs it; no run with the link wire removed. (5) The IGF challenge to close the loop, powering the oscillator from the claimed surplus, is reported only from the IGF side: "Meyl weigert sich" [read: IGF 1, last sections]; Meyl's reply ("Ausreden") was not found. I report it as the IGF's account.

The 1.5 c claim. The deep reads show it assumes the same wavelength at both resonances. IGF shows a line with end capacitances has non-harmonic resonances, so no single "wavelength" exists. At 29.5 MHz the node spacing of 402 cm fits a half-wave of the coiled line [read: IGF 1 p.10]. The ratio of two resonance frequencies is not a propagation speed unless the same mode shape is shown. [calc] 7/4.7 = 1.489 and 6.7/4.5 = 1.49; Gao's 1.57 is pi/2. None of these has a time-of-flight or an independent wavelength measurement behind it. It is also not 1.618 (claim 3) and the book does not reconcile them.

The Faraday-cage claim. The manual itself says "a gap in the door or a cable, which leads out of the suitcase, is adequate for a perfect coupling" [read: deep/Scalar-Wave-Technology Exp.5], with the cage tied conductively to the transmitter coil's ground side and to the receiver through the cable. The JSE paper says "expert laboratories for EMC cannot detect anything" and does not name them. The FAQ says failures of the cage experiment are due to a leaky cage, a stray resonance, or the wrong coil being caged. A decisive control has never been done by either side: a battery-powered transmitter fully enclosed in a gasketed shield with no conductor leaving it, receiver on an isolated probe, signal compared with and without the enclosure and with the enclosure deliberately opened by a calibrated slot.

b. Established experiment / c. Tested. Replicated as observations by IGF. Explained classically by the same authors with spectra and phase maps. One further replication, Waser (NET-Journal 12/2000), is cited by IGF as also not reproducing Tesla's effects [read: IGF 1 p.13]; I could not obtain it. Meyl says "hundreds of measurements at far more serious institutes" and that universities buy the kits and pass them on; none is named [read: deep/Kreuzfeuer Q2, Q6]. A purchase is not a test. The dean of Furtwangen reports "independent opinions on the case ... negative in Meyl's sense" and "positive ones supposedly exist but Meyl does not name the sources" [read: research/2026-10-08-tu-darmstadt-bruhn.md; Bruhn's quotation of CoMed 12/2002, the dean is an institutional party].

d. If true. Power out would exceed power in from a closed system, or the surplus would have to come from an unspecified environmental source (Meyl's neutrinos, claim 5). Energy conservation and the cage-attenuation of Maxwell fields would both have to give way.

How it was rejected. The negative tests were competently instrumented, measured and public, and answered in writing; the inventor did not accept the IGF invitation to repeat the tests there (no record of a reply found; absence of a record is not proof of no reply). The inventor's answer is that IGF used conventional measurements, that unconventional effects were passed over as harmonics "without checking by measurement", and that the IGF is a "questionable private institute" [read: Kreuzfeuer Q2]. The IGF follow-up does check harmonics by measurement (spectrum analyser, desoldered LEDs, a clean oscillator). Meyl's rebuttal therefore does not match the follow-up report, which he may not have seen when he spoke. The decision not to test at Tesla's full scale is not a rejection of Tesla by experiment.

Strongest honest case for Meyl. The effects in the manual exist and are reproducible; no one has shown his proposed explanation to be wrong by a measurement of what he proposes (a longitudinal field in vacuum), only that a classical model also fits; the classical model is a Lecher line with LED harmonics, which IGF supported with measured spectra; and nobody has run a calibrated full-power-balance test of the kit with a clean source and calorimetric or broadband true-RMS metering at both ends plus the closed-loop test.

Verdict. Split. - Over-unity 500-1000% (and the 490% in the book): Tested, not supported (IGF: 45% by brightness, 99% per coil; effects vanish with LEDs removed and a clean oscillator; Meyl's own total input/output is 49/233 = 21%). - Receiver feedback and energy transfer through the one-wire link: Established as observations, with the classical standing-wave explanation (the observations are not in dispute). - Speed 1.5 c: Refuted by calculation as an inference (equal-wavelength assumption contradicted by measured mode structure); a direct speed measurement was never attempted. - Ineffective Faraday cage: Never properly tested (neither side ran the decisive isolated-cage control). Not dismissed without testing by IGF in its report: IGF discusses the case but reports no measurement of it.

---

Claim 5. Tesla radiation is neutrino radiation; neutrinos are oscillating vortices collected as free energy; Earth and Sun grow by neutrino absorption

a. Mathematics. The angular-momentum calculation reproduces Meyl's numbers (45 cm/yr circumference for constant mass, 18-19 cm/yr for constant density) only if dt/t = 0.71 s / 1 yr = 2.25e-8 [calc, deep reader]. That input is not a rate of change of the day. The 0.71 s/yr is the average accumulation of the leap-second offset (32 s since 1958 over 45 yr), and the 1/500 s figure is the day's excess over 86,400 s; both are consequences of the second having been fixed to the length of day around 1900. The actual annual fractional change of the day is the net of tidal friction and post-glacial rebound, a few milliseconds per century [web: https://theconversation.com/temporal-flux-why-we-need-to-keep-adding-leap-seconds-44077, 2.3 ms/century tidal; the 0.6 ms/century rebound offset and the 1.7 net are in the same search result and my own subtraction]. That is about 2e-10 per year, a factor of about 100 smaller than the input [calc]. With n = 5 the radius growth Meyl's own formula would need is then about 0.25 mm/yr, not 29 mm/yr [calc]. The model also ignores the Moon's angular momentum exchange, treats accreted mass as carrying none, and its later "zero total angular momentum" premise is not a conservation law. The same book claims a mean growth of "less than 0.1 mm per year" and, four pages later, 65 mm/yr [read: deep/Scalar-Waves ch.11 sec.C]. The neutrino energy balance: see correction 4 (6.6e10 short).

b. Established experiment. (1) Space geodesy: SLR, VLBI and GPS combined with GRACE give a mean radius change of 0.1 +/- 0.2 mm/yr (1 sigma) [web: Wu et al. 2011, summarised at https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110817120527.htm and the search result for it]. Meyl's 29 mm/yr in radius is about 150 sigma from it, and even the ~0.25 mm/yr figure is within error of zero. (2) Day/night effect: Super-Kamiokande measures a night flux higher than the day flux: -3.6 +/- 1.6 (stat) +/- 0.6 (syst)% in SK-IV, -4.2 +/- 1.2 +/- 0.8% combined SK-I to IV, 2.8 sigma, as expected from regeneration through the Earth by flavour oscillation [web: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.07538 via the search result; https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/0310064]. Meyl's claim is "only half as many solar neutrinos at night" absorbed in the core [read: deep/Erdwachstum sec.5]. The data point the other way and are small. (3) Kamiokande 3e9 against Gallex 66e9 cm^-2 s^-1 are detectors with different energy thresholds and flavour sensitivity; the 4%/96% "materialisation" reading is not what the experiments or SNO (2001) found [memory, high; not web-checked]. (4) The neutrino-electron cross-section at 1 MeV is about 1e-45 cm^2; a 1 m^3 water target absorbs about 2e-18 W of the 66e9 flux [read: deep/Faraday-or-Maxwell sec.3, computed]. So "collecting" neutrino power at ordinary targets is excluded by the known interaction unless the coupling is about 10^19 times stronger. Meyl's resonance coupling is exactly such a stronger coupling, but it is not quantified. (5) Hilgenberg-type expansion was a respectable minority position in the 1930s to 1960s; it has now been tested and superseded by the geodetic constraints above (Meyl's mechanism is the new part).

c. Tested? Earth growth: tested by others, negative within errors (see b.1). Neutrino collection: his 1996 patent DE19614575A1 ("Verfahren und Vorrichtung zum Empfang von Neutrinos") describes a receiver (spheres, flat spiral coil, resonant circuit in antiphase); no measured output by anyone is recorded; the kit is the same geometry. The 1999 eclipse "focusing" claim (27-68 times on the core) has no measurement behind it [read: deep/Scalar-Waves ch.20 digest only]. Moray (1930s, "half as many solar neutrinos at night") is cited in a 1960 book by title only; I have no description of what Moray measured [read: deep/Erdwachstum sec.5] and note that the reported 1930s date predates the neutrino's detection (1956) [memory, high].

d. If true. Neutrinos would interact with matter far more strongly in resonance than measured; neutrino oscillation results (mass, flavour change) would have to be reinterpreted; SN1987A timing and Earth-rotation/geodesy data would conflict.

The "Tesla = neutrino" identification. The deep read of the Tesla/Kelvin paper finds none of the neutrino literature cited (no Super-Kamiokande, SNO, Homestake): Meyl's "oscillating charge and mass" is not mainstream flavour oscillation [read: deep/Teslas-Radiations]. Tesla's "radiations" are of the early 1890s and are described by Tesla as solar and cosmic rays; whether they were neutrinos cannot be tested by words.

Strongest honest case. Meyl is one of the few people who put a number on the neutrino power budget (the patent's 27 W/m^2 is the correct solar value). The two-line argument he never makes is the testable one: either neutrino interaction in resonance is 10^19-10^20 times the standard value, in which case a laboratory source/receiver pair (a tuned sphere-coil receiver in a solar-neutrino shadow test, or a reactor flux) could show it, or it is not. The question is clear. It has not been put to a controlled test by anyone. It also asks nothing of Earth growth.

Verdict. Split. - Earth growth of 18-19 cm/yr by neutrino absorption: Refuted by calculation (energy 6.6e10 times the whole solar-neutrino flux through the Earth's cross-section; time-base error in the rotation model) and Tested, not supported (space geodesy 0.1 +/- 0.2 mm/yr; Super-K night excess, opposite in sign to the claimed deficit). - Free-energy "neutrino collectors" (kit, railgun, Moebius, Patterson, Meyer, Searl, Testatika): Never properly tested as neutrino devices; no neutrino measurement is reported for any of them. The device claims themselves are reported from Meyl's digest-level text and from other people's claims (Gruber 1998 for Patterson, Schneider and Kelly for Testatika, Coler's reported 450% from Kloss, Franke and Schumann in the 1930s) that I have not examined. - Neutrino = superluminal oscillating ring vortex: Not testable as stated (no cross-section, no spectrum, no coupling), and in tension with measured neutrino speed. - Day-night 50% absorption: Tested, not supported.

---

Claim 6. "Theory of objectivity": fields set all lengths and c; gravitation = closed field lines; masses and the Schroedinger equation derived

a. Mathematics. (i) Eq. 5: with Meyl's stated geometry the sign is +v^2/c^2, so his factor (1 - v^2/c^2) arises from a sign slip (SymPy, deep/Objektivitaet-1). (ii) The equality field ratio = length ratio is declared with an exclamation mark, not derived. (iii) The Moon factor: his eq. 11 (E ~ 1/l^2) gives sqrt(6) = 2.45, not 36. (iv) Special relativity gives the transverse field of a fast charge as gamma E (7.09 at 0.99 c); Meyl's formula gives 0.02, a factor of about 350 apart, and the gamma scaling is measured routinely in accelerators [memory, high]. (v) Particle masses: the whole table follows from m = 1836 (z_e/3)^3 (E_outer/E_1)^2 with m_p = 1836 as anchor and free choice of shell structure; the only derived ratio is m_p/m_mu = 9 against the measured 8.88 (1.35% high); the muon is 1.3% low, the neutron 5.2% heavy (its true mass excess is 0.138%), the tau 8.7% high, the pion minus 24.5% high, B0 15.8% low; composite particles are added like building blocks while the text argues compounds are not additive [read: deep/Scalar-Waves ch.7 secs.3-6]. (vi) The Schroedinger and Klein-Gordon "derivations" yield a free wave at c with a constant potential U = (1/2) m c^2, with no atomic potential or spectrum; the stated equilibrium tau1 = tau2 is assumed in 5.5 and then found "required" in 5.8 [read: deep/Scalar-Waves ch.5 sec.9]. (vii) The author states the length effect cannot be seen by any co-moving observer, then uses Apollo astronauts' impressions as a test. These are not compatible.

b. Established experiment. Apollo: Hadley Rille and Mount Hadley belong to Apollo 15, not 11; the LM was 4-5 km from Hadley Delta; the rover drove 28 km; Earth-Moon laser ranging (retroreflectors since 1969) and LRO images (2009 on) agree with mapped separations [memory, high; deep reader, not web-checked]. Hafele-Keating: his own number (214 ns) comes from subtracting magnitudes (273 and -59 ns) with a sign dropped; it reproduces special relativity's first-order term, so "incompatible with relativity" does not follow [memory, high; not web-checked]. Fizeau 1851 contradicts "no case is known in which Galilean addition fails". Tamarack mine plumb lines (one hollow-earth web page, 1901, 47 cm against 40 cm) show a match of the right size only if the wire shortens and the shaft separation does not, and ignores 1.5 cm/K thermal expansion of the 1.3 km wire [read: deep/Scalar-Waves ch.13 sec.L]. The underground G anomaly (Die Zeit 1997, Science 1987) is a real literature of the 1980s "fifth force" period; I did not research its status.

The proton radius, the one clean prediction. Meyl's NET-Journal paper (Nov/Dec 2014) predicts R_p(muonic)/R_p(electronic) = sqrt((m_p + m_e)/(m_p + m_mu)) = 0.9483, compared with 0.84087 fm / 0.886 fm = 0.949 [read: kmeyl-NET_Protonradius.pdf]. It is a specific, falsifiable number and it is fair to record that it matched the 2010-2013 muonic result when written. It was written after the puzzle was known (Pohl 2010 is cited), and it used one electron-scattering value (0.886 fm) that was at the high end. Later measurements gave electron scattering 0.831 +/- 0.007 +/- 0.012 fm (PRad 2019) and hydrogen spectroscopy values consistent with the muonic ~0.84 fm [web: https://physicstoday.aip.org/news/proton-radius-puzzle-may-be-solved; Duke PRad summary in the same search]. With both methods now at about 0.84 fm the ratio is about 1.00 and the predicted 5% species dependence is not there. I count it as a prediction that failed on later data, with the caveat that a 2020 review still asks whether the puzzle is closed [web, same search].

c. Tested? Apollo anecdotes and Tamarack: not controlled tests, and not consistent with the theory's own invisibility claim. Nobody has run the one clean test (transverse field of a fast beam) because it was done long ago in the opposite direction. Particle masses are fitted. Proton radius: tested by events, failed.

d. If true. Special relativity's field transformation, the gamma scaling of beam fields, Fizeau, the equivalence of c and the SI metre definition, and lunar laser ranging would all have to be reinterpreted.

Strongest honest case. (1) c as a "measurement constant" has a grain of truth: since 1983 the SI metre is defined through c, so a modern vacuum speed in m/s is definitional [memory, high]; the physical content is in dimensionless ratios. (2) Boscovich's idea that only ratios of lengths are observable is respectable philosophy. (3) The geometric "gravity as feedback of the contraction of two particle fields" is a qualitative idea that could be made quantitative; none of the required quantitative content (G, the 10^36 ratio of electric to gravitational force, Kepler's laws, light bending, the Shapiro delay) appears.

Verdict. Internally inconsistent (sign error; factor 36 against his own eq. 11; unobservability and Apollo test together). Moon-scaling claim: Refuted by calculation and by laser-ranging/LRO data. Particle masses: Not testable as stated (free structure choice; only one derived ratio, 1.35% off); the 2014 proton-radius prediction: Tested, not supported by 2019 data. Gravitation = closed field lines: Not testable as stated.

---

Claim 7. Scalar waves are the biological information carrier; electrosmog harms through the scalar share; vibration medicine and bioresonance work through it

Documents. Neutrino Power interview (2000), electrosmog article and lectures (digest only), CoMed 01/03 interview, patent DE102014109660A1 (2014, withdrawn), Retraction Watch. Meyl's own concessions: frequency therapy "should not work" by present physics; the zapper hits beneficial bacteria; dowsing can be self-influenced; a scalar telephone needs more than 40 years; a cage or tunnel cannot tell which part of a received signal was scalar [read: claims.md; deep/Neutrino-Power secs.2.5, 6, 9]. The cancer-as-selection statement is introduced as a "discussable approach" (p.68), not as a finding.

a-b. The nerve argument (nodes of Ranvier as standing-wave nodes; insulation thickness setting speed) leaves out saltatory conduction, whose cable-theory and Hodgkin-Huxley accounts are quantitatively tested [memory, high]. No equation for the scalar-wave alternative is printed in the pages read. The power-budget argument for phones (3 W out, "one millionth" arriving, microwatts needed with a resonant scalar link) uses an assumed one-millionth, not a measurement. The mobile-antenna narrative (shortened antennas increase the scalar share) is attributed to unnamed engineers and unnamed measurements.

c. Tested? No exposure study, trial or measurement of a scalar component is reported. Von Klitzing (Lübeck) is cited as measuring brain effects of pulsed signals; Meyl says his own interpretation differs from Klitzing's [read: deep/Neutrino-Power sec.7]. The 2012/2013 cell-communication papers (DNA and Cell Biology; J Cell Commun Signal) were retracted in 2013 for fourfold duplicate publication after a complaint by U. Berger, president of the Austrian sceptics' society, an interested party [read: research/2026-10-08-retractionwatch.md]. The retraction is for duplication; no experiment was refuted, and the two reviewers described in the notice were not unanimous ("way out there" but could be right). Meyl's "mehrfach peer reviewed publiziert" self-description is therefore thinner than it sounds: venues include Ashdin (J Vortex Sci Technol), OMICS (Fluid Mech Open Access, J Geol Geophys) [read: deep/About-Vortex, deep/Fluid-Mechanics; the FTC ruling against OMICS in 2019 on deceptive peer-review claims is [memory, high; not web-checked]], PIERS (conference proceedings), JSE (one paper).

d. If true. A new radiation class with biological effect at powers far below thermal thresholds, outside the mainstream non-thermal RF debate, which does exist on its own terms.

Verdict. Scalar-wave biology, nerve conduction, cancer-selection and health claims: Never properly tested and, as the text stands, largely Not testable as stated (no measurable scalar quantity; Meyl's own concessions). Not dismissed without testing and not tested: nobody ran the experiments. The "electrosmog" share of the claim is a separate mainstream debate that does not depend on Meyl's theory.

---

Investigator's findings and how I weigh them

Absence of evidence. The record does not go dark: kits and devices were on sale in 2026, new work (ozone water motor, gas structure, 6.78 MHz protection devices) appears on k-meyl.de, and the 2004 announced "withdrawal from the scalar wave business" did not last. What is missing is independent replication after 2001, not activity. Competing explanations: (a) there is nothing more to find, because the IGF explanation is right and serious laboratories saw no reason to repeat it (consistent with the lack of replications; weakened by Meyl's claim of hundreds of tests that he does not name); (b) institutions and universities distanced themselves, so the inventor lacked access to independent measurement (supported by Furtwangen's teaching ban, but the IGF invitation went unanswered on the record I have); (c) commercial interest in selling kits and devices reduces the incentive to publish a clean test (the inventor says he withholds partners' names for privacy); (d) personal circumstances (stroke 2014, one critic-wiki source; retirement 2018). Records that would decide: the Clausthal institute's lab records for 6 July 2000, the Treskatis thesis and data, INDEL's customer correspondence and returns, any EMC laboratory report on the suitcase, Bundesanzeiger accounts 2010-2012, DPMA file histories of DE10348862 and DE19614575.

---

What would settle each claim (cheap, decisive, one experiment each)

1. Claim 4 (kit). A clean sine source (low harmonic content, checked on a spectrum analyser), no LEDs, true-RMS broadband meters or calorimetry at generator output and at the receiver load, phase-aware V-I power measurement, the link wire disconnected as a control, a ground-free battery supply, and a closed loop (receiver output rectified and fed back to power the oscillator). One day's work for a competent RF lab.
2. Cage. A battery-powered transmitter inside a gasketed, welded enclosure with no conductor leaving it, receiver outside on an isolated antenna probe; slot opened by calibrated amounts.
3. 1.5 c. Measure wavelength directly (probe the standing-wave nodes and phases as IGF did) and the arrival time of a gated burst on a 500 MHz scope along an independent path.
4. Claim 2. Obtain the Treskatis data; fit relaxation distributions plus ESR against the vortex-loss formula (published beforehand) with temperature dependence.
5. Claim 5. A quantified coupling test for the patent receiver in a known neutrino flux; for Earth growth, nothing further is needed beyond the geodetic bound.
6. Claim 1. Publish a value or a bound for tau2; check it against vacuum propagation of light and monopole searches.

Where I would push back on both sides

• Against Meyl: unit slips, the "36" against his own proportionality, Apollo 11 for Apollo 15, the leap-second time base, the 490% from subtracting two close numbers, a claimed "no postulate" derivation that rests on restricted cases, unfalsifiable preambles ("vortices cannot be measured"), unnamed confirmations ("some universities", "hundreds of measurements"), and the habit of answering critics with attacks on their persons.
• Against the critics: the IGF's 45% by eye matching and "first clear sign" from a curve that is also consistent with conducted transfer; no actual cage measurement; one test group only; the use of "private institute" insults is mirrored in Bruhn's tone; Wikipedia and Psiram describe the inventor in words ("pseudowissenschaftlich") that are their characterisation, not a test; the dismissal of Tesla-scale experiments as unnecessary when even the IGF says they have not been done.

Verdict table