Meyl-Konstantin: Physicist review (Step 2)

Reviewer: PhD physicist. Project: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Konstantin Meyl (Furtwangen University, "1st TZS" transfer centre, INDEL publishing), 24 documents, 2000-2016. Date of review: 2026-10-08.

Tags: [read] = taken from the project documents, the deep reads in deep/, or the Investigator's notes in research/; [web] = checked on the Internet, URL given; [memory] = recalled, confidence given; [calc] = my own arithmetic (Python, .venv). Symbols are defined where they first appear. "Curl" is written rot in Meyl's German texts.

Source gap (repeated from claims.md)

The 657-page 2003 textbook has no equations in its text layer. The deep readers read page images for ch.5, 7, 11-13, 21-24, 26-30. Chapters 14-20 (free-energy devices, Meyl's own 1989-1999 experiments in ch.19) and ch.25 exist only as digests, so statements about them below are digest-based and tagged "[digest]". The Barkhausen detector notes, the electrosmog newsletter and the electrosmog article, the complementary-medicine lecture and the Wiesbaden lecture are digest-only. The Treskatis 2010 thesis, the PIERS 2012 paper, Tesla's 1919 article, the Clausthal "report" and the Weidner follow-up's raw data were not available (the follow-up report itself was recovered by the Investigator). Where a conclusion rests on [memory] alone it is marked.

0. How to read this review (what physics Meyl needs, in plain terms)

Meyl's whole programme rests on one idea. Maxwell's equations say, among other things, that the divergence of the magnetic field is zero (div B = 0: no magnetic "charges"), and that in empty space the divergence of the electric field is zero (div E = 0, no free charge). Meyl proposes that a term which those equations discard, which he writes b = B/tau2 and calls a "potential vortex" of the electric field, is physically real. From it he derives a "scalar wave" (a longitudinal wave whose speed is arbitrary), identifies it with Tesla's "radiations" and with neutrinos, and builds energy-harvesting, communication, geophysics, particle-mass and medical claims on top.

A few textbook facts make most of the review readable. They are all in Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, ch.7-10, 12 [memory, high].

1. Longitudinal waves exist in matter (sound, plasma/Langmuir waves). Maxwell's equations allow them wherever there is free charge. What they forbid is a source-free longitudinal electric wave in vacuum, because Gauss's law gives div E = 0 there. So the dispute is narrow: a longitudinal electromagnetic wave in vacuum or air with arbitrary speed.
2. The relations E = v x B and H = -v x D that Meyl treats as fundamental are the first-order (speed v much smaller than c) Lorentz transformations of the fields. They describe what a moving observer sees. They follow from Maxwell plus relativity; they do not generate Maxwell.
3. A complex permittivity does not make the speed of light complex. It gives a complex wavenumber, whose imaginary part is absorption.
4. The near field of an antenna (distance below lambda/2pi, about one sixth of a wavelength) is an exact solution of Maxwell's equations and contains field components along the direction of travel. It is not a gap in the theory.

Worked example used repeatedly: the kit resonates near 7 MHz. Wavelength lambda = c/f = 3.0e8/7e6 = 42.8 m; the near-field radius lambda/2pi = 6.8 m [calc].

---

1. Claim 1: Maxwell's equations are an approximation (the potential vortex term)

Claim as stated in claims.md: from E = v x B and H = -v x D one reads off Maxwell's induction and Ampere laws only if b = -v div B = 0; the dropped term b = B/tau2 is a "potential vortex"; the result is the "fundamental field equation" c^2 Delta E = d^2E/dt^2 + (1/tau1 + 1/tau2) dE/dt + E/(tau1 tau2) (Delta = Laplacian, tau1 = eps/sigma, tau2 a new time constant). No value of tau2 is given.

Mainstream view, stated fairly: Maxwell's four equations plus the Lorentz force are the most precisely tested theory in physics (quantum electrodynamics reproduces them to parts in 10^12 in the electron's magnetic moment [memory, high]). Gauss's law for magnetism, div B = 0, rests on the failure of every search for magnetic monopoles (MoEDAL, cosmic-ray and accelerator searches) [memory, high]. Faraday's motional emf and Maxwell's transformer emf are two faces of one law, the flux rule, and the Lorentz force law covers the unipolar generator, the Hall probe and the picture tube. Maxwell's own 1865 and 1873 texts contain the v x B term; the four-equation form without it is due to Heaviside and Hertz [memory, high; deep/Faraday-or-Maxwell s.4.3].

a. Is the mathematics internally consistent? - The algebra from the extended laws (rot E = -dB/dt - B/tau2, rot H = dD/dt + D/tau1) to the field equation (5.7 / 27.26) is correct; units hold; I and the deep reader both checked it symbolically [read: deep/Meyl-Scalar-Waves... s.2; calc]. - The step that gives the claim its "no postulate" status does not hold. Meyl takes the curl of E = v x B and sets (v.grad)B equal to "dB/dt". The first is the change seen by an observer moving through a static field; the second is the change at a fixed point. They differ in sign and meaning (for a pattern B(r - vt) the local derivative is -(v.grad)B). So the "derivation of Maxwell" matches two different derivatives [read: deep/Faraday-or-Maxwell s.4.2(2); deep/Objektivitaetstheorie-1 s.3 (13); calc]. - The terms j = -v div D and b = -v div B are not derived: j is identified with Gauss's law (ordinary physics) and b is exactly what is left when Gauss's law for magnetism is not imposed. So the claim is a restatement of "let div B not be zero", with the new name "potential vortex" [read: deep/Faraday-or-Maxwell s.4.2(3)]. - b = B/tau2 is a magnetic current density (a "magnetic Ohm's law"), the formal dual of j = sigma E. The 2012 and 2013 papers admit "the potential vortex has only been postulated and not mathematically derived" and print no field equation [read: deep/About-Vortex s.3.4, 2]. Equation (14) forces B parallel to v, so the transverse and longitudinal terms of the "general wave equation" (26) cannot both come from one field [read: deep/Faraday-or-Maxwell s.4.2(5)]; the x-component of (27.27) within Meyl's own ansatz is satisfied only if v = c or div B does not vary along x [read: deep/...603e47 s.I.1(5)]. - The value of tau2 is also inconsistent across the book: tau2 ~ musigma (eq.5.11, dimensionally incomplete, units s/m^2) means tau2 tends to 0 in vacuum, while p.70 says tau2 grows as conductivity falls. With tau1 = eps/sigma and tau2 = kmusigma, the product tau1tau2 = k/c^2 does not depend on sigma [read: deep/...603e47 s.3 item 4; calc]. - Meyl's labels are also swapped relative to the textbook: eps/sigma is the charge relaxation time, musigmaL^2 is the magnetic diffusion time of eddy currents. - Verdict on the maths: valid algebra on a postulate; the "derivation of Maxwell from Faraday" is not valid.

b. Consistent with experiment? - If the term is real with a short tau2 in vacuum (Meyl's own choice tau2 = r/c, r a vortex radius; at 7 MHz r of order 7 m gives tau2 about 2e-8 s), a plane wave in vacuum would decay as exp(-t/(2 tau2)) [calc from eq. 5.12, deep/...603e47 s.4 case 1]. With tau2 = 2e-8 s, a radio wave would lose 1/e of its amplitude in 40 ns, i.e. 12 m of travel. Radio astronomy, Voyager telemetry at tens of light-hours, and the CMB over 13.8 Gyr show no such damping [memory, high]. Even the weakest reading, that a vacuum damping must be undetectable, forces 1/tau2 below about 1e-17 per second, at which it explains none of what it is invoked for (noise, capacitor losses, antenna losses). Calculation: exp(-40 ns/(2*2e-8 s)) = e^-1, so over a 1 s Voyager-scale trip the factor would be exp(-1/(4e-8)) = 0. That is a refutation by calculation of the short-tau2 version. - div B not zero: not supported by any measurement. The 2009 Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin result that Meyl cites as proof is real: D. J. P. Morris, D. A. Tennant et al., Science 326, 411 (2009), neutron scattering on the spin ice Dy2Ti2O7 [web: https://research-portal.st-andrews.ac.uk/en/publications/dirac-strings-and-magnetic-monopoles-in-the-spin-ice-dysub2subtis/ ]. The "monopoles" are the ends of chains of flipped atomic magnetic moments inside a crystal. A search result quoting the authors' own APS abstract says the neutron data measure "strings along which B flows towards the monopoles ... so that div B = 0 remains intact" [web: https://archive.aps.org/mar/2010/w36/5 ]. So the paper he builds on states the opposite of eq. (6). He also writes that Jackson "thought curl B to be magnetic monopoles"; monopoles would appear as div B [read: deep/Consequences s.2]. - The accepted explanations of the phenomena he assigns to this term stand without it (see claims 2-3).

c. Tested? Nobody has measured tau2; Meyl gives no number and no predicted effect. The only independent mathematical review on record is Bruhn's (TU Darmstadt, a critic and organised sceptic, interested party on that side): with Meyl's basic equations E and H are perpendicular to each other and to v, so the waves are transverse; non-trivial solutions only for |v| = c [read: research/2026-10-08-tu-darmstadt-bruhn.md items 2, 6, 8]. The one academic opinion Meyl named in support, Prof. H.-J. Runckel (Ulm), is known only through Bruhn's rebuttal; his text was not found. Runckel is credited in the 2003 book with the geometric-series step E0 = E(1 - v^2/c^2); the sum of the series is correct for v < c [calc], so his support is for solvability, not for the physics. Weigh both: the support is documented in one place and is not a test.

d. If it were true: div B = 0 would fail, magnetic charge would exist (the term has the form of a magnetic current), the Lorentz-force-plus-Maxwell structure would need a new constant tau2, vacuum would attenuate light, and the electron's g-2 agreement would have to survive an extra term.

Verdict (split): - "Maxwell's equations follow from E = v x B and H = -v x D as a special case": Internally inconsistent (two meanings of d/dt; Gauss's law used as input). Historically, Faraday's motional emf as the starting point was the position of some textbook authors (Küpfmüller, Bosse); that part of the framing is a defensible choice, Meyl's conclusion is not. - "The extra term b = B/tau2 exists with a short tau2 in vacuum": Refuted by calculation (vacuum attenuation) and Tested, not supported (no magnetic monopole in div B). - "b exists with a very long tau2": Not testable as stated (no value, no effect).

---

2. Claim 2: potential vortices explain noise, capacitor and dielectric losses and the near field

Mainstream view: (i) Dielectric loss in a polymer film capacitor is described by relaxation of dipoles with a broad distribution of relaxation times (Debye, Cole-Cole, Havriliak-Negami) and a nearly constant "universal dielectric response" loss of Jonscher type, plus the series resistance of the electrodes, which adds tan delta = omega * R_s * C (omega = 2 pi f, R_s series resistance, C capacitance, tan delta the loss factor = energy lost per cycle / (2 pi x energy stored)). (ii) Thermal noise follows the fluctuation-dissipation theorem (Nyquist 1928; Callen and Welton 1951): any lossy element at temperature T produces noise power kT per hertz, so a correlation between a capacitor's loss and its noise is expected and says nothing about vortices [memory, high]. (iii) Circular marks on the aluminium of metallised film capacitors are classed as electrochemical electrode corrosion (the 1980 and 1984 papers' own titles) [read: deep/About-Vortex s.7].

a. Mathematics. - The "complex speed of light" objection (epsmu = 1/c^2 with complex eps) is wrong. The relation is the vacuum identity; in a medium epsmu = 1/v^2 and a complex eps gives a complex wavenumber k = omegasqrt(epsmu), whose imaginary part is attenuation. Example: polypropylene with eps_r about 2.2, tan delta about 2e-4: n = sqrt(2.2) = 1.483, extinction coefficient about n*tan delta/2 = 1.5e-4. The wave is a slightly damped wave at c/1.483 [calc; memory, medium for the material numbers]. Refuted by calculation (the objection, not necessarily Meyl's alternative). - "A constant loss factor contradicts hysteresis" is backwards: rate-independent hysteresis loses a fixed energy per cycle, so power rises with f but tan delta is constant [read: deep/Consequences s.3.4]. - The continuity argument ("insulator fields would be irrotational, which violates refraction continuity") misstates Maxwell: rot E = -dB/dt holds in insulators too, and the boundary conditions are met by ordinary skin-effect solutions [read: deep/...603e47 s.D]. - Noise-curve match: Meyl's Fig.10 curve hf/(1 - exp(-hf/kT)) (h Planck's constant, k Boltzmann's constant, T temperature) is the quantum Nyquist form with a full instead of half zero-point term. It rises at kT/h = 6.1 THz at 293 K [calc]. The capacitor tan delta rise Meyl compares it with is at 0.1-100 kHz, eight to nine orders of magnitude lower [read: deep/About-Vortex s.6.1]. The correlation is of curve shapes on unlabelled axes. - The only loss measurement (Fig.11) is three straight lines, tan delta axis without its multiplier (values 4-20 or 3000 are impossible for a capacitor; they must be x10^-4 or similar), no capacitance, voltage, temperature, instrument or formula for the "Meyl model". The caption says "qualitative comparison". The "orthodox" comparator is the low-frequency tail of one Lorentz oscillator (slope 1), which nobody uses for polyester film at audio frequencies. Measured tan delta rises by about 5 over three decades (slope 0.24), which relaxation plus series resistance produces: with C = 1 uF and R_s = 10 milliohm, tan delta_ESR = 6.3e-6 at 100 Hz up to 6.3e-3 at 100 kHz [calc]. The real competitor was not tested. - The Q measurement of 1990 (silver-coated vs uncoated ceramic capacitors near 400 MHz, Q = 48, 9, 28) was, by Meyl's own account, repeated and the results "drowned in the mean variation"; a colleague withdrew from a joint paper [digest: textbook p.410-412].

b. Experiments. Nothing cited conflicts with the standard account; nothing discriminates the vortex account. Electrode corrosion circles grow as a spreading front between 40 h and 52 h (Meyl's own Fig.12 b-c), consistent with corrosion [read: deep/About-Vortex s.7]. Antenna "noise equals antenna loss": for 100 W into an 80 % efficient antenna, 20 W is lost as heat, while thermal noise in 1 MHz at 290 K is kTB = 4e-15 W, a ratio of 5e15 [calc]; a loss cannot be "20 % noise". Poynting's theorem puts the heat in the term (1/tau) dE/dt (Joule heat j.E), contradicting "there is nothing about heat in the equation" [read: deep/...603e47 s.B.2].

c. Tested? One qualitative plot in Meyl's own papers, from a bachelor thesis (T. Treskatis, Konstanz, 2010) that is not online. The Investigator found Meyl's own note that he supervised that student in summer term 2010 [web, via research/2026-10-08-google-search.md; not checked by me], which differs from the papers' wording of "a colleague at the university for theoretical physics" and should be kept in view when weighing independence. No second laboratory, no raw data, no model parameters.

d. If true: relaxation theory of dielectrics and the fluctuation-dissipation theorem would not account for capacitor loss; a new loss channel with a tau2 would appear in every capacitor, microwave oven and induction heater.

Verdict: Never properly tested (the only data is one unlabelled plot compared with a model nobody uses; the competing standard model was never fitted). The supporting arguments (complex c, hysteresis, continuity, noise-curve match) are Refuted by calculation / Internally inconsistent as stated. Pertinent material kept: the 2009 monopole citation is real; electrode circles are real photographs; the idea that noise and loss are linked is correct physics for thermal reasons.

---

3. Claim 3: vortices travel as longitudinal "scalar waves" with variable speed and a stability limit at 1.618 c

Mainstream view: longitudinal waves with a speed set by the medium (sound, Langmuir waves with omega^2 = omega_p^2 + 3 k^2 v_th^2) exist; in vacuum Maxwell's equations allow only transverse waves at c. No signal travels faster than c; tunnelling and anomalous-dispersion experiments show group delays shorter than free travel, with the signal front at c [memory, high]. The reactive near field of a dipole contains 1/r^2 and 1/r^3 terms, including a field along r, and the textbook figure of closed field loops detaching from the dipole is an exact Maxwell solution.

a. Mathematics. - The identity Delta E = grad div E - rot rot E is correct, and the labels longitudinal/transverse are standard. But the equation being split, Delta E = (1/c^2) d^2E/dt^2, was itself derived using div E = 0 and no currents. The "neglected scalar term" is Gauss's law in empty space, not a textbook oversight. With sources the exact equation is Delta E - (1/c^2) d^2E/dt^2 = (1/eps0) grad rho + mu0 dJ/dt [read: deep/...603e47 s.3.3; memory, high]. - Chapter 21 derivation: inserting E = -grad phi gives grad[Delta phi - (1/c^2) d^2phi/dt^2] = 0. Dropping the gradient leaves a function of time only, which cannot be the position-dependent -rho/eps Meyl sets it to. His own eq. 21.8 (Delta phi = -rho/eps) and 21.9 together give d^2phi/dt^2 = 0, i.e. no oscillation. 21.9 is the textbook Lorenz-gauge equation, but with the vector potential A set to zero it is inconsistent. The printed "plasma wave" dispersion omega^2 = c^2 k^2 + omega_p^2 is the transverse wave in a plasma, not the longitudinal one [read: deep/...603e47 s.3.4-3.7 SymPy-checked]. - 1.618 c: eq. (1)-(7) in the 2016 Fluid Mechanics paper and 29.11-29.19 in the book. The algebra from c^2 E'' = v^2 E'' + v (c/r) E' to v^2 - v c - c^2 = 0 is correct. I re-derived the sign: for the trial profile E0 exp(-(x + v t)/r), which moves toward -x (inward), the substitution gives v^2 - v c - c^2 = 0 and v = 1.618 c. For an outgoing profile exp(-(x - v t)/r) the same steps give v^2 + v c - c^2 = 0 and v = 0.618 c [calc: np.roots([1,-1,-1]) = 1.618; np.roots([1,1,-1]) = 0.618]. Meyl says v points radially outward. The golden ratio appears only because tau2 is set to r/c and the decay length to r; with general tau and decay length l the condition is c^2 = v^2 +/- v l/(c tau), a one-parameter family [read: deep/...603e47 s.D2(iv)]. The step also needs div E = 0 and a longitudinal field E(x) at once, and for E = E(x) x-hat, div E = dE/dx is not zero, while rot rot E = 0 removes the term the equation started from [read: deep/...603e47 s.D2(iii)]. - A decaying non-oscillating exponential pattern carries no signal. Its "speed" is an envelope or phase speed. The telegraph equation of this form has signal fronts at exactly c [memory, high]. The paper gives no calculation of a near-field extent as a function of v; the claim that the near field "reaches to infinity" at 1.618 c is asserted [read: deep/Meyl-K-Fluid-Mechanics s.6e]. - "Variable speed" (E, H proportional to 1/v^2): asserted from the theory of objectivity; fails when E changes sign; the sound analogy is wrong because sound speed in a medium does not oscillate with the wave's own amplitude in the linear regime [read: deep/...603e47 s.4.3]. - Kit and 7 MHz geometry: Meyl's own rule lambda_vortex = 1.618 lambda gives 69.3 m at 7 MHz [read: deep/Fluid-Mechanics s.4], while the kit manual claims 1.5 c, not 1.618 c; the difference is never discussed.

b. Experiments. Superluminal-tunnelling results (Nimtz, Cologne; Chiao, Berkeley; Krausz, Vienna) are real but are read by their authors and by mainstream physics as group-delay effects of evanescent (below cut-off) waves, with the front at c. Meyl uses them as support. Separately, for neutrino speed the best-known test is SN 1987A: neutrinos arrived hours before the light, but the delay arises from the 3 hours the shock wave took to reach the surface, and the neutrino-energy-versus-arrival-time pattern bounds (v - c)/c to about 2e-9 [web: https://steve.cooleysekula.net/blog/2011/09/24/head-start/ and the review linked from the search at arxiv 2204.12017]. If the neutrinos had travelled at 1.618 c over the 168,000 light-years, they would have arrived 64,000 years early [calc]. The 2011 OPERA superluminal result was traced to a loose fibre connection [memory, high].

c. Tested? The tunnelling physics has been tested thoroughly by others and explained within quantum mechanics and Maxwell. Meyl's own 1.5 c (7 MHz / 4.7 MHz) is a ratio of two mode frequencies of a lumped coil-sphere system with assumed equal wavelength; no time-of-flight (see claim 4). Gao Peng's 2016 torsion-balance test of a dual Tesla coil (4.17 MHz / 2.65 MHz = 1.57) is positive by the author, uncontrolled beyond on/off, and not independent of Meyl's framing [read: research/2026-10-08-vixra-gaopeng.md; I note the ratio 1.57 equals pi/2, see s.4(e)].

d. If true: Maxwell's equations would need a longitudinal vacuum wave, special relativity's signal limit would fail, SN 1987A and many collider timing constraints would be wrong.

Verdict (split): - The derivation of 1.618 c and of a source-free vacuum scalar wave: Internally inconsistent (sign error; div E = 0 contradicted; golden ratio forced by tau2 = r/c). - Superluminal "Tesla radiation" or neutrinos: Tested, not supported (SN 1987A timing, OPERA retraction, tunnelling front analysis). - Longitudinal waves in plasmas and sound, and radial fields in the near field: Established (mainstream, not Meyl-specific). Pertinent to keep: Meyl's demand to measure two of frequency, wavelength, speed (v = lambda f) is a sound methodological point, and his remark that the vector wave equation alone allows longitudinal solutions is correct; Gauss's law is what excludes them [read: deep/...603e47 s.B.1(6)].

---

4. Claim 4: the two-coil kit shows wireless energy transfer, receiver feedback, 500-1000 % over-unity, 1.5 c and an ineffective Faraday cage

Mainstream view: two resonant circuits coupled through the capacitance between spheres and through a conducting return (the ground/one-wire link) transfer power efficiently at short range; that is resonant wireless power transfer, shown in 2007 over 2 m at about 40 % efficiency (A. Kurs et al., Science 317, 83) [memory, high]. A tuned receiver loads the transmitter's tank and lowers its voltage (back-reaction), and nonlinear LEDs create harmonics. Energy out cannot exceed energy in without a source. A cage shields radiated fields, but a wire passing through the wall carries the signal.

a. Mathematics. Meyl's own patent DE 10348862 B4 (granted 2009) describes the same link in circuit terms: "ist eine Rückleitung erforderlich. Diese kann als einadriges Kabel oder als Masseverbindung ausgeführt sein", a capacitive path plus a conducting connection forming one L-C circuit at self-resonance, no over-unity claim [read: research/2026-10-08-google-patents-espacenet.md; web: https://patents.google.com/patent/DE10348862B4/en]. The kit manual concedes the ground cable is a conductor needing a return path [read: deep/Scalar-Wave-Technology s.3 Exp.1]. For the efficiency figures: - LED glow gives voltage at two points, not power. A step-up between coupled tuned coils raises voltage without energy gain [read: deep/Theory-And-Experiments s.4 E3]. - The DC-rectifier test: 400 mV on the receiver and 100 mV on the transmitter into 100 ohm is 1.6 mW against 0.1 mW; the "transmitter" value is a rectified voltage at the transmitter's own load, not the generator's input power [read: deep/Scalar-Wave-Technology s.3 Exp.3, 3.9-3.10]. - Pertinent gap in claims.md: the 2003 textbook, section 19.11, does give instrument figures [digest p.422]: output 49 mW into 100 ohm, generator input 233 mW, idle consumption with the receiver off 223 mW. "Efficiency 490 %" equals 49 / (233 - 223) = 49 / 10. With the usual definition, output over input, the efficiency is 49/233 = 21 % [calc]. The 490 % comes from subtracting the idle consumption from the input, so what is plotted is the incremental load. This is the only place I found the formula behind a percentage; the numerical result is below 100 %, and the arithmetic is consistent with a lossy but ordinary link. - TU Clausthal "1000 %": the Investigator found Meyl's FAQ number "50 mW to 500 mW", still without measurer, date or report [read: research/2026-10-08-k-meyl-de.md]. The 2001 IGF finding "efficiency about 45 %" (eye-matched LED brightness, whole link) and "99 %" for a single air-transformer coil (copper loss 0.15 mW of 19 mW) are different quantities [read: research/2026-10-08-wayback-gravitation-org.md]. - 1.5 c: Meyl's argument is v proportional to f at fixed wavelength, so 7 / 4.7 = 1.49. A coil-and-sphere system has several resonant modes; the IGF measured 5.35 MHz fundamental and a node-mapped mode at 29.5 MHz, spacing consistent with a capacitively shortened Lecher line whose resonances are not integer multiples [read: deep/Experimente s.6.2-6.4]. The ratio of two mode frequencies is not a propagation speed unless the wavelength is shown equal. The IGF report has its own slip (56.07 m on p.6, 44.4 m on p.10 for the same frequency), which weakens its wavelength argument but not the mode-structure point [read: deep/Experimente s.8]. Meyl's second route to 1.5 c, Tesla's "12 Hz against Schumann 7.8 Hz", I checked against the patent text below. - Tesla's patent US 787,412, which Meyl cites for both numbers: the text gives "a mean velocity of about four hundred and seventy-one thousand two hundred and forty kilometers per second", gives no 12 Hz value, and says "The lowest frequency would appear to be six per second", with a wave-train of "not less than one-twelfth ... of a second" [web: https://patents.google.com/patent/US787412A/en, fetched; first 100,000 of 227,000 characters read]. 471,240 km/s = (pi/2) x 300,000 km/s [calc: 471,239]. Dividing by the Earth's circumference 40,030 km gives 11.8 Hz, which is where "12 Hz" most likely comes from, and the speed of light round the Earth gives 7.49 Hz, the ideal "Schumann" fundamental for an unenclosed circumference [calc]. The ratio 11.8 / 7.49 = pi/2 = 1.571. In my reading (an inference, the patent text I read does not state this) the factor pi/2 is a geometric factor from comparing a path along the surface with a straight chord (half circumference pi R against the diameter 2R), not a measured superluminal speed. The Schumann resonances were predicted in 1952 and measured in the 1960s, long after Tesla (d. 1943) [memory, high]; the "Tesla concludes 1.5 c" sentence is Meyl's reconstruction. - Faraday cage: the closed-case result is described by the manual as working "with a gap in the door or a cable which leads out of the suitcase" and "perfect coupling" [read: deep/Scalar-Wave-Technology Exp.5]. The cage is conductively tied to the transmitter coil and to the receiver through the cable. Meyl's own FAQ attributes cage failures to leaky cages or untracked resonances [read: research/2026-10-08-k-meyl-de.md]. In Neutrino Power Meyl concedes "Wie viel Prozent sich gewandelt haben, sehen wir dem empfangenen Signal aber nicht an" (a received signal cannot show how much was scalar from the start) [read: deep/Neutrino-Power s.2.5]. - Distance: the manual's claim that received power does not fall off with distance is tested in Exp.6 by lengthening the ground cable beyond 6 m (near-field radius at 7 MHz is 6.8 m, so 6 m is not "ten times" it); the separation is set by a conductor [read: deep/Scalar-Wave-Technology Exp.6 note]. The IGF measurement (power falls from about 8 mW at 17 cm to 3.3 mW at 37 cm then stays near 3.1 mW to 67 cm) fits a distance-dependent near-field part plus a distance-independent conducted part [read: deep/Experimente s.8].

b. Consistent with established results? The kit's observed phenomena are consistent with classical electrodynamics (IGF). Meyl's reply that the IGF is a "questionable private institute" is on record [read: deep/Kreuzfeuer Q2]. The IGF was funded by the Goede foundation, which also hosts the kit summary: the effects "können auf stehende elektromagnetische Wellen auf einer Lecherleitung zurückgeführt werden" [read: research/2026-10-08-goede-stiftung.md]. Meyl's patent text agrees with the circuit reading.

c. Tested, by whom, replicated? Yes, by two independent reports. Report 1 (IGF, Waldaschaff, six named authors, September 2001, instruments listed: Tektronix TDS 3054, HP 8594EM spectrum analyser, Fluke meters): the manual's effects were first reproduced, then explained (3.4 mA rms in the link wire = 28 % of oscillator current, receiver LEDs bright with no sender sphere, LED clipping at 1.7 V creating harmonics, back-reaction at 7.2 MHz explained by the 21.6 MHz third-harmonic resonance of the 18.8 m wire, no over-unity, about 45 % efficiency). Report 2 (H. Weidner, 10 August 2001, recovered from the Wayback Machine): with a low-harmonic oscillator and the LEDs removed, "die von Meyl beschriebenen Effekte [existieren] überhaupt nicht mehr"; open invitation to Meyl to repeat at the IGF [read: research/2026-10-08-wayback-gravitation-org.md]. Gaps in the IGF record, stated so they are not lost: no wire-removed control, no measured cage test (the report says the cage was checked but gives no data), power by eye-matched LEDs in report 1; and the authors say the kit is too small and low-power to count as a replication of Tesla's apparatus, that Tesla's experiments "have not yet been exactly replicated", and they ask for a full-scale replication. That caveat is pertinent and stays: nothing here tests Tesla's 10 kW Colorado Springs system. A third negative, A. Waser (NET-Journal 5/12, Dec 2000), is cited by the IGF but not read. Meyl's claimed confirmations ("some universities", "over 50 universities", "hundreds of measurements at more serious institutes", Clausthal) are unnamed and undocumented; the Furtwangen dean wrote in 2002 that independent opinions on the case "sind im Meyl'schen Sinn negativ" and positive ones were never named [read: research/2026-10-08-tu-darmstadt-bruhn.md item 3; Meyl, interested party as the kit seller; the dean's university is also an interested party in its reputation]. Gao Peng's test is a different quantity (torsion balance) and uncontrolled.

d. If true (over-unity): energy conservation (or a hidden energy source, e.g. ambient neutrinos) would have to be given up. See claim 5 for the neutrino version, which fails by about ten orders of magnitude.

Verdict (split): - Wireless power transfer and receiver "feedback" (loading of the transmitter): Established (as resonant coupled circuits, with a conducting return); the interpretation as scalar waves is Tested, not supported. - Over-unity 500-1000 %: Tested, not supported (IGF measured about 45 %, no over-unity; the one worked formula in the book gives 21 % gross). - 1.5 c: Internally inconsistent (frequency ratio of modes read as speed; the Tesla 1.5 reduces to pi/2 geometry by my reading). - Faraday cage ineffective: Tested, not supported (the cage was conductively connected; Meyl concedes the cage cannot separate scalar from Hertzian parts). - Tesla's full-scale apparatus: Never properly tested (no one has built it; the IGF says so).

---

5. Claim 5: Tesla radiation is neutrino radiation; neutrinos are oscillating vortices; "Neutrinopower"; the Earth and Sun grow by neutrino absorption

Mainstream view: neutrinos are neutral leptons (three flavours) with small nonzero rest masses established by oscillation (Super-Kamiokande 1998; SNO 2001; Nobel Prize 2015) [memory, high]; the solar flux at Earth is about 6.5e10 per cm^2 per second [memory, high]; the cross-section for scattering on an electron at MeV energies is about 1e-45 cm^2 [memory, medium]; the Sun's neutrinos carry about 2.3 % of its output, 31 W/m^2 at Earth [memory, medium; deep/Faraday-or-Maxwell s.3]; and the Earth's radius and rotation are known to high accuracy from space geodesy and lunar laser ranging.

a. Mathematics and energy balance. Meyl's own numbers, recomputed [calc]: - Growth rate: Earth needs 8e16 kg per year (for 18 cm/yr circumference growth), E = mc^2 = 7.2e33 J per year, i.e. 2.3e26 W continuous, 60 % of the Sun's luminosity (3.8e26 W). - Flux available: 66e9 cm^-2 s^-1 over Earth's cross-section pi R^2 = 1.28e18 cm^2 at 1 MeV each gives 1.3e16 W; at 0.4 MeV 5.3e15 W (4e23 J/yr). The requirement exceeds even total absorption of the quoted flux by 5e10 to 2e10. For the 3e9 flux of the Kamiokande figure, 20 times worse. The mass has to come from somewhere; even if every neutrino's full energy became mass, it is 10 orders short. - Absorption: electron column through the Earth is about 2e33 cm^-2; with 1e-45 cm^2 per electron the chance that a neutrino interacts in a pass through the Earth is about 2e-12 [calc]. "Half the solar neutrinos are missing at night" cannot be absorption in the core; the observed day-night difference in Super-Kamiokande is a few per cent and is explained by flavour regeneration in matter [memory, medium; to be web-verified, not done]. Meyl's reading of the 66 : 3 (Gallex : Kamiokande) ratio as "96 % become electrons" ignores that the detectors have different energy thresholds and see different parts of the solar spectrum [memory, high]. - The 1996 patent DE 19614575 A1 does give a budget: 66e9 neutrinos per cm^2 per second, converting all of them would give "etwa 27 Watt pro m^2". Arithmetic: 27 W/m^2 / 6.6e14 m^-2 s^-1 = 4.1e-14 J = 0.26 MeV per neutrino [read: research/2026-10-08-google-patents-espacenet.md; calc]. This is the flux times mean energy and is correct as an upper bound; it assumes every neutrino is converted, and with an interaction probability of order 1e-12 per Earth diameter (a device is much thinner) the harvestable power is smaller by that factor or more. So claims.md's remark "none in the papers" stands, and the patent has a budget that, applied honestly, shows no usable power. - Earth growth from day length. The recomputation in deep/Meyl-Erdwachstum and deep/earth-expansion... is correct: with dt/t = 0.71 s / 1 yr = 2.25e-8, the angular-momentum formula R^n/t = const gives 45 cm/yr circumference growth for n = 2 and 18 cm/yr for n = 5 [read; calc 2.25e-8]. The error is in the input. The 0.71 s (PTB leap-second total of 32 s over 45 years) is an accumulated clock offset caused by the day being about 2 ms longer than 86 400 s (2 ms / 86 400 s = 2.3e-8), not a yearly change of the day. The yearly fractional change of the day is the tidal-braking rate, about 2.3 ms per century predicted and 1.7 ms per century observed from eclipse records, i.e. dt/t about 2.7e-10 per year [web: tidal prediction 2.3 ms/cy and eclipse value 1.7 ms/cy from the search results at https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/08/earth_rotational_slowdown_measured_using_eclipses/ and https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/Content/techdigest/pdf/V06-N02/06-02-Newton.pdf]. Using 2.25e-8 instead of 2.7e-10 overstates the input by a factor of about 85 [calc]. Meyl's 2005 reply accepts tidal friction of 1.7 ms/century as "negligible against the measured fluctuation of 7.3 s per year" [read: research/2026-10-08-k-meyl-de.md]; the 7.3 s/yr is a different, accumulated quantity. This is also noted by the deep reader as a possible error source [read: deep/Meyl-Erdwachstum s.4]. - The textbook's version (200 Myr, compound growth of the core, 6.5 cm/yr diameter) is arithmetically self-consistent but has the day-length algebra wrong: t_E proportional to R^2 gives 24 h x (3420/6378)^2 = 6.9 h at 200 Ma, not the printed 18.84 h; the "less than 0.1 mm/yr" mean growth is 29 mm/yr by the book's own radii (300x too small), and Meyl's present growth is 65 mm/yr diameter [read: deep/...603e47 s.C, D, G]. The Moon would recede 5.88 m/yr in the book's model (v of the Moon assumed constant); lunar laser ranging gives 3.83 cm/yr [web: https://scienceblog.com/k-the-moon-is-drifting-away-from-earth-at-3-8-centimetres-a-year-so-what-happens-to-us-as-it-goes/ via the search results]; and for a slowly accreting central mass the orbit's specific angular momentum is conserved, so the orbit shrinks rather than grows [read: deep/...603e47 s.G]. - Neutrino model: a ring vortex that "alternates between electron and positron" with zero mean charge and mass and nonzero RMS value (like 50 Hz alternating current). The model is stated as "Stellen wir uns vor" [read: deep/Teslas-Radiations s.2]. An oscillating charge of +e, -e at the oscillation frequency would radiate electromagnetically and has an RMS charge e/sqrt(2) in Meyl's own analogy, which no neutrino experiment sees: neutrinos have no measurable charge (limits near 1e-21 e [memory, medium]) and nonzero mass by oscillation. Meyl's resonance rule (same frequency, opposite phase) is not worked out as a force law, and "the time average zero force" is not calculated [read: deep/Teslas-Radiations s.5]. - The 1999 eclipse "focusing": Meyl treats the Moon as a glass ball lens for solar neutrinos, gaining a factor Rm/r_x = 68, or 27 after scattering [digest p.424-425]. Gravitational bending by the Moon at its limb is 4GM/(c^2 R) = 1.25e-10 rad, giving a focal distance of 1.4e16 m, about 1.5 light-years, 40 million times the Moon's distance [calc]; and neutrinos pass through the Moon with essentially no absorption (probability about 1e-13 for the Moon's thickness [calc by scaling]). Refuted by calculation. - Free-energy devices (railgun, Testatika, Bedini/Ecklin, Patterson cell, Stan Meyer cell, Searl disc, Podkletnov) rest on digest only [digest p.326-396]. Railgun: Meyl quotes "16.7 MJ in, 0.317 kg at 4200 m/s, 399 GJ released, over-unity 24 000". The kinetic energy of the stated projectile is 0.5 x 0.317 x 4200^2 = 2.8 MJ, 17 % of the input [calc]. The 399 GJ is not the muzzle energy and its source is not given ("reports", Galeczki and Marquardt 1997). Searl's 511 kV at 1 T and 1 m radius requires 1 m x v x B with v = 511 kV / (1 T x 1 m) = 5.1e5 m/s, i.e. a rim speed far above material strength limits (rotational speed 8e4 per second "as printed"); this is the digest-level reading and the figure as printed is inconsistent between "per minute" and "per second".

b. Consistent with experiment? No. Space geodesy constrains the Earth's mean radius change to 0 +/- 0.2 mm/yr (1 sigma), Wu et al. 2011, combining VLBI, SLR, GPS and DORIS [web: Wu et al. summarised in the search at https://www.pnsn.org and https://earth-planets-space.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/BF03352312 ]. Meyl's growth (dR = 2.87 cm/yr for 18 cm circumference; 3.27 cm/yr in the book) is 140 to 160 times larger than that bound. (Some Chinese GPS analyses report 0.2-0.35 mm/yr, still two orders below Meyl and consistent with zero at 1 sigma [web, same search].) Plate speeds: Atlantic 2-3 cm/yr, not 10 [memory, medium]. The oldest ocean floor is about 180-200 Ma because of subduction, which plate tectonics predicts [memory, high]. Neutrino mass and non-superluminal speed: see claim 3.

c. Tested? Expansion has been tested by space geodesy (negative). The neutrino-collector devices were never tested in a neutral controlled way by Meyl; the Weidner and Junker IGF tests covered the kit only. Parts of the claim concern devices of other inventors (Moray's "sea of energy" and Searl, Patterson, Meyer), which are separate records outside this review's folder; no replication is cited. Moray is documented in one source in the folder (Meyl's citation of a 1960 Moray book for a half-night neutrino drop). The Earth-expansion hypothesis itself (Hilgenberg 1933, Carey, Jordan; a respectable historical position pre-plate-tectonics) is separate from Meyl's mechanism; Hilgenberg used an aether stream, which Meyl declines to adopt [read: deep/Meyl-Erdwachstum s.1].

d. If true: neutrinos would have charge, interact with matter at rates 10^10 times the weak interaction, SN 1987A and solar neutrino observations would be incomprehensible, Earth's radius would have been 6.5 cm/yr different, energy conservation would be bypassed (Meyl says the energy is "zero in total").

Verdict (split): - Neutrinos as oscillating charge-neutral-on-average vortices; "Tesla radiation = neutrinos": Not testable as stated in the vortex form and, in its observable consequences (charge, superluminal speed, zero mass), Tested, not supported. - Harvesting ambient neutrinos as an energy source: Refuted by calculation (about 1e10 short by Meyl's own flux; interaction probability about 1e-12). - The Earth grows 18-19 cm/yr in circumference by neutrino absorption: Refuted by calculation (energy budget; input rate 85 times too large) and Tested, not supported (space geodesy, lunar laser ranging). - Eclipse focusing: Refuted by calculation. - Historic Earth-expansion hypothesis (Hilgenberg): Historically superseded but instructive.

---

6. Claim 6: the "theory of objectivity" (fields determine lengths and c; derives gravitation, particle masses and the Schroedinger equation)

Mainstream view: the field transformations are E' = gamma (E + v x B)_perp and so on, with gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2); transverse fields of a fast charge grow by gamma, not shrink. Lorentz contraction is along the motion. The Schroedinger equation is the low-energy limit of the Klein-Gordon/Dirac equations, and hydrogen's spectrum comes from the Coulomb potential U(r) = -e^2/(4 pi eps0 r). The proton radius is about 0.84 fm. Particle masses are measured, not derived, apart from within the Standard Model's parameters.

a. Mathematics. Meyl's chain: feed E = v x B into H = -v x D (and back); get E_z = -(v^2/c^2) E; E_o = E (1 - v^2/c^2); set this equal to the Lorentz factor (l/l_o)^2 (an equality marked "!"), so E, H proportional to 1/l^2 (Eq. 11) and c proportional to l (Eq. 12). - Sign error: with the vectors Meyl specifies (v along x, H along y, E along z) the product gives E_z = +(v^2/c^2) E, i.e. E(1 + v^2/c^2) [read: deep/Objektivitaetstheorie-1 s.3 (5)-(6), SymPy; calc]. The relativistic result is gamma: at v = 0.99 c, Meyl's formula gives 0.0199, the sign-corrected form gives 1.98, and special relativity gives 7.09. The gap is a factor of about 350 and directly measurable [calc]. - The substitution applies a first-order boost twice and mixes the "magnetic" and "electric" Galilean limits, which cannot be combined to second order (Le Bellac and Levy-Leblond 1973) [read: deep/Objektivitaetstheorie-1 s.3 (3)-(4)]. The same result "v = c" arises in chapter 28 from inserting one transformation into the other [read: deep/...603e47 s.B2]. The series E = E0 (1 + q + q^2 + ...) gives E/E0 = gamma^2 where the exact transformation gives gamma [read: deep/...603e47 s.B3]. The "!" equation in (10) is a postulate: the claim of a result "ganz ohne Hypothesen" is false. - "Length contraction from the light clock" (28.16): the right-triangle relation is time dilation; lengths perpendicular to motion do not contract [read: deep/...603e47 s.B4]. - The "36-fold" Moon factor contradicts Eq. 11: if E is proportional to 1/l^2 then a six times weaker field gives sqrt(6) = 2.45, not 36. The textbook (ch.13, eq. 13.29) itself uses 2.457, so Meyl's documents disagree: Objektivitaetstheorie 2 says 36 (as do Objektivitaetstheorie 1 and Neutrino Power p.191, per the orchestrator fix of 2026-10-08, arbiter QE revision 2), the 2003 book says 2.457 [read: deep/Objektivitaetstheorie-2 s.4a; deep/...603e47 s.N; calc]. Electric field strengths (E, H) are inserted as if they were gravitational acceleration without argument. Mission: Hadley Rille, Mount Hadley and the rover belong to Apollo 15, not Apollo 11 [read: deep/Objektivitaetstheorie-2 s.4b]. - Electron: C_e = e^2/(m_e c^2) = 3.135e-25 F and U_e = 511 kV are the electron rest energy 0.511 MeV expressed in volts, rewritten inputs. The factor choice W = Q^2/C (rather than Q^2/2C) selects 2.82 fm over 1.41 fm [read: deep/...603e47 s.1.1]. - Particle masses: the "derived" ratios use two postulated scalings (r proportional to 1/(z_e E), m proportional to z_e/r^2, z_e the number of elementary vortices) on shell structures chosen to match charge, spin and decay. The one derived ratio is m_p/m_mu = 9 versus measured 8.88 (1.35 % high). The neutron comes out 5.35 % heavy where the measured excess is 0.138 %, i.e. 39 times too large; tau is 8.6 % high; pi^- is 24.5 % high; hyperons are summed from the 1934 m_e "neutron" plus 136 m_e blocks and fall within -8 % to +0.3 % [read: deep/...603e47 s.3-6; calc]. The muon is an input in 7.11 (9 x 207), the electron mass and absolute radii are not computed (E_0 "not known"). The proton moment sign is stated opposite to the measured sign; the claim of no magnetic poles for the electron conflicts with its measured magnetic moment [read: deep/...603e47 s.4; deep/Objektivitaetstheorie-2 s.4g]. The "gamma-0" particle of mass 136 m_e that the mesons are built from has never been observed. The structure chosen per particle has free options, and Meyl writes "an infinite lot of combinations are conceivable" [read: deep/...603e47 s.6]. - Schroedinger and Klein-Gordon "derivations" (ch.5.6-5.8): the algebra is right step by step but: (1) the Klein-Gordon mass term has the wrong sign: 1/(tau1 tau2) - omega^2 = -(1/4)(1/tau1 - 1/tau2)^2 <= 0, a tachyonic sign, and vanishes for tau1 = tau2; (2) omega is a real decay rate in one place and a quantum phase frequency W/hbar in another (a hidden identification); (3) the particle speed v = hbar omega/(m c) comes out as c and the potential U = (1/2) m c^2 = 255.5 keV is constant, about 19,000 times the hydrogen binding energy, so the end result is a free wave of Compton wavelength moving at c, not an atom; (4) conditions tau1 = tau2 are assumed in 5.5 and "required" in 5.8 [read: deep/...603e47 s.6-9; SymPy]. Consequence 1 ("any experiment confirming Schroedinger confirms potential vortices") does not follow. - Proton-radius prediction (k-meyl.de, NET-Journal): R(muon)/R(electron) = (m_p + m_e)/(m_p + m_mu) with a square root giving 0.95; without the root 0.899. The measured proton radius from muonic hydrogen is 0.84 fm against 0.88 fm from electron scattering, a 4-5 % difference (the "proton radius puzzle") [read: research/2026-10-08-k-meyl-de.md; memory, high on the puzzle; Meyl's prediction of the sign and size matches, but the 2019-2022 re-measurements with electrons mostly agree with the smaller muonic value, which removes the puzzle [memory, medium; not web-checked]. Keep: a stated quantitative prediction from his model exists and coincides in size with the 2010 puzzle, which is exactly the kind of testable output the theory otherwise lacks.]

b. Experiments. Hafele-Keating: observed -59 +/- 10 ns eastward and +273 +/- 7 ns westward; predicted -40 +/- 23 and +275 +/- 21; the kinematic and gravitational terms are +144 / -184 ns (east) and +179 / +96 ns (west) [web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment, via search results]. The west-east difference is 273 - (-59) = 332 ns. Meyl reports "214 ns" by subtracting magnitudes, dropping the sign, and computes 207 ns from a half-circumnavigation; his statement that special relativity "doesn't appear in the calculation at all" is wrong because (1/2)(v_E +/- v_f)^2 / c^2 is exactly the first-order special-relativistic kinematic term [read: deep/...603e47 s.K; calc]. The Tamarack mine plumb-line (47 cm vs 26.5 cm expected) is known to me only through a hollow-earth web page quoted by Meyl; his model's 39.7 cm is itself 16 % short of 47 cm and the calculation uses 1.3 km three times; wire thermal expansion of 1.5 cm per kelvin per 1.3 km of steel would mimic 47 cm with a 31 K difference [read: deep/...603e47 s.L; calc]. Single-source evidence, stated as such; the original Hallock and McNair records are not in the folder. The Hubble 1990-1994 blur was a manufacturing error of the primary mirror (spherical aberration, fixed by COSTAR in December 1993), not an altitude-dependent scale change; a focus (short-sight) error could have been fixed by moving the secondary mirror [read: deep/Objektivitaetstheorie-1 s.4; memory, high]. The Apollo 16 far-ultraviolet camera did photograph stars from the Moon [memory, high]. Lunar laser ranging (retroreflectors since 1969) and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter images show Apollo sites at their mapped distances [memory, high]. Meyl's earlier point that a co-moving observer could not detect field-dependent length changes (Boscovich's argument) makes the theory untestable in the laboratory by his own statement, and then the Moon anecdotes contradict it: if rods, eyes and light change together nothing is seen to differ [read: deep/Objektivitaetstheorie-2 s.4c].

c. Tested? The field-transformation and accelerator prediction (E_o/E = 1 - v^2/c^2 against gamma) has been tested routinely by beam-position monitors and Weizsaecker-Williams treatments of fast charges (they see the field rise) [memory, high]. Planetary orbits, G, and the ratio of electric to gravitational force (1.2e36 for two protons) are not derived. The Titius-Bode "derivation" (ch.12): the two columns of Meyl's eq. 12.11 are the same identity for every Kepler orbit, and the exponential r = r0 exp(n/N) comes only from setting (1/r) dr/dn = constant. The fit gives errors of -20 % to +19 % for the planets, comparable to the real Titius-Bode law [read: deep/...603e47 s.I; calc]. The Boscovich "respiration of the Earth": the effect tied to the solar potential would be 8.4e-13, and the extra equatorial daylight is explained by refraction [read: deep/...603e47 s.B6].

d. If true: Lorentz transformations of fields would be wrong at the percent level for charged beams, the Hubble, Apollo and LLR distance data would disagree, and c would vary with location.

Verdict (split): - Field-dependent lengths (E proportional to 1/l^2, c proportional to l): Internally inconsistent (sign error; 36 vs sqrt(6) in two of Meyl's own documents) and Tested, not supported (transverse fields rise as gamma; Apollo/LLR/LRO). - Gravitation = electromagnetism with closed field lines: Not testable as stated (no G, no 1/r^2, no force law). - Particle masses from vortex shells: Tested, not supported as a derivation (one anchor, free structure choice, neutron 39 times too large an excess); numerology rather than prediction. - Derivation of Schroedinger and Klein-Gordon equations: Internally inconsistent (wrong-sign mass term, constant U, v = c, double meaning of omega). - Hafele-Keating as support: Refuted by calculation (the sign was dropped; the kinematic formula is special relativity). - Historical note, kept: Boscovich (1755) did write that absolute size cannot be perceived if all bodies scale together; that idea is old, legitimate and unfalsifiable by itself (hence Historically superseded but instructive).

---

7. Claim 7: scalar waves as the biological information carrier; electrosmog harm; vibration medicine

Mainstream view: nerve action potentials are ionic currents through voltage-gated channels (Hodgkin and Huxley 1952; cable theory); the myelin sheath insulates the axon and conduction jumps between nodes of Ranvier (saltatory conduction) [memory, high]. Bioelectromagnetic safety limits (ICNIRP) are set from heating and nerve stimulation; epidemiology of mobile-phone use is a separate open topic with weak or null associations and many methodological problems [memory, high; no web check]. Blood rouleaux are a normal protein-mediated aggregation of red cells.

a. Mathematics. The nerve argument: node spacing 1 mm taken as lambda/2 and speed 120 m/s give 60 kHz (f = v/lambda = 120/2e-3) [digest p.7; calc]. The arithmetic is right; the premise (that the nodes of Ranvier mark a standing wave of a longitudinal electric wave) is contradicted by direct measurement of ionic currents and by the time course of a propagating action potential (a single pulse, not a standing pattern). Mobile phones: GSM wavelength 32 cm converted with the speed of sound 343 m/s gives 1.07 kHz, "tinnitus" [digest p.8]. A radio wave's frequency (900 MHz) does not change when one divides a different speed by its wavelength; the conversion is dimensionally arbitrary. Cancer as a neutrino-capture energy deficiency (mitochondria catching neutrinos) is stated without any number [digest p.9]. "Article 2 of the Basic Law forbids broadcast radiation" is a legal opinion [read: deep/Neutrino-Power s.7].

b. Experiments. No measurement data in the documents. Concessions of Meyl that are pertinent and kept: dowsing "mental muting" can fool the dowser; dowsing grid frequencies are unknown; frequency therapy "should not work" by present physics; the zapper hits beneficial bacteria; a scalar-wave phone needs more than 40 years [read: deep/Neutrino-Power s.6, 9.4; claims.md]. The 1997 weekend test (self-described electrosensitive woman identified on/off at 100 % after training; second subject with a pendulum) is a single digest-level report with no blinding described [digest p.418]. Von Klitzing (Lubeck) found neurophysiological changes with pulsed signals, but Meyl himself says von Klitzing does not interpret them as scalar waves [read: deep/Neutrino-Power s.7].

c. Tested? Meyl's biology publications: two papers on DNA/cell communication (DNA and Cell Biology 2012; J. Cell Commun. Signal.) were retracted in 2013 for fourfold duplicate publication, after a complaint by Ulrich Berger, president of the Austrian sceptics' society (an organised critic; his and three consulted scientists' view is that the content is "utter nonsense"). Reviewer comments quoted by Retraction Watch: one author-suggested reviewer asked only minor revisions; another found it "way out there" but possibly right [read: research/2026-10-08-retractionwatch.md]. The retractions are for duplication, not for a failed test. No experiment is involved. A 1997 Tesla-coil biological test is single-source (Meyl). Plant papers (IJEE 2015, BEM 2016) listed by rexresearch were not obtained.

d. If true: electrophysiology of axons would have to be re-founded; ion-channel measurements would be incidental; and a new class of non-thermal biological exposure of unknown measurability would exist.

Verdict (split): - Nerve conduction by longitudinal standing scalar waves: Tested, not supported (ionic action potential physiology is measured directly). - Scalar share of mobile-phone fields harms people / tinnitus mapping / cancer as neutrino starvation: Not testable as stated (no measurable quantity is defined; Meyl says the scalar share cannot be measured with present instruments). - Biological effects of electromagnetic fields in general: outside Meyl's claim; the mainstream literature is separate and I do not rule on it here.

---

8. Investigator findings: how I weighed them (kept whatever the verdict)

Priority 1 (inventor's own work) - DE 19614575 A1 (1996) neutrino receiver: gives the 27 W/m^2 budget. Weighed in claim 5: it is an upper bound that ignores a ~1e-12 interaction probability. Also claim 1 of the patent states the opposite-phase rule, the earliest dated statement of it. - DE 10348862 B4 (2009, the only granted patent): circuit-theoretic, conducting return, no over-unity. Weighed in claim 4. It is what a physicist would call the engineering core of the work, and it is a real, mainstream-compatible device description (resonant capacitive coupling). - DE 102014109660 A1 and DE 102021127321 A1 (both withdrawn): Claim 7 and late work. A patent application is not a test. The 2014 filing proposes "magnetically storing" fluids carrying information between coils; no data. - k-meyl.de: 19.9 cm/yr is obtained by adding drift rates at the equator (13.4 + 3.5 + 3.0) and setting subduction to zero; a "postulate" as the page puts it [read: research/2026-10-08-k-meyl-de.md]. This is arithmetic on assumptions. The GPS velocity maps sum to zero because they assume a constant Earth is an assertion by Meyl. - Proton-radius prediction: kept, see claim 6.

Priority 2 (supporting information) - Gao Peng viXra 1607.0130 (2016), positive torsion-balance result: independent builder, but controls limited to on/off, a mechanical detector sensitive to drafts and electrostatic force, and a framing taken from Meyl. Weighed: the ratio 1.57 of its two resonances is again a ratio of two coupled-resonator modes. No replication. - Prof. Runckel's opinion: see claim 1. - Industry-hosted lecture (HAPAG-Lloyd house, December 2005, IVH/BDI, Norddeutsche Affinerie) and the 2008 Messe show opened by minister Pfister: interest and demonstration, not tests. The boat and aircraft shown in 2008 "powered by scalar waves from the socket" are consistent with ordinary resonant wireless power transfer [read: research/2026-10-08-google-search.md].

Priority 3 (related work) - Reichwein, Mendes Waechter, Lange patents: titles and hits only, not opened; no weighing possible. D. Reichwein's coil patent family and Bearden's MEG/Evans O(3) circle share the vocabulary; Bruhn notes the Evans/AIAS circle was cited in support at DGEIM 2003 [read: research/2026-10-08-tu-darmstadt-bruhn.md item 5]. The Hartmut Mueller "G-Com" report in raum&zeit (not about Meyl) describes a phone call to St. Petersburg continued after a phone plug was pulled, claimed to use "standing gravitational waves"; the audio path after unplugging, any other connection, and the spectrum-analyser trace are not documented, the reporter's publisher is one of the exhibitors, and nobody independent inspected the apparatus [read: deep/Weltweit-Erst s.1, 6]. Never properly tested. It does not bear on Meyl. - The Barkhausen scalar-detector notes (Shannon 1996, Bearden-style) are digest-only and not Meyl's; not judged.

Priority 4 (historical record) - Furtwangen dean Honl (2002): "unabhaengige Gutachten ... im Meyl'schen Sinn negativ"; chancellor Kusserow (2008): Meyl may not lecture on it. The university is an interested party in its reputation; Meyl's own research is described as "outside the university flag". Weighed as institutional distance, not as a physical test. - JSE 15(2) 2001: Meyl's paper printed with Bruhn's critique because it had already been on the web (JSE editorial). The "peer-reviewed" self-description of the paper is thus qualified by the journal's own note. - 2013 retractions; the Ashdin 2012 and OMICS 2015/2016 journals: the deep readers note publisher-practice concerns (Beall's list for Ashdin [memory, medium]; the FTC action against OMICS in 2019 [memory, high]) that bear on how much refereeing there was, not on the physics. I did not web-check them (budget). - INDEL GmbH company record (Freiburg HRB 603012); no accounts after 2012 found; 25 March 2024 change of managing director. The Psiram report of a stroke in 2014 is one source, a sceptic wiki, with no second source. Competing explanations for the quieter record after 2014-2016: illness (one source, unconfirmed), retirement in 2018, a decision to publish only on k-meyl.de and in minor venues, the earlier announced "withdrawal" of March 2004 (reported by Bruhn, the original page not found), or the company remaining small. The kits were still on sale in 2026, so the work did not stop. Records that would decide: Bundesanzeiger filings after 2012, the Handelsregister history, the Furtwangen faculty records, Meyl's 2016 book "Der Skalarwellenkrieg".

---

9. Corrections to Step 1 (claims.md, facts.json, deep reads)

1. claims.md "Records ... not in the folder", item "Tesla's US patent 787,412 (1905) ... the 471,240 km/s and 12 Hz statements are Meyl's readings of it": I fetched the patent text [web: https://patents.google.com/patent/US787412A/en]. It does state "four hundred and seventy-one thousand two hundred and forty kilometers per second" verbatim. It does not state 12 Hz. It states "the lowest frequency would appear to be six per second" and a wave-train "not less than one-twelfth ... of a second". 471,240 km/s is (pi/2) x 300,000 km/s, and 471,240 km/s / 40,030 km circumference = 11.8 Hz [calc]. Meyl's "12 Hz" is therefore his derived number, not a quotation. I read only the first 100,000 of 227,000 characters of the page text. The deep reads that left this as "[memory, low]" should be updated.
2. claims.md claim 4: "every number rests on LED brightness, a frequency ratio, or unnamed confirmations". Incomplete: the 2003 textbook, section 19.11 [digest p.422], gives 49 mW output, 233 mW input, 223 mW idle consumption, and defines "efficiency 490 %" as 49 / (233 - 223). The gross efficiency is 21 %. That digest was not deep-read; a deep read of PDF pp.183-241 and 295-455 is still outstanding (first remediation item).
3. claims.md claim 3: "the grad div part ... which Maxwell's theory sets to zero". Maxwell's theory sets it to zero in charge-free space via Gauss's law; it does not neglect it. Correct to: "Gauss's law gives div E = 0 in charge-free space".
4. claims.md Corrections list: "Moon factor 36 (eq. 11 gives 2.45)" should add that Meyl's own 2003 book (eq. 13.29) uses 2.457; the 36 appears in Objektivitaetstheorie 2 (and, corrected 2026-10-08 in arbiter QE revision 2, also in Objektivitaetstheorie 1 and Neutrino Power p.191, so not only there). So his documents disagree with each other. Not a copy of one error but a contradiction between his documents.
5. deep/Meyl-Fortschrittliche... and deep/Longitudinalwellen state "10 % / 90 %" (Longitudinalwellen) versus "5 % / 95 %" (Fortschrittliche). Both appear in different Meyl texts (10 % in the 2001 JSE paper and in Longitudinalwellen; 5 % in Fortschrittliche). Neither is measured. A later file quoting "90 %" or "95 %" should say which document.
6. deep/Fortschrittliche s.4: "10 % near field supply gives about 20x (2000 %)" is the deep reader's arithmetic and is correct (1/0.05); it is not Meyl's statement.
7. deep/Meyl-Erdwachstum s.4 raises a possible error in dt/t (about 100x). Confirmed and quantified: 2.25e-8 vs about 2.7e-10 per year (85x) using the 2.3 ms/century tidal prediction, or 62x using 1.7 ms/century; the book's accumulated 0.71 s equals the day excess (2 ms/86 400 s = 2.3e-8) [calc; web as in claim 5].
8. claims.md claim 2 "photographs borrowed from Yializis 1980": confirmed; and the Investigator's note that Meyl supervised the Treskatis thesis (Konstanz, summer term 2010) qualifies the paper's wording "a colleague at the university for theoretical physics" (deep/About-Vortex s.6.2). The text should say "bachelor thesis supervised by Meyl according to his own note; no second laboratory".
9. facts.json entry for the Consequences paper: the deep read reports "[9 Science, and others]" vs ref. 9 = Maxwell "Atoms"; confirmed. The 2009 result is real: D. J. P. Morris et al., Science 326, 411 [web, above].
10. The deep read for the 2003 book repeats "less than 0.1 mm per year", "18.84 h", "214 ns" as the book's errors; I confirm each: 29 mm/yr average (65 mm/yr present) [calc], 6.9 h [calc], 332 ns (273 - (-59)) [web, above].
11. deep/Objektivitaetstheorie-2 4c: "Mount Hadley rises about 4.5 km above the plain ... about 20 km from the landing site" is [memory, medium] and unverified; the argument against Meyl does not depend on it (LLR and LRO consistency).
12. deep/Experimente s.3: the six IGF authors are not students. Confirmed by the byline. The IGF report (meyl2) is signed by Weidner alone, not "Weidner and Zentgraf" (Investigator's correction, accepted).

---

10. Per-claim summary (verdicts)

Two candid statements for the reader. First, the strongest independent record is the IGF test, which also states that it did not test Tesla's own apparatus; that remains Never properly tested. Second, the repeated move in Meyl's texts, "a received signal in a cage, tunnel or antenna cannot show which share was scalar", is his own concession (Neutrino Power pp.108-109) that the scalar share has no discriminating measurement, which is why most of the biology and geophysics claims fall under Not testable as stated.

11. What would settle the open points

• tau2: a measured tan delta of a capacitor versus frequency (0.1 Hz to 10 MHz, controlled temperature, series resistance subtracted) fitted with Debye/Jonscher + ESR, against the vortex formula with a stated tau2 (raw Treskatis 2010 data).
• Over-unity: input power from a calibrated RF power meter or a vector network analyser at both ends, a dummy-load and a wire-removed control, repeated blind by a laboratory chosen by both sides. The Clausthal report is the record to obtain.
• Superluminal speed: a time-of-flight measurement with a pulse and two receivers at known distance (frequency and wavelength both measured, v = lambda f), or a phase measurement along the link.
• Earth growth: no new experiment is needed; the space-geodetic bound (0.2 mm/yr) and lunar laser ranging already exclude it.
• Tesla's apparatus: a full-scale magnifying transmitter replication, which the IGF itself asked for.

Web checks done (6): Tesla patent US 787,412 (fetched); Hafele-Keating values; space-geodetic Earth-radius bound; Morris et al. 2009 spin ice; SN 1987A / lunar laser ranging / day-length rate (one combined search). Items left as [memory] that a verdict depends on: the day-night asymmetry of solar neutrinos (a few per cent), the neutrino-electron cross-section, ICNIRP and epidemiology statements, the proton-radius re-measurements after 2019, and the Ashdin/OMICS publisher status.