Sykes-Chris · Source catalogue

A 49-page self-published practical guide in which Sykes argues that Lenz's-law drag can be avoided in generators and transformers by using two 'partnered output coils' wound in opposite directions, so that their magnetic components cancel while their electric (A vector potential) components add [read: p.1-6, 40]. He claims this follows from experiment, not conventional theory, and that A is the 'electric component' of the magnetic field and Phi its 'magnetic component' [read: p.6]. He treats the Bloch wall (domain wall in the core iron) as a physical object that grows and moves with the field and sits between the bucking coils [read: p.4, 7, 23]. He argues Lenz's law is the result of current drawn from already-separated charge, not its cause, so a load that does not reflect a magnetic field back to the primary avoids it [read: p.10, 21-22]. The guide reports two coil experiments: a filar coil (55.6 mH, 0.231 H in series, 3.8-7.8 ohm) and a non-inductive bifilar wind (residual 0.24 mH), in which charge flow with the magnetic field took about 75 ms versus about 650 us without it at the same 7.8 ohm; he concludes the magnetic field slows charge flow [read: p.14-16]. He states generators are 98-99% efficient mechanically, so the remaining loss is Lenz drag, not friction [read: p.23-24]. He claims that loosely coupled (gapped) cores work and tightly coupled ones did not reproduce his results [read: p.31-33]. He recommends diodes and square-wave drive and says operation is at the BH-curve knee, not through hysteresis [read: p.40-42]. He describes an alternator test (motor-driven automotive alternator, field coil connected in a short circuit or in series with the output coils) in which feedback gives an electrical output 'with no further Input' to the field, and says the field 'can be made to Support Itself'; he writes 'Not Free Energy' and 'ONLY because of Lenz Law, Resistive Mechanical Force is applied on the Shaft', so the shaft input remains [read: p.48, checked on page image]. He also says the load must supply enough current (Walt Rosenthal: Sweet's VTA 'likes minimum 25 watts load') and that input power falls as the output coils work correctly [read: p.46-48]. He says he studied Floyd Sweet for 15 years and received Sweet's VTA gen-one and gen-two lab notes from an anonymous source, with randomly labelled and apparently missing pages; the document gives his word only and no copy of the notes in the digest [read: p.12]. He says gen-six VTA gave about 5000 W in a shoe-box size [read: p.13], and quotes Bearden saying the VTA produced 6 W using barium ferrite magnets [read: p.20-22]. He quotes Bearden on zero-vector EM force summation, Aharonov-Bohm, Hooper, Whittaker wave/anti-wave pairs, scalar waves and negative time [read: p.18-22], and Floyd Sweet on 'gating the vacuum' and 10x current at the same temperature [read: p.10-11, 17]. He surveys other devices with the same configuration: Moray, Meyer VIC, Jensen UDT, Sweet VTA, Koenig US4806834, Markov, Frolov, Melnichenko, Mishail1971, Utkin, Bill Alek SmartPAK, and lists Figuera, Hendershot and Kromrey as credits [read: p.25-30, 48-49]. He gives a low-cost starting recipe (function generator about $14.99, amplifier about $12.67, two coils, C cores from old CRT TVs, 20-600 Hz) and warns that perhaps 1 in 10 builds works [read: p.34, 37-39, 45]. At p.48-49 he says he initially thought it was free energy from the magnetic component and later realised it is not a new form of energy but known energy under different transformation conditions; he also calls the system open and connected to the Aether, and declares 'Free Energy Future is here NOW' [read: p.48-49]. ADDED AFTER QE (deep reads and text layer). (1) Step-up rule [read: p.10-11, page images]: p.10 correctly shows an ideal 10:1 step-down (240 V x 1 A in, 24 V x 10 A out); p.11 then says 'Ideally, these devices work with a Step Up configuration. 1:3 is a common Ratio ... Current, as you may think, is not stepped down as a result of the Voltage being stepped up', with no derivation or measurement; and 'Floyd Sweet used a Step Up configuration of 1:5' with the caption 'FB1: 48 Turns -> P1: 240 turns = 1:5 Ratio'. In an ideal transformer the secondary current is stepped down by the turns ratio; the sentence can hold only if power is not conserved or the device is not acting as a transformer. (2) The p.11 Sweet schematic [read: page image p.11]: a hand-drawn 'Floyd Sweet (VTA) Vacuum Triode Amplifier' on grid paper with P1/P2 '240T #20 BIF', T1/T2 '250T #28', EX1/EX2 '2000T #26', FB1/FB2 '48T #28', output 'A/B 120V 60HZ', and a 2-15 V battery. The 1:5 is feedback winding FB1 to bifilar winding P1, not drive to output. Source, date and VTA generation are not given in the Guidelines. It is a different device from the May-June 1986 Generation 1 notes. (3) Lab notes [read: p.12; transcription]: Sykes says he was given the original first-generation (revision one and two) lab notes by an anonymous source, pages labelled randomly and some apparently missing; his own transcription is on hyiq.org. He quotes Jeane Manning ('On rare occasions, Sweet saw this effect, called self-oscillation, occur in electric transformers') and Bearden (Sweet 'had also observed specialized self-oscillation in certain transformers'). (4) p.13 'Partnered Secondary Coils' [read: page image p.13]: a scanned page 25 headed 'The Space Quanta Modulator ... initial experimentation of Floyd Sweet' showing a ferrite rod, three permanent magnets, two coil sections with a 2-100 kHz sine source injected at the centre, and a 'bifilar' variation. 'Partnered Secondary Coils' is Sykes's label. He says he could not verify the page's authenticity but now believes it is linked to Sweet or his technology. The '5000 W' Generation Six sentence has no source. (5) Input resonance [read: p.24]: 'I seem to get a better result if the Input is resonated for example, LC Tank ... a time constant in the Magnetic Fields of the Partnered Secondary Coils ... play a factor in the Operating Frequency.' No circuit, component values or measurement are given. (6) Pages 21-24 [read: page images]: p.21 loop A/B Lenz diagram with no values; p.22 Sykes says he uses Bearden's wave/anti-wave 'differently' and that the secondary dipole may be destroyed; p.23 a CRT-TV two-magnet 'squeeze' experiment with no result reported, and the partnered-coil schematic (L3 + V1 input, L1 and L2 in series with a bulb, no values); p.24 photos of the 'first device (2010-11)' and 'second device' with YouTube links and no measurements. (7) Loose vs tight coupling [read: pp.31-32, page images]: 'All my experiments to date point to loosely coupled devices working better than tightly coupled devices'; 'I re-built this device and tightly coupled the Laminations, like a transformer ... I was not able to make the device work the same.' One build each, no numbers, no scope trace, video referenced but not reproduced. The split-core build used 'small plastic spacers'. He concedes some of the listed devices are tightly coupled. (8) Magnetic Gating, pp.38-42 [read: page images]: the circuit Sykes prescribes on p.38 is a sine function generator, power amplifier, input coil L1 and partnered output coils L2/L3 in series with a 10 ohm load, with NO diode. The pp.40-41 pictures are Meyer's Figure 3-23 (switching diode 55 boxed), a photo of a Sweet apparatus with a component boxed, and a photo with an HP 211A boxed; no Melnichenko drawing appears on those pages. The diode scheme is described in prose on p.42: after the DC input is switched off the collapsing field reverses polarity, switches on the diode and drives the partnered output coils (as in Bedini pulse motors); it is a 'work in progress' that 'only appears to be valid under some configurations'. 'Choked off' means the input field is held down by something in the output circuit during charging so it cannot reach 'the knee in the BH Curve'; he says the device works 'in and around' the knee and 'does not move through Hysteresis'. No B, H, core or measurement is given. Nothing in the file links it to Partzman; the file's metadata predates 2020, so whether this is the circuit Partzman criticised is not established. (9) Device survey, pp.25-31 [read: page images]: every device is a picture or patent figure; no power figure is shown for any, apart from Moray's quoted account (lamp lit after about 10 minutes of tuning), Meyer's remark at video 38:16 ('add more turns on the Charging Chokes'), and the SmartPAK diagram caption 'EFFICIENCY >> 100%' (no numbers). The Melnichenko drawing has non-reversed winding direction; Sykes says the fields still oppose through the 'Wiring Difference' and that a large core gap is needed so 'A Vector Spins' do not create a short circuit. Lineage names beyond the arbiter's list: Kromrey, Markov (bidirectional current transformer), Utkin, Bill Alek (SmartPAK), Mishail1971 (NE555/IRF640 sketch dated 2011-11-01, 56 and 240 turns), Hendershot (bell ringer, pp.43-44), Figuera, and W. J. Hooper whom Bearden quotes (p.19). (10) Notation and basics [read: pp.4-9, page images]: the 'Quantum Automobile' (p.5) is a thought experiment about toroidal 'electric fields' either side of a Bloch wall, with no measurement. The Bloch-wall lamination test (p.7) is qualitative ('extreme reluctance'). Equations are printed as emf = dPhi/dt and emf = Bvl with 'l' defined as 'typically the Area of the Element sometimes ... the length', which is a unit error. 'Phi' is used for the scalar potential, the 'magnetic component' and flux. p.38 gives B = mu n I (long solenoid), correct only for that geometry. (11) Pages 45-48 [read: p.45-48]: the p.45 figure is a textbook 120 V / 30 V / 90 V series-connected 'bucking' transformer, with the warning that most 'bucking' devices do not work and 'expect 1 in 10 devices to work'. The only rotor result is one sentence: spinning a permanent-magnet rotor past one bobbin with partnered output coils gave 'No or next to no Lenz's Law and at the same time, Electricity is Generated'; no setup details, speeds, loads or numbers. Sykes adds that total cancellation is impossible. p.46: 'Walt Rosenthal said: The VTA likes to always see a minimum load of 25 watts' and the feedback mechanism (output current returning through confined magnetic fields raises the input coil's impedance and lowers input current; the load is 'another Power Source' phase-locked to the input). pp.47-48: a qualitative lamp 'swipe' prediction: with a big coil, big magnet and a light load the lamp lights only after a delay set by the coil impedance, whereas in 'this technology' the impedance is 'reduced right down' and the eye sees the light 'nearly immediately'; no timing is given. Not read by anyone: linked videos, the scans of Sweet's lab notes, Itsu's replication data.

Key claims

• Two partnered output coils wound in opposite directions on a shared core cancel the magnetic-field component of the output while the electric (A vector potential) component adds, so the load current produces little or no back-reaction on the input (Lenz drag).
• Lenz's law is the consequence of current drawn from already-separated charge, not its cause, so charge separation can occur without a reflected magnetic field.
• Magnetic field slows charge flow: in his filar and bifilar coil comparison, charge flow at 7.8 ohm took about 650 microseconds without the magnetic field and about 75 ms with it.
• Loosely coupled (gapped) cores and a Bloch wall between the bucking coils are required; Sykes reports one informal rebuild with a tightly coupled core ('I was not able to make the device work the same'), with no numbers, as the only comparison.
• A diode plus square-wave or pulsed drive lets the circuit work at the BH-curve knee; without the diode the input coil is 'choked off'. This is described in prose on p.42 and called 'work in progress'; the circuit Sykes prescribes on p.38 is a sine drive with no diode.
• When correctly built and loaded (the author quotes Walt Rosenthal: the VTA 'likes' a minimum load of 25 W), input power falls as output power rises because output current feeds back and raises the input coil impedance. The alternator test is motor-driven, with the field coil fed from the output; Sykes writes 'Not Free Energy' and the shaft input remains.
• Floyd Sweet's Vacuum Triode Amplifier (VTA) and the devices of Moray, Meyer, Jensen, Koenig, Frolov, Melnichenko and others operate on this same bucking-coil principle.
• The author states that generators are 98-99% efficient and labels the converted 98-99% of shaft energy as 'Lenz drag' (p.23); on this reading removing the drag is the route to higher efficiency. This is a relabelling of useful conversion work, not a loss budget.
• In these devices current is not stepped down when voltage is stepped up (p.11: 'Ideally ... a Step Up configuration. 1:3 is a common Ratio ... Current, as you may think, is not stepped down'), while p.10 states the ideal-transformer rule correctly.
• A permanent-magnet rotor spun past one bobbin carrying partnered output coils produced electricity with 'No or next to no Lenz's Law' (p.45; one sentence, no setup or numbers).
• Resonating the input with an LC tank gives a better result than a plain drive (p.24; hedged, no circuit or measurement).
• In a big-coil/magnet 'swipe' test the lamp lights almost immediately in 'this technology' but after an impedance-set delay in a conventional coil (p.47-48; qualitative prediction, no timing).
• Sweet saw self-oscillation in ordinary transformers (Manning and Bearden quotations, p.12), which Sykes offers as the origin of the effect.

Relevance: It is the only document in the project and carries all of the author's claims. It is a practical, theory-light construction guide that ties together Sweet's VTA, Bearden's scalar-wave/zero-vector language and several other free-energy designs. The paper is self-published and gives no tabulated power measurements for the author's own devices beyond the coil comparison on pp.14-16 (whose '650 us' and '75 ms' figures are not cursor-measured charge times); the 5000 W and 6 W figures are reported from others. Experimental statements by Sykes himself are few and unquantified: the pp.14-16 coil traces, the loose/tight rebuild (pp.31-32), one rotor sentence (p.45) and the alternator rig (p.48).

Mainstream conflict: Under the ideal-transformer relations the secondary current is stepped down when voltage is stepped up (I2 = I1 N1/N2), so 'current is not stepped down' (p.11) implies output power above input or a device that is not acting as a transformer. Sykes himself writes 'Not Free Energy' and 'no new form of Energy' (p.47-48), and the alternator test keeps a mechanical shaft input. Conflicts with the standard account of Lenz's law as a consequence of Maxwell's equations and energy conservation, and with the standard treatment of A and Phi (A is the vector potential, phi the scalar potential, not 'electric' and 'magnetic' components of B; Phi is also used for flux). 'Bloch wall' is used for a macroscopic region between coils, not the nanometre-scale domain-wall layer of mainstream magnetism. The cancelling-field and charge-separation claims have no standard analogue. The author states the mainstream view only briefly (ideal transformer P_in = P_out, p.10-11). The generator 'drag' reading (p.23) relabels useful conversion work as drag.

A 15-page typed transcription of 17 scanned lab-note pages, numbered 5 to 48 with gaps, plus three un-numbered 'Moon Valley Circuit' pages, made by the Guidelines' author's own site from scans of unknown provenance (Sykes says an anonymous source supplied them, p.12 of the Guidelines). It describes Generation 1 tests at 'Sparky's Lab' (Floyd Sweet): first observed Monday 19 May 1986, demonstration Saturday 24 May 1986 at 3 pm, further results 4 and 6 June 1986; witnesses Mark Goldes and Darryl Roberts. Coils [read: transcription pp.16, 30, 32]: excitation coil #18, 250 turns, 1.5 in diameter ('90 Degrees Uncoupled'); output ('Power') coil #12, 12 turns, 1.5 in; the coils are set at 90 degrees 'so that the output Currents do not couple with the excitation coil'; two ceramic magnets 4 x 6 x 1 in. Drive [read: p.5, 5/24/86]: 'Power supply was from a Wavetek Signal Generator, with line power, producing a sine wave, vs. Tom's battery supplied square wave (20w?) oscillator.' Figures stated [read]: 24 May: 19.1544 W out against 0.023 mW in, written as 83,260,000% (the input was read on a Beckman multimeter 'purchased 1hr prior', 7.5 V, 3.1 on the 200 uA scale; arithmetic gives about 83,280,000%). 4 June, p.30: 'Oscillator put 143 uA, 7 V of power at approximately 400 Hz, 1 mW into the Excitation Coils ... 4.6 A x 24.2 V = 111.32 Watts - measured twice, observed by 3 persons'; p.28 gives '105,000 x - 111,000 x Gain'. 7 V x 143 uA = 1.0 mW, so the 24 May input (0.023 mW) and 4 June input (1 mW) are two stated figures for different runs, about 43 times apart. Four 26 W bulbs (104 W) at 388 and 402 Hz are noted. Other statements: 'Impedance inside the field goes way up to hundreds of thousands of ohm' (p.17); 2-3 ohm measured externally at 400 Hz rising to 'several hundred KOhm (Calculated) ... No Explanation' (p.31); assembly run all night, about 10 hours, with no noticeable heating (p.31). The 'drawing attached' is partly garbled in the transcription. Withheld part and money [read: p.46]: 'Checks still not in - 13 days late - Sparky explains that there is a little part in the Generator that he has withheld from disclosure - A $1.50 part from Radio Shack ... that is not a capacitor ... that puts a small uA current into the Power Coil as well as the Excitation Coil ... (he calls this unit a Vector Oscillator)'. By these notes the documented device is incomplete by the inventor's own account, and money was owed to Sweet. Input power was a multimeter reading near 400 Hz with no phase or true-power measurement recorded.

Key claims

• On 4 June 1986 a 250-turn excitation coil driven with 7 V and 143 uA (about 1 mW) at about 400 Hz produced 4.6 A at 24.2 V (111.32 W) in a 12-turn output coil, measured twice and observed by 3 persons.
• On 24 May 1986 19.1544 W was measured against an input of 0.023 mW, a stated gain of 83,260,000%.
• The excitation coil was set at 90 degrees to the output coil so the output current would not couple back to it, and the impedance of the coil in the oscillating field rose to hundreds of thousands of ohms.
• Sweet withheld a roughly $1.50 Radio Shack part (a 'Vector Oscillator') that puts a small microamp current into both the power and excitation coils, so the notes alone do not document a complete device.
• The generator used a line-powered Wavetek signal generator producing a sine wave; a separate battery-supplied square-wave oscillator of about 20 W is also mentioned.

Relevance: These are the only original-source power numbers for the VTA in the project, so the Claim 5 devices (Sweet's VTA) rest on them. The notes give a 1 mW and a 0.023 mW input for different runs, a line-powered generator whose own draw is not stated, and a withheld component. The 250:12 turns and 90-degree orientation also differ from the 1:3 to 1:5 step-up rule the Guidelines give on p.11.

Mainstream conflict: If the 111.32 W output was supplied by a 1 mW input, it exceeds input by a factor of about 111,000, which conflicts with energy conservation. The notes record input as a multimeter reading (no phase or true-power measurement) from a mains-powered generator whose draw is not stated, so whether the measured input was the whole input is not established by the notes.