Tesla: Quality Engineering (STEP 4b)

Date 2026-10-08. QE agent (Opus). Inputs: _text/manifest.json, all 156 digest files, the 18 deep reads, facts.json, claims.md, sites.md, research/ notes (and the saved files research/files/colorado-springs-notes-1899-1900_djvu.txt, tesla-1904-transmission-without-wires.pdf, tesla-1916-on-his-work-with-AC_djvu.txt, corum-2003-tesla-planetary-radio-signals.pdf, which I used for spot checks), physicist.md, mathematician.md, contrarian.md, arbiter.md, primer.md, example.py.

Tags: [read] = I checked it in the extracted text or a saved file (line or page given); [calc] = my own arithmetic; [memory] = recalled, with confidence.

How I read the digests (so nobody is misled). The 156 digests come to 2.3 MB. I did not read every line in full. I (1) ran a script over every line of every digest that flags lines naming people, places or numbers that appear nowhere in claims.md, facts.json, the three reviews, arbiter.md, primer.md, sites.md or the research notes (1,061 flagged lines); (2) read all flagged lines for Valone, Tesla Said, Prodigal Genius, the FBI files (pages outside the deep reads) and the shorter documents; and (3) read in full the digests that bear on open points (Free Energy Secrets parts 01, 08-09; Martin parts 15 and 18; the Century article part 03). Lines with no new names or numbers were not read one by one. Missed material that uses only words already in the review files could escape this method.

Verdict: MINOR

The central verdicts hold. Text coverage is complete, and five of my six spot checks match the source exactly. But the arbiter and primer have five faults that the arbiter, primer and facts.json can fix with targeted deep reads: - One sub-verdict rests on a misreading of Tesla's 1900 Century article. - Two statements about the record are overstated (that no description of "teleforce" exists, and that the military-interest reading has no documentary trail). - Several of Tesla's own experimental claims are missing: the 26-mile, 200-lamp test reported by O'Neill; his 1904-1927 statements that he sent current around the globe and received it back; the January 1900 diary entries; and the planetary signals. - One published counter-claim to the worked example is missing (an earth-ionosphere cavity Q "as high as 1000"). - None of the five deep reads that claims.md recommended was run.

None of these overturns a central verdict. The calculation that rules out "almost without loss" power at Tesla's working frequencies does not depend on any of them. Steps 2-4 do not need to be redone.

1. Coverage

• Manifest: 30 documents, 156 chunks. Digests: 156 files, one per chunk; every document is digested. No document was skipped by Step 0 [read: manifest.json, _textprep.log]. No coverage defect.
• Image-only or OCR-poor pages are marked in the digests. Figure-only pages are acceptable as digest-only.
• Equation-only documents: tesla+coil+theory.doc has "EMBED Equation" placeholders, so its equations were never extracted (facts.json says so). It is a 2008 hobbyist web document, peripheral, so this is acceptable.

2. Shortcuts

Acceptable: - Digest-only coverage of peripheral items: Houston 1871, Penick essay, Ventura essay, TESLA-EQ, the solid-state coil kit, US 406,968, the autobiography transcriptions, Martin outside pp.341-416, and the Niagara and biography chapters of Valone. - The deep reads of the patents (pp.349-406), the FBI files (pp.1-60 and 1-48), Hayes (pp.129-188), Cairns, the 1891 lecture, the Dissipation letter, the Coil patent, voltage-gain, Fuelless, Thermodynamics2, Famous Scientific Illusions and Tesla Said (pp.76-140). All are well done and tagged by page.

Defects: 1. The 1900 Century article ("The Problem of Increasing Human Energy") was digest-only. It is Tesla's own text for claim 4, and part of claim 1. Its key passage was checked only through a deep read of Nichelson, a secondary source. The shortcut led to the misreading in section 5, item A. (Deep read 1.) 2. None of the five deep reads recommended at the end of claims.md was run: - Prodigal Genius pp.153-172 and 209-221 - Martin pp.417-430 and 505-520 - Valone pp.135-165 and 203-251 - Free Energy Secrets pp.1-19 and 141-156 - Complete Patents pp.407-448

The Valone file does contain extra sections on Rauscher and Van Bise (pp.216-251), Corum and Corum chapter 12 (pp.178-201) and Tutt (pp.31-41). But facts.json (Valone how_read: "deep read PDF pp.166-177") and claims.md ("Corum, Rauscher chapters ... have not been deep read") do not record them, and no reviewer used them. That makes how_read inaccurate, which is a process defect. 3. The Colorado Springs Notes (now in research/files/) were sampled. Every reviewer read only the 3-4 July 1899 entry. The Investigator listed further entries to read: 30 July; 6 August (water-pipe stationary waves) [Correction 2026-10-08, arbiter F9.3: the diary does not record this experiment; the 6 August item is listed among entries omitted for want of time, and the only datum is a 550 ft distance (Notes lines 6320-6327, 6993).]; the January 1900 photograph notes; the line on "intelligent beings on a neighbouring planet"; and Marinčić's commentary. The Contrarian states that this deep read was still needed (contrarian.md, "Retained Investigator leads" item 1). This is now the primary laboratory record for claim 1, so sampling one entry is a defect. The text is not a manifest document. See remediation item R1. 4. The arbiter read only the reviews, claims.md, sites.md and one deep read. It took facts.json, the other deep reads and the research notes through the reviewers' quotations (arbiter.md line 3). That is how the Thermodynamics2 deep read's explicit warning about the Century passage (deep/Thermodynamics2-23a7bd.md line 166) and the FBI deep read's Wright Field correspondence were lost. Process defect.

3. Missed material (from my reading of the digests and deep reads)

These items are pertinent and missing from claims.md, the arbiter and the primer. Some are also missing from the reviews.

1. O'Neill's 26-mile, 200-lamp test. O'Neill writes: "By piecing together the fragmentary material published in a number of publications ... it appears evident that Tesla ... tested his power transmission system at a distance of twenty-six miles from his laboratory and was able to light two hundred incandescent lamps, of the Edison type, with electrical energy extracted from the earth". He adds that Tesla claimed "an efficiency of higher than 95 per cent" [read: _text/Prodigal-Genius...txt lines 8834-8853, printed p.171]. - This is the best-known experimental claim for Tesla's wireless power. No review file mentions it. - O'Neill names no source. Nothing in the 1899-1900 entries read so far records it. - On the next page O'Neill quotes Tesla's own caveat (Century, June 1900): "while I have not as yet actually effected a transmission of a considerable amount of energy, such as would be of industrial importance, to a great distance by this new method, I have operated several model plants" [read: same file, printed p.172]. - Both statements belong in the record side by side.
2. Tesla's own later claims of a performed global test. All are Tesla's own words, and the reviews treat none of them: - December 1904 interview with Frank G. Carpenter: "With my transmitter I actually sent electrical vibrations around the world and received them again" [read: deep/Tom-Valone...md §7, quoting Corum ch.12, page image p.192]. - 1927: tests "with a generator of 1500 KW capacity" showed "the current was capable of passing across the entire globe and returning from the antipodes to its origin with undiminished strength". The Corums elsewhere call the transmitter 250 kW [read: same, p.194]. - 1907: the magnifying transmitter "passed a current of one hundred amperes around the globe" [read: _text/Tesla-Said...txt, p.111]. - World System prospectus, as quoted by O'Neill: "passed a current, sufficient to light more than 200 incandescent lamps, around the Globe" [read: _text/Prodigal-Genius...txt line 9439, printed p.183].
3. The January 1900 diary entries (in the photograph notes of 1-7 January 1900): - Tesla lit lamps through "a carefully synchronized coil" fed "through the ground", and estimated that about 40-60 lamps could be lit with full excitation. - He wrote: "The existance of stationary waves proves the feasibility of the project almost beyond any doubt", and that communication "with any point of the globe irrespective of distance, is very near its practical solution" [read: research/files/colorado-springs-notes-1899-1900_djvu.txt lines ~18535-18560] [Correction 2026-10-08, arbiter F9.5: the sentence is at lines 18559-18560 of the 2 January entry.]. - This is a short-range ground-conduction experiment recorded in his own notes. It also contradicts the primer's lesson that the diary was the cautious version (section 5, item C).
4. Planetary signals. In 1899 Tesla recorded periodic signals with "a sense of number and order" and attributed them to another planet: - Collier's, 9 February 1901, "Talking with the Planets" [read: digest Tesla-Said.05 p.68; Tesla-Said.06 p.71]. - "might have come from Mars" (New York Herald, 12 October 1919) [read: digest Tesla-Said.15 pp.226-228]. - 1937: a device to flash energy "through interstellar space to any distance without the slightest dispersion" [read: digest Tesla-Said.19 p.281]. - A diary note on "intelligent beings on a neighbouring planet" [read: CSN line ~17149].

This is one of Tesla's own claims, yet it is absent from the claims list. The arbiter keeps only the Corums' Jovian reading. facts.json lists it as a key claim of Tesla Said, so claims.md and the arbiter dropped it. 5. Cavity Q "as high as 1000" (Valone, Van Voorhies chapter). Corum, Corum and Spaniol ("Concerning Cavity Q", Tesla Symposium 1988) say low Q "does not necessarily limit" wireless power. Sutton and Spaniol are said to have found that earlier Q values were limited by instrument noise, and to have measured Q "as high as 1000" [read: digest Tom-Valone.07 p.140]. Grotz gives an estimated cavity loss of "about 6 percent per round trip" [read: digest Tom-Valone.08 p.162]. - The primer's worked example (Step 3) and the arbiter use Q = 3.3 at 7.8 Hz. - Neither weighs this published counter-claim. It must be stated and weighed (SOURCE HONESTY). - It does not touch the VLF part of the argument, which rests on measured VLF attenuation. 6. Golka's "Project Tesla". R. Golka, on a US Air Force contract at Wendover, is reported to have "replicated the Colorado Springs transmitter and reportedly ran it at twice Tesla's original power". Golka and Grotz proposed in 1986 to use it to resonate the earth-ionosphere cavity. Van Voorhies himself writes: "Tesla's worldwide wireless power concept remains unverified" [read: digest Tom-Valone.07 pp.135, 139; .08 p.162; FBI-01.03 pp.109-110 (Snigier article)]. This is a replication of the apparatus, not of the transmission, and it belongs in claim 1's "tested?" column. 7. John B. Flowers, 1925. Flowers wrote a 10-page proposal to test Tesla's wireless system and showed it to H. L. Curtis and J. H. Dillinger, head of the Radio Laboratory at the Bureau of Standards. It was declined. His balloon model showed standing waves [read: digest Tom-Valone.01 pp.15-17, citing Exotic Research Report, July 1999]. This is an institutional evaluation that goes dark, a target for "Absence of evidence". The deciding record would be in the Bureau of Standards (NIST) archives. 8. Teleforce documents. The 1943 Trump exhibit abstracts in the FBI file list several written items: - Exhibit F: a memo on a high-vacuum tube and a "non-dispersive" charged-particle beam through air. - Exhibit H: letters to the British Government (28 Aug 1936, 26 Oct 1937, 15 Dec 1937, 5 Apr 1938) offering a "death ray" for a fee; the British replied with "a polite expression of disinterest". - Exhibit J: "Method of Producing Powerful Radiations", in Tesla's hand. - Trump judged Exhibit F unworkable [read: deep/FBI-files-on-Nikola-Tesla-02-725fed.md line 67].

Valone gives the British War Office reference "84/T/3458" and a 1937 estimate of £10 million [read: digest Tom-Valone.06 p.126]. Valone also reports Museum "artist conceptions" of a 16.5 ft by 115 ft beam tower [read: digest Tom-Valone.11 p.213]. See section 5, item D. 9. The Wright Field photostat trail, 1945. The FBI file carries Cheney's account of the OAP correspondence: - 21 Aug 1945: Air Technical Service Command requests a trip for Pvt Bloyce D. Fitzgerald. - 5 Sep 1945: Col. Holliday of the Equipment Laboratory asks for photostats of the Trump-annotated exhibits. - 11 Sep 1945: Shaulis (OAP) forwards them to Lt Robert E. Houle, "please return"; Cheney says they were "never returned".

A 1945 FBI informant letter separately places Fitzgerald at Wright Field [read: deep/FBI-...-02-725fed.md lines 49-53, 63-64, 74]. facts.json has this; the arbiter and primer do not (section 5, item E). 10. Bloyce Fitzgerald's January 1943 statements. Fitzgerald told the FBI that Tesla said his wireless power experiments "had been completed and perfected", that there was a working model "which cost more than ten thousand [dollars]" in a Governor Clinton Hotel safe-deposit box, and that there were "some eighty trunks" of plans. The FBI confirmed that the hotel held some property of Tesla's as security for a $400 debt since 1932. It did not examine it [read: deep/FBI-01 lines 22, 30]. This is a witness account. It is in facts.json but not in the arbiter or primer. 11. The 1981 Defense Department inquiry. The memo "Papers Recovered on the Death of Nicola Tesla" came from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Research and Engineering), Lt Col Allan J. MacLaren, on 9 Feb 1981. It sits alongside the 1983 Wright-Patterson airtel as a second, earlier record of military interest. The arbiter cites only the FBI's reply [read: digest FBI-01.03 pp.124-127; facts.json]. Other dark-record leads: a 1959 caller "researching for the U.S. Air Force in geophysics" (FBI-01.02 p.78); 75 packing cases at Manhattan Storage in October 1945 (FBI-01.03 p.127); one outside visit to the stored goods, recorded in April 1950 (FBI-02.02 p.64). 12. Lindemann's own failed build of Gray's 1975 patent. Building to the patent "did not reproduce the described performance" and recovered "only a negligible amount of energy" [read: digest Free-Energy-Secrets.01 p.16]. This is evidence against the Gray device, from an advocate. The arbiter says only that the reports come from promoters. The book's Gray history is also unused: the 22 July 1974 Los Angeles District Attorney raid, the grand-theft charge (dropped), and the 1976 guilty plea to two minor SEC violations [read: deep/ebook-Free-Energy-Secrets...md line 119; these are the book's claims]. 13. Marinčić's statement of Tesla's errors. The editor of the Notes says what Tesla expected near 10 kHz occurs at much lower frequencies, that the waves are in the earth-ionosphere capacitor rather than the earth, and that high voltage was not needed [read: research/2026-10-08-archive-org.md §1]. The primer quotes only the favourable Wait remark through Marinčić. Evidence against is stated too (SOURCE HONESTY), and here it supports the worked example. 14. Smaller items (record only). - The 1898 telautomaton (US 613,809): a priority claim for radio control, in facts.json, absent from claim 7. - The 1907 Tesla-Poulsen priority letters and John Stone Stone's testimony that Tesla first saw the role of the upper atmosphere [read: digest Tesla-Said.07 pp.104-105; .11 pp.182-183]. - The Tesla-J. J. Thomson 1891 exchange on electrodeless discharge, electrostatic against electromagnetic (Martin pp.421-431), which bears on claim 2. - Valone's own homopolar-generator trial: generator output and motor power within 1 W [read: digest Tom-Valone.13 pp.261-267], which bears on Nichelson's unipolar-dynamo reading in claim 4. - The foreign patent families found by the Investigator (GB 1901/11293, GB 1901/13563, AT 16480, FR 354,791).

4. Accuracy spot checks (against the extracted text and saved files)

Also confirmed: the 1904 article ("about three hundred kilometers", Lowenstein, "almost without loss") [read: tesla-1904-transmission-without-wires.pdf]; the Corums' receivers "primarily in the 8 kHz to 22 kHz range" [read: corum-2003 pdf line 125].

example.py: runs cleanly (exit 0) with the project venv. Every printed number matches the primer's Steps 1-6 [read: run 2026-10-08]. Its Step 3 ELF line depends on Q = 3.3. See section 3, item 5.

5. Retention check (and the accuracy findings it produced)

Pertinent material left out of the arbiter or primer:

A. Tesla's 1900 "sink" argument: misread, and the verdict needs to change. - The arbiter and primer say: "Tesla's own 1900 sink text, with his caveat: not refuted; it is consistent with the second law" (arbiter, claim 4; primer §4.4 and the evidence table "Not refuted"). - The primer adds that later readers "drop the caveat and read it as a machine running on equilibrium surroundings" (§4.4, §7). - Tesla's text goes on straight after the caveat: "necessitating continuous pumping out. But evidently there will be less to pump out than flows in, or, in other words, less energy will be needed to maintain the initial condition than is developed by the fall, and this is to say that some energy will be gained from the medium. What is not converted in flowing down can just be raised up with its own energy, and what is converted is clear gain. Thus the virtue of the principle I have discovered resides wholly in the conversion of the energy on the downward flow" [read: _text/tesla-the-problem-of-increasing-human-energy-c47de7.txt, reprint p.21]. - He then describes building a "self-acting machine" (mechanical oscillator, air compressor, liquid air). He writes that he "cannot hope to produce a self-acting machine deriving energy from the ambient medium for a long time yet" [read: same, reprint pp.21-22]. - So Tesla himself claimed a partial net gain from a single ambient reservoir. The Thermodynamics2 deep read had flagged exactly this: "The reviewers should weigh Tesla's argument in its full form, which claims a partial net gain ('what is converted is clear gain')" (deep/Thermodynamics2-23a7bd.md line 166). - The Mathematician's own Carnot calculation rules it out. The work gained, Q_h (1 - T_c/T_h), equals the cost of pumping the unconverted heat Q_c back up, Q_c (T_h/T_c - 1) = Q_h (1 - T_c/T_h) [calc]. Tesla's error is to treat heat as a fluid that can be "raised up with its own energy". - Suggested change: Refuted by calculation for the partial-gain step, keeping his caveats beside it (no perfect process known; no working machine "for a long time yet"). - Nichelson's reading is therefore closer to Tesla's text than the primer says. The primer lesson "advocates added ... a machine running on equilibrium surroundings" should be corrected to say Tesla argued the partial-gain version himself in 1900. - This is the reverse of the usual retention failure: here material unfavourable to Tesla's argument was left out. SOURCE HONESTY cuts both ways.

B. Tesla's own claims of tests are left out of claim 1 (section 3, items 1-3 and 6). These are experimental claims, and the arbiter's split verdict has no line for them. - Suggested lines: - "26-mile, 200-lamp test (O'Neill, no source named)": Never properly tested. - "Tesla's 1904-1927 statements that he sent current around the globe and received it back": Never properly tested. No record, no witness account, and the 3-4 July diary does not describe it. The "undiminished strength" part is Refuted by calculation at VLF. - "January 1900 short-range lamp lighting through the ground (diary)": consistent with near-field and ground-current coupling over tens of metres. This is an established mechanism, and the diary gives no distance beyond the laboratory grounds. - Golka's replication of the transmitter (not of the transmission) goes in the evidence table.

C. "The diary was the cautious version." - Primer §7: "his diary was more cautious than his press articles (antipodal reflection 'difficult to believe'), and the bold version appeared when he was raising money." - The diary of January 1900, before the May 1900 patent filing and the 1904 article, already says the stationary waves prove "the feasibility of the project almost beyond any doubt" [read: CSN line ~18559]. - The caution in the 3-4 July entry concerns only where the waves were reflected. The primer should say this and quote both entries. - The point about raising money can stay as a statement of his stake, but it should not imply that the claim was invented for investors.

D. "No apparatus, drawing, parameters or test exist" for teleforce (arbiter, claim 6; primer §4.6: "no apparatus, drawing or parameter exists in any record found"). - Overstated. Written descriptions existed in 1943: Trump's Exhibits F and J, and the British Government letters (section 3, item 8). Trump, a government evaluator with an institutional stake, judged them unworkable. - Correct wording: "no apparatus or test is on record; written descriptions were abstracted by Trump in 1943 (FBI file) and judged unworkable; the full texts are in the Tesla Museum or the OAP file and have not been read here." - The verdict "Not testable as stated" may stand, but the arbiter should check it against Exhibit F's stated elements (very high voltage, a high-vacuum tube, an "open-ended" tube window, a non-dispersive beam).

E. The Wright Field trail and the Fitzgerald testimony (section 3, items 9-11) are missing from the arbiter's "Absence of evidence", item 2. - The arbiter writes "Against (b): no primary record of Project Nick". That is true of the name "Project Nick". But the FBI file documents (through Cheney's quotation of OAP letters and a 1945 FBI informant letter) that photostats of the Trump-annotated exhibits went to Wright Field's Equipment Laboratory in September 1945, and were "never returned" (Cheney). - That is documentary support for reading (b), "copied for military interest", and it matches the 1983 airtel's "Equipment Lab". - The 1981 Defense Department memo is a further record of interest. - Fitzgerald's January 1943 claims are a witness account. The FBI's confirmation that the Governor Clinton Hotel held something of Tesla's against a $400 debt since 1932 is part of the record, and the file never says what became of it. All of this should be quoted, with each party's stake.

F. The cavity-Q counter-claim (section 3, item 5). This should be stated in the arbiter (claim 1, "What would settle it") and in the primer's worked example. A sentence is enough: if Q were 1000 at about 8 Hz, the ELF row of the Step 3 table would give r near 1. The VLF conclusion would not change, because it rests on measured VLF attenuation, not on Q.

G. Smaller retention items. - Marinčić's statement of Tesla's errors (section 3, item 13). - Lindemann's failed Gray build and the Gray legal record (section 3, item 12). - Rauscher and Van Bise's ELF measurements. The Valone deep read records what they measured and what they did not show; the arbiter and primer do not mention them. - Tesla's planetary-signal claim (section 3, item 4). - The Corums' receiver reconstruction (sensitivity "more than adequate") in the primer's evidence table.

Retained well: the Sun articles of 1917 (both accounts), Kerr, Page & Cooper, the Rankine letter, the Lowenstein second-observer lead, Trump's quoted conclusion with his stake, Viziv/CPG as an absence-of-evidence anomaly, MIT/WiTricity, the turbine measurements by others, the unexplained 0.97 S21 peak, and the 150-fold capacitance gap.

6. Process

• Source tags: present throughout, and honest. Interested parties are named (Corum/Viziv, Marinčić and the Museum, Trinkaus, Nichelson, Lindemann, the FBI as a party accused).
• Web checks:
• The arbiter used 6 of its 8 calls, on verdict-bearing points: the global circuit, the Marconi case, Corum/Viziv, and X-rays.
• The Contrarian used 3 of 6. The Physicist and Mathematician do not report a count.
• Medium-confidence [memory] values a verdict leans on were not web-checked: ground conductivity (physicist.md line 19) and the 2-ohm ground-loss resistance (primer Step 5).
• Low-impact, but each should be checked or flagged as an assumption.
• Verdict scale: mostly consistent. Labels outside the scale appear in the arbiter and the primer's evidence table:
• "Not refuted" (claim 4, Tesla's 1900 text; this also changes under item A).
• "documented in part, unsettled" (fate of the papers).
• "untested, not rejected" (Corum's planetary reading).
• "tried by Allis-Chalmers and not adopted" (turbine at large scale).

Each should be mapped to the scale or marked as a historical finding, not a verdict. - Primer against STEP 4 and the reader profile: - All nine sections are present, in order. Symbols are defined. The worked example is numerical and reproduced by example.py. There are five check-yourself questions with answers. - Small reader-profile gaps: "IAPWS-IF97" is used without saying what it is (a standard formulation of steam properties). "neper" is defined only in passing. - claims.md is out of date. - It still says the Colorado Springs Notes and the 1904 article are not in the folder. - It still has claim 1 unsplit. - It still says the Corum and Rauscher chapters were not deep read.

The arbiter (Corrections) and the Investigator asked for these changes; claims.md was not updated. - facts.json how_read: - Valone understates the deep reads; it should add Tutt pp.31-41, Corum ch.12 pp.178-201, and Rauscher and Van Bise pp.216-251. - FBI 02 says "deep read pp.1-48", but the deep read marks pp.47-48 as "partly skimmed, not exhaustively read". - Turbine efficiency band. - The primer's "29-52 per cent" omits Lowenstein's first test (102.8 bhp at 53.4 lb/bhp-h; 100 psig, about 115 psia, to a 15 in. vacuum, about 7.3 psia). - Ideal steam rate about 2545 / 178 Btu/lb = 14.3 lb/hp-h, so about 27% [calc; steam-table values from memory, medium]. Brake hp includes the gear losses ("No allowance was made in these tests for loss of power in gear" [read: Hayes line ~13209]). - The band should read "about 27-52 per cent", as claims.md had it, with the arbiter's IAPWS check run on this case too.

7. Remediation (one round)

Deep reads (manifest documents, most important first):

1. tesla-the-problem-of-increasing-human-energy-c47de7 - Pages: PDF pp.15-33. - Model: Opus. - Question: Tesla's full "sink" and self-acting-engine argument, including the "clear gain" passage, the five elements and the mechanical oscillator; his statements on Colorado Springs and wireless transmission, including "not as yet actually effected a transmission of a considerable amount of energy"; every quantitative claim.
2. Prodigal-Genius-Biography-of-Nikola-Tesla-4a1560 - Pages: pp.153-185 and 209-221. - Model: Opus. - Question: the Colorado Springs narrative, the 26-mile, 200-lamp claim (what sources O'Neill pieces together), the World System prospectus quoted on p.182-183, and the 1930s teleforce statements. Separate what O'Neill reports from documents from what he narrates.
3. Tom-Valone-Harnessing-the-wheelwork-of-nature-Tesla-s-science-of-energy-ee79a9 - Pages: PDF pp.135-165. - Model: Opus. - Question: Van Voorhies and Grotz. What exactly is claimed for cavity Q (Corum, Corum and Spaniol 1988; Sutton and Spaniol, Q "as high as 1000"), for Golka's Wendover replication and the "6 percent per round trip" loss, and for Flowers 1925 and the Bureau of Standards. Who measured what, and the sources cited.
4. Tesla-Said-compiled-by-John-Ratzlaff-3a9bf7 - Pages: PDF pp.60-75, 104-112, 219-233, 279-285. - Model: Sonnet. - Question: Tesla's planetary-signal claims (1899-1901, 1919, 1937), and his statements that he sent current or voice around the globe (1907 "one hundred amperes", 1915 voice), with exact wording and dates.
5. Complete-Patents-Nikola-Tesla-76f1e3 - Pages: PDF pp.407-448. - Model: Opus. - Question: the explicit claims and any frequency, loss, power or speed figures in 685,957-685,958, 723,188, 725,605, 787,412 and 1,119,732. Check that the primer's p.425 quotations read correctly in context.
6. FBI-files-on-Nikola-Tesla-02-725fed - Pages: pp.43-60. - Model: Sonnet. - Question: the complete Trump exhibit abstracts (pp.47-48 were only skimmed), with the full wording of Exhibits F, H and J, and any further OAP or Wright Field correspondence.
7. ebook-Free-Energy-Secrets-with-Tesla-patents-344906 - Pages: PDF pp.1-19 and 141-156. - Model: Sonnet. - Question: the Gray demonstrations and witnesses (Hackenberger, C. V. Wood Jr.), Lindemann's own failed build of the 1975 patent, and what Lindemann's two articles conclude.
8. FBI-files-on-Nikola-Tesla-01-311abb - Pages: pp.70-133. - Model: Sonnet. - Question: the 1957 "wall of force" memo, the 1959 Air Force geophysics caller, the 1970 letter on junk men dismantling Wardenclyffe, the Snigier article on Golka, the 1981 Defense Department (MacLaren) exchange and the FBI's reply, and the 1945 "75 packing cases" memo.

Further reads (not manifest documents; for the orchestrator): - R1 (Opus): Colorado Springs Notes (research/files/colorado-springs-notes-1899-1900_djvu.txt). - Entries of 30 July (line ~5798), 6 August (water-pipe stationary waves, lines ~6325-6993) [Correction 2026-10-08, arbiter F9.3: the diary does not record this experiment; the 6 August item is listed among entries omitted for want of time, and the only datum is a 550 ft distance (Notes lines 6320-6327, 6993).], 8018-8128 (the earth as a nodal region), and 1-7 January 1900 (lines ~18160-18600, the ground-coupled lamps and the "feasibility" sentence). - Line ~17149 (the planetary note), and Marinčić's commentary (lines 520-575 and 21672-21690). - R2 (Sonnet): the 1916 interview (research/files/tesla-1916...txt), chapter VI (Colorado) and Appendix III (Wardenclyffe foreclosure appeal: Bingham's testimony, the Exhibit B inventory). - R3 (Sonnet): the Smithsonian 1904 papers (research/files/tesla-papers-1904-rankine-letters_djvu.txt), the full Kerr, Page & Cooper opinion.

What each later file must change: - facts.json: - Correct the Valone and FBI 02 how_read. - Add the planetary-signal claim and the 26-mile, 200-lamp claim as key_claims (O'Neill, unsourced) beside Tesla's 1900 caveat. - Add Lindemann's failed Gray build. - Fold in the results of deep reads 1-8. - claims.md: - Update the Source gap note (the CSN, the 1904 article and the 1916 interview are obtained). - Split claim 1 into 1a (the 3 July observation and the January 1900 entries) and 1b (the antipodal "almost without loss" claim, and Tesla's 1904-1927 statements of a completed global test). - Add Tesla's planetary-signal claim, as an eighth claim or under claim 7. - Fix claim 4's wording: Tesla himself argued a partial net gain in 1900. - arbiter.md: add a "QE revision" section with: - (a) Claim 4: Tesla's 1900 sink argument becomes Refuted by calculation (the partial-gain step), with his caveats kept beside it. - (b) Claim 1: new lines for the 26-mile test, the global-test statements and Golka's replication, with verdicts. Weigh the Q-up-to-1000 counter-claim under "What would settle it". - (c) Claim 6: correct "no description exists"; add the 1945 Wright Field photostat trail, Fitzgerald's 1943 statements and the Governor Clinton box, and the 1981 Defense Department memo to "Absence of evidence" item 2. - (d) Add Flowers 1925 and the Bureau of Standards to "Absence of evidence". - (e) Gray: add Lindemann's failed build and the legal record (the book's claims) beside "Never properly tested". - (f) Map the labels outside the scale to scale verdicts. - primer.md: - §4.1 and §7: add the January 1900 diary entry; correct the "cautious diary" lesson. - §4.4 and the evidence table: correct the 1900 sink reading and the verdict. - §4.5: "about 27-52 per cent", and note the C.D./C.B. Richards discrepancy. - §4.6: correct the teleforce wording, and add the Wright Field trail. - §5, Step 3: one paragraph weighing Q "as high as 1000". - §6: add rows for the 26-mile test, the global-test statements and Golka. - §4.1 or §7: Marinčić's critique. - Define IAPWS-IF97. - example.py: optional. Add a Step 3 variant printing r and max/min for Q = 1000 at 7.8 Hz, so the reader sees what the counter-claim would imply.

Corrections to earlier documents

1. arbiter.md, Claim 4, and the summary of verdicts: "Tesla's own 1900 sink text, with his caveat: not refuted; it is consistent with the second law." - primer.md §4.4 says the same ("That is consistent with the second law"), and its evidence table has "Not refuted". - Wrong. After the caveat Tesla writes "less energy will be needed to maintain the initial condition than is developed by the fall ... what is converted is clear gain" [read: _text/tesla-the-problem-of-increasing-human-energy-c47de7.txt, reprint p.21]. That is a claim of net gain from one ambient reservoir, which the Carnot calculation in mathematician.md rules out. - The deep read deep/Thermodynamics2-23a7bd.md (line 166) had said so.
2. primer.md §7 ("his diary was more cautious than his press articles ... the bold version appeared when he was raising money") is incomplete. The Notes for 1-7 January 1900 say "The existance of stationary waves proves the feasibility of the project almost beyond any doubt" [read: research/files/colorado-springs-notes-1899-1900_djvu.txt line ~18559].
3. arbiter.md Claim 6 ("no apparatus, drawing, parameters or test exist") and primer.md §4.6 ("no apparatus, drawing or parameter exists in any record found"): written descriptions existed, namely Trump's Exhibits F and J and the 1936-38 letters to the British Government [read: deep/FBI-files-on-Nikola-Tesla-02-725fed.md line 67]. No apparatus or test is on record.
4. arbiter.md, "Absence of evidence" item 2 ("Against (b): no primary record of Project Nick"): true of the name, but the FBI file records the September 1945 OAP shipment of exhibit photostats to Wright Field's Equipment Laboratory, "please return", "never returned" (Cheney's quotation of OAP letters) [read: deep/FBI-...-02 lines 49-53, 74]. This should be weighed as support for reading (b).
5. primer.md §4.5 and §6 ("29-52 per cent", "14-52 per cent"): Lowenstein's 53.4 lb/bhp-h test gives about 27% of ideal expansion [calc; steam values from memory, medium]. The lower end should be about 27%.
6. facts.json (Tom Valone how_read) and claims.md (Source gap, "Corum, Rauscher chapters ... have not been deep read"): the Valone deep read also covers Tutt (PDF pp.31-41), Corum and Corum chapter 12 (pp.178-201), and Rauscher and Van Bise (pp.216-251).
7. claims.md Source gap note: still lists the Colorado Springs Notes and the 1904 article as not in the folder. Both are in research/files/, as the Investigator and arbiter already reported.

Recheck

Date 2026-10-08. Checked the current arbiter.md, primer.md, claims.md, facts.json and example.py against the seven "Corrections to earlier documents" and the "What each later file must change" list. Method: grep and reading of the relevant passages [read]; example.py run with the project venv (it runs to Step 6 without error) [read].

Corrections list: 1. Claim 4, Tesla's 1900 sink text: FIXED. arbiter.md line 66 now gives "Refuted by calculation" for the partial-gain step with the caveats kept beside it (QE revision A); primer.md 4.4 and the evidence table were rewritten ("a claim of a partial net gain from a single ambient reservoir"); primer.md line 319 records the old error. 2. primer.md section 7 "cautious diary": FIXED. primer.md lines 82-84 and the evidence-table row quote the January 1900 "feasibility ... almost beyond any doubt" entry; arbiter.md line 164 matches. 3. Claim 6 "no description exists": FIXED. arbiter.md line 85 and claims.md claim 6 now say no apparatus or test is on record but written descriptions (Trump's Exhibits F, H, J, Q) existed. 4. Wright Field trail in "Absence of evidence": FIXED. arbiter.md QE revision C and line 105, primer.md lines 151-157 and the evidence-table row 6 weigh the 1945 photostats as support for reading (b). 5. Turbine band: PARTLY FIXED. The arbiter and primer now say about 25-52 per cent (IAPWS-IF97 recomputation, revision E), which supersedes QE's 27 per cent. REMAINING: claims.md line 40 and facts.json line 260 still say "27-52", which disagrees with arbiter.md and primer.md (25-52). This is a stale copy. 6. Valone how_read and claims.md deep-read coverage: FIXED. facts.json now names Tutt, Corum and Corum, Rauscher and Van Bise, Van Voorhies, Grotz and Flowers; claims.md line 41 records the correction. 7. claims.md Source gap note: FIXED. It now says the Colorado Springs Notes, the 1904 article, the 1916 interview and the Rankine letters are held in research/files/ (the Notes are only partly read, which is stated).

Remediation list: - Deep reads 1-8: DONE as far as the files show. facts.json how_read entries for Prodigal Genius, Tesla Said, Free Energy Secrets and Valone cite the QE deep reads; the corresponding deep/ files exist. - facts.json: FIXED. Key claims for the 26-mile/200-lamp test (O'Neill, unsourced) with the 1900 caveat, the planetary signals, and Lindemann's failed Gray build are present. - claims.md: FIXED. Claim 1 split into 1a and 1b; planetary-signal claim added as claim 8; claim 4 reworded. - arbiter.md: FIXED. A "QE revision" section (line 144 on) has A (claim 4), B (26-mile test, globe statements, Golka, cavity Q up to 1000 weighed), C (teleforce wording, Wright Field), D (Flowers 1925, Bureau of Standards), E (turbine band), the Gray and Lindemann entry, and the label-to-scale mapping (line 227 on). - primer.md: FIXED. Q "as high as 1000" paragraph (line 188) and evidence-table row; the 26-mile, globe, Golka and planetary rows; Marinčić's critique (line 97); IAPWS-IF97 is named in the correction notes and the turbine section. - example.py: DONE (optional item). Step 3b prints the Q = 1000 variant. - C.D./C.B. Richards discrepancy: noted in claims.md line 40 as unresolved; acceptable.

Neither remaining item changes a verdict. The one open item is a number in two secondary files that should read 25-52 to match arbiter.md and primer.md.

Final: OPEN (1 issues)

Orchestrator fix (2026-10-08)

• claims.md line 40 and facts.json (Hayes turbine summary): "27-52" changed to "25-52" to match arbiter.md QE revision E and primer.md. The recheck's one open item is closed.

Final: PASS

Recheck 2 (further reads)

Date 2026-10-08. QE recheck of arbiter.md "QE revision F", primer.md, claims.md and facts.json against the 2026-10-08 retry deep reads (deep/tesla-the-problem-of-increasing-human-energy-c47de7.md "Retry 15-24"; deep/ebook-Free-Energy-Secrets-with-Tesla-patents-344906.md "Retry 137-146" and "Retry 147-156") and deep/further-R1.md, R2.md, R3.md. Method: each deep read was read in full; the four files were checked by grep and by reading the affected passages [read]; two facts were checked against the source text; example.py was run with the project venv.

What is correctly carried (no action). - Century pp.15-24 (claim 4): Tesla's second-law paraphrase and the dropped word "coldest", the thermopile-to-outer-space split line (consistent with the second law), the p.21 "clear gain" passage, the 1883-1894 chronology with no measured output, the p.22 200 lb casting and "it takes coal to keep air cold", the limestone engine and coal battery, the "novel facts", the 1,150 W/m^2 solar check, and "enclosure T" are all in arbiter F1, primer 4.4 and the evidence table, claims.md claim 4, and the facts.json key claims and how_read. The how_read honestly states that pp.1-14 and 25-33 have no separate deep read; the same gap note is repeated in claims.md and the arbiter. - Free Energy Secrets pp.137-156 (claim 4, later readers): US 787,412 as reprinted (no gain claimed), Lindemann 1994 (etheric field; "100,000 to 1"; Tewari; the mechanical equivalent of heat), Lindemann 1995 (cycle with no condenser; Doczekal, Schaeffer and Serogodski, Wiseman, with Lindemann's stake noted), and the back cover as seller's copy are in arbiter F2, primer 4.4 and evidence-table rows, and facts.json. The arbiter correctly notes that the failed Gray build is on p.16, not in pp.147-156. The verdict-scale names are used exactly. - R1 (Colorado Springs Notes): the 24 July, 30 July and 26 August arrester entries, the 6 August water-pipe item having no data, the two January 1900 set-ups (1 January magnetic loop at about 60 ft; 2 January ground-fed coil at an unstated distance), the 300,000 W "set in movement" with Marinčić's Q correction, the 8 December 1899 press statement, and Marinčić's introduction are in arbiter F3, F4 and F7, primer 4.1, 4.7 and the evidence table, and claims.md 1a, 8 and Corrections. The stale "tens of feet", "60-100 ft" and "draft note" wording is gone from the four files except inside the dated correction notes. - R2 (1916 interview, Appendix III): "10 miles or so", 30 miles to West Point, "I cannot tell you", "not yet quite ready", the "not sworn" wording (F9.9), the 1916 antenna figures, and the appeal record (Tesla's plant description, Exhibit B, Bingham) are in arbiter F4 to F6, primer 4.1, Step 6 and section 6, and claims.md. - R3 (1904 Rankine file): the Kerr, Page and Cooper correction (only Tesla's covering letter is in the scan; "controlling" is his reading and the $5,000,000 is his own valuation) is fixed in arbiter "Absence of evidence" item 1, in primer section 6 and in claims.md, and the opinion is listed as a record to obtain. - No verdict changed in revision F. The new split lines are consistent across arbiter F8, the primer evidence table and claims.md.

Spot checks against the source text. 1. Century reprint p.19, p.21 and p.22 (_text/tesla-the-problem-of-increasing-human-energy-c47de7.txt lines 1182-1192, 1288-1296, 1393-1402): "impossible for an inanimate mechanism or self-acting machine to cool a portion of the medium below the temperature of the surrounding, and operate by the heat abstracted"; "What is not converted in flowing down can just be raised up with its own energy, and what is converted is clear gain"; "each two hundred pounds of iron-casting ... about one effective horsepower during one hour. But this gain of the consumer is offset by an equal loss of the producer." All three are confirmed verbatim, on the stated pages. [read] 2. Exhibit B (research/files/tesla-1916-on-his-work-with-AC_djvu.txt lines 9860-9895, 12660-12712): a bill of sale from William N. Hallock to the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel Company, dated 8 April 1915, "including but not limited to the chattels specifically set out on the Schedule". Confirmed. But the page is headed "Defendants' Exhibit B", and the transcript list gives "Nikola Tesla for Defendant" and "Ezra C. Bingham for Plaintiff" (see issue 1). [read]

example.py. Runs to Step 6 with the venv, with no error [read]. Step 6 still prints only the 28 J / 2.1 ns primary-condenser case and the 1904 figures (see issue 2).

Issues found (fix nothing here; for the orchestrator). 1. Exhibit B is described as being on the wrong side of the case. Arbiter F6 calls Exhibit B "the plaintiff-side schedule" and weighs it as "the plaintiff-side record" against Tesla's 1922 memory (following R2 B5 point 2). Primer section 6 calls it "the creditors' inventory of 1915". The source heads it "Defendants' Exhibit B", and Tesla testified "for Defendant" [read: lines 9893-9895, 12666]. So Tesla's own side put it in evidence. The document conveys chattels to the hotel company (the creditor), but it was not offered by the plaintiffs. Change: in arbiter F6, primer section 6 and deep/further-R2.md B5, describe it as "a 1915 bill of sale to the hotel company (Hallock to Waldorf-Astoria), entered as a defendants' exhibit". Keep both counts, and drop "plaintiff-side" as the reason for weighing it. Who drew up the schedule is not stated, and the text should say so. No verdict turns on this. It is an interested-party labelling point (SOURCE HONESTY). 2. example.py does not reproduce the new primer Step 6 numbers. Primer Step 6 now gives Tesla's 1916 antenna store (550-660 pF at 4 MV: 4.4-5.3 kJ, which lasts 0.33-0.39 microseconds at 13.4 GW), and arbiter F5 adds the 60-72 kHz consistency check. example.py Step 6 has none of these. STEP 4 requires example.py to reproduce the worked example. Change: add three lines to example.py Step 6 (1/2 C V^2; the duration at 1.34e10 W; f = I/(2 pi C V) with I = 1,000 A). 3. Arbiter F5 has an internal slip. After deriving f = 60-72 kHz from Tesla's own figures, F5 says the 0.33-0.39 microsecond release is "about a tenth of a cycle at 250 kHz". At the 60-72 kHz it has just derived, the period is 14-17 microseconds, so the release is about 2-3 per cent of a cycle. The 250 kHz figure belongs to Tesla's separate rate argument (R2 A2). Change: state the fraction at 60-72 kHz, or say which frequency is meant. Nothing else changes. 4. Corrections assigned to the orchestrator in arbiter F9 are not yet applied to other published files. These are stale copies, checked today: - contrarian.md line 206 still reads "Kerr, Page & Cooper opinion ('controlling' patents, 'not less than $5,000,000')" (F9.1). - research/2026-10-08-archive-org.md line 45 still says the opinion's "text is in the same scan" (F9.1). This is the material one, because the site renders research notes. - The 6 August "water-pipe stationary waves" item is still listed in qe.md lines 42 and 237, contrarian.md line 203, mathematician.md line 151 and research/2026-10-08-archive-org.md line 18 without the note "no data in the diary" (F9.3). - qe.md line 61 still gives "~18535-18560" (F9.5). - physicist.md line 70 still says "a cylinder" (F9.8). Change: add the correction notes to these files, as F9 directs, then re-render the site.

Items 1-4 are wording and record-keeping. None changes a verdict.

Final: OPEN (4 issues)

Orchestrator fix (2026-10-08, Recheck 2)

1. Exhibit B: arbiter.md F6, primer.md section 6 and deep/further-R2.md B5 now describe it as a 1915 bill of sale to the hotel company (Hallock to Waldorf-Astoria), entered as a defendants' exhibit; "plaintiff-side" is dropped as the reason for weighing it; the text says who drew up the schedule is not stated; both counts are kept (arbiter F6 and further-R2 carry a dated correction note).
2. example.py Step 6: added the antenna store (1/2 C V^2, 550 and 660 pF at 4 MV), its duration at 1.34e10 W, and f = I/(2 pi C V) for 1,000 A. It runs cleanly with the project venv and prints 4.4 / 5.3 kJ, 0.33 / 0.39 us and 72 / 60 kHz, matching primer Step 6 and arbiter F5.
3. arbiter.md F5: the "tenth of a cycle at 250 kHz" slip is replaced by about 2-3 per cent of a cycle at the derived 60-72 kHz (period 14-17 us), and the text says the 250 kHz belongs to Tesla's separate rate argument (R2 A2).
4. Stale copies annotated (original wording kept) with dated notes: contrarian.md lines 203 (F9.3) and 206 (F9.1); research/2026-10-08-archive-org.md lines 18 (F9.3) and 45 (F9.1); mathematician.md line 151 (F9.3); physicist.md line 70 (F9.8); qe.md lines 42 and 237 (F9.3) and 61 (F9.5).

Final: PASS