Distinti Robert: PhD physicist review (Step 2)

Reviewer role: PhD physicist, mainstream view. Inputs: facts.json and claims.md (Step 1), plus my own reading of ne.pdf (section 6.1), nm.pdf (sections 10.4-10.6, page 81 rendered as image), ng.pdf (sections 6.5-6.6, page 14 rendered as image), ne_hydrogen.pdf (sections 2-4), paradox2.pdf (sections 1-4), anomolies.pdf (items 7, 17, 18), nia1.pdf (6.1.2-6.1.3) and neThesis.pdf (section 2.2, validation tables, skimmed).

Tags: [read] from the documents; [web] URL given; [memory] with confidence; [calc] my own calculation, reproducible with the scripts described.

Source gap (repeated from Step 1)

All ten PDFs have a text layer, but the central derivations the claims lean on are NOT in the folder: ni.pdf (New Induction derivation), homopolar.pdf, displacement_dilemma.pdf (the "2J" derivation), ind_jackson.pdf, ron.pdf, the V1/V2 papers and the promised "Ethereal Mechanics". The Paradox 2 raw data (scope captures, MPEG) are absent. Where I could not read the derivation I say so; conclusions on those items rest on general physics ([memory]) and not on the author's argument.

Key finding that organises everything below

Take two point charges, source S (velocity v_S, acceleration a_S) and target T (velocity v_T), separation vector r from S to T, r-hat = r/|r|, K_M = mu0/4pi. The author's New Magnetism (NM) plus New Induction (NI) force is:

F_NE = K_M Q_S Q_T / r^2 [ (v_T.r-hat) v_S - (v_S.r-hat) v_S - (v_S.v_T) r-hat ] - K_M Q_S Q_T a_S / r [read: ne.pdf p.25, nm.pdf eq.18]

Textbook (quasi-static) electrodynamics for a source charge uses the vector potential A = K_M Q_S v_S / r (A is the "vector potential", a field whose time derivative and curl give the electric and magnetic forces; Griffiths ch.10). The force on the target is Q_T[ -dA/dt + v_T x (curl A) ] plus the separate Coulomb term.

I checked numerically [calc: random S/T positions, velocities and accelerations; A differentiated by finite differences; script run in /tmp, output identical to 8 digits] that

F_NE (NM + NI) = Q_T [ -dA/dt + v_T x (curl A) ] exactly.

By hand: with target at rest, d/dt(v_S/r) = a_S/r + v_S (v_S.r-hat)/r^2, which is NI + the "new" NM term -(v_S.r-hat)v_S. The "new" term in NM is therefore not new physics: it is the convective piece of -dA/dt that is lost if one keeps only a_S/r. The remaining NM terms are v_T x B with the Biot-Savart B.

So, for the near (quasi-static, unretarded) zone, NE is a rewriting of the standard Lorentz-force-with-potentials law, with the Coulomb force added. What NE removes is the -grad(phi) piece of the electric field in the induction term (relevant only when charge density changes, i.e. radiation) and any treatment of retardation beyond "changes propagate radially". Most of the project's "paradox resolutions" and "predictions" follow from this.

---

Claim 1: New Induction, F = -K_M Q_S Q_T a_S / r (spherical, not transverse)

a. Mathematics consistent? Yes as an algebraic statement. For one charge pair it is exactly the a_S/r part of -dA/dt (see above). Not gauge invariant on its own, because it omits -grad(phi). The thesis' Neumann integral M = K_M oint oint dP.dS / r [read: neThesis.pdf p.11] is exactly what NI gives for two closed loops; the author notes it is "undefined" for the same loop (r goes to zero) [read]. For a filament of zero radius that is true (self-inductance diverges logarithmically); for a wire of radius a it is finite, L ~ (mu0 l / 2pi)(ln(2l/a) - 3/4) for a straight wire [memory medium, standard result (Rosa/Grover)]. The "paradox" is the idealisation, not the theory.

Derivation of the transverse form (my calculation): the retarded Lienard-Wiechert acceleration field for a slow charge is E_rad = -K_M Q [a - n(n.a)] / r, n = r-hat. It has two pieces: -dA/dt = -K_M Q a / r (this is NI) and -grad(phi) = +K_M Q n(n.a) / r, since phi = K_E Q /(r(1 - n.beta)) and, far away, grad(phi) ~ -(n/c) d(phi)/dt with d(phi)/dt ~ K_E Q n.a/(c r) (K_E = K_M c^2). Sum: transverse. NI keeps the first piece and drops the second, hence "longitudinal" at order 1/r.

b. Consistent with experiment? Closed-loop emf: yes, because it is the Neumann formula, which engineers use. Far-field radiation: transverse polarisation of radio waves, and the vanishing of dipole field on its axis at large distance, are textbook observations [memory high for polarisation; the on-axis deep null measured in anechoic ranges is [memory medium], not web-checked]. The author's cited counter-evidence is an ARRL Antenna Book pattern at -9 dB end-on [read: nia1.pdf p.35, figure from ARRL, not seen by me]; such real-world patterns include ground reflection, feedline radiation and finite-wire effects that fill nulls, so it is not a neutral test of the 1/r longitudinal term.

c. Tested? Not by anyone independent that I can document. No replication in the folder; I did not find a web source (search budget was exhausted before I could look). The only author tests are the thesis inductance measurements (see claim 6), which do not discriminate (NI equals Neumann for closed loops).

d. If true: the radiation field would have a 1/r longitudinal component; gauge invariance of the potentials, the Lorenz-gauge wave equations and the Lienard-Wiechert fields would need to be replaced; polarisation measurements and the zero on-axis dipole field would have to be explained away.

Verdict (split): - Weak form (the a/r term is part of induction; closed-loop emf = Neumann): Established (it is already classical). - Strong form (classical induction is incomplete; the full far-field force is spherical): Refuted by calculation (accepted Lienard-Wiechert fields; shown above that the omitted term is -grad(phi)).

Claim 2: New Magnetism replaces Biot-Savart/Lorentz; B, flux lines, flux cutting obsolete; force without relative motion

a. Internally consistent? Yes, and I verified it equals the Lorentz force with A = K_M Q v / r plus -dA/dt (above). One typographical point: the book writes r where r-hat is meant in "(v_S.r)v_S"; I assumed r-hat (the dimensions require it). Caveat: unretarded (instantaneous) pair force; true electrodynamics needs retardation or the Darwin correction, which the papers do not do for moving targets.

"Force without relative motion between charge and field" [read: the_secrets_of_qvxb.pdf]. The argument re-labels B as a quantity that "moves with its source" and then uses v_T - v_S. In relativity E and B mix between frames: a charge at rest relative to a magnet can feel a force from an E-field that is B in another frame. The qvxb paper's "secret" is the frame dependence of E and B, which Griffiths ch.12 and Feynman II ch.13 discuss. I cannot read the homopolar paper, but see claim 3 for the homopolar case [web].

b. Consistent with experiment? Because NM + NI reproduces Lorentz-with-potentials for steady and slowly varying currents, it matches the tests of that law (accelerators, mass spectrometers, motors: [memory high]). It therefore makes no distinguishing prediction I can find in the sampled text. Where it might differ (fast, radiating regime; accelerated source with v_T) the papers give no calculation.

c. Tested? No test distinguishing NM from Lorentz is documented. The corner experiment (nm.pdf appendix A, "which does not work") is a null result by design and cannot discriminate (see claim 3).

d. If true (in its strong reading): B and flux linking would be dispensable. Mainstream would lose nothing in practice, since the predictions coincide in the regime treated; it would have to explain why a formulation using E, B (and A) is also exact.

Verdict (split): - Weak form (the formula is correct as a quasi-static pair force): Established (it is the Lorentz force written with A). - Strong form (B, flux lines obsolete; Lorentz law replaced; force with no relative motion between charge and field): Not testable as stated (an interpretation with no measurable difference), with the "no relative motion" argument resting on a misreading of frame-dependent E and B.

Claim 3: Classical EM is anomalous (self-inductance, corner emfs, antennas, homopolar, 2J, Paradox 2)

Split into items.

3a. Corner emf ("proof" of the spherical field) [read: nm.pdf pp.76-83, page 81 as image; anomolies.pdf item 7]

a. Math. The step-1..16 integral is right: a source arc of radius m, target at height h above the corner, in the limit m -> 0, gives E = -sqrt(2) K_M I_S V_S / h along -x. Units check: K_M I V / h = (T m/A)(A)(m/s)/m = T m/s = V/m. Correct. (Step 1 transcribed "V_S^2"; the page image shows sqrt(2), see Corrections.) The error is physical: the calculation keeps only the a/r (NI) term of -dA/dt for the carriers going round the corner, and calls that "classical". But for a steady current in a rigid loop, A(x) = K_M I oint dL/r does not depend on time, so -dA/dt = 0 everywhere and there is no emf at any corner. In carrier language, the centripetal-acceleration term at the corner is cancelled by the convective term v(v.r-hat)/r^2 from carriers passing through (shown above: a/r + v(v.r-hat)/r^2 = d/dt(v/r), and the integral of d/ds(t-hat/r) around a closed path is zero). That convective term is exactly NM's "new" term. The author's own result (NI + NM cancel at the corner) is the same as the classical result (-dA/dt = 0). The "classical hot spot" is the far-field acceleration term applied in the near zone while omitting the other term of the same expression. The textbook near-field answer for a steady loop is no electric field on a stationary charge from a steady current [Griffiths ch.5, 7: no E from steady currents, [memory high]]. b. Experiment: no corner emfs are seen: consistent with classical theory (correctly applied) and with NE. c. Tested: appendix A device "does not work" (as intended) [read]; no data seen. A null that both theories predict is not a test. d. Mainstream change: none, because the premise ("classical predicts it") is wrong. Verdict: Refuted by calculation (the claimed classical prediction is an artefact of dropping a term; correct classical result is zero emf, matching observation).

3b. Self-inductance undefined

Known idealisation issue: zero-radius filament diverges; finite radius is finite. Standard formulas have been used for over a century [memory medium]. Verdict: Historically superseded but instructive (a known, resolved subtlety, not a paradox).

3c. curl H = 2J

The derivation is in displacement_dilemma.pdf, not in the folder, so I cannot check it. In general: for a steady current, dE/dt = 0 and curl B = mu0 J reproduces Biot-Savart (Griffiths ch.5/7); for a moving point charge the Lienard-Wiechert fields solve Maxwell's equations exactly (Griffiths ch.10). A factor 2 would contradict those, so I expect an error in counting the convection and displacement currents of the same charge twice, but I have not seen the argument. Verdict: Not testable as stated here (derivation unavailable); prior strongly against.

3d. Antenna patterns and "longitudinal" radiation

See claim 6.

3e. Homopolar generator and Paradox 2

a. Math: no calculation of the expected classical emf is given for Paradox 2 [read]; the analysis is flux-linkage counting ("no net flux linked or cut"). The flux rule (emf = -d(flux)/dt) is known not to apply when the circuit includes sliding contacts or changing paths; one must evaluate the emf as the line integral of (E + v x B) around the actual circuit (Feynman Lectures II sec.17-2 [memory high; page returned 403 so not web-checked]). Faraday-paradox review: the emf in the co-rotating magnet+disk case arises because the disk moves relative to the stationary return path, and the Lorentz force v x B on carriers accounts for all the cases [web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox]. Qualitative check on the reported pattern: no magnets gives zero; reversing rotation reverses sign; two opposite-polarity magnets add (they are in series with opposite B, and the current path goes out across one and back across the other); same polarity gives about zero; one magnet gives about half. That is exactly the pattern for two series-connected, sign-reversed v x B contributions, which a Lorentz-force calculation would predict. I have not done that calculation (it needs the geometry of brushes and ring), so I cannot say it explains the number. Other possible contributors that the author did not rule out quantitatively [my hypotheses, not evidence]: rectification of the acknowledged AC component by non-linear sliding-contact resistance (DC offsets of 100 microvolts are typical of dirty brush contacts), magnet-induced changes in brush force and contact, Hall/magnetoresistive and thermal effects with magnets present. The "no magnets, no signal" control does not exclude these, since they also vanish without magnets. Scale: 180 microvolt across a 10 kOhm load is 3e-12 W; no uncertainty analysis, no repeat runs, no independent lab [read]. b. Consistent with experiment? The device output is the only datum; the mainstream explanation (Lorentz force on the actual circuit) has not been shown to fail. c. Tested? Single-author bench test; not independently replicated as far as the folder shows (I could not search the web for replications; budget exhausted). d. If true as claimed (DC power with no net flux linked or cut and no Lorentz-force explanation): Lorentz force/Maxwell would have to fail for a macroscopic circuit at a few hundred microvolts, a regime the theory has been tested in extensively. Verdict: Never properly tested (no neutral, controlled test, no quantitative Lorentz-force prediction; not dismissed without testing, rather untested at the level of calculation).

Overall verdict for claim 3: Refuted by calculation (corner emf), Historically superseded but instructive (self-inductance), Not testable as stated pending the missing derivation (2J), Never properly tested (Paradox 2/homopolar).

Claim 4: Mass and energy from charge (Binary Mass Particle, electron mass, E = mc^2, proton radius, hydrogen mass)

a. Mathematics. - Force balance [read: ne.pdf p.25-26]: with separation 2r_P, a_S = V_t^2/r_P, v_S = V_t, v_T = -V_t: Coulomb : NM : NI = K_E/(4 r_P^2) : K_M V_t^2/(4 r_P^2) : K_M V_t^2/(2 r_P^2) (times Q^2). Balance gives K_E = K_M V_t^2, so V_t = c, independent of r_P. I confirm this algebra. (The printed intermediate lines drop powers of r_P but the ratios are right.) The model is allowed only because the charges are massless and the net force must be zero; it needs interaction faster than light, which the paper admits [read: "requires fields to travel much faster than the speed of light"]. At orbital speed c, retardation across 2 r_P is not negligible, so the instantaneous pair force used is not justified. - Effective mass M = K_M Q^2 / r_P and energy E = KE + PE = K_M Q^2 c^2/r_P = M c^2: algebra correct, but it is built in: KE uses the same M, and K_E = K_M c^2. - Electron mass [calc]: K_M e^2 / r_e = 9.10938e-31 kg. But r_e is DEFINED as e^2/(4 pi eps0 m_e c^2) [memory high], so K_M e^2/r_e = m_e is an identity (K_E = K_M c^2). It is not a derivation; r_P was chosen to give it. The first version also has total charge 2e (two charges Q = e); the "more precise" version with Q = e/2 and r_P = r_e/4 [read: ne.pdf p.27] is another choice of r_P. The model contains no way to fix r_P. - Proton [calc]: r_P = K_M e^2 / m_p = 1.5347e-18 m (reproduces the paper's 1.53469852e-18). Ratio r_e / r_P = 1836.15 = m_p/m_e: again just the inversion of the mass ratio. - Hydrogen [calc, scripts in /tmp]: M_H = K_M e^2 (1/r_P - 7/r_e) = m_p - 7 m_e identically = 1.00344 g/mol (paper: 1.00343643654560). The real atomic mass of H-1 is 1.00782503223(9) u [web: https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/Compositions/stand_alone.pl?ele=H], i.e. 1.00783 g/mol; the paper's comparison value "1.0000" is not a measured quantity ("non isotope" molar mass is not 1.0000). The real value is m_p + m_e - binding, so the model is off by 8.0000 m_e (I get 7.99998 electron masses) = 0.44%. The paper presents a 0.34% miss from a wrong target as "fantastic". - Internal inconsistency in the author's own papers [read + calc]: ne_hydrogen.pdf section 4 computes radii from magnetic moments, mu = Q v r / 2 with v = c, getting r_e = 3.866e-13 m (this is the reduced Compton wavelength hbar/(m_e c) = 3.86e-13 m [calc]) versus the BMP's r_e = 2.82e-15 m: a factor of 137. The author explains it away by saying the measured moment may be wrong [read]. b. Experiment. Proton charge radius is 0.8409(4) fm [web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_radius_puzzle]; the model's 1.5e-18 m is about 5.5e5 times smaller. Electron: upper limit on radius from Penning-trap work is about 1e-22 m [web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron]. In the model M = K_M Q^2 / r_P, so r_P = 1e-18 m would make the mass of a charge-e BMP 2.8e3 m_e (and for 1e-22 m, 2.8e7 m_e). So the model contradicts measured sizes, not only conventions. Relativistic mass-energy: see claim 5. Hydrogen mass: 0.44% off, wrong sign pattern (m_p - 7 m_e vs m_p + m_e). c. Tested? The only tests are the author's numbers above. No independent evaluation known. d. If true: electron and proton would be composites of massless charges orbiting at c; QED/Standard Model mass origin (Higgs coupling for the electron, QCD binding for the proton: [memory high]) would be wrong; scattering size limits would have to be wrong; and the BMP's spin and magnetic moment would have to come out right (they do not, see 137 factor).

Verdict (split): - "Derives the electron mass": Not testable as stated (tautology: identity from the definition of r_e; no independent r_P prediction). - E = mc^2 from the model: Internally consistent algebra but uninformative (built in via K_E = K_M c^2). - Proton radius 1.5e-18 m and hydrogen 1.0034 g/mol: Refuted by calculation / measurement (wrong radius by 5e5, wrong target mass by 8 electron masses).

Claim 5: Gravity is induction in a flowing ether (time dilation, Schwarzschild radius, collapse, FTL work-around)

a. Mathematics [read: ng.pdf pp.12-16]. - Moving BMP with axial speed V: V_t^2 = c^2 - V^2, so V_t'/V_t = sqrt(1 - V^2/c^2). The algebra is consistent, but the identification of the ratio of orbital speeds with time dilation is an interpretation ("material time"); no clock, signal or Lorentz transformation is derived. - Substituting ether infall speed v_P = sqrt(2 K_G M / r) gives sqrt(1 - 2 K_G M/(r c^2)) (the square root IS in the paper, page image p.14; see Corrections), the Schwarzschild form. It is a known mathematical fact that general relativity in Painlevé-Gullstrand coordinates ("river model") has space flowing at the Newtonian escape speed, and the static-observer time-dilation factor is sqrt(1 - v_flow^2/c^2) [memory medium; not web-checked]. So the numbers coincide with GR by construction (v_P is the escape speed), but that is a coordinate choice in GR, not a derivation here; the paper inserts Newtonian gravity (a_P = -K_G M/r^2) and the equivalence principle as inputs. - Energy: E = (K_M Q^2/2 r_P)(c^2 - V^2) + K_E Q^2/(2 r_P) = M c^2 - M V^2/2, then adds a Newtonian M V^2 /2 to get E = M c^2, "constant regardless of motion" [read: ng.pdf p.14]. This says a moving particle has the same total energy as one at rest, i.e. no kinetic energy; or equivalently the model lacks the factor gamma. Special relativity gives E = gamma m c^2 and p = gamma m v. - Schwarzschild radius: setting v_P = c gives r = 2 K_G M / c^2: consistent algebra given the assumptions. "Collapse" for charges beyond c is asserted, not derived. - Ether is compressible, consumed ("annihilated") by matter, with consumption rate inferred from an incompressible comparison that "is not consistent" with the Newtonian profile [read]: that only shows the flow isn't incompressible; no conservation law (continuity equation) is applied. b. Experiment. Relativistic kinetic energy of electrons was measured to follow (gamma - 1) m c^2, not (1/2) m v^2, up to v near 0.99c (Bertozzi 1964, Am. J. Phys. 32, 551) [memory high; web check not possible, search budget exhausted]. E independent of motion is inconsistent with that. Ether ideas: the Michelson-Morley null result (ether flowing with Earth is a "partial drag" idea: Fizeau and aberration tests constrain it; Kennedy-Thorndike, Ives-Stilwell for light-speed isotropy and time dilation [memory medium]). A different speed of light at altitude is compatible with GR only as a coordinate speed [memory medium]; local c is constant. Equivalence-principle (Eotvos-type) tests bound composition-dependent differences in gravitational vs inertial mass at the 1e-13 level [memory medium]; in NE inertia comes from charge pair sums (as in claim 4's hydrogen model) and gravity from the same quantity, so no extra freedom exists, but the hydrogen mass formula already disagrees with the measured mass. c. Tested? No author experiment. No independent tests of the "ether consumed by matter" model documented. d. If true: replace general relativity's geometric gravity with an induction-driven ether flow; reinterpret time dilation as slowdown of internal charge orbits; modify special relativity's energy-momentum relation (contradicting accelerator data); abandon the Standard Model's mass picture.

Verdict (split): - Time dilation and Schwarzschild factor "derived": Not testable as stated (inputs include escape speed and equivalence principle; matches GR numerically because it is built to). - E = Mc^2 independent of velocity: Tested, not supported (relativistic kinetic-energy measurements) [memory high]. - Ether that is consumed by matter, collapse beyond c, FTL "work-around": Not testable as stated. - Overall for the ether-gravity picture: Historically superseded but instructive (a Lorentz-ether-style position of the type that general relativity replaced).

Claim 6: Longitudinal EM waves and engineering payoff (antenna patterns, PCB/IC inductance)

a. Mathematics. The end-on dipole result [read: nia1.pdf pp.34-35]: V_K magnitude is half of broadside (-6 dB). It is derived from NI with the full a_S/r form (no transverse projection). From the Claim 1 analysis, in the far field the omitted -grad(phi) term cancels the longitudinal part exactly, so the nonzero end-on far-field is an artefact of dropping that term. Classical thin-wire half-wave dipole pattern cos(pi/2 cos theta)/sin theta has a true null on axis [memory high]. Near field: classical dipole fields do have radial (longitudinal) components that fall as 1/r^2 and 1/r^3, so "longitudinal fields exist" is true at short range but is not what the paper claims (it works at 100 wavelengths [read]). For inductance: NI for a closed circuit is the Neumann double integral, M = K_M oint oint dL_P.dL_T / r (same as classical [read: neThesis.pdf p.11]); so equal results are expected. Ground planes by negative images with 97% reflectivity is a standard-looking image-current approximation.

b. Experiment. Thesis: Agilent E4980A LCR measurements, average absolute error 1.9% (std 1.3%) and 4.1% (std 3.3%) on the two sets of inductance templates [read: neThesis.pdf]. That is good agreement but it is agreement of a Neumann-type integral with measured inductance, which mainstream methods (partial inductance / PEEC) also achieve [memory medium]; I did not see a head-to-head error comparison against PEEC, and the "10x faster" claim is unsupported in the sampled pages. Antennas: see claim 1(b).

c. Tested? Inductance: yes, by the author (supervised M.S. thesis at Fairfield University, advisors Sergent and Lyon [read]); independent replication or industrial adoption not documented in the folder. Longitudinal far-field: only a comparison to a handbook pattern; no neutral measurement.

d. If true: the radiated far field would need a 1/r longitudinal component; Maxwell's equations in vacuum (transverse plane waves) would be incomplete. For the inductance part, nothing in mainstream physics changes.

Verdict (split): - Inductance modelling of traces to about 2-5% by an integral over NI: Established as engineering practice (it is Neumann's formula); what is not established is any advantage over PEEC or any failure of classical theory. - Longitudinal far-field radiation and improved dipole patterns: Refuted by calculation (omitted -grad(phi) term; classical null on axis), with the empirical side Never properly tested (no controlled, neutral end-on measurement on record in the folder).

---

Summary table

What would settle the open items

• 3e: a quantitative Lorentz-force calculation for the Paradox 2 geometry (E + v x B around the real circuit including sliding contacts) and a repeat with a shielded, controlled setup and independent lab.
• 6: an anechoic-chamber measurement of a thin-wire dipole's far field on axis at 100 wavelengths vs. 1/r longitudinal prediction (-6 dB vs. broadside).
• 3c: obtain displacement_dilemma.pdf and find the double count.

Corrections to Step 1

1. facts.json, nm.pdf summary, and anomolies.pdf item 7: the corner-effect formula is not E = K_M I V_S^2 / h. The rendered page (nm.pdf p.81, eq.16) shows E = sqrt(2) K_M I_S V_S / h along -x; "V_S 2" in the text layer was a garbled square-root sign. With V_S^2 the units would be V/s, not V/m.
2. facts.json, ng.pdf summary: it says the gravitational factor is "1 - 2GM/(r c^2) (the paper's form, no square root)". The page image (ng.pdf p.14) shows Dilation = sqrt(1 - 2 K_G M/(r C^2)); the square root is present. The text layer drops radicals everywhere in these PDFs (also in sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) and V_t = sqrt(C^2 - V^2)).
3. Additions (not errors): the electron-mass "derivation" is an identity and the first BMP version carries total charge 2e, both addressed in claim 4. The hydrogen comparison target "1.0000 g/mol" in the paper is wrong (true 1.00783), which Step 1 already noted. Step 1 summarised nia1.pdf's end-on antenna claim without the ARRL -9 dB figure; it is on nia1.pdf p.35, as a cited handbook value I did not see.
4. claims.md claim 3: the "classical theory gives undefined or wrong answers for the corner emf" is the author's assertion; I show it comes from an incomplete classical calculation (claim 3a), so the claim list should present it as the author's assertion.