Robert Distinti's "New Electromagnetism": a primer

Project folder: Researchers/Distinti Robert. Ten PDFs by Robert J. Distinti, written 2003-2007 (one book reissued 2019): the core paper New Electromagnetism (ne.pdf), its introduction (ne_intro.pdf), the books New Magnetism (nm.pdf) and New Induction Applications, Vol. 1 (nia1.pdf), The Secrets of F = QvxB, Anomalies and Paradoxes of Classical Electromagnetism (anomolies.pdf), New Gravity (ng.pdf), NE: Hydrogen (ne_hydrogen.pdf), the Paradox 2 experiment write-up, and his M.S. thesis in electrical engineering at Fairfield University, Inductance Modeling Using New Electromagnetism (neThesis.pdf, 2007).

Source gap (repeated from claims.md and arbiter.md). All ten PDFs have a text layer, but the papers that hold several key derivations are not in the folder: ni.pdf (the numerical search that produced New Induction), homopolar.pdf, displacement_dilemma.pdf (the "curl H = 2J" argument), ind_jackson.pdf, ron.pdf, and the promised "Ethereal Mechanics" series. The raw Paradox 2 data (scope captures, videos) are also absent. Reviewers first read the key sections (BMP, New Magnetism derivation, gravity, hydrogen, corner effect, Paradox 2, thesis validation tables) and only sampled the long books. After a quality check (qe.md), the long documents were read in depth: nm.pdf chapters 4-5 and 7-9, neThesis.pdf pp.43-79 (the measurement chain), nia1.pdf pp.42-91 (the author's bench tests) and anomolies.pdf pp.4-16 (deep/ folder; arbiter.md "QE revision"). In a second round (arbiter.md "Round 2") nia1.pdf pp.28-41, the dipole-antenna derivation behind the "-6 dB end-on" claim, was also read in depth and checked by calculation, so that verdict now rests on his own derivation, not on far-field theory alone. Statements that "no independent test is documented" mean no test is in the folder and web searches found none (the search quota ran out in both rounds); they are not the result of a full literature survey. Still not web-verified: PEEC (partial-element equivalent circuit) accuracy figures, the content of the Guala-Valverde homopolar paper, and the conditions of the ARRL Antenna Book pattern. Try www.distinti.com/docs or the Internet Archive for the missing papers.

Source tags: [read] = from Distinti's documents; [web] = Internet source with URL; [memory] = recalled, with confidence; [computed] = calculated for this primer (see example.py).

---

1. The idea in one paragraph

Robert Distinti, an electrical engineer, became convinced that the standard laws of electricity and magnetism contain hidden mistakes, and set out to replace them with simpler force laws acting directly between pairs of charges, with no magnetic field in between. He proposed two such laws. "New Induction" says that when a charge speeds up or slows down, it pushes on every other charge in a direction set by its own acceleration. "New Magnetism" says that two moving charges push on each other in a way that depends only on their two velocities. Together with Coulomb's law (like charges repel) he called this "New Electromagnetism" (NE). He then used NE for three ambitious purposes: to calculate the inductance of circuit-board traces, which he did well enough for a master's thesis; to explain where mass comes from, by imagining two massless charges circling each other at the speed of light, which he calls a Binary Mass Particle; and to explain gravity as the same induction effect, caused by an invisible medium (an "ether") flowing into matter. The surprising lesson of this review is that his two "new" laws, written out carefully, turn out to be the ordinary textbook laws in different clothing. Where he gets correct numbers, that is why. Where he departs from the textbook, the departure comes from comparing his laws against a cut-down version of the textbook that no textbook uses.

---

2. What you need to know first

Vectors and the "BAC-CAB" rule. The dot product a . b is a number; the cross product a x b is a vector at right angles to both. The triple product expands as a x (b x c) = b(a . c) - c(a . b). This one identity turns the textbook magnetic force into Distinti's New Magnetism formula, so it is worth practising. A unit vector (written with a hat, r-hat) has length 1 and only carries direction. Read: Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, Ch. 1.

Coulomb's law and the electric field. Two point charges Q_S and Q_T a distance r apart push on each other with a force of size K_E Q_S Q_T / r^2, along the line joining them, where K_E = 1/(4 pi epsilon0) = 8.99 x 10^9 N m^2/C^2 and epsilon0 is the vacuum permittivity. Like charges repel. Read: Griffiths Ch. 2.

Magnetic field, Biot-Savart and the Lorentz force. A moving charge (or current) makes a magnetic field B; a charge q moving with velocity v through B feels a sideways force q v x B. With an electric field E as well, the total force is F = q(E + v x B), the Lorentz force. The constant in magnetic formulas is K_M = mu0/(4 pi) = 1.0 x 10^-7 T m/A (mu0 is the vacuum permeability). The two constants are linked by K_E = K_M c^2, where c is the speed of light. Read: Griffiths Ch. 5.

Potentials. Instead of working with E and B directly, one can use a scalar potential phi (volts) and a vector potential A. Then B = curl A and E = -grad phi - (partial A/partial t). The second term, minus the rate of change of A, is the induced electric field: it is what drives current in a transformer secondary. For a slowly moving point charge q with velocity v at distance r, A = K_M q v / r. Distinti's "New Induction" is one piece of the time derivative of this A, which is why potentials matter here. Read: Griffiths Ch. 5 (vector potential) and Ch. 10 (potentials of moving charges).

Faraday's law, inductance and the Neumann formula. A changing current in one loop induces a voltage (emf, electromotive force) in another loop. The coupling is the mutual inductance M_12, given by Neumann's formula, a double integral around both loops of (dl_1 . dl_2)/r times K_M. Self-inductance of a single loop is the same integral with both pieces on one wire; it becomes infinite for an infinitely thin wire, and finite for any real wire radius. Read: Griffiths Ch. 7.

Real-wire inductance, skin depth and image currents. Three engineering facts appear in Distinti's inductance work. (i) A circular loop of radius R made of round wire of radius a has a self-inductance that depends on a through a logarithm, ln(8R/a): thinner wire, larger inductance (formula T8 below). (ii) At high frequency, alternating current crowds into a thin layer at the surface of a conductor; the layer's thickness is the skin depth delta (T9). In copper it is about 2 mm at 1 kHz and about 27 micrometres at 6 MHz. When the skin depth is smaller than the copper thickness, a sheet of copper acts as a nearly perfect barrier to the changing field. (iii) A current running parallel to such a conducting sheet (a printed-circuit "ground plane") behaves as if a mirror-image current flowed the opposite way behind the sheet: the method of images. The image partly cancels the original and lowers its inductance. Read: Griffiths Ch. 3.2 (images, for charges), Ch. 9.4 (skin depth); F. W. Grover, Inductance Calculations (loop formulas) [memory high].

Fields of accelerating charges and radiation. A charge that accelerates sends out a field that falls off as 1/r (much more slowly than Coulomb's 1/r^2). Far from the charge this radiation field is purely transverse: it has no component along the line from the charge to the observer. Close to the charge there are additional "near-field" terms that do point along r. Read: Griffiths Ch. 10-11; Purcell and Morin, Electricity and Magnetism, Ch. 5 (fields of moving charges, and why magnetism follows from relativity).

Rest energy and time dilation. In special relativity a body of mass m moving at speed v has energy gamma m c^2, where gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2); it grows without limit as v approaches c. Moving clocks run slow by the factor 1/gamma. In general relativity a clock held at rest at distance r from a mass M runs slow by sqrt(1 - 2GM/(r c^2)), where G is Newton's gravitational constant; the radius where this factor reaches zero, r_S = 2GM/c^2, is the Schwarzschild radius. Read: Taylor and Wheeler, Spacetime Physics (special relativity); Hartle, Gravity or Taylor and Wheeler, Exploring Black Holes (the gravitational clock factor).

---

3. The textbook view

Symbols used throughout: - Q_S, Q_T : source charge and target charge (coulombs, C). The force is always the force on the target from the source. - v_S, v_T : their velocities (m/s); a_S : the source's acceleration (m/s^2). - r : vector from source to target; r its length; r-hat = r/r. - K_E = 1/(4 pi epsilon0) = 8.988 x 10^9 N m^2/C^2; K_M = mu0/(4 pi) = 1.000 x 10^-7 N s^2/C^2; K_E = K_M c^2.

(T1) Coulomb: F = K_E Q_S Q_T r-hat / r^2.

(T2) Magnetic field of a slow point charge (Biot-Savart form): B = K_M Q_S v_S x r-hat / r^2.

(T3) Magnetic force on the target: F = Q_T v_T x B. Using BAC-CAB:

F = (K_M Q_S Q_T / r^2) [ (v_T . r-hat) v_S - (v_S . v_T) r-hat ]

(T4) Induced electric field of a moving, accelerating source. With A = K_M Q_S v_S / r, the induced field at a fixed point is -partialA/partial t. Two things change with time: v_S (giving the acceleration) and the distance r (because the source moves). Working it out (the derivative of 1/r is (v_S . r-hat)/r^2 when the source moves):

-partialA/partial t = -K_M Q_S a_S / r - K_M Q_S (v_S . r-hat) v_S / r^2

Notice the first term contains the whole acceleration vector a_S, including any part pointing along r. Nothing is projected away. This is the law engineers use for transformers and circuit inductance (the Neumann formula is built from it) [memory high; Griffiths Ch. 7, Jackson Ch. 5].

(T5) The far-field radiation term. The exact field of an accelerating charge (the Lienard-Wiechert field, Griffiths Ch. 10) contains, far away, a 1/r piece with only the transverse part of the acceleration:

E_rad = -K_M Q_S [ a_S - (a_S . r-hat) r-hat ] / r (evaluated at the retarded time)

The longitudinal part (a_S . r-hat) r-hat is missing here not because it is forgotten but because, at large distances, it is cancelled by the -grad phi term of the full field. Close in, at distances small compared with a wavelength, the exact classical field still has a longitudinal piece. The mathematician reviewer computed the exact field numerically and found the near-field acceleration term equals -(K_M q / 2r) [ a + (a . r-hat) r-hat ] (the "Darwin" form [web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Lagrangian]). On the axis of the acceleration this is -K_M q a/r; at right angles to it, half that.

(T6) Classical electron radius. This is a defined length, not a measured size: the radius at which the Coulomb energy of the electron's charge would equal its rest energy,

r_e = K_E e^2 / (m_e c^2) = K_M e^2 / m_e = 2.8179 x 10^-15 m

where e = 1.602 x 10^-19 C is the elementary charge and m_e = 9.109 x 10^-31 kg is the electron mass [memory high; CODATA]. Scattering experiments show the electron has no structure down to at least 10^-18 m, and Penning-trap results suggest a limit near 10^-22 m [web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron].

(T7) Gravity's clock factor and the "river" picture. General relativity says a clock at rest at radius r ticks slower by sqrt(1 - 2GM/(r c^2)). An exactly equivalent way to write the same spacetime (Painleve-Gullstrand coordinates) pictures space as flowing inward at the Newtonian escape speed v = sqrt(2GM/r); a clock held still against that flow is slowed by sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), which is the same factor [web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullstrand%E2%80%93Painlev%C3%A9_coordinates]. This "river model of black holes" is a respected teaching tool (Hamilton and Lisle, Am. J. Phys. 2008 [memory medium]).

(T8) Self-inductance of a round-wire loop. For a circular loop of radius R made of wire of radius a (a much smaller than R), with current spread evenly through the wire:

L = mu0 R [ ln(8R/a) - 2 ] + mu0 R / 4 = mu0 R [ ln(8R/a) - 7/4 ]

The first part is the external inductance (field outside the wire); it depends on wire radius through the logarithm. The second part is the internal inductance, mu0/(8 pi) henries per metre of wire times the length 2 pi R; it does not depend on wire radius [memory high; Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, problem on loop inductance, equation number not checked].

(T9) Skin depth. In a conductor of resistivity rho, AC at frequency f penetrates to a depth delta = sqrt(rho / (pi f mu0)). For copper (rho = 1.68 x 10^-8 ohm m): 2.06 mm at 1 kHz, 46 micrometres at 2 MHz, 26.6 micrometres at 6 MHz [computed, example.py Part 8].

(T10) Two charges moving side by side. Two charges Q a distance d apart, moving together at speed V at right angles to the line joining them, repel each other in the lab with a net force (Coulomb minus magnetic attraction) of

F = (K_E Q^2 / d^2)(1 - V^2/c^2) = K_E Q^2 / (gamma^2 d^2)

In the frame moving with them there is no magnetic force at all, only Coulomb repulsion; the lab sees less push because the pair's clocks run slow. E and B are different in different frames, but every frame predicts the same motion. This is how relativity handles "magnetism without relative motion" [memory high; Purcell and Morin Ch. 5; Griffiths Ch. 12].

---

4. Where Distinti departs

4a. The two new laws, side by side with the textbook

Distinti's NE force on the target is [read: ne.pdf p.25; nm.pdf; the_secrets_of_qvxb.pdf]:

Coulomb (T1) + New Magnetism: (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 ] + New Induction: -K_M Q_S Q_T a_S / r

So New Magnetism plus New Induction equals Q_T [ -partialA/partial t + v_T x curl A ] exactly, for A = K_M Q_S v_S / r. example.py Part 6 checks this symbolically for an arbitrary source path and any target velocity; the difference is zero [computed]. This is the textbook quasi-static Lorentz force. Distinti has, in effect, rediscovered it, written as a single pair force without naming B or A. That is a respectable achievement for someone working from a numerical search (ni.pdf, not in the folder), and it is why his inductance calculations work.

Where does Distinti's extra New Magnetism term (the -(v_S . r-hat)v_S piece) come from in his own account? nm.pdf chapter 4 gives two routes [read: nm.pdf pp.19-28, via deep/nm-3bcad1.md]. Route 1 requires the BMP to show time dilation equally in every direction, which forces V_t^2 = c^2 - V^2. That condition shows some extra term is needed, but several different terms satisfy it equally well, so it does not pick his. It also takes relativity's dilation factor as an input and then cites agreement with relativity as support, which is circular. Route 2 is an analogy with New Induction. His final justification is a known fact: moving a source wire induces an emf (p.27). So the term is postulated to fit a known effect, not derived. His remark that the term "seems to have been omitted from the traditional models" (p.27) is wrong: it is the source-motion part of -partialA/partial t in T4 [arbiter, QE revision].

4b. The real departure: what he says the textbook says

The point of departure is not in his laws but in his description of the opposition. Distinti states that classical induction is "transverse only", that is, the textbook uses -K_M Q_S [a_S - (a_S . r-hat)r-hat]/r (the far-field term T5) for induction, and that New Induction corrects it by restoring the longitudinal part [read, as summarised in claims.md and arbiter.md]. But T4 shows the textbook induction law already contains the full a_S. The transverse-only form is the radiation-zone term, never the circuit law. The mathematician reviewer showed why it cannot be the circuit law: integrated around two closed loops, the transverse-only form gives exactly zero mutual inductance, because the difference between the two forms is a total derivative that sums to zero around any closed loop [computed by the mathematician; arbiter Claim 1]. If the textbook used it, no transformer would work.

Three consequences follow, and they organise most of his "anomalies":

• The corner "hot spot". Distinti applies the transverse-only acceleration term to charges turning a sharp corner in a wire and gets a predicted classical field E = sqrt(2) K_M I V_S / h at height h above the corner (I is the current, V_S the electrons' drift speed) [read: page image anomolies.pdf p.17, via reviewers]. Since corners show no hot spots, he concludes classical theory is wrong. But for a steady current A does not change in time, so the textbook induced field -partialA/partial t is exactly zero everywhere, corner included. The hot spot appears only when one keeps the acceleration term and drops the convective term. Distinti never built the "corner effect transformer"; nm.pdf Appendix A says there was "no need to build this experiment" [read, via contrarian]. For scale: I = 1 A, V_S = 7 x 10^-5 m/s, h = 1 cm gives about 1 x 10^-9 V/m even in his mistaken version [computed].
• The far field. If New Induction's full a/r term held at large distances, radio waves would have a longitudinal 1/r component, and a dipole antenna would radiate along its own axis. Distinti predicts the signal end-on (along the wire) is half the broadside signal, -6 dB [read: nia1.pdf pp.32, 35]. The textbook says the far field is transverse and the dipole has a null on its axis. Gauss's law in empty space (div E = 0) rules out a longitudinal 1/r wave [memory high]. His derivation (nia1.pdf pp.28-41) was read in depth in the second QE round [arbiter.md "Round 2"; deep/nia1-8f67b3.md]:
• His -6 dB does follow from his own integral. Broadside he gets K_M C^2 I0/(f d), end-on half that (C is the speed of light, I0 the current amplitude, f the frequency, d the distance). Retardation is handled consistently for the magnitude [read: pp.32, 35; computed by the deep reader].
• What the integral is. His New Induction sum is the classical retarded vector potential A integrated along the receiving wire, i.e. the -partialA/partial t part of E. The textbook adds -grad phi from the charge that the oscillating current piles up on the antenna arms (charge conservation). He drops phi because electric effects are "inverse square" [read: pp.28-29]; that is true of a static charge, not of oscillating charge, whose retarded potential falls as 1/r. On the axis at 100 wavelengths, with his own current model, the two terms are each 0.4712 V/m per amp and cancel to 0.3%, the remainder falling as 1/r^2 [computed by the deep reader]. So the -6 dB is the vector-potential half of the classical field with the scalar-potential half left out. This is the same "cut-down textbook" pattern as in the corner effect.
• The ARRL -9 dB. He cites a measured -9 dB end-on figure from the ARRL (American Radio Relay League) Antenna Book as evidence the classical null is wrong [read: nia1.pdf pp.33, 36, 38]. That curve includes ground effects at an unstated angle. The classical pattern cos((pi/2) cos t)/sin t, evaluated along the wire at 25 degrees elevation (the angle he uses for his own ground trace, p.38), gives -9.19 dB; his ARRL ratio 1:2.828 is -9.03 dB [computed by the deep reader]. So the -9 dB plausibly agrees with classical theory, not with NE's -6 dB. The 25-degree link is an inference (confidence medium); the web check of the ARRL figure failed.
• Smaller points. The printed peak-search code (p.40), run as printed, gives +1.3 dB, not -6 dB, so the plotted curve used a different setting (a reproducibility defect). "Low frequencies travel farther" (p.32) does not follow: the 1/f is antenna size at fixed current, and the fall-off is 1/d at every frequency. No measurement is reported in the chapter.
• Single charges, off-axis. Near an accelerating charge the exact classical longitudinal term matches New Induction only on the axis of acceleration and is half as strong at 90 degrees (T5). New Induction's angular dependence is not exact.

4c. Paradox 2: a disk generator

This is Distinti's one real experiment, and it deserves a fair hearing [read: paradox2.pdf]. A rotor carries two disc magnets; brushes pick up a voltage through a copper ring; a 1000x chopper amplifier with a 1 Hz filter reads the output on a scope. He reports about 180 microvolts DC with opposite-polarity magnets, no signal with no magnets, sign reversal when rotation reverses, near-cancellation with both magnets north-up, and 20-90 microvolts with one magnet. He argues that no net flux is linked or cut, so classical theory cannot explain it.

The textbook tool here is not flux counting. The "flux rule" (emf = -dPhi/dt) is a shortcut that fails for circuits with sliding contacts, a classic textbook trap (Feynman Vol. II sec. 17-2 [memory high]; [web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox]). The correct rule is to add up the Lorentz force along the actual path: emf = integral (v x B) . dl, with v the velocity of each moving piece of conductor. A radial conductor rotating at angular speed omega over a magnet with vertical field B_z contributes omega times the integral of B_z r dr. Going out over a north-up magnet and back in over a south-up magnet, both contributions have the same sign and add; with both north-up they cancel; reversing rotation reverses the sign; one magnet gives roughly half. That is the whole pattern he observed. The mathematician's order-of-magnitude estimate, with assumed inputs (B about 0.1 T, radius about 40 mm, omega about 1.6 rad/s, none given in the paper), gives about 180 microvolts per magnet: the same order as the measurement. Because the inputs are assumed, this shows the result does not need new physics; it does not prove the exact value. Distinti never computed this classical prediction himself, and no one has replicated the run.

4d. Mass from charge (the BMP) and gravity

Here Distinti really does go beyond textbook physics, and these are the parts that fail. The details are the worked example (section 5). In short: he takes his force laws, which (like the textbook laws they equal) are valid only for speeds much less than c, and applies them to charges moving at exactly c; he uses instantaneous forces although his own rules say fields propagate at finite speed (ne.pdf concedes the model "requires electromagnetic fields to travel much faster than the speed of light" [read: ne.pdf p.26]); and his "derived" masses are definitions read backwards.

For gravity (ng.pdf), he lets an ether flow into a mass at the Newtonian escape speed sqrt(2 K_G M / r) (K_G is his name for G) and inserts that speed into the BMP's time-dilation factor, getting sqrt(1 - 2 K_G M/(r c^2)) [read: page image ng.pdf p.14] and the Schwarzschild radius. These numbers are right, but they are right by construction: they are exactly the river picture of T7, and any model with that flow would produce them. Meanwhile the same paper says the BMP's energy is M c^2 at every speed [read: page image ng.pdf p.14], which contradicts both relativity (gamma M c^2) and its own time dilation. Measurements of fast electrons follow gamma m c^2, not a constant energy (Bertozzi 1964, within about 10% calorimetry error) [web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertozzi_experiment].

4e. An absolute frame, and what New Magnetism adds to the textbook

Read in depth, nm.pdf makes one real departure explicit: charge velocity is "always measured relative to the ether" [read: nm.pdf pp.35-37]. Textbook electromagnetism has no preferred frame; only relative motion matters, and E and B change between frames (T10). Distinti's position is a preferred-frame theory. The verdicts (arbiter.md) on what he builds on it:

• Absolute frame. It could in principle be tested: the magnetic effects of an unbalanced ("Gaussian") current should change with the lab's speed through the ether. He gives no size and no experiment, and does not say whether the ether moves with the Earth. It also conflicts with his own claim of agreement with Michelson-Morley and relativity. The ether-drift limits are now web-checked: Michelson-Morley (1887) saw at most 0.02 of an expected 0.4 fringe, and modern optical-resonator experiments find no ether wind at the 10^-17 level [web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment]; Kennedy-Thorndike-type bounds have tightened from about 10^-2 (1932) to 7 x 10^-12 (2018) [web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment; secondary source]. Earth's orbital speed gives v^2/c^2 of about 10^-8 [computed], so any ether that affects light or clocks at that order is excluded many times over. His New Magnetism is a force law on charges, not a light-speed measurement, so these limits do not test it directly; linking them is the arbiter's inference. A preferred frame that changes magnetic effects with the lab's speed would also have to leave light speed unchanged to 10^-17; an ether that moves with the Earth escapes, but then his "ethereal velocity" measurement (nm pp.35-37) gives nothing [arbiter.md "Round 2"]. Verdict: Not testable as stated, and in tension with itself and with sourced ether-drift limits.
• "Stationary" and "Gaussian" currents [read: nm.pdf pp.29-43]. A current in a neutral wire (equal positive and negative charge) he calls stationary. His algebra showing the observer's velocity cancels is correct; it is the textbook result that a neutral wire's current looks the same to slowly moving observers. A current not balanced by opposite charge (an electron beam, a charged spinning disk) he calls Gaussian. His derivation of a Gaussian current inside a resistive wire integrates to Q = eps A [E(l) - E(0)], which is zero for the constant field he assumes. He concedes Poisson's equation gives zero charge, then dismisses it. Verdict: Internally inconsistent. Even on its own terms the effect is about 6.5 x 10^-22 of the current for 1 V across 1 m of copper [arbiter, computed].
• Electron-beam "coherency" [read: nm.pdf pp.53-54]. His force between neighbouring beam electrons, F = (Q^2/d^2)(K_E - K_M V^2), is T10 exactly, since K_M = K_E/c^2. He attributes it to magnetic cancellation where relativity attributes it to time dilation: a relabelling. With V measured from an unspecified "stationary point", his formula gives different forces in different frames. At 10 keV the factor is 0.962: magnetism cancels only 3.8% of the repulsion [computed, example.py Part 9], so low-energy beams do spread from their own charge. Nothing was measured. Verdict: formula Established (it is 1/gamma^2).
• Charged-disk emf and edge-current magnets [read: nm.pdf pp.32-35, 55-67]. A spinning charged disk with changing speed "will" induce an emf in a coil: a prediction without data, and classical theory predicts the same emf (about 10^-12 V per turn for a plausible tabletop disk [arbiter, computed]), so it would not tell the theories apart. The magnet chapter has photographs of magnetic viewing film and steel balls seeking magnet edges, with no numbers, repeats or controls. Modelling a magnet by currents on its edges is the textbook surface current K = M x n (M the magnetisation, n the surface normal).
• Homopolar derivation [read: nm.pdf pp.68-73]. Correct algebra that ends in v x B from Biot-Savart: the textbook result, relabelled. No experiment on these pages; no emf per rpm computed.

4f. The inductance evidence, looked at closely

This is Distinti's strongest ground, so it deserves the most careful look. Three sets of measurements exist, all by the author [read; arbiter.md QE revision; deep/neThesis-9619da.md, deep/nia1-8f67b3.md].

The thesis (neThesis.pdf). Thirty-two printed-circuit traces, computed vs measured with an LCR meter (an instrument that measures inductance L, capacitance C and resistance R). The reported mean errors, 1.9% without a ground plane and 4.1% with one, reproduce from the tables. But the "measured" values are processed: - Without a plane, the value used is a low-frequency reading (roughly 200 Hz to 1 kHz) taken where the no-plane and with-plane curves meet. The frequency is chosen per inductor and not tabulated. - With a plane, the value is the 2 MHz reading plus a per-inductor "correction factor" (the no-plane reading at that crossing point minus the no-plane reading at 2 MHz). Raw readings and correction factors are not published [read: neThesis.pdf pp.67-70]. - For the one inductor that can be checked from a chart (Exp 11/12), the raw reading was about 415 nH against 431 nH computed (-3.9%); after correction it is 476 nH (+9.4%). The raw data fitted better. The 4.1% figure therefore cannot be checked or bounded. - Why does the ground plane have no effect below about 1 kHz? Distinti says "a certain M-field intensity [is] required to knock electrons loose" [read: neThesis.pdf]. The textbook answer is skin depth (T9): at 1 kHz it is 2 mm, about 60 times the 34-micrometre copper, so the field passes through the plane and no image current forms. By 2 MHz it is 46 micrometres, comparable to the copper; by 6 MHz it is thinner than the copper. - Speed: the abstract says "at least an order of magnitude faster", the body says "nearly an order of magnitude"; a figure shows about 70 times at the longest trace, comparing two programs both written by the author, on run time only. Accuracy was never compared with another tool.

The bench tests in nia1.pdf (pp.45-51, 73-91). Paper-and-glue rectangular loops: 1.578 x 10^-7 H computed vs 1.49 and 1.56 x 10^-7 H measured (5.7% and 1.3%). A test circuit board at 6 MHz: direct coupling 123 vs 125 nH; one ground plane 40.2 vs 41.5-42.3 nH; parasitic loop 74.6 vs 73.5 nH; trace with one plane 165 vs 169 nH. No error bars, repeats or instrument accuracy are given; an honest tolerance is at least 2-5%. - Two planes. The book reports 27.5 computed vs 27 nH measured. The 27.5 was picked by eye ("Guestimation") from a table of image-pair sums that oscillates. Averaging the partial sums of an oscillating series is a legitimate technique (Cesaro or Euler averaging). The real problem is a wrong table entry (the 8h row prints 40.0 nH; the formula gives 37.99 nH). With it fixed, the series converges to 23.9 nH, about 10% below the 26.6-27 nH measured [arbiter, computed by the deep reader]. - The 97% coefficient. Every ground-plane prediction multiplies each image by an "inductive reflectivity" of 0.97, raised to a power for repeated images. nia1 does not derive it. Fitting the author's own data gives 0.945-0.954 for one plane and 0.92-0.93 for two, the pattern expected if the true value depends on frequency and copper thickness (T9). It is the only adjustable number in the plane predictions.

What all this tests. Every computed number is an ordinary Neumann mutual inductance plus image currents: textbook theory. These data support his programs, not New Electromagnetism as distinct physics.

---

5. Worked example: the Binary Mass Particle, number by number

Distinti asks: can two massless charges sit in a configuration where all the NE forces cancel? His answer is the Binary Mass Particle (BMP, "bump") [read: ne.pdf sec. 6.1, pp.25-28]. We redo it and then test the numbers. Every number below is reproduced by example.py.

Setup. Two equal like charges Q sit on opposite ends of a diameter of a circle of radius r_P, both moving around it at speed V_t. Their separation is r = 2 r_P. Each moves in a circle, so its acceleration points to the centre with size a = V_t^2 / r_P.

Step 1: the three forces on one charge (radial, outward positive). - Coulomb (repulsive): K_E Q^2 / (2 r_P)^2 = K_E Q^2 / (4 r_P^2). - New Magnetism: the velocities are opposite, v_S = V_t y-hat and v_T = -V_t y-hat, while r-hat = x-hat. In the bracket, (v_T . r-hat) = 0, (v_S . r-hat) = 0, and (v_S . v_T) = -V_t^2, so the bracket is +V_t^2 r-hat: repulsive, size K_M Q^2 V_t^2 / (4 r_P^2). - New Induction: the source's acceleration points from the source toward the centre, which is toward the target, along +r-hat. The force is -K_M Q^2 a_S / r, so it points along -r-hat: attractive, size K_M Q^2 (V_t^2/r_P)/(2 r_P) = K_M Q^2 V_t^2 / (2 r_P^2).

Step 2: set the sum to zero. Multiply every term by 4 r_P^2 / Q^2:

K_E + K_M V_t^2 - 2 K_M V_t^2 = 0, so V_t^2 = K_E / K_M = c^2.

The orbit balances at V_t = c = 2.998 x 10^8 m/s, and r_P has cancelled out: the balance holds for any radius [computed; agrees with ne.pdf eq. 3]. (The paper's printed step 2 drops a power of r_P and the factor Q^2, but keeps the right ratios 1 : 1 : 2, so its conclusion is correct algebra.)

Check yourself: K_E / K_M = 8.98755 x 10^9 / 1.00000 x 10^-7 = 8.98755 x 10^16 m^2/s^2, whose square root is 2.99792 x 10^8 m/s.

Step 3: effective mass. If the whole BMP is pushed with acceleration a, each charge feels New Induction from its partner, -K_M Q^2 a / (2 r_P), which acts like an inertial force -M_each a. So M_each = K_M Q^2 / (2 r_P), and for both charges

M = K_M Q^2 / r_P [read: ne.pdf Eq. 6-1]

Step 4: the electron. Put Q = e and r_P = r_e = 2.8179403 x 10^-15 m:

M = (1.0000 x 10^-7)(1.6021766 x 10^-19)^2 / (2.8179403 x 10^-15) = 9.10938 x 10^-31 kg

which is the electron mass to all printed digits [computed; ne.pdf p.27 prints 9.109386 x 10^-31]. Impressive, until you recall T6: r_e is defined as K_M e^2 / m_e. Substituting the definition gives M = K_M e^2 / (K_M e^2 / m_e) = m_e. The electron mass was put in through r_e and taken out again. Nothing in the BMP picks r_P = r_e; Step 2 showed the balance works at any r_P, so the model has one free parameter that can produce any mass you like. His "more precise" variant (half charges at r_e/4) gives K_M (e/2)^2 / (r_e/4) = K_M e^2 / r_e, the same identity.

Step 5: energy. Distinti adds a Newtonian kinetic energy (1/2) M V_t^2 = (1/2) M c^2 to the Coulomb energy K_E Q^2/(2 r_P). Using K_E = K_M c^2 the second is also K_M Q^2 c^2 / (2 r_P) = (1/2) M c^2. Sum: M c^2 [read: ne.pdf pp.27-28; computed]. This is again an identity of the definitions (M from Step 3 and K_E = K_M c^2), and it uses the Newtonian formula (1/2) M v^2 at v = c, where relativity says it fails.

Step 6: the proton, a real test. The same formula inverted, with the proton mass m_p = 1.67262 x 10^-27 kg, gives a "BMP radius"

r_P = K_M e^2 / m_p = r_e (m_e / m_p) = 2.8179 x 10^-15 / 1836.15 = 1.5347 x 10^-18 m

[read: ne_hydrogen.pdf p.4 prints 1.53469852 x 10^-18; computed]. The measured proton charge radius is 8.4075 x 10^-16 m (CODATA 2022) [web: https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?rp]. Ratio: 8.4075 x 10^-16 / 1.5347 x 10^-18 = 548. If r_P means a physical size, the model is off by a factor of about 550. (Distinti calls the model "hypothetical" [read], which softens but does not remove the problem, since he reports it as the proton radius.)

Step 7: the hydrogen atom. ne_hydrogen.pdf sums the twelve pair interactions of a proton-BMP and an electron-BMP and gets M_H = K_M e^2 (1/r_P - 7/r_e) [read: ne_hydrogen.pdf p.7]. Since K_M e^2 / r_P = m_p and K_M e^2 / r_e = m_e by construction, this is just

M_H = m_p - 7 m_e = 1.67262 x 10^-27 - 7 (9.10938 x 10^-31) = 1.66624 x 10^-27 kg

Times Avogadro's number (6.02214 x 10^23 /mol) and 1000 g/kg: 1.00344 g/mol (the paper prints 1.00343643654560 [read]). The paper compares this to "the correct value 1.0000 g/mol" [read: ne_hydrogen.pdf p.1], which is not a measured quantity. The measured atomic mass of hydrogen-1 is 1.00782503223 u, i.e. 1.00783 g/mol [web: https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/Compositions/stand_alone.pl?ele=H]. The model is 0.435% low, and that shortfall is exactly 8 m_e / (m_p + m_e) = 0.435% [computed]: the real atom is m_p + m_e (less a 13.6 eV binding energy, 1.4 x 10^-8 of the mass), the model is m_p - 7 m_e, and the difference is eight electron masses. The "near agreement" is only the statement that electrons are light.

What the example teaches (BMP). The algebra in Step 2 is correct. Steps 4, 5 and 7 are identities that return the constants that went in. Step 6 is the one place the model makes contact with an independent measurement, and it misses by a factor of 550. When a model's free parameter is fixed by a measured quantity, getting that quantity back is not a prediction. Ask of any "derivation": which numbers went in, and which came out that did not go in?

5b. A second, shorter example: the wire-gauge "anomaly"

anomolies.pdf p.7 [read; page image] gives measured inductances for loops made from 48 inches of wire: circle 2253 nH (26 AWG) and 2055 nH (22 AWG); square 2144 and 1950 nH. (AWG, American Wire Gauge: a larger number is thinner wire.) Distinti notes that the thinner wire gives more inductance and concludes "the classical model for intrinsic inductance is incorrect", because the classical internal inductance, mu0/(8 pi) per metre, does not depend on thickness. Test this against T8.

• Loop radius. 48 in = 1.2192 m of wire, so R = 1.2192 / (2 pi) = 0.1940 m.
• Wire radii. 26 AWG is 0.405 mm across, a = 0.2025 mm; 22 AWG is 0.644 mm across, a = 0.322 mm [memory high, standard AWG table].
• Logarithms. 8R/a = 1.552/0.0002025 = 7664, ln = 8.945 (26 AWG); 1.552/0.000322 = 4820, ln = 8.481 (22 AWG).
• External part. mu0 R = (4 pi x 10^-7)(0.1940) = 2.438 x 10^-7 H. Times (8.945 - 2) gives 1693 nH; times (8.481 - 2) gives 1580 nH.
• Internal part. mu0 R / 4 = 61 nH for both gauges. This is the only term Distinti discusses.
• Totals. 1754 nH (26 AWG) and 1641 nH (22 AWG). Classical difference: 113 nH, which is mu0 R ln(0.322/0.2025). Measured difference: 198 nH.

So textbook theory predicts the sign of his effect and about 57% of its size, through the external term he overlooked [computed, example.py Part 7]. Both measured values sit about 500 nH above the calculation, the size you would expect from leads and test fixture; the paper gives no leads, gap, instrument, frequency, repeats or uncertainty, and quotes the data second-hand from ni.pdf (not in the folder). The remaining 85 nH of the gauge difference is unexplained but is no evidence against the classical model. Lesson: before calling a dependence anomalous, check every term of the textbook formula, not just the one you are attacking.

Run: .venv/bin/python "review/Distinti Robert/example.py"

---

6. Evidence table

Verdicts are the arbiter's final verdicts (arbiter.md).

No document in the folder shows submission to a journal or a neutral lab, or a rejection. Whether these claims were dismissed without testing is unknown.

---

7. What a learner should take away

What is solid. Distinti's force laws, read correctly, are the textbook quasi-static Lorentz force. His thesis and bench results (1.3-5.7% agreement on most tests) are a reasonable engineering achievement; they confirm Neumann's integral plus image currents, done with a sensible finite "seed" size and adaptive integration. They are weaker than they first look: the with-plane thesis values are corrected readings, the two-plane test is about 10% low, and the 97% plane coefficient is undefended (section 4f). His instinct that induction has a longitudinal part is right in the near field: the exact classical field has one. His instinct that the flux rule is shaky for homopolar machines is also right; it is a known trap. And his gravity numbers match general relativity, because he used the same flow speed as the legitimate "river model".

What is wrong, and why it is instructive. - Arguing against a straw man. The central error is comparing his laws with a cut-down "classical" law (the transverse-only radiation term) and calling the difference a discovery. Lesson: before claiming the textbook is wrong, write out the textbook's full prediction for the exact case. The corner effect disappears once you do. - Circular derivations. The electron mass, E = Mc^2 and the hydrogen mass come back because they were put in. Lesson: track which measured constants enter a model, and count only outputs that are independent of them. - Using a law outside its range. Force laws accurate to order v^2/c^2 cannot be trusted at v = c, and instantaneous forces contradict finite propagation speed, which the paper itself admits. - Wrong reference values. A model "0.34% off" a value of 1.0000 that nobody measured is really 0.435% off the measured 1.00783. - Right answer by construction. Reproducing GR's clock factor by inserting the escape speed is not independent support for an ether. - Half a field. His -6 dB end-on dipole result is the vector-potential part of the classical field with the scalar-potential part left out; on the axis far away the two cancel (section 4b). His own derivation is correct for the half he kept. Lesson: the textbook E is -grad phi - partialA/partial t, and dropping either half for a time-varying source changes the answer. - Comparing unlike measurements. The ARRL -9 dB curve he cites is taken over ground at an elevation angle; his -6 dB and the textbook null are for zero elevation in free space. At 25 degrees the textbook pattern gives -9.2 dB. Lesson: before calling a measurement a refutation, make sure it was taken in the geometry the theory describes. - Attacking one term of a formula. The wire-gauge "anomaly" (section 5b) comes from comparing data with the internal-inductance term alone, while the textbook loop formula already contains ln(8R/a). - A new mechanism for a known effect. "An M-field intensity required to knock electrons loose" is offered for why a ground plane does nothing below about 1 kHz. Skin depth (2 mm at 1 kHz, against 34-micrometre copper) explains it with no new physics. When a known mechanism fits, test it before inventing one. - Processed data presented as measurement. The thesis's with-plane "measured" values carry a per-inductor correction, and the raw numbers are not published. Lesson: always ask what the instrument actually read, and publish it alongside any correction. - Fair technique, bad input. Averaging the partial sums of an oscillating series ("Guestimation") is a legitimate numerical method. The two-plane result went wrong because of a single wrong table entry, which hid a 10% miss. Lesson: recompute every row of a table, not just the final sum.

What is genuinely open. - Paradox 2: nobody, including Distinti, computed the Lorentz-force emf for the actual geometry with a measured field map and rotor speed, and nobody repeated the run. This is a cheap, honest bench project. - Whether his adaptive Neumann-integral method is really faster than partial-inductance tools at equal accuracy was never benchmarked. Published accuracy figures for those tools (PEEC, partial-element equivalent circuit, and FastHenry-class solvers) could not be web-verified; from memory they also reach a few percent with the same Neumann integrals [memory medium], so his 2-5% is unremarkable. A same-trace comparison (his program vs a field solver vs raw LCR-meter readings) would settle it. - No measurement of a half-wave dipole's signal exactly on its axis, in free space and in the far field, is in the folder or turned up in this review's searches. Classical theory predicts a null; Distinti predicts -6 dB. The calculation already settles it, but it is the one measurement that would test his claim directly. - The 85 nH left over in the wire-gauge comparison, and the frequency dependence of the "97%" plane coefficient, could both be measured cheaply with a careful fixture. - The missing derivations (ni.pdf, displacement_dilemma.pdf, homopolar.pdf) have not been examined. In particular, how his numerical search arrived at the -dA/dt form is unknown, and would be an interesting case of rediscovering known physics.

---

8. Check yourself

1. In the BMP force balance, r_P cancels. Why does that one fact make the "electron mass" result empty?
2. A 48-inch circle of 26 AWG wire measures about 200 nH more than the same circle in 22 AWG. Using L = mu0 R [ln(8R/a) - 7/4], how much difference does classical theory predict, and which term carries it? Does the measurement show the classical model is wrong?
3. A steady 1 A current flows around a square loop. Using the textbook induced field -partialA/partial t, what is the induced electric field just above a corner? Why does Distinti get a nonzero value?
4. In Paradox 2, explain with v x B why opposite-polarity magnets give an emf but two north-up magnets give almost none, and why reversing rotation flips the sign.
5. At Earth's surface (GM = 3.986 x 10^14 m^3/s^2, R = 6.371 x 10^6 m), compute the escape speed and the fractional clock slowing 1 - sqrt(1 - 2GM/(R c^2)). Why does getting this number right not support Distinti's ether?

---

9. Further reading

Mainstream: - D. J. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics (4th ed.), Ch. 5 (magnetostatics, vector potential), Ch. 7 (Faraday's law, Neumann formula), Ch. 10-11 (fields of moving charges, radiation), Ch. 12 (relativity and the frame dependence of E and B). - E. M. Purcell and D. J. Morin, Electricity and Magnetism (3rd ed.), Ch. 5: magnetism as a consequence of relativity, which answers Distinti's "force without relative motion" puzzles. - R. P. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. II, Ch. 17 (sec. 17-2, exceptions to the flux rule) and Ch. 28 (electromagnetic mass, the historical version of Distinti's mass idea). - C. R. Paul, Inductance: Loop and Partial (Wiley, 2010) [memory medium]: the engineering background to the thesis. - F. W. Grover, Inductance Calculations (1946; Dover reprint) [memory high]: the classic tables for loops and wires, including the wire-radius dependence. - J. Guala-Valverde, P. Mazzoni and R. Achilles, "The homopolar motor: A true relativistic engine", Am. J. Phys. 70(10), 1052-1055 (2002) [web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox; paper itself not opened]. Distinti quotes "Guala-Valverde & J.A. Tramaglia" [read: anomolies.pdf p.26]; that co-author and title differ from the journal listing, and a separate Tramaglia paper was not found [memory low]. - A. J. S. Hamilton and J. P. Lisle, "The river model of black holes", Am. J. Phys. 76 (2008) [memory medium]. - Faraday paradox overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox - W. Bertozzi, "Speed and kinetic energy of relativistic electrons", Am. J. Phys. 32 (1964) [web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertozzi_experiment].

Distinti's key works (all in the project folder): - New Electromagnetism (ne.pdf, 2007): the laws and the BMP. Start here. - The Secrets of F = QvxB (2007): the New Magnetism derivation from Biot-Savart. - Anomalies and Paradoxes of Classical Electromagnetism (anomolies.pdf, 2004): his list of objections. - Paradox 2 Experiment (2004): the disk generator. - Inductance Modeling Using New Electromagnetism (neThesis.pdf, M.S. thesis, Fairfield University, 2007): the engineering application. Read pp.66-74 for how the measurements were processed. - New Magnetism (nm.pdf): ch. 4 (his derivation of the extra term), ch. 5 (stationary and Gaussian currents, the ether frame), ch. 7-9 (beams, magnets, homopolar). - New Induction Applications, Vol. 1 (nia1.pdf): ch. 15 and pp.45-51, his bench tests. - New Gravity (ng.pdf, 2007) and NE: Hydrogen (ne_hydrogen.pdf, 2005).

---

Answers

1. Because the balance holds for any radius, the model does not choose r_P; it has to be supplied from outside. Distinti supplies r_e, which is defined as K_M e^2 / m_e, so M = K_M e^2 / r_e = m_e is guaranteed. Any mass can be produced by choosing r_P.

2. The difference is mu0 R ln(a_22/a_26) = (2.438 x 10^-7 H)(ln(0.322/0.2025)) = 113 nH [computed]. It comes entirely from the external term's ln(8R/a); the internal term (61 nH) is the same for both. Classical theory predicts the right sign and about 57% of the measured 198 nH, so the data do not show it is wrong. The leftover 85 nH needs a better-documented measurement (leads, frequency, uncertainty) before it can mean anything.

3. Zero. For a steady current the vector potential A does not change with time, so -partialA/partial t = 0 everywhere, including at corners. Distinti keeps only the acceleration term (charges turning the corner) and uses its transverse-only far-field form, dropping the convective term from charges moving along the straight sides. Around a closed loop those two contributions cancel exactly.

4. A conductor moving at velocity v = omega r (tangential) through a vertical field B_z feels a radial force per unit charge v x B = omega r B_z r-hat. Going outward over a north-up magnet (B_z > 0, path along +r) gives a positive contribution; coming inward over a south-up magnet (B_z < 0, path along -r) also gives a positive contribution, so they add. With both north-up the inward leg reverses sign and the two cancel. Reversing rotation flips the sign of v, so the emf flips. No flux "linking" is needed.

5. Escape speed sqrt(2GM/R) = 11.19 km/s. 2GM/(R c^2) = 1.392 x 10^-9, so the clock slowing is 6.96 x 10^-10 (about 60 microseconds per day relative to a clock far from Earth) [computed]. It matches GR because Distinti chose the ether's inflow speed to be exactly the escape speed, which is the Painleve-Gullstrand flow that already encodes GR's static-clock factor. Any model with that flow gives the same number, so the agreement cannot distinguish an ether from curved spacetime.