Distinti Robert · Source catalogue

Overview paper that compares Classical Electromagnetism (CE) with Distinti's New Electromagnetism (NE) and traces its three versions. V1 (1998-2003 era) adds a 'New Induction' (NI) force law F = -K_M Q_S Q_T a_S / r (K_M = mu0/4pi), proportional to source-charge acceleration a_S and acting along a_S in every direction (a 'spherical' field), instead of the classical transverse form with the component along r-hat removed. Distinti says he was led to this by the analogy capacitor:spring :: inductor:inertia, by failing to derive single-loop self-inductance from classical theory, and by a catalogue of alleged CE anomalies. V2 adds 'New Magnetism' (NM), a spherical velocity-dependent force replacing the Biot-Savart/Lorentz form. V3 changes only definitions: 'law' becomes 'model', E and B fields are replaced by a conservative E force-field and a non-conservative M force-field, and emf becomes 'kinetic voltage'. The paper lists claimed consequences: inertia as electromagnetic, E=mc^2, electron mass, hydrogen mass, time dilation, gravity=inertia=induction, the Schwarzschild radius, and a 'work-around' for faster-than-light travel. It also contains a table counting 'separable effects' (CE 3 effects incl. induction; NE V2 adds 2).

Key claims

• Classical induction is incomplete: the force on a charge due to a source charge's acceleration is F = -K_M Q_S Q_T a_S / r (spherical), not the transverse form.
• Magnetism between moving charges is a spherical force, F = K_M Q_S Q_T/r^2 [(v_T.r)v_S - (v_S.r)v_S - (v_S.v_T) r], not the transverse Biot-Savart/Lorentz force.
• Gravity, inertia and induction are one and the same electromagnetic phenomenon.
• Electromagnetic waves have longitudinal as well as transverse components.
• The B-field 'abstraction' and flux lines are obsolete and should be replaced by force fields E and M.

Relevance: Entry point to the whole body of work; defines NE V1/V2/V3 and which papers rest on which version.

Mainstream conflict: Rejects the Lorentz force / Maxwell field formulation and the transverse nature of radiation fields; claims unification with gravity via a revived ether.

The core V3 reference paper. Sets up point-charge systems and 'wire fragment' systems, defines K_E = 1/(4 pi eps0), K_M = mu0/4pi, c = sqrt(K_E/K_M), kinetic voltage V_K (replaces emf) and potential voltage V_P, and the identity I dL = dQ v with its time derivative. States the three charge-force models: Coulomb, New Magnetism and New Induction, and the 'charge-field' forms (E and M fields). Rules: charges do not couple to themselves; field changes propagate radially (retarded). Section 6 gives 'hypothetical applications': the Binary Mass Particle (BMP), two massless like charges orbiting a centre at separation 2 r_P. Summing Coulomb + NM + NI forces to zero gives tangential speed V_t = c independent of r_P. The inertia (effective mass) from NI is then M = K_M Q^2 / r_P. Setting Q = e and r_P = classical electron radius r_e gives 9.109e-31 kg, the electron mass; KE + PE then equal M c^2. A 'Binary Antimass Particle' with opposite charges gives negative mass and energy. NOTE for reviewers: because r_e is conventionally defined as e^2/(4 pi eps0 m_e c^2), M = K_M e^2/r_e = m_e is an identity (K_E = K_M c^2), so the 'derivation' of the electron mass from r_e is circular unless r_P is independently known [read: algebra from ne.pdf pp.26-28; circularity is the summariser's observation, [memory] high confidence on the definition of r_e]. The paper also admits the model needs fields to travel faster than light.

Key claims

• Two massless like charges orbiting at the speed of light balance their Coulomb, New Magnetism and New Induction forces at any separation.
• The inertial mass of that system, M = K_M Q^2/r_P, equals the electron mass when Q = e and r_P = classical electron radius.
• The total energy of the binary mass particle is exactly M c^2 (E = mc^2 follows from NE).
• Charge-force models can be converted to wire-fragment forms through I dL = Q v.
• A binary particle of opposite charges has negative mass (antimass) and negative energy.

Relevance: Central statement of the theory and its main 'hypothetical' physical application (mass from charge).

Mainstream conflict: Contradicts the Standard Model/QED picture of electron mass; classical electron radius is a convention not a measured size (scattering shows electron point-like to < 1e-18 m [memory medium]); superluminal orbital speed conflicts with relativity.

Book that derives the New Magnetism force law by reconciling the BMP with special relativity, then develops applications: stationary and Gaussian current distributions, wire-fragment forms, electron-beam coherency, a model of permanent magnets as 'edge currents', magnet-magnet attraction, 'Faraday's final riddle' (homopolar generator) and a 'proof of the spherical magnetic field' based on an alleged 'corner effect'. The proof argues that CE predicts an electromotive 'hot spot' at the corners of a rectangular current loop (E = K_M I V_S^2 / h, from the abrupt direction change of charge flow), that none is measured, and that a spherical NM field cancels it. Appendix A describes a 'corner effect transformer' (N-turn square loop coupled to a 4-lobe M-turn loop) as the test apparatus. The book states it is condensed from a patent-office submission and that a prior-art search found no spherical-field models. DEEP READ ADDITIONS (QE revision). Ch. 4 (pp.19-28) offers two routes to the third term -(v_S.r)v_S. Route 1 requires BMP time dilation to be the same in every direction of motion; that fixes only that some extra term is needed, not which one (several alternative terms satisfy it), and it imposes the relativistic factor as an assumption. Route 2 'reverse-engineers' New Induction by analogy ('crashing' fields) and its rewrite of NI needs acceleration parallel to velocity, which fails in the BMP. The author concedes 'None of the following subsections by itself represents a very strong argument' (p.20) and finally justifies the term by the known effect that moving a source wire induces an emf (p.27). A symbolic (SymPy) check in the deep read shows NM + NI equals, term for term, the textbook quasi-static Lorentz force with A = K_M Q v/R, so the 'new law' is the textbook law relabelled, plus an absolute frame. Ch. 5 (pp.29-42) defines 'stationary current' (neutral-wire bookkeeping, Galilean-invariant) and 'Gaussian current' (charge not balanced by opposite charge, e.g. electron beam or charged sphere); the resistive-wire Gaussian-current derivation (Eqs 5-1 to 5-4) rests on an integration error and gives I_G/I_NG about 6.5e-22 for 1 V across 1 m of copper; the doped-semiconductor 'Gaussian current' example is physically wrong. pp.35-37 state explicitly that charge velocity is always measured relative to the ether, and that Gaussian currents could measure 'ethereal properties such as velocity, density and acceleration': a preferred-frame theory, in tension with the claimed consistency with relativity. p.35 predicts (without numbers or experiment) an emf in a coil from a rotating charged insulating disk with sinusoidal angular acceleration; classical theory (Rowland convection current plus Faraday induction) predicts the same qualitatively; the deep-read estimate is about 1e-12 V per pickup turn for a 10 cm disk at 10 kV. Ch. 7 (pp.53-54, electron-beam coherency): the force Q^2/d^2 (K_E - K_M V^2) equals the standard 1/gamma^2 factor, with V measured against an unspecified 'stationary reference point' and nothing measured. Ch. 8 (pp.55-67): the 'edge-current' magnet model is the textbook Amperian surface current K = M x n; the observations are qualitative photographs (MagnaView film, string-hung test magnets) with no numbers, controls or alternative-model prediction, and the 'proof' test of Fig 8-6 does not discriminate from the ordinary field picture. Ch. 9 (pp.68-73): the author performed no homopolar experiment; the four-mode Faraday-disk results are quoted uncited; the derivation's cancellation of the magnet velocity V_M is built into the premise and the result is the standard v x B emf.

Key claims

• Magnetic force between moving charges is spherical, F = K_M Q_S Q_T/r^2[(v_T.r)v_S - (v_S.r)v_S - (v_S.v_T)r].
• Classical theory predicts emf 'hot spots' at rectangular-loop corners; none are observed, and NM's spherical field cancels them.
• Permanent magnets can be modelled as 'edge currents' with NM giving magnet-to-magnet attraction.
• The homopolar generator mode with disk and magnet co-rotating is explained by the parallel-motion term -(v_S.v_T) r of NM.
• Charge velocities in New Magnetism are measured relative to an ether (absolute frame), and Gaussian currents allow ether velocity, density and acceleration to be measured.
• A rotating charged insulating disk with sinusoidal angular acceleration induces an emf in a coil (stated as a prediction, no magnitude, no data).
• An electron beam does not blow apart because of a magnetic cancellation F = Q^2/d^2 (K_E - K_M V^2), not time dilation.

Relevance: Primary derivation of NM. The deep reads show the derivation fixes the third term only by an imposed time-dilation constraint and analogy, that NM + NI is algebraically the textbook quasi-static Lorentz force, and that the genuinely distinct content is the absolute (ether) frame and the claim that B is obsolete.

Mainstream conflict: Replaces Biot-Savart/Lorentz force and the E/B split; but the deep read shows its force law is equal to the Lorentz force plus Faraday induction (A-based) for point charges, so the real conflict is the absolute ether frame and the claim that the standard force omits a term (it does not). A preferred frame that Gaussian currents could detect contradicts the relativity postulate; Michelson-Morley/Kennedy-Thorndike limits [memory medium, not web-checked].

Short derivation of NM from F = Q v x B. Replaces B by the Biot-Savart field of a source point charge, B = mu0 q v_S x r / (4 pi r^2), then argues that B should be moving with its source charge so the target feels F = Q_T (v_T - v_S) x B, which expands to the NM terms including a 'parallel motion' term -(v_S.v_T) r. Three experiments (two parallel-wire setups and the homopolar generator) are used to say that force can exist without relative motion between charge and field and that a static B field is a 'contradiction in terms'. Concludes B, flux lines, and the vector/static potentials are obsolete.

Key claims

• A force can act on a charge with no relative motion between the charge and the magnetic field (parallel-motion term).
• A static magnetic field cannot exist as a construct; B and flux lines are obsolete.
• The homopolar paradox (disk and magnet co-rotating still gives voltage) is resolved by NM without any need for rotating field lines.
• Textbook F = Q(v_S - v_B) x B and F = Q v x B are different equations and neither accounts for known magnetic effects.

Relevance: The simplest route to NM and the written basis for the homopolar and 'no relative motion' claims.

Mainstream conflict: Conflicts with relativity-consistent treatment where magnetic and electric fields transform into one another; Lorentz force with frame-dependent E and B explains parallel-wire and homopolar experiments in mainstream theory [memory medium].

Description of a home-built disk generator with two oppositely oriented disc magnets in a rotor and stationary copper ring, brushes and brass shafts, driven by a toy gear-motor from a 6 V cell. Distinti argues that classical flux-linkage/flux-cutting analysis (from the top and from the side) predicts no net emf, yet a DC output of about 180 microvolts (scope at 100 uV/div) appears. Tests listed: no magnets gives no signal; opposite polarity magnets give about 180 uV (reverses with direction); both north-up gives 'essentially no' output; one magnet only gives 20 uV (rotor grinding) or 80-90 uV (about half) when in the south hole. He discusses Seebeck/thermocouple offsets (about 8 uV) and brush noise, and argues they cannot account for the signal. No independent replication, no uncertainty analysis, no calibrated field map and no calculation of the expected classical emf are given; the author says it is not over-unity. Future tests were promised. Detail: the screen captures are labelled 100 mV/div because a x1000 amplifier (DVMx1000) sits between the generator and the scope; the true sensitivity is 100 uV/div [read: paradox2.pdf section 3.3].

Key claims

• A rotating-magnet disk generator with oppositely oriented magnets produces DC power although no net flux is linked or cut, contradicting classical flux theory.
• The output reverses with rotation direction, vanishes without magnets, vanishes with same-pole magnets and roughly halves with one magnet.
• Thermoelectric (Seebeck, about 8 uV) and other artefacts are too small and non-magnetic to explain the roughly 150-180 uV output.

Relevance: The only home-lab experiment in the set that is offered as direct evidence against CE (apart from circuit inductance measurements).

Mainstream conflict: Claims violation of the flux rule; mainstream view is that Lorentz force on moving conductors/brushes in the lab frame explains such devices, so a full calculation of the geometry is needed [memory medium].

A 36-page list of 20 alleged anomalies and paradoxes in classical theory: self-inductance undefined, intrinsic inductance contradictions, induction not applicable to point charges, Faraday-law reciprocity failures, flux vs Ampere's law in permeable-core transformers, Maxwell-Faraday vs Kirchhoff, corner emfs, antenna patterns, homopolar generator, longitudinal EM waves, no unification with relativity/gravity, back-torque in homopolar machines, plane-wave 'no charge / where is the energy' questions, Paradox 2 generator, QvxB without relative motion, 'Maxwell predicts twice the measured magnetic field' (curl H = 2J from the displacement current for a real charge distribution), dipole antennas not radiating, curl H = J valid only for infinitely long currents. Each is said to be resolved by NE. It is a catalogue and argument rather than data; items are asserted with brief derivations and links to other Distinti papers not in this folder (displacement_dilemma.pdf, ind_jackson.pdf, ron.pdf, homopolar.pdf). DEEP READ ADDITIONS (QE revision). Of pp.4-16, only section 2 (intrinsic inductance, p.7) contains data: 48-inch-perimeter loops measured 2253 nH (26 AWG circle), 2055 nH (22 AWG circle), 2144 nH (26 AWG square), 1950 nH (22 AWG square), quoted second-hand from ni.pdf with no instrument, frequency, leads, fixture, repeats or uncertainty stated. The author concludes that gauge dependence refutes the classical intrinsic-inductance formula mu/(8 pi) per metre. That formula is gauge independent, but the classical external self-inductance of a loop, L = mu0 R [ln(8R/a) - 2] (plus the internal term), depends on wire radius a through the logarithm; the deep read computes 1754 nH (26 AWG) and 1641 nH (22 AWG) for the circle, a classical gauge difference of about 113 nH against 198 nH measured (about 57% of it, same sign), with a roughly 500 nH common offset plausibly from leads and fixture. So the 'anomaly' is a misattribution. Section 1 challenges the reader to solve loop self-inductance (a $50/hour offer, later withdrawn) and claims Jackson's L = mu0 a[ln(8a/b) - 7/4] is 'actually the mutual inductance between two parallel loops'; the deep read notes this is the standard uniform-current self-inductance with b the wire radius. Sections 3-6 (Faraday and point charges, reciprocity, 'classic flux anomaly', Maxwell vs Kirchhoff) are argument without data and, per the deep read, misstate the classical prediction in each case (vector-potential form of Faraday's law, H vs B and bound currents, E = E_conservative + E_induced); eq. 4 on p.16 prints (curl B) = (mu/eps) dE/dt where mu*eps is correct (possible typo).

Key claims

• Classical electromagnetism gives undefined or inconsistent answers for self-inductance of a thin wire loop.
• Maxwell's equations applied to a real charge distribution give curl H = 2J, twice the measured field.
• Classical theory predicts rectangular-loop corner emfs that are not observed.
• Classical theory does not accurately predict antenna radiation patterns.
• The homopolar generator has modes that contradict relativity and classical theory.

Relevance: The motivation for the whole project; each anomaly is a testable or checkable claim.

Mainstream conflict: Asserts that Maxwell's equations, Faraday's law and Lorentz force are internally inconsistent; mainstream physics holds them consistent and extremely well tested [memory high].

Proposes that gravity is electromagnetic induction. Argues that Michelson-Morley does not exclude an ether if the ether flows and Earth rides on it, and extends Einstein's equivalence principle so that 'space accelerates toward mass'. Postulates a compressible, particle-like ether that is consumed (annihilated) by matter, accelerates toward masses with a = -K_G M/r^2 and falls toward them at the escape speed (about 11,200 m/s at Earth's surface), and creates force via New Induction acting on binary mass particles. Using the BMP with axial velocity V it derives a tangential speed condition giving V_t = sqrt(c^2 - V^2), so the ratio V_t'/V_t = sqrt(1 - V^2/c^2) is identified with time dilation; substituting the ether infall speed sqrt(2GM/r) gives a gravitational factor 1 - 2GM/(r c^2) (the paper's form, no square root), the Schwarzschild radius r = 2 K_G M/c^2, a collapse of matter beyond c, constancy of E = mc^2 across frames, and a speculative faster-than-light travel work-around. Ether is explicitly 'a mathematical abstraction' and the BMP 'may not represent an actual physical system'. Ether is said to 'annihilate' with matter, possibly explaining radioactive decay and the molten Earth core.

Key claims

• Gravity is electromagnetic induction produced by ether accelerating toward masses.
• A BMP moving at axial speed V shows time dilation factor sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
• The Schwarzschild radius 2GM/c^2 follows from New Electromagnetism.
• A BMP collapses when its speed exceeds c.
• The ether is compressible and denser far from mass, so light is faster at higher altitude.

Relevance: Extends NE to gravity and relativity; most speculative and least testable part of the project.

Mainstream conflict: Revives an ether; replaces general relativity; claim that light is faster at altitude is the sign of gravitational redshift/Shapiro delay only in a coordinate sense (GR: coordinate speed of light varies, local c constant) [memory medium]. Michelson-Morley null result and later Kennedy-Thorndike/Ives-Stilwell tests constrain ether models [memory medium].

Extends the BMP idea to the proton and a hydrogen atom. Inverting M = K_M Q^2/r_P with the proton mass gives a 'proton radius' r_P = 1.5347e-18 m, about 1836 times smaller than r_e. A hydrogen atom is a four-charge model (proton pair and electron pair, concentric) whose inertial mass is M = K_M sum Q_i Q_j / d_ij over pairs; summing 12 interactions with signs and neglecting r_P relative to r_e gives 1.0034 g/mol against a quoted 'correct value' of 1.0000 g/mol, interpreted as 'proton minus 7 electron masses'. The paper says it ignores magnetic moment and other properties and is suitable for high school. Reviewer note: 1H atomic mass is 1.00783 u [memory high], not 1.0000, so the comparison value in the paper looks wrong; the quoted proton radius also disagrees with the measured ~0.84 fm proton charge radius [memory high]. Appendix note (QE spot check of the extracted text): the paper's own table cites www.particleadventure.org (DOE, CERN) as giving a proton radius near 1e-15 m and electron radius near 1e-18 m, the reverse of the NE assignment (r_P about 1e-18 m, r_e about 1e-15 m) [read: ne-hydrogen text, appendix table].

Key claims

• The proton's effective radius is 1.53e-18 m if it is a binary mass particle of mass 1.6726e-27 kg.
• The molar mass of hydrogen follows from a four-charge massless-charge model at 1.0034 g/mol versus 1.0000 g/mol observed.
• Inertia should be decoupled from mass in the way weight was.

Relevance: Illustrates the numerology of the mass-from-charge model and its disagreement with measured sizes.

Mainstream conflict: Proton charge radius (about 0.84 fm) from electron scattering and muonic hydrogen is ~500,000 times larger than 1.5e-18 m [memory high].

Master's thesis (advisors Sergent and Lyon) applying New Induction to the inductance of PCB and IC traces. DEEP READ FINDINGS (QE revision). (1) The model: L = -(1/HW)(1/(dI/dt)) integral of M.dL over the cross-section, with a 'seed' (2001x2001x2001 copper FCC cells = about 0.72 um) that avoids dividing by r = 0. With the seed set to zero, the thesis's own eq. 6-3 is the classical Neumann double integral averaged over the wire cross-sections (the geometric-mean-distance volume formula); only filament self-inductance diverges, so the 'PI is singular / classical derivations are singular or erroneous' claim concerns the numerical method, not the physics. (2) Ground planes use negative images at 2h with a single constant 'inductive reflectivity' of 97% for 1 oz copper, attributed to 'experiments show [NIA1]'; NIA1 gives no such experiment and defers the derivation to an absent book. Trace-to-plane height h is never stated. Classically a 1 oz plane (34 um) is thinner than the skin depth (about 47 um at 2 MHz), so reflectivity should depend on frequency; the author instead explains the plane having no effect at low frequency by 'a certain M-field intensity required to knock electrons loose' (p.67), an amplitude explanation that a drive-level test could have separated from the classical frequency one, but was not run. (3) Data chain: 36 inductors (16 no-plane, 16 one-plane, 4 two-plane) measured on an Agilent E4980A LCR meter (Ls-Rs mode, 29 listed frequencies 200 Hz-2 MHz). The 'no plane' value is the low-frequency reading where the no-plane and with-plane curves intersect (raw, not corrected). The with-plane 2 MHz readings are shifted by a per-inductor 'correction factor' = (no-plane reading at intersection) - (no-plane reading at 2 MHz); no raw readings or correction factors are tabulated, only Exp 11/12 can be checked from the plot (+60 nH correction; corrected error +9.4% versus about -3.9% on the raw reading). (4) Recomputed statistics match the thesis: no plane mean |error| 1.91% (SD 1.27%, but 15 of 16 errors positive: a systematic ~2% bias, 2 oz traces worse), one plane 4.14% (SD of signed error 5.3%; all four spirals +5.9 to +9.4%), two planes 1.52% on only 4 points. (5) There is no accuracy comparison with PI, PEEC, a field solver or Grover/Rosa anywhere; the only PI comparison is processing time on straight bars (PI about 3550 s vs NI about 50 s at 1280 mil, about 70x; text says 'nearly an order of magnitude'; the abstract says 'at least an order of magnitude'), with both codes apparently the author's own and no inductance values compared. The thesis calls the work preliminary and states that the plane must extend well beyond the trace and current must be uniform. Conclusion: a modest engineering validation that the Neumann integral plus images plus a 97% factor matches meter readings to a few percent; it cannot discriminate New Induction from classical inductance theory.

Key claims

• Inductance of PCB/IC traces computed with the seed-based New Induction model agrees with LCR-meter readings to a mean absolute error of 1.9% (no plane) and 4.1% (one plane).
• With the seed set to zero the thesis's own formula (eq. 6-3) is the classical Neumann double integral over the wire cross-sections.
• A ground plane is modelled by negative images with a single reflectivity of 97% for 1 oz copper, with no frequency dependence and no documented measurement behind the number.
• With-plane measured values are the 2 MHz readings plus a per-inductor correction taken from the no-plane curve; raw readings are not published.
• No accuracy comparison against partial inductance or a field solver is made; only processing time is compared (about 70x at the largest bar, text says nearly an order of magnitude).

Relevance: The best-documented engineering validation in the folder (and the only supervised document). The deep read shows its agreement is real but tests the Neumann integral, the image method and a fitted-like constant, not anything specific to New Induction.

Mainstream conflict: Claims to refute Neumann/partial inductance, yet its own zero-seed formula is the Neumann formula; PEEC/partial inductance are standard engineering practice [memory medium]. Skin-depth physics explains the plane's frequency dependence [memory high].

93-page application book: mutual inductance of parallel filaments, retarded-time spherical radiation, half-wave dipole radiation pattern (section 6), rectangular loops, parasitic loops, conductive planes via images, PCB/IC crosstalk and transformers, EMI, transmission lines and an experimental chapter 15. The 2019 cover note says the V3 models existed in 1998 and the derivations are 'sound (TBOMK)'. ANTENNA CHAPTER (deep-read pp.28-41): the half-wave dipole is modelled with current change di/dt = -2 pi f I0 sin[2 pi f (t - r/C)] cos(y/2L) and retarded time; the received voltage at the longitudinal (end-on) position is half the transverse value (1/4 power, -6 dB), while classical theory gives a null and the ARRL measurement quoted is -9 dB (amplitude ratio 1:2.828); the author says radiation is a purely magnetic spherical wave with transverse and longitudinal parts. DEEP READ FINDINGS (QE revision, pp.42-91): all computed values are ordinary Neumann mutual inductances of closed filament loops (the deep read recomputed eight with a plain numerical double integral and matched the book to 3-6 figures), so the experiments test the Neumann formula, the image method and a constant, not New Induction as distinct from classical theory. Measurement method: sine drive through a termination resistor, scope readings of source current and open-circuit target voltage, M = V_T R/(V_RS 2 pi f) (eq. 11); Table 2 is arithmetically consistent. Results [read: pp.45-52, 81-91]: hand-built paper-and-glue rectangular loops, computed 1.57764e-7 H, measured 1.49e-7 H at 500 kHz with a digital function generator (5.7%) and 1.56e-7 H at 310.8 kHz with an analog one (1.3%); template PCB at 6 MHz (current-source drive, after 12.5 MHz capacitive-coupling problems whose data are not in the file): direct coupling 123 computed vs 125.25 nH measured; single plane 40.2 vs 41.52/42.25 nH; outer parasitic loop 74.62 vs 73.45 nH; trace inductance with one plane 165 vs 169 nH; two planes 27.5 'computed' vs 27 (Table 2: 26.62) nH; trace inductance with two planes 153 nH measured, not computed. Problems found: (a) the two-plane 'computed' value 27.5 nH comes from the graphical 'Guestimation' (a legitimate averaging of successive alternating-series partial sums) applied to a table whose 8h entry is 40.0 nH where the formula gives 37.99; the correct converged sum at 97% is 23.9 nH, about 10% below the measured value, so the stated agreement is spurious; (b) the 97% reflectivity is not derived (deferred to another book) and the data prefer about 0.945-0.954 (single plane) and 0.92-0.93 (two planes), which suggests frequency- and thickness-dependent reflection (35 um copper is about 1.3 skin depths at 6 MHz); (c) uncertainties are almost never stated; 10 of 16 Table 2 rows are never compared; (d) the PCB-transformer section 12 swaps computed and measured (125/123) relative to section 15.3.1; (e) the outer-loop L = 260 nH comes from the author's proprietary 'Nanoinductance meter' at an unstated frequency.

Key claims

• The half-wave dipole radiation pattern, including the longitudinal direction, is predicted more accurately by New Induction than by classical theory (end-on: -6 dB predicted, -9 dB ARRL measurement quoted, classical null).
• Electromagnetic radiation is a spherical wave with both transverse and longitudinal components.
• Inductive couplings, reflections from conducting planes and crosstalk can be calculated and measured without using E or B fields; measured and computed mutual inductances agree within about 1-5% for direct coupling, single plane and a parasitic loop at 6 MHz.
• Ground-plane reflection of an induced field has an efficiency of 97% for 1 oz copper (not derived in the book).
• A metal detector using inductive reflection could identify metal type.

Relevance: Applied evidence base for New Induction and the main source for the longitudinal-wave claim. The measured-versus-computed chapter is the author's own supporting data for claim 6, but the deep read shows it validates classical Neumann inductance plus images; the antenna derivation behind the longitudinal claim was deep-read (pp.28-41): the algebra is correct, but it is the classical vector potential with the scalar-potential term omitted.

Mainstream conflict: Longitudinal far-field components are absent from Maxwell far-field solutions and the half-wave dipole pattern cos(pi/2 cos theta)/sin theta is well confirmed [memory high]; the on-axis null is exact for an ideal thin dipole [memory high]; a real measured end-on level of -9 dB (if that is what ARRL gives) would reflect near-field, ground and feed effects, which the digest does not say the author considered.