Physicist review (Step 2): Handwerker-Roberto

Reviewer: PhD physicist. Inputs read: claims.md, facts.json, all of deep/ (TESLA-THEORY-2 pp.5-23 deep read, H2O deck deep read, Tesla "prophecies" deep read), the digests via facts.json, sites.md "Leads for review", research/ notes (Heos, Wayback, Arbab-Satti, Scribd, YouTube), research/files/Arbab-Satti-2009 (read myself, p.8-11 including a page image of p.11), and the 2010 deck research/files/2011-Handwerker-Tesla-and-cold-electricity-revised-English.pdf (pp.11-22). Tags: [read] document, [web] URL, [memory] with confidence. Numbers marked "calc" were computed by me in the project venv.

Note on the inventor: Dr. Eng. Roberto Handwerker, DELTA Ingegneria, Milan/Busto Arsizio, 2010-2013. His documents are his own claims; his company name and product names (Xenon G-02, G-03 Argon) show a commercial interest. No document contains a measured value for the water antennas [read: deep/H2O]. The L.M.D. paper has real but un-normalised, error-free, qualitative-to-semiquantitative data [read: deep/TESLA-THEORY-2, Section 7].

1. The mainstream view, stated fairly (so the claims can be judged against it)

1. Maxwell's four equations (E, B fields; charge density rho; current density J) have, in vacuum, only transverse wave solutions: Gauss's law div E = rho/eps0 forbids a charge-free longitudinal E wave [memory, high].
2. Close to a source (distance much less than lambda/2pi) the field is not a "weak radiated wave" but the reactive near field: for a charged terminal the quasi-static E of the charge (radial, mostly electric, stored not radiated), and the induction B of its current. This field has a radial ("longitudinal") component, it falls off faster than a radiated wave, and it can transfer real power by capacitive or inductive coupling. Modern wireless power transfer uses exactly this regime [memory, high]; the MIT resonant-coupling demonstration (60 W lamp at more than 2 m, about 40% efficiency) is the best-known case [web: https://news.mit.edu/2007/wireless-0607; Kurs et al., Science 317, 83 (2007), found by search].
3. A Tesla coil is a pair of coupled resonant circuits. Coupling splits the common resonance in two, f(+-) = f0 / sqrt(1 -+ k) [memory, high]. It also produces huge top-terminal voltages and strong near-field E. The mainstream does treat it as a resonant transformer, but not "a pure transformer" in the sense of ignoring its field; Tesla's own descriptions are of resonant standing waves on the secondary [read: facts, Microwave Review 2006 paper in the bundle].
4. Displacement current eps0 dE/dt is a term in Ampere-Maxwell's law; no electron crosses a capacitor gap [memory, high].
5. Light and radio are transverse waves; polarisation experiments (Malus 1808, Fresnel-Arago, 1810s-20) show it; sound-like longitudinal "ether" waves were a 19th-century hypothesis that polarisation ruled out [memory, high].
6. Quaternions are a notation; Maxwell used Cartesian components in 1865 and gave a quaternion summary beside them in the 1873 Treatise; vector calculus (Heaviside, Gibbs, 1880s) is equivalent for E and B. Potentials phi and A are the working variables that remain; they carry gauge freedom [memory, high].

2. Claim by claim (questions a-d, then verdict)

Claim 1. A Tesla coil emits longitudinal "L.M.D." waves, distinct from T.E.M. waves, which carry usable power.

a. Mathematics. [read: deep p.7-11] Equations (1)-(2) (wave equations for E and B with sources) are correct, but they are consequences of Maxwell's four equations and weaker than them: they omit Gauss's law and therefore admit a longitudinal vacuum solution that Maxwell's equations exclude. Handwerker presents this weaker set as "Maxwell's equations in quaternionic form". L.M.D. has no equation of its own: Fig.6 is a picture, with no amplitude, wavelength, speed or fall-off law. Moreover the paper's conclusion says the Sigma wave "does no work to move free charges ... without converting EM energy into neither mechanic nor heat" [read: p.21], while the experiments credit the L.M.D. field with lighting tubes and running a motor [read: p.14-17]. Unless L.M.D. and Sigma are different things, which the paper never says, these contradict each other.

b. Established experiments. A strong, mainly electric, mainly radial field close to a charged high-voltage terminal, falling off steeply with distance and capable of lighting tubes, charging plates and running a small rectified motor, is exactly what standard electrostatics and capacitive coupling predict. My check: the tests were at 0 to 2.5 m, while lambda = c/f = 108.8 m at his 2.755 MHz and lambda/2pi = 17.3 m (calc), so x/(lambda/2pi) <= 0.15: deep in the reactive near field. Handwerker's printed lambda0 = 113.64 m is itself a 4% arithmetic slip [corrected 2026-10-08 after QE: was "The deep read's printed lambda0"; the value is Handwerker's printed figure, the deep read found the slip] (it corresponds to 2.64 MHz) [read: deep Section 8]. His own admission: "a limited aerial wave irradiation was obtained" [read: p.20]. Specific items: - Plate rotation (Fig.9): current to a grounded plate is i = eps0 * omega * integral of E_normal dA, so face-on is maximum, edge-on is minimum, which is what he found (best fit i = a - b cos(psi), rms residual 3.9 mA, digitised from the figure by the deep reader) [read: deep E8]. Rotating a vertical plate about a vertical axis is blind to a vertical field by construction, so "indifferent to Et" is a property of the set-up. A radial E component near a dipole, E_r = 2p cos(theta)/(4 pi eps0 r^3), is standard. - Tilted loop driving a motor: a loop whose output ignores tilt is not acting as a magnetic loop; it is a lump of metal collecting charge from the E field (capacitive pickup). That is "dielectric not magnetic", which the mainstream accepts for the near field; it does not need a new wave. - Fall-off (Fig.3): fitted exponents about x^-1.8 and x^-1.5 on amplitude-like meter currents, 0.5-2 m, of normalised values [read: deep]. Amplitude 1/x^2 to 1/x^3 is the quasi-static near field; a radiated wave's amplitude would fall as 1/x. His "expected quadratic curve for waves" mislabels this: radiation intensity is 1/x^2, but the meter tracks amplitude. The L.M.D. hypothesis predicts no particular exponent, so the figure cannot favour it. - Magnitude check (calc, using the deep read's digitised 110 mA): E = i/(eps0 A omega) with A = 0.0156 m^2 and omega = 1.73e7 rad/s gives about 42 kV/m, which would need about 150 kV on the top terminal at 0.3 m. That is high for a 250 mm coil; either the plate was very close or the analogue meter did not read true current at 2.75 MHz [memory, medium]. Another reason the numbers cannot be trusted without raw data.

c. Tests. Run by the inventor only, in 2010-11, self-published by his company. No independent replication or test report found by the Investigator [read: sites.md, Leads section 2]. No shielded-screen control, no independent magnetic probe, no "coil off/detuned" run, no raw data (deep Section 12). The compass control cannot see a 2.755 MHz magnetic field at all: the needle averages over 5.5 million reversals per second, so its stillness says nothing; the "control" transformer at 50 Hz [memory, high] moves it for a different reason [read: deep E2]. The LED loop was held horizontal and called "unfavourable for T.E.M."; for a vertical-axis coil the equatorial B is vertical, so a horizontal loop is the favourable orientation for magnetic coupling [read: deep E3]. Closely related third-party work: Monstein and Wesley, "Observation of scalar longitudinal electrodynamic waves", Europhysics Letters 59, 514 (2002) reported detection of such a wave between ball antennas [web: https://epljournal.edpsciences.org/10.1209/epl/i2002-00136-9]; Bray and Britton commented (EPL 66, 153, 2004), and Rebilas (EPL 83, 60007, 2008) argued the signal was ordinary T.E.M. waves from earth currents [web: search result summary of those EPL items; I did not read the papers]. So a peer-reviewed attempt exists and was disputed; Handwerker does not cite it. I keep it in the record as the nearest published test of the same idea.

d. If true. Gauss's law in charge-free space would fail, or a new field Sigma with its own source terms would have to be added to the Lagrangian (the Whittaker/van Vlaenderen/Arbab line). Longitudinal "electroscalar" radiation would have to be reconciled with polarisation experiments, with radiation from antennas measured for a century, and with gauge invariance. Nothing in Handwerker's measurements demands this.

Verdict (split): - Weak form, "the field around the coil is a strong near E field with a radial component that delivers power by capacitive coupling": Established (textbook near field; the deep read found his tests consistent with it). - Strong form, "a distinct longitudinal wave L.M.D., beyond T.E.M. and the standard near field, carries the power": Never properly tested. Not dismissed without testing in the strict sense (he ran tests), but the tests do not discriminate (no stated prediction, no shielding control, no raw data), and the one outside experiment (Monstein-Wesley) was disputed.

Claim 2. Heaviside-Gibbs vector Maxwell is incomplete; the quaternionic form with a scalar field Sigma (J = grad Sigma) predicts scalar dielectric fields and longitudinal waves at c.

a. Mathematics. I read Arbab and Satti (2009) myself [read: research/files/Arbab-Satti..., p.8-11] and checked the deep read's SymPy results. - Notation cannot add physics. A quaternion A = (scalar, 3-vector) carries the same information as the usual four-vector potential; Handwerker's "Maxwell is partially incomplete" is a claim that a dropped term exists, and none is identified [read: deep Section 1b]. Refuted as a statement about notation: by the equivalence of the two languages, calculation not needed beyond that. - Equations (1)-(2) hold in any gauge and are weaker than Maxwell, as above. - The transformation (3)-(4) rho' = rho + (1/c^2) d(Sigma)/dt, J' = J - grad Sigma changes the sources. Gauss's law with the same E cannot hold for both rho and rho' unless d(Sigma)/dt = 0; the page-11 text of Arbab and Satti shows the same transformation (their eq. 41/43) and claims E' = E, B' = B and invariance of "Maxwell equations (39)-(40)". Those two are the second-order equations, not the first-order ones, so the "invariance" is a symmetry of the reduced set only [read: A-S p.11; deep Section 3, SymPy]. Note it is also called a "gauge transformation", yet gauge transformations act on potentials, not on measurable sources. - Arbab and Satti's own extra equations are not harmless. Their eq. (26) imposes grad(rho) + (1/c^2) dJ/dt = 0 and eq. (27) imposes curl J = 0 [read: A-S p.9-10; sign and operator confirmed from the p.11 text, "taking the curl of Eq. (27)"]. A uniform alternating current in a wire (rho = 0, J = J0 cos(omega t)) violates (26) at once. So their "generalised continuity" is a constraint that ordinary sources of a Tesla coil do not obey; they say the charge and current are themselves waves at c, which a copper wire is not. Handwerker's "J = grad Sigma" is then not "introduced" arbitrarily (as the deep read said), it follows from A-S curl J = 0 (their eq. 31); but it holds only if that extra constraint holds. See Corrections. - Circularity: if rho and J are taken from (6)-(7), equation (5) is an identity (SymPy, deep read). With charge conservation, Sigma obeys the source-free wave equation; "travels at c" is then an assumption about Sigma. The A-S authors say so: "charge conservation can be detected from the propagation speed of this electroscalar wave" [read: A-S p.11]. - Induced "vacuum" charge and current: putting (6)-(7) back into (3)-(4) gives rho' = 0, J' = 0; and in the reduced equations such a pattern radiates nothing (deep read). With real matching longitudinal charge and current, full Maxwell already allows a curl-free longitudinal E wave moving at c with B = 0: E = -(1/eps0) grad(Psi) (SymPy, deep Section 4a). That is a standing result (plasma or wire waves), not new physics, and it needs real charge, not empty space. - Arbab and Satti themselves conclude "Maxwell equations are still exact and need no modifications" and place the scalar wave as "possibly arising due to vacuum fluctuation" [read: A-S p.1-2]. Handwerker uses them as if they overturn Maxwell. Units: Sigma from J = grad Sigma is A/m, yet A-S and Handwerker call it "Henry" / "[H]" (inherited error; H is inductance) [read: A-S p.10, Handwerker p.22]. - Sign and unit slips in Handwerker's own text: E = grad(phi) should be E = -grad(phi) - dA/dt; legend lists phi in V/m^2, A in A/m^2, B in A/m [read: deep Section 5].

b. Experiments. Maxwell's equations including potentials and sources have been tested for 150 years, from radio engineering through radar and lasers. No measurement of a Sigma wave independent of the Tesla-coil near field is cited. The Casimir remark in A-S is speculation [read: A-S p.11].

c. Tested? By the inventor only, indirectly (Claim 1). Arbab and Satti offer no experiment. Monstein-Wesley (above) is the nearest test of a "scalar longitudinal" wave and is disputed.

d. If true: gauge invariance would have to be broken or a new field added; charge-free-space Gauss's law would have to give way.

Verdict (split): - "The vector notation is incomplete; quaternions reveal missing waves": Refuted by calculation (notation equivalence; Maxwell plus Gauss's law in vacuum; the transformation (3)-(4) is not a symmetry of the first-order equations). The paper does not state a dropped term. - "A physical scalar field Sigma exists as an addition, travelling at c, without magnetic part": Never properly tested (a speculative extension; the one published experiment is disputed). Internal tension: Sigma "does no work" versus the lit lamps and motor.

Claim 3. The field around a Tesla coil is dielectric (electric), not magnetic and not transverse (still compass, ferrite core, loop antenna and motor, plate angle, inverse-square fall-off).

a. Mathematics. The inference chain is not derived; each test is an observation. The power estimate (p.16-17) is dimensionally wrong: dR = dx/dS has units 1/m, not ohms (resistivity missing); integrating power over length does not give energy; and cos^2 does not become cos. Its angular prediction (largest at psi = 0) contradicts his own Fig.9 (smallest at psi = 0) [read: deep E9]. The physical model is wrong too: brass has almost zero internal field, the current is surface charge, and the power is set by the meter (P = i^2 R_meter), unknown.

b. Experiments. Tested individually in the deep read: compass (cannot see RF B), ferrite core in/out (reads the E field, since a coil with leads picks up capacitively; also only one series is plotted although "no difference" is claimed), photomultiplier 931-A (used unpowered on one wire as a small electrode), neon tube lit by the E field, spark to a hand (ordinary induction), plate rotation, motor with tilted loop. All agree with the standard picture that the near field of a high-voltage terminal is mainly electric. Tesla's 1891-93 papers described the same effects (dielectric induction) [read: references 3 and 4]. The 1910s-20s Tesla-coil literature already says the coil is a resonant transformer with strong E near field [read: bundle Microwave Review paper].

c. Tested by the inventor; no replications. Controls missing (Section 12 of the deep read). Further details of the 2010 deck [read: pp.11-22]: - "Lamps work even if short circuited": lamps stay lit when a heavy copper bar shunts them. Handwerker himself writes "v = Z i" in the same deck. At 2.755 MHz a 10 cm bar of about 0.1 uH has reactance wL = 1.7 ohm (calc), so 10 A across it is 17 V: the "short" is not zero impedance at RF. This is Tesla's old demonstration of inductance at high frequency, not an Ohm's-law violation [memory, high; calc]. - "230 V/100 W halogen lamp lit in water", also lit when the filament is broken: ordinary dielectric heating and conduction to a high-voltage electrode through water; a broken filament lit by a gas discharge or conduction in the bulb is no surprise [memory, medium]. Not measured. - f1 = (pi/2) f0 stated as a general rule, example f0 = 1 MHz, f1 = 1.57 MHz [read: 2010 deck]. In his coil the ratio is 2.755/1.810 = 1.522 (printed 1.527, the unit "MHz" attached to a pure ratio), 3% below pi/2 = 1.571. For coupled resonators (1+k)/(1-k) = ratio^2 gives k = 0.42 for pi/2 and 0.40 for 1.522 (calc): a rule that holds only if the coupling is that value. A general law would need k to be fixed, which it is not.

d. If true: nothing beyond the textbook; the near-field picture suffices.

Verdict: split. - "Near field is mainly electric, probes respond to E, field has a radial component": Established. - "The field is not magnetic": the compass control is invalid; the ferrite control is a real, partly informative test; as a statement about the near field it is Plausible, untested in its strict form (no calibrated B probe), and as a claim that the electric field is a new wave it is Never properly tested. - "The power estimate shows L.M.D. power": Internally inconsistent (units and angular law).

Claim 4. Displacement-current theory is a weak explanation of capacitor conduction; the dielectric field fills the surrounding space (Steinmetz), shown by plates over 1 m apart still reading a capacitance.

a. Mathematics. The objection misstates the textbook: displacement current is dE/dt-driven and no charge crosses the gap [memory, high]. His own p.7 Ampere law contains the term. Example (calc): C = 10 pF, V0 = 10 kV, f = 1 MHz gives I = 2 pi f C V0 = 0.63 A, matching measurements on ordinary capacitors [memory, high]; the paper gives no competing number.

b. Experiments. Fig.12 reading at 1 mm and over 1 m: 0.040 and 0.012 "mH" [read: deep E11]. mH is inductance, not capacitance (unit error). Expected: 40 mm plates at 1 mm, C = eps0 A/d = 14 pF (calc); at 1 m well under 2 pF plus the stray capacitance of the leads (several to tens of pF) that does not disappear when the plates separate [memory, medium]. A non-zero reading at 1 m is predicted by electrostatics and is not evidence against displacement current. No lead-only reading was taken.

c. Tested only by this reading, by the inventor.

d. If true: Ampere-Maxwell would have to be rewritten; but the theory he is arguing against (displacement only on the plates) is not the textbook.

Verdict: Refuted by calculation as stated (the objection mis-states the theory; the observation is predicted by electrostatics). The Steinmetz hint, that the dielectric field fills the surrounding space, is Established (it is the standard field picture).

Claim 5. A glass vessel of water wired to a special HV generator is an antenna that transmits energy by longitudinal waves to a second vessel, lighting neon tubes and running a DC motor through a single wire.

a. Mathematics. The argument rests on two slides [read: deep/H2O p.8]: "fluids ... only longitudinal waves" and "water stops usual radio". The first concerns mechanical shear waves in a fluid (water has zero shear modulus). The second is not a statement about EM transverse waves in general: light passes through water (refractive index 1.33 at optical frequencies, while the static eps_r = 80 would give n about 9, so water's dielectric response is strongly frequency dependent) [memory, high]; radio attenuation depends on conductivity. Skin depth delta = 1/sqrt(pi f mu0 sigma) at 2.755 MHz (calc): about 0.15 m for sea water (sigma = 4 S/m) and about 4.3 m for weakly conducting tap-like water (sigma = 0.005 S/m) [memory, medium for sigma]. So water attenuates EM waves but does not convert them to longitudinal ones. The step from mechanical to electrical is a category error. The sound-speed table with "ether = c" is an identification, not data [read: deep/H2O p.7]. E-field wave equation, Sigma and eq (1)-(2) are as in Claim 2.

b. Experiments. The deck has no readings: no voltage, current, frequency, distance, brightness, control, error bar (deep/H2O "Measured readings: none"). Several slides are sketches; one photograph shows glowing glass vessels. Known mainstream mechanisms for a neon or lamp to light near a high-voltage water vessel: capacitive displacement current through the glass and water (water has eps_r = 80 and some conductivity, so a water vessel is a large dielectric electrode), ground return via stray capacitance or a plate; the motor with ground plate slide shows a return path [read: deep/H2O p.14]. Public Verona demonstration, 15 April 2011: a "burnt-out" halogen lamp lit in a basin of water, the hand put in the water, and a wireless toy car moved. The report is by Heos, which co-organised the event, and records no measurements [web: http://web.archive.org/web/20110830093118/http://www.heos.it:80/Cronaca_11/0100102_Casa-senza-fili-e-mobility-autonomia-energetica.htm]. Marco Pizzuti (2013) repeats the account and adds the G-03 Argon sailboat powered "at a distance by a water antenna" through plastic [web: nibiru2012.it link in sites.md]; that is a popular book repeating the inventor's account, not a test. Hand in water: at several-MHz and low current this is not surprising: current through a body at 1 to 3 MHz is perceived as warmth, not shock, below some mA [memory, medium]; it shows the current is small and high frequency, not that the energy is "cold".

c. Tested? No independent test. Only the inventor and one co-organising magazine; the video "Wireless by water antennae" (HorizonDelta) is deleted and a 2016 re-upload survives [web: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUvF-ZXejyI per sites.md; I did not watch it]. No replication reported.

d. If true: a longitudinal wave that can be launched through water by a wire-fed vessel would need a new wave type with a speed, attenuation and polarisation; none is measured.

Verdict (split): - Weak form, "a high-voltage vessel of water can power a small lamp or motor in a second connected vessel by capacitive/conductive near-field coupling": Plausible, untested (no data; consistent with known physics). - Strong form, "the transfer is by longitudinal L.M.D. waves because water blocks radio": Not testable as stated (no wavelength, speed, polarisation or attenuation defined), and its supporting inference is a category error.

Claim 6. Tesla's reported statements as authority: light and radio are longitudinal "sound waves in the ether", cosmic rays move at about 50 c, the Sun sits at about 215 GV, relativity is "a mass of error".

This claim is a set of statements by Tesla (1932-35) that Handwerker adopts [read: deep/prophecies]. They are newspaper reports of Tesla's talks, not papers. Taking them one at a time, with Tesla's statements preserved in the record:

• Light and radio longitudinal: Tested, not supported. Polarisation (Malus, Fresnel-Arago, Hertz's polarised radio waves) shows transverse vibration; sound-like longitudinal ether waves were a hypothesis superseded by 1820 [memory, high]. This is "Historically superseded but instructive" for the 1892-1900 period when an ether wave theory was reasonable.
• Cosmic rays 50 c, 500 c: cosmic rays are charged nuclei and some photons; their speeds approach but do not exceed c; their energies reach about 3e20 eV [memory, high]. Handwerker's slide "remember superluminal neutrinos" refers to OPERA (2011), which reported 60 ns early arrival; the team traced it to a loose fibre-optic cable in the GPS timing path (reported Feb 2012) and a clock fault, and later results were consistent with c [web: https://www.livescience.com/18603-error-faster-light-neutrinos.html]. His "Tesla vs Einstein 1-0" video predates that correction [read: sites.md]. Refuted by experiment (accelerator and cosmic-ray measurements), and the neutrino case is closed by the correction.
• Sun potential 215 GV: Refuted by calculation. A net positive potential V = 2.15e11 V on R = 6.96e8 m means Q = 4 pi eps0 R V = 1.7e10 C and a surface field V/R = 310 V/m (calc). The electric force on a proton, eE = 5e-17 N, exceeds its weight at the Sun's surface (m g = 4.6e-25 N) by about 1e8 (calc), so a plasma could not hold such a charge; the solar wind would neutralise it in seconds. The net Eddington field in a hydrostatic plasma is m_p g/2e = 1.4e-6 V/m (calc) [memory, high for the concept]. Nor does the Sun accelerate galactic cosmic rays to 1e20 eV; solar energetic particles reach about GeV [memory, high].
• Relativity "a mass of error": Tested, not supported. Time dilation (muon lifetime), the Michelson-Morley null result and subsequent tests, particle accelerators operating on E = gamma m c^2, GPS clock corrections [memory, high]. A quotation from 1935 is not a test.
• Cosmic-ray-powered motor (Brooklyn Eagle 1932): Never properly tested. Tesla's 1901 patent 685,957 (insulated plate, capacitor, "radiant energy") has no known attempt to verify it according to the bundle author [read: facts, pp.53-88]; I could not find a reproduction. Statement of a claim, not a measurement.

Verdict: Mixed; "relativity wrong": Tested, not supported; "50 c": Refuted by calculation and experiment; "Sun 215 GV": Refuted by calculation; "longitudinal light": Tested, not supported (historically superseded); "cosmic-ray motor": Never properly tested.

3. Investigator's findings (kept in the record whatever the verdict)

Own work. Ten or more Handwerker files existed on deltaavalon.com (2010-13): English, Italian and German "Tesla and cold electricity" decks, Verona meeting decks (41 pp), "E-book L.M.D. waves and quaternions", "Water wireless power", the "DELTA THOR" earth-pulse and lightning detectors, and "Teslas prophecies"; only the 2010 deck was recovered (read above). He also published articles in Heos (issues 21, 32, 40, 2010 and 1, 2011) not yet found. One patent: ITVA20010043A1 (2001, fluid-state monitor), not on L.M.D. [read: sites.md]. The G-02 Xenon / G-03 Argon generators appear as products; no specification exists anywhere.

Support by others. The Verona demonstration (above), the Tesla Society Switzerland hosting of his deck (endorsement without evaluation), Pizzuti's book (popular), a Japanese blog (sympathetic summary). Nothing independent measured. Supporters' statements are the inventors' own account or by an interested party (Heos co-organiser).

Related work. Arbab and Satti (read, Claim 2); Arbab's later papers including a 2011 "Analogy between Electromagnetism and Hydrodynamics" (not read; may relate to Handwerker's slide on e.m.f./"hydromotive force", itself undefined by equation) [read: sites.md]. Monstein and Wesley with Rebilas's rebuttal (Claim 1). Van Vlaenderen and Waser (cited in A-S) and Whittaker (named in the blog) are the same line [read: A-S p.11].

Historical record. The record goes dark in 2013: website parked, YouTube channel gone, religious text on the homepage on 29 May 2013 [read: sites.md]. This is an anomaly. Competing explanations, with the evidence on each: personal or family circumstances (supported only by the May 2013 homepage text; a reading, not established), loss of interest, commercial failure (product names suggest intent to sell), pressure or suppression (no evidence found for or against; Google shows "removed in response to a legal request" notices which are commonly copyright notices, and the Lumen notices could not be opened), return to industry (a "Roberto S. Handwerker" at PT S.p.A. 2016-2021 on LinkedIn, identity not confirmed). From the physics side: a person with a working power-transfer device would be expected to publish measurements or file a patent; none exists, which is consistent with the effect being small and ordinary, but silence is not a refutation. Deciding records: Italian company registers for DELTA Ingegneria and Andromeda, the Heos articles.

4. What would settle it (for the reader)

1. A grounded metal screen between coil and probe: ordinary near-field E should vanish behind it; an unusual scalar wave would not. 2. A calibrated shielded-loop B probe and an E probe, with raw values, against the quasi-static prediction for the measured coil. 3. Raw, un-normalised currents at distances 0.3-5 m with the meter's frequency response stated, to separate x^-1 (radiation), x^-2 and x^-3 near-field laws. 4. The same water set-up with distilled and salted water, dry glass, and the return wire removed, with voltage and current at both ends. 5. A lead-only capacitance reading for Fig.12.

Corrections to Step 1

1. deep/TESLA-THEORY-2-0d985e.md, Section 1c ("Tension in the gauge step") and Section 5 ("Gauge"). The memory-based claim that Arbab-Satti do not impose the Lorenz gauge, and that imposing it removes the scalar, is wrong; the Investigator's correction is right and I confirm it against the A-S abstract and text: Maxwell's equations are derived from one quaternion equation "that only requires the Lorentz gauge" and the scalar wave "exists with or without considering the Lorentz gauge" [read: A-S abstract, p.8]. Handwerker's wording "by respect of the Lorenz gauge" follows his source. The deep read's other point stands: equations (1)-(2) need no gauge.
2. deep Section 3 states that "J = grad Sigma follows from nothing" and that Sigma is "introduced with no definition". Narrowly: it follows from Arbab and Satti's eqs. (27)-(31), which impose curl J = 0 and so write J = grad(Lambda) (with Lambda there, Sigma in Handwerker) [read: A-S p.10]. Handwerker's text does not show this step, so the point that it is unexplained in his paper stands, but the assumption is explicit in his source: that J has no curl (no circulating currents) and that the pair (rho, J) obey grad(rho) + (1/c^2) dJ/dt = 0 (eq. 26). Both are constraints that real Tesla-coil currents do not satisfy (example in Claim 2).
3. facts.json and claims.md list Sigma as "[H]" without noting the origin: the Henry unit error is in Arbab and Satti ("dimension of Henry", [read: A-S p.10]); from J = grad Sigma the dimension is A/m (deep Section 3). It is an inherited error, not Handwerker's.
4. claims.md claim 2 states that the quaternionic form "predicts scalar dielectric fields and longitudinal waves travelling at c". Arbab and Satti say Maxwell's equations "are still exact and need no modifications" and describe the scalar wave as an addition invariant under their transformation; Handwerker's stronger reading ("Maxwell incomplete") is his, not theirs [read: A-S p.1-2]. The claim as stated should say whose view it is.
5. claims.md claim 4 and the Step 1 summary of Fig.12 give "capacitance"; the paper prints it in mH (inductance units) and values of 0.040 and 0.012; the unit is unknown (deep E11 notes this). The plate sizes expect about 14 pF at 1 mm.
6. facts.json and claims.md claim 3 list "ferrite-core probe unchanged by the core" as shown. The deep read shows only one series (triangles, "with inductance") in Fig.3; the unchanged result is asserted, not displayed.
7. claims.md source gap: add the points in Investigator correction 3 (HorizonDelta YouTube channel deleted; one 2016 re-upload) and note that ref. [12] and the "appendix" cited on p.8 are missing from the paper.
8. facts.json for the L.M.D. paper reads "the Tesla coil's main resonance is 2.755 MHz with a second frequency 1.810 MHz, whose ratio is about pi/2"; the ratio is 1.522 (3% below pi/2) and corresponds to a coupling k of about 0.4 (calc). The printed 1.527 "MHz" and the printed lambda0 = 113.64 m (which belongs to 2.64 MHz) are Handwerker's slips.
9. The Step 1 digest range for Fig.3 (0.5-2.5 m) and Fig.9 (-3pi/2 to pi/2) were already corrected by the deep read (data to 2 m; 3pi/2 = -pi/2). I confirm those corrections. Two caveats on the deep read's numbers: the digitised values are the reader's from the figure, accurate to about 5 mA and 5 degrees.

Verdict summary

1. L.M.D. waves from a Tesla coil carry power: weak form Established (near-field capacitive transfer); strong form Never properly tested.
2. Quaternionic Maxwell is incomplete and predicts longitudinal waves: notation claim Refuted by calculation; scalar Sigma field as an addition Never properly tested (with an internal tension: "does no work" versus lit lamps).
3. Field is dielectric, not magnetic, not transverse: near-field electric character Established; power estimate Internally inconsistent; "not magnetic" Plausible, untested; "new wave" Never properly tested.
4. Displacement current is weak: Refuted by calculation as stated.
5. Water antenna: weak form Plausible, untested; strong form (longitudinal because water blocks radio) Not testable as stated.
6. Tesla as authority: longitudinal light Tested, not supported (historically superseded); 50 c Refuted; Sun 215 GV Refuted by calculation; relativity Tested, not supported; cosmic-ray motor Never properly tested.