Arbiter: Koen J. van Vlaenderen (folder "van Vlaenederen Koen")

Step 3. Date 2026-10-04. Inputs: physicist.md, mathematician.md, contrarian.md, facts.json, claims.md, deep/ reads, sites.md, research/. Tags: [read] document; [web] URL; [memory] with confidence; [check] my own recomputation (Python/NumPy in the session scratchpad, not a project file). Name: the papers print "van Vlaenderen"; the folder spelling "Vlaenederen" is a typo.

Source gap: none. All three papers (1999, 2003, 2015) have a text layer. Limits the reader should know: the author reports no experiment of his own in any paper. Every experiment he cites is another party's, and none of the cited primary papers was read by any reviewer except Ignatiev-Leus (via the Investigator's saved copy), the Bruhn pages, and abstracts. Where a verdict below leans on a cited experiment, it rests on the author's description, search summaries or abstracts, and I say so.

1. The disagreements, recomputed

1.1 Is the "static charge power source" (rho/eps0)S an energy source? (Mathematician: yes, an imbalance. Physicist: only an exchange term.)

The 2003 paper's theorems are (33) power and (34) force [read: deep/A-generalisation..., sec 6; SymPy-verified identities by the deep reader]. Dividing (33) by mu0, with c^2 = 1/(eps0 mu0):

J.E + c^2 rho S = -du/dt - div P, where u = eps0 E^2/2 + B^2/(2 mu0) + S^2/(2 mu0).

So the field loses energy to matter at the rate J.E + c^2 rho S. The paper's force on matter is f = rho E + J x B + J S [read: (34)]. For charge moving at v (J = rho v) the work rate of that force is f.v = J.E + rho v^2 S (the magnetic term does no work). Field loss minus matter gain is (c^2 - v^2) rho S. For a charge at rest, f.v = 0, so the field gives up c^2 rho S per volume and nothing receives it [check, algebra from the paper's own (33)-(34)]. Numerical example: rho = 1e-6 C/m^3, S = 1e-6 T gives c^2 rho S = 8.99e4 W/m^3 [check: 8.988e16 x 1e-12].

Who is right: the mathematician. The physicist's reading ("exchange term between charge and field") is only complete if some third channel receives the energy. Eq (24) gives one candidate: S is sourced by charge non-conservation, and creating or destroying charge in a potential is work. But the term here is for a static, conserved charge, where that channel does not exist, and the paper names no channel [read: 2003 p.10, "remarkable prediction", author "not aware of any published scientific experiments"]. The physicist adds a second point I could not rerun but that is plausible and consistent with the Feynman-gauge Lagrangian [memory, high that this Lagrangian has an indefinite-sign scalar mode]: the canonical energy of the S wave has the opposite sign to the paper's energy density. I report it as the physicist's [check], not re-derived by me. It means "the energy of the S wave" is itself unsettled on paper.

Two corrections to reviewer numbers. (i) The mathematician's LES wave example (S0 = 1 microtesla, E = c S0 = 300 V/m) is right [check: 299.8 V/m], but the flux c S0^2/mu0 is 239 W/m^2 peak, not 0.24 W/m^2 (3e8 x 1e-12 / 1.2566e-6 = 238.6; the reviewer's own arithmetic line gives 0.239 only if the 1e-12 is dropped by 1000) [check]. (ii) Nothing else in the mathematician's energy bookkeeping changes.

Final: the static-charge power term, as the paper's equations stand, does not conserve energy unless an unnamed channel is added. Verdict (original, superseded by the QE revision, section 8): Internally inconsistent (energy accounting) as a power-source claim. The author's equations are not at fault as algebra; the interpretation is. [Revised: Not testable as stated; the imbalance holds only if charged matter has fixed rest mass.]

1.2 Rutherford 4/3 (all three agree; I recomputed)

Charged shell, R = 2.818e-15 m, charge e [check]: field energy U = q^2/(8 pi eps0 R), U/c^2 = 4.554e-31 kg; E x B momentum mass (2/3 unit) = 6.073e-31 kg; the extra eps0 B_l E term (1/3 unit) = 3.036e-31 kg; sum = 9.109e-31 kg, which equals twice U/c^2 (9.109e-31 kg) to four digits. So the "resolution" works only with a self-energy double the standard value that the paper's own energy theorem (4.33) gives. Source of the doubling: Rutherford's "energy density correction", an unrefereed page [read: 2015 p.15, ref 20], which nobody read. Confirmed: Internally inconsistent at the factor 2, pending Rutherford's own derivation.

1.3 Ignatiev-Leus 1.12c (Physicist: "Tested, not supported". Contrarian: "Never properly tested", ordinary near-zone phase explains the size.)

Primary geometry [read: Investigator's saved primary text, via reviewers]: wavelength 2.5 km, baseline up to 0.5 km, so kR = 2 pi (0.5/2.5) = 1.257. For the radial field of one oscillating dipole, E_r goes as (1/R^3 - ik/R^2) e^{ikR}, giving phase velocity c(1+x^2)/x^2 with x = kR. [check] x = 0.628 (R = 250 m): 3.53c; x = 1.257 (R = 500 m): 1.633c. The physicist's E_theta number is also reproduced in magnitude (|v| = 2.88c at x = 1.26), but the sign is negative: the phase moves inward, so "2.9c" is a magnitude of a local phase slope, not a speed of anything. A single dipole would give 1.12c only at x = 2.89, R = 1.15 km [check], beyond the 0.5 km baseline.

So two things hold together. (a) A phase velocity above c in the near zone is ordinary and carries no signal, so "definitely a far field" [read: 2015 p.19] is not supported by the geometry. (b) The contrarian's "right size" is too generous: a single dipole predicts more than 1.12c over 0.5 km, not 1.12c, and the real source is a spherical array of radial oscillators that no reviewer modelled. A 12% excess over 0.5 km is 0.18 microseconds (500 m / c = 1.668 us, times 1 - 1/1.12), about 7.7 degrees of phase at 120 kHz [check; corrected in the QE revision, was 0.20 us and 8.6 degrees], small against near-zone phase corrections or fibre-reference uncertainty. Ignatiev and Leus themselves say the effect "can be deduced theoretically within the framework of the conventional theory" [read via contrarian: primary text]. It is one report, not replicated as far as anyone found; silence, not contradiction. Verdict: Never properly tested as evidence for a superluminal or longitudinal wave; the physicist's "Tested, not supported" overstates, since nobody has run a test designed to discriminate.

1.4 Podkletnov "at least 64c" (Physicist: "Tested, not supported". Contrarian: replications null with caveats.)

The replications cited (Woods et al. 2001; Hathaway et al. 2003) tested the claimed weight-change effect near a rotating superconducting disk, not the timing of the impulse [web: https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/20682562, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222897740; search summaries]. Hathaway reported no effect to the 0.001% level but with the disk turned mechanically at lower speed and lower temperature than Podkletnov's setup; Woods reported nulls with a note that many conditions for the effect had not been met [web: search summary]. They say nothing about the 63 +/- 1 ns trigger difference behind "64c". That figure is the claimant's own report; no independent timing test is on record that I found. Verdict: the weight-effect nulls are Tested, not supported (with caveats); the 64c speed is Never properly tested.

1.5 de Sangro et al. as evidence for a >> c

Original reading: the field of a bunch at v = c(1 - 0.5e-6) is "compatible with an electric field rigidly carried by the beam" [web: https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2913]. Published replies argue the data show the acceleration-dependent Lienard-Wiechert field and that Feynman's formula equals Lienard-Wiechert [web: search summaries only; neither reviewer read the replies in full]. Standard theory gives a uniformly moving charge's field with no delay [memory, high], so no a >> c is needed. This is a dispute about reading one experiment, with the original authors having replied. The physicist's "Tested, not supported" is too strong (it was not a test of the author's theory); the contrarian's "contested" is accurate. Verdict: Never properly tested as support for a >> c.

1.6 Graneau-Pappas exploding wires and Ampere hairpin

Physicist: Cavalleri's repeat of Graneau-Pappas disproved it. A search summary says the same [web: search results listing, e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0375960185905912; I did not read Cavalleri's paper]. The Ampere hairpin has a conventional account (Lorentz force plus the diverging current in the end pools); McDonald's note was not retrievable here (certificate error), so that stays at search-snippet level [web: http://kirkmcd.princeton.edu/examples/hairpin.pdf, fetch failed]. Opposite evidence stays in the record: Graneau saw strong mercury jets when the hairpin was blocked; Saumont (1992) and Johansson (Lund, 1996) reported longitudinal forces [web: https://dflund.se/~snorkelf/Longitudinal/node3.html, via contrarian]. No decisive neutral test where the two accounts differ is on record. Verdict: longitudinal force: Never properly tested (contested); exploding wires: Tested, not supported, provisional (one repeat reported, unread).

2. Web checks done (budget 8; used 7 calls)

3. Final verdicts per claim

Claim 1. S is a physical, measurable field; the Lorenz condition is a special case

Agreement: all three agree the extended equations (2003 eqs 18-19) equal the plain potential wave equations with no gauge condition (SymPy-verified by the deep reader and mathematician); all agree S is a postulate (author: "S is introduced not for mathematical reasons ... for describing new effects" [read: reply to Bruhn]); all agree charge conservation makes S a source-free wave (eq 24), so every standard experiment is untouched. Disagreement: the physicist and contrarian say the circularity argument is "fair as far as it goes" or leave it; the mathematician says it fails because E and B are gauge invariant from their definitions alone. Stronger argument: the mathematician's. The gauge invariance of E = -grad Phi - dA/dt and B = curl A needs no field equation, so the "derived from equations without S" charge does not follow. The author's real position (add S terms) is a new theory, which he says himself. Bruhn's two reviews [web: https://www2.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/vV191005.html]: first, that S is superfluous in standard theory, is correct (mathematician [check]); second, that the modified sources conserve charge iff S solves the homogeneous wave equation, is correct and equals eq 24. Both sides agree on algebra; Bruhn himself wrote "Maybe that some reasons can be found for the validity of condition (II)". Bruhn is a mathematician with a stake in the dispute; the author replied. Verdicts: (i) Lorenz condition is a free gauge choice inside Maxwell theory: Established. (ii) The "circularity" argument that gauge freedom cannot show S unphysical: Refuted by calculation as an argument for S. (iii) Self-consistent extended theory with S physical: Plausible, untested. (iv) S shown measurable: Never properly tested; proposals exist (Minotti-Modanese bench circuit, proposal only; Reed-Hively copper-penetration, authors' own preliminary report, Hively is patentee of US 9,306,527, paywalled primary unread). What settles it: build the Minotti-Modanese circuit or an independent Hively-Loebl copper test with a closed grounded shield, a distance scan and a stated null hypothesis. Standard theory: zero signal behind a closed shield.

Claim 2. Longitudinal waves, J S force, S^2/(2 mu0), static-charge power

Agreement: the LES wave (S = S0 cos(kx - wt), E = -c S0 cos(kx - wt), B = 0, speed c) solves the extended equations [check: all three]; no direct test of S, J S force, or the power term. The Monstein-Wesley (MW) formulas (37)-(38) follow from the plain wave equation by multiplying by dPhi/dt, so the priority argument does not need the author's theorem (mathematician and physicist [check]; the author's 2001 receipt date 13 Nov 2001 precedes MW's 15 Aug 2002, both on the record; MW's own position is known only through the 2003 paper, an interested party in the dispute). Disagreement: static-charge power (see 1.1), settled for the mathematician's bookkeeping; the S^2/(2 mu0) energy sign (physicist only; unrefuted, not rerun). Experiment that matters: MW (EPL 59:514, 2002), Comment Bray-Britton (EPL 66:153, 2004), Reply (EPL 66:155), Rebilas 2008 (titles only, nobody read them), and the one replication, Butterworth 2013 (confirmed above). That is the cleanest anomaly in the file: sceptics found the pattern, rejected MW's theory and Rebilas's ground-plasma explanation, and said "a yet-unidentified mechanism". It does not test an S wave; a mostly longitudinal field at a receiver in the near zone or with ground currents is expected in conventional terms [memory, medium]. Verdicts: LES wave and J S force: Never properly tested (not dismissed without testing for MW; no discriminating test). Scalar energy S^2/(2 mu0) as positive physical energy: Not testable as stated (revised; on paper the sign depends on which conserved quantity is called energy, canonical-energy sign unrerun). Static-charge power source: Not testable as stated (revised; was Internally inconsistent, see section 8.2), with no magnitude, device or experiment ("rumours exist" [read: p.10]). What settles it: repeat MW with distance beyond lambda/(2 pi), battery-powered isolated receiver, buried vs elevated antenna and ground control (conventional theory predicts the longitudinal pattern collapses); separately, ask for the Lagrangian behind (33)-(34), or measure heat from a static charged body in a known S field.

Claim 3. Newton's third law, longitudinal Ampere force, three waves, 4/3

Agreement: the Grassmann kernel is non-reciprocal for open current elements and the added J B_l term restores reciprocity (hand check, physicist: elements 1 A m x-hat at (d,0,0) and 1 A m y-hat at origin, F1 = mu0/(4 pi d^2) y-hat, F2 = 0; 1e-5 N at d = 0.1 m [check]; mathematician and contrarian agree). All three agree the premise "open-circuit magnetostatics has no field momentum" (p.9) is asserted not derived, and the paper's own eq 4.34 contains eps0 E x B_t, which changes in time because the charge density changes linearly in time [read: p.14]. The standard resolution is that mechanical force plus rate of change of field momentum balances [memory, high; Griffiths]. All agree 4.22 is the continuity equation and holds for any a, so a >> c is not selected by the equations and b = c comes from demanding the form J B_l; a >> c with Lorentz-covariant fields is not available [memory, high]. All agree the 4/3 matching needs a doubled energy (1.2). Contrarian adds: B_l is zero for a closed stationary solenoid current [check], so the author's own theory seems to predict no AB force from a solenoid, a tension he does not resolve. Disagreement: only on labels (1.5, 1.6). Verdicts: Grassmann non-reciprocity for open elements: Established (mathematically). That Maxwell-Lorentz theory physically violates N3: Refuted by calculation (field momentum). Distinct longitudinal force J B_l: Never properly tested. Selection of a >> c, b = c: Internally inconsistent as a derivation; the speed itself Never properly tested. Support for Rutherford 4/3: Internally inconsistent (factor 2). What settles it: for two charging capacitors joined by wires compute total mechanical force plus d/dt of field momentum with and without J B_l; the measured force on an open-circuit geometry designed to differ would favour one side. For the hairpin, an identical-geometry force-distribution measurement against a full Lorentz-plus-stress computation.

Claim 4. Cited experiments are qualitatively consistent

Agreement: nothing quantitative is predicted by the theory for any of them; the author reinterprets across papers (MW as Phi wave in 2003, as LEM wave at c in 2015; 1.12c accepted as a signal but the 0.12c set aside as "an incorrect interpretation of the data" [read: 2015 p.19]). These are two statements about the same data that cannot both confirm a theory. The author states induction law 3.2 has had "no experiments" [read: 2015 p.17]. Verdicts: Ignatiev-Leus as superluminal or longitudinal evidence: Never properly tested (1.3). MW: Never properly tested; a real, replicated-in-pattern anomaly with no accepted mechanism. Tzontchev et al. (speed about c, apparatus not described, not read): Never properly tested. Tesla: historical claims without data: Not testable as stated. Exploding wires: Tested, not supported (provisional, 1.6). AB as a force: Tested, not supported (Caprez et al. found no time delays of the size needed; the author's objection, "we assume that the resolution ... was insufficient" [read: p.17], is an auxiliary assumption with no calculated delay).

Claim 5. Anomalous devices via Phi photoelectric effect and macroscopic tunnelling

Agreement: no mathematics, no rate, no frequency, no power; the author labels the Phi photoelectric effect "not researched ... not verified nor falsified" [read: p.20], and writes "we assume" repeatedly. Tunnelling in ordinary quantum mechanics conserves the probability current [memory, high], so the proposed source of S is outside current QM; the author says relativity and QM "must be reviewed" [read: 2015 p.20-21]. Verdicts: Podkletnov weight effect: Tested, not supported (null replications with caveats). Podkletnov 64c speed: Never properly tested. Moray: Never properly tested (witnessed demonstrations and the Fletcher affidavit as the author cites it; content unread; thmoray.org unreachable). Correa and Chernetsky: Never properly tested (reports unread, no calorimetry quoted). Phi photoelectric effect: Not testable as stated. The physicist's energy-budget estimate (50 kW from a 100 m x 100 m aperture needs about 5 W/m^2 [check, 5e4/1e4]) points away from the claim but cannot rule out an unknown natural field. What settles it: calorimetry of one Moray-type receiver against a shielded dummy load; input/output logging of a Correa-type tube; a Podkletnov-protocol disk run in the specified conditions with independent timing of the impulse.

Claim 6. 1999 charged-space paper

Agreement: algebra checks; the "derivation" of Maxwell's equations defines sources as the wave operator on the potentials, so it is the Lorenz-gauge route run backwards (needs constant |u|); the self-potential equation is Klein-Gordon-like with a tachyonic sign, undiscussed; no ZPF quantity enters any equation; "fractal dimension 3/2" is the exponent of metres in charge = sqrt(kg m^3), the same dimensional fact as Gaussian units [memory, high]; no experiment, no number. Verdicts: "Maxwell's equations derived from conservation": Refuted by calculation as a derivation. Psi as real charge density, self-potential source criterion, mass-model unification: Not testable as stated (and sign-changing charge density at nodes is unaddressed). Fractal dimension 3/2: Refuted by calculation as a physical finding (revised label; the exponent is a unit-convention artifact).

4. Summary table

5. Absence-of-evidence analysis (where the record goes dark)

Four places, all stated as anomalies, not neutral gaps.

(a) Ethergy B.V. [web: https://opencorporates.com/companies/nl/59508701, via Investigator]: KvK 59508701, active, Amsterdam head office; the 2016-2018 papers give Alkmaar; no patents, products, papers or conference talks found; Google Patents "vlaenderen" empty, Espacenet not reached. Yet the 2023 SEM lecture (Prague, 48.6 min, not transcribed, not watched by any role) describes converting scalar field into electricity, and the 2002 site says overunity devices "have been kept a secret" [read: via contrarian]. Competing explanations: (1) one-person research holding that never reached a device stage (fits "theoretical research" wording; no contrary evidence); (2) trade secrecy (no evidence for or against; a patent search would show an application only if filed); (3) a device attempted and failed quietly (no record); (4) absorption under another name (nothing found). The Alkmaar/Amsterdam identification is unconfirmed, so even whether the company in the register is the author's is open. Records that decide: KvK extract with activity code and filed annual accounts; Espacenet and WIPO for applicant "Ethergy" or inventor "van Vlaenderen" (patent applications publish after 18 months); the lecture's Q&A and slides.

(b) Output after 2003 in mainstream venues: arXiv 1999, 2003; Hadronic Journal 2001; Rinton chapter 2004; then viXra 2015, HRPUB 2016 (author-pays), ResearchGate 2018; no arXiv submissions after 2003 found [web per Investigator]. Explanations: lost interest in that route; submissions declined (no refusal letter or moderation record found; unknown); moved to venues that accept the three-wave paper. The "suppression" story has no record either way: the documented dissent is Bruhn's two pages (a mathematical critique to which the author replied, archived 2006), a Comment and Reply in EPL for MW (not the author), and silence otherwise. No referee reports, editorial refusals or funding refusals are on record. Records that decide: arXiv moderation correspondence (author's own), journal submission histories, referee reports.

(c) Citations without engagement: the 2001 paper has 99 citations [web: Google Scholar per Investigator], and the same S field is developed by Arbab, Hively, Simulik, Tomilin-Panchelyuga and Minotti-Modanese (EPJ C 83:1086, 2023; J. Phys. Commun. 8:055003, 2024, which cite van Vlaenderen and Waser 2001 [read: reference lists]). Citation is influence, not agreement. No one in that line reports a detection. The silence there is informative: the concept is live as theory, unobserved as a field.

(d) Moray and the Fletcher affidavit: the Investigator saw a Google removal notice (legal request, 2 results) on a Moray/Fletcher query; the removed items are unknown; thmoray.org could not be fetched. Both reviewers draw nothing from it, and I agree: it is an observation to follow up (LumenDatabase notice, Wayback snapshots of the affidavit), not evidence of anything. Interested parties here: thmoray.org is run by Moray's family/supporters; Hively holds the antenna patent for the related scalar-longitudinal wave work; Bruhn is a critic with a stake in showing the work wrong; Monstein-Wesley (priority dispute) is known only through the 2003 paper. Each is reported as that party's characterisation.

6. What would settle it (ranked by value per effort)

1. Minotti-Modanese gauge-wave circuit, or independent Hively-Loebl copper test with shield and distance scan (claims 1-2).
2. MW repeat beyond the near zone with ground-current control (claims 2, 4).
3. Open-circuit capacitor force calculation including d/dt field momentum, then a measurement (claim 3).
4. Ignatiev-Leus repeated at kR from 0.1 to 10 with the dipole-array prediction computed first; a constant 1.12c beyond kR = 5 would be anomalous (claim 4).
5. Calorimetry for Moray and Correa devices; Podkletnov impulse timing (claim 5).
6. The author's Lagrangian for (33)-(34), and Rutherford's own derivation of the doubled energy (claims 2-3). Both are paper-only checks.

7. Open questions

• Is there a coupling of S to matter that conserves energy and keeps the J S force? Not shown by anyone.
• Why does the best independent anomaly (MW pattern replicated by disbelievers) have no accepted mechanism?
• What is in Rutherford's energy density correction, and does it survive covariant treatment?
• What did the 2023 lecture show, and was any device built?
• Do Cavalleri's repeat and McDonald's hairpin analysis settle the longitudinal-force experiments? (Not read here.)
• The Fletcher affidavit and the Moray detector: what do the primary documents say?
• Does the author's theory predict an AB force at all, given B_l = 0 for a closed solenoid current?

8. QE revision (2026-10-04, after qe.md MINOR and deep reads D1-D3)

Inputs: qe.md; deep/ 2003 paper, follow-up section (covariance of (33)-(34), D3); deep/ 2015 paper, section on pp.16-21 (D1) and section 7 (far-field dipole calculation, D2). Tags as above. Web checks used: 1 (budget 8; 7 used earlier, so 8 total). Changed verdicts are marked "Changed"; the verdict table in section 4 and the per-claim lists in section 3 are updated in place and point here.

8.1 New verdict: "Lorenz-gauge Maxwell is far-field inconsistent" (2015 pp.10, 21; claim 3). Verdict: Refuted by calculation.

What the paper says [read: 2015 p.10, p.21, deep read 7.1]: the Jefimenko field (eq 3.18, Lorenz gauge) contains two "longitudinal" terms that fall off as 1/r (the charge-rate term and the longitudinal-current term). "Far fields are defined as two mutually inducing fields", so these terms have no partner fields and the theory is "far field inconsistent". The author's "simple Maxwell" field (3.16, instantaneous Coulomb potential plus retarded transverse vector potential) is "far field consistent". It is the Coulomb-gauge field. The paper never says 3.16 and 3.18 differ numerically. The premise (far field = two mutually inducing fields) is the author's definition, with no citation [read: p.10].

What the calculation shows [read: deep read 7.2-7.3; SymPy and NumPy by the deep reader, I have not rerun it; the closed forms are in the deep file]. For an oscillating point dipole (a localised source that conserves charge), the two longitudinal 1/r terms are each non-zero and radial, each of size k^2 |n.p|/r (value 2.261763 in the reader's units), and they are equal and opposite. Their sum plus the instantaneous Coulomb term equals the Coulomb term of 3.16 identically, so E(3.16) = E(3.18) at every point and time, and B is the same. The physical 1/r field is purely transverse. The "longitudinal far fields" exist only as pieces of one integrand. The general argument is the Helmholtz one: a field vanishing at infinity has a unique curl-free and divergence-free split, and Gauss's law fixes the curl-free part to the instantaneous Coulomb field. This is the content of Jackson, "From Lorenz to Coulomb and other explicit gauge transformations", Am. J. Phys. 70, 917-928 (2002), whose stated purpose is to show that whatever the propagation of potentials in a given gauge, the fields are always the same [web: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/From-Lorenz-to-Coulomb-and-other-explicit-gauge-Jackson/cf3f1a498297aa7df026b6799b11e3cb923475e2; abstract only, confirmed by a search result, the paper itself unread by me]. That retags the reviewers' [memory, medium] citation as [web].

The paper's side, stated fairly: the cancellation needs charge conservation and integrals over all space. In the author's Section 4 theory J_l propagates at its own speed b, the cancellation no longer holds, and that is a different theory with new constants, not an inconsistency inside Maxwell's. "Longitudinal" is also used in two senses: radial (the charge-rate term) and curl-free (Helmholtz). Verdict is for the claim as made about Maxwell's theory. The lesson for the reader: the Coulomb and Lorenz gauges give one field; individual integrand terms are not separate physical fields.

What would settle it: nothing further is needed for standard theory; the author can state which measurable field differs between 3.16 and 3.18.

8.2 Changed: static-charge power source (rho/eps0)S (claim 2, section 1.1). Was Internally inconsistent (energy accounting). Now Not testable as stated.

What the follow-up deep read of the 2003 paper shows [read: 2003 pp.1, 5-7, 10; SymPy by the deep reader, not rerun by me]. Dividing (33) and (34) by mu0 gives the components of one covariant four-force density f^nu = F^{nu lambda} J_lambda + S J^nu, with J^nu = (c rho, J) and S = -d_mu A^mu a Lorentz scalar. The field equations (18)-(19) are the single equation d_mu F^{mu nu} = mu0 J^nu + d^nu S, and its divergence gives (24). So the equations are covariant and the field side balances identically. For a point charge q the S-part gives dm/dtau = qS (rest-mass rate), because the Lorentz part drops out of u_nu K^nu by antisymmetry of F.

Two readings, both now kept in the record: - Reading 1 (variable rest mass, dm/dtau = qS). Field plus matter four-momentum is conserved exactly. The term is an exchange between the S-field and the rest (internal) energy of the charged matter, c^2 rho S per volume, with sign following S. It is then not a free source: it draws on the carrier's finite internal energy. - Reading 2 (fixed rest mass, as in ordinary physics). The S-part cannot be absorbed, and for a charge at rest the spatial force J S is zero. The field gains or loses c^2 rho S with nothing on the matter side. This is the imbalance my section 1.1 computed, and it stands for this reading.

The QE was right that my section 1.1 assumed fixed rest mass without saying so, and that the physicist's "exchange term" and the contrarian's "Not testable as stated" were closer. The paper itself adopts neither reading: it calls the term "applied power" and "converted power", says a scalar field "can turn an object with charge density rho into an electrical power source", and never mentions rest mass, internal energy or a matter equation of motion [read: 2003 pp.7, 10]. It gives no magnitude for S, and its listed sources (capacitors, high voltage, Tesla-type circuits) conflict with its own eq (24), where S is sourced only by charge non-conservation; the paper does not reconcile these [read: pp.1, 4-5, 10; deep read E].

Orders of magnitude (deep reader's illustration, hypothetical S): q = 1 microcoulomb, S = 1 microtesla-equivalent gives 90 kW and dm/dt = 1e-12 kg/s (my section 1.1 figure of 8.99e4 W/m^3 was per volume, the same arithmetic). Even tiny S would give large, measurable heating or cooling, so the absence of reported anomalous heating of charged bodies bounds S in ordinary laboratories; the paper does not compute that bound, and I have not found a published bound.

Verdict: Not testable as stated (no S source, magnitude or matter-side law given). Both conditionals stay: with fixed rest mass, Internally inconsistent; with rest mass changing at qS, consistent and a definite prediction (a charged body in an S field gains or loses internal energy, c^2 rho S). The heat-measurement test named in section 3 claim 2 is the one that discriminates. The canonical-energy sign issue for S^2/(2 mu0) (physicist) is untouched by this and still not rerun.

Related D3 point: the generalised stress-energy tensor is non-symmetric (S-momentum density +eps0 E S against S-energy flux/c^2 of -eps0 E S) [read: deep read G]. This bears on angular momentum and on LES-wave momentum; the paper does not discuss it.

8.3 Label corrections (no change in substance)

• S^2/(2 mu0) energy sign: was "unresolved". Now Not testable as stated, on paper (the sign depends on which conserved quantity is called energy). If the physicist's canonical-energy argument is re-derived and accepted it becomes Internally inconsistent. Not rerun, so the milder label is used.
• Fractal dimension 3/2 (1999): was "units artifact". Now Refuted by calculation as a physical finding: the exponent is the exponent of metres in charge = sqrt(kg m^3) under the paper's unit convention, and has the same value in Gaussian units for a different reason [memory, high].
• Section 1.3: 0.20 us and 8.6 degrees corrected to 0.18 us and 7.7 degrees (QE recomputation, mine agrees: 1.668 us x 0.1071 = 0.179 us; 360 x 120e3 x 0.179e-6 = 7.7 degrees). Conclusion unchanged: still small against near-zone phase corrections and fibre-reference uncertainty.

8.4 Material restored to the record (D1, 2015 pp.16-21): the author's citations and their status

All are the author's description of other parties' work. The deep reader read none of the primary papers. No verdict below is a finding that the cited work is wrong.

• Ignatiev-Leus, "transmitted energy was unusually high" [read: 2003 p.8]: a second reported anomaly beside the 1.12c phase velocity. Single source, quoted without numbers; no second source found. Never properly tested.
• Strebkov, single-wire resonant energy transmission [read: 2015 p.19, ref 6]: "very efficient", no figure for efficiency, voltage, frequency or length. The author poses a discriminator: with a ground return the signals are TEM waves; without, "most likely" a LEM wave with S = (1/mu0) B_l E_l. He does not say he checked, and resolves it by assumption ("we assume their system is based on LEM waves"). Never properly tested as evidence for LEM waves; the discriminator is a usable test if someone builds or inspects the system.
• Tesla "teleforce" and long-distance transmission via "longitudinal electric waves" [read: 2015 pp.18-19, refs 28-29]: no dates, voltages or places. Not testable as stated. Tesla's longitudinal-wave claim is also the topic of the 2003 paper (patent date corrected in section 2).
• Open-circuit history [read: 2015 p.16]: the author says the Ampere, Gauss and Weber experiments all used open circuits (batteries, capacitor banks) with time-varying charge at the terminals, and that the only truly closed stationary current is a superconductor current induced by a magnet. Asserted without sources or numbers. Not checked by any role against the primary histories. Never properly tested as an argument; it is why claim 3 would matter to real experiments if the J B_l term were real.
• Induction law 3.2 [read: 2015 p.17]: primary sinusoidal divergent (curl-free) currents induce a secondary curl-free field E_l and currents 90 degrees or more out of phase. "No experiments have been done yet"; the author says the first experimenter to verify it also verifies B_l and the physicality of A. This is the paper's own stated test; no amplitude, frequency, geometry or protocol is given. Never properly tested. Note it is separate from the AB solenoid question, where B_l is zero for a closed stationary solenoid current (section 3, claim 3).
• AB reinterpretation and Caprez [read: 2015 p.17]: the author says the force does not deflect the electrons, only delays or advances them, independent of transit time; he calls the Caprez null "premature" and "assumes" insufficient resolution, but gives no time-delay figure of his own. Verdict unchanged (Tested, not supported), with the point added that the author's reply supplies no number to test.
• Macroscopic tunnelling and Podkletnov [read: 2015 pp.18-20]: no replication cited for the 64c figure and no baseline, timing method or error given; the author concedes the electrodynamic nature "has not yet been fully investigated". Moray, Fletcher, Correa, Chernetsky: kilowatts and 200,000 V claimed, no input/output figures. Verdicts unchanged (section 3 claim 5).
• Related-work leads, kept in the record: Nikolaev (Tomsk, 2004), who named B_l the "scalar magnetic field"; Marinov motor / Phipps, and Moyssides-Peoglos-Hillas longitudinal-force papers [read: 2015 refs; memory, medium for details]; Caroline H. Thompson's Phi-wave aether [read: 2015 p.21]; and the 1999 paper's context: Hofer's Material Wave Theory, Haisch-Rueda-Puthoff stochastic-electrodynamics inertia from the zero-point field, Petkov's electrostatic mass, Collins's mu = qA [read: 1999 pp.1, 6-7]. Listed as leads, not endorsements. The SED/ZPF inertia link recurs in other projects.

8.5 Updated "what would settle it" additions

• Far-field claim: the author names which measurable field differs between 3.16 and 3.18 (the dipole calculation says none).
• Static-charge power: calorimetry of a static charged body in a controlled, shielded S environment (heat or cooling at c^2 rho S, with sign) against a fixed-rest-mass null; or the author's matter-side equation of motion.
• Strebkov: inspect or rebuild the line with and without ground return and measure the field orientation.
• Induction law 3.2: a bench measurement of the phase of the secondary E_l near a divergent-current primary.

8.6 Headline verdicts after revision

Unchanged: claims 1, 3 (except the new far-field row), 4 (except the added items), 5, and 6. Changed: static-charge power (Internally inconsistent -> Not testable as stated, with the fixed-rest-mass condition), S^2 energy sign and fractal 3/2 (scale labels). Added: far-field inconsistency (Refuted by calculation). Remaining limits: the cited primary experimental papers (MW, Bray-Britton, Rebilas, Hively-Loebl, Fletcher affidavit, Cavalleri, McDonald, Rutherford) are still unread, and the 2001 Hadronic Journal scan and 2002 conference draft in research/files are not yet read in full (qe.md R6).