Science Contrarian review: van Vlaenderen Koen (Koen J. van Vlaenderen)

Reviewer: Science Contrarian (Step 2). Standard: experimental evidence over consensus; strongest honest case for the claims; the same rigour applied to the inventor and to his critics. Tags: [read] from the documents, [web] with URL, [memory] with confidence, [check] my own calculation. Source gap: none (three papers with text layers). Pages 16-25 of the 2015 paper, which Step 1 did not deep-read, I read myself (Section 5, appendices, references) [read: 2015 paper pp.16-25].

Name: the folder says "Vlaenederen"; the papers print "van Vlaenderen" [read].

0. What the record is, in one paragraph

The author has no experiment of his own in any of the three papers [read]. He proposes (2003) to keep Maxwell's potential equations but not impose the Lorenz condition, so the quantity S = -eps0 mu0 dPhi/dt - div A becomes a physical field; (2015) a three-wave "Phi / LEM / TEM" electrodynamics built so that the force between open-circuit stationary currents obeys Newton's third law; and (1999) a speculative reading of the quantum wave function as charge density. The experimental support he cites is other people's, mostly qualitative. The strongest independent signal is not an experiment but a theory trail: other groups reach the same S field and the same force and power terms (Hively and Reed; Minotti and Modanese; Arbab; Tomilin) [web, see section 3].

1. Corrections to Step 1

1. claims.md says the experiments are "cited from other authors" and "the author's position known only through that paper". True, but the 2015 Section 5 (not deep-read) adds three things that change how claims 4 and 5 read [read: pp.18-20]: - The author does not accept Monstein-Wesley's own interpretation. He argues Monstein and Wesley "actually observed LEM waves" (speed c), not Phi waves, and that "the 0.12 c discrepancy is most likely an incorrect interpretation of the data". So claim 4's "Ignatiev and Leus (about 1.12c to 1.2c)" is a number he reads as an artefact. The 2003 paper cites about 1.2c and calls the error margin "still subject of debate" [read: 2003 p.8]; the primary paper gives 1.12 [read: research/files/wayback-raccoon-Art-p16.pdf]. - He claims the Ignatiev-Leus signal is "definitely a far field, and not a near Coulomb field" [read: 2015 p.19]. The primary paper's geometry makes that doubtful (section 2, claim 4). - Claim 5 rests on a stack of "we assume" statements ("we assume that Podkletnov's device produces Phi waves", "Moray tuned into a Phi wave, that we assume...", "This theoretical prediction has not been researched and it has not been verified nor falsified" for the Phi photoelectric effect) [read: 2015 pp.19-21]. claims.md states the claim as the author's proposal; I add that the author himself labels it unverified.
2. claims.md item 3 says the 2015 "supports Rutherford's resolution of the 4/3 problem". The deep read found the match 4.35 = 4.36 needs a self-energy twice the standard eps0 E^2/2 value, which the paper's own power theorem (4.33) does not give [read: deep/Classical...md section 4.8]. I re-derived the arithmetic from the deep reader's numbers: the shell momentum splits as 2/3 + 1/3 of mu0 q^2 v/(4 pi R) [check, consistent with deep read]. I agree with the deep reader; "supports" should read "claims to support, with an unresolved factor 2 in the energy".
3. claims.md item 4 lists "Aharonov-Bohm effect" as qualitatively consistent. The 2015 paper goes further: it says the AB phase shift is a longitudinal Ampère force on the electrons and calls the Caprez-Barwick-Batelaan null result "premature" [read: 2015 p.17]. That null result is a direct test of exactly this idea, so it is a negative result for the author's claim, not a neutral citation (section 2, claim 4).
4. Priority note. Step 1 and the Investigator note that the Hadronic paper was received 13 Nov 2001 and Monstein-Wesley published 15 Aug 2002 [read; web via Investigator]. Neither fact settles priority (submission dates of EPL unknown). The deep read also shows (reviewer's SymPy check) that Monstein-Wesley's pair (37)-(38) follows from the plain potential wave equation by multiplying by dPhi/dt, with no S field. So the "was used without citation" claim is an assertion by the interested party that is mathematically contestable. I keep both sides.
5. Deep read of the 1999 paper gives no external anchor, fine. But the 1999 header email is an IBM Netherlands address and the 2002 site says "Electrical engineer MD, The Hague" [read]. Background only, not evidence of anything.

No error found in the deep readers' algebra. I spot-checked: eq. 24 follows from div of 19 with 18; (25),(26) imply charge continuity iff S solves the homogeneous wave equation; 4.22 is continuity in disguise. I agree with all three.

2. Claim-by-claim review

Claim 1. S = -eps0 mu0 dPhi/dt - div A is a physical, measurable field; the Lorenz condition is a special case, not a free choice.

a. Mathematics. Internally consistent. The 2003 generalised equations (18)-(19), together with (5)-(7), are identical to the inhomogeneous potential wave equations with no gauge condition (deep read, SymPy). Unit check: S has the unit of B [check]. The substantive observation, shared by Bruhn (below) and the deep reader: the new equations are gauge-fixed by construction, so "S is physical" is a postulate, not a derivation. The author concedes this openly: "S is introduced not for mathematical reasons. S is introduced for describing new effects" and "The theory ... can be verified or falsified by EXPERIMENTS only" [read: reply to Bruhn]. I count that as honest and falsifiable: the theory is a different theory, not a rewrite of Maxwell's. His "circularity" argument against gauge freedom (2003 p.4) is not a proof, and Bruhn is right that it is not (see Bruhn, section 3).

b. Consistent with experiment? With S = 0 it reduces to Maxwell, so every success of Maxwell holds. With S != 0 the theory adds terms that would show up only where charge is not locally conserved (eq. 24: the source of S is -div J - d rho/dt) [read]. Every standard experiment has conserved charge, so S is a source-free wave and can be set to zero. Hence no known measurement contradicts or requires it. It is not refuted; it is untouched by existing data.

c. Tested? Not directly by anyone I can find. The author names the missing test: induction law 3.2, "To our knowledge, no experiments have been done yet" [read: 2015 p.17]. Hively and Loebl (2019) report a preliminary test for a closely related scalar-longitudinal wave: propagation "through thousands of skin-depths of solid copper" [web: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/12/12/2110, authors' own summary]. The primary report (Physics Essays 32:112-126) is paywalled and I did not read it. Hively is the patentee of US 9,306,527 (interested party). Minotti and Modanese propose a bench circuit to detect "gauge waves" [web: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.10580]; I found no report of its result. So: a testable claim with proposed tests and one unreplicated, unread-by-me positive report on a sister theory.

d. If true. Gauge freedom would have to be broken in electrodynamics (a modification, not a reinterpretation). Charge conservation would have to fail locally on short times; Minotti and Modanese tie this to quantum tunnelling/collapse [web: arXiv listing in research/2026-10-04-arxiv.md]. Maxwell would remain the S=0 sector.

Verdict: Never properly tested (testable, with proposed experiments; one sister-theory preliminary test, not independently replicated). Was it dismissed without testing? Partly: Bruhn's critique (below) is a mathematical dismissal; I found no experiment designed to test it by a critic.

Claim 2. Extended Maxwell predicts longitudinal vacuum waves (E along travel, B = 0), a force J S, scalar energy S^2/(2 mu0), and a power term (rho/eps0) S letting static charge act as a power source.

a. Mathematics. Consistent. The deep read verified (33) and (34) symbolically, and I verified the LES wave solution in outline: with B = 0 in vacuum, (36) reduces to the ordinary wave equation at c, with E parallel to k and flux -ES/mu0 [read: deep section 7]. The power term is a work/exchange term between charge and field in (33); the deep read notes it needs the S the charge itself produces and the paper gives no case, no number, no device [read: 2003 p.10]. The author himself says: "the author is not aware of any published scientific experiments with respect to this effect" [read: 2003 p.10]. I note a necessary condition the paper states in eq. (24)-(26): a vacuum LES wave with nonzero rho and E = 0 needs charge non-conservation. A wave of E and S alone (J = rho = 0) is a vacuum solution with no source condition, and is therefore the cleanest claim; whether the vacuum can carry such a wave is exactly the experimental question.

Bruhn's critique, stated fairly: with modified sources rho' = rho + eps0 dS/dt, J' = J - grad S / mu0, "(I) the modified sources do not conserve charge in general and (II) do so if and only if S satisfies the homogeneous wave equation. The result (I) is a strong argument against the physical validity" [web: https://www2.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/vV191005.html; Bruhn, mathematician, critic with a stake in showing the work wrong]. The algebra is right (it is eq. 24, the deep read confirms). The author's side: nonconservation is the intended source of S. The two sides use the same equation in opposite directions, so this is a disagreement about physics (does charge ever fail local conservation), not about algebra. The answer is experiment.

b. Experiment. No established experiment contradicts the S = 0 sector. The cited positives (Monstein-Wesley, Ignatiev-Leus) are weak; see claim 4. The static-charge power source would, if real, look like a perpetual-motion claim. I note that the theory never says how much, so it cannot be tested as stated.

c. Tested? The longitudinal wave: Monstein-Wesley (EPL 59:514, 2002) and Butterworth et al. (2013) replication of the pattern, with mechanism unidentified (section 3). The force J S: no direct test. The static-charge power term: none (author's own words).

d. If true. A new vacuum wave carrying energy with E along k; electric Poynting-like flux E S; energy extraction from static charge (would violate no accepted law only if the energy came from S; the source would need identification).

Verdicts (split): - Longitudinal wave and J S force: Never properly tested (only indirect, contested experiments). - Static charge as a power source: Not testable as stated (no magnitude, no device, no case calculated; the author concedes no experiment). - Energy density S^2/(2 mu0) and generalised theorems: Internally consistent as mathematics (no verdict beyond consistency).

Claim 3. The Maxwell-Lorentz (Grassmann) force between open-circuit stationary currents violates Newton's third law; adding a longitudinal Ampère force J B_l restores it; requires three vacuum waves (Phi at a >> c, LEM at c, TEM at c); rejects Lorenz condition; supports Rutherford's 4/3 resolution.

a. Mathematics. Mixed, and I take the strongest honest view of each part. - The first step is correct and instructive: the Grassmann kernel F_t(x,x') is not antisymmetric, so integrated forces between open-circuit current elements are not reciprocal; the kernel with the added J B_l term is antisymmetric (deep read, checked). This is a known fact [memory, high: Griffiths and others note that the Biot-Savart force between current elements is not reciprocal for non-closed currents; the author cites Griffiths 2013, Darrigol 2003 p.210]. - The hidden premise, as the deep reader found: that mechanical forces alone must obey N3 for open-circuit magnetostatics, because "there is no field momentum". But in an open-circuit stationary current d rho/dt != 0 so E grows linearly in time while B is static; eps0 E x B is nonzero and changes in time. Standard electrodynamics resolves the N3 "violation" this way [memory, high]. The paper asserts the premise ("always free of massless electromagnetic momentum", p.9) and the deep reader shows that within the author's own theory the field momentum eps0(B_l E + E x B_t) still changes at rate ∫ B_l J_t d^3x. So the author's own bookkeeping contradicts his stated premise. - b = c is not derived: it follows from requiring the force law to read rho E + J x B_t + J B (deep read 4.5). a >> c is claimed to follow from rejecting the Lorenz condition, but eq. 4.22 is the continuity equation in disguise and holds for any a (deep read 4.6, which I checked). So the finite-a, "a >> c" prediction is not selected by the equations; it is selected by taste (instantaneous Coulomb field). - 4/3: factor 2 in the self energy, see Correction 2. Mainstream resolutions are Poincaré stresses or the covariant definition of field energy-momentum [memory, high]. - Equivalence to Coulomb gauge: the deep read shows the author's "simple Maxwell" is exactly Maxwell in Coulomb gauge (3.11-3.14) and the "far-field inconsistency" depends on a self-made definition and on a double use of "longitudinal". Jefimenko and Coulomb-gauge fields are the same physical field [memory, high]. - Numeric slip in 4.23: eps0^2 mu0 printed 9.856e-29 vs computed 9.851e-29 (deep read). Trivial.

b. Experiment. The N3 point, if taken as a statement about mechanical forces only, is a bookkeeping dispute, not contradicted by experiment. The longitudinal Ampère force is the experimentally live part. The evidence is real and was argued over for decades: - Ampère's hairpin (1822, Ampère and de la Rive); Graneau (MIT, 1981 onwards) saw strong mercury jets when the hairpin was blocked; Saumont (Phys. Lett. A 165:307, 1992) and Johansson (Lund 1996) reported longitudinal forces [web: https://commons.princeton.edu/josephhenry/amperes-two-wire-experiment/ ; http://www.df.lth.se/~snorkelf/Longitudinal/node3.html (the Lund thesis pages)]. - On the other side: papers argue that the standard Biot-Savart-Grassmann-Lorentz law with the Maxwell stress tensor already gives the observed longitudinal forces in the hairpin, so no new force is needed [web: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262985413 title only; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376204052 "Explanation to the Ampère Hairpin Experiment" title only; K. McDonald's hairpin note http://kirkmcd.princeton.edu/examples/hairpin.pdf; I read search snippets only, not the papers]. I therefore cannot state that these explanations are correct; I record that they exist and that the author does not discuss them. - The AB-effect-as-force idea has been tested: Caprez, Barwick and Batelaan, PRL 99, 210401 (2007) looked for a time delay of electrons passing a macroscopic solenoid, at accuracy sufficient to reveal forces of the magnitude needed to explain the AB phase; they found none and concluded the AB effect does not arise from such forces [web: https://osti.gov/biblio/21024483 and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5619152]. The author calls the conclusion "premature" because no theoretical delay figure was computed and "we assume that the resolution ... was insufficient" [read: 2015 p.17]. That is an auxiliary assumption added after the result. His own theory predicts a force J B_l on the electron; B_l for a closed solenoid current is zero (deep read: B_l vanishes for closed stationary circuits) [check: 2.5 integrated by parts], so his theory would predict no AB force from a closed-loop solenoid anyway. I cannot resolve how he gets a force there; it is an unexamined tension. This is a point where the inventor's reading and his own equations seem to disagree; I flag it as unresolved. - Superluminal Coulomb field (a >> c): the de Sangro et al. data (EPJ C 75:137, 2015) were read by the authors as "compatible with an electric field rigidly carried by the beam" [web: https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2913], but published responses say the data do not show that: Gitman, Shabad and Shishmarev show the Feynman field of a moving charge is identical to the Liénard-Wiechert potentials; Shabad argues what was measured was the acceleration-dependent part of the Liénard-Wiechert field [web: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4108-7 ; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4343-y ; search snippets only]. The original authors replied ("Why the interpretation ... stands", ResearchGate title). So: contested, with a mainstream reading that needs no a >> c. The 2016 paper cites it as verification [read: Investigator, hrpub]; I do not accept that as verification. - Evanescent-wave tunnelling (Nimtz) also cited for superluminal near fields; that literature is disputed and I did not examine it [memory, medium].

c. Tested? The N3 / longitudinal-force part: tested in several independent labs with conflicting interpretations, no decisive neutral test. Specifically: the ambiguity is whether the standard law reproduces the observed longitudinal forces. A decisive test (identical conductor, measured force distribution vs. computed Lorentz plus stress for the same geometry) would settle it; I found none that both sides accept. a >> c: nothing positive that survives the mainstream reading.

d. If true. The Lorentz force law would acquire a longitudinal term; closed-circuit physics unchanged; Lorenz gauge would be an invalid condition; special relativity would be affected if a Phi-wave carries signals faster than c, as the author concedes ("Undoubtedly it is necessary to review standard relativity theory and standard quantum mechanics", 2015 p.21). I will not understate that cost.

Verdicts (split): - Grassmann non-reciprocity for open currents: Established as arithmetic (checked), but its physical meaning (violation of N3 vs. momentum in the field) is Plausible, untested for the author's side; mainstream bookkeeping explains it. - Longitudinal Ampère force as a new force: Never properly tested (contested experiments, rival explanations within Lorentz-plus-stress; no neutral decisive test). - a >> c and three-wave structure: Never properly tested, and the equations do not require it (4.22 holds for any a). - 4/3 resolution: Internally inconsistent at the energy factor (the paper's 4.33 vs 4.35), pending Rutherford's own work, which I did not read.

Claim 4. Experiments by Tesla, Ignatiev-Leus (about 1.12c to 1.2c), Monstein-Wesley (longitudinal polarisation), Tzontchev et al., exploding wires (Nasilowski, Graneau), Ampère's hairpin and AB are qualitatively consistent with scalar/longitudinal effects.

a. Mathematics. Not applicable beyond the theory.

b-c. The evidence, item by item.

Ignatiev and Leus (1999 chapter, experiments from 1992 in Krasnoyarsk). I read the primary text [read: research/files/wayback-raccoon-Art-p16.pdf]: a spherical radiator about 1 m across, wavelength 2.5 km, phase compared with a calibrated optical-fibre reference, separations within the 0.5 km cable, repeated in different terrain and seasons, always "as if the signal velocity was ce = 1.12c". The authors themselves say the effect "can be deduced theoretically within the framework of the conventional theory" and their model is a sphere of radial dipoles using ordinary retarded dipole fields (their eqs 2-4). Two cautions the author of the folder papers does not give: 1. The measurement is at R up to 0.5 km with lambda = 2.5 km, so kR is about 1.3 at most, which is the near/intermediate zone. For a single radial dipole the apparent phase velocity of the radial field is c(1+x^2)/x^2, x = kR [check, my derivation from the dipole fields (3): E_R ∝ (1 + i kR)e^{ikR}/R^3]. Numbers [check]: x = 0.63 gives 3.5c, x = 1.26 gives 1.63c, x = 2.51 gives 1.16c, x = 5.0 gives 1.04c. A phase velocity above c in the near zone is standard for this geometry [memory, high] and carries no signal. The 1.12c figure is the right size for such an effect, though I did not model their dodecahedral array, and the sphere's combination can differ. So "definitely a far field, not a near field" (2015 p.19) is not supported by the numbers in their own paper. 2. The author is selective: he accepts 1.12c as evidence of a real wave, then sets the 0.12c aside as "incorrect interpretation" and keeps the "longitudinal" and "far field" conclusions. A consistent reading would not pick the part that fits. Single-source status: this is one set of measurements in one report, never (as far as I found) independently repeated. I have not found a replication. That is not contradiction; it is silence. The primary text is a short conference-chapter in a book of "Pro and Contra" instantaneous action; error bars are not in the text I read.

Monstein and Wesley (EPL 59:514, 2002). A ball antenna; polarisation measured as longitudinal. Responses: Bray and Britton, Comment (EPL 2004), with Monstein-Wesley Reply (EPL 66:155); Rębilas (2008), proposing ground plasma currents [web via Investigator, titles only; I did not read them]. The one replication: Butterworth, Allison, Cavazos and Mullen, J. Sci. Exploration 27(1):13-23 (2013): their results "resemble MW's theoretical pattern more closely than did their own experiment ... not compatible with Rębilas' ... explanation. Thus we dispute MW's claim on theoretical grounds, and Rębilas' ground plasma currents on experimental grounds. We conclude that a yet-unidentified mechanism must be producing the observed results." They state their prior as "we are convinced that Maxwell's equations are valid and that longitudinal EM waves do not exist" [web: https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/477, abstract only]. This is the most important piece of independent experimental evidence in the file, and it cuts in an odd way: a sceptical replication found the effect and rejected the mainstream explanation offered for it, while also rejecting the claimed mechanism. Neither side tested the author's reading (LEM, not Phi). It is an anomaly to keep open.

Tzontchev, Chubykalo, Rivera-Juárez (Hadronic J. 23, 2000). Coulomb interaction at speed of about c. I did not read it; the paper's details are not given in 2003 (no apparatus) [read]. Neutral.

Exploding wires (Nasilowski, Graneau). Striations in wires, pressure "substantially greater than the pinch pressure", no numbers in the author's text [read: 2003 pp.9-10]. Graneau's claim is a decades-old minority position; the mainstream view is that thermal and magnetohydrodynamic instabilities explain striations [memory, medium; not checked on the web, so treat this as unverified].

Ampère hairpin and AB. See claim 3.

Tesla. Historical claims of longitudinal waves; the patents are cited, not experiments with data. No quantitative information in the folder papers.

d. If true. Several independent anomalies would be one phenomenon. For now they are a list of qualitative cases, each with a plausible conventional alternative that the author does not discuss.

Verdict: Never properly tested for the longitudinal wave (the best data, Monstein-Wesley, has one sceptical replication of the pattern and no accepted mechanism); Tested, not supported for the AB-as-force idea (Caprez et al.), noting the author's objection; Ignatiev-Leus: Never properly tested as superluminal evidence, with a conventional near-zone reading available [check]; Tesla and exploding wires: Not testable as stated.

Claim 5. Phi or LEM radiation underlies anomalous devices: Podkletnov's gravity impulse (>= 64c), Moray's radiant energy receiver, Correa and Chernetsky tubes, via a "Phi photoelectric effect" and macroscopic tunnelling as local violation of charge conservation.

a. Mathematics. None offered. No equation links tunnelling to Phi waves quantitatively; the Phi photoelectric effect has no rate, cross-section or threshold. The author writes "This theoretical prediction has not been researched and it has not been verified nor falsified" [read: 2015 p.20].

b-c. Evidence. - Podkletnov: replication attempts reported nulls. Woods et al. (2001) failed with a different disk; Hathaway et al. saw no weight change at the 0.001% level, with the authors of each noting differences from the original set-up [web: summary of search; sources: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222897740 and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305635303 "Null-Results of a Superconducting Gravity-Impulse-Generator" (search snippets only)]. Those are not clean tests (the original disk and cooling were not reproduced). Podkletnov's own claims: the "at least 64c" figure comes from his work with Modanese [read: 2015 refs 17-18]. I could not check the 64c measurement. Verdict stays: not replicated, not properly tested. - Moray: the support is Harvey Fletcher's affidavit, said to be signed and notarised in 1979 [read: 2015 ref 9]. The Investigator could not retrieve it (thmoray.org unreachable) [web]. The Investigator also saw a Google removal notice (2 results, legal request) on a query about Moray and Fletcher; the removed items are unknown and no inference should be drawn from this notice. The affidavit is a single document, from a man (Fletcher) who by the author's account was a physicist; a documented witness statement is evidence and I weigh it as such, but it is hearsay about a device whose critical components were never given to independent examination as far as I know [memory, medium: Moray's demonstrations were witnessed by many but the "detector tube" was never independently analysed; unverified]. Moray's device is a historical anomaly worth recording in full. Interested parties: Moray's family and supporters run thmoray.org. - Correa and Chernetsky: self-published/lab reports (Labofex Scientific Report Series, 1996; Plekhanov Institute 1989) reporting excess energy. I did not read them. Excess-energy claims from pulsed abnormal glow discharges require careful calorimetry; the author does not quote any input/output numbers [read]. No independent replication found.

c. Tested? Podkletnov: attempted replications, null (partial). Others: not tested independently as far as the folder and the Investigator found.

d. If true. Tunnelling would have to violate local charge conservation macroscopically; a continuous energy source from "natural Phi waves" would violate no law only if the source of the energy were identified; that is the missing piece. Gravity-electrodynamics connection claimed by the author would need a new coupling.

Verdicts: Podkletnov link: Tested, not supported (null replications with caveats) for the gravity impulse itself; the Phi-wave interpretation Not testable as stated. Moray/Correa/Chernetsky: Never properly tested (no neutral test of the devices on record). "Phi photoelectric effect": Not testable as stated (no magnitude).

Claim 6. The wave function psi is a real charge density with an attached velocity; Maxwell's equations follow from charge/mass conservation; a point is a Coulomb or gravity source only where psi satisfies the "self-potential" equations; electrostatic-mass and ZPF models are joined by rho_mass c^2 = rho Phi; charge has fractal dimension 3/2.

a. Mathematics. Algebra checks (3.28, units in Sec. 4) per the deep read. But it is largely definitions run backwards: Maxwell's equations follow because sources are defined as the wave operator on the potentials (deep read 4.5). The "derivation" of the Lorenz gauge needs constant |u|. The self-potential equation is a Klein-Gordon-type equation with tachyonic sign (deep read, [check]); the reader finds no function satisfying both self-potential conditions on an open region, so the energy identity would hold only at points. The "fractal dimension 3/2" is the exponent of metres in an arbitrarily chosen unit system (deep read; a cgs statcoulomb has the same exponent for a different reason) [memory, high]. No ZPF quantity enters any equation.

b. Experiment. Not confronted. No number, no data.

c. Tested? No.

d. If true. Quantum mechanics would be reinterpreted as classical charge-density physics; this clashes with the established complex wave function and Born rule results, but the paper makes no prediction that would let this be assessed. The paper's own admission of an unmotivated constant ("it is not clear why rho-bar is defined a constant") is honest.

Verdict: Not testable as stated (and internally loose: definitions presented as derivations; the tachyonic-sign equation is not discussed).

3. How the claims were received (the Investigator's findings, kept whatever the verdict)

• Publication path [web, Investigator]: arXiv 1999 and 2003; Hadronic Journal (IBR, Palm Harbor; R.M. Santilli's institute [memory, high]) 2001; Rinton Press chapter 2004; viXra 2015; HRPUB (open-access, author-pays) 2016; ResearchGate 2018; Prague lecture 2023 (YouTube, SEM2023, 48.6 min; I did not watch it). No arXiv submissions after 2003 were found. Whether arXiv declined later work is unknown. The Hadronic Journal and HRPUB are low-bar venues for peer review in the mainstream view; I note that is a characterization and not a finding about these specific papers.
• Citation trail [web, Investigator]: 99 citations for the 2001 paper (Google Scholar). Citation is influence, not agreement. Works that build on the same S field, in mainstream-indexed journals: Arbab and Satti (Progress in Physics 2009); Arbab (EPL 2011; MPLB 2017; Optik 2017); Hively and Giakos (2012), Hively and Loebl (Physics Essays 2019), Reed and Hively (Symmetry 12:2110, 2020); Modanese, and Minotti and Modanese (EPJ C 83:1086, 2023; J. Phys. Commun. 8:055003, 2024; both cite van Vlaenderen and Waser 2001 [read: reference lists]); Simulik (arXiv:1606.01738); Tomilin and Panchelyuga (Metaphysics, RUDN, 2025). This is real: the idea has outlived its originator's outlet and is being developed in EPJ C. The contrarian reading is that "relax the Lorenz condition and let S be dynamical, sourced by charge non-conservation" is a live research programme, not a closed error. The sceptical reading is equally on record: Butterworth's team and Bruhn did not accept the physical interpretation, and Minotti and Modanese stress that S needs non-conserved currents, which ordinary matter does not supply [web].
• Independent derivation point. Reed and Hively note that with long-time charge conservation C obeys a source-free wave equation and place the source in short-time charge non-conservation [web: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/12/12/2110]. That matches the deep read's finding for the 2003 paper and the author's own 2001 statement: "A single point charge cannot be a source for the scalar field, because the scalar field derived from the Liénard-Wiechert potentials is zero" [read: research/files/wayback-raccoon-scalarfield2.pdf]. All parties agree on the condition. This means the claim and its critics agree on the mathematics and disagree about whether nature ever supplies the source.
• How the author was rejected. The documented dissent is Bruhn's two web pages (TU Darmstadt), a one-man exchange where the author's reply was archived in 2006. I found no referee reports, no editorial refusal, no funding refusal. The author's own site (2002) says Tesla waves and overunity devices "have been kept a secret"; that is an assertion by him, without a source [read]. I could not test the suppression story either way; there is no record to evaluate it. Notably, the criticism that exists engages the mathematics and the author's replies engage back, so this is not a case of dismissal without any argument. It is a case of a thin record: one critic.
• Priority dispute (Monstein-Wesley): see Correction 4. Unsettled; dispute the same equation can be derived without S.
• Ethergy B.V. (KvK 59508701, active, Amsterdam head office; the author's 2016-2018 papers say Alkmaar) [web: https://opencorporates.com/companies/nl/59508701, Investigator]. No patents or products found (Google Patents inventor "vlaenderen"; Espacenet not reached). The absence is an anomaly to analyse, not a gap. Competing explanations: (1) a one-person research vehicle with no device stage reached, which fits the papers' language ("Theoretical research"); (2) trade secrecy, which the evidence neither supports nor excludes; (3) the 2023 lecture shows interest in constructing converters but no device was shown in anything I could read. What would decide: KvK extract with activity code and annual accounts, Espacenet applicant "Ethergy", and the lecture transcript. I did not pursue these.
• Search removal notice. Not interpreted. LumenDatabase should be checked before drawing anything from it.

4. Same rigour for the inventor: problems I found

1. S is postulated physical, then claimed confirmed by experiments that do not distinguish it from conventional explanations; the theory contains a free choice (a, b) that the equations do not fix.
2. Selective reading of data (Ignatiev-Leus: accept 1.12c as signal, reject the 0.12c, keep far-field and longitudinal conclusions; Monstein-Wesley: reinterpret as LEM, contradicting the authors).
3. Claim 5 is a chain of "we assume" with no number anywhere: no frequency, power, efficiency or energy budget for any of Moray, Correa or Podkletnov.
4. The N3 argument assumes no field momentum, and his own equations contain field momentum that varies in time.
5. The 4/3 claim has an unexplained factor 2.
6. The AB null result is dismissed by supposing insufficient resolution, with no calculation, and his own B_l vanishes for a closed solenoid current.
7. Text slips (equation numbering, a printed constant in the fourth digit, 1999 typos) are minor.

5. Strongest honest case for the claims

• The mathematics is clean, and the author states plainly that it differs from Maxwell only where charge is not conserved. That is a precise, falsifiable statement and not a wild one; peer-reviewed groups (Minotti and Modanese in EPJ C; Hively; Arbab) now pursue the same structure and propose bench tests.
• The Grassmann non-reciprocity is real arithmetic, and the longitudinal-force question had real experimental work (Graneau, Saumont, Johansson, Phipps on Marinov) that has never been closed by a decisive neutral experiment.
• Monstein-Wesley was replicated in pattern by sceptics who could not explain it. That is the cleanest anomaly in the file.
• Some items of "established physics" are not as settled as presented: the Coulomb/Lorenz equivalence is settled for conserved sources; nothing in the experiments rules out small charge non-conservation on short scales.

6. What would settle things

1. Claim 1-2: Minotti-Modanese's proposed gauge-wave circuit, or Hively-Loebl's copper test, repeated by an independent lab with a stated null hypothesis. Also a calorimetric null/positive for the static charge power term at a stated magnitude.
2. Claim 3: identical-geometry force measurement on a hairpin with a full Lorentz-plus-Maxwell-stress computation for comparison; one open-circuit stationary current N3 test with field momentum measured.
3. Claim 4: re-run Ignatiev-Leus at several kR (near to far, 0.1 to 10 wavelengths) with the dipole-field prediction computed first.
4. Claim 5: a calorimetric test of a Correa-type tube with input/output logged; independent Podkletnov-protocol replication with the superconducting disk.
5. Claim 6: nothing proposed; the author would need a numerical prediction.

Summary table

Sources not read (said plainly)

Monstein-Wesley (EPL 2002), Bray-Britton comment, Rębilas 2008, Hively-Loebl 2019 (paywalled), the Fletcher affidavit, Rutherford's 4/3 papers, Podkletnov-Modanese, Correa and Chernetsky reports, the SEM2023 lecture, Saumont 1992, and the replies to de Sangro et al. were not read; where I cite them I cite abstracts, titles or search snippets and say so. Web checks used: de Sangro replies, Caprez et al., Podkletnov replications, Ampère hairpin literature (4 searches).