2026-10-04 Journal of Scientific Exploration (and IOP / Monstein-Wesley trail)

URLs [web]: - https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/477 (Chrome did not render it; abstract fetched by script) - IOPscience listing for C. Monstein and J.P. Wesley, "Observation of scalar longitudinal electrodynamic waves", Europhysics Letters 59(4):514-520 (15 August 2002), DOI 10.1209/epl/i2002-00136-9. The PDF was refused to a script (HTML returned), so no file was saved.

Butterworth, E.J., Allison, C.B., Cavazos, D. and Mullen, F.M. (2013), "Longitudinal Electromagnetic Waves? The Monstein-Wesley Experiment Reconstructed", J. Sci. Exploration 27(1):13-23. Abstract [web]: - They built "a duplicate of MW's apparatus and ran their experiments along with some additional ones", noting "that no one had actually repeated MW's experiments". - They aimed to decide between MW's model and "a critical article published by Rębilas proposing ground plasma currents as the true cause". - "Our experimental results actually resemble MW's theoretical pattern more closely than did their own experiment... However, our experimental results were not compatible with Rębilas' (very plausible) theoretical 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." - Stated prior: "we are convinced that Maxwell's equations are valid and that longitudinal EM waves do not exist".

Critical literature on Monstein-Wesley (titles from search snippets; not read): J.R. Bray and M.C. Britton, Comment, EPL (2004); Monstein and Wesley, "Remarks to the Comment by J. R. Bray and M. C. Britton...", EPL 66(1):155-156 (2004); K. Rębilas, "On the origin of 'longitudinal electrodynamic waves'", EPL (2008) [journal per ResearchGate snippet; volume not checked].

Bearing

Priority 2. The one replication found of an experiment the author cites as support (claim 4). Butterworth et al. reproduced the radiation pattern (closer to MW's theory than MW's own data). They rejected MW's theory on theoretical grounds and the main mainstream alternative (Rębilas's ground currents) on experimental grounds, and left the mechanism open. The author's reading (LEM waves rather than Phi waves) was not tested by either side. This is a natural target for the Science Contrarian and the Physicist: the Comment, the Reply, Rębilas 2008 and Butterworth 2013 together are the record of how the claim was handled.