2026-10-04 TU Darmstadt (Gerhard W. Bruhn's pages)

URLs [web]: - https://www2.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/vV191005.html : "On Koen van Vlaenderen's Seventh Field Component Again" (the filename suggests 19 Oct 2005; no date shown in the text) - https://www2.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/Refutation-raccoon.html : "A Remark on van Vlaenderen's Seventh Field Component" (first review) Saved: research/files/TU-Darmstadt-Bruhn-vV191005.html, research/files/TU-Darmstadt-Bruhn-Refutation-raccoon.html

Critique (Bruhn's characterization; Bruhn was a mathematician at TU Darmstadt and wrote web critiques of several alternative-energy theories [memory, medium]): - First review: the "seventh field component" "is not appropriate for generating new solutions E, B of the Maxwell equations. It is completely superfluous", and the author's basic equations (1)-(3) "contradict his equations (4), (5), (6) and (9) in general. Hence Van Vlaenderen's derived 'Tesla'-results are not correct." - Second review: the author's equations amount to replacing the sources with ρ' = ρ + ε0 ∂S/∂t and J' = J - (1/μ0)∇S. Then ∂ρ'/∂t + ∇·J' = (1/μ0)((1/c²)∂²S/∂t² - ∇²S), so (I) the modified sources do not conserve charge in general, and (II) they do so "if and only if" S satisfies the homogeneous wave equation. "The result (I) is a strong argument against the physical validity of van Vlaenderen's modification." Bruhn adds that he cannot follow the author's view that the usual gauge theory is circular. - Author's answer: see wayback note (refutation-Bruhn-Remark.html, captured 2006).

Bearing

Evidence against (stated fairly, priority 2 counterpart). Bruhn's result (II) is the same relation as the 2003 paper's eq. (24), which the deep reader also identified: with conserved charge, S is a source-free wave. The two sides read it differently: Bruhn as a defect, the author as the condition under which S is sourced (charge non-conservation, tunnelling). Minotti-Modanese and Reed-Hively build on the same structure. Bears on claims 1-2.