Archive for November, 2012

Summary of UFT232 in prep (multiple refutations of EGR)

November 29, 2012

Before proceeding to write this up with co author Horst Eckardt this is a short summary. The Euler Lagrange equation of motion for the true precessing conical section was derived, and shown to have a completely different structure from Einsteinian general relativity (EGR). The analytical approximation used by Marion and Thornton (MT) was shown by computer to produce a poorly behaved mathematical function with poles and negative r, a completely incorrect result. The term left after a meaningless omission of terms by MT is also poorly behaved, and is not a solution of the equation for which it is claimed to be a solution. The omitted term was shown to produce precession. MT claim that it does not. The further approximations by MT were shown to be incorrect. The EGR theory does not produce a precessing ellipse. It was shown by computer that other types of perturbation of the Newtonian orbit produce the illusion of a precessing ellipse for the extremely tiny perihelion precession observed in the solar system. Direct numerical integration of the EGR Lagrange equation of motions was shown to result in a poorly behaved function, that is critically and unphysically dependent on initial conditions. This function is not a precessing ellipse as claimed by EGR. The Wronskian method was used to integrate the EGR equation of motion and it does not produce a precessing ellipse. If EGR theory is identified with a true precessing ellipse, an absurd result is obtained, a quadratic that restricts the value of r to two points, a completely and obviously unphysical result. The graph of theta against r produced by this process contains a meaningless singularity. Finally a self consistent analysis of light deflection due to gravitation is given using a precessing hyperbola. All orbits can be described by precessing conical sections, including those of whirlpool galaxies. EGR fails qualitatively to describe whirlpool galaxies. In the solar system there are large discrepancies between EGR and experimental data. It is not a precise theory, or even a valid theory, because it is incorrect mathematically in many ways.

“Criticims of the Einstein Field Equation” and Leaflet

November 29, 2012

Recently there has been a sharp increase in interest in this book and its leaflet. It is:

M .W. Evans, S. J. Crothers, H. Eckardt and K. Pendergast, “Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation” (Cambridge International Science Publishing,, CISP, 2011).

Its details are on the home page of and on the CISP site. Currently it i in large format hardback, but could be produced in softback and reprinted in India. Available from all good bookshops. Its preprint is on, and attracts a lot of interest monitored every day in my daily report on this blog (CEFE and CEFEL). There is also considerable interest in the leaflet of

M. W. Evans, Journal of Foundations of Physics and Chemistry (CISP six issues a year from June 2011, details on the CISP site and home page of

Daily Report 28/11/12

November 29, 2012

There were 3370 hits from 805 distinct visits during the day, 48.5% spiders from baidu, google, MSN, choopa, yandex and sistrix. CEFE89, CEFEL66, FPL25, LMEP15. Argentine Institute for Radioastronomy Buenos Aires F3(Sp); University of Ghent UFT199; Queen’s University Canada UFT114; Swiss Federal Institute (ETH) Zurich UFT33; University of Lausanne UFT158; Federico Santa Maria Technical University Chile UFT170(Sp); National University of Colombia UFT170(Sp); Susan Wittig Albert downloaded all papers and essays (Texan author and educator); German Grammar Group Free University of Berlin general; Innovation in Surface Spectroscopy and Microscopy extensive; California Institute of Technology (Caltech) UFT117; Cornell University UFT215; Graduate Center City University of New York UFT4; Physics and Astronomy Georgia State University UFT57; Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis UFT86; Kennesaw State University Georgia Equation flowcharts; Centre for Computing Karlsruhe Technical University (on edu) UFT142; Louisiana State University UFT102; University of Alabama UFT25; Center for Solids and Organic Polymers University of California Santa Barbara UFT162; Hospital of Santa Creu in Sant Pau Spain Felker4(Sp); University of Granada UFT140; Science University of Valencia UFT122; University of Poitiers general; Trinity College Dublin Essay48; University College Dublin UFT42, Proof2; Raman Research Institute India Essay32; Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN) Naples UFT88; INFN Rome 1 UFT109; Norwegian University of Science UFT29; Pakistan Education and Research Network (PERN) UFT169; Institute of Physics Belgrade Serbia CV and Publications; Joint Institutes for Nuclear Research Dubna Russian Federation UFT41; Department of Materials Imperial College London general; Department of Mathematics Oxford University UFT110, National Physical Laboratory Physica Scripta paper. Very intense interest all sectors, updated usage file attached.

Detailed Analysis of Citations for My Top 202 Publications

November 28, 2012

The top 202 articles and books out of about a thousand have generated 6180 citations, so 6000 was indeed a very conservative estimate. The true total is probably around 7,000. To get in to the top 1% of physicists in the world one has to have 2021 citations (according to wikipedia). So I am in the top 0.1%, or top 0.05% or something of that order. I found that the only way to give an accurate measure of citations was to go through Google Scholar manually. The h and g indices are arbitrary and give only the vaguest idea. The citation pattern for the top 202 publications is as follows, these include most but not all citations of books in my World Scientific series. So the grand total of citations approaches seven thousand or so. Since this is a life work I thought I would take some time to find the pattern. As mentioned in earlier postings on this blog the output shows an immensely long tail, almost unique in science history. I have gone through Google Scholar manually to find these data up to the point where the citation level falls to five (which is still well above average). The average is below one, i. e. one paper is cited on average in science less than one time. Google scholar continues to record citations of my work for a few hundred pages more at level five or below down to one. Anyone can see the source data on Google Scholar. In my case one needs to use Myron Evans and M. W. Evans. There are several people called M. W. Evans, so obviously I have filtered out my own publications from those of others called M. W. Evans.

649, 334, 328, 231, 207, 220, 215, 155, 125, 198, 140, 61, 82, 62,52, 52, 55, 59, 48, 49, 42, 41, 43, 46,104, 34, 38, 33, 33, 33, 37, 35, 33, 32,31, 28, 30, 30, 30, 28, 30, 28,30, 31, 33, 28,25, 28, 25, 23, 23, 21, 25, 23, 22, 22, 21, 20, 19, 20, 17, 19, 19, 24, 24, 21, 20, 20, 22, 21, 19, 20, 16, 16, 17, 15, 14, 14, 14, 13, 16, 14, 16, 17, 19, 16, 17, 16, 17,16, 15, 16, 14, 14, 16, 15, 14, 14, 14, 15, 14, 13, 14, 13, 13, 12, 14, 14, 14, 13, 12, 12, 14, 11, 13, 13, 13,12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12,12, 11, 11, 12, 12, 12, 11, 11, 12, 11, 11, 11, 10, 11, 10, 9, 10, 10, 10, 10, 9, 10, 10, 10, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 8, 9, 9, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 8, 7, 7,7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6 ,6, 6 , 5, …………

The h cut is at number 33 and the g cut at number 68. The h factor is the number n of papers each with n or more citations. The g factor is the total number m of papers that has generated at least m squared citations. It is seen that the h and g factors are essentially arbitrary, yet are used for promotion, funding and prizes. A system of physics is always lamentably subjective. In my case I have one of the longest sustained output of well cited publications in the entire history of science, all subjects, never working on fashionable ideas, always working to maximum originality, with only a few dedicated co authors. The big groups turn out small variations on a theme in fashionable areas that will attract money. To them it is all about money, to me it is all about new ideas. However I have raised a lot of money in my time, notably for Aberystwyth. It just wasted all my efforts, so I have continued for many years on my own, producing the above pattern. That means that the system is sometimes so subjective as to be a complete failure. It becomes very obvious that the citation system is deeply flawed as a measure of a creative mind, and that my own scientometric system (attached example) is much better because it is a common sense measure of how many people at the best institutions worldwide are actually READING the work. Another major weakness of the citation system is that after a while, things tend to be cited without even being read. That is how science turns into dogma. In fact it happens very easily. I will continue with the level 5 and below citations in future work. This is a kind of short paper on scientometrics, using data gathered over forty years for one scientist. Nothing will substitute however for studying the original papers. They are all on, and in fact are all being studied. This is immensely pleasing if I can be forgiven for a subjective comment.


Journal Contemporary Materials

November 28, 2012

Many thanks, all the LENR papers are already in Google Scholar, and the LENR work dominates the blog feedback. This is the fourth or fifth time that the Serbian Academy of Sciences has invited the publication of a paper on ECE theory, in two or three different journals. This means that LENR has been recognized by the Serbian Academy.

In a message dated 28/11/2012 12:54:35 GMT Standard Time, writes:

Excellent and congratulations to the three of you. Very encouraging development if A LITTLE overdue!!

Best, Gareth

Accurate Manual Calculation of my h and g index. h = 33 g = 68

November 28, 2012

The final result is h = 33, g = 68. This is enough for considerable funding. I added up the citations for my top eighty publications, the total is 4910. For my total of a thousand publications or so it would be about 6,000 in round figures, at a very conservative estimate. The cut for the top 1% of physicists is 2073 citations, which places me in the top 0.1% or so in round figures. A full professorship is awarded for an h index of about 18. In comparison, a survey of h and g indices was carried out recently by M. Schreiber, “An Empirical Investigation of the the g Index for 26 Physicists compared with the h index…..” for 26 physicists at Chemnitz Technical University. This article is available on the net in full. The results were on average h = 14.9 and g = 24.0. These ranged from assistant to full professor. My h index and g index are much higher than most Fellows of the Royal Society. The g index is much more representative in my case because of an immensely long tail of well above average cited publications. The h cut occurs at publication number 33 out of a thousand publications. The g cut occurs at publication number 68 out of a thousand. The use of h and g is completely standard for all scientists. All ECE papers and most of my other papers and books are on google scholar. This is all very pleasing, but pales in comparison with the massive impact of ECE as measured by my unique database. The latter is far more significant than the h and g indices. On an intellectual level one cannot reduce forty years of work to numbers. The work is measured by the huge international interest in it. So these figures may help the reader to understand why I was appointed to the Civil List in 2005, with further national honours in 2008 (my coat of arms).

Spanish Translation of Lar Felker, “The Evans Equations of Unified Field …

November 28, 2012

Nice to hear from Lar Felker. I could post this list of typo’s on if you like, and Alex Hill could also incorporate them.

In a message dated 27/11/2012 18:18:01 GMT Standard Time, writes:

If anyone is going to update, I have a list of typos.


On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:21 PM, <EMyrone> wrote:

This is the translation by Alex Hill, and is hugely popular on in the Spanish speaking world. It is read regularly by all the best universities in Spain and Central and South America and by the Spanish Parliament in Madrid (Xunta). Also by the Italian Prime Ministerial Office in Rome, and of course all over the world as the attached overview shows. The book is marked “F1, F2, ……” The original is available in book format from Abramis Acadmic in Suffolk and has also been reposted on in English. It is

Laurence Felker, “The Evans Equations of Unified Field Theory” (Abramis Academic, Suffolk, 2007).

Laurence Felker owns the copyright of the English edition and is a well known author and lecturer who resides in Nevada. He is also a well known engineer. The Spanish translation by Alex Hill is arranged in chapters, and currently chapter three is the most read item on, having been read 827 times this month so far. So it can be seen that all the chapters of the book put together generate many thousands of readings per month – a best seller if it were a book. This means of course that the ECE theory has been accepted many times over by entire professions. I can’t think of a more accepted new theory of physics because the standard model is entirely obsolete, so is string theory. So Abramis may like to publish the Spanish version in cooperation with CISP. The open source is of one of the world’s most popular advanced science publishers at present, but nothing beats a good, well produced, book. Since Lar Felker has left physics for other pursuits, I recommend that Kerry Pendergast make a revised and updated edition of this book, with illustrations by Robert Cheshire. The popularity indicates that royalties should come in for all authors concerned, even in the age of open source publishing.

Observation of the Alex Hill Devices by Alex Labounsky

November 28, 2012

Nice to hear from Alex Labounsky, retired Chief Engineer of The Boeing Company, who observed the Alex Hill devices in 2005. There is now great commercial demand for these devices, which work on energy from spacetime. ECE gives a qualitative understanding of this phenomenon. The Alex Hill devices were also observed by the U. S. Navy in Florida on more than one occasion. John Shelburne led the team of Navy observers, and asked me to explain the results. That produced spin connection resonance theory, now greatly developed by Eckardt, Lindstrom, Amador and myself. Simon Clifford, formerly of the British Ministry of Defence and Malvern instruments, has also observed the devices, reporting that they work perfectly ( and It is important to note that they are now in full commercial production. LENR plants are also in commercial production. Those that do not keep up with the new industrial revolution will be left behind. When the horseless carriage first appeared, it is a little known fact that the horse was hidden in the boot.

In a message dated 27/11/2012 20:41:20 GMT Standard Timewrites:

The following is in support of this Subject:
I flew down to Mexico City in 2005 to witness a lab demonstration of the Hortung device at the University there. I, along with many other visitors, lodged at the Palacio Hotel that had a cafe for guests. For breakfast, I was served Eggs Benedictine (Eggs Benedict). As was explained, it was a monolythic integrated circuit chip, dubbed the “power multiplier chip.” It was fed by a small AA-battery. It, in turn, powered numerous electric loads. To wit: many electric light bulbs and small electric fans connected in parellel, a 300+ Watt sodium street lamp bulb, a Siemens electric motor. These loads were connected to the output of the Hortung chip with thin magnet wires. When I questioned Alex about how such tiny, thin wires could support these many loads, he said that they run cold to the touch with a new kind of cold electricity. There was a web site ( that shows photos of these experimental demos. This chip was a monolythic integrated circuit fabrication of one of Nicola Tesla’s patented inventions. What struck me about the Hortung was that it could power, for example, an electric automobile for pollution-free transportation without the need for fossil fuels, such as gasoline. Why doesn’t the DOE jump at the opportunity to harness this clean source of energy? It is because of the billions and billions sunk into the petroleum industry which would suffer tremendously from such dislocational shocks. The total amalgamated investment capital in the petroleum industry is so staggeringly gigantic as it just cannot be so easily wiped off the books. But Nicola Tesla is the man at the center of this brewing and raging malstrom. One thing is sure: Our elected officials in government need to wake up!

— On Thu, 11/22/12, <> wrote:

Date: Thursday, November 22, 2012, 3:03 PM

Devices based on energy from spacetime are now being marketed commercially in great numbers, and there is great demand for them. An example is LENR. Energy from spacetime is not perpetual motion, it is not energy from nothing. The easiest way to see this is that in the original Einsteinian general relativity, the lagrangian is based on the infinitesimal line element. This is very well known. Any person who mindlessly insists that these devices are perpetual motion should be subjected to the most severe criticism because they know nothing about basic physics. In fact they should be ridiculed as luddites.

Sharp Increase in Interest in CEFE

November 28, 2012

There was a sharp increase in interest yesterday in “Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation” (CEFE) by M .W. Evans, S. J. Crothers, H. Eckardt and K. Pendergast (, and its leaflet. The details of this book are available on the home page of along with other books and the journal. This means complete rejection of Einsteinian general relativity among the great majority of scientists worldwide. It also shows that journals that publish EGR are obsolete. The ECE websites have a far larger circulation.

Correlation between h and g Factors and Funding

November 28, 2012

In the contemporary system it seems that funding is correlated directly with the h and g factor of an individual and group. This is vey primitive, but there it is. If they want to compete that way I can compete that way, and so can AIAS. So by this measure AIAS should be well funded in recognition of its world famous work. In order even to apply for funding, I must be a member of a University in Wales or further afield in Britain. These days adjunct full professors are encouraged to work from home, in order to save on overheads. This is why I am working out my h and g indices with great care. I have produced so much work that if an assessor began to read at paper one of the Omnia Opera, he would still be reading after an estimated eighteen months. There is no university in Wales for Welsh speakers at present, and no tertiary outlet for the excellent Welsh medium secondary schools that have led a language revival. AIAS put produces anything that the so called UW (Trinity St David or Spike Milligan Courses for Sale University) can produce in physics. I am not even sure what it is called any more, and that trend of trying to destroy the federal structure of the UW must be reversed immediately.