Evans on his blog on 2008/08/04:
On the scientific side, eq. (9.38) is a resonance equation of the Euler Bernoulli type, in the variable R. Resonance occurs in the variable R, QED. As clearly mentioned in paper 63, the driving term is the right hand side of eq. (9.38), which is a differential equation in R, not r. Paper 63 is one of the most widely read of the papers on _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) and has been accepted now for about two years. It is significant that out of tens of thousands of able readers, only Bruhn et al. object, and furthermore, their objections have been rebutted in detail as mentioned, in papers 89 to 92. These rebuttals have been internationally accepted adn are ignored by Bruhn et al. So I have carried to to the nth degree, with immense patience, the process of dialogue. Now I must draw a line and refuse to dialogue further. I would greatly appreciate not being sent any further mails from Bruhn or Hehl through a third party whom they have found off my e mail listing.

Evans on his blog on 2008/08/04:
Mirespresentation of Paper 63 by Bruhn. Hehl et al.
It has come to my attention that malicious misrepresentation of paper 63 adn ECE theory is still going on behind the scenes. The misrepresentation consists of falsely asserting that the resonance solutions are those of eq. (9.35) of the paper, written up in GCUFT4. The resonance solutions are those of eq. (9.38) of the paper, as has been clear to the international readership of _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) for about two years. In order to obtain resonance solutions, a complex Euler transform, eq. (9.37), has to be used. The initial misrepresentation by Bruhn et al. has been refuted in detail papers 89 onwards to paper 92, but these refutations are of course not mentioned by the cyberstalkers, who approach anyone they can find on my working group. So I have further reduced the visibility of the working group. This incident adds further incriminating evidence, and the matter will be referred to the police by our barrister, who has already warned Bruhn. The South Wales police have asked me for further details.

Quite right: The complex Euler transforms (9.14) and (9.37) ''generate'' oscillatory solutions of the transformed homogeneous differential equations while the original homogeneous differential equations have no oscillatory solutions. Therefore the use of the complex transformations eqs. (9.14) and (9.37) is inadmissible for questions of resonance.

Our objections on ECE Resonance papers