<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Hello Andrew,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> Thank you for your comments on the unexplained issues of circulating charged photon models of the electron that I mentioned.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">1) it’s hard for me to get behind your proposal of an electron and a positron in pair production being connected by a wormhole. I think a more realistic connection between the electron and the positron in pair production is that they are quantum-mechanically entangled because they are produced at the same time from a single photon in the presence of a charged nucleus. I wonder if any experiments have been done to test such quantum entanglement of the electron and positron pair in pair production.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">2) I think you are partly right about the stability of a single electron (or a spin-1/2 charged-photon electron model). A spin-1/2 electron can’t decay into a single spin-1 photon without violating conservation of angular momentum and conservation of electric charge, so an electron can’t self-annihilate. Both conservation of charge and conservation of angular momentum support the continued existence of a single electron composed of a circulating negatively-charged spin-1/2 photon. But here’s a proposal about e-p annihilation. If the electron is a curled-up negatively charged spin-1/2 photon, it may occasionally or frequently be unwinding into the virtual neutral but negative-tending spin-1/2 photon from which it evolved along with a second virtual neutral but positive-tending spin-1/2 photon (both evolved together from a spin-1, greater than 1.022 MeV photon in e-p pair production.) In the proximity of a positron which is also regularly unwinding into a virtual neutral but positive-tending spin-1/2 photon, these two virtual uncharged (but charge-tending) spin-1/2 photons can combine to form a real but short-lived uncharged spin-0 entity or spin-1 entity, which can then decay into two or three spin-1 uncharged photons in e-p annihilation without violating either conservation of angular momentum or conservation of charge. When a spin-1/2 charge-tending photon is completely uncurled it is uncharged, but when it is curled-up into a double-loop it is a fully-charged electron or positron. An electron gains its negative charge in this curling-up process, when a second spin-1/2 photon of opposite charge-tendency is also curling up to form a positron (in e-p pair production), and the electron loses its negative charge when it is uncurling along with a positively-charged curled-up spin-1/2 photon (which is a positron). </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> Richard</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 20, 2016, at 7:50 PM, Andrew Meulenberg <<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" class="">mules333@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div class="">Dear Richard,<br class=""><br class=""></div>You made a comment:<br class=""><br class=""><div style="margin-left:40px" class="">"There are (at least) two unexplained issues with a circulating-photon hypothesis for modeling a resting electron:"<br class=""></div><br class=""></div>These are fundamental questions. I have answers that no one in this, or another, group have ever addressed, or even commented on:<br class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><ol class=""><li class="">The reason that an electron can hold together in the face of its apparent self-repulsion is the fact that it is created with a positron and the two are connected in 4 space as well as in 3-space. The falaco soliton is the starting model where there is a stable underwater, as well as a surface connection, between two vortices. A wormhole thru time is the stabilizing element and source of elementary-mass energy for the electron.</li><li class="">The reason that the moving electron does not radiate away its energy is that, alone, it cannot form a photon. The photon needs an ang mom of hbar and the electron has only hbar/2. Even Hawkings missed this point when he talks of completely evaporating black holes.<br class=""></li></ol>Are these answers too far out, too simplistic, or too uncontestable? For a group interested in light and the photonic electron, at least the 2nd point should be addressed here.<br class=""></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_extra">Andrew<br class="">_____________________________________________<br class=""></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Richard Gauthier <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> Thank you for your comments. I think that if it is recognized that a photon has an inertial mass M= hv/c^2, then it is a short step that in double-looping or single-looping resting electron models composed of a circulating photon of energy Eo = hv =0.511 MeV=mc^2 and having a circulating momentum p=0.511 MeV/c = mc (where m is the electron’s invariant mass Eo/c^2), the circulating photon will also have a inertial mass M=hv/c^2 = p/c = 0.511MeV/c^2 = m, the invariant mass of the electron. For a double-looping photon model of a resting electron, I show a separate short derivation of the resting electron’s inertial mass M=m at <a href="https://www.academia.edu/23184598/Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia_and_Relativistic_Energy_Momentum_Equation_in_the_Spin-_Charged_Photon_Electron_Model" target="_blank" class="">https://www.academia.edu/23184598/Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia_and_Relativistic_Energy_Momentum_Equation_in_the_Spin-_Charged_Photon_Electron_Model</a> . The resting electron’s inertial mass M=m originates from the internally circulating photon’s momentum p=mc=Eo/c=0.511MeV/c. And even if it is not recognized that a linearly-moving photon has inertial mass hv/c^2, the derivation of M=m in the above-linked article still stands for circulating-photon models of a resting electron, since this derivation for the electron’s inertial mass in a circulating-photon model does not assume that the circulating photon composing the electron itself has inertial mass M=m. This inertial mass of the circulating photon (and therefore the inertial mass of the electron modeled by the circulating photon) is what is derived in the calculation of M=m for the circulating-photon electron model.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> As for your comment about the principle of equivalence in relation to photons, I will leave that to experts on general relativity theory. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> You say that the calculations of the inertial mass M=hv/c^2 of a photon, though good, don’t explain the origin of inertia in physics. But it is a big step that these calculations of a photon’s inertial mass during reflection help explain the origin of the electron’s inertial mass, as I mentioned above with circulating photon models. I hope that John W, Martin, Chip, Vivian, John M and any others with circulating photon models of the electron will agree. Of course, circulating photon models in their several varieties are still only hypotheses. There are (at least) two unexplained issues with a circulating-photon hypothesis for modeling a resting electron: 1) the source of the large apparent force 0.414 N required to curve a photon with momentum mc into a double-looping circle of radius Ro=hbar/2mc (and a slightly smaller force required for such a photon moving in a single-looping circle of radius R1=hbar/mc) and 2) with a centripetal acceleration of 4.66 x 10^29 m/s^2 in the double-looping charged-photon model (see the above link for these two calculations), how to explain why the circulating electric charge doesn’t radiate away the charged photon's energy 0.511MeV almost instantaneously, if classical radiation laws from an accelerating electric charge apply (which apparently they don’t). Perhaps charge-conservation forbids this. This, by the way, is also a problem for your circling 2-particle electron model since each particle has charge Q= -1/2 e and they both have a similarly huge centripetal acceleration while moving in a circle with the single-loop radius hbar/mc in your model. But it may also be that the electron is in a quantum "ground state" that doesn’t radiate its rest-mass energy 0.511 MeV away, like the electron's energy level -13.6 eV in the quantum ground state of the hydrogen atom, which is a minimum energy value for the hydrogen atom. The source of the 0.414 N force on the double-looping photon may be found in the future, or perhaps the charged photon follows some kind of electric-charge geodesic and doesn't radiate unless it departs from this geodesic.</div><span class=""><font color="#888888" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> Richard</div></font></span><div class=""><div class="h5"><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 20, 2016, at 4:25 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank" class="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
Dear Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
the article about the inertia of the photon is a good presentation
of cases where the inertia is visible, and the calculation
complements this in a very good way.<br class="">
<br class="">
Anyway I have two comments:<br class="">
<br class="">
1.) The "principle of equivalence" which means here the weak
equivalence is not the only possible explanation for the fact that
every object has the same acceleration in a gravitational field. The
other possibility is that gravitational acceleration has nothing to
do with mass and with a force. That is particularly visible in the
case of the deflection of photons passing the sun. Many authors
(e.g. Roman Sexl) have shown that this can be fully explained as a
refraction process.<br class="">
<br class="">
2.) The calculations of the inertial mass of a photon are very good.
However they do not cover the question what the origin of inertia in
physics is. As you mention,the Higgs model does not work. It is a
clear fact from astronomical observations that the QM Higgs field
does not exist (conflict between theory and observation being a
factor of > 10^57. You say that this is an open question in
physics. Here I insist in the position that any extended object
inevitably has inertia, and that another cause is not needed. <br class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="">Am 12.04.2016 um 04:48 schrieb Richard
Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
Hello John W, Martin, Andrew, Albrecht, John M, Hodge, David, Chip
and all,
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I’ve just uploaded a new article “A photon has
inertial mass hf/c^2 in mirror reflection and Compton
scattering” to <a href="http://academia.edu/" target="_blank" class="">academia.edu</a> at <a href="https://www.academia.edu/24307968/A_Photon_Has_Inertial_Mass_hv_c_2_in_Mirror_Reflection_and_Compton_Scattering" target="_blank" class=""></a><a href="https://www.academia.edu/24307968/A_Photon_Has_Inertial_Mass_hv_c_2_in_Mirror_Reflection_and_Compton_Scattering" target="_blank" class="">https://www.academia.edu/24307968/A_Photon_Has_Inertial_Mass_hv_c_2_in_Mirror_Reflection_and_Compton_Scattering</a><p class="MsoNormal">I’ve attached below a pdf copy for your
convenience. </p>
<div class="">Basically I show that when F=Ma is applied to
photon reflection and to Compton scattering (viewed in the
center of momentum frame), the photon is found to have an
inertial mass hv/c^2. The Compton scattering calculation also
shows that the electron has an inertial mass gamma m. I show
how the photon inertial mass result could relate to the
circulating charged photon model of the electron to generate
the electron’s inertial mass m from the circling spin 1/2
charged photon's momentum mc.</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Comments and criticisms on the new results are
welcome.</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Richard</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<br class="">
<fieldset class=""></fieldset>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Apr 10, 2016, at 11:59 AM, Albrecht Giese
<<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank" class="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" class=""><small class="">John,<br class="">
<br class="">
Yes, any extended object has inertia. I think that
this is not too difficult to understand and to
visualize. So again:<br class="">
<br class="">
What makes an object to be extended? The constituents
have to be bound to each other so as to maintain a
distance. If now one of the constituents is moved, the
other constituents will follow to keep this distance.
But that does not happen instantaneously as the
binding field propagates "only" with the speed of
light. That means that for a very short time the other
constituents remain where they are and the binding
fields originating in them will not change. So, for
this short time the constituent being moved has to be
taken out of the potential minimum of the fields of
the other constituents. This requires a force. After a
short time, the speed of light permits the other
particles to move and also their fields to move. And
as a consequence there is no longer a force necessary.
- This fact that for an intermediate time a force is
necessary to change the motion state of an object is
called inertia. - Really too difficult?<br class="">
<br class="">
The calculation shows that in fact a smaller object
has more inertia. It is proportional to the inverse of
the distance of the constituents. The reason is that
on the one hand the binding field is universal for all
elementary particles, on the other hand the strength
of the forces is higher at smaller distances, as we
know it from all forces. As I have said many times,
the model provides precise results. This can be found
on my web site for those interested. This precision
applies of course also to the relation between size
and mass.<br class="">
<br class="">
Since the time when I started this discussion about
inertia 15 years ago, I have made the experience that
a certain portion of discussion partners (maybe 10 to
20 percent) have problems to understand and to
visualize this process of inertia. Those persons are
mainly physicists working in theory and who are more
specialized for algebra than for physics. But a
minority. Last month we had the spring conference of
the German Physical Society here in Hamburg about
particle physics. Even though I had to give my talks
about inertia and about the error of de Broglie in one
out of 22 parallel sessions, most people came into my
session. The acceptance and the discussion about these
topics was very encouraging. And this is my permanent
experience.<br class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht</small><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<small class="">Am 10.04.2016 um 06:44 schrieb John
Williamson:</small><br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" class="">
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;font-size:10pt" class="">Albrecht - why do you think
that somethings "extent" gives it inertia? This is
simply non-sense. You have just made this up haven't
you?<span class=""> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
Experimentally smaller things - with less extent then
- have higher mass.<br class="">
<br class="">
JW.<br class="">
<div style="font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:16px" class="">
<hr class="">
<div style="direction:ltr" class=""><font face="Tahoma" size="2" class=""><b class="">From:</b><span class=""> </span>General
[<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" class="">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of Albrecht Giese [<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank" class=""></a><a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank" class="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>]<br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span class=""> </span>Saturday,
April 09, 2016 8:26 PM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span class=""> </span>Andrew
Meulenberg; Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion<br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span class=""> </span>Re:
[General] inertia<br class="">
</font><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">Dear Andrew,<br class="">
<br class="">
thank you for your considerations and arguments
about my mass model. And please apologize that I
kept you waiting for a response. I was off for
several days.<br class="">
<br class="">
My basic point is that any extended object
necessarily has inertia. That is not just an
idea or a possibility, it is on the contrary
completely inevitable. I think that I have
explained why this is the case. If necessary I
can of course explain it again.<br class="">
<br class="">
Now, if we assume or accept that elementary
particles are extended, then the inertia of
particles is inevitably given. And, as you have
cited it again, the results for leptons and
quarks are precise.<br class="">
<br class="">
The main argument against my model is the
general opinion that elementary particles,
particularly electrons, are point-like and have
no constituents. The argument of those who have
performed the according experiments is that it
was attempted to decompose the electron by
bombarding it with particles (like protons) with
sufficiently high energy, A decomposition has
never occurred. From this it was concluded that
the electron has no constituents. - But this
argument does not apply to my particle model.
The constituents of an elementary particle are
according to my model mass-less. So one of its
constituents may be accelerated by an arbitrary
amount, the other one - as having no own mass -
can follow immediately. Not even any force will
occur. - Accordingly this argument is not
applicable against this model.<br class="">
<br class="">
And the rest is known. If one determines the
size of the electron by the evaluation of e.g.
its magnetic moment, the result for the mass
conforms very precisely to the measurement.<span class=""> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
It is true that the assumption of two
constituents for an elementary particle is very
uncommon. But as long as there are no
conflicting facts such assumption can be made.
It is a common way in physics by my
understanding. On the other hand there was a
kind of indication for two constituents
described by the article of Frank Wilczek about
the electron in Nature in summer 2013.<br class="">
<br class="">
The explanation of inertia of an electron by a
bound photon is in my understanding not a real
explanation as it assumes that a photon itself
has some kind of inertia, without explaining how
this works inside a photon. So it just diverts
the problem to another particle, at least as it
was explained during this discussion since
October last year. And also the task to be done
is not only the mass of an electron, but the
mass of all particles, i.e. all leptons and all
quarks. Do you assume that all these particles
are built by bound photons?<br class="">
<br class="">
So, in my understanding, if there is another
explanation for inertia, then we will have two
explanations in parallel. Or, if on the other
hand someone has or knows an experiment which is
in conflict with my model, that would of course
refute my model. Up to now I did not hear about
such results.<br class="">
<br class="">
Thank you again for your considerations.<br class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Fri, 1 Apr 2016 12:49:24 +0530 schrieb Andrew
Meulenberg :<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">Dear
Albrecht,<br class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
You have repeatedly based your model on lack
of alternatives (with very precise results).
E.g.,<span class=""> </span><br class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
<div style="margin-left:80px" class="">Why
2 particles in the model? I say it
again:<br class="">
<br class="">
1) to maintain the conservation of
momentum in the view of oscillations<br class="">
2) to have a mechanism for inertia
(which has very precise results,
otherwise non-existent in present
physics)<br class="">
<br class="">
I will be happy to see alternatives
for both points. Up to now I have not
seen any.<span class=""></span><br class="">
</div>
<div style="margin-left:40px" class=""><span class=""></span></div>
<br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I'm sure that alternatives
exist. Whether they have very precise
results to support them may be up for
debate.<span class=""> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
My own relativistic model for inertia
depends on the electron being, in its
ground (restmass) state, a spherically
bound photon. Until that concept is
accepted, it makes little sense to go
further in a description. However, if
accepted, it then also leads to
understanding the inertia of a photon.<span class=""> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Your two-particle model
faces the same challenge. Unless you are
able to shape that premise into an
acceptable form, it is unlikely that
anything that follows will matter. Can
you (re)define your particles to be
acceptable to an audience and still
fulfill your assumptions and derived
results?<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Andrew<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<table style="border-top:1px solid rgb(170,171,182)" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td style="width:470px;padding-top:20px;color:rgb(65,66,78);font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px" class="">This email has been
sent from a virus-free computer
protected by Avast.<span class=""> </span><br class="">
<a style="color:rgb(68,83,234)" class="">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<table style="border-top:1px solid rgb(170,171,182)" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td style="width:55px;padding-top:18px" class=""><a class=""><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/2016/icons/icon-envelope-open-tick-round-orange-v1.png" class=""></a></td>
<td style="width:470px;padding-top:20px;color:rgb(65,66,78);font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px" class="">Virenfrei.<span class=""> </span><a href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank" class=""></a><a href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank" class="">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" class="">
<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);float:none;display:inline!important" class="">_______________________________________________</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" class="">
<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);float:none;display:inline!important" class="">If you no longer
wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
and Particles General Discussion List at<span class=""> </span></span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank" class=""></a><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" class="">
<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);float:none;display:inline!important" class=""><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank" class=""></a><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);float:none;display:inline!important" class="">"></span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" class="">
<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);float:none;display:inline!important" class="">Click here to
unsubscribe</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" class="">
<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);float:none;display:inline!important" class=""></a></span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class=""> <table style="border-top:1px solid rgb(170,171,182)" class="">
<tbody class=""><tr class="">
<td style="width:55px;padding-top:18px" class=""><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" class=""><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/2016/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-v1.png" class=""></a></td>
<td style="width:470px;padding-top:20px;color:rgb(65,66,78);font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px" class="">Virenfrei. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" style="color:rgb(68,83,234)" target="_blank" class="">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>