Paying close attention to both tables we can observe some relationships. If we translate the column “forward spin with reverse gear” in the second table as a “spin”, then we will find – just as in Table 1 – two small particles that do not have a “spin”. However, here we have to admit that our magnetic field theorem needs a correction that will be made below. Similarly, the column “special characteristics” in both tables contains three particles that stand out against all the other particles. These particles have the ”spin ½” in both tables; this means there is no “overlapping of characteristics”. Obviously, we are on the right track. As we have become bolder due to these indications, we will now immediately start identifying our models. Thus, we assign the model TaOu to the μ-meson because it exactly suits our concept due to its non-nucleus (shell-friendly) characteristics. According to our opinion so far, it is just a scaled-down model of all electron orbits around the nucleus. Similarly, it is not difficult to assign the model Ha to the proton because here we have a maximum degree of symmetry and full “utilization” of all polyhedron faces. Among the particles that exhibit special characteristics, only the particle λ is left, which will be assigned model Ia.
But we know that π- and μ-meson have slightly different rest masses. At the same time, we recognize that model TaOu and model TU are very similar – their self-interaction energies and consequently their rest masses should only slightly differ from each other. By means of this conclusion by analogy we assign model Tu to the spin-free particle π.

Thus only one spin-free particle, the K-meson, is left; it will inevitably be assigned model Iu.
The models Da and Oa are the only ones we cannot fit into our pattern of characteristics for the moment. We hope that a differentiation will be successful later when the rest masses of these particles can be calculated.

After this discussion we note with satisfaction that our conclusions by analogy are indicative of the fact that we are on track of the elementary particles because we could also have been able to find as much as 1000 models. In the same way, our “relationships of characteristics” provide a bridge between the models and the particles that still seems to be uncertain and swaying but can nevertheless lead to reasonable ideas. Of course at this point critics can argue that our procedure is not correct, e.g. we haven’t said anything so far about the uncharged particles. Thus, our collection of indications might appear as an attempt to compensate for all internal contradictions of our concept – just to introduce models that are adjusted to real conditions.