(word processor parameters LM=8, RM=75, TM=2, BM=2)
Taken from KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501
Sponsored by Vangard Sciences
PO BOX 1031
Mesquite, TX 75150
There are ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS
on duplicating, publishing or distributing the
files on KeelyNet except where noted!
March 8, 1992
BEARESP.ASC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This file shared with KeelyNet courtesy of Guy Resh.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The following letter from Tom Bearden relates to comments made by
Bearden in his reports on the Sweet Vacuum Triode device.
The papers are listed on KeelyNet as SWEET1 THROUGH SWEET3 and
SWEET4A, SWEET4B, SWEET4C and SWEET4D in either .ZIP or .ASC form.
********************************************************************
What follows is, finally, Mr. Beardens' reply to comments made about
his conjectures. It is dated Feb. 28, 1992...............Jon Noring
********************************************************************
February 28, 1992
Tom Bearden
2311 Big Cove Road
Huntsville, AL 35801
(205) 533-3682H Home
(205) 536-0411 FAX
Dr. Jon Noring
1312 Carlton Place
Livermore, CA 94550
Dear Jon:
Thanks for sending along the extract of comments on the papers.
Perhaps I can add a thing or two that will shed a little more light
on some of this. First, let's settle the matter of whether this is
a scam by persons after money. It isn't. There are no stock plans.
Nobody wants any "investment." No one would accept it if it were
offered. The inventor presently has a sufficient small income for
his small needs. I work every day as a senior engineer, and support
myself adequately in that fashion. I'm also retired from the U.S.
Army with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. Also, it is certainly
quite true that the burden of proof is fully upon Sweet and me.
That proof can only be achieved by independent test and
certification by agencies and scientists of impeccable credentials
and with no formal connection to the project. Until that is done,
we totally accept that what we have said will not be believed, and
should not be believed. I will say this: I have absolutely no
Page 1
control of the invention, and absolutely no say in its direction.
It is totally Sweet's invention.
If I had had my own fervent wish, formal submission for
independent testing and certification (or falsification) by the
scientific community would have been accomplished in 1987. Let it
also be noted that an inventor has agreements and/or (with other)
parties involved; he is often not legally free to do exactly as he
might wish. The best we can presently ask is that the readers keep
an open but highly skeptical mind, until such independent
certification is forthcoming. If it isn't forthcoming, then trash
the whole thing in file 13.
To try to address the gist of many of the other comments, let
me point out that we are referring to two key mathematical papers:
Whittaker 1903 as cited, and Whittaker 1904 as cited. Let me urge
all persons who commented on the lack of mathematics to please at
least study those two papers intensely. Let me summarize what they
actually show, rigorously.
In the first paper, Whittaker shows that, completely at odds
with the present scientific view, the electrostatic scalar potential
has a totally unsuspected and highly organized bidirectional EM
internal structure. It's actually composed of paired EM waves,
each going in opposite directions (and in my view, one being the
phase conjugate of the other). Further, the bidirectional pairs
are phaselocked and in a harmonic sequence. So what the potential
is actually composed of is a Fourier-type harmonic expansion,
directly coupled with its time-reversed twin set, in a one-to-one
ratio, with all the harmonic twin waves phase-locked.
Normally, in electromagnetics one just gives a magnitude to the
potential at each point and leaves it at that. However, Whittaker
shows that the potential at a point actually encompasses a
magnificent, hidden, highly organized flow of EM waves and energy
into and out of that point. Although there may be no net EM
forcefield at the point, the "hidden interior" energy flow through
the point to and from the surrounding space is filled with EM forces
and waves in dynamic motion.
This leads to a real quandary in the assumed nature of a scalar
potential, in my view: Instead of being a passive or simple scalar
sort of thing that just has a convolution magnitude and sometimes an
external gradient in that magnitude, it's a new kind of entity that
is scalar externally, with gradients between adjacent external
points, but at the same time it's totally dynamic, vectorial, and
energetically organized "inside."
"Further, it would seem to be in hidden hyperspatial EM
communication with every other point in the universe, at least in
the simple case. The basic thing, I think, is that Whittaker seems
to delocalize the notion of the potential, extending it into
hyperspace with respect to its internal EM energy flow. If someone
on the net could put that into more precise language, I'd be very
grateful.
In my picture of it, as shown by Whittaker the seemingly quite
placid scalar potential is an unsuspecting vector EM dynamo inside.
In early 1987 I simply took the Whittaker picture of the potential's
Page 2
internal bidirectional EM waves seriously, and realized that these
internal hidden EM waves didn't translate electrons in the electron
shells of atoms, but instead penetrated to the nucleus directly.
That meant that, in simply having a stress potential added to a
material, one effectively had "pumping" EM waves connected directly
to the atomic nuclei through hyperspace, bypassing the electron
shells' usual Faraday shielding interaction.
One can fairly readily build EM wave oppositions in proper
harmonic, phase-locked Whittaker fashion, and so one can make and
use an EM gradient-free potential construction entirely of
bidirectional waves. This construction is such that :
(1) a normal electron-wiggle detector instrument doesn't even
"see" it,
(2) the internal wave EM reaches directly to the nucleus and
affects it and
(3) it consists of EM "pump" waves in the nonlinear phase
conjugate mirror sense.
All that was needed then was to simply extract the standard pumped
phase conjugate mirror equations from nonlinear optics and apply
them to this "potentialized" or "Whittaker-pumped" nucleus of the
atom. That mean that the nucleus should now be a pumped phase
conjugate mirror. However, it still needs one small thing
added. Sweet did one additional thing:
he superposed a 60-Hz modulation on the envelope of the
Whittaker bidirectional waveset.
In other words, the external amplitude of the artificially
constructed stress potential was oscillated at 60 Hz. [Note that
the external amplitude of the potential is what is in our 3-space;
the internal Whittaker EM biwaves are BEYOND 3-space. The nucleus is
a hyperspatial or higher topological entity when the Whittaker
structures of its potentials are taken into account.]
Sweet personally discovered the activation procedure (which he
still holds proprietary) for causing this 60-Hz oscillation to be
taken up and self-sustained by the barium nucleus (we assume that
it's the barium nucleus involved, because it won't work with any
other kind of magnet except a barium ferrite magnet). Self-
oscillation of barium compounds is well-known in the phase conjugate
mirror optical literature. However, most of the papers I've been
able to find on self-pumping mirrors have achieved the self-pumping
only at optical frequencies.
I've not been able to find anything else at ELF self-
oscillation frequencies. I will say that, if Sweet's 6-lb unit is
not in the self-oscillation (activated, or self-pumping) condition,
you won't get a microwatt out of it, no matter what you do! If it's
in the self-oscillation condition but at essentially "normal"
nuclear potential, you will only get a few watts out, say, something
like six watts.
Sweet increased the nuclear potential and its 60-Hz
oscillation, trapping it in the barium nucleus also as part of the
activation, whereupon much greater electrical power is extractable
from the device. He also worked out the device design so that its
Page 3
objective output voltage was 120 volts, for an input voltage of 10
volts (at 33 microamps). This small 1/3 milliwatt 60 Hz input
corresponds to the signal wave in PPCM theory.
The entire device is, in my view, just a special self-pumped
phase conjugate mirror, precisely like what is already in the
standard literature, self-pumping and all. It's just self-pumped at
ELF frequencies, and in a very special manner. It is being fed by
self-oscillating hidden EM biwave (pumpwave) energy directly from
the surrounding vacuum. [The EM energy of the vacuum
intercommunicates internally through the hyperspatial Whittaker
channels of the vacuum. The gradient in the potential magnitude
represents the EM energy entering our 3-space by local scalar
interferometry.]
I also quoted a reference that shows that the local vacuum
immediately around a nucleus is structured by the nucleus and can be
considered and treated as a special sort of semiconductor. One can
visualize, then, that the 60-Hz trapped self-oscillation is between
that local semiconductor vacuum and the potentialized barium
nucleus. In other words, in the self-oscillating nuclear potential,
it is both the local vacuum and the nucleus that are oscillating, at
180 degrees phase from each other. That means that there is a
rhythmic inflow and outflow of potential (Whittaker biwaves)
envelope magnitude gradient, to and from the nucleus, exchanged to
and from the local semiconductor vacuum. Note what we're talking
about.
You've got to get the hyperspatial EM energy exchange of the
vacuum "gated" or" shifted" into our 3-space, from hyperspace.
Whittaker's 1904 paper can be interpreted as showing that (1) the
gradient in the potential represents the 3-space aspect, and (2) any
such potential gradient in 3-space is produced by scalar
interferometry (interference of the hyperspatial vector EM wave
interiors of scalar potentials.)
So Sweet's 60-Hz modulation of the nuclear potential's
amplitude represents a 3-space oscillating flow of EM vector energy,
in and out of the nucleus from the surrounding semiconductor vacuum.
If you properly introduce a signal wave to that "activated" or self-
pumped nucleus (once it's got a 3-space oscillating EM vector flow),
then by standard textbook theory you are going to get out up to all
the energy in the pump waves, coming forth from the "nucleus-mirror"
as an amplified phase conjugate replica (PCR) of the small signal
wave input.
By the standard distortion correction theorem, that amplified
PCR wave will travel back along the path taken by the signal wave.
In other words, you've got organized EM energy coming out of the
nuclei as a coherent EM wave, through the electron shells, into the
material lattice, and on out of there into the external circuit. At
that point, one simply taps onto it (e.g., by magnetic induction),
and you can extract and gate the amplified energy wherever you wish
in the external circuit. Note that the 60-Hz self-oscillation
energy comes in from the local vacuum to the nucleus, on the inflow
or "intake" cycle. If you gate some of it on out of the nucleus
externally, instead of letting it flow back to the local
semiconductor vacuum, the adjacent vacuum surrounding the
semiconductor just promptly replenishes the local vacuum potential.
Page 4
It has to do so, because of the nonlocal hyperspatial EM energy flow
in the Whittaker structure of the potential in the first place. You
can draw EM energy out of those internal EM waves in the Whittaker
structure of the potential, and the electrical charges establishing
that potential will continue to "pump out" virtual photons and
replenish the potential.
It can be seen that the potentials between the self-pumping
nuclei are self-cohering (in their internal EM) throughout the
mirror material by what is called "self-targeting," but that is
another story too long to detail here. The second (1904) Whittaker
paper I cited is also quite revealing. Here's what it shows.
Rigorously, you can replace all of classical forcefield EM with
scalar potential interferometry. Period. Note that this paper
actually incorporates the Aharonov-Bohm effect, decades before
Aharonov and Bohm's seminal 1959 paper. It also drastically extends
it, for it is dealing with macroscopic effects, not just mesoscopic.
Also, please note that scalar interferometry is not an oxymoron,in
spite of being so labeled by one eminent scientist.
If you realize that the scalar potential is totally vectorial
in its Whittaker internal composition, and comprised of multiple
EM waves, then when one interferes two scalar EM potentials, one is
simply doing multiple wave interferometry simultaneously. It's
perfectly good "wave" interferometry; it's just a whole bunch of it
at once. And the wave interference actually connects hyperspace EM
waves with 3-space EM waves. The hyperspatial EM wave interference
creates 3-space EM potential gradients (forcefields), including both
statics and dynamics. To sum up my view of the Whittaker papers,
here's what they add to physics:
(1) They add a second and completely new kind of
electromagnetics, a hidden hyperspatial EM wave
communication inside the scalar potential. Since the
magnitude of the scalar potential from a single point
charge does not reach zero until an infinite radial
distance is reached, then each point charge communicates
electromagnetically with each other point in the universe,
through the hidden Whittaker EM hyperspace channel.
It communicates via hidden (hyperspatial) EM waves that a
normal EM detector does not even see.
(2) The papers allow replacing all notions of external [3-
space] EM force fields, waves, etc. with scalar
interferometry of potentials [hyperspatial EM wave
interferometry].
(3) by adding the "internal" EM energy and its hyperspatial
"hidden variable" communication, the two papers do in fact
extend each of the three disciplines: classical EM, QM,and
general relativity.
Indeed, they force consideration of a sort of "action at a
distance," where by scalar interferometry the local vacuum
potential and the local spacetime itself are altered and interact
with the system in unexpected manners.
Since the Whittaker internal EM energy extension set is the
same in each case, it is my view that adding the Whittaker internal
Page 5
EM does unify the three extended disciplines. Note that it does not
change the three present subsets. We might also ask the following:
Can anyone show any paper in the literature, other than the
Whittaker work and the other two recent papers I cited, that
deals with this internal organized EM inside the scalar
potential? If so, I've personally been unable to find it, and
would very much appreciate the reference.
Does there exist any other paper in the literature that treats
the atomic nucleus as a pumped phase conjugate mirror? I would
very much appreciate the references, if there are any.
Are there any papers at all in the literature, where research
has been conducted in actually making the Whittaker-type of
simultaneous wave/antiwave structure as an artificial scalar
potential, in beams, and performing scalar beam interferometry
with it on materials and systems at a distance __ e.g., say at
three feet in the laboratory? If so, I'd again very much
appreciate the references.
It is my strong feeling that we must get such things looked into by
the universities and by sharp physicists and graduate students. The
Whittaker approach and the concept of using the nucleus of the atom
as a pumped phase conjugate mirror that one can externally engineer
electromagnetically, do seem to lead to some startling things on the
bench. But presently the phenomenology is so completely unknown and
unexpected that I fear we may never have a true science and
technology here unless university-level work is done on it. Indeed,
it's going to take some good theorists and some good
experimentalists both.
I might add that Sweet is incorporating the Whittaker theory
into his EM theory of the device, and I expect him to publish that
in the future for peer review and examination. His wife died
recently, however, and so that part of the effort has been setback
for a time. Sweet is a good theorist (I am not), and he is an
especially good magnetics engineer of high caliber. He is also, in
my opinion, a genius on the experimental bench.
*** He has other highly unusual EM inventions which may ***
receive more publicity in the future.
I believe that, for the quaternions, the best way to describe EM
expressed in quaternions (or better yet, in Clifford algebra) is to
note that the EM thus expressed has a higher topology. It seems
that you can get EM effects in the higher topology that a rigorous
orthodox EM analysis will never reveal or appreciate.
A very interesting reference to check in this respect __ by a
highly capable scientist, and with all the mathematics __ is T.W.
Barrett, "Tesla's nonlinear oscillator-shuttle-circuit (OSC)
theory," Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), 1991,p.
23-41.
Indeed, I'm attracted to the notion that my own concept of the
nucleus as a pumped phase conjugate mirror could also possibly be
expressed in terms of Barrett's OSC exposition. This is
particularly attractive because Barrett points out that in the
Page 6
higher topology the nonlinear optics effects are achievable by
circuits and devices themselves, without the presence of laser-
matter interactions as such. He also cites a document number
225395, 1988, U.S. Patent Office, where the OSC theory was
originally disclosed.
The complete mathematics for decomposition of the electrostatic
scalar potential into bidirectional EM wave sets in harmonic phase-
locked series is in E.T. Whittaker, "On the partial differential
equations of mathematical physics," Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 57,
1903, p. 333-355.
The complete mathematical proof that classical EM can be
completely replaced with scalar potential interferometry is in E.T.
Whittaker, "On an expression of the electromagnetic field due to
electrons by means of two scalar potential functions," Proceedings
of the London Mathematical Society, Series 2, Vol. 1, 1904, p.
367-372.
I believe Whittaker actually orally delivered both papers in
1903. Review and commentary from the network scientists on the
two Whittaker papers, and on the significance of the Whittaker
papers or lack of it, would be most deeply appreciated.
Particularly desired would be the results of any experiments
performed in scalar potential interferometry, at a mild distance
(say, three feet) where each of the two interfering potentials is
artificially constructed of multiple phase-locked harmonics
and their true phase conjugate waves in one-to-one magnitude ratio.
We accent that at least one harmonic interval, and preferably more
than that, are essential.
Sincerely,
Tom Bearden
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have comments or other information relating to such topics
as this paper covers, please upload to KeelyNet or send to the
Vangard Sciences address as listed on the first page.
Thank you for your consideration, interest and support.
Jerry W. Decker.........Ron Barker...........Chuck Henderson
Vangard Sciences/KeelyNet
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If we can be of service, you may contact
Jerry at (214) 324-8741 or Ron at (214) 242-9346
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7