(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