SCALAR WAVES FAQ
The TEP Project - JLN labs - 97 - Last update 19/08/97
From : T.E. Bearden "Progress Report - Jan. 29, 1992 " Definitions of Some Types of Potentials A potential is any ordering, either static or dynamic or combination thereof, in the virtual particle flux of vacuum. Note that, according to this definition, a potential is pure energy, a priori. But we must be careful. Because of the nature of the virtual particle flux comprising it, the potential is a collection of individual virtual energies - a collection of the individual energies of a host of individually moving virtual particles. Each particle is still almost totally separate from each other, most of the time. In other words, as an informal analogy, potential is a sort of mostly disintegrated energy, which only has just a touch of integration, enough to allow it to be referred to as a single "collection" or "ordering." A scalar potential is any static (stationary) ordering in the virtual particle flux of vacuum. A vector potential is any dynamic (nonstationary) ordering in the virtual particle flux of vacuum. So scalar potentials and vector potentials are simply different subsets of the energy domain. An electrostatic scalar potential is any static (stationary) ordering in the virtual photon flux of vacuum. And so on. Now those are all precise definitions. To the best of my knowledge, they have not previously appeared in physics.
From : " SCALAR TRANSLATORS " by Joseph John Misiolek - 05/02/91 When coverting EM energy to SCALAR, what you are actually doing is attempting to create a subtructure in which the energy is folded in on itself in such a way that it manifests no external net effects in the manner in which our current test equipment (single stage interaction) is designed to detect, but rather, maintains all of its energy within the substructure itself (hyperspace), in other words, SCALAR WAVES. These types of waves are quite capable of penetrating conventional forms of em shielding (Faraday Cages) while remaining quite invisible to standard (single stage) detection methods.
Suj : Re: Barkhausen Battery ? Scalar waves FAQ ? Date : 13/08/1997 17:12:35 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Bob Shannon) To: email@example.com ralph muha wrote: > > >Can you clarify, in terms of "superposition", what the difference is between > >the above and a bifiliar coil, or a magnetic or electrostatic bucking field > >achieved with paired coils and capacitors respectively? > > > >Peter Nielsen > > This suggests a question that I have about bifiliar vs caduceus coils. > > In the schematic for the scalar pulse generator, the bifiliar is driven > in series, from one end with the other end shorted. > > Doesn't this introduce a small phase delay between the current in > each section of the coil? So, during the initial moment of discharge, > a magnetic field builds up at the start of the coil that isn't canceled > until the charge comes back down the other half to create the canceling field. Yes, it does, but because the resulting configuration is not significantly inductive, this delay is very short, far shorter than the pulse rise time. > One could drive the coils in parallel from both ends, but there would > still be an initial delay before the fields canceled each other. If driven by two drivers, given equal conductor lenghts, there would be no delay. The pulse generator schematic was intended as a simple test rig only, and it works quite well. The idea is that the fields simply do not form at all, they dont first form, then cancel, their formation is suppressed, as is evident by the lack of inductance and stored energy in the form of a magnetic field. > With the caduceus coil, the current in each half of the coil is always > in phase, so the fields always cancel. That depends on how its driven. If I connect the two conductors in series, as was done with the bifilar coil, then the caduceus coil has the same delay as a bifilar coil. You could connect a bifilar coils windings in parallel as easily as with a caduceus coil, or use two drivers. > > Does this imply that caduceus is better than bifiliar? No. In my testing, I have found that the greater mean distance between opposed conductors in a caduceus coil causes highly distorted magnetic flux to leak from the coil, and as a result, they retain more net inductance than a well made bifilar coil does. This lowers current rise times, and expresses the potentials as EM waves. As scalar production appears proportional to the dV/dT, we clearly want as little net inductance as possible, which makes perfect sense from a flux superposition perspective.
Suj : Re: Barkhausen Battery ? Scalar waves FAQ ? Date : 13/08/1997 19:19:38 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Bob Shannon) To: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > > >Caduceus coils, standing wave interference between paired transmission > >lines (standing wave interference), radiated wave interference between > >paired antennea elements, modulating shielded E or B fields, there are > >many methods of producing true field superposition, rather than field > >distortion. This is the key. > > > >Bob Shannon > > > > IOW at the intersection of two EM waves, of equal amplitude and frequency, > arises a scalar function, or virtual particle flux. Assuming that the waves are 180 degrees out of phase, yes. We must suppress any electromagnetic expression of the potentials in opposition. > Can you clarify, in terms of "superposition", what the difference is between > the above and a bifiliar coil, or a magnetic or electrostatic bucking field > achieved with paired coils and capacitors respectively? This difference was the subject of a fairly long running discussion here some months back. The thread was somthing like "differences in the field(s)...". Basically, if we take two conventional coils, and connect them in series, but orient them such that the poles of the two coils are in opposition, what is often called 'bucking fields', we will find that the total inductance is greater than that of a single coil. The total energy stored in the fields of the two coils is not significantly effected by their orientation, and the system is highly inductive. All we have done is to distort the flux, we have not canceled ANY flux at all. On the other hand, if we were to construct a bifilar coil with exactly the same ammount of wire, we would find that the coil had nearly no inductance at all, and stores no significant energy in the form of a magnetic field. Some have argued that the field is still present, even though the current through such a coil reaches E/R in a time limited by stray inductance alone. but when we interrupt the circuit, such a coil return NO energy from this supposed field. In this case, it appears that we have actually canceled flux, that is the flux from adjecent bifilar windings has undergone true superposition, or added algebraically to essentially zero magnetic flux. Note that when we deal with whole poles of permanent magnets, or conventional coils, this NEVER happens. This apparent difference in magnetic field behavior is not a matter of physical scale as some had suggested, as the bifilar coil simply does not store, nor return any energy as an inductive coil does.
Suj : Re: Barkhausen Battery ? Scalar waves FAQ ? Date : 16/08/1997 02:46:22 From: email@example.com (Bob Shannon) To: firstname.lastname@example.org ralph muha wrote: > > At 2:51 AM -0400 8/14/97, Bob Shannon wrote: > >ralph muha wrote: > >> > >> so, if you can generate scalar pulses with a bifiliar coil, can you > >> use one to detect them? why do you need a barkhausen detector? > > > >Well, if these scalar waves pass right through conductors and Faraday > >cages, why should we expect it to react to another bifilar coil? > > Because many generator/detector systems are reversable. > Eg, a loudspeaker can act as a microphone. A tank circuit > can be used (except for power level considerations) in > a receiver or a transmitter. So why should scalars be any different? When we produce the scalar from the original EM waves, we destroy the properties of EM waves that would induce currents. Also the bifilar coil lacks mutual inductance to external fields, thats how we got rid of the EM component! > >If a passing scalar waves does not induce Eddy currents in a conductor, > >it will not couple to either shielding, bifilar or conventional coils. > > > >It will however alter the phase of an electron wave, according to the > >Aharnov-Bohm effect, so it can be detected in second order effects. > > What if the 'receiving' bifiliar coil were energized with a fixed DC bias? > Would the passing scalar interfere with that in some way, and create > a measurable effect? Fantstic question Ralph!!!! Yes, we will see a very small effect. This effect is exactly what heppens in the Josephson Junction detectors described in Ray Galenas's patents, which I don't have a copy of handy to give you the numbers of at the moment. It's also how SQUID's seem to operate. It's Aharnov-Bohm effect stuff, both the electrostatic and magnetostatic versions. What may work a bit better, is to find a method of using the quantum noise within the device itself to deliver 'gain' to the detector. This is the design philosophy I used to develop the Barkhausen efffect detector from the "Dea/Fareto" design described by Bearden. To apply this same approach to a tank circuit, we can place the tank in question inside a good Faraday cage, and connect it to a super-regenerative oscillator. From this point on, it performs just like a super-regenerative radio receiver, but we only detect minute changes in the (on frequency) energy in the tank, well shielded from EM effects. You could also develop an RF " ballenced bridge" type circuit, but I have not explored this approach as yet. Either way, we need a large response to a fairly small effect, while rejecting all practical EM energy. > Are you certain that the coil is necessary to generate the scalar pulse? I am certian that it is NOT necessary. Just as EM waves have E and B fields, it seems that scalars come in 'flavors', Bearden describes "Natural" and "Artificial" scalar potentials (chaotic and deterministic substructures) and also implies a difference between scalar potentials, fields and waves. > What if it is the capacitive discharge itself that is responsible for the > signal that you are detecting? Capactive discharges in themselves are EM events, with electrostatic, and magnetic components. But more directly, different types of "translators" (Bifilar, trifilar, caduceus, paired phased transmission lines, etc.) are observed to have a very significant effect on detection ranges and levels. What is odd here, is that different detector designs each seem to prefer some specific detector geometeries over others. One of the geometeries that has the broadest appeal is the good old bifilar coil. Oh yes, for a given bifilar coil winding, it seems that adding ferrite has a larger effect on scalar production than on net inductance. This suggests that the detectors response is not due to the capacitors discharge alone. But by all means, test it yourself. Wind a pair of Bifilar coils on a ferrite rod, grab an oscilloscope and a signal generator and poke the thing to see what happens. You can also see the effects of rise time vs. input energy, lots of stuff. Just keep the energy down in the milliwatts for this testing, higher energy is for single-shot pulse mode, just for safety.
Suj : Re: Barkhausen Battery ? Scalar waves FAQ ? Date : 18/08/1997 21:37:01 From: email@example.com (Bob Shannon) To: firstname.lastname@example.org ralph muha wrote: <snip> > Actually, I've been playing around with a Hodowanec 'detector' > (ie, amplified capacitor) and I've reached the same conclusion > as you did, as to the efficacy of that device. Nevertheless, > it's an interesting exercise, as well as a great 1/f noise > generator. While the output is full of 1/f noise, there are other things hidden in there as well. It's not a good detector design, but it may well detect something. We still have cases where multiple Hodowanec detectors react to the same external stimuli, if you can get through all the noise.... > One of the configurations that I tried was two caps in series > across the op amp (TL082) with a DC bias applied in the middle. > This cleans up the 'signal' a great deal, although I still have > to take it in to work and look at the spectrum. Get a sound card fro your PC, and download GRAM23. Try a web search for 'Natural Radio' and you should find a download site for this excellent software. You will be able to do spectral analisis through your PC sound board under Windows. > > > [...] > > > >But more directly, different types of "translators" (Bifilar, trifilar, > >caduceus, paired phased transmission lines, etc.) are observed to have a > >very significant effect on detection ranges and levels. > > How do trifiliars work? I've heard of these, but have never seen any > circuit examples... Ok, I've had a few questions on these, so some explaination is in order. We have three wires rather than the two used in a bifilar coil. Rather than pumping current through the low ohmic resistance of bifilar windings, we can use the 'extra' winding of a trifilar coil to excite the remaining windings (connected in the standard bifilar, opposed configuration) rather like a transformer. the problem with these is the massive impeadance mismatch caused by the other two conductors being in opposition. We need to be very careful about matching our impeadances, or we wil see HUGE reflected energy back from the third winding. It's easy to see what LOOKS like 400% reflected energy if our mismatch is really bad. > >What is odd here, is that different detector designs each seem to prefer > >some specific detector geometeries over others. One of the geometeries > >that has the broadest appeal is the good old bifilar coil. > > By 'designs' do you mean the circuitry around the detector, > or something else? Something else. In the Barkhausen effect detector article, I've outlined detectors that use magnetic modulation, as well as electrostatic modulation. There are many more possibilities for detector designs. We could construct quantum interfernece detectors, like SQUID's, plasma based detectors like the Neon detectors people have played with, and even more exotic detectors appear quite practicqal. One of my favorite design concepts is to use the Electrostatic Aharnov-Bohm effect for a detector. This might envolve injecting short pulses, 10 nanoseconds or so, into very long coaxial cables. Once the pulse has fully entered the cable, we charge the shield of the cable to a known value as the pulse propogates along the center conductor. Before the pulse reaches the end of our cable, we must fully discharge the shield. Its critically important that the cables electrical lenghts be far greater than the injected pulse width, and that fast analog switches at each end of the cable be timed correctly to permit pulse enery and exit, but to keep the line seperated from the rest of the dectector while the pulses are propogating. Any distortions of the timing (duration & phase) of the pulse after it exits the cable may show the effects of the electrostatic version of the Aharnov-Bohm effect. In practice, two or more such coaxial cables would each be wound up into coils, and placed on seperate axies. Relative differences in the distortions detected on each axis may reveal information about the internal geometeries of the scalar potentials causing the electrostatic Aharnov-Bohm effects. The hard part is to charge, and discharge the cable shields quickly enough. As there is a lot of capacitance here, we are goind to dissapte a great deal of energy here. Fast analog switches are also cirtical for the coax lines, and fast methods to control the charge on the shield of the cables. Of course, the whole mess needs to be fully EM shielded as well. Banks of such cables might be phased such that we at all times have pulses in propogation and analisis, for constant operation. (we only know the effect of the pulse propogating after it exits the cable, so 'detection' is not constant, we only get samples at a rate that is a function of the cable length.) Anyway, there are many ways to design scalar detectors! > >Just keep the energy down in the milliwatts for this testing, higher > >energy is for single-shot pulse mode, just for safety. > > Yes, I was going to ask you why the need for 'heavy artillery' in the > pulse generator, when it seems like a 555 into a current driver with > a bifiliar load would be sufficient. How much scalar background noise are you expecting to find? We need to keep the SNR's up, but the pulse generator shown in the article was designed a long time ago, and you can use much smaller caps. I presented this design because it is what was used in a great deal of my early testing of the Barkhausen effect detector. Anyone wanting to reproduce those early demonstrations would need to have information on the exact equipment used in that testing. "Heavy artillery" is the 5K joule and up range! I think the pulse generator I show in only in the 50 joule range. (I've poked around a bit in the 10K + joule range, really scarey stuff!!!! No, you cannot return a collection of melted balls of metal that used to be a Craftsman wrench for a free replacement, you have to be able to read the word Craftsman on whats left of the wrench to get a replacement! I once dropped a 1/2 inch wrench across a 40 KV, 14 uF cap, with only 11 nanoHeneries of series inductance, BLAM, no more wrench! Thats something like 11,200 joules!) > OTOH, what sort of scalar pulse could you generate by firing > a high current pulse thru a spool of radio shack speaker wire > with one end shorted (and perhaps staked on a ferrite rod)? Not such a shabby one at all, given a fast rise time, etc!!! What is critical is the ratio of conductor diameter to interconductor spacing. Use LARGE diamter wire, spaced as close as possible. The math for this can be found in antenna design theroy, as written in the ARRL 'Good books' (Radio amatures handbooks). Maybe some of our Ham radio members have quick access to the formulae and theory behind this?
Suj : Re: Help, still learning scalars Date : 18/08/1997 17:43:45 From: email@example.com (Bob Shannon) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Josef Martin Katz wrote: > > hi, could someone help me out and explain me exactly why to intersecting > scalars release "normal" EM? thanks. If the opposition of EM vectors results in this 'other' form of potentials we call a scalar wave, then we should be able to reverse this process, and by the interference of these 'other' forms of potentials, we can return to the arangement we know as conventional EM. If two scalar potentials have opposite signs, then we have a vector potential difference between them, which describes a vector, or what we call EM!
Suj : Re: A switched bifilar (scalar :-) parametric circuit Date : 19/08/1997 05:10:46 From: email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org > I can't add anything productive to a discussion about scalars right now, >except to ask questions about them. Specifically, how does a scalar >generator become an overunity device? > >Fred Epps > And I thought you'd never ask. By tapping into the variable time field of the planet, which, being "non-dimensional" is not subject to the physical laws of conservation. This is accessed by zeroing all subordinate vectors, such as those occupied by ambient electrical and magnetic fields. We then create a second time gradient, by the same technique, but in opposition to the first. When they converge, the electrical and magnetic vectors reform, but at greater potential. See, I didn't mention "scalar" once. Woof, woof. Peter Nielsen