(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! June 6, 1993 REPLYTVQ.ASC -------------------------------------------------------------------- This EXCELLENT file shared with KeelyNet courtesy of Joe Misiolek. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 06/03/1993 An open letter to Mr. T.E. Bearden, and his readers, from members of the TVQ group: Mr. Bearden; I am writing to you as a representative of a private research collective which has been studying scalar Electromagnetics for several years. Members of this group, myself included, have read many of your publications with great interest. I personally consider your "Toward a New Electromagnetics" series required reading for any rational approach to the subject. I was sent a copy of your latest documents downloaded from KeelyNet by a fellow member who had some difficulty with the material presented. Not having been aware of these files, I eagerly read them, but find that I must take issue with several points mentioned in the "Secret to Free Energy" papers. First let me state my point of view. I believe in quantum vacuum, virtual particles, and over-unity systems. I do not believe in electromagnetic waves in a vacuum. I am an engineer by trade, and have been successfully designing and building scalar equipment for several years. I was introduced (reluctantly) to scalar electromagnetics by a researcher whom had come across your earlier papers as well as those of Eike Mueller. After some initial tinkering, I was rewarded with "interesting" results. From that time our group has grown, as has our collective experience. We are about to publish our first in a series of books on practical scalar engineering which will include detailed diagrams, parts lists, and other construction details for several scalar devices. Before we release this publication, we would like you to review the designs of the devices we intend to present. We wish to end the drought of practical information on scalar electromagnetics, and in that light we must address your last papers. The statement "Electromagnetic energy is any ordering, either static or dynamic, in the virtual photon flux of vacuum." is flawed. Radio static and quantum noise are both clearly electromagnetic, but not Page 1 ordered. Both represent a potential, and have "energy". For example, the radio engineers nightmare: the transmitter is only putting out 10 watts of signal, but 2000 watts of noise. The definition you present would preclude the existence of wide band "natural scalar potentials", which are necessary for some of the applications mentioned in the "Secret to Free Energy" papers. This is the key to the "electronic smog" problems as well as other equally rewarding applications. More confusing is the incomplete definition of scalar and vector potentials as being static or dynamic respectively. A conductor (transmission line) with two electromagnetic standing waves in phase is clearly a vector case. Pick almost any two points along that line (except two zero crossings) and you will find a difference of potential, which is voltage. This is still a static case, in that the waves are stationary with respect to the observer. Take the same conductor and place two equal electromagnetic standing waves, 180 degrees out of phase, on the line. There will no longer be any difference in potential between any two points, but this is still a static case. Scalar waves may be static standing waves, or a dynamic "scalar current". The distinction between scalar and vector is not simply the difference between the static and dynamic cases. The difference is simply the geometry of the potential vectors which comprise the wave or potential. The definitions presented in this latest paper appear to be at odds with those in your earlier papers. This is minor in comparison with the grossly incorrect definition of voltage presented. Voltage is the difference in electrostatic potential between two points in space, nothing more or less. Voltage does not therefore mandate current, which is the "dissipation of potential". This definition works equally well in the electrostatic case as in the vector electric current (dynamic) case. With conventional equipment, we measure this difference in potential by placing a known impedance across the potential (vector) and measuring the resulting current flow. This is a matter of implementation, not physical law, and not the true nature of voltage in the electrostatic case. As for the design of the theoretical power generation system discussed, there are several critical flaws. First is the two circuit, two cycle system as described. If we have a practical collector component to which we may apply an electrostatic charge, and extract a "current free potential", then there is no need to switch the source of charge onto and off of the "collector", and we can eliminate one circuit and the critical timing. It is further stated that the "collector" proposed in the papers may be a coil or capacitor. If a capacitor were to be used, current would be maximum just after the switch closed, and this would negate any over-unity operation. With an ideal inductor, current would be zero as the switch is closed. This is rather critical for any practical implementation. Such a practical collector exists, and we are taught how to construct it by reading "Toward a New Electromagnetics, Part 4. On Page 2 page 19, slide 38, we find just such a device. This is a virtual particle collector. As presented this device will function, but not optimally. A truly practical virtual particle collector would be cylindrical, not spherical, to increase the total charge available to the center conductor. This modification also provides us with ready made virtual particle collectors in the form of coaxial cable. We can understand this by examining the construction of a practical example. We begin by stripping off the outside copper braid and leaving the inner conductor intact at one end of a length of coaxial cable. We then push the braid back and cut the inner conductor at the opposite end of the cable. The inner conductor is insulated, and the braid is then pulled forward closing the braid over the insulated end of the inner conductor. We can now charge the braid, and extract a charge free potential from the inner conductor at the other end of the cable. Even with this virtual particle collector, Bearden's two cycle system is still needed. The virtual particles must be gated into a translator, to excite the atoms of the translation matrix. In the second cycle, the switch opens removing the virtual particles from the translation matrix, allowing the atoms to drop back to their rest states and emitting a real photon for us to keep by the process of exophoton emission. In this system we can simplify the second circuit by placing a high impedance load directly across the translation matrix. The only switching needed now is a single virtual particle flux switch. The only penalty for this is that we must insure that we don't annihilate particle-antiparticle pairs inside our load impedance as this would cause circuit failure. If this switch appears to be a problem, remember that the virtual particle flux will flow through conductors just like a vector current. The only difference is whether the motion is in the electron cloud or the electron cloud's virtual particle flux. Use a switch, like a reed relay. The timing of such a system is much less demanding, and the circuit configuration simpler than that of the system described in the papers. If we want to get high tech without resorting to mixing up doped conductors, we could build virtual particle collectors which utilize permanently polarized dialectrics and thereby eliminate the need for the charge pump needed to put the real particles onto the collector in the first place. All we have to do now is run the switch. In the additional comments to the papers "The Final Secret for Free Energy" reference is made to the Floyd Sweet Vacuum Triode. After reading some of the material on this device, I was personally impressed due to the description of the "programming" process of the device for the correct frequency of operation. No details of the construction or programming of this device have been uncovered by any member of our group. Page 3 This process is familiar to members of our group, as the translation matrix must be "programmed" in like manner for use in the power generation system we describe here. As the translation matrix used in our system is often a gas, we apply a DC bias to the gas, and a scalar current is then impressed onto the DC bias. By ionizing the gas in this manner we can get the electrons out of the way of the nucleus, and thus allow the scalar current direct access to the nucleons themselves. This bypasses the process of quantum screening of the nucleus by the electron cloud of non-ionized matter. We know of no equivalent process for magnetic materials, and this casts some doubt on the validity of the Sweet Vacuum Triode. A member of the group obtained a video tape of this device in operation. This tape showed several disturbing things. First was the demonstration of the magnets placed on the color TV screen. The colorful displays produced only tell us of the magnetization of the shadow mask within the cathode ray tube, and not much of the fields producing that magnetization. Second was that the load received power immediately after the signal generator was turned on. The signal generator in question was a Hewlett Packard vacuum tube device, and will not output a signal for several seconds after power is applied. The "beam" emitted from the quartz-halogen lamp was the clincher. The effect is clearly the result of saturating the charge coupled image pickup device in the video recorder used. Until these and other concerns are addressed, I must consider this device smoke, mirrors and vaporware. Check for a ground fault somewhere. There are two methods of power generation described near the end of the papers, as well as the undesirable effects attributed to one of the two methods. Here again we must take issue, the "time reversed effects" described are not the result of using one method or the other, but are due to a more subtle cause. The first of the two methods is best summarized as exophoton emission, and is the process attributed to the Sweet Vacuum Triode. It is a revamped version of the good old exophoton emission phenomenon from modern quantum physics, but wrapped in the terms of quantum optical theory. This basic process occurs constantly in nature without the need for any macroscopic reversed time effects. The second method presented is incomplete, as there is no translation process to take the virtual particle flux and translate it into photon flux, but we have already gone the long way around the barn with the flaws in that one. The cause of the "reversed time effects" is due to another basic principal we should have learned from the "Toward a New Electromagnetics" series. Scalar resonance will flow along an electrostatic gradient. If the system we construct is not balanced electrostatically, different parts of the system will take on differing charges of this scalar resonance, and choke off the over- unity output. It is this process which makes most over-unity designs impractical. Page 4 In quantum physics, there is a law of conservation which quarks and leptons must obey, which states that these particles must only be created or destroyed in particle-antiparticle pairs. Electrons are leptons, and therefore must obey this law. This forces us to use two virtual particle collectors, and in so doing we electrostatically balance the system and avoid any unpleasant side effects. Any "free energy" system which causes a resistive load to run cold is malfunctioning and should be shut down immediately as a matter of safety. Just try to keep warm with one and you will see the point here. The goal is to provide pure vector power to the load. If a resistive load runs cold, or cooler than when run with conventional power sources, then the translation process is suspect. If we pollute the space-time that our virtual lepton fed generator is operating in with lots of unhappy virtual antileptons, something is going to give. This must be avoided. The virtual antileptons will pinch off the flow of virtual leptons and the system will stop, or suffer performance degradation at least. As far as good conductors being the bane of over unity inventors, surely you're joking, Mr. Bearden. How could you possibly recommend constructing any scalar system with less than perfect materials? Should a circuit connection or component fail while a large scalar resonance charge is present, the consequences could be most severe. This scenario has already been explored in earlier papers on the subject. If the current dearth of practical how-to information on scalar technology is any indication of the level of effort being expended on this subject, then we are in most serious trouble. I would prefer to believe that there are accomplished researchers who, for whatever reasons, are not sharing their results. In that hope, our group has collectively decided to put our cards on the table in order to stimulate cooperative collaboration. It should be clear that in the current situation, the commercialization of scalar technology is impractical. This will continue to be the case until we begin to build on the foundations of others' work, with a common set of terms, just as in the beginnings of our current electromagnetic technologies. We would treasure an opportunity to discuss the details of these and other systems with you, or any other readers before we commit our manuscript to print. Our current plan is to put the detailed construction plans for the power generation system we have described here in the second volume of our books. If we create the desired effect with the publication of the first book, then it may be released as a free supplement to the first book. In closing, we would like to offer you (and everyone else who reads this) the opportunity to discuss these issues at length. You may contact the group (TVQ) through our liazon here on KeelyNet. All the Best, TVQ Group Page All E-Mail should be sent to the account of: Joseph J. Misiolek here at KeelyNet. Phone conversations and face-to-face meetings can also be arranged. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Vangard note... As usual, Joe and the TVQ group will NO DOUBT stir up quite a lot of interest ESPECIALLY if they come out with a book or other practical circuits that will allow anyone to build and test the scalar and F/E principles. The idea of using a BALANCED set of virtual collectors is an interesting approach to cancelling out the alleged EM SMOG which is generated in the vicinity of a hyperspatial F/E generator. We had assumed Bearden was thinking of using phasing, i.e. enharmonic or destructive intereference to rid the local area of noxious emissions. In a way, the balanced set correlates with the TESTATIKA machine since it uses two of everything and is based on the "respiration" of energy in the universe. That is, everything "breathes" in a continual in and out motion. By properly tapping this motion, in either direction, energy can thus be "tapped". And, the higher order researchers such as John Keely, Walter Russell and Victor Schauberger (for starters) understood this universal respiration cycle and that it could be tapped for a "hot/focussing" or "cold/expanding" effect in matter or energy. In the case of the EM SMOG cancellation using the dual virtual collectors, it appears to be tapped for the positive and negative flows, thus naturally achieving an "undisturbed environment". The essence of true ecology. We here at KeelyNet are most interested in this approach to the generation of free energy and everyone will be slavering in anticipation of the comments and other responses...come on Joe, send us some circuits.....don't tease... -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 6