Dear Dan,

 

In answer to your questions:

 

From a distance, of course, one certainly cannot say whether a given device “works” or not. The only way to ascertain the truth of the assertion, or to refute it, is to put it to the test. Ultimately actual experimentation must either validate or refute it.

 

Now suppose that has been done, and – say – the device does indeed work by actual field testing and confirmation.

 

Then one has the problem of explaining the science behind it. Here’s one way (the full exploratory development) way to proceed. Following it is a short description of an interim “procedural model” you can also formulate and use to get results while the full bore scientific treatment proceeds in its often long and arduous (and expensive) manner.

 

First list the “major characteristics”, such as the following “for example” list:

 

1. It’s electromagnetic.
2. It works in ways that normal electromagnetics theory does not allow. In other words, it cannot be described by the present EM model.
3. Item: Thus what is wrong with the present CEM/EE model, that severely limits and restricts it?
4. Item: Once we correct those things found wrong with the CEM/EE model, what kind of EM model results? What are its characteristics?
5. Item: Are there any other EM models in physics, outside the old CEM/EE model, that may shed some light on the problem or even offer a solution or possible solution?
6. Item: If so, what are they and what are their characteristics, and how do they differ dramatically from CEM/EE?
7. Now, what are several operational dynamics features that allow such mysterious operation of the unit or system?
8. Item: Produces waves or wave dynamics not measurable by the normal CEM/EE instruments.
9. Item: These waves travel easily through the earth and ocean (i.e., intervening matter of great bulk and size and depth).
10. Item:  Something (perhaps the human body itself) is sensitive to this energy and to changes in it.
11. Item.  The energy has a specificity according to the materials being “sampled” or examined at depth, or else the materials at depth are radiating “signatures” in this energy.  Or both.
12. Based on the above detailed listing (with appropriate discussions) – formulate hypotheses (based on at least far-front physics as much as possible) that might explain the empirically demonstrated dynamics and results, incorporating elements of the above listing.
13. Construct at least a rough conceptual model based on the analysis so far.
14. Now conceptually “test” that rough model to see its fits and its problems.
15. Are there any other conceptual models that appear may be fruitful? If so, do the same conceptual analysis with them.
16. When a conceptual model begins to yield good fits and good results, if it were true, then the problem shifts to that model and how to test it and substantiate it.
17. Item: do at least some simple “math” expressions and modeling that allow some empirical testing.
18. Item: Do these empirical tests, which is early “exploratory development”.
19. Repeat 15, 16, 17 for any other models that appeared fruitful.
20. Compare results of the partial testing of models.
21. Select the best or closest model.
22. Now begin to further develop the chosen “potential” model, conceptually. Then with a little empirical testing, etc.
23. Repeat the processes above until you get such a model that appears to be “usable”, at least to a reasonable degree.
24. Then move into full exploratory development using the selected model, with additional field testing of the device and its operations.

 

Dan, that is a rough outline of the problem you face to move the operation of the “gadget” or “process” toward a respectable or usable engineering science.
 

In practice, if the system gives good empirical results, you can produce a preliminary listing (detailed as possible) of “do this, you get this; do that, you get that” type things. Then with enough of them, you can arrive at an “ad hoc” procedural model that has been demonstrated empirically to produce useful results. You can use this ad hoc procedural model in the field and in business, to produce results while you are still struggling with the arduous (and often expensive) more definitive model and fitting exploratory development.

 

Best wishes,

 

Tom Bearden

 

Subject: Scalar waves
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:36:42 -0500

Tom,
 
I am a geologist in the oil and gas exploration business. I have run across a guy who claims that he has tuned a scalar device to gold, silver and hydrocarbons. I have been to the field with him and have been impressed by what he has shown me. He has a hand held device with an energy source (battery) in a back pack. We have walked across productive reefs at 15,000’ in depth his stuff has correlated remarkably well. I have questions which even he cannot answer. He is not a trained scientist but has bootstrapped the physics of creating this device through trial an error. He is extremely persistent.
 
Questions:
 

1. Is it possible that he is doing what he says he is doing?
2. If he is, can he “see” down to 15,000’ directly or is it more likely he is seeing entrained hydrocarbon molecules above the field?

 
This is a revolutionary device and could change how we look for oil and gas – which is difficult enough as it is.
 
I have made a small contribution. I have some big projects in the pipeline but cannot afford more significant support at this time. If these projects are successful, then I can offer significant support.
 
Thanks for your attention,
 
Dan