Dunning-Davis-J · Source catalogue

Preprint (ResearchGate, July 2020, 15 pp. incl. cover page). Starting from P. M. Jack's 2003 quaternion rewriting of Maxwell's equations, the authors define a scalar 'Temporal Field' T = -(1/c) dphi/dt + div A, giving modified Maxwell equations curl B = (1/c) dE/dt + grad T and div E = (1/c) dT/dt. Using the Lorenz-type condition div A = -(1/c) dphi/dt (their eq. 7) they get T = 2 div A. For B = 0 (A = grad S) they derive a wave equation for S and, substituting T = 2 laplacian S, obtain laplacian S - (1/(3c^2)) d2S/dt2 = 0, which they read as a wave speed of c*sqrt(3), i.e. superluminal 'scalar waves'. They link this to a 1987 CIA memo on 'scalar waves', to Whittaker's 1903-04 longitudinal-wave papers on gravity, to Bearden, T. T. Brown and Sweet (claimed 'free energy' devices with gains of 5e4 to 1.5e6 and 90% weight reduction), and assert that government/military programmes already use this mathematics for clean energy, antigravity and weapons while it is kept secret. A closing section quotes Thornhill (1984) that Maxwell's partial time derivative must be replaced by the total derivative D/Dt in a gas-like aether, so that away from mass the medium is stationary and longitudinal waves travel near-instantaneously. [read] Own check of the algebra [calculation]: with A = grad S and phi = -(1/c) dS/dt (the CIA memo's choice), Lorenz condition (7) already gives laplacian S = (1/c^2) d2S/dt^2; combining that with the paper's derived laplacian S = (1/(3c^2)) d2S/dt^2 forces laplacian S = 0 and d2S/dt2 = 0, so the c*sqrt(3) wave cannot coexist with eq. (7). The sign of T in the quaternion definition also differs from the standard Lorenz-gauge combination, which is why T does not vanish. Needs adjudication in later steps. QE correction: the gain range (5e4-1.5e6) belongs to the power models and the 175 uW / 1 kW pair to the antigravity experiment; the abstract does not say they describe one device, so the earlier 'figures disagree' reading is withdrawn. The quoted claim of closed battery-less systems is itself an over-unity claim [read: preprint lines 186-193, per QE]. The 2024 paper's deep read confirms the derivation steps: B = 0 gives A = grad S; eq. (8) gives grad(laplacian S - S_tt/c^2 + T) = 0; the integration constant is set to zero ('assumption, because assumption it is'); T = 2 laplacian S; wave speed c*sqrt(3) [read: 2024 paper pp.17-18].

Key claims

• Writing Maxwell's equations as quaternions yields a seventh, scalar electromagnetic field component T (the 'Temporal Field') that ordinary vector Maxwell theory omits.
• The modified equations curl B = (1/c) dE/dt + grad T and div E = (1/c) dT/dt hold, and reduce to standard Maxwell when T is constant.
• Scalar (longitudinal) waves with E = B = 0 and A = grad S, phi = -(1/c) dS/dt solve Maxwell's equations and carry no Poynting flux.
• With T = 2 div A, the S wave equation becomes laplacian S - (1/(3c^2)) d2S/dt^2 = 0, so scalar waves travel at c*sqrt(3), faster than light.
• Gravity propagates as a superluminal longitudinal scalar wave in an aether (Whittaker 1903/1904; Thornhill's total time derivative).
• Government and military programmes have built working free-energy and antigravity devices on this science and concealed it.
• Sweet and Bearden devices achieved open-loop power gains of 5e4 to 1.5e6 (power models), and, in separate antigravity experiments, 90% weight reduction with 175 microwatts in and 1 kW out; the quote also claims closed, battery-less systems with damped positive feedback (self-running units).

Relevance: Core mathematical paper of the project: the only place the scalar-wave / T-field derivation and the c*sqrt(3) speed are set out step by step.

Mainstream conflict: Standard EM has no extra scalar field (the scalar part of the quaternion is zero for the standard fields and Lorenz-gauge T vanishes); no superluminal signal propagation is accepted (special relativity); free-energy/antigravity claims conflict with energy conservation; secret-programme claims rest on non-peer-reviewed sources.

ResearchGate preprint, December 2018, 10 pp. Presented as a theoretical adjunct to the authors' 'Probabilistic Mechanics: the hidden variable'. Builds on Kenneth Thornhill's 1984 papers (a gas-like aether with Maxwellian statistics; electromagnetic-condensational 'triality' of transverse E and B plus longitudinal aether oscillation). Replaces partial d/dt by the total derivative D/Dt = d/dt + v.grad in Maxwell's equations, repeats the CIA-memo scalar-wave solution (A = grad S, phi = -(1/c) dS/dt, E = B = 0) and calls it a longitudinal aether wave carrying energy with pressure/density oscillation. Speculations then follow: electron tunnelling (tunnel diode, resonant tunnelling diode) is explained as constructive interference of scalar-wave 'voltages', the probability amplitude is said to be an actual scalar voltage, the strong force is 'spherically confined nuclear-scale induction', the Coulomb barrier is its counter-field, fusion in stars and the Gamow window are explained by temperature raising longitudinal-wave energy, quarks/neutrinos/gluons are rejected in favour of Santilli's hadronic mechanics and a 'aetherino', with a list of 'logical inconsistencies' of neutrino and quantum theory (0.782 MeV binding energy, antineutrino null cross-section, etc.). Deep read of pp.6-10: no equations, no numerical predictions and no proposed experiment appear there. Content: resonant tunnelling diode and 'probability amplitude = actual scalar voltage' (dimensionally unsupported, p.6); the stated principle 'Spherically confined nuclear scale induction (the strong force) produces an externally radiating counter force field: the Coulomb barrier' (p.7), which inverts the textbook origin of the barrier (ordinary proton-proton electrostatic repulsion); the Gamow window claimed 'causally accessible' because temperature raises longitudinal-wave energy, supported only by two school web pages on sound speed versus temperature (pp.7, 9); four 'neutrino inconsistencies' and eight 'quantum inconsistencies' (p.8), of which items 6-8 of the latter are claims of Santilli's model, not inconsistencies; the aetherino (mass 0, charge 0, spin 1/2, 0.78 energy) is identified with the neutrino-replacement and with the strong force itself (pp.8-9); 'repeatedly demonstrated in many experiments' refers to the authors' own 2017 Hadronic Journal paper (p.9); suppression is asserted with no evidence (p.9). The 0.782 MeV is the standard m_n - m_p - m_e difference (939.565 - 938.272 - 0.511) [read: deep/Finalconsequences...md].

Key claims

• A physical gas-like aether exists in which electromagnetic waves are accompanied by longitudinal condensational oscillations (Thornhill's triality).
• Maxwell's equations must use the total time derivative D/Dt moving with the aether, not the partial derivative d/dt.
• A scalar (longitudinal) wave solution with E = B = 0 carries energy in the aether even though the Poynting vector is zero.
• Electron tunnelling is caused by constructive interference of longitudinal scalar waves supplying the missing energy, not by probability alone.
• The strong force is scalar-wave induction at nuclear scale and the Coulomb barrier is its external counter-field.
• Quarks, neutrinos and gluons are unnecessary; the neutron is a hadronic bound state of proton and electron (Santilli) and neutrino effects are 'aetherino' longitudinal impulses.
• The probability amplitude after barrier passage is an actual reduced scalar voltage amplitude.
• The Coulomb barrier is the external counter-field of strong-force induction (reverses the textbook origin of the barrier).
• The Gamow window is explained causally by temperature raising the energy and speed of the aether's longitudinal wave.

Relevance: Gives the aether/longitudinal-wave foundation and the extension to quantum tunnelling and nuclear physics that later papers reuse.

Mainstream conflict: Michelson-Morley and special relativity (no aether frame); quantum tunnelling is accurately described by the Schrodinger equation (e.g. tunnel diodes, alpha-decay Gamow theory); neutrinos are directly detected; quark model well tested; scalar-wave 'energy carriage' contradicts the zero Poynting flux the paper itself cites.

69-page PDF (ResearchGate preprint Jan 2020, uploaded 26 Mar 2020; 143,724 characters, 9 OCR pages). It bundles at least four documents: (1) 'Gravity' main paper (Norman, Scientific Advisor to Thunder Energies Corporation, p.2; Dunning-Davies); (2) pp.28-43 'Energy and matter creation: The Poynting Vortex'; (3) pp.44-50 hadronic-energy appendix (Santilli waste disposal and hadronic fuels; cites '[31]' five times with no item 31 in the PDF); (4) pp.51-59 T. T. Brown patent text (OCR badly garbled); (5) pp.60-69 J. Dunning-Davies, 'A Note on the Gravitational Equations analogous to Maxwell's Electromagnetic Equations' (Carstoiu, Brillouin, Heaviside, Jefimenko, Wesley). Main paper (summary from the digest; pp.3-5 and 11-27 since deep-read, see the second-round paragraph below): relativity is said to be flawed (Van Flandern: eclipse maximum about 40 seconds before gravitational alignment, instantaneous gravity; lensing as refraction; twin paradox, Sagnac effect, 'absolute time' as interaction frequency in the aether, pp.24-25); gravity as a superluminal longitudinal scalar wave (Whittaker); Brillouin's epsilon = -1/G = -1.5e7 cgs (p.11; arithmetic 1/6.674e-8 = 1.498e7 correct); Project Winterhaven (Brown, 1952); Brown patents with 'million-over-one' efficiency (pp.17-18); the B-2 bomber said to use positive plasmas at leading edges and negative plasmas in the exhaust and to fly on 'perpetual propulsion' powered by a self-generated gravitational gradient, quoting Valone's 'Electrogravitics Systems' [15] (pp.15-17); Laithwaite's 50-pound gyroscope seeming to lose weight and a NATO AGARD 1990 report said to conclude such a device 'could counteract gravity' (pp.19-20; see second-round paragraph: the quoted sentence is conditional and attributed to Cook, not to AGARD); Schauberger's vortex devices said to self-sustain at 15,000-20,000 rpm (pp.20-21); Sweet-Bearden gains 5e4-1.5e6 and 90% weight reduction; proposed over-unity experiments. Deep read pp.28-51 (all [read] or [web: AJMP] or [calc]): (a) the appendix says delayed neutron detections by Sternglass, Borghi, Santilli and Trounson indicate a spin-zero 'neutroid' (A=1, Z=0, J=0, 1.008 u) (p.33, 35-36); the authors' own AJMP paper says none of those early tests used neutron detectors, the neutron evidence was indirect, and none of the first three were published in refereed journals [web: http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/confirmation-neutron-synthesis-2017.pdf p.85-86, 99], so the appendix overstates it. (b) Dunning-Davies co-authored that experimental paper, 'Experimental Confirmation of the Synthesis of Neutrons and Neutroids from a Hydrogen Gas', American Journal of Modern Physics 6(4-1), 85-104 (2017; received 6 June, accepted 8 June 2017); authors Norman, Bhalekar, Beghella Bartoli, Buckley, Dunning-Davies, Rak, Santilli; four of seven list Thunder Energies Corporation. Detector evidence (Ludlum 375, Berkeley Nucleonics SAM 940, Polimaster) is hosted on thunder-energies.com (p.43). Controls missing in the paper: no neutron-background or arc-off run, Ludlum peaks coincide with capacitor discharges (pickup signature), counts fall only 5x (5-6 cps at 2 cm to exactly 1.00 cps at 1.5 m) where inverse-square geometry predicts about 100x or more, no capture-gamma signal, neutroid evidence is 0-3 counts per 4-6 minute run, and per-reaction energy from a 3-20 kV discharge is 40-260 times too small for the 0.782 MeV needed [calc]. No independent replication is known to this agent [memory: medium; web check failed, quota]. (c) The Li-7 + neutroid + aetherino reaction on p.36 does not conserve charge (left Z = 3, right Z = 4). (d) The p.34 passage 'no neutrino has ever been directly observed' itself describes the delayed-coincidence signature of Cowan-Reines. (e) Hadronic-fuel energy budget from AME2020 masses [web: https://www-nds.iaea.org/amdc/ame2020/mass_1.mas20.txt]: Zn-70 to Ga-70 is -0.655 MeV and Ga-70 to Ge-70 is +1.652 MeV (double-beta Q = +0.997 MeV); Mo-100 to Tc-100 -0.172 MeV, Tc-100 to Ru-100 +3.206 MeV (Q = +3.034 MeV). A 1.294 MeV photon returns about 0.872 MeV in electrons for Zn-70 (net loss even if ideal; antineutrinos carry the rest) and about 1.804 MeV for Mo-100 (net gain only if photon production efficiency times trigger probability is at least 0.72). 1.294 MeV is m_n - m_p, not either fuel's threshold. (f) Other errors: '10^-31 seconds' as nuclear decay time (p.44) is shorter than light-crossing time of a nucleus (about 3e-24 s); 'attractive' hadronic force 'without any binding energy' (p.46) is self-contradictory; TR + D + C-12 -> N-14 has Q = 10.27 MeV by mass but the Coulomb barrier and the 40%-nitrogen atmosphere claim are unaddressed (pp.49-50); PlasmaArcFlow reactors are 'already in industrial production' with no data (p.50). The appendix itself says 'It seems sensible to perform these experiments to decide whether or not the claims are valid' (p.45). Pp.52-69 (second-round deep read, [read] with page images): pp.52-59 are the drawings and text of T. T. Brown's British patent GB 300,311 (applied 15 Aug 1927, accepted 15 Aug 1928), which asserts a force with 'no equal and opposite reaction', gives force bookkeeping g+e+x and g+e-x summing to 2x (arithmetically consistent, but x is never quantified), and states the 'million to one' ratio only as a possibility ('at times', 'in some instances', 'is believed'); no data, numbers or wave/aether language appear. Pp.60-69 are J. Dunning-Davies and J. P. Dunning-Davies's note with a translation of Carstoiu (C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris 268, 201, 1969): Omega = G/c, curl G = -dOmega/dt, curl Omega = (1/c^2) dG/dt - (4 pi gamma/c^2) J_g, div G = -4 pi gamma rho, div Omega = 0; the speed c is put in by choosing k_m = c, and the wave equation with speed c follows from the equations as written [calc]. Carstoiu's 'never verified' remark dates from 1969; he also wrongly says Einstein's equations give gravitational waves at half c (p.63). The Alfven-speed analogue is imaginary (negative mu, epsilon) because the system is elliptic, not hyperbolic (p.65-66); condition Omega_0^2 <= 4 pi gamma rho is about six orders of magnitude above Earth's spin (4.6e-3 s^-2 versus 5.3e-9 s^-2) [calc]. Dunning-Davies's D/Dt replacement (pp.67-68) for Galilean invariance is asserted, not shown (no transformation of G or Omega, v undefined, preferred frame reintroduced). Wesley's electrodynamic gravity is a one-paragraph mention with no results. The note says gravity propagates at c (pp.65, 69) and its equations give transverse waves (a consequence of div G = 0 [calc], not stated in the note), directly contradicting the main text's superluminal longitudinal scalar wave (pp.6, 18, 22), not merely 'uneasily'. Second-round deep read pp.3-5 and 11-27 (all [read] unless tagged): (a) Van Flandern eclipse claim (p.3): 'maximum eclipse about 40 seconds before the Sun and Moon's gravitational forces align' is second-hand, no date, eclipse, method or data, and no light-time or aberration treatment; nothing is derived from it; p.5 then infers that gravity theory 'has been developed and actively suppressed' from two 1950s quotations (Brown 1952 proposal, a 1954 report via Valone). (b) B-2 (pp.14-16): the authors endorse it first-hand ('demonstrates', 'now used in the B2'), supported only by Valone [15] p.94 (a conditional design sketch: 'Provided that...') and Cook [22]; they add a thermodynamics caveat but keep the claim by naming a 'gravitational/aethereal' reservoir; no voltage, drag or fuel-flow number. (c) Laithwaite and AGARD (p.19): 'seemed to lose weight' with no measurement; the AGARD sentence is the authors' paraphrase, the one quotation is conditional ('if such a counteracting force was of a sufficient magnitude') and is attributed to Cook, The Hunt for Zero Point, p.83, with no AGARD document number; 'ostracized' is sourced to the authors' own self-published book [23]. (d) Brown 'million to one' (pp.17, 23) is a patent sentence upgraded by the authors to 'working technology'. (e) Schauberger (p.20) is an anecdote relayed through Cook (turbine at 15,000-20,000 rpm 'became self-sustaining', no data); the Coats quotation has electrons and protons 'annihilating', which is not an accepted process [memory: high]. (f) Sweet-Bearden (pp.22-23) is a quoted abstract (6 W to 5 kW units; open-loop gains 5e4 to 1.5e6; 90% weight loss with 175 microwatts in and 1 kW out); nothing says who tested or how. (g) Brillouin (pp.11-12): epsilon = -1/G = -1.5e7 is -1/G in cgs units (about 1.5e10 in SI), so it is unit-dependent, not a dielectric constant; p.11 cites Brillouin as [20] but the list has him at [21] ([20] is the CIA document). (h) Twin paradox and 'absolute time' (pp.24-25): no equation or number, Hafele-Keating not named, 'higher interaction frequency' undefined, Sagnac suggested with no calculation, Aharonov-Bohm over-extended. (i) Internal contradictions: p.13 footnote says both gravitational wave types 'propagate with the same speed' while pp.18 and 22 claim superluminal speeds; the p.18 footnote concedes '4 such potentials are sometimes needed', retracting 'two scalar potentials suffice'. (j) Nothing in pp.14-27 reports a measurement by the authors: all five 'evidence' items are relayed quotations of books, a patent or an abstract. References include blogs and a YouTube video; Van Flandern is dated 1989 but Physics Letters A 250 is 1998 [memory: medium].

Key claims

• Gravity propagates at speeds far above c (near-instantaneous) as a longitudinal scalar wave in an aether, so general relativity's propagation at c is wrong.
• Gravitational lensing and redshift are refraction effects, so dark matter is unnecessary.
• Electromagnetic and gravitational fields couple through their shared scalar potentials; charged plasmas can alter mass.
• A spinning gyroscope loses weight (Laithwaite) and Schauberger-type spinning devices can be self-sustaining and lift off.
• T. T. Brown electrogravitic devices and Sweet-Bearden devices produced antigravity and over-unity power; Brown's patents give 'million-over-one' efficiency.
• The B-2 bomber can fly indefinitely with essentially zero fuel use on a self-generated gravitational gradient.
• A spin-zero neutroid (A=1, Z=0, J=0) exists as the precursor of the neutron, and neutrons and neutroids were synthesised from hydrogen gas in an arc (AJMP 2017, co-authored by Dunning-Davies and Norman).
• Neutrons become a p + e bound state needing 0.782 MeV from the aether (the 'aetherino'); no neutrino has ever been directly observed.
• Stimulating hadronic fuels Zn-70 and Mo-100 with 1.294 MeV resonant photons yields a net positive energy output and neutralises radioactive waste.
• Gravitational theory has been suppressed for military reasons.
• Gravity follows Maxwell-type equations (Carstoiu/Brillouin) with a gravitational vortex field in which fields propagate at c; Dunning-Davies proposes D/Dt to make them Galilean-invariant (internal tension with the superluminal-gravity claim of the main paper).
• Total eclipses reach maximum about 40 seconds before the Sun and Moon's gravitational forces align, so gravity acts faster than light (Van Flandern, second-hand; no data or light-time/aberration treatment given, p.3).
• Brown's 1927/1928 patent GB 300,311 describes a force with no equal and opposite reaction from charged electrodes, and says a self-excited motor's output may in some instances be a million times its input (a patent statement; no data).
• The authors' paper and its own Carstoiu appendix contradict each other: main text says gravity travels superluminally as a longitudinal scalar wave (pp.6, 18, 22), the appendix equations give transverse-capable waves at exactly c (pp.65, 69).
• Time dilation in the twin paradox is a difference in 'interaction frequency' with the aether potentials, and 'absolute time' is interaction with a standing reference frame (pp.24-25; no equation or number).
• Brillouin: Newton and Coulomb laws match if e = -1/G = -1.5e7 (cgs), implying negative dielectric constant, negative energy and negative mass (p.11; unit-dependent analogy).

Relevance: The broadest statement of the project's gravity, over-unity and hadronic-energy claims. The only place in the folder that points to an experimental claim carrying the authors' names (AJMP 2017) and gives the hadronic-fuel numbers.

Mainstream conflict: General relativity (Hulse-Taylor pulsar timing; GW170817 speed equal to c to about 1e-15 [memory: medium, unverified]); lensing is achromatic and consistent with GR [memory: medium]; Laithwaite's gyroscope effect has an ordinary-mechanics explanation [memory: medium]; over-unity and zero-fuel flight violate energy conservation; neutrino detection (Cowan-Reines 1956 [memory: high]); neutron as p+e bound state conflicts with spin and quark model; the Li-7 reaction on p.36 violates charge conservation [read: p.36]; Zn-70 net-energy claim is refuted by tabulated masses [calc].; Carstoiu's remark that Einstein's equations give gravitational waves at half c is wrong (GR gives c) [memory: high]; Brown's claimed force with no reaction contradicts Newton's third law [read: p.55]; the B-2 and 'million to one' claims violate energy conservation unless an external source is measured

Hadronic Journal 47, 153-181 (received 17 Nov 2023), 29 pages, all OCR (55,387 characters). Published in Santilli's own journal; Norman is listed as Scientific Advisor, Hadronic Technologies Inc. It is a review and advocacy note with no experiment, data or measurement of its own; every quantitative claim is borrowed from Thornhill, Jack, Santilli, Tesla or Bearden [read: deep read]. Content: (1) Thornhill 1983/84 gas-aether papers; the authors concede he shows consistency, not existence (p.5). (2) Jack's quaternion Maxwell equations and the T field, curl B = (1/c)dE/dt + grad T, div E = (1/c)dT/dt; T = 2 div A under the gauge condition (7); c*sqrt(3) wave speed rests on a zero integration constant, the gauge condition and a sign choice (pp.17-18). Deep-read note: taking the divergence of the modified Ampere equation gives T_tt/c^2 + laplacian T = 0, the Laplace-type sign, so T as printed does not obey a wave equation [read/analysis; memory: high on the algebra]. (3) Bridgman and Ettingshausen: T linked to heat, 'thermo-motive force', qualitative only (pp.6-7). (4) 'Time itself is heat' and heating = positive energy, cooling = negative energy 'in working government applications' (pp.13-14), unsupported. (5) Graviton as transient photon-antiphoton pairs (p.11; antiphoton undefined, photon is its own antiparticle [memory: high]). (6) Seven 'proposed advances' (p.12), mostly reinterpretations with no equations. (7) Einstein's 1920 Leiden address quoted as support (p.9); it is a GR-era lecture, after 1905 and 1915, whose ether has no state of motion [memory: high], so the paper's 'before his public refusal' framing is wrong. (8) The neutron needs a neutrino supplying '0.782 MeV more positive energy' (p.12) while the paper rejects neutrinos elsewhere; 0.782 MeV is the standard m_n - m_p - m_e. (9) Santilli waste 'neutralisation' with 1.294 MeV photons; the authors admit the product could be 'a totally unknown concoction ... high levels of toxins', a coolant is needed, and 'a few basic experiments' are required (pp.19-23). (10) Hadronic fuels Zn(70,30), Mo(100,42) with 'two electrons per photon' and 'positive energy output', no yield or efficiency given (p.23). (11) Nitrogen synthesis TR + H-2 + C-12 -> N-14 + heat, Q = 10.3 MeV by mass balance, as 'an obvious explanation for thunder' (pp.24-25); '40% nitrogen' is unsourced. (12) PlasmaArcFlow reactors 'already in industrial production' (p.25). (13) Thornhill aether particle mass 0.497e-39 kg, electron about 2e9 times heavier (1.83e9 checked) (p.26). Reference list (pp.27-29): 25 entries, heavy self-citation (refs 5, 9, 16, 19), and the 'CIA released article' cited as [5] is not identified; ref 5 is the authors' own 2020 J. Mod. Phys. paper. Thornhill's papers are dated 1983 in the reference list and 1984 elsewhere in the text.

Key claims

• An aether exists; the neglected Thornhill and Whittaker papers support it.
• Jack's quaternion T field carries positive and negative energy tied to charge sign, is heat, and 'time itself is heat'.
• A graviton is a transient photon-antiphoton pair of positive and negative energy.
• Longitudinal aether waves away from mass travel near-instantaneously; the T-field equations give a wave speed of c*sqrt(3).
• The neutron is a proton-electron hadronic bound state needing a 0.782 MeV neutrino-like contribution.
• High-level radioactive waste can be neutralised by stimulating beta decay with 1.294 MeV resonant photons (Santilli); the authors admit experiments are needed.
• Hadronic fuels Zn-70 and Mo-100 and low-energy transmutation give net clean energy; PlasmaArcFlow reactors are already in industrial production.
• Nitrogen was synthesised in the atmosphere by lightning-triggered D + C-12 -> N-14, explaining thunder and raising nitrogen from 40%.
• Einstein's 1920 Leiden address shows he once saw value in an aether.

Relevance: Latest (2024) and most complete restatement of the project; carries the T-field/heat/graviton ideas and the hadronic energy proposals, and is explicit that no new data are presented.

Mainstream conflict: No aether rest frame (Michelson-Morley, special relativity); no superluminal signalling; T as a gauge-fixed quantity is not a physical field; the photon is its own antiparticle; neutron as p+e conflicts with spin-statistics and quarks; waste neutralisation and hadronic fuels contradict standard nuclear photon-interaction physics and, for Zn-70, tabulated mass-energy [calc, see Gravity deep read]; nitrogen synthesis faces the d + C-12 Coulomb barrier [memory: high].

3-page scanned US intelligence-community memo marked CONFIDENTIAL/NOFORN, dated 12/22/87 by hand, subject 'Scalar Waves', with redacted passages. It says scalar waves are unconventional waves 'not necessarily a contradiction to Maxwell's equations' that might offer new propagation for submarine communication; a community in the US believes they are realizable (an IEEE-sponsored Tesla conference); a scalar wave is not electromagnetic since it has no time-varying B and in some cases no E, so no Poynting power flow, though the author notes any vector integrating to zero over a closed surface could be added so the Poynting theorem is ambiguous. Writes E = -grad phi - (1/c) dA/dt, B = curl A, wave equations for phi and A, and a 'special case' E = B = 0, curl A = 0, A = grad S, phi = -(1/c) dS/dt, S obeying the scalar wave equation. Raises the question of where energy is drawn from, mentions drawing energy from the vacuum and names Lt Col Tom Bearden as a chief proponent. Summary: 'Their existence is not proven, but if they exist their energy source is not clear.' [read: page image p.1-3]

Key claims

• A potential S with A = grad S and phi = -(1/c) dS/dt gives E = 0, B = 0 and satisfies the wave equation laplacian S - (1/c^2) d2S/dt^2 = 0.
• Such 'scalar waves' have no Poynting energy flow and their existence is not proven.
• The memo's author states the energy source for such waves is unclear and that vacuum energy is one suggested possibility.

Relevance: The source repeatedly cited by the authors as 'CIA work' proving the government uses scalar waves; its actual content is a short, hedged summary memo.

Mainstream conflict: None in the memo's maths as stated (a pure-gauge potential, since A = grad S, phi = -(1/c) dS/dt gives E = B = 0 for any S, and the wave equation for S is the Lorenz-gauge condition); the memo itself says existence is not proven. The authors' use of it as proof of working technology goes beyond what it says. [calculation: with those substitutions E = grad(S_t/c) - grad(S_t/c) = 0]

Word manuscript (about 35,000 characters, equations stored as inline text and partly garbled). Reconsiders wave/particle duality following Lazar Mayants ('The Enigma of Probability and Physics', 1984; 'Beyond the Quantum Paradox', 1994): particle diffraction is said to reflect the probability distribution of 'abstract' particles, not a physical wave of 'concrete' particles, and the manuscript derives the wave equation with phase velocity vp = E/p from the relativistic Schrodinger-type equation. It then argues the speed of light is not constant (varies with refractive index; special relativity only holds in vacuum, citing Santilli), that EPR is not paradoxical and Bell's inequalities rest on confusing abstract with concrete objects so superluminal non-locality is allowed, cites Van Flandern for superluminal gravity and a refraction interpretation of general relativity, proposes photon mass-bearing 'emons' (Mayants), rejects wave-function collapse and many-worlds, treats uncertainty as a human limit, invokes Wheeler's information and a non-probabilistic 'bit field' (aka the temporal field) linking gravity, mind and entanglement, and cites parapsychology-type experiments (Radin, Jahn, Tressoldi: mind-matter effects on double-slit patterns and random event generators). Ends with nine open questions. [read]

Key claims

• Particle diffraction is not a wave process; it reflects probability distributions for abstract particles (Mayants).
• Bell's inequalities rely on mixing abstract and concrete objects and therefore do not rule out local-realistic explanations.
• The speed of light is not constant; special relativity is valid only for vacuum propagation.
• Gravity propagates superluminally via a 'bit field' (the temporal field), which also mediates entanglement and mind-matter effects.
• Human intention measurably affects double-slit interference patterns and random number generators.

Relevance: Extends the project from aether and scalar waves into quantum foundations and consciousness; shows the T field being renamed the 'bit field'.

Mainstream conflict: Loophole-free Bell tests (2015 onward) rule out local hidden variable models [memory: high; verify in step 2]; wave-particle duality and electron/neutron diffraction one-at-a-time buildup are standard QM; mind-matter double-slit claims have no accepted replication; constancy of c in vacuum is heavily tested.