RankingsPrimerArbiterPhysicistMathematicianContrarianQESites logClaimsSourcesResearch notes

Government: Primer

Project: four unrelated US-government-hosted documents and a zip of internet images:

  • Memo "Scalar Waves", from "DT-ACO" (author's name redacted) to "DT (Dr. Vorona)", handwritten date 12/22/87, marked CONFIDENTIAL/NOFORN, released 2001 and held in the CIA reading-room files (series CIA-RDP96-00792) [read: page images pp.1-3]. The memo never names its agency. The Investigator's 2026-10-05 run found a primary record that places it: a US Army INSCOM (Intelligence and Security Command) memo of 25 July 1984, "CENTER LANE Meeting with DIA", names "Dr. Jack Vorona, Assistant Vice Director for Scientific and Technical Intelligence, DIA" and "DT (Dr. Vorona's office)", and is signed by the CENTER LANE (Army remote-viewing) project manager, LTC Brian Buzby [web: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00788r001500100012-3]. So "DT" is the Defense Intelligence Agency's (DIA's) science-and-technology intelligence directorate and "DT-ACO" an office within it. That is an inference from the office symbol; the memo itself does not name DIA. The reading-room pages carry "Collection: STARGATE", the release of the Army/DIA remote-viewing files [web]. This primer therefore calls the author "an analyst in a DIA science-and-technology intelligence office", not "a CIA analyst".
  • DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) Defense Analysis Report DIA-08-0911-003, "Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance", Beverly Barnhart, 13 November 2009 [read: pp.1-8 including the 54 endnotes, via the QE deep read deep/DIA-...md].
  • Alan C. Holt, "Field Resonance Propulsion Concept", NASA TM-80961, 1979, private research published with a disclaimer [read: text layer, via earlier steps].
  • Gerald Feinberg, "Particles That Go Faster Than Light", Scientific American, February 1970, a copy held in CIA files [read: full OCR text pp.1-9, via the QE deep read].
  • A zip, "EM effects on human body": three infographics about microwave and ELF (extremely low frequency, below about 300 Hz) "mind control". 2RNM.jpg is credited to Supratik Saha (software, electronics and communications engineering), the gif carries the watermark www.raven1.net, and 9RNM.jpg has no visible credit; none of them cites references, methods or field strengths [read: facts.json, digest]. The zip also holds three California State Threat Assessment Center (STAC) news digests from March-September 2017 (school threat arrests, ISIS cases, hate crimes, the North Korean nuclear test), which say nothing about EM effects; why they were bundled with the infographics is unknown [read: digests].

Inputs: arbiter.md (authoritative verdicts, including its "QE revision", "Evidence-rule revision (2026-10-05)" and "Investigator findings (2026-10-05)" sections), physicist.md, mathematician.md, contrarian.md, qe.md, the three QE deep reads in deep/, and the Investigator's sites.md and research/ notes (2026-10-05). I also re-read all three pages of the scalar-waves memo as images for this primer. Companion script: example.py (run command in its header). It runs cleanly and reproduces every number in Section 5 and the supporting numbers quoted elsewhere (Part 6 covers the Investigator findings).

Source tags: [read] = from the source documents; [read: page image p.N] = read from a rendered page; [web] = Internet source, URL given; [memory] = recalled from training, with confidence; [calc] = arithmetic done here and checked in example.py.

Source gap (repeated from earlier steps). Three of the four PDFs (the scalar-waves memo, the CIA copy of Feinberg's article, the DIA report) have no text layer and were read by OCR and page images. The memo's equations are fully legible. The DIA reference list (pp.7-8) was read in the QE revision, and so was one cited source in full: the US Navy China Lake report by Miles, Bush and Johnson (1996), a Naval Air Warfare Center technical publication written by the experimenters themselves, read from a copy hosted by lenr-canr.org, an archive of LENR (low-energy nuclear reaction) literature run by supporters of the field. The other cited laboratory papers, including the CR-39 "triple tracks" paper (Section 4), were not read, so laboratory LENR data enter this primer only through the Miles report and DIA's summaries. Web checks were mostly limited to Wikipedia pages (secondary sources). The largest-solar-flare energy is [memory, medium] only; no verdict depends on it. An Investigator (web research) run was made on 2026-10-05. It downloaded nothing (research/files/ is empty), so every new finding is the Investigator's report of a web page, an abstract or a search snippet. The arbiter then spent 4 of its 8 web calls checking them: only the arXiv:2405.02307 abstract could be read (it names no ARPA-E link); the ARPA-E pages and the CIA page for the Rein paper returned nothing useful. So the ARPA-E funding is known from search snippets only, and the Rein data table from OCR (optical character recognition) only; no one has seen its page image. See "What happened next" after Section 4.

Note on this folder. This is not one researcher's theory. It is a collection of documents that government agencies wrote, hosted or filed. Being in a government file does not make a claim true or false: the scalar-waves memo and the DIA report are analysts' summaries of what others claimed, not experiments. The memo states why the topic mattered: scalar waves might penetrate sea water "for submarine communications" and offer "a new form of technology for ASW" (anti-submarine warfare), of "high interest to the U.S. R&D Community and the Intelligence Community" [read: deep/memo, p.1]. A classified paragraph (marked C/NF, Confidential/No Foreign dissemination) reports that "a US community" believes scalar waves realizable, citing an IEEE-sponsored (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) conference "dedicated to Nicola Tesla" and an implied "Tesla Connection"; the rest of that paragraph is withheld (code SG1B) [read: p.1]. The memo names "Lt Col Tom Bearden" as "a chief proponent" of drawing energy from the vacuum, known for his "Fer-de-Lance" briefing on "Soviet Scalar Weapons" [read: page image p.2]. So the physics in the memo is the analyst's summary of what the proponents say, not the analyst's own endorsement. The same released folder also holds a staff note setting out Bearden's own mechanism for seawater penetration and a cell-culture experiment by Glen Rein; both were found by the Investigator and are covered in Sections 4 and 6. Bearden has his own primer in this series (../Bearden/primer.md); this primer focuses on the physics the memo itself writes down.

1. The idea in one paragraph

Each document in this folder asks whether some piece of "forbidden" physics might be real and useful to the military. A 1987 analyst in a DIA intelligence office (memo held in CIA files) summarised claims that "scalar waves" exist: waves made of electromagnetic potentials but with no electric or magnetic field, which might pass through seawater to reach submarines and might draw energy from empty space. A 2009 DIA report said cold fusion (nuclear reactions in palladium soaked with heavy hydrogen at room temperature) was becoming accepted as real. A 1979 NASA paper proposed that a craft could "tune" itself, like a radio, to a distant point in space-time and appear there, using lasers to make enormous magnetic fields. A 1970 Scientific American article explained why particles faster than light (tachyons) are not ruled out by relativity, and reported the searches that failed to find them. A set of internet images claims that microwave and ELF signals can read or control minds. The value for a learner is that each one sits next to a piece of real, testable physics: electromagnetic potentials, nuclear energy budgets, magnetic energy, relativistic kinematics, and how waves spread. Working through them shows how to tell a mathematical curiosity, a real anomaly, an undefined idea and an honest null result apart.

2. What you need to know first

2.1 Electromagnetic potentials and "gauge freedom". In Griffiths-level electromagnetism you meet the electric field E (volts per metre, V/m) and magnetic field B (tesla, T). Both can be written in terms of two simpler quantities: a scalar potential phi (volts) and a vector potential A (volt-seconds per metre, V s/m). The key fact, which this whole primer turns on, is that the potentials are not unique. You can change them by a rule (a "gauge transformation", defined in Section 3.1) and E and B do not change at all. Since every force on a charge is computed from E and B, the extra freedom in the potentials is bookkeeping, like choosing where to put zero on a ruler. "Gauge theory" in advanced physics is built on this idea, but you only need the one-line version here. Read: Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, Chapter 10 (Potentials and Fields), the section on gauge transformations [memory, high].

2.2 Energy in electromagnetic fields (Poynting's theorem). The energy stored per cubic metre in an electromagnetic field is u = (epsilon_0 E^2 + B^2/mu_0)/2, and the energy flowing per second through a square metre is the Poynting vector P = E x B / mu_0. Poynting's theorem says that energy in a region changes only by flow across the boundary or by work done on charges. Notice that both u and P are built only from E and B. Read: Griffiths Chapter 8 (Conservation Laws) [memory, high].

2.3 Waves in conductors (skin depth). An electromagnetic wave entering a conductor drives currents that dissipate its energy, so its amplitude falls as exp(-d/delta), where d is depth and delta is the "skin depth". For a good conductor delta = sqrt(2/(omega mu_0 sigma)), with omega = 2 pi f the angular frequency and sigma the conductivity in siemens per metre (S/m). Lower frequency means deeper penetration. Seawater conducts well, so radio cannot reach deep submarines except at very low frequencies. Read: Griffiths Chapter 9, the section on electromagnetic waves in conductors [memory, high].

2.4 Magnetic energy and magnetic reconnection. A magnetic field B stores energy density u_B = B^2/(2 mu_0) joules per cubic metre. In a plasma (a hot, electrically conducting gas), field lines pointing in opposite directions can be pushed together, break, and reconnect in a new shape; the energy released heats and accelerates the plasma. This "reconnection" is the accepted engine of solar flares. Read: Francis F. Chen, Introduction to Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion (general background); Griffiths Chapter 7 for magnetic energy [memory, high].

2.5 Nuclear reaction energy, the Coulomb barrier, and tunnelling. Nuclear reactions release millions of electron-volts (MeV; 1 MeV = 1.602e-13 J) per event, versus about 1 eV per atom for chemistry. Two deuterons (heavy-hydrogen nuclei, d) can fuse in three main ways [memory, high]:

d + d -> t + p        (4.03 MeV)        t = tritium nucleus, p = proton
d + d -> He-3 + n     (3.27 MeV)        n = neutron
d + d -> He-4 + gamma (23.8 MeV)        gamma = high-energy photon; about 1e-7 of events

The first two happen about equally often. Before they can fuse, the two positive nuclei must get within a few femtometres (1 fm = 1e-15 m) despite their electrical repulsion, the "Coulomb barrier", which is hundreds of keV high. At room temperature they have only about 0.025 eV of thermal energy, so they can only get through by quantum tunnelling, whose probability is roughly exp(-2 pi eta), where eta (the Sommerfeld parameter) grows as the energy falls. Read: Kenneth Krane, Introductory Nuclear Physics (chapters on nuclear reactions and alpha decay for tunnelling) [memory, high for the book; chapter numbers not given].

2.6 Relativistic energy and momentum. For a particle of rest mass m moving at speed v, energy E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) and momentum p = m v / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), with c the speed of light. These obey E^2 - p^2 c^2 = m^2 c^4. Read: Taylor and Wheeler, Spacetime Physics [memory, high].

2.7 Wavelength and the limit on focusing. A wave of frequency f in air or vacuum has wavelength lambda = c / f. No antenna or lens can focus a wave into a spot much smaller than about one wavelength (the diffraction limit). Read: any optics text, e.g. Hecht, Optics, diffraction chapters [memory, high].

3. The textbook view

Symbols used in this section: E electric field (V/m); B magnetic field (T); phi scalar potential (V); A vector potential (V s/m); rho charge density (C/m^3); J current density (A/m^2); epsilon_0 = 8.854e-12 F/m (permittivity of free space); mu_0 = 1.2566e-6 H/m (permeability of free space); c = 2.998e8 m/s; t time; x, y, z position; grad, div, curl the usual vector-calculus operators; laplacian = div grad.

3.1 Fields from potentials, in SI units.

E = -grad(phi) - dA/dt
B = curl(A)

Gauge transformation: pick any smooth function L(x, y, z, t) (units V s) and replace

A   ->  A + grad(L)
phi ->  phi - dL/dt

Then B changes by curl(grad L) = 0, and E changes by -grad(-dL/dt) - d(grad L)/dt = 0, because the order of space and time derivatives does not matter. So E and B are unchanged for every L. That is gauge freedom.

3.2 The Lorenz gauge and the potential wave equations. Because of this freedom, we may impose one extra condition on the potentials. The usual choice is the Lorenz condition

div(A) + (1/c^2) d(phi)/dt = 0

With it, Maxwell's equations in empty space (rho = 0, J = 0) become wave equations for the potentials:

laplacian(phi) - (1/c^2) d^2(phi)/dt^2 = 0
laplacian(A)   - (1/c^2) d^2(A)/dt^2   = 0

These wave equations hold only in this gauge and only without sources. The Lorenz condition does not use up all the freedom: any further L that itself obeys laplacian(L) - (1/c^2) d^2L/dt^2 = 0 keeps the Lorenz condition true. This "residual gauge freedom" is exactly what the scalar-waves memo rediscovers.

The memo uses Gaussian units, where E = -grad(phi) - (1/c) dA/dt. The physics is the same; only factors of c move around.

3.3 What is physical. Forces on charges come from the Lorentz force F = q(E + v x B), with q charge and v velocity. Field energy density and flow are u = (epsilon_0 E^2 + B^2/mu_0)/2 and P = E x B / mu_0. In quantum mechanics there is one more gauge-independent quantity: the loop integral of A around a closed path (the Aharonov-Bohm effect, 1959, confirmed experimentally [memory, high]). That loop integral equals the magnetic flux through the loop, so it too is fixed by B. None of these depend on the gauge choice.

3.4 Skin depth. For a good conductor (sigma much greater than omega epsilon):

delta = sqrt( 2 / (omega mu_0 sigma) )

3.4a Superposition. Maxwell's equations are linear, and so are the equations for a wave in a conductor like seawater. So the field of two sources together is the sum of their separate fields, at every point and every moment, and each one is damped by the same factor exp(-d/delta) as if the other were absent. Two beams can interfere (add or cancel at a point), but interference only moves energy from one place to another; it cannot make a new kind of carrier or switch the damping off. Read: Griffiths Chapter 9 (superposition of waves) [memory, high].

3.5 Magnetic energy density. u_B = B^2 / (2 mu_0). By E = m c^2, any energy has a mass equivalent u_B / c^2, which is how general relativity says fields gravitate.

3.6 Fusion energy bookkeeping. If heat comes from a nuclear reaction releasing Q joules per event, a power P (watts) needs P / Q events per second. Each event leaves "ash" (helium, tritium, neutrons, gammas) that can be counted. A useful identity: atoms per second per watt is the same number as atoms per joule. For d + d -> He-4 at 23.8 MeV that is 2.6e11 per joule [calc].

3.6a Reaction thresholds (needed for the CR-39 claim in Section 4). CR-39 is a clear plastic (polyallyl diglycol carbonate). A charged particle passing through it leaves a damage trail that becomes a visible pit after etching in hot sodium hydroxide. A fast neutron can also show up there, indirectly: it can split a carbon-12 nucleus in the plastic into three alpha particles (helium-4 nuclei), leaving a "triple track" of three pits from one point. Whether a reaction can happen at all is set by its Q-value, the mass before minus the mass after, times c^2 (1 atomic mass unit, u, is 931.494 MeV). For carbon-12 -> 3 alphas:

Q = (12.000000 u - 3 x 4.002603 u) x 931.494 MeV/u = -7.27 MeV

Q is negative, so the neutron must supply the energy. Some of the neutron's energy goes into moving the centre of mass, so the threshold is |Q| x (1 + m_n/m_C) = 7.27 x (1 + 1.0087/12) = 7.9 MeV [calc]. The neutron from d + d -> He-3 + n carries only 2.45 MeV [memory, high]. So a triple track cannot be made by a primary d + d neutron. It can be made by the 14.1 MeV neutron from d + t -> He-4 + n (deuterium plus tritium) [memory, high], which is above the threshold [calc: example.py Part 6]. That reaction needs tritium to be present first.

3.7 Tachyon kinematics. Write the rest mass as m = i mu with mu real (so m^2 = -mu^2 < 0). Then for v > c

E = mu c^2 / sqrt(v^2/c^2 - 1),     p = mu v / sqrt(v^2/c^2 - 1)

are real. E falls as v rises: zero at infinite speed, infinite as v approaches c from above. Light speed becomes a lower limit. Because a tachyon pair can have zero total energy, nothing in energy conservation stops a photon from turning into a charged tachyon-antitachyon pair. Feinberg uses this as an indirect test: light reaches us across intergalactic space after billions of years without decaying, so "if charged tachyons exist at all, then either their charge is many orders of magnitude smaller than that of the electron ... or else their mass squared is very close to zero" [read: Feinberg p.9]. Observing that something stable stays stable is an experiment too. Modern quantum field theory interprets a field with m^2 < 0 as a sign that the vacuum is unstable (as with the Higgs field), not as a faster-than-light particle [web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon].

4. Where these documents depart

Topic Textbook The document Where the inference holds or fails
Scalar waves (memo) Potentials have gauge freedom; only E, B (and loop integrals of A) are physical. Energy lives in E and B. "A solution appears to exist for the special case of E=0, B=0, and curl A=0, for a new wave satisfying A = grad S, phi = -(1/c) dS/dt. S then satisfies [the wave equation] ... one that suggests propagation of this wave even through E = B = 0 and the Poynting theorem indicates no EM power flow" [read: page image p.2]. The algebra is right. But A = grad S, phi = -(1/c) dS/dt is exactly a gauge transformation applied to zero, and the "wave equation for S" is exactly the Lorenz condition (Section 3.2). Nothing physical propagates. The memo's own hedges are honest: existence "is not proven", the energy source "is not clear" [read: page image p.3].
Seawater penetration Skin depth makes EM waves die off in seawater, metres to tens of metres at audio frequencies. Scalar waves "could penetrate sea water" and "may not attenuate like EM waves do" [read: page image pp.1, 3]. The motive is real (submarine communication). But a wave with E = B = 0 pushes on no charge, so no receiver could detect it. The memo proposes no coupling; Bearden's own mechanism is in the next row.
Bearden's two-beam mechanism (staff note "TO: COL BUZBY", same folder, item 0002) Fields add (superposition, Section 3.4a); each EM wave in seawater is damped by exp(-d/delta) whatever else is present. The note excerpts Bearden's "Star Wars Now" (24 April 1984) plus the writer's "logical extensions of my own": Aharonov-Bohm shows potentials act "even in the absence of electrical and magnetic fields"; two identical beams "180 degrees out of phase" give "a constant electrical value of 0", so there is "very little molecular resistance" and the signal "will penetrate ocean water, earth, and other materials"; two such beams crossing give a "beat frequency" with "a definite energy level" at the distant point; detection "can only be done in an area where time and space have been altered", by an antenna at the pole of a 40-80 kG (4-8 T) superconducting magnet in a Faraday cage [web: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00792r000500240002-5]. It also claims military uses (jamming, a plasma "nuclear explosion" without gamma rays, weather modification, "at least 78 tests" by the Soviets) and names collaborators (Faretto, Dea, Bedini) and funders (Josh Reynolds, Essentia Research, the Association of Distinguished American Scientists). A dilemma with two exclusive cases. If the beams cancel exactly, the sum is zero everywhere and there is nothing to carry a signal. If they do not, each beam is an ordinary EM wave and the seawater damps it: at 100 Hz (skin depth delta = 25.2 m for sigma = 4 S/m, Section 5 Step 9), a factor 0.019 at 100 m and 5.5e-18 at 1 km [calc: example.py Part 6]. (The arbiter quotes the contrarian's 0.018 and 4e-18 too: the same calculation with delta rounded to 25 m.) Aharonov-Bohm needs magnetic flux enclosed by a loop, and a field that is zero everywhere encloses none. The note is a staff writer's summary, not Bearden's exact wording; his full paper is in the reading room and was not opened. The military-use claims carry no data or sources, so they cannot be weighed.
Rein's "Tesla watch" experiment (same folder, item 0008) An experiment must change one thing at a time, measure the agent, and be repeated. Glen Rein, a supporter of the scalar idea, reports that a "Tesla watch" (a Moebius-strip coil credited to Andrija Puharich, said by Puharich to emit a "scalar B field" near 8 Hz) held over a dish of PC12 rat nerve cells for 30 minutes cut their uptake of radiolabelled noradrenaline by 19.5%: control 5507 +/- 841, exposed 4435 +/- 480 counts per minute per mg protein, 6 dishes each, "p < 0.01" by t-test; no effect at 10 minutes. The control dish sat about 12 feet away under a watch without the Moebius strip. Rein writes that the field "was not measured" and that "it will be difficult to rule out" an ordinary EM cause [web: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00792r000500240008-9; table read from OCR]. His proposed mechanism, the "Crystalline Transduction Theory": scalar energy is transduced into ordinary EM energy by liquid crystals in cell membranes and by solid crystals in blood and tissue. The paper also cites other results in support: Byrd (EEG, electroencephalogram, recordings with the watch); Persinger (mast-cell degranulation under two cancelling 0.5 Hz, 10 uT "vortex" fields, where Rein notes the scalar field "was not measured" either); and a Puharich/Max Planck result on gene activation in E. coli bacteria. None of these three was read by anyone in this review. His references include Bearden's "AIDS: Biological Warfare" (1988) and the PACE newsletter (1982) [web: same URL, via research/2026-10-05-cia-readingroom.md; Rein is a supporter of the idea, so these are the proponent's own account and sources]. A real measured biological endpoint, which is more than the memo had. But one small experiment, no replication on record, field not measured, blinding not described, and the control differs in two ways at once (place and object). The printed p-value does not reproduce: a two-sample t-test on the printed numbers gives p = 0.022 (two-sided) if the +/- is a standard deviation, 0.29 if it is a standard error; only a one-sided test gives 0.011, still just above 0.01 [calc: example.py Part 6]. The OCR is partly garbled and a different design could give the printed value, so this is a flag, not a dismissal. Even a real effect could not tell "scalar" from ordinary low-frequency or heating effects. Rein's own transduction theory points the same way: if the scalar energy acts by turning into ordinary EM energy inside the tissue, then what reaches the cell is an ordinary field, and the theory gives no transduction coefficient or field strength, so it predicts no size of effect to check (the arbiter's reasoning, F1.2).
Energy from vacuum or seawater The vacuum is the lowest-energy state; no net energy can be drawn from it in a cycle. Seawater at uniform temperature has no free energy to give. "Another is the possibility of drawing energy from the vacuum, assuming net energy could be drawn"; waves "grow via energy supplied by the medium (free space, sea water, etc.)" [read: page image pp.2, 3]. Excluded in any net-gain form by energy conservation; the memo itself flags it as an assumption.
Cold fusion (DIA) d + d fusion at room temperature is suppressed by the Coulomb barrier; when it happens it gives neutrons, tritium and rarely gammas. The report, whose description of LENR is in large part its contributors' own characterization of their field (see the next column), says LENR gives excess heat, particles, He-4 and transmutation; the field "has begun to be accepted in the scientific community as reproducible and legitimate"; also admits Fleischmann and Pons "did not show the radiation or radioactivity expected", many replications failed, "much skepticism remains", and "no current theory" [read: via reviewers, DIA pp.1-4]. Its "high confidence" attaches only to a condition: "if LENR can produce nuclear-origin energy ... this disruptive technology could revolutionize energy production" [read: DIA p.1, via deep read]. For particles it cites CR-39 "triple tracks" from the US Navy's SPAWAR laboratory (Mosier-Boss et al., Naturwissenschaften 2009) [read: DIA pp.2, 7]. The report has no data of its own. Its five named contributors (McDaniel, Mosier-Boss, McKubre, Forsley, DeChiaro) are active LENR researchers [read: DIA p.6], so they have a professional stake in the field being judged real; 16 of its 54 endnotes trace to them, two as "personal correspondence"; only 7 distinct mainstream peer-reviewed papers are cited [read: deep/DIA]. Read it as the researchers' characterization of their field under an agency's name, beside the reviewers' and critics' characterizations, not as a neutral finding either way. On why the evidence sits mostly in conference papers, DIA says: "Because some peer-reviewed journals are reluctant to review or publish LENR data due to past controversies, most results are presented at international conferences" [read: DIA p.4]. That statement comes from the affected researchers, and no second source (journal policies, rejection records) was sought or found in this review; it shows that the researchers perceived a publication barrier, and its extent is open. The same page also says "each team has proprietary aspects of their experiments that are not shared" [read: DIA p.4], which, from the same source, works against open replication. Some notes do not support their sentences (explosions said to be reported by "Japanese, French, and U.S." journals rest on one Chinese conference paper and one French paper). Ordinary d + d cannot explain the heat (Section 6). The triple tracks need neutrons above 7.9 MeV (Section 3.6a), so they are not primary d + d neutrons; the authors' 2021 re-examination reports "notably 14.1 MeV neutrons", which d + t could make (abstract only, see Section 6, row 2c). Either way the tracks imply about 9 orders of magnitude too few neutrons to carry watt-level heat; the proponents offer them as a sign that something nuclear happens, not as the heat channel. On the report's origin, New Energy Times (a news site run by journalist Steven Krivit, who has an interest in the field's coverage) says it "was based on a workshop held on Aug. 4 and 5, 2009 at SPAWAR Pacific", where four of the five contributors presented along with others: it lists Tanzella and McKubre (SRI), Swartz, Mosier-Boss, McDaniel, Forsley, Hagelstein (MIT) and McGinnis, so Tanzella, Swartz, Hagelstein and McGinnis presented talks that fed the report without being named as contributors (the research note and QE name the first three) [web: https://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/DIALENRReport.shtml, via research/2026-10-05-newenergytimes.md]. The site also reproduces an email of 23 November 2009 from "DIA Public Affairs", answering a Wikipedia editor who asked whether the report was real: "This is a DIA document." That bears on whether the report is authentic [web: same URL; email as posted by New Energy Times, not independently verified]. The coordination line, "Coordinated with DIA/DRI, CPT, DWO, DOE/IN, US Navy SPAWAR/Pacific and U.S. NSWC/Dahlgren", is in the project's own PDF [read: DIA p.6, via deep/DIA]. The report's own notes 22, 30, 44 and 45 cite briefings at that meeting, which agrees. That explains why so many notes trace to the contributors. Coordination with other offices is a fact to keep, but it is not an endorsement of the data. Whether some unknown process produces heat is an open, contested experimental question.
EM-gravity (Holt) Electromagnetic fields gravitate only through their energy (u/c^2); no other coupling is seen. Two "unproven assumptions": space-time is a projection of a higher-dimensional space, and EM fields relate to gravity; a craft tuned to a point's "natural resonance" would appear there; reconnection "is difficult" to supply flare energy of "10% of the sun's total output in a second" [read: via reviewers, text layer]. His motivation is the reported behaviour of UFOs (listed below the table). No equations or numbers to test. The one checkable premise (reconnection cannot power flares) fails on Holt's own 3000-gauss figure (Section 6).
Tachyons (Feinberg) Special relativity forbids accelerating through c, not existing above it. Same as textbook; plus a search: of about 6,000 K-meson capture events, 101 at first had negative missing mass squared, falling to 23 after removing captures in flight and to none after re-measurement [read: page image p.8]. Also a Princeton search for charged tachyons made by gamma rays (Alvager and Kreisler) set a rate below 1/10,000 of electron-positron pair production [read: p.7]; an antiproton-proton search found none [read: p.9]; Feinberg's 1970 view was that nonexistence "now seems probable" [read: p.9]. No departure. This is mainstream physics stating a hypothesis and testing it honestly. Note the bubble-chamber limit is relative: below 1 in 400 of the pion production rate, not an absolute rate.
Mind control (infographics) Pulsed microwaves can be heard (Frey effect, thermoelastic). ELF waves are tens of thousands of km long. A table of "ELF brain stimulation" frequencies, remote thought insertion, radar identification of a person by brain waves, and a long list of other effects (full list below the table) [read: images via earlier steps]. The images cite no references, methods or field strengths. The Frey effect is real, and conveying speech by timing its clicks is physically plausible (one published account, below). Focusing a 10 Hz beam on one head is excluded by wavelength; the rest gives no field strengths to test.

What Holt reports as his motivation. Holt lists the reported UFO behaviour he wants to explain: "high speed, right angle turns, abrupt stops or accelerations ... absence of sonic booms despite calculated speeds of 22,000 mph or more", and environmental effects "such as burns, dehydration, stopping of automobile engines, TV and radio disruption, melting or alteration of ground and road surfaces, power disruptions, and static electricity effects" [read: Holt p.7]. These are witness reports as Holt summarises them; the report gives no case citations or instrument records, so they cannot be weighed numerically here. Holt himself proposed collecting that data: photographic spectra, high-sensitivity magnetic measurements, radio and sound recordings, Geiger counters distributed to "UFO investigators, police departments", study by physicians of burns and radiation-sickness symptoms, and "regressive hypnosis" of close-encounter witnesses [read: Holt p.11]. The arbiter gives no verdict on the UFO reports themselves: they are outside what these documents can settle.

What the infographics assert (recorded in full, as their assertions). 2RNM.jpg (credited to Supratik Saha) shows brain-wave bands and a "Bio-Electromagnetic Field" unique to each person that serves as a "frequency ID detectable by radar" [read: digest p.1]. 9RNM.jpg describes "Remote Mind Control / Remote Brain Mapping" by mobile phone networks, vans, transportable "psychotronic weapons" and helicopters, with a table of "ELF brain stimulation" frequencies: motor cortex 10 Hz, auditory 15 Hz, visual 25 Hz, somatosensory 9 Hz, thought centre 20 Hz [read: image, Step 1]. The gif (watermark www.raven1.net), "Psycho-Electronic Weapon Effects", lists forced memory blanking, reading and broadcasting of thoughts, controlled dreams, microwave hearing, artificial tinnitus, forced speech and jaw movement, "transparent eyelids", genital-area itching and forced orgasm, a "caffeine field", pain "of hot needles", forced sleep prevention and induction, microwave burns, electrical shocks "used in the Gulf War", a "demo" of neuro-control of the toes, and "zero trace evidence"; it attributes break-ins at home and work, with items sabotaged or stolen, to psychological warfare research. A starred note says the first unclassified transmission of voice into a skull was in 1974 by Dr Joseph C. Sharp of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research [read: digest p.3; facts.json]. On that last point there is outside evidence, traced further by the Investigator. The published account is D. R. Justesen, "Microwaves and Behavior", American Psychologist 30(3):391-401 (March 1975), whose reference list, per Martin Broughton Research & Analysis (a secondary analysis site), gives "Sharp, J. C., & Grove, M. Personal communication, September 28, 1973". The method as reported: recorded speech was converted into microwave pulses timed to the speech waveform, and "recognizable words were reportedly perceived". The same article reports a Morse-code demonstration by A. W. Guy (University of Washington) [web: https://www.martin-broughton-research-analysis.co.uk/the-microwave-auditory-effect/encoded-communication-morse-code-speech]. The published paper by Sharp, Grove and Gandhi (IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 22(5):583-584, 1974) is about how the sound is generated, not about speech. A scan of Justesen's article exists [web: https://zoryglaser.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/MICROWAVES-AND-BEHAVIOR.pdf], but only its first page was read; the page with the Sharp-Grove citation has not been seen, so Broughton's reading is unchecked. So the speech demonstration is documented in one published account by a named researcher, citing the experimenters by personal communication; no Walter Reed report and no power levels were found. That is a common way for a result in this field to reach print, and silence elsewhere is not contradiction. The supported dates are 1973 (personal communication), 1974 (mechanism paper) and 1975 (published account), so the infographic's "1974" is imprecise rather than clearly wrong. The documented Frey effect needs high peak power, but the reviewers quote two figures for early work that have not been reconciled: the physicist "below 80 mW/cm^2 at 1.245 GHz", the contrarian 267 mW/cm^2 for single pulses at 1.3 GHz [web, via Wikipedia; neither re-checked]; no verdict depends on them. In the arbiter's judgement the documented effect is narrow (clicks and buzzes, and by timing them, possibly words: sound, not thought) and the infographics' list goes far beyond it. The images give no case records, methods or field strengths by which to weigh the other items; they are recorded here so you can weigh them yourself.

What happened next: records that seem to stop. A memo marked "high interest", a NASA-published propulsion proposal and a DIA forecast all look, from this folder alone, as if nothing followed. When a record goes quiet where you would expect it to continue, that is worth analysing rather than shrugging off. The arbiter's two web searches and then the Investigator's run (2026-10-05) looked for what came next.

After the scalar-waves memo (12/22/87). The released folder, RDP96-00792R0005002400xx, has 8 items [web: archive.org listing, research/2026-10-05-archive-org.md]: 0001 the memo; 0002 the staff note to "COL Buzby" setting out Bearden's two-beam mechanism; 0003-0007 five press clippings (Entebbe and similar; titles only, not read by anyone); 0008 Rein's cell-culture paper (Section 4 covers 0002 and 0008). Items 0001 and 0002 carry SG1B/SG1J redactions. There is no test report, tasking or assessment in the released folder. The "Col Buzby" of the note is probably LTC Brian Buzby, the CENTER LANE project manager who signed the 1984 INSCOM memo (same surname, same programme; not confirmed). So the scalar-wave papers sit in the files of an Army/DIA remote-viewing programme, not a weapons or communications office. An earlier search-title reading of the addressee as "Dr. Jack Vorona, DDS&TI" is superseded by the INSCOM memo's wording (header, above). Three explanations for why no test or assessment is visible, as the arbiter now weighs them:

Explanation Evidence for it Evidence against or missing
(a) Judged unpromising and dropped The memo itself says existence "is not proven" and the energy source "is not clear" [read: p.3]; the calculation in Section 5 shows nothing physical propagates Nothing in the folder records a judgement either way, and absence of a judgement is not a judgement. Less supported by the folder than before
(b) Work was done and is withheld The SG1B/SG1J redactions on items 0001 and 0002; the CONFIDENTIAL/NOFORN marking [read: page images]; what the codes mean is [memory, low] Nothing positive points to work, only redaction. Still open: a released folder cannot exclude it
(c) The programme office was collecting proponents' material, so no test would be expected What the released folder actually contains: a proponent's mechanism, a proponent's experiment and unrelated clippings, filed with a remote-viewing office. All three reviewers and the Investigator read it so Not proven, because (b) fits the same folder. Now the best fit for what was released

A caution the arbiter adopts from the physicist: the folder shows no measurement of any kind and does not show that the DIA office believed the claim. The records that would decide: the redacted and unreleased CENTER LANE/DT files, any DT tasking or response on "scalar", Bearden's full "STAR WARS NOW!" paper (in the reading room, not opened), and untried searches ("DT-ACO" DIA; Vorona with "scalar"). No suppression is documented in what was read; that is a statement about this folder, not a finding that none occurred. (A "Dr. Jack Dea" in the Bearden note and a "Jack Y. Dea" on a 2010 CR-39 paper may be a coincidence of names; no one draws an inference.)

After Holt's paper (1979). NASA published it with a foreword calling it "private, unofficial research" and saying "NASA is not involved in UFO research"; it was presented at a special session of the 15th Joint AIAA/SAE/ASME Propulsion Conference in June 1979 [read: Holt p.3]. The later record is not silent either: Holt presented "Prospects for a breakthrough in field-dependent 'propulsion'" at the 16th Joint Propulsion Conference (1980), published a popular version, "Starcraft", in Science Digest (May 1982), and later co-authored with Eric Davis and Hal Puthoff "Space testing of electromagnetically sensitive materials for breakthrough propulsion physics" (AIAA 1999-2143) [web: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.1999-2143; the 1980 and 1982 items from a search-result summary]. (AIAA is the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.) The Investigator's search of NASA's Technical Reports Server (NTRS) found Holt abstracts from 1986 to 2004 [web: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search?q=Alan%20C.%20Holt%20propulsion]: AIAA 89-2858 (1989), whose candidate space-station payloads "include magnetic plasma thruster systems and a hypothetical advanced electromagnetic propulsion system utilizing high-temperature superconductivity materials", which "can be tested on the Space Station"; a 1990 Vision-21 paper saying "energetic, breakthrough level propulsion research" should "be initiated now"; a 1993 testbed paper; a Space 2004 abstract on "an advanced space propulsion testbed"; and a 1986 Mars-support paper. So Holt's record does not go silent after 1979: he stayed in NASA programme offices and kept proposing tests for 25 years, which is evidence against suppression of the author. None of the abstracts defines the "space-time harmonic" or has equations, and no record that a test was flown was found (absence in one site's search is not a finding). The 1980, 1982 and 1999 items were not found in that NTRS search and remain unread, as do the full texts NTRS 19910012853 and 19940022865; if either defines the resonance quantity, the verdict would be revisited.

After the DIA report (2009). No DIA follow-up report was found. The Investigator found, by search snippet only, an ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy) exploratory topic on LENR (13 September 2022) and $10 million for eight projects announced 17 February 2023 "to determine whether" LENR could be the basis for energy technology [web: arpa-e.energy.gov; not opened; the arbiter's fetches failed]. If accurate, a second US government body is funding a test of the question, 19 years after the 2004 DOE review recommended no federal programme. That shows the question is not closed institutionally; it is not a result. Why DIA issued nothing further (a one-off warning product, no further interest, or a classified follow-up) cannot be told apart on the record held.

None of these finds changes a verdict on the memo's physics, on Holt, or on cold fusion. The new verdicts are for new sub-claims (Bearden's mechanism, Rein's experiment, speech by microwaves) and are in Section 6.

5. Worked example: is the memo's scalar wave a wave of anything?

This is the one calculation in the folder that you can do completely, and it teaches the most. Every step is reproduced symbolically and numerically in example.py. I use SI units; the memo's Gaussian version differs only by a factor of c in phi.

Step 1. Write down the memo's potentials. Take any smooth function S(x, y, z, t), measured in volt-seconds (V s, the same unit as magnetic flux, the weber). Define

A   = grad(S)
phi = -dS/dt

Step 2. Compute B.

B = curl(A) = curl(grad S) = 0

The curl of a gradient is always zero (a standard vector identity; check one component: d/dy(dS/dz) - d/dz(dS/dy) = 0).

Step 3. Compute E.

E = -grad(phi) - dA/dt
  = -grad(-dS/dt) - d/dt(grad S)
  = grad(dS/dt) - grad(dS/dt)
  = 0

This holds for every S, whether or not S obeys any wave equation. Part 1 of example.py checks it with SymPy for a completely arbitrary S(x, y, z, t) and prints E = [0, 0, 0], B = [0, 0, 0] [calc].

Step 4. Where does the memo's "wave equation for S" come from? Plug the potentials into the Lorenz condition (Section 3.2):

div(A) + (1/c^2) d(phi)/dt = laplacian(S) - (1/c^2) d^2S/dt^2

Setting this to zero gives the memo's wave equation. So the wave equation is not a law of motion that S must obey. It is the condition for the potentials to stay in the Lorenz gauge. Compare with Section 3.1: A = 0 + grad(S), phi = 0 - dS/dt is a gauge transformation of the zero potential, with L = S. The memo has found the residual gauge freedom of Section 3.2.

Step 5. Put in numbers. Choose a concrete wave travelling along x:

S = S0 cos(k x - omega t),  with S0 = 1 V s, f = 100 Hz
omega = 2 pi f = 628.3 rad/s
k = omega / c = 2.096e-6 rad/m     (wavelength c/f = 2.998e6 m, about 3000 km)

Differentiate:

phi = -dS/dt  = -omega S0 sin(k x - omega t)      amplitude 628.3 V
A_x = dS/dx   = -k S0 sin(k x - omega t)          amplitude 2.096e-6 V s/m

So the potentials are large. At t = 0, phi at x = lambda/4 differs from phi at x = 0 by 628.3 V [calc]. Now compute the fields from Steps 2 and 3, component by component:

-d(phi)/dx = +omega k S0 cos(k x - omega t)
-dA_x/dt   = -omega k S0 cos(k x - omega t)
E_x        =  0
B          =  curl of a vector that depends only on x and points along x = 0

Step 6. What would a voltmeter read? A voltmeter connected between x = 0 and x = lambda/4 drives a tiny current through its own resistor; that current is pushed by E along the wires, so the reading is the line integral of E, which is zero. The 628 V "potential difference" is real on paper and unmeasurable in the lab, because the -dA/dt term cancels it exactly. This is the plainest way to see that phi on its own is not a physical voltage when A changes in time [calc].

Step 7. Energy. With E = 0 and B = 0:

u = (epsilon_0 E^2 + B^2/mu_0)/2 = 0 J/m^3
P = E x B / mu_0 = 0 W/m^2

The memo is right that "the Poynting theorem indicates no EM power flow". The deeper point is that there is also no energy to flow. The memo raises the idea that one can add to the Poynting vector any extra vector that integrates to zero over a closed surface [read: page image p.1]. That is true (only the divergence of P is fixed by the theorem), but it changes nothing here: the energy density itself is zero, and it is computed from E and B with no such ambiguity.

Step 8. Gauge invariance in action. Take a genuine 100 Hz plane wave with potentials A_y = (E0/omega) sin(k x - omega t), phi = 0. It has E_y = E0 cos(k x - omega t) and B_z = (E0/c) cos(k x - omega t). Now add the S wave's potentials on top. Part 3 of example.py recomputes the fields and gets exactly the same E and B [calc]. The S wave does not interfere with, modulate or carry any signal on top of a real wave. It also passes the quantum test: the loop integral of A = grad S around any closed loop is zero for single-valued S (the script checks one example), so there is no Aharonov-Bohm effect either.

Step 9. The real problem the memo wanted to solve. For seawater take sigma = 4 S/m [memory, medium; textbook range about 3-5 S/m]. Check that the good-conductor formula applies at 100 Hz: sigma / (omega epsilon) with epsilon = 80 epsilon_0 for water is about 9e6, far above 1 [calc]. Then

f = 10 Hz:     delta = sqrt(2 / (62.83 x 1.2566e-6 x 4)) = 79.6 m
f = 100 Hz:    delta = 25.2 m
f = 1 kHz:     delta = 8.0 m
f = 10 kHz:    delta = 2.5 m

At 100 Hz and 100 m depth, the amplitude falls by exp(-100/25.2) = 0.019 and the power by 3.5e-4, that is -34.5 dB [calc]. This is why navies use ELF and VLF (very low frequency) transmitters with enormous antennas to reach submarines [memory, high]. The need behind the memo was genuine; the proposed solution is a choice of bookkeeping.

What a proponent would need. To revive the idea, someone must write down a new term in the force law (a way for S, or for phi and A separately, to push on matter) and give its strength. Then it becomes a testable new-physics claim. The memo does not do this. The staff note in the same folder does state Bearden's coupling (Section 4): two ordinary beams, 180 degrees out of phase. That stays inside Maxwell's linear equations, so superposition (Section 3.4a) settles it with the Step 9 numbers: if the two beams cancel exactly, Steps 2-7 apply to the sum (nothing to carry); if not, each beam is damped by the factor above (delta = 25.2 m at 100 Hz), 0.019 at 100 m and 5.5e-18 at 1 km [calc: example.py Part 6]. The way out a proponent would need is a nonlinear element at the receiver that responds to the separate beams and not to their sum; the note does not name one, and its receiver ("altered" space-time at a 4-8 T magnet pole) predicts no force or energy at an ordinary detector and states no control.

6. Evidence table

Supporting numbers below are computed in Parts 5 and 6 of example.py [calc]. Rows 1d-1f and 5a' are sub-claims the arbiter added on 2026-10-05 from the Investigator's findings.

Claim Tested? Result Replicated? Verdict (arbiter)
1a. S solution with E = B = 0 exists Calculation (Section 5) True for any S; it is pure gauge Every reviewer and example.py agree Established as mathematics; no physical content
1b. That wave carries energy or a signal Calculation Energy density and flux are zero; at odds with the memo's own example n/a Refuted by calculation
1c. It penetrates seawater by a non-EM carrier No test; the memo defines no coupling Memo says existence "not proven" [read: page image p.3]. The released folder (8 items) holds no test, tasking or assessment [web; see "What happened next"] n/a Not testable as stated (would become "never properly tested" only if a coupling were defined)
1d. Bearden's two-beam interference penetrates seawater (staff note to COL Buzby, item 0002) Calculation Linear superposition: exact cancellation leaves nothing to carry; partial cancellation leaves ordinary EM, damped 0.019 at 100 m and 5.5e-18 at 1 km at 100 Hz (skin depth delta = 25.2 m, sigma = 4 S/m) [calc: example.py Part 6]. The note is a staff summary; Bearden's full paper not opened [web] n/a Refuted by calculation (the mathematician's "internally inconsistent", zero in transit yet carrying energy, is kept as a description)
1e. Detection only in "altered" space-time at a 4-8 T magnet pole No test; no response or control stated Predicts nothing at an ordinary detector [web: same note] n/a Not testable as stated
1f. Rein: a "Tesla watch" inhibits noradrenaline uptake in PC12 nerve cells (item 0008) One small experiment by a supporter, 6 dishes per group; field not measured; control differs in place and object; blinding not described [web; table from OCR] 19.5% inhibition; printed "p < 0.01" does not reproduce (p = 0.022 two-sided if SD, 0.29 if SEM; 0.011 one-sided) [calc] None on record Never properly tested (not dismissed after testing)
1g. Energy drawn from vacuum or seawater No test Memo flags it as an assumption [read: page image p.2] n/a Not testable as stated; excluded in any net-gain form by energy conservation
2a. Excess heat in some Pd/D cells Fast 1989 replications (many negative; the 1989 DOE Energy Research Advisory Board (ERAB) panel, an institutional reviewer, characterized the evidence as not "convincing"); 2004 DOE paper review split "approximately evenly" [web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion]; 2019 Nature multi-lab Pd-D attempt, described on the Wikipedia cold-fusion page as a "failed replication attempt", which also says Nature later published "anomalous findings" [web, same URL; Nature papers not read, so their own design and wording are unknown]. DIA says effects need several hundred hours of loading ("incubation"), its reason why early replications failed [read: DIA p.4, via reviewers]. DIA also says journals are "reluctant to review or publish LENR data" [read: DIA p.4], the researchers' own account, with no second source found. ARPA-E funded eight projects in 2023 "to determine whether" LENR could underpin energy technology [web: search snippet only; no results seen] Contested No pre-registered, blind, multi-lab test of one fixed protocol on record Never properly tested
2b. Heat from ordinary d + d fusion Calculation 1 W needs 1.9e12 neutrons/s (He-3 branch) or 2.6e11 He-4/s each with a 23.8 MeV gamma. DIA reports no radiation for Fleischmann and Pons in 1989 [read: DIA p.1]; for SPAWAR in 2009 it cites CR-39 triple tracks, which by an order-of-magnitude bound (detector efficiency [memory, low]) imply about 1e3 neutrons/s, some 9 orders of magnitude short, and which need neutrons above 7.9 MeV, so they are not primary 2.45 MeV d + d neutrons (14.1 MeV d + t neutrons could make them) [calc; arbiter QE revision and Investigator findings]. Bare Coulomb tunnelling at 0.025 eV: exp(-6280), about 1e-2727 (no electron screening) [calc] n/a Refuted by calculation
2c. Unknown nuclear mechanism (He-4 matching heat, particles, transmutation) Claimed by proponent labs. Read here: Miles et al., China Lake 1996, internally reviewed, not journal peer review [web: https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf; a Naval Air Warfare Center technical publication by the experimenters themselves, hosted by lenr-canr.org, an archive run by supporters of the field]. CR-39 paper and transmutation papers not read Miles: 30 of 33 runs showed heat and helium together or neither; 1e11 to 1e12 He-4 per second per watt, bracketing 2.6e11; helium analysed outside China Lake; light-water controls gave no helium. But air helium leaks into Pyrex flasks at about 2e12 atoms/day, so the early detection limit was "too small" (their words); "We have not been able to solve the reproducibility problem". The two sides characterize the helium differently: the proponents (China Lake, SRI) report it correlated with heat; the negative 2004 reviewers characterized it as "very close to background" [web, secondary]. SRI's data were not read. A third group: ENEA (Italy's national energy agency), De Ninno et al., "Experimental evidence of 4He production in a cold fusion experiment", RT/2002/41/FUS, reports heat and helium "simultaneously measured as a function of short time intervals (less than 1 hour)" [web: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf; title page and snippets only; two authors, Del Giudice and Preparata, proposed a theory of the effect, memory medium]; pages 2-26 (calibration, blanks, power) unread, so it is a positive report kept in the record that cannot carry a verdict. Against: Texas Tech (Gillespie et al., arXiv:2405.02307, 2024) found untreated 316 stainless steel holds 15-240 pmol of He-4 and can reabsorb it from air [web: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.02307, abstract read by the arbiter]; that is about 34-550 J of d + d heat equivalent, 0.08-1.3% of a one-day 0.5 W signal but 1.9-31% of a one-hour one (0.5 W is illustrative) [calc]. So the steel background cannot explain a day-long watt-level yield, but for short or low-power intervals it is comparable to the signal. CR-39 tracks: contested. In 2021 the same authors (both DIA contributors, in the field's society journal) published "Nuclear Generated Tracks or Artifacts?", whose abstract reports "notably 14.1 MeV neutrons", controls for chemical and mechanical damage, and an SRI replication whose detectors "underwent exhaustive analysis by noted CR-39 experts from NASA and Russian Academy of Sciences" [web: https://jcmns.org/article/72567-interpreting-cr-39-detectors-used-in-pd-d-co-deposition-nuclear-generated-tracks-or-artifacts; abstract only]; a 14.1 MeV neutron needs d + t and so tritium, and the abstract does not say whether tritium was measured. A published critique exists: L. Kowalski's comment in Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. (2008), with the authors' reply, EPJ AP 44:291-295 (2008) [web, bibliographic only; argument unread] No independent, blind replication of the heat-helium ratio found; CR-39 follow-ups by the same group or in the LENR society journal; the NASA and Russian examiners' own reports not seen Never properly tested
2d(i). DIA: LENR is "reproducible" This is the excess-heat claim (2a) restated Miles 1996, in the experimenters' own words: "We have not been able to solve the reproducibility problem" [read: deep/DIA, Miles p.7] No pre-registered, blind, multi-lab test on record Never properly tested
2d(ii). DIA: LENR "has begun to be accepted" A statement about the scientific community, not about nature; no physical experiment can test it The record bearing on it: the 2004 DOE reviewers split "approximately evenly" [web]; the claim rests largely on the contributors' own work (16 of 54 notes): their characterization of their field, with their stake [read: deep/DIA]. Per New Energy Times (a party with an interest in the field's coverage), the report grew out of an August 2009 workshop at SPAWAR Pacific where the contributors presented, with Tanzella (SRI), Swartz, Hagelstein (MIT) and McGinnis, who are not named contributors, also presenting; it also posts a 23 November 2009 email from DIA Public Affairs, "This is a DIA document." [web; as posted, not independently verified]. The report was coordinated with other DIA, DOE and Navy offices [read: DIA p.6]. Coordination and authenticity say the agency issued it, not that it endorsed the data n/a Not testable as stated
3a. Laser megagauss fields and reconnection Lab and solar physics Real; Holt's references are real 1976-78 papers [read: refs, via reviewers] Yes (mainstream) Established (not at craft scale)
3b. Reconnection cannot supply flare energy Calculation 10% of solar output for 1 s = 3.8e25 J; field at 0.3 T stores 3.6e4 J/m^3, so a cube about 10,000 km on a side holds it n/a Refuted by calculation
3c. EM-gravity "resonance" relocates a craft Never tested (nothing defined to test) and not dismissed on the record read. The record continues: NTRS abstracts 1986-2004 show Holt proposing advanced EM propulsion tests from inside NASA, none defining the "space-time harmonic" [web: ntrs.nasa.gov]; the 1980, 1982 and 1999 items are known by title only At 1 MG (100 T) the field's mass equivalent is 4.4e-8 kg/m^3, about 1e-11 of water's density n/a Not testable as stated
3d. The UFO reports that motivate Holt (manoeuvres, no sonic boom, burns, engine stoppage, power and radio disruption) [read: Holt p.7] Not in these documents; Holt proposed a measurement programme (spectra, magnetometers, Geiger counters, physician study of burns, regressive hypnosis) [read: Holt p.11] Witness reports as summarised by Holt, with no case citations or instrument records Unknown No verdict (outside what these documents can settle)
4a. Imaginary-mass kinematics consistent Calculation E = 0.577 mu c^2 at 2c, 0.10 mu c^2 at 10c; consistent n/a Established as mathematics
4b. Tachyons exist Bubble-chamber, Cerenkov and antiproton searches reported in the article [read: pp.7-9] 101 candidates fell to 23 then 0; rate below 1 in 400 of pion production; charged-tachyon pairs below 1/10,000 of electron-positron pairs; antiproton search null; photon stability limits charge or mass Later independent searches not documented in this folder Tested, not supported
4c. 1970 programme n/a Field theory now reads m^2 < 0 as instability [web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon] n/a Historically superseded but instructive
5a. Microwave hearing (Frey effect) Yes, first published 1961 [web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect] Real; thermoelastic; needs high peak power (early-work figures of 80 and 267 mW/cm^2 quoted by different reviewers, unreconciled) Yes, reported by several labs (counts not verified) Established
5a'. Speech conveyed by pulse-timed microwaves (Sharp and Grove, Walter Reed) A reported demonstration: Justesen 1975 (American Psychologist) citing a September 1973 personal communication [web, via Broughton; citation page not seen] "Recognizable words were reportedly perceived"; no power levels, pulse width or repetition rate; no Walter Reed report found. Consistent with the Frey effect (each pulse a click; timing encodes the audio envelope); conveys sound, not thought None on record Plausible, untested
5b. Focused standoff ELF brain stimulation Calculation Wavelength at 10 Hz is 3.0e7 m versus a 0.2 m head n/a Refuted by calculation
5c. Thought insertion, memory blanking, forced speech and the other infographic effects; radar ID by brain waves No test cited; no field strengths given; the images (credited to Supratik Saha, watermarked www.raven1.net, one uncredited) give no case records Brain's external magnetic field about 1e-13 T [memory, medium] n/a Not testable as stated

7. What a learner should take away

Solid. - Potentials are not unique, and only gauge-independent quantities (E, B, and loop integrals of A) are measurable. The memo's algebra is correct, and doing it yourself is a perfect exercise in this fact. - Seawater really does block radio; skin depth is a calculation you can do in one line. - Magnetic reconnection does power solar flares, and the laser-plasma megagauss fields Holt cites are real. - The relativistic kinematics of tachyons is self-consistent, and Feinberg's article is a model of how to state a bold hypothesis and test it, including reporting candidate events and how they were eliminated. - The microwave auditory (Frey) effect is real physics: tiny, fast heating makes a pressure wave the ear hears. Timing the pulses to a speech waveform is a physically plausible way to convey words; one published account (Justesen 1975) reports it was done, with no power levels and no controlled test (verdict: Plausible, untested).

Wrong, and why the mistake is instructive. - Scalar waves: the memo mistook a gauge freedom for a new field. The general lesson is to always ask "what force does this exert on a test charge?" If the answer is zero, nothing is there. Large potentials with zero fields (Section 5, Step 6: 628 V on paper, 0 V on a meter) show how easily potentials mislead. - Bearden's two-beam version: linearity is a powerful tool. Because fields add, "two beams that cancel in transit but deliver energy at the far end" splits into two cases, and both fail: exact cancellation carries nothing, partial cancellation is ordinary radio and is damped. When a claim depends on beams interfering, ask whether the equations are linear before anything else. - Holt's premise: before inventing new physics to explain an energy, check whether known physics already has enough. Here an order-of-magnitude energy budget took one line. - Ordinary d + d fusion as the source of cold-fusion heat: the ash count (neutrons, gammas) is a hard constraint. An energy budget can rule out a mechanism without ruling out an observation. A reported particle signal must also be the right size and energy: the CR-39 triple tracks are about 9 orders of magnitude too few to carry a watt, and need neutrons above 7.9 MeV, which primary d + d does not make. But be careful what an objection actually rules out. The threshold argument excludes 2.45 MeV d + d neutrons, not the 14.1 MeV d + t neutrons the authors now report, and the rate argument shows the tracks are not the heat channel, which the proponents never said they were; it does not show the tracks are not nuclear. (The arbiter withdrew its own threshold objection as a general one for this reason.) - Rein's p-value: recompute a paper's statistics from its own table. Here the printed "p < 0.01" does not come out of a standard two-sample t-test whichever way the "+/-" is read; the nearest, a one-sided test treating it as a standard deviation, gives 0.011, just above the printed figure (Section 4). The OCR is partly garbled and a different design could give the printed value, so this is a flag, not a dismissal: it does not make the effect false; it means the paper does not say enough to judge it, and a measured field, a sham control in the same place and a replication are what is missing. - Mind-control infographics: a claim without field strength, frequency, distance and measured effect is not yet a scientific claim. The wavelength of a 10 Hz signal (30,000 km) settles the "focused beam" part on its own. - The authority trap, both ways: a CIA or DIA file stamp does not make a claim true, and dismissal by a panel does not make it false. The DIA report's "accepted as reproducible" rests largely on the contributors' own work (16 of its 54 endnotes trace to its five contributors, two as "personal correspondence"): it is their characterization of their field, with their stake, so checking a report's footnotes is the first test of an official-looking claim. Note that it bundles two different claims: "reproducible" is a claim about nature (the excess-heat claim, never properly tested), "accepted" is a claim about people (not testable by experiment). On the other side, the 1989 replications were fast and did not use the long loading times later said to be needed. - Silence in a small folder is not silence in the record. Both the memo and Holt's paper look like dead ends here, yet a web search found more in each trail: the memo's folder holds a proponent's mechanism and a proponent's experiment, and Holt kept proposing tests at NASA until 2004 (see "What happened next" after Section 4). Finding the rest of the folder also changed which explanation fits best: "collecting proponents' material" now fits the released items better than "dropped", though "withheld work" cannot be excluded. The habit to learn: when a record seems to stop, list the explanations, say what evidence fits each, and name the record that would decide.

Genuinely open. - Whether some Pd/D cells produce excess heat beyond chemistry, and whether helium tracks that heat at about 2.6e11 atoms per joule once air contamination is controlled. This is a real, unsettled experimental question; the arbiter's verdict is "Never properly tested", not "refuted". The decisive test would be a pre-registered, blinded, multi-lab run of one fixed loading protocol for 500+ hours, with heat and He-4 measured together and a light-water control. - Whether the helium in the China Lake runs was made in the cell or leaked in from air. The report admits air helium enters its glass flasks at about the detection limit (about 2e12 atoms a day, roughly 8 J equivalent [calc]); later runs used metal flasks. But untreated steel holds 15-240 pmol of helium itself (Texas Tech, 2024), up to about a third of a one-hour 0.5 W signal, so metal hardware needs pretreatment too. The ENEA report claims heat and helium tracked each other over intervals under an hour; its body (blanks, power) has not been read. Other heat-helium reports named in the research notes but not opened by anyone: Gozzi et al. (1998) and Arata and Zhang (1998), proponent-side experimenters reporting their own results, and De Ninno et al., "4He detection in a cold fusion experiment" [web snippets, via research/2026-10-05-lenr-canr.md; hosted by lenr-canr.org, run by supporters of the field]. A blind replication with pretreated, helium-blanked hardware that measures the heat-to-helium ratio is what is missing. - Whether the CR-39 triple tracks are nuclear events or etching artifacts. The original authors re-examined this in 2021 and report 14.1 MeV neutrons and outside examination by NASA and Russian Academy CR-39 experts (abstract only); those examiners' own reports, any tritium measurement, and the argument of Kowalski's 2008 published critique have not been seen. Two further papers from the same SPAWAR programme were found by title only: "Comparison of Pd/D co-deposition and DT neutron generated triple tracks observed in CR-39 detectors", Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 51, 20901 (2010), which compares the tracks with tracks made by 14.1 MeV deuterium-tritium generator neutrons, and "Characterization of Neutrons Emitted during Pd/D Co-deposition" (JCMNS) [web snippets, via research/2026-10-05-jcmns.md]. If the tracks match, the open questions become tritium and rate. No measurement with an independent neutron counter was found. - What ARPA-E's eight LENR projects (2023) found. Known from search snippets only. - Why LENR effects, if real, need hundreds of hours. DIA gives the "incubation" requirement as its reason early replications failed [read: DIA p.4]; a loading protocol fixed in advance would turn that reason into a testable prediction. - How far a publication barrier shaped the LENR record. The DIA report, whose contributors are the affected researchers, says journals were "reluctant to review or publish LENR data" [read: DIA p.4]; no second source was sought or found here, and the same page notes teams keep "proprietary aspects" unshared. - What the 2019 Nature study and the later coordinated study tested, and how long they loaded their cells (not read here). - The transmutation claims (Iwamura, Mitsubishi) and their contamination controls (not read here). - What followed the scalar-waves memo. The released folder (8 items) best fits collection of proponents' material, but the redacted parts of items 0001 and 0002, the unreleased CENTER LANE/DT files, any DT response, and Bearden's full "STAR WARS NOW!" paper would decide whether work was done and withheld. The memo's DIA origin rests on an inference from the office symbol, and "Col Buzby" as the CENTER LANE manager is probable but unconfirmed. - Whether Rein's effect is real. The p-value question needs the page image of his table; the physics question needs a blinded, randomised replication with a sham watch beside the same dish and the field (E, B, temperature) logged. - What Holt's full later papers say, and whether any defines the "space-time harmonic" quantitatively or reports a test that was flown. NTRS abstracts 1986-2004 define nothing; the full texts (NTRS 19910012853, 19940022865) and the 1980 AIAA, 1982 Science Digest and 1999 AIAA items are unread. - What power, pulse width and repetition rate Sharp and Grove used, and whether the speech result held up in a controlled intelligibility test. The Justesen 1975 page carrying their citation and any Walter Reed report would decide. - What data, if any, lie behind the infographics. Their credits are on the images (Supratik Saha on 2RNM.jpg; www.raven1.net on the gif; 9RNM.jpg uncredited), but no sources or measurements are given.

8. Check yourself

  1. Show that A = grad(S), phi = -dS/dt gives E = 0 for S = x^2 t (no wave equation needed). Then check whether this S satisfies the wave equation. What does the result tell you about the role of the wave equation in the memo?
  2. A submarine is 50 m deep in seawater (sigma = 4 S/m). By what factor is the amplitude of a 1 kHz signal reduced on the way down? Would 10 Hz do better, and by how much? (c) Bearden's note proposes sending two identical 1 kHz beams 180 degrees out of phase so that the field is zero in transit. What reaches the submarine if the cancellation is exact? If beam 2 is 1% weaker than beam 1?
  3. A cold-fusion cell gives 2 W of excess heat for 10 hours. If the heat came from d + d -> He-4 (23.8 MeV per event), how many helium atoms should appear? If it came from d + d -> He-3 + n (3.27 MeV), how many neutrons per second would leave the cell? (c) DIA says LENR offers "10 million times more energy per unit mass" than liquid fuel [read: DIA p.6]. Check this for d + d -> He-4 (23.8 MeV per 4.03 u; 1 u = 1.6605e-27 kg) against gasoline at about 4.6e7 J/kg [memory, high].
  4. A tachyon has mu c^2 = 1 MeV. What is its energy at v = 2c? Does it gain or lose energy if it slows toward c?
  5. Holt says flares release "10% of the sun's total output in a second". Using L = 3.83e26 W and a sunspot field of 0.3 T, find the side of a cube of field whose magnetic energy equals that amount. Compare it with the Sun's radius, 7.0e8 m.

9. Further reading

Mainstream. - D. J. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics: Chapter 8 (energy, Poynting), Chapter 9 (waves in conductors), Chapter 10 (potentials and gauge transformations) [memory, high]. - J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, sections on gauge transformations and the Lorenz gauge (graduate level, for later) [memory, high]. - Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, "Significance of electromagnetic potentials in the quantum theory", Physical Review 115, 485 (1959) [memory, high]. - K. S. Krane, Introductory Nuclear Physics (nuclear reactions, tunnelling) [memory, high]. - J. R. Huizenga, Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century (1992), the sceptical account by the co-chair of the 1989 DOE panel [memory, high]. - US DOE, "Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" (2004) [memory, medium; summarised at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion]. - C. P. Berlinguette et al., "Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion", Nature 570, 45 (2019) [memory, medium; not read in this review]. - E. F. Taylor and J. A. Wheeler, Spacetime Physics [memory, high]. - G. Feinberg, "Possibility of faster-than-light particles", Physical Review 159, 1089 (1967) [memory, high]. - O. M. P. Bilaniuk, V. K. Deshpande and E. C. G. Sudarshan, "'Meta' relativity", American Journal of Physics 30, 718 (1962) [memory, medium]. - A. H. Frey, "Human auditory system response to modulated electromagnetic energy", Journal of Applied Physiology 17, 689 (1962) [memory, medium]; overview at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect [web]. - F. F. Chen, Introduction to Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion (plasma and magnetic background) [memory, high].

The documents themselves and the proponents' side. - Memo "Scalar Waves", CIA-RDP96-00792R000500240001-6, DT-ACO to DT (Dr. Vorona), 12/22/87 (in the CIA folder). - DIA-08-0911-003, "Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance" (2009), including its reference list on pp.7-8; read the notes beside the text to see which claims rest on journals and which on briefings (in the DIA folder). - A. C. Holt, "Field Resonance Propulsion Concept", NASA TM-80961 (1979). - G. Feinberg, "Particles That Go Faster Than Light", Scientific American 222(2), February 1970 (CIA copy in the CIA folder). - M. H. Miles, B. F. Bush and K. B. Johnson, "Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems", NAWCWPNS TP 8302, Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake (1996): the experimenters' own account of the heat-helium data, including the air-helium problem [web: https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf; copy hosted by lenr-canr.org, an archive run by supporters of the field]. - Staff note "TO: COL BUZBY", excerpting T. E. Bearden, "Star Wars Now" (24 April 1984), CIA-RDP96-00792R000500240002-5: the proponent's two-beam mechanism [web: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00792r000500240002-5]. Bearden's full "STAR WARS NOW!" paper is also in the reading room (not opened). - G. Rein, "Interactions with scalar energy - cellular mechanisms of action", CIA-RDP96-00792R000500240008-9 (6 pp.): the "Tesla watch" nerve-cell experiment and Rein's "Crystalline Transduction Theory" [web: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00792r000500240008-9; read from OCR]. Its cited sources, not yet read: Byrd (EEG with the watch), Persinger (mast-cell degranulation under cancelling 0.5 Hz, 10 uT fields) and Puharich/Max Planck (E. coli gene activation). - US Army INSCOM memo, "CENTER LANE Meeting with DIA - 20 July 1984", CIA-RDP96-00788R001500100012-3: the record that places "DT" in DIA [web: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00788r001500100012-3]. - New Energy Times on the DIA report's workshop origin, presenters, coordination line and the DIA Public Affairs email (Steven Krivit's site; a party with an interest in the field's coverage) [web: https://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/DIALENRReport.shtml]. - A. De Ninno et al., "Experimental evidence of 4He production in a cold fusion experiment", ENEA RT/2002/41/FUS (2002) [web: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf; title page only read; copy hosted by lenr-canr.org, an archive run by supporters of the field]. - Gillespie, Lin, Jones and Duncan, "Helium Detection in Technical Materials", arXiv:2405.02307 (2024): the steel-wall helium background [web: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.02307]. - L. Kowalski, comment on the CR-39 triple-track paper, Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. (2008), and the authors' reply, EPJ AP 44:291-295 (2008) [web, bibliographic only]. - D. R. Justesen, "Microwaves and Behavior", American Psychologist 30(3):391-401 (1975): the published account of the Sharp-Grove speech demonstration [web: scan at https://zoryglaser.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/MICROWAVES-AND-BEHAVIOR.pdf; citation page not seen]; J. C. Sharp, Grove and Gandhi, IEEE Trans. MTT 22(5):583-584 (1974), on the mechanism [web, via Broughton]; Martin Broughton Research & Analysis, a secondary analysis of both [web: https://www.martin-broughton-research-analysis.co.uk/the-microwave-auditory-effect/encoded-communication-morse-code-speech]. - A. C. Holt's later NASA abstracts, 1986-2004 (AIAA 89-2858; Vision-21 1990; 1993; Space 2004) [web: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search?q=Alan%20C.%20Holt%20propulsion]; full texts NTRS 19910012853 and 19940022865 to read next. - Records known by title only, to read next: A. C. Holt, "Prospects for a breakthrough in field-dependent 'propulsion'" (16th Joint Propulsion Conference, 1980) and "Starcraft", Science Digest (May 1982) [web, search-result summary]; A. C. Holt with Eric Davis and Hal Puthoff, "Space testing of electromagnetically sensitive materials for breakthrough propulsion physics", AIAA 1999-2143 [web: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.1999-2143]. - P. A. Mosier-Boss et al., "Triple tracks in CR-39 as the result of Pd-D co-deposition: evidence of energetic neutrons", Naturwissenschaften 96, 135-142 (2009) [read: cited in DIA p.7; paper not read]; and P. A. Mosier-Boss and L. Forsley, "Interpreting CR-39 Detectors used in Pd/D Co-deposition: Nuclear Generated Tracks or Artifacts?", Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 34 (2021) [web: https://jcmns.org/article/72567-interpreting-cr-39-detectors-used-in-pd-d-co-deposition-nuclear-generated-tracks-or-artifacts]. - E. F. Mallove, Fire from Ice (1991), the proponent's history of cold fusion [memory, high]. - E. Storms, The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (2007), a proponent's review of the experimental literature [memory, high]. - The Bearden primer in this series (../Bearden/primer.md) for the scalar-wave ideas the memo summarises.

Answers

1. S = x^2 t. A = grad S = (2 x t, 0, 0); phi = -dS/dt = -x^2. E_x = -d(phi)/dx - dA_x/dt = 2x - 2x = 0; other components are zero; B = curl of (2xt, 0, 0) = 0. Wave equation: laplacian(S) - (1/c^2) d^2S/dt^2 = 2t - 0 = 2t, not zero. So E = B = 0 even though S is not a wave. The wave equation plays no role in making the fields vanish; it only decides whether the potentials are in the Lorenz gauge.

2. At 1 kHz, delta = 7.96 m, so the factor is exp(-50/7.96) = exp(-6.28) = 1.9e-3 in amplitude (about -55 dB). At 10 Hz, delta = 79.6 m, so exp(-50/79.6) = exp(-0.628) = 0.53. The 10 Hz signal arrives about 280 times stronger in amplitude; the price is a gigantic antenna and a very slow data rate. (c) The equations are linear, so the fields add. Exact cancellation: the sum is zero everywhere, at the surface and at 50 m, so nothing arrives. 1% mismatch: the sum is 1% of beam 1 (example.py Part 6 shows E1 - (1 - eps) E1 = eps E1), an ordinary 1 kHz wave damped by the same 1.9e-3, so the submarine receives 0.01 x 1.9e-3 = 1.9e-5 of one beam's surface amplitude: worse than sending a single beam.

3. Energy = 2 W x 36,000 s = 72,000 J. Helium: 72,000 x 2.62e11 = 1.9e16 atoms (about 3.1e-8 mol, or about 7e-4 cm^3 at standard conditions). Neutrons: 2 W x 1.91e12 per joule = 3.8e12 neutrons per second, an intense neutron flux that any nearby detector would register, and that is not seen. (c) 23.8 MeV = 3.81e-12 J; 4.03 u = 6.69e-27 kg; so 5.7e14 J/kg. Divided by 4.6e7 J/kg this is 1.2e7, about 10 million: DIA's figure is right for fusion to helium. It says nothing about whether LENR happens; it is the payoff if it does.

4. E = mu c^2 / sqrt(2^2 - 1) = 1 MeV / sqrt(3) = 0.577 MeV. Slowing toward c makes sqrt(v^2/c^2 - 1) smaller, so E grows: it gains energy as it slows, and would need infinite energy to reach c.

5. Energy = 0.1 x 3.83e26 J = 3.83e25 J. Energy density = 0.3^2 / (2 x 1.2566e-6) = 3.58e4 J/m^3. Volume = 3.83e25 / 3.58e4 = 1.07e21 m^3; cube side = (1.07e21)^(1/3) = 1.02e7 m, about 10,000 km. That is about 1.5% of the Sun's radius, comparable to a large active region, so ordinary magnetic energy is enough and no gravitational coupling is needed.