“There are already experiments in conventional physics which output more electrical energy than one inputs. Negative resonance absorption of the medium is one which is done frequently at nonlinear optics departments, in the IR and in the UV…
There are already several areas known and recognized to violate thermodynamics. One of these is sharp gradients, another is very thin media, and another is memory effects in materials. Kondepudi and Prigogine remark on the sharp gradients problem that not much is known about it, either experimentally or theoretically…
If you wish to practice scientific method, then quit picking on the inventors for not doing a billion dollars of vacuum energy research with no funding at all. Instead, focus on the experiments already certified in physics, that do output more EM energy than the operator conventionally inputs...
By the same token, apply your own criterion to yourself. You have many items on your own website, etc. purported to be overunity systems. So apply that criterion to them. Why have none of them been through the same process you think we should be following with respect to the MEG?
And where are your discussions of the known present violations of thermodynamics? Where are your discussions of the known experiments and areas violating thermodynamics and the second law? The discussions of the closed current loop circuit and why it self-enforces Lorentz symmetrical regauging and therefore COP1.0 EXPERIMENTS ALREADY DOCUMENTED IN THE PHYSICS LITERATURE ARE NOT FOLLOWING SCIENTIFIC METHOD, BUT ARE DEMANDING THAT ANY NEW COP>1.0 SYSTEM FIT THEIR OWN PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS…”
This letter from Tom Bearden was a reply to a previous post but I was advised to highlight it in the main page because it is too important to be missed. I agree and here is the link to it:
letter to ZPEnergy
