ZPEnergy.com - Claims for huge COP demonstrated devices

Robert Neil Boyd writes: Hi,

Just for your information, I am cognizant of a method which produces energy gains in excess of 1,000,000 to 1. No questions can arise regarding measurement flaws at these kinds of gain magnitudes. The power gain is unmistakably and unquestionably present. However, this apparatus is not small. And it is not very scalable. But it sure the heck works! And it sure beats typical 110% to 300% gains which can be realized by other methods. We're looking at more than a gigawatt arising out of a 15 kilowatt supply.

I have been trying to get funding to build the apparatus, which will cost on the order of $100,000 to fabricate. The results of this construction will not only be the previously mentioned device, but a 1 MegaVolt DC power supply. The power supply alone is worth a minimum of $500,000, when completed. (I challenge you to find a 1 MV DC supply for less than $750,000.) This method was publically demonstrated by Beifield and Brown for audiences numbering several hundred thousand, back in 1925. We have developed three improvements on Brown's methods, using modern technology, as opposed to the technologies available in the 1920s.

I am also cognizant of another method, which is scalable and less expensive to fabricate, but which involves several physical hazards which are directly arising from this approach. This method produces gains of several thousand to one. (This method was first demonstrated by Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters of Germany in the early 1920s.)

Both these devices operate based on the principles of aether physics. AND they are functional and demonstrated systems, both of which produce immense power gains. However, they both turn the "Standard View" of physics completely on its ear. (That is because the "Standard View" is just a house of cards, a fiction in many of its disparate parts.) So, maybe we can get on about this business of producing generous amounts of power, and then build a REAL house.

Best Wishes,

Neil

For a change, I would suggest Neil to disclose here the names of the companies/ organizations /institutions he approached for testing/funding and was rejected.