Your kind remarks are appreciated, and I'm glad to see you are doing work in the field.

I put everything on free energy into the last book, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, available from the website (www.cheniere.org). It's 977 pages, and also contains a look at some 40 or so different systems and what made them work.  It took me more than 30 years of research to learn what is in that book, and the purpose is to congeal it down to one single reference that the young fellows coming on can have, including all the pertinent hard references.

For a successful overunity experiment, of course the "negative resonance absorption of the medium" is a well-known and often replicated experiment which yields some 18 times as much energy output as one inputs by Poynting calculations.  Not calculated, of course (Lorentz discarded it in the 1890s, and the electrodynamicists still use his little trick that gets rid of it) is the extra huge input of the Heaviside curl energy flow component that accompanies every Poynting flow but is ignored.  The Heaviside flow is often a trillion times as much as the Poynting flow, but being a curl, usually has zero divergence so it doesn't interact with anything.  Other wise, to simply set a flashlight battery in New York City would fry the entire city.

A resonant particle, however, does collect a little of that Heaviside component (the divergence of the curl is zero in a FLAT SPACETIME, but not necessarily in a curved spacetime).

A solid reference on the experiment is Craig F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?"  American Journal of Physics, 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327. Under nonlinear conditions, a particle can absorb more energy than is in the light incident on it.  Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies are another. See also H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?'}," Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327.  The Bohren experiment is repeatable and produces COP = 18.

Anti-Stokes emission is always more than one inputs, by definition. However, usually the excess energy is taken from the molecular energy, etc. But it is a legitimate COP>1.0 process.

I attach a letter just sent to one of the scientific magazines in response to their article on cold fusion; show that one to your physicist friend.

Further, the standard Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics used in electrical engineering, assumes that every EM field and potential and its energy is produced by the associated source charge.  The model assumes a steady flow of output energy from the charge, without any corresponding energy input. So that archaic model used by electrical power engineers assumes that every EM field and potential, and every joule of EM energy in the universe, is and has been freely created by the associated source charge(s), right out of nothing at all, in total violation of the conservation of energy law.  That problem used to be recognized begrudgingly, but it was so embarrassing they have just scrubbed it out of the textbooks these days, and even many of the EE professors do not recognize that this is a characteristic of their model.

Further, the EE model assumes a flat spacetime (falsified in 1915) and an inert vacuum (falsified in particle physics for a solid half century or more).  So that model is very incomplete, and it does not even model what really powers an electric circuit.  What powers the circuit is energy from the local vacuum and local curvatures of spacetime, from the proven broken symmetry of the charges in the circuit, once the "isolated classical charge" is considered with its surrounding clustering virtual charges of opposite sign in the vacuum.  That makes the "charge" ensemble actually a dipole, of opposite charges. Hence it must obey the proven asymmetry of opposite charges, one of the things for which Lee and Yang received the Nobel Prize in 1957.  So the charges (their dipolar ensembles) freely absorb virtual photons from the vacuum, transduce them into observable photons, and re-radiate that energy as real, observable photons in all directions, establishing the associated EM fields and potentials expanding radially outward at light speed.  The outpouring of energy from the source charges is steady and does not end.

When we pay (input energy we pay for) for the generator to form a complete dipolarity between its terminals, thereby forming a dipolarity across its external circuit, then that dipolarity itself extracts the energy from the vacuum, transduces it into real EM energy flow, and pours it out of the terminals continuously, filling all space around the external conductors. That is what really powers an EM circuit, not cranking the shaft of the generator or dissipating chemical energy in the battery.

A very simple way to look at the MEG:  It is directly analogous in its operation to a common heat pump.  Let me explain.  The heat pump has TWO energy reservoirs, being (1) the electrical energy reservoir of the EM energy we ourselves input and pay for, and (2) the heat energy in the air that it draws in and processes, extracting some of the heat energy from it. The air is freely available from the atmosphere as a "second energy reservoir"; one has to pay a little "processing" costs, but one can extract more energy from that free "second energy reservoir" than one has to pay to extract it.  The heat pump system usually loses at least half the electrical energy we input, in its losses and electrical inefficiencies.  However, we get much more energy out of that second reservoir when we process and extract the heat, than we paid to process it, and than we lost in the electrical part of the system.  So from the overall system, we can get out more energy as useful work, than the electrical energy we ourselves input. The average COP of a heat pump, under nominal good conditions, is about COP = 4.0, or four times as much useful work as the electrical energy input we PAY for.  Of course, the extra energy is indeed input to the system, but it is FREELY input from the second energy reservoir (the environment).  So the EFFICIENCY of the heat pump is about 50% or so, but its COP is about 4.0 under nominal conditions.

The MEG works in similar fashion.  We found a nanocrystalline core material that performs the same function (localizing the magnetic field) as a perfect toroid coil.  In a good toroidal coil, all the magnetic B-field energy is held inside the coils, and none of it spills out into the space outside the coil.  That's ONE energy reservoir, with the toroid.  But as is well-known (the long proven Aharonov-Bohm effect), when such localization of the magnetic field occurs, then outside that localization volume there freely appears a second energy reservoir (in the form of the field-free or curl-free magnetic vector potential).

In the MEG, the core material of the transformer section localizes all the H-field flux (from the input coil and from the permanent magnet) inside the core volume.  Hence, via the proven AB effect, there appears outside the core material a free second energy reservoir, in that special form (the curl-free magnetic vector potential).

Voila!  By putting in some input signal into the primary, we have tricked nature not only into giving us the normal magnetic field energy reservoir of energy (which we pay for), but also have tricked her into freely giving us that extra energy reservoir in the space outside the core material.

Well, it happens that when we "change" the A-potential, that makes an ordinary E-field, by the simple equation dA/dt = - E.  Note that the magnitude of that E-field depends on the time rate of change of that A-potential, not just on its magnitude.  So by using nearly rectangular pulses for our input to the input coil, and adjusting the rise time and decay time of these pulses (and also the pulse width and duty cycle), we can control the magnitudes of the E-fields that are produced.

So we can use the normal magnetic field energy in the core, which because of the efficiency of the material will (by itself) give a transformer of some 90% to 95% efficiency (considering the energy delivered from the output coil into the secondary or load circuit, compared to the input energy in the primary coil.  But additionally, we have those E-fields interacting with that output coil also, and producing extra output energy in it.  We can make that energy appreciable by adjusting the magnitudes of those E-fields that interact.

So by extracting and furnishing to the secondary or load circuit energy from BOTH reservoirs, we can produce more energy output from the secondary coil than is input to the primary coil.  Indeed, we can readily get COP = 3.0 or even CO = 5.0, but there are some other nonlinear effects at COPs in those ranges.  But COP = 1.5 or 2.0 is readily achievable, by clearly understanding how one is extracting the two types of energy.  One must optimize for this DUAL operation and dual energy use, not just a single reservoir use.  If one neglects the second reservoir, one is almost certain to build just a good 95% efficient transformer, not the MEG.

The AB effect isn't in electrical engineering, but it's been in physics for some time, and there are more than 20,000 papers on it (and its extensions, the Berry phase and geometric phase) in the physics literature.  Simply go to Michael Berry's website (a Google search gets it immediately) and download a bunch of papers on the AB effect, the Berry phase, and the geometric phase.  Or just look up the effect in Feynman's three volumes of physics, used in many universities as the sophomore physics book.  So the effect is very well known, but not by most electrical engineers and particularly not by electrical power engineers.

Hope this helps!  If you just keep in mind how a heat pump works, you can easily understand how the MEG works.  Further, you can also understand where the extra energy comes from (that second reservoir of energy that nature freely provides), and how it is transformed into usable E-field energy. Also note that the EFFICIENCY of the MEG is always less than 100%, when all energy input is accounted.  The COP, which only compares the total output to the input BY THE OPERATOR, can permissibly be COP>1.0, just like a common heat pump with its average efficiency of about 50% and its COP = 4.0.  The conservation of energy law is obeyed at all times!

Cheers and good luck,

Tom Bearden