Your best way to demonstrate that overunity EM systems extracting excess energy from the vacuum are permitted and already seen in nature, clearly and unequivocally, is in the following approach:

(1) Call attention to the common solar cell. It may have an efficiency of only 17%, and thus waste 83% of all the energy input to it, but it has a COP = infinity because the operator does not have to input any energy at all. COP merely refers to energy out divided by operator's input energy. It ignores whether or not additional energy is input from the environment. A windmill, waterwheel, and sailboat also have COP = infinity, as does a simple charge, a permanent magnet, etc. Note that power engineers do not usually consider the moving photons inside and comprising a "static" EM field.  A static EM field in space is static only in the sense of the overall "shape"; the comprising photons are all in motion continuously at light speed. As Van Flandern points out, a static field is like a steady state flowing waterfall, where all the internal parts are in motion at all times, but it is not like a FROZEN waterfall where all internal parts are static.

Conclusion: The solar cell conclusively proves that COP>1.0 EM systems are possible, using only input EM energy from the environment rather than water (as in a waterwheel) or the wind (as in a windmill). The input energy furnished by the environment to the solar cell, however, is conventional (observable) EM energy.

(2) Call attention to the well-known area of "nonlinear resonance absorption of the medium," and specifically to the Bohren experiment [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.]

Conclusion: The Bohren experiment PROVES that a real physical system can output more real observable EM energy than the ACCOUNTED observable electromagnetic energy one inputs. There are only two possible sources of the excess energy being emitted: (1) the energy one inputs oneself. This implies that one also unwittingly inputs the extra energy in a form that is usually not accounted, and that also cannot be measured or detected; or (2) the system takes its excess energy input from the external quiescent environment (spacetime and the vacuum), but in a form which cannot be measured normally and is therefore "virtual energy in form".  If so, then it also must transduce that nonobservable virtual energy into real, observable form, because real excess EM energy is emitted by the experiment; or (3) a combination of the two.

Discussion: Either way, the experiment (which is replicable without raising an eyelash) and is performed hundreds of times each year in the U.S.) clearly shows that COP>1.0 EM systems converting some form(s) of NONOBSERVABLE energy into observable EM energy form are possible, because it is experimentally proven. Hence no amount of theory of dogma can refute it. IT ONLY TAKES ONE WHITE CROW TO PROVE THAT NOT ALL CROWS ARE BLACK.

(3) Call attention to the flawed ASSUMPTION in classical EM theory and the electrical power engineering model, that the external environment (active vacuum and curved local spacetime) of the Maxwellian system is inert. These models assume an inert vacuum (falsified in particle physics for many decades) and a flat spacetime (falsified by general relativity since 1916; merely changing the local energy density of the system or the surrounding space, curves local spacetime.  Any potential or field whatsoever does that).

Conclusion: the standard electrical power engineering model, which arbitrarily and erroneously assumes an inert environment, obviously cannot even model the ongoing active environmental interactions between an electrical system existing in an active vacuum energy exchange, and also in a curved local spacetime. Hence one must go beyond conventional electrical engineering and its flawed model, into other types of much more comprehensive electrodynamics already known in physics.  These more extended electrodynamics models CAN model an active vacuum/curved spacetime environment and its interaction with the EM power system (and in fact with every charge in the system). Consequently, objections to COP>1.0 EM systems drawing and using excess energy from the active vacuum and curved local spacetime are totally invalid if the objections are based on standard electrical engineering and classical Maxwellian electrodynamics.

(4) For objections based on the flawed present statement of the Second Law of thermodynamics, one should point out the ubiquitous and overwhelming source charge problem (I attach a Fact Sheet on that one). The source charge problem is easily shown experimentally (every charge pours out real, observable EM energy continuously, forming and continuously replenishing its associated fields and potentials radially outward at light speed, from the moment of creation of the charge. Yet there is no OBSERVABLE/MEASURABLE energy input to the charge). That is real, observable EM energy that pours out, and standard EM models already begrudgingly accept that the associated source charges "somehow" furnish and create all EM fields, EM potentials, and every joule of EM energy in the universe. But the models assume those fields, potentials, and joules of EM energy to be CREATED by the source charge, right out of nothing at all! This implied assumption of course violates the first law of thermodynamics (the conservation of energy law). The standard classical models --- and electrical power engineering itself --- thus are in total violation of the conservation of energy law, as are their notions of EM field, EM potential, and joules of EM energy. Electrical engineering departments, professors, textbooks, and engineers thus do not even know where a single joule of EM energy comes from, in any EM field or potential in any EM circuit or device. They therefore really do not understand what powers every electrical circuit or device. None ever have.

CONCLUSION: One must either explain how the source charge receives and converts NONOBSERVABLE/NONMEASUREABLE/VIRTUAL energy into observable EM energy (a negative entropy operation), or one must surrender both the first and second laws of thermodynamics (The second law requires change anyway, since it is an oxymoron implicitly assuming that its own contradiction has first occurred -- leading to the "major" unresolved problem of thermodynamics itself. We give the solution in one of the attached fact sheets, and also give a proper restatement and correction of the second law. We also make a slight correction in the present first law statement, which as conventionally assumed would exclude gauge freedom.  Since gauge freedom is well established both theoretically and experimentally, then one must change that error in the statement of the present First Law, and we explain the correction).

(5) I enclose several fact sheets for your information, so that you can construct the rest of your thesis etc. on this line of rigorous reasoning that has experimental proof already in the literature. In 2000 I published the first solution to the source charge problem, based on the prediction by Lee and Yang of broken symmetry of opposite charges -- any dipolarity -- in the fierce flux of the active vacuum. With nearly immediate experimental proof by Wu et al. in early 1957, the Nobel Prize was awarded to Lee and Yang that same year, in Dec. 1957!  We note that, in quantum field theory, a charge polarized the vacuum and is thus surrounded by clustering virtual charges of opposite sign -- in short, the charge ensemble is a dipolarity, and thus exhibits broken symmetry of opposite charges.  This polarization is well known, and it PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that the charge ensemble absorbs disordered virtual photon energy from the vacuum, coherently integrates it to observable size, and re-emits the input energy as output real, observable photons radiated in all directions at light speed. This coherent integration (which I explained in one of the fact sheets) is THE fundamental mechanism of continuous negative entropy in electrodynamics, as experimentally demonstrated by the source charge and by every EM field, potential, and joule of energy in the universe. Note that we furnished the physical mechanism, and Michael Leyton has furnished a beautiful, extended object-oriented geometry and advanced group theoretic methods that fully support it theoretically.  The standard Klein geometry and group theoretic methods are more limited, and do not include all of nature's actions by any means. Leyton does, in his hierarchies of symmetry. In my opinion, Leyton's work will result in the next great revolution in physics, electrodynamics, chemistry, thermodynamics, and particularly electrical power engineering.

This work by Leyton and the demonstration of the continuous negative entropy of a source charge or dipolarity, requires a dramatic change to the present second law of thermodynamics, which has erroneously eliminated Nature's negative entropy interactions and mechanisms and only considered the entropic ones.  I have proposed and include in one of the fact sheets a proper restatement of the second law.

From that, with a little study (get some advice if needed, from a friend with a sufficient physics background) you can put together a very rigorous and "solid" presentation of your thesis: That energy from the vacuum is not only possible but is ubiquitous and already well established, both theoretically and experimentally.

Very best wishes,
Tom Bearden

To Dr. Tom Bearden,

I am writing in regards to any information that you can give me. I would like start by stating who I am and what my purpose for writing is. My name is Ryan Riehl, I am a senior in industrial design working on my thesis project. I go to CCA, formerly CCAC, which is the California College of the Arts in SF, CA. I am focusing on disruptive technologies, more specifically I am directly interested in vacuum energy and the ability to totally eradicate all of the wasteful systems that our great country is built on. I am particularly interested in the development of the MEG and it's cornucopia of uses in almost any area of energy. Our school has a great interest and strong lean toward sustainable technologies and environmentally responsible design. That means holistically as well, from manufacturing to end life to business plans. I do not purport to be an expert in your arena, but what I am good at is developing viable concepts for future product/systems using technology that is on the horizon. As an Industrial Designer, my job is to take new improvements (tech.,materials, etc.) and implement them into a somewhat tangible form. I throw out the hook so to speak and showcase what others are working on and where things are going. I am currently reading Energy from the Vacuum and have read other books such as The Hunt For Zero Point, so I am am doing my homework as best I can from all angles. I do not intend on misinterpreting concepts/principles and incorrectly utilizing them or downplaying them. I am not an electrical or mechanical engineer, but I am good with my hands and have a knack for materializing, in a sense, a concept from my head. I am an avid bike enthusiast and mechanic, so I do have enough knowledge to reasonably manage various mechanical elements. I am sure you are aware that today's designer can utilize 3D modeling to his/her benefit...as such I use Alias to realize a concept and present a solution in multiple views and materials and in different contexts. I also have the ability to rapid prototype a hard model from a 3D file. I hope you can see that I am serious about the possibilities that the advent of free energy can provide as obviously you do. I would greatly appreciate any of the following if possible: a chance to talk with you in person or any other way. possible persons that I could get in contact with in or around the Bay Area (UC Berkeley) advisory support and feedback for my project in the upcoming year possibilities for demonstrating over-unity system for my peers I am sure that you are busy, but even a "no, I can't help" would put me on track to an optimistically good year. I am really interested in enabling some type of demonstration for my peers. As you may know, most "normal" people take this sort of thing as a joke or treat it as a conspiracy theorist sort of obsession. I am lucky enough to have Jay Baldwin on staff who has an interest in these types of things as he has designed autos and energy efficient homes and was a student of Buckminster Fuller. It would be nice to be able to spark interest in my peers (and professors!) and enlighten them as to the reality of these "new" free energy forays. I even am considering a simple lifter demo to make them realize that there is much that is not understood in today's scientific community and that not all can be discredited so easy. If you are curious to see a 5th semester project of mine on-line you can go to www.sjsu-id.org and near the bottom of the page is a student mixer photo album. I made the orange/blue 3-wheeled vehicle that is second from the left. Click on it and you can see a photo of it and there is a link to my school's web page with more info on it. It is a hybrid driven human/hydrogen powered vehicle for commuters. It was only a 3 month long project so it has it's need's....and yes it is an under-unity system.....but you can see the yearning to make a more efficient product.

Thanks in advance,

Ryan