Hi Sykavy,

A lot of great responses here!

People who have a lot of passion and are sick and tired of being sick and tired of the way things are is really a great motivating factor to get involved.

From some of the people pioneering this field in the present, much of their take on this is that it will be very difficult if not impossible to get "free energy" technologies into commercial production. Some of them really feel that if people want it, they have to learn it and build it themselves grassroots style. Most people aren't equipped with either enough money, tools or knowhow to even understand most of it so that isn't very practical so only a few will really build working models and benefit in any practical way.

I think that if there is a collaboration grassroots style where different people with different skills come together...technology, money, organization, etc... that at least everyone in that group will have it available to them and I think that is a "realistic" start.

Technically, there is no free energy. You have to invest something on the input to get it going. They aren't over 100% efficient (total out to total in) but they ARE Over 1.0 COP (coefficient of performance) that means the output EXCEEDS what you have to put into the system not counting what came in from the environment in the form of light, wind, water, gravity, etc...

There are a few distinctions that need to be understood so that we can at least all explain it to ourselves. Overunity is not an accurate word to describe anything because that is like saying more than everything. Zero point energy has nothing to do with over 1.0 cop systems but more to do with energy available from something at absolute zero showing there is still some movement so that is what zero point energy really is.

One reason much of this isn't as accepted is because as long as many people in this field are describing things in an uneducated way, the dogmatic status quo preserving in-the-box priests of the religion of science will say it is bogus and they would be absolutely right.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me what they think but for any wide acceptance by the masses, it will have to be "approved" or "recognized" by those that the masses are under the control of in order for them to believe it to begin with.

Tom Bearden for example explains a lot of this in their own language with their own textbooks and their own foundations of science that they teach but still don't understand...and he has a hard time convincing many of them even with that. It doesn't have much to do with what is or isn't. What is "right" or "wrong" or any of that. It has more to do with their preservation of ego because if they were to allow themselves to accept the truth to all of this, it would invalidate the whole premise of all their teachings that the world is flat.

IF, however, people in this field or people who really believe themselves to be involved with legitimate over 1.0 systems want to make progress, it would benefit them to be educated as to the correct knowledge of open/closed systems, know the difference between back emf and inductive spikes, know the difference between COP and efficiency and so on. Most of them do not and as long as they do not, they are not going to get much agreement by any mainstream "thinkers." Not only that, they will find themselves arguing with others in this same field because they aren't talking the same language. At least if the developers in this field unified their language and were on the same page with that, at least they could move as one cohesive unit, which would be way more powerful than a thousand different viewpoints going in a million different directions.

Of all the people in this field that I know of who are working on legitimate over 1.0 systems...I would say I could count all of them on 1 hand that actually know the distinctions between the basic concepts mentioned above. Because no matter what the actual underlying mechanisms of the aether/potential, etc.. is, they will ALL have COP/efficiency,open/closed, etc.. .apply to them no matter what the theory of the underlying source of the potential is.

John Bedini has his ideas of the radiant gas, Peter Lindemann has his..although they may have different specific viewpoints of exactly what the aether gas really is, they may be quite similar...but even if they are very, very different, both of them know the difference between efficiency and cop and so on and no matter what their specific viewpoints are on the aether, etc... the concepts of cop vs efficiency, open vs closed, etc... are probably necessary to understand.

Why? Because if certain parameters are known that are required to even have an over 1.0 COP system, then you can go about following certain parameters in a million different ways and get over 1.0 COP without having to follow a certain schematic or plan.

If you know that the system has to involve open system concepts in order to get over 1.0 COP, then you can automatically forget every concept that involves closing the loop and you reduced all your possibilities by maybe half. If you know that X is a variable that needs to be incorporated and is always involved also with over 1.0 COP systems, then you know that anything that doesn't involve the concept of X can be ruled out and you have revealed a certain window you can work in. If y, z, a, b, c, etc... same thing.

I see a lot of claims in the water fuel cell experimenting world where the claim is over 100% efficient. They may be gaining more work from the gas output or generating more gas than 'supposed' to but they are getting more than they are putting in not even knowing that there is other input from the "environment." They do not know that there is an overall loss in the system and it is under 100% EFFICIENT, but output is more than they had to put in so it is over 1.0 COP...total out divided by total in.

I have seen some experimenters who are reasonable and they understand the necessity to have intelligent explanations for what they are doing. Then there are others who outright refuse to use any common sense at all. Then there is everything in the middle.

Some want to argue with the mainstream "experts" that they are getting over 100% efficient and the mainstream "experts" say that is impossible and the mainstream "experts" would be absolutely correct. Not only do these experimenters need to be able to understand it themselves, but they need to be able to explain it to others in order to be standing on strong ground.

Just a few thoughts and by the way, I believe my book, which was called Synthesis of Matter and is now called The Quantum Key is the book to give this language to the public in a very common sense way in my opinion. It will be available very soon through ESM's shopping cart.