George,

 Well, you can check the references cited in my papers (e.g., on the website) and at present that's about it.

 In simple terms, consider a windmill.  So long as the wind blows and the blades are turned into it, the windmill powers its load (e.g., pumping water) and you yourself do not have to input any energy.  Here you do not worry about COP, because you don't have to input anything.  The windmill is said to be "self-powering".

 If the windmill is improperly oriented or its blades are not angled fully, you may have to input some energy yourself, in addition to what is input by the wind, to get the windmill working well and pumping water to capacity.  But if it's pretty good, you may have to input only  a little bit of energy while the wind puts in lots more.  Consequently you get more out of the windmill to pump the water, than you yourself put in.  The coefficient of performance (pumping work out divided by your own energy input) can be COP>1.0 in that case.

 If the windmill is oriented wrong and the blades are flattened, you yourself will have to put in all the energy to rotate the windmill and pump the water.  In that case, you will have some losses in friction etc. in the windmill, and you will get out less pumping work on the water than the energy you input, because you have to "power" not only the pumping energy but the losses.  The COP<1.0 in that case, no matter what you do.

 Now Maxwellian electrodynamics is pure fluid flow theory, period.  Anything that can be done in fluids, can in theory be done in Maxwellian systems.  Hence, since the windmill is a gadget that works because of a fluid (wind) energy flow, and an EM device or circuit is a gadget that works because of an electric wind (energy) flow, the analogy is exact because the equations are of the same form.  Hence if you get your EM "gadget" properly oriented in an EM "wind" (energy flow), there are no laws of physics, thermodynamics, or nature preventing that beast from producing COP>1.0 or even self-powering.  Else there could be no such thing as a windmill, sailboat, waterwheel.

 An easy example of a COP>1.0 energy transducer is a solar cell.  Notice we did NOT say "efficiency".  The efficiency refers to the entire energy input, not just what you yourself input.  The COP refers only to what you input, not to the entire energy input.  A solar cell (good one) may have 20% efficiency, but it is still self-powering so its COP>>1.0.

 So the trick is to (1) form something in the EM circuit or power system that is known to produce an "energy wind", so to speak.  Then (2) put an "interceptor/translator" device in that energy flow or energy wind, so that it deflects and collects some of that energy flow into the circuit or system.  Then (3) dissipate some of that freely collected energy in a load, so that the load is powered.  But (4) you must not use half the intercepted and collected energy to destroy the "thing" that is producing the free electrical wind (free electromagnetic energy flow) for you to tap into.

 Every circuit the electrical engineer is trained to build, does all of that except one thing:  They are universally designed to violate criterion (4).  Hence all the conventional circuits and power systems are COP<1.0 systems, a priori, because the closed current loop circuit is specifically designed to destroy the source dipole, which -- once made -- extracts the EM energy from the seething vacuum and pours it out the terminals of the generator, so that some of it can be caught in the circuit, used to power a load, etc.  Unfortunately, that circuit uses precisely half the "caught energy" to destroy the source dipole producing the free wind.  Hence it destroys the energy flow that it is intercepting, faster than it can power the load.

 Frankly, that's a heck of a way to run the energy railroad for more than a century.

 Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

---

Tom,

I am very flattered by your extensive and so very personal response.

All this is very exciting and I really wish you all the best.

I have problems to follow your scientific argument as I am not a studied physicist (I am an architect)

and the concepts of multidimensionality are so very hard to grasp when compared to the everyday 3-dimensional experience we have grown up in.

I have tried to read Hawkins, but sorry, it didn't click.

Is there anything I can read to get a somewhat better grasp of these concepts, that you seem to be now leading from theoretical physics into practical engineering?

kind regards and my full admiration for your work and courage

Georg