( 1 ) The patent office has what they informally call the ''Witchcraft Rule''. This is that nothing can be patented that works on an unknown principal. Unless a device can be explained by already known laws of physics it cannot be patented even if it works. If your space drive moves a spaceship without any equal and opposite reaction, if your motor draws energy directly from the ether, if your psychotronic device includes the latent mental powers of the operator as part of the functioning, it cannot be patented.
One patent official told a lawyer for one applicant , ''I would not grant an application for anything so preposterous no matter what proof was submitted''.
( 2 ) If a patent is about to be granted there is one final step: the design is sent first to the Pentagon where a technology specialist reads it and decides if it has a potential military application. If they decide they want a monopoly on it it is declared classified. The patent will still be issued, but only the number will be published, not the design. After that, you are forbidden to tell anyone how it works, even your lawyer if you decide to appeal the classified designation. You will be paid whatever they decide is a fair market value for it, but cannot sell it to anybody else.
To avoid this, the thing to do is apply for a patent in other countries at the same time you apply for a U.S. patent. They cannot declare it classified if it is already public in some other country. All NATO countries will go along with American orders to keep it secret, so I suggest sending patent applications simultaneously to Iran, Russia, Venezuela and other countries that are not part of the American Empire.
"Gravity" is tension between electromagnetic fields. Anti gravity can be achieved by using an electromagnetic field reactor. A gyroscope made from certain materials is more than adequate. Such a device can also be used to generate free energy. If I had the money, I'd prototype the ones I designed. Unfortunately no institution that I've contacted thus far is interested in getting involved in such a project and I've been advised that it would not be a good idea to bring it to a patent office.
What what exactly does one do when they're sitting on over a dozen different designs that could- or would change the course of history if it was publicized and funded? DARPA, ARA, and friends already have this technology, albeit unrefined and weaponized iterations that they've used on the public before.. I honestly don't see them allowing it to be used for good.
It's disheartening to say the least to pour so much energy and excitement into something so groundbreaking only to be told by people in-the-know that it could get me "disappeared". I half expect that any day now their credentialed mainstream "physicist" actors will start trickling hints of electrogravitic propulsion.. but they'll never willingly allow free energy to be out in the open.. that would mean they couldn't charge us for energy anymore.
Disheartening, yes, and I have no easy answers for what to do about it. And neither institutions nor investors are interested in looking at a design unless there's a physical model demonstrating the idea. Are you in a location where you could reach out and try to find a team, a group that might pool its resources to build a prototype?
I'm in Hudson Valley, NY. Been networking for over a year now. Found many amazing people, some of which I believe you're aquatinted with, but none had the financial bandwidth to support a prototype and I'm not very well off myself. In the beginning, out of naivety I tried to contact companies and institutions. No dice. It does require some exotic and expensive materials, machining, EM shielding, superconductors, liquid nitrogen containment, etc. I estimate a small prototype would be in the $15k range. But the manufacturing processes and materials required to make it work exist
The problem with open-source here is if you want to get investment to mass-produce the device and get it out into the world yourself. If the thing actually works then it's pretty certain that other people will produce improvements (and likely also patent those) and that there's a good chance that the "improved" version will be sold cheaper and be better. Thus somewhat hard to get someone to manufacture the things in the first place, given that they'll only have the market to themselves for a year or so until the market is flooded by Chinese copies. Maybe less. I'm not certain that a patent will protect you from that anyway because the available profit will be so huge for people just copying it anyway. It needs a lot of money to enforce a patent, which is why some companies hold things as trade secrets where that's workable (that is, you can't reverse-engineer it easily or at all).
Still, a patent is supposed to tell people enough about how it works so that someone "skilled in the art" can replicate it. In fact, of course, the patents are mostly written to comply with the letter of that rule but to gives ranges (sometimes very wide ranges) for the essential parameters involved. Somewhere in that pile of definitions there'll be a pony, but unless you ask the inventors where it is you won't find it quickly if at all. Still, if someone does an exact copy of a working design, they can get something that works even if they don't know exactly why.
Problem in this field is that most of the claims are wrong one way or another. Most of the money is in books telling people how to make Free Energy devices, where really if they knew how to make one for real they'd be selling the devices and making a fortune. Might be more errors in measurement and understanding than intentional fraud, but if it doesn't actually work any investment will be lost.
I've passed this article to a couple of friends who have good ideas, one whose idea has just been tested in space (and works) and the other is still working on getting a demo device made, but once made I expect it to work as specified. I also expect these devices to achieve useful results next year, not sure how long before they become ubiquitous.
Simon, I'm glad to hear that you expect some devices to achieve useful results next year, "not sure how long before they become ubiquitous."
Thanks for the excellent summary of the pro's and con's, from inventor's perspective, of open-sourcing an energy breakthrough. And you touched on the investor's experiences too.
I'd like to hear what your friends-with-good-ideas (sounds like they have done the work) have to say.
Jeane - Mike McCulloch was interested, and has been working open-source anyway. Though I think any university should be pleased to employ him (he used to be employed as a professor in Plymouth university) his ideas are maybe a bit too outrageous. Still, they've been proven to work at ground level for a while, eliminate the need for Dark Matter in cosmology, and recently shown to generate thrust in space too. The thruster produces around 50mN per watt of power, but uses around 20mW and produces around 1mN at the moment. This should be possible to scale up fairly easily and get more thrust, and that will have a commercial use in station-keeping for satellites. Currently satellites use mass-ejection to produce thrust, either rockets or ion engines, and when they run out of fuel or reaction-mass that signals end-of-life for the satellite and it needs to be de-orbited using the last gasp. If you don't need the reaction mass, the satellite life can be extended for as long as it still actually works, and those things are expensive. With Elon Musk's StarLink satellites around 4 will be coming down each week because they're flying low and thus get slowed by atmospheric drag. Add in a thruster that doesn't need reaction-mass to work, and just needs electrical power, and they'll stop coming down which saves needing to put new ones up too. Point here is that even with that level of thrust there's a practical benefit.
If people realise this is possible, and thus spend time working on the ideas behind it, maybe someone will find a better way to exploit it. I don't know whether we'll get those hoverboards and flying cars this way though....
I also told Eddie Sines (US patent US 9,080,557 B2) but Eddie isn't open-source. The method here is to use the Meissner effect to redirect magnetic flux, given that we can switch the Meissner effect off using a small laser of the right wavelength. Making the device is technically difficult, especially for one person working alone, which is why it's taken him some years to get all the required kit and to acquire the expertise in using it. Pretty close now, and I expect him to get a demo system fairly early next year. He's been claiming the energy comes from Zero-point, but what's actually happening is that the energy-levels available to fermions (the electrons) and bosons (Cooper pairs) simply don't match and he's switching between those states. Energy isn't a thing, but instead a property of the thing that carries it, so if you change the thing that carries is sufficiently you see a different quantity of energy as being there. This makes talking about what's really happening here a bit difficult, since the question "where does the energy come from" doesn't have an answer, and the energy isn't created because it isn't a thing but a property. We just have more energy as a result of switching the underlying system. Still, on a superficial level you can switch which one of two paths the majority of the magnetic flux goes down, and the coils around those paths will thus output electrical energy, and you can produce a lot of power in a pretty small volume.
What Eddie and Mike have in common is that they noticed an anomaly in the explanations of how things work, and worked out a way to make that useful. There's enough experimental evidence so far to be pretty sure they work, too.
For those reactionless drives, there are other theories and other devices by other people too, and the theories are largely mutually incompatible. Quite funny really, since it looks like they work experimentally, which leaves an open question of which theory is closer to reality, and maybe all the theories are partly wrong and have a part that's the truth. It feels like Charles Buhler's idea that an electrical field exerts a force similar to pressure could match reality, and like pressure in a fluid it's hard to make a shape/arrangement that produces an asymmetrical force that pushes one way. Hector Serrano simulates negative matter, where gravity repels, and thus by placing positive matter right next to your bit of simulated negative matter you get a net thrust. Likely it'll get tested in space next year. The thrust to power ratio for these designs is in the same ballpark within an order of magnitude so far. I know that much higher levels are achievable, and have been achieved and then lost through trying to keep it secret, and that maybe we'll find out again since some of the same effects have been seen.
Looks like any of the reactionless drives could deliver more power out than it takes to run them, if they are set up to spin an electrical generator. There are also a couple of ways to simply produce energy that look like they ought to work. The tests for whether these things really work should be definitive - they can either run themselves and something else or they can't. Mostly they're now far enough along that we should see results pretty soon, and next year is now pretty close so I'm not saying this year. Still, looks like we're almost at the point it becomes obvious it's possible and thus will get thought about by a lot more people, which normally produces improvements.
I should have asked Mike McC before mentioning him in a post, since the title of my substack is Aether or... and it seems that he needs to avoid terminology that isn't acceptable to the scientific community in general. Pls convey my apology.
Jeane - will do. There's a logical problem to do with Aether or not, though. If you choose to use wave explanations instead, then that begs the question of what, exactly, supports that wave, since it needs analogues of both inertia and restoring force to carry a wave. If, like the Aether theorists I know, you say there's an Aether and it consists of very small particles that bounce off each other and obey the rules of fluid mechanics, thus producing the effects of electromagnetic fields using vortices in the fluid, then that requires those tiny particles to have inertia and for there to either be fields between them or that the particles have a structure allowing them to deform and thus bounce. If you say there are strings, then again you need to specify they have analogues of inertia and a restoring force. Whichever way you try to explain the fundamentals you end up with recursion, and you explain the forces you can see and measure by postulating forces/fields you can't see and measure, and you explain inertia in the things you can see and measure by inertia in something you can't.
Thus using a wave explanation, and saying the wave in in the field without going into exactly how that wave is supported, allows you to simply ignore the question of exactly what is waving and how the whole thing works, but doesn't make it go away. Ron Hatch (father of GPS) found that simple Relativity didn't work precisely, and instead used Aether theory with the Earth-Sun frame as the basis for time calculations. Any failure of calculations with GPS would get very obvious because a few nanoseconds translates to 10 metres or more offset and instead of driving on a road you'd be calculated to be beside it.
That doesn't mean that we can simply say that there's some medium that is dragged by matter, since the set of properties required for that medium don't hang together and make sense, which is why people went to the wave explanation in the first place. It's however probably good to say there's something equivalent to Aether but that we don't yet understand exactly how it works. Any model so far of how it works ends up recursive, thus can't explain it. I figure it's OK to have a mathematical description of what it does, which allows prediction, and at some point we'll figure out the physics of how it does it. Thus the wave explanations with a limited speed of light work in practice, and Unruh waves work though you need to ignore the need for instantaneous information transfer across the whole accessible universe that breaks that light-speed limit you just imposed on everything else.
Back when I was a student half a century ago I thought we had good explanations of all this. Turned out to need a selective ignoring of the difficulties, and the fundamentals are paradoxical. This won't get solved until we recognise there's a paradox there, and even then it may take some time. I'll need to go read what you've written earlier here, since I only found your substack when you mentioned it on LI. Might be some further clues.
Pls keep in mind, my aim is to reach a general audience with the message that humanity has options, potentially transformative clean energy possibilities that to date have not received r & d funding or attention at a level that the standard energy options have received. And that’s putting it mildly.
Jeane - sorry, I tend to get into too much detail. In short, the paradoxes in our theories imply that they have fundamental flaws, since reality cannot have paradox. Often people will simply not see the paradox in their favourite theory.
Producing energy cleanly and cheaply looks possible (the "reactionless" thrusters tells us that, which is why they are considered also to be impossible), though most claims to have done that have been mistaken if not worse. Mostly I've been telling people what doesn't work over the last couple of decades. A few methods look logically sound, have experimental evidence at low levels so far, and can maybe be developed to be useful. Whether something works or not does not depend on whether your theory is right, though the closer your theory is to reality the easier it gets to improve the results. Does it matter if your theory says you're emulating negative matter (Hector Serrano's theory) rather than using Unruh waves if you actually get the thrust? Might determine what you try to get more thrust, so you get there faster if the theory is near-enough. You'll still see what changes give you a better result and tune what you do.
It looks like enough people are getting real though small (as yet) results that though that aim of very cheap clean energy isn't yet there, we can see it from here. Good chance of arriving next year, I think.
Thanks, Reed; with your experience in the field I'm glad you've 'hung in there' all these years, and that you too believe that Free Energy / Radiant Energy / Zero Point Energy is coming close to that tipping point soon. Yes it could well be as soon as 2026.
I continue, as a lay person, to enjoy and learn from your articles. Thank you!
( 1 ) The patent office has what they informally call the ''Witchcraft Rule''. This is that nothing can be patented that works on an unknown principal. Unless a device can be explained by already known laws of physics it cannot be patented even if it works. If your space drive moves a spaceship without any equal and opposite reaction, if your motor draws energy directly from the ether, if your psychotronic device includes the latent mental powers of the operator as part of the functioning, it cannot be patented.
One patent official told a lawyer for one applicant , ''I would not grant an application for anything so preposterous no matter what proof was submitted''.
( 2 ) If a patent is about to be granted there is one final step: the design is sent first to the Pentagon where a technology specialist reads it and decides if it has a potential military application. If they decide they want a monopoly on it it is declared classified. The patent will still be issued, but only the number will be published, not the design. After that, you are forbidden to tell anyone how it works, even your lawyer if you decide to appeal the classified designation. You will be paid whatever they decide is a fair market value for it, but cannot sell it to anybody else.
To avoid this, the thing to do is apply for a patent in other countries at the same time you apply for a U.S. patent. They cannot declare it classified if it is already public in some other country. All NATO countries will go along with American orders to keep it secret, so I suggest sending patent applications simultaneously to Iran, Russia, Venezuela and other countries that are not part of the American Empire.
I had never heard it called the Witchcraft Rule before; thanks Joel.
"Gravity" is tension between electromagnetic fields. Anti gravity can be achieved by using an electromagnetic field reactor. A gyroscope made from certain materials is more than adequate. Such a device can also be used to generate free energy. If I had the money, I'd prototype the ones I designed. Unfortunately no institution that I've contacted thus far is interested in getting involved in such a project and I've been advised that it would not be a good idea to bring it to a patent office.
What what exactly does one do when they're sitting on over a dozen different designs that could- or would change the course of history if it was publicized and funded? DARPA, ARA, and friends already have this technology, albeit unrefined and weaponized iterations that they've used on the public before.. I honestly don't see them allowing it to be used for good.
It's disheartening to say the least to pour so much energy and excitement into something so groundbreaking only to be told by people in-the-know that it could get me "disappeared". I half expect that any day now their credentialed mainstream "physicist" actors will start trickling hints of electrogravitic propulsion.. but they'll never willingly allow free energy to be out in the open.. that would mean they couldn't charge us for energy anymore.
Disheartening, yes, and I have no easy answers for what to do about it. And neither institutions nor investors are interested in looking at a design unless there's a physical model demonstrating the idea. Are you in a location where you could reach out and try to find a team, a group that might pool its resources to build a prototype?
I'm in Hudson Valley, NY. Been networking for over a year now. Found many amazing people, some of which I believe you're aquatinted with, but none had the financial bandwidth to support a prototype and I'm not very well off myself. In the beginning, out of naivety I tried to contact companies and institutions. No dice. It does require some exotic and expensive materials, machining, EM shielding, superconductors, liquid nitrogen containment, etc. I estimate a small prototype would be in the $15k range. But the manufacturing processes and materials required to make it work exist
The problem with open-source here is if you want to get investment to mass-produce the device and get it out into the world yourself. If the thing actually works then it's pretty certain that other people will produce improvements (and likely also patent those) and that there's a good chance that the "improved" version will be sold cheaper and be better. Thus somewhat hard to get someone to manufacture the things in the first place, given that they'll only have the market to themselves for a year or so until the market is flooded by Chinese copies. Maybe less. I'm not certain that a patent will protect you from that anyway because the available profit will be so huge for people just copying it anyway. It needs a lot of money to enforce a patent, which is why some companies hold things as trade secrets where that's workable (that is, you can't reverse-engineer it easily or at all).
Still, a patent is supposed to tell people enough about how it works so that someone "skilled in the art" can replicate it. In fact, of course, the patents are mostly written to comply with the letter of that rule but to gives ranges (sometimes very wide ranges) for the essential parameters involved. Somewhere in that pile of definitions there'll be a pony, but unless you ask the inventors where it is you won't find it quickly if at all. Still, if someone does an exact copy of a working design, they can get something that works even if they don't know exactly why.
Problem in this field is that most of the claims are wrong one way or another. Most of the money is in books telling people how to make Free Energy devices, where really if they knew how to make one for real they'd be selling the devices and making a fortune. Might be more errors in measurement and understanding than intentional fraud, but if it doesn't actually work any investment will be lost.
I've passed this article to a couple of friends who have good ideas, one whose idea has just been tested in space (and works) and the other is still working on getting a demo device made, but once made I expect it to work as specified. I also expect these devices to achieve useful results next year, not sure how long before they become ubiquitous.
Simon, I'm glad to hear that you expect some devices to achieve useful results next year, "not sure how long before they become ubiquitous."
Thanks for the excellent summary of the pro's and con's, from inventor's perspective, of open-sourcing an energy breakthrough. And you touched on the investor's experiences too.
I'd like to hear what your friends-with-good-ideas (sounds like they have done the work) have to say.
Jeane - Mike McCulloch was interested, and has been working open-source anyway. Though I think any university should be pleased to employ him (he used to be employed as a professor in Plymouth university) his ideas are maybe a bit too outrageous. Still, they've been proven to work at ground level for a while, eliminate the need for Dark Matter in cosmology, and recently shown to generate thrust in space too. The thruster produces around 50mN per watt of power, but uses around 20mW and produces around 1mN at the moment. This should be possible to scale up fairly easily and get more thrust, and that will have a commercial use in station-keeping for satellites. Currently satellites use mass-ejection to produce thrust, either rockets or ion engines, and when they run out of fuel or reaction-mass that signals end-of-life for the satellite and it needs to be de-orbited using the last gasp. If you don't need the reaction mass, the satellite life can be extended for as long as it still actually works, and those things are expensive. With Elon Musk's StarLink satellites around 4 will be coming down each week because they're flying low and thus get slowed by atmospheric drag. Add in a thruster that doesn't need reaction-mass to work, and just needs electrical power, and they'll stop coming down which saves needing to put new ones up too. Point here is that even with that level of thrust there's a practical benefit.
If people realise this is possible, and thus spend time working on the ideas behind it, maybe someone will find a better way to exploit it. I don't know whether we'll get those hoverboards and flying cars this way though....
I also told Eddie Sines (US patent US 9,080,557 B2) but Eddie isn't open-source. The method here is to use the Meissner effect to redirect magnetic flux, given that we can switch the Meissner effect off using a small laser of the right wavelength. Making the device is technically difficult, especially for one person working alone, which is why it's taken him some years to get all the required kit and to acquire the expertise in using it. Pretty close now, and I expect him to get a demo system fairly early next year. He's been claiming the energy comes from Zero-point, but what's actually happening is that the energy-levels available to fermions (the electrons) and bosons (Cooper pairs) simply don't match and he's switching between those states. Energy isn't a thing, but instead a property of the thing that carries it, so if you change the thing that carries is sufficiently you see a different quantity of energy as being there. This makes talking about what's really happening here a bit difficult, since the question "where does the energy come from" doesn't have an answer, and the energy isn't created because it isn't a thing but a property. We just have more energy as a result of switching the underlying system. Still, on a superficial level you can switch which one of two paths the majority of the magnetic flux goes down, and the coils around those paths will thus output electrical energy, and you can produce a lot of power in a pretty small volume.
What Eddie and Mike have in common is that they noticed an anomaly in the explanations of how things work, and worked out a way to make that useful. There's enough experimental evidence so far to be pretty sure they work, too.
For those reactionless drives, there are other theories and other devices by other people too, and the theories are largely mutually incompatible. Quite funny really, since it looks like they work experimentally, which leaves an open question of which theory is closer to reality, and maybe all the theories are partly wrong and have a part that's the truth. It feels like Charles Buhler's idea that an electrical field exerts a force similar to pressure could match reality, and like pressure in a fluid it's hard to make a shape/arrangement that produces an asymmetrical force that pushes one way. Hector Serrano simulates negative matter, where gravity repels, and thus by placing positive matter right next to your bit of simulated negative matter you get a net thrust. Likely it'll get tested in space next year. The thrust to power ratio for these designs is in the same ballpark within an order of magnitude so far. I know that much higher levels are achievable, and have been achieved and then lost through trying to keep it secret, and that maybe we'll find out again since some of the same effects have been seen.
Looks like any of the reactionless drives could deliver more power out than it takes to run them, if they are set up to spin an electrical generator. There are also a couple of ways to simply produce energy that look like they ought to work. The tests for whether these things really work should be definitive - they can either run themselves and something else or they can't. Mostly they're now far enough along that we should see results pretty soon, and next year is now pretty close so I'm not saying this year. Still, looks like we're almost at the point it becomes obvious it's possible and thus will get thought about by a lot more people, which normally produces improvements.
I should have asked Mike McC before mentioning him in a post, since the title of my substack is Aether or... and it seems that he needs to avoid terminology that isn't acceptable to the scientific community in general. Pls convey my apology.
And thank you for this informative reply, Simon.
Jeane - will do. There's a logical problem to do with Aether or not, though. If you choose to use wave explanations instead, then that begs the question of what, exactly, supports that wave, since it needs analogues of both inertia and restoring force to carry a wave. If, like the Aether theorists I know, you say there's an Aether and it consists of very small particles that bounce off each other and obey the rules of fluid mechanics, thus producing the effects of electromagnetic fields using vortices in the fluid, then that requires those tiny particles to have inertia and for there to either be fields between them or that the particles have a structure allowing them to deform and thus bounce. If you say there are strings, then again you need to specify they have analogues of inertia and a restoring force. Whichever way you try to explain the fundamentals you end up with recursion, and you explain the forces you can see and measure by postulating forces/fields you can't see and measure, and you explain inertia in the things you can see and measure by inertia in something you can't.
Thus using a wave explanation, and saying the wave in in the field without going into exactly how that wave is supported, allows you to simply ignore the question of exactly what is waving and how the whole thing works, but doesn't make it go away. Ron Hatch (father of GPS) found that simple Relativity didn't work precisely, and instead used Aether theory with the Earth-Sun frame as the basis for time calculations. Any failure of calculations with GPS would get very obvious because a few nanoseconds translates to 10 metres or more offset and instead of driving on a road you'd be calculated to be beside it.
That doesn't mean that we can simply say that there's some medium that is dragged by matter, since the set of properties required for that medium don't hang together and make sense, which is why people went to the wave explanation in the first place. It's however probably good to say there's something equivalent to Aether but that we don't yet understand exactly how it works. Any model so far of how it works ends up recursive, thus can't explain it. I figure it's OK to have a mathematical description of what it does, which allows prediction, and at some point we'll figure out the physics of how it does it. Thus the wave explanations with a limited speed of light work in practice, and Unruh waves work though you need to ignore the need for instantaneous information transfer across the whole accessible universe that breaks that light-speed limit you just imposed on everything else.
Back when I was a student half a century ago I thought we had good explanations of all this. Turned out to need a selective ignoring of the difficulties, and the fundamentals are paradoxical. This won't get solved until we recognise there's a paradox there, and even then it may take some time. I'll need to go read what you've written earlier here, since I only found your substack when you mentioned it on LI. Might be some further clues.
Pls keep in mind, my aim is to reach a general audience with the message that humanity has options, potentially transformative clean energy possibilities that to date have not received r & d funding or attention at a level that the standard energy options have received. And that’s putting it mildly.
Jeane - sorry, I tend to get into too much detail. In short, the paradoxes in our theories imply that they have fundamental flaws, since reality cannot have paradox. Often people will simply not see the paradox in their favourite theory.
Producing energy cleanly and cheaply looks possible (the "reactionless" thrusters tells us that, which is why they are considered also to be impossible), though most claims to have done that have been mistaken if not worse. Mostly I've been telling people what doesn't work over the last couple of decades. A few methods look logically sound, have experimental evidence at low levels so far, and can maybe be developed to be useful. Whether something works or not does not depend on whether your theory is right, though the closer your theory is to reality the easier it gets to improve the results. Does it matter if your theory says you're emulating negative matter (Hector Serrano's theory) rather than using Unruh waves if you actually get the thrust? Might determine what you try to get more thrust, so you get there faster if the theory is near-enough. You'll still see what changes give you a better result and tune what you do.
It looks like enough people are getting real though small (as yet) results that though that aim of very cheap clean energy isn't yet there, we can see it from here. Good chance of arriving next year, I think.
hi Jeane,
Free Energy will have its "AI Moment" soon.
Artificial Intelligence began in 1956 at a summer research project at Dartmouth. The conclusion was -- its 100's of years away.
But we all know that 3 years ago, when ChatGPT was released, this launched AI into the mainstream.
I believe that Free Energy / Radiant Energy / Zero Point Energy is coming close to that tipping point soon. I believe as soon as 2026.
What Begich and Reed are doing is just a very small start.
Keep up the great work!
Reed Huish
Founder & CEO
ZPower.com
602-821-7100
Thanks, Reed; with your experience in the field I'm glad you've 'hung in there' all these years, and that you too believe that Free Energy / Radiant Energy / Zero Point Energy is coming close to that tipping point soon. Yes it could well be as soon as 2026.