David,

Governor Davis has a big problem that one must sympathize with and understand! The "overunity energy community" is largely in the condition of having mostly only successful small experimental buildups, not robust and proven systems ready for production and full-bore on line power utility operation. It's an area where additional research and development - and funding for that - are very much still required for a substantial period, at least for the developments I personally know anything about...(more)

If you can find an exception to that, and it's a proven exception, not just a "statement", e.g., then of course the situation changes. But in Governor Davis's responsible position, he cannot make a decision for something still unproven, not yet even developed to the production-ready state, and that has not been demonstrated in multiple environments and conditions already powering things like homes and larger loads, and that has not been certified and approved by the regulatory agencies. That would be like saying he ought to just use hot fusion, even though it isn't really developed yet. And hot fusion gets billions for research, while COP>1.0 system research gets zilch.

I sincerely recommend you reassess any plans to try to "fry" the governor because he doesn't jump for unproven technologies still in the embryonic stage and not meeting the legally required standards. In his position, he really can't afford to do that. If he did, he would be irresponsible and would almost certainly initiate a greater disaster energy-wise than California suffered last year already.
The real problem is not with the Governor! It's with the U.S. scientific community, which still erroneously equates COP>1.0 with perpetual motion purporting to have EFFICIENCY greater than 100% (and therefore implying machines that CREATE extra energy from nothing).
205205205
The pollution of the planet and the energy crisis also are partially the fault of the environmental community, which has largely turned to the conventional scientific community for energy advice - the same community responsible for the problem in the first place - without examining the assumptions the conventional community uses in its models. It needs to seek advice from some of the maverick or fore-front scientists who have already pointed out the extreme shortcomings of the classical EM model, particularly as used in electrical power engineering.
What is needed is research funding in this embryonic COP>1.0 area, in a reasonable fashion. We need to stop saying that, hey, we can just easily have a simple little old system from Radio Shack parts, and anyone can whip it together. If it were that simple, those hundreds and thousands of sharp young graduate students and post docs would have done it 50 years ago. They didn't and they haven't, so obviously it is not that simple at all.
205205205
The phenomenology of a COP>1.0 system is not just the standard EE phenomenology, but it is much more complicated. It can and does involve negative energy as well as positive energy. An electrical power system far from equilibrium with the vacuum is technically in an excited state, and all excited states have concomitant decay mechanisms. The decay mechanism for most COP>1.0 EM systems is particularly insidious, being a negative energy mechanism. So to have a stable COP>1.0 system, one is faced with the necessity of producing what is known in extended thermodynamics as a STABILIZED far from equilibrium state. When that is achieved, the COP>1.0 system will then be stable, will not decay back to COP1.0 systems.

Close-looping such a stable disequilibrium system for self-powering operation can then be done, but it is not a trivial task. Instead, it is quite a difficult task indeed!. I discuss that at some length in my book, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, available from my website www.cheniere.org. We also give two methods for solving the close-looping, self-powering problem. And we give the nature and main characteristics of the negative energy problem as well, and how to handle it.
205205205
As you can see, there is very rich and fruitful grounds here for strong, well-funded research, both theoretical and experimental. Like any other research area! What we do not need are "million dollar prizes" or "one-watt challenges" and such conundrums, but legitimate research funding made available for legitimate research efforts. Since intellectual property rights of some inventors are also involved, then the projects should recognize those rights via noncircumvention agreements, rather than the "squirrely" contracts usually proffered for small funds, just to get all the inventor's information. The DoE, e.g., should have a viable and very strong, ongoing, well-funded program in COP>1.0 energy research, but one that recognizes the noncircumvention rights of appropriate inventors. However, to deal with independent inventors, the government agencies must change their very tactics they now uses. The national laboratories under them are very patent-hungry and file patents themselves. The independent inventor can hardly work with them under any kind of program, unless he wishes to risk losing all or most of his intellectual property rights. DARPA, e.g., uses an infamous "march-in rights" clause that means that a single bureaucrat can prepare a memo stating that you are not getting your invention to market fast enough for the Government's needs. Whereupon the "Government" seizes the patent rights, assigns the project to a favored contractor, who then "pursues it with the vigor the government needs". Similar fiascos are usually true for trying to work with many universities; the administrations are usually greedy for patents, and usually will not sign a noncircumvention clause at all. They also pressure their professors and researchers to produce those patents!

In this type of "no funding or highly restricted funding" environment, it is little wonder that real funding for independent researchers and research groups - and for inventors - is very, very short, particularly if one does not wish to "sell stock" etc. or engage in possible new "dot.com" type affairs.

Anyway, hopefully that shows a little bit of what the Governor of California is up against if he tries to prematurely "go with" COP>1.0 EM energy systems. Sadly, the "overunity community" work - including our own - is just not yet sufficiently mature to be able to place reliable, proven, tested power systems into production. Note also that such power systems have to have lots of safety and health standards testing and certifications set by regulatory agencies, not by the Governor. No one in the COP>1.0 community presently has such systems ready, at least to my knowledge. So in my opinion it is totally unfair to try to pressure the Governor to "opt for unproven, non-developed, immature laboratory buildups", unless you can find a candidate system that is already well tested and proven, certified for the health requirements and regulatory requirements, reliable, safe, etc.

So this is a plea for the activist community to zero in on the real targets blocking overunity power system research and development, rather than unjustifiably harassing the poor Governor. He is in the position of having to choose something already tested, proven, reliable, well-funded, in production, and health-certified - which means the standard stuff is all he can turn to, because we simply do not yet have the overunity devices to that state.