I'm semi-retired, having done computer programming, production support (JCL), and computer operations (mainframe).

I accept the greater-than-99% probability of so-called "Free Energy", accepting that there is enough evidence available to support that. This does not mean I believe in the probability of creating energy from nothing at all. It does mean that energy can be converted from the random wave/particle energy from space, and that I therefore no longer hold any of the "Laws" of science as immutable. I believe, as did many scientists of the past - I believe Max Planck was one of them - , and many do today, that any such "Law" can be subject to modification, or even being expunged, based on any, and I do mean any, phenomenon or event which challenges the alleged universal veracity of that "Law". This includes the "sacrosanct" "Laws of Thermodynamics", which, I contend, work most of the time, but not all the time. That's my bias. However, I'm open-minded enough on the "conventional" side of science/engineering to change my mind the moment something can be empirically, and I do mean empirically, proved to me that something which I thought was the case, would not in fact, be the case. I do, however, take most instances of contentious phenomena, events, or argumentation/logic, on advisement only, until I have studied the matter in consultation with those more expert than I, and can come to a tentative decision, on one side of an issue or the other. Note that I used the word "tentative", because I would change my mind with justification. Let's just say that I have sufficient gall, as a non-scientist, not even a science/engineering technician, to say there are no immutable "Laws" of science - just those that are at best, usually true.

Hal Ade