Coefficient of Performance Vs. Efficiency

Sometimes researchers/inventors (including me) use the term "efficiency" when the correct term should be "coefficient of performance." These terms are obnoxious because their misunderstanding has aroused doubt and suspicion among people looking into alternative energy devices. We NEED to get these terms straight.

I'm taking a quote from this article: http://www.vakuumenergie.de/doc/Coefficient%20of%20Performance%20and%20Efficiency.pdf

The COP explains the difference of the input energy induced by the operator and the energy obtained (output). The efficiency tells us the difference between the total input energy and the energy obtained (output).

Did that sink in? CoP or Coefficient of Performance ONLY considers energy which is put into the system by the operator. In a car this would be gasoline or diesel. In a wood stove this would be the wood. In an electrical system this would be a battery, capacitor, generator or other source of current.

Efficiency includes TOTAL energy flowing into a system. Therefore, efficiency can NEVER exceed 100%. Unfortunately, some alternative energy researchers often describe systems which do go above 100% efficiency. This is part of the source of all the skeptics who vehemently spout thermaldynamics laws claiming free energy is impossible. Energy researchers and inventors could spare themselves some of the persecution by correctly using the term CoP when describing systems which put out more energy than the operator put in.

Free energy devices which are purely electrical and exceed a CoP of 1.0 are usually receiving an open flow of energy from the vacuum of space (radiant energy). This is energy the operator did not have to put in and it is  inexhaustible!  This is the energy we should be using!

For some really great illustrations comparing energy from the vacuum with a hydroelectric dam, take a look at the PDF:
http://www.vakuumenergie.de/doc/Coefficient%20of%20Performance%20and%20Efficiency.pdf