User:Vinyasi/sandbox

Free Energy does not Exist

Free energy is a colloquialism suggesting getting more resultant energy exiting a device per energy expenditure which powers it. Yet, the mathematical concepts which promote and maintain our rebellious belief in “Free Energy” do not exist and neither do the mathematical constructs of electrical reactance. Both are fictions whose theorized existence have weathered our doubts for over a century of experience among electrical engineers encompassing a belief in the practicality of imaginary numbers.

The testimonials of numerous scientists and engineers (who attest to the practicality of their use of imaginary, and complex, enumerations within their calculations) does not prove the existence of imaginary numbers, nor does it prove that they succeed at representing any variety of electrical reactance, free energy or otherwise. And no testimonial has been put forward (by anyone) that imaginary numbers are useless. On the contrary, they are very useful and satisfy the need for using them. This demonstrates that we can “get by” without having to prove how to take the square root of a negative number. No one has a clue how to do that, and nobody expects to find out any time soon...!

Testimonials and demonstrations are no substitute for a well-constructed proof; and neither are arguments. Testimonials are merely opinions, demonstrations are mere shadows of an understanding, and arguments are an attempt to promote a concept and all three are outside the jurisdiction of provability.

A proof demands an understanding which we fail to possess concerning the existence of imaginary numbers. And rationalizations for their usefulness does not substitute for lack of any proof.

Yet, so long as imaginary numbers serve us as a useful tool to temporarily hold an unprovable value, we can continue to use them so long as we never entirely forget that we are assuming the existence of a fantasy for the purposes of practicality.

Without concrete proof for the existence of imaginary numbers (in the world of physicality to which we are born), we will continue to have no physical proof for the existence of free energy, and no physical proof for the existence of electrical reactance since the two are closely related. {By the way, Free Energy is a special case of the more generalized topic of electrical reactance.} All we know is that the math works out based on over a century of "street-wise" expertise.

But the situation gets worse...
Free energy, if it is defined as a special case of electrical reactance, is a fantasy lacking testimonials since we also lack an understanding. The intention of this wiki book is to: stop assuming that free energy does not exist and begin to seek an understanding by talking about it in rational terms which parallel our discussions of electrical reactance.

Introduction

File:Escalating voltage differences arising from pairs of inductive and capacitive reactances in an LMD formation.png

Fig. 0 depicts escalating voltage differences fueling an exponential gain in power.

The non-existence of Free Energy is not a lie so much as it does not also state that most of electrical engineering dabbles in non-existential reactive power predicated upon imaginary numbers which were invented by Hero of Alexandria to solve intractable problems and avoid the liability of proving their existence in the physical world. In other words, what is the physical manifestation of the solution to... $i={\sqrt {-1}}$ is a question which has yet to be answered by anyone.

Imaginary answers are not provable since they cannot be measured with physical instruments. They can merely be inferred by the mathematics of complex numbers as possibly existing somewhere in a fictional world often called, “counter-space” wherein everything is backwards (similar to Lewis Carroll's, “Alice in Wonderland” and “Through the Looking Glass”) in which elongated distances between the plates of a capacitor in our world of space is shrunken distances in counter-space.

Free energy is not energy, yet it is freely available as a special case of reactive power, namely: the mathematical squaring of an extremely low input of real power (nano watts or pico watts) fed into a circuit which lacks a throughput. This results in the reversal of current traveling backwards towards higher potentials of voltage resulting in the accumulation of a greater difference between those greater potentials and lesser potentials nearby (See, Fig. 0).

Block Diagram

Oscillations of Radiant Energy due to throwing away most of the input and prohibiting the formation of current within this circuit by disallowing an exit which opposes the inlet. For neophyte designers, every inlet should double as an outlet.

Fig. 1a – Oscillations of Radiant Energy due to throwing away most of the input and prohibiting the formation of current within this circuit by disallowing an exit which opposes the inlet. For neophyte designers, every inlet should double as an outlet.

Fig. 1b – Tesla wireless power theory - Electrical Experimenter Feb 1919.

Consider a circuit whose source voltage has merely one of its terminals connected to a circuit (constituting its input) while the other terminal (of this source of voltage) is connected to ground and there is no other ground connected to this style of circuit design (for the purposes of this hypothetical discussion, please see: Fig. 1a).

This configuration (of the terminal connections of a source of voltage feeding a circuit) discourages the manifestation of current which normally flows into a circuit through one portal and flows out through another portal. Instead, a restriction of portals to merely ONE (in addition to severely restricting the input power) encourages breathing without flow, namely: the circuit manifests a standing wave in which the voltage and the current are out of phase by one-half cycle of oscillations. In other words, whenever the peak of voltage bounces off of the periphery of this type of circuit, the peak of current is crossing its imaginary center. During the subsequent half-cycle, the inverse occurs in which the peak of current echoes off of the periphery at the same moment that the peak of voltage crosses the center. This creates an expansion, followed by a contraction, but not in the real world of physicality since the incentive for expansion (voltage potential) and the execution of same (its movement which reflects a flow of current) occur at opposing halves of each cycle of breath (so to speak)!

All of this occurs within the complex field surrounding reactive components.

Although a circular pathway is avoided that would lead from a "source" to a "load" and then, back to the same "source", circular pathways are encouraged within the body of this style of circuitry so long as the various subcircuits are electrically isolated from each other with merely a mutual inductance between them, and/or a single wire of electrical connection without any return path. These electrically isolated, open pathway, subcircuits perform very well if they interconnect via several mutual inductances to make up for their lack of electrical connectivity.

This style of circuit design tends to make it very easy to manifest an inversion of current 180 degrees out of phase with voltage. This inversion of current is oftentimes mistaken for its homologue of the “negation of resistance” which is mathematically equivalent, but not very educational.

A more accurate description would be the negation of reactive voltage divided by impedance, namely: ${\text{Negative Current}}=-\left({\frac {\text{Reactive Voltage}}{\text{Impedance}}}\right)$

This leads to another, more traditional, version of Ohm’s Law in which Power equals Voltage Squared Divided by Resistance: $P={\frac {V^{2}}{R}}$.

That conventional version is vague and incorrect in so far as it does not distinguish what is occurring, namely, that: Negative Watts is equal to the Application (the Input) of Real Voltage times its Resultant Output of Reactive Voltage divided by various Impedances (both Real and Imaginary) within a framework of time ...

${\text{Negative Watts}}{\big /}{\text{Unit of Time}}={-\left({\frac {{\text{Real Voltage Input}}\times {\text{Reactive Voltage Output}}}{\text{Impedances}}}\right)}{\bigg /}{\text{Unit of Time}}$

Granted, this is a more convoluted restatement of Ohm's Law with the distinct advantage of sidestepping the conventional claim of physics in which: “Energy IN equals Energy OUT” by (instead) implying that: “Real Voltage IN cannot equal Reactive Voltage OUT”. The resulting reaction of output voltage must be greater than, or less than, input voltage irrespective of thermodynamics. This is in contradistinction to conventional wisdom since (my perspective is that) the input is complex and the output is also complex all the time (a real value plus or minus an imaginary value). In fact, all circuits possess some reactance in proportion to some non-reactance. This is why I deem the traditional presentations of Ohm's Law flawed (in principle) while maintaining a more practical approach for technicians by avoiding a fundamental teaching of how electricity behaves.

Without this fundamental understanding, no one will appreciate Free Energy since they will lack a robust understanding of electricity. I challenge everyone, who desires an understanding of Free Energy, to return to basics and rethink what we've been taught. Ergo, current is a fiction. It is a mathematical shorthand notation replacing something slightly more complicated).

Fig. 1b suggests a similarity to Fig. 1a. Both images possess a singular inlet for power resulting in a periodic variation of potential occurring everywhere, simultaneously, and without any manifestation of conventional current (subject to entropy) that could delay and reduce (through losses) the transmission of power. On the other hand, the reversal of current (in this wikibook's proposal), produces the inversion of losses, namely: an escalation of gain.

This is similar to if, whenever we shop at a market, they pay us to take their groceries instead of charging us! And... Every time we shop, they pay us more than they paid us before while maintaining the same prices! {The inverse of inflation.} What a trip! With so much abundance, who needs war?

Mathematical Consequences

A Low Input Power

Lots of Real Power, plus or minus, a modest amount of reactance will guarantee the conventional stability (or, Rule of Thumb) that reactance cannot grow by way of feeding itself from the reactive field surrounding reactive components, such as: inductors and capacitors, resulting from the outcome of the prior cycle of oscillation since excessive real voltage will suppress a runaway self-looping of electrical reactance.

Yet...

Severely restricting the use of real power at the inlet of a circuit's source of energy will encourage the unconventional rule of thumb in which electrical reactance will be almost exclusively nourished by its own feedback irrespective of thermodynamics or the conservation of energy -- especially since energy plays no significant role, here, since its input is severely limited to be less than a micro watt.

In other words, any complex number (enumerating the amplitude of either a wave of voltage or a wave of current) possesses two components: a real number and an imaginary number. The magnitude of the real number regulates the consequence of how the present cycle of oscillation impacts any subsequent cycle. Meanwhile, the imaginary number can create the inversion of current when squared if the self-looping, self-feeding tendency of electrical reactance is not suppressed by any excessive input of real power.

If this complex polynomial...

$A\pm B\times {\sqrt {-1}}$

...is squared...

$(A\pm B\times {\sqrt {-1}})^{2}$

...then, the result is four products reduced to three (since two, the cross products of $A$ times $B$ are similar enough to be grouped together) ...

1. The square of the real component, $A^{2}$.
2. The cross-product of the real portion times the imaginary portion, $\pm 2AB{\sqrt {-1}}$.
3. And, the square of the imaginary component, $(B\times {\sqrt {-1}})^{2}=B^{2}\times ({\sqrt {-1}})^{2}=B^{2}\times -1=-B^{2}$.

If the real power input of $A$ is restricted to a very small value, of nano watts or pico watts, then the negation of the squaring of the imaginary portion of this complex number will not be oppressively regulated out of existence. Only the tiny value of $A$ will shrink or maintain its amplitude while the amplitude of $-B^{2}$ will grow at an exponential rate. By restricting the inlet of real power (feeding this style of circuitry), will increase the likelihood of success in producing radiant power serving as a precursor to free energy. Yet, this is not all that is required to ensure success.

It is also necessary to connect merely one terminal of a voltage source to this type of circuit while connecting the other terminal to ground and disallowing any other ground to be located anywhere else within this type of circuit (in the beginning if you are not yet "skilled in this artistry"). This is to ensure that no current forms since it won't have anywhere to drain to after being supplied by the voltage source. This will ensure a radial pattern of oscillations, rather than a circumferential pattern of peaks and troughs, in which the peaks of voltage will bounce off of this circuit's periphery at the same time that the peaks of current will be crossing the virtual center of this type of circuit during each half-cycle with an inverse pattern at the next half-cycle.

Voltage Drop

It stands to reason that electrical voltage drop is a mathematical process which cannot be performed upon the imaginary coefficient of a complex polynomial. It may only be performed upon its real number coefficient. This is a consequence of the assumption that voltage drop is the distribution of a real numbered evaluation of voltage across a circuit resulting from simple resistance rather than from electrical reactance. This allows for the accumulation of reactive potential as well as for the accumulation of reactive impedances (both inductive and capacitive). This latter accumulation can occur within the imaginary fields surrounding reactive components only if the distribution of real voltage is kept below useful values amounting to nano watts and pico watts so as to avoid disturbing (suppressing) reactive feedback. This accumulation of reactance serves as feedback for the input of subsequent cycles of oscillation causing reactance to escalate at exponential values. Hence, “free energy” is an incorrect assessment of this peculiar situation. A more rational explanation is to claim “freely available reactance” resulting from an extremely low input of real power.

Convention teaches us that the peaks and troughs of voltage and current may oscillate their amplitudes as they travel around the circumference of a circuit. But there is another possibility in which they may echo their peaks and troughs in diametric opposition to each other during each half of an oscillation effectively creating a standing wave of one-half cycle of displacement between their phases (See, Fig. 1a, above). This will only occur if we discourage or prohibit the formation of current while maximizing the accumulation of the imaginary component of reactive power. At some point, the complex enumeration of the real and imaginary portions of electric power will be squared during our mathematical assessment of the electrodynamic behavior of a circuit. If we keep the input voltage extremely low and suppress the flow of current, then we may succeed at developing more reactance than what conventional wisdom would expect. And when, through simple (thermodynamic) conversion when passed through a resistor, the complex result (of the squaring of a complex value) will have its phases of real voltage realigned with its phases of reactive voltage and impedance (voltage realigned with current possessing a power factor of positive unity, $+1$) and, thus, be able to convert the cross-product of: $\pm 2AB{\sqrt {-1}}$ into the squaring of the imaginary portion: $-B^{2}$, of a complex reactance.

Utilization of Electrical Reactance

Schematic of a simulation speculated to be the Ammann brothers' Atmospheric Generator.

Fig. 2 is a schematic of a simulation speculated to be the Ammann brothers' Atmospheric Generator. The resistor in the lower left corner of this schematic is adjacent and in series to the inductive LOAD. Its parameter is 1.67 Ohms and is labeled: "VtoIRatio".

Spark gap macro of a neon bulb simulated in Micro-Cap software.

Fig. 3 – The runtime simulation of the schematic of Fig. 2 will not achieve overunity without this neon bulb macro from Micro-Cap. There is no conventional source of voltage within this macro, because they are behavioral voltage sources predicated upon logical criteria, i.e.: "if this, then that".

Simulated example of the reversal of current within a coil of wire.

Fig. 4 – This is a closeup view of the output of an inductive load beginning at 31 seconds of simulation runtime and terminating 157 milli seconds later. It's reversal of current is due to starving the circuit (in Fig. 2) of its input power and preventing any exit of current.

Freely available reactive power is never useless, except from a thermodynamic viewpoint, until it is converted (via a resistive heating element) to boil water and rotate a steam turbine to generate electrical energy (as one example of conversion) to do away with nuclear power plants and their byproduct of plutonium.

What's Reversal of Current Good For?

Conventional circuits deplete their voltage source by slowly or quickly equalizing the difference in potential between the two terminals of a fixed voltage source, such as: a battery. They do this by moving a conventional direction of current from higher areas of voltage (occurring at one terminal) towards areas of lower voltage (at the opposing terminal). For example, ...

A typical 12-volt auto battery will have around 12.6 volts when fully charged. It only needs to drop down to around 10.5 volts to be considered fully discharged.

Unconventional Free Energy circuits, whose current is reversed relative to their polarity of voltage (inducing negative watts as their output power), increase the disparity between the terminals of their reactive components, such as: between the two terminals of a coil of wire. Whatever components exhibit this property, these components become the new "sources" of power for these types of circuits replacing (and over-shadowing) whatever contributions may occur from an external source of power.

Simulated Example

Was the Hertzian Transmitter the Inspiration for the Ammann Brothers Atmospheric Generator? - Quora

The top-most graph of Fig. 4 traces a node, within the neon bulb macro of Micro-Cap 12 simulator (depicted in Fig. 3). This node is labeled "NeonBulb.10" (within the graph of Fig. 4) equivalently labeled "Switchchk" within Fig. 3 and has already risen from its default value of 10 nano volts to a plateau of 10 volts. This indicates that this spark gap has turned ON its arcing into a plasma.

By the way, if any value closely similar to 10 nano volts were to be traced as the output for this node (within this software macro), then this would indicate a pre-ionizing state preparatory to arcing. This is analogous to what lightning bolts manage to achieve prior to their actual lightning strike. The ionization pathway charts a course preparing for whatever lightning strike may happen to form along this prepared highway.

The second graph (from the top of Fig. 4) is tracing the output voltage of the inductive LOAD as a series of triangular waves. The third graph is tracing the output amperage of the inductive LOAD whose triangular waves are out of step with the voltage waves of the second graph by one-half cycle of oscillations. This is apparent since the peaks of voltage line up with the troughs of current and vice versa if an imaginary vertical line were to be drawn through both graphs. The fourth graph is tracing the rise of RMS wattage of the inductive LOAD. The fifth, and bottom-most, graph is tracing the impedance of the inductive LOAD (as measured in Ohms) indicating that it is due to the value of the resistor (of Fig. 2), labeled: VtoIRatio, placed in series with the LOAD.

In Conclusion: What is electricity?

If I rephrase the question as…

What is electrical power, then the correct answer is to say that Ohm’s Law is a combination of two components.

The first component of electricity is real voltage which is distributed across space. We will label this type of voltage with the label of: $V_{r}$ to signify that this represents Real Voltage.

The second component of electrical power is reactive voltage existing in time. This latter component is divided by one or more various impedances tempting us to simplify this second component of electrical power by way of mathematical substitution in which a singular symbol, $I$, called: “current”, replaces reactive voltage divided by impedance. This latter, more accurate version of the "current" portion of Ohm's Law can be signified by: $V_{x}\div Z$.

Hence, Ohm's Law fails to describe power (P, watts) as...

$P={\frac {V_{r}\times V_{x}\times {\sqrt {-1}}}{Z}}={\frac {V_{r}\times jV_{x}}{Z}}$

...if we also assume the substitution of $j$ representing the square root of negative one whenever utilized within the field of electrical engineering: $j={\sqrt {-1}}$, so as to avoid confusion with the letter $I$ used to represent current.

Instead, conventional wisdom allows for their equivalence...

$P={\frac {V^{2}}{Z}}=V\times I$

...but fails to distinguish among types of voltages and the implications of expanding our consideration of reactive resistance, namely: impedance $Z$. This mathematical shorthand suggests the illusion that voltage is squared and then it is divided by resistance due to the illusory temptation to assume that there is only one type of voltage rather than two.

Yet, we know that there is electrical reactance within all types of circuits to one degree or another. This awareness is predicated upon the fact that a piece of wire (for example) exhibits inductive reactance along its length and capacitive reactance extending radially outward from its center across its surface (if it's merely bare) plus across its insulation (if it has any on its surface). Thus, a simple flashlight circuit possesses electrical reactance. Yet, this reactance is so minor that we tell ourselves that we may safely ignore it without worrying too much about making some sort of blatant error.

But this will only work some of the time. We cannot guarantee that this will work most of the time, much less all of the time. And it will certainly never work out very well within the context of my style of orchestrating electrodynamic behavior.

It is this sort of mental programming that all of us must confront (at one time or another) when we wish to expand our awareness of electricity in general and free energy in particular.

We also know that voltage drop cannot be performed upon imaginary numbers.

This temptation to simplify Ohm's Law makes the job of the technician vastly easier to follow procedures laid down by policies which encourage the monopolistic belief that “there is no such thing as a free lunch”.

But if we assume a scarcity of freely available input power, then we are in a much better position to favor over-reactance as a superior source of renewable energy.

Alternative Explanation of Current Reversal

• How to Reverse Current Direction

For Further Study

Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter

• Radiant Energy is the Precursor to Free Energy (a YouTube video) with parallelisms to Nikola Tesla's Wireless Transmission theory.

• Sending electricity through the Earth (a YouTube video), by Ernst Willem van den Bergh, of Wardenclyffe Research (a YouTube channel).

• Wardenclyffe (YouTube video, with my comments) ...

"Could the reversal of current, relative to the polarity of voltage within his Magnifying Transmitter, be a diagnostic check that his Magnifying Transmitter was succeeding at doing its job of collecting atmospheric electricity? In as much as, this reversal of current would be directing the flow of charges into his device (from the atmosphere) in contradistinction, and in counter-opposition, to conventional devices? Convention dictates that our devices must dissipate their potential to do work since they must follow the dictates of thermodynamics such that their current is in phase with their voltage with little or no separation of their phase relations (at least no separation greater than plus or minus one-quarter cycle of oscillations), and -thus- behave in an entropic manner?

"Also to consider, is the fact that his Magnifying Transmitter was orienting its potential in a radial manner, rather than in a circulating manner, since it possessed no return path (it was a monopolar device). Thus, reversal of its current (if this had been the case) would have directed potential inwardly towards itself in the format of a flow of current directed inwardly from the surrounding environment?

"Also, it sounds like a verification that the Ammann brothers' so-called: Atmospheric Generator may have been patterned off of Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter? Now that I've watched this video, this seems more likely than ever before since I've already considered the possibility that they were using one of his patents for their inspiration. But now, it seems very likely!

"In further confirmation...
"It was claimed, by authorities in Washington, D.C., that upon the arrival of C. Earl Ammann with his batteryless EV to demonstrate his technology for the benefit of the U.S. Patent Office, he was promptly arrested on charges of stealing energy from the grid since his demonstration in Denver, Colorado, in August of 1921 (prior to his arrival in Washington) had the distinct side-effect of putting out the power of the grid's customers in the outskirts of downtown Denver (yet, not within downtown Denver, itself). I suspect that he was messing with the phase relations of the grid across the radius of influence of his device (which he has been quoted as saying that it had a ten-mile broadcast radius). So, I'm guessing that he wasn't stealing energy from the grid so much as he was disturbing it throughout its radius of influence while at the same time supplying it with reversed polarity of the flow of energy towards the center of this range of influence at the location of his device. So, at the outskirts of this circle of influence, his device was too weak to have any influence other than that of disturbing the phase angle (or, power factor) of the grid without being strong enough to suck any current through the grid (and from the atmosphere) towards his device at this periphery of its range of influence. Thus, a more accurate assessment would be to claim that he was a domestic terrorist at the outskirts of town (if we would have created that term back then) while also being a Robin Hood of sorts within downtown Denver!"

Ether Theory & Gravity

• Tesla vs. Einstein: The Ether & the Birth of the New Physics

• Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity

• Nikola Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity (YouTube video)

• Summation of Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity; An excerpt from: Occult Ether Physics, by William R. Lyne.

References

{ {Alphabetical|F} } { {shelves|electric circuits series} } { {status|25%} } { {Booklet} }