Electrical energy originates from itself.

[Vinyasi]

Electrical energy does not ultimately come from somewhere, nor ultimately go to somewhere else. That is a minor distinction regulated by thermodynamic diffusion and conversion.

Electrical energy originates from itself.

Where ever it is found, no matter how little, nor how much, there is always sufficient electrical energy to accommodate any requirement by its temporal manipulation and without the need for its distribution through space.

This is what cuts out the middleman - who would bill us for the use of his power - rendering energy into a freely available resource as free as the air which we breathe.

Our only expense is our own: billed to our self, by our self, for our own benefit.

And…

This has been common knowledge among the original masters of electrical innovation, such as: Oliver Heaviside, Nikola Tesla and Charles Proteus Steinmetz, plus a few modern day masters, such as: Eric Dollard (to name a few).

This knowledge is periodically lost with the passage of time through lapse of memory resulting in lapse of duty.

Yet…

Again and again is reborn the revival of this knowledge through those individuals endowed with a perspective surpassing the collective ignorance which surrounds them.

[BroMikey]

Electrical energy does not ultimately come from somewhere, nor ultimately go to somewhere else. That is a minor distinction regulated by thermodynamic diffusion and conversion.

Electrical energy originates from itself.

Where ever it is found, no matter how little, nor how much, there is always sufficient electrical energy to accommodate any requirement by its temporal manipulation and without the need for its distribution through space.

This is what cuts out the middleman - who would bill us for the use of his power - rendering energy into a freely available resource as free as the air which we breathe.

Our only expense is our own: billed to our self, by our self, for our own benefit.

And…

This has been common knowledge among the original masters of electrical innovation, such as: Oliver Heaviside, Nikola Tesla and Charles Proteus Steinmetz, plus a few modern day masters, such as: Eric Dollard (to name a few).

This knowledge is periodically lost with the passage of time through lapse of memory resulting in lapse of duty.

Yet…

Again and again is reborn the revival of this knowledge through those individuals endowed with a perspective surpassing the collective ignorance which surrounds them.

But are you able to use some and then reuse it again and again? That's the real reason, or should be for people who are the smart one's. Like you. I like your theories tho, good stuff.

[Vinyasi]

But are you able to use some and then reuse it again and again? That's the real reason, or should be for people who are the smart one's. Like you. I like your theories tho, good stuff.

A true test of the reuse of electrical energy would be to see whether or not any significant load applied to the circuit collapses the over unity into practically nothingness. This is what Jim Murray described in his transforming generator and I cannot answer you because I don’t know how to simulate a load!

http://vinyasi.info/energy/shorted-t...-generator.mp3

Realism and practicality are a difficult combination to come up with in the area of free energy, obviously.

And since I am without formal training, I have to stumble along in a safe manner by restricting myself to simulations at this point of my development.

One of the consequences of practicality is the ability to regulate the outcome and not allow the over unity to explode in your face sending shrapnel in all directions! In fact, I find this to be the most difficult qualification of all of them to pull off.

Also to consider, is whether or not the wave forms are appropriate for the situation. You wouldn’t want spikes of energy to try to power a motor load. Spikes would be more appropriate for recharging batteries.

All I can simulate at this point, in a realistic manner, is an explosion of energy which I cannot regulate nor even manage the wave form.

I have a long ways to go…

See my response to an objection made by Tarmo Kaldma at the bottom of the following Quora posting for an example of a realistic explosion of energy using Eric Dollard’s analog computer in LMD mode…

https://is.gd/izoyara

My response is mirrored here...

http://vinyasi.info/energy/The%20Con...OBJECTIONS.pdf

By the way, the administrator of “Electrical Science” space on Quora: Franco Bruno Corteletti, is the only person I know of on Quora who is a distinct follower of Eric Dollard although there are a few other active responders on Quora who accept the possibility of free energy and the truth behind Tesla but they don’t speak like Franco speaks (or I try to) in presenting electrical science the way that Eric speaks of it.

Thanks for asking.

[Vinyasi]

But are you able to use some and then reuse it again and again? That's the real reason, or should be for people who are the smart one's. Like you. I like your theories tho, good stuff.

I don’t know why I didn’t get it right away. The answer to your question is very straightforward. You’re describing Reactance.

I had this discussion with somebody else who found it difficult to stomach the idea right away. But I showed him the formula, and put it into a few of my posts,...

https://is.gd/izoyara

... the equivalence between capacitive Reactance and capacitance on the one hand (for one example) and the equivalence between inductive Reactance and inductance as another example. The formulas are right there in the Wikipedia article on electrical reactance under the subheading of impedance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr...ance#Impedance

What this implies is that reactance, electrical reactance, is a self looping phenomenon in which the output feeds the input for the next iteration of the mathematical calculation of what is occurring over each moment in time.

So consequently, reactance cannot maintain itself unlike the conservation of energy which does maintain itself.

Reactance has to either grow or decay at an exponential growth rate of change. This exponential growth rate or decay rate is the nature of plant growth or plant decay. What this implies is that reactance - Electrical reactance - is a self-looping (reuse & recycle) phenomenon in which the output feeds the input for the next iteration of the mathematical calculation of what is occurring over time.

So consequently, reactance cannot maintain itself unlike the conservation of energy which does and must maintain itself.

Reactance has to either grow or decay at an exponential growth rate of change. This exponential growth rate or decay rate is the nature of plant growth or plant decay rates and animal growth or animal decay rates.

In other words, it explains life much better than it explains electricity because reactance is life while the formation of electricity is a side effect of reactance resulting in the death of the plant or animal through the aging process, because we know electricity electrocutes. That’s what Edison did to those elephants: he electrocuted them. That’s what electricity does to plants and animals: it kills them by degree, little by little, while reactance cannot because reactance is zero watts in it’s ultimate sense and zero watts means no power so there’s no electrocution.

The only significant distinction between reactance and energy Is power factor correction. In other words, a simple resistor can put reactance back together again (the components of reactance, namely: capacitive reactance and inductive reactance), put them back together again and reform electrical energy into electricity once the expansion or contraction has already taken place within the realm of reactance.

So, it’s a quarterback end-run to create free energy, or to make it disappear. It’s not a direct maneuver, but an indirect maneuver which then gets converted back into energy so that we can appreciate what has happened.

And what the electrical engineer calls electrical reactance is what Tesla called radiant energy (confusing the matter), because we have lost our way not knowing that both are the same reality.