Free Energy Does Not Exist
This Wikibook is not intended for anyone who lacks any background in basic electrical engineering (Learn more at Khan Academy), for it requires a familiarity with: Ohm's Law, Electrical Reactance, Complex Numbers, and their Polynomial Multiplication, basic electricity theory, and familiarity with electronic simulators. Without these skills, you'll be lost trying to understand whatever I have to say. You'll be perplexed anyway even with these skills since nothing you learned in school will have adequately prepared you for what is about to unfold...
There is no guarantee you will understand any of this. So, read through it -casually- once in a while without trying to understand. Repetition, with breaks in between, might help.
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.[1] 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.
Synopsis
There is a conspiracy taking place among theoretical scientists suppressing the virtual reality of free energy simulations by awarding them a stigma of foolishness and foppishness adopting an irreverent attitude that free lunches are not worth studying and their ideologies are not worth promoting.[2]
Well, in the physical world of consumerism, there are discounts all the time. Shoppers love them!
- Buy two; get one free!
- Half-off sale!
- Etc.
These promotional sales may not be an opportunity to walk out of the store with free merchandise, but it's definitely better than paying full price!
This conspiracy (derived from our collective ignorance and misrepresentation of Free Energy) carries over into our collective sensibilities as if the virtual world of electronic simulation cannot be taken as a guide on how to extricate ourselves from prevailing opinion.
Standard physical theory concerns itself with electrical engineering. Its presumption is that you have to, I repeat: HAVE TO, calculate the demand which a load will make upon a supply, and -then- add up all losses due to inefficiencies. This total must be, I repeat: MUST BE, supplied by the power source unless you want your physical appliance to fail.
That's nice. Yet, it merely describes the REAL POWER side of the physical energy equation as if ELECTRICAL REACTANCE was not a virtual reality worthy of our attention. Science is all about attending to details while never losing sight of the big picture.
It turns out that electrical reactance is extremely, I repeat: EXTREMELY, shy. So much, so, that it doesn't take much voltage supplied by a virtual power source to suppress reactance and prevent the eruption of unlimited oodles of freely available reactive power which, whenever passed through a resistive load: such as a heater element, converts invisible reactance into REAL POWER miraculously convincing us that free energy exists when (in reality) free energy does not exist all by itself.
Free energy is a composition, over time, of the non-suppression of electrical reactance immediately followed by its conversion into usable power.
That's the conspiracy intended to keep all of us ignorant of our virtual options.
It turns out that this “free energy option” involves the reuse of virtual reactance (predicated upon the virtuality of imaginary numbers) making it look as if (the conversion of reactance into) energy miraculously appeared out of nowhere when -instead- (what happens, is that) reactance (being lossless) cannot be spent nor lost. It must, thus, accumulate unless converted into a usable format (ie, energy). The accumulation of lossless reactance constitutes its reuse (so to speak) making electrical reactance the easiest available form of renewable energy.
Yet, feeding a virtual circuit too much (ie, conventional expectations of) voltage when that circuit is especially designed to take advantage of this free form of proto-energy (ie, reactance) will guarantee its failure to convince anyone of what I am saying is true.
Also, encouraging a throughput of current (through this type of virtual circuit) giving it an exit for current to pass out (of this type of circuit) instead of restricting portals of entry (or exit) to merely one portal (exclusively utilized as an inlet for its source of voltage) will guarantee suppression of free energy.
So, …
Two criteria will guarantee the suppression of free energy under simulation ...
- Feeding a simulated circuit too much voltage, and ...
- Allowing the entry of voltage to simulate a flow of current by providing an exit.
Avoiding bullet points #1 and #2 will not guarantee the simulation of free energy since you also have to know how to take advantage of their avoidance whenever designing a virtual circuit. But adhering to both points will guarantee its suppression.
WARNING — These criteria are intended to garner success under simulation and usually within the context of the Berkeley SPICE family of simulators[3] (but not all the time; other simulators[4] are, also, useful depending upon the situation). Although they are supported by standard mathematical criteria describing the conventional engineering of electrodynamic theory, they are not intended to qualify the physics[5] behind these simulated strategies. That implication is left to the reader to vindicate, or not, through verifiable experience at your own risk of safety and success. User, beware.
Time Stands Alone. Space cannot Exist without Time.
Electrical reactance exists within the domain of time apart from space.
Electricity exists within the domain of time and space.
Space is where Conservation of Energy occurs. Without space, conservation cannot be qualified nor can it be quantified. In fact, the opposite occurs wherein reactance must become altered over time when space is not involved, because energy does not exist outside of space.
So, when energy withdraws itself from space, all that remains is reactance. Thus, reactance exists all along coexistent with energy when both exist in space. But withdraw space from any consideration, and energy fails to justify itself without a spatial framework to give it a definition.
Within time, outside of space, reactance continues to exhibit the properties of inductance and capacitance. We would normally associate inductance and capacitance with the spatial phenomena of coils and capacitors which spawns them. But this is due to the inherent property of reactance which exclusively persists within the field of imaginary numbers and whose purveyance is the field of oscillatory time (as measured by the angular momentum of each cycle of oscillation). Thus, inductance and capacitance are never required to be real physical properties despite the physical causes which we associate with them. Inductance and capacitance are non-physical properties of how time affects these properties and without any regard to space since these properties are not energetic properties; they affect energy without being energy, themselves.
Time has that impact upon spatial considerations: it affects spatial considerations without any allegiance to space since time dominates space.
The angular momentum of binds the frequency of electrical reactance to time by defining each cycle of oscillation.
Inductance and capacitance do not require space to maintain themselves. The oscillations of time remembers them by converting their reactive output (resulting from prior cycles of oscillation) into the inductance and capacitance of subsequent cycles of oscillation. If reactance were somehow retained within the field of space, then this feedback could not occur. Space would, thus, conserve inductance and capacitance from one cycle of oscillation to the next. And this type of electrical reactance would be complex, rather than imaginary, since inductors and capacitors would be storing this reactance. But – in the alternative – the imaginary portion of electrical reactance can stand apart from space if the influence of real power is insignificant as to be of nearly zero amplitude. Under these ideal conditions, electrical reactance feeds on itself creating more electrical reactance from less electrical reactance or, in the alternative, shrinks preexistent volumes of reactance (as the case may be) never reaching infinity, nor reaching zero, amplitudes of reactance due to this tendency for reactive feedback to become a multiplicative, or divisional, trend whenever real power is an insignificant input of apparent power.
As an aside …
We spend direct current during one-half of an oscillation and we recharge, or replace a spent charge with a fresh new charge, during each alternate cycle of oscillation. Thus, Direct Current is a subset of Alternating Current in which we casually, and conveniently, ignore the recharge, or replacement, phase of each cycle of Direct Current paying exclusive attention to each half-cycle of Direct Current which spends energy! But this is a game of make-believe in which we hide ourselves from the whole truth. Never, once, do we bother to seek it. Maybe this is why we encourage a way-of-life in which we throw away energy after using it merely once!? Ugh ...
Space is an extension of time which manifests electrodynamic phenomena in order to derive space from time.
Time can withdraw itself from space. When this happens, electricity vanishes leaving reactance in its wake.
Likewise, time can extend itself into space. When this happens, electricity manifests out of nowhere since time does not exist as a property of space. Nor is time a consequence of space. Quite the contrary! Space is a consequence of the electrodynamic extension of time.
In other words, space exists in time and coexists with time. But time is sufficient unto itself. This is where reactance occurs: in time, whether or not space is participating (and cooperating ;-).
But space must participate with time if electricity is to manifest itself. And conservation must participate (as well) within a framework of space cooperating with time in order for electrical energy to materialize.
Since energy has its equivalency within matter, one cannot exist without the other. Both energy and matter coexist, simultaneously, as variations of space. In fact, matter can never be lacking of an energetic state anymore than energy could lack matter to materialize energy since both are qualities of space. Hence, massless photons do not exist. Please see, Appendix: Photons do not Exist.
So, ...
If you want to create energy, or create matter along with its dynamic aspect of energy (energized matter), you don't create matter (or energy) from space. Instead, you create a new space within a preexisting space for new matter (or energy) to exist within by extending both energetic matter – and its containment within space – from time.
Time coexists within all of matter and of energy. So, time is the ultimate source for the creative process to occur. And this temporal condition possesses the quality of electrical reactance from which electrical energy and the physicality of matter arises within their containment of space.
|
If We Can't Understand Energy, Then How Can We Possibly Understand Free Energy! |
Introduction
he 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... 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.[6]
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
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 situation is best described as when an open IDEAL[7] transmission line is terminated by a shorted IDEAL transmission line encouraging the formation of a purely imaginary impedance at the input.[8] [9] [10] [11]
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.[12]
A more accurate description would be the negation of reactive voltage divided by impedance, namely:
This leads to another, more traditional, version of Ohm’s Law in which Power equals Voltage Squared Divided by Resistance:
