== [[Free Energy does not Exist]] == This is unsuited to Wikibooks. It starts with a contention that accepted physics is false and asserts pseudoscience to claim that free energy can be created from nothing. This is outside the scope of Wikibooks which, while more tolerant of original research than Wikipedia, does not accept out-and-out made-up-at-school stuff like this. [[User:MarcGarver|MarcGarver]] ([[User talk:MarcGarver|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/MarcGarver|contribs]]) 15:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC) :“... and asserts pseudoscience to claim that free energy can be created from nothing.” [[User:MarcGarver|MarcGarver]] is correct as far as loaded coils are concerned. Took me until now to deduce that the use of standard techniques for loading motor coils won't work with my type of circuit since it is not standard. So, I had to use something more severe. I discovered that [[b:Free_Energy_does_not_Exist#Improving_Realism_with_a_Load|a full diode bridge]] works just fine! Thanks, Marc, for challenging me to grow. I doubt I would have otherwise. -- [[User:Vinyasi|Vinyasi]] ([[User talk:Vinyasi|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vinyasi|contribs]]) 05:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC) :Where did I go wrong in leading you astray? Specifically? For, I never make those claims by intention. Physics is not false. Yet, our misunderstanding of Free Energy oftentimes leads to the popularization of flamboyant statements which ignore the exception to the rule that the conservation of energy within [[b:Free_Energy_does_not_Exist#How_does_Free_Energy_not_Violate_Conservation?|Noether's Theorem]] cannot apply itself to frames of temporal reference which change. This alteration of temporal reference must occur whenever current is inverted from voltage arising from non-digital (analog) techniques involving: coils, capacitors, spark gaps, etc. :Please draw my attention to where I have claimed that: "free energy can be created from nothing", for I am not aware of having ''ever'' made that statement. I always claim that "[[b:User:Vinyasi#Getting_Something_for_Nothing?_Not_a_chance_...|more can be had from less]]" through the recycling of reactance per half-cycle of oscillations since reactance is not energy (it is lossless) and, thus, the conservation of energy has no jurisdiction/relevancy over the reversal of current (relative to voltage) until said reversal meets up with simple (non-reactive) resistance by which this value of "negative watts" gets converted into "positive watts". :If anything, I claim recycling lossless reactance gives the ‘’appearance’’ of more output resulting from the ‘’appearance’’ of less input without it actually being the case!
Quote: We can avoid being charged for our energy usage by recycling its electrical reactance to such a degree of excessive '''conservation''' that a mere factor of 99% reuse (for instance) constitutes a 100 to 1 gain (of output versus input) without any violation of physics.Through power factor correction, using a capacitor in parallel with an inductive load, we can reuse 99% of our electricity [http://vinyasi.info/ne in this example]. This spawns ''the appearance of'' a 100 to 1 gain of output relative to input. Yet, this ''appearance'' is a mirage since no law of physics has been violated.
:Six years of independent research does not amount to made-up-at-school stuff. :''[[w:Fringe_science#Description|Fringe science]]'' is useful.[[w:Fringe_science#Responding_to_fringe_science|Quote]]: [[w:Michael_W._Friedlander|Michael W. Friedlander]] suggests that ''"fringe science is necessary so that mainstream science will not atrophy"''. I'd be more intrigued if you wrote a book of your own countering all of my claims with counter-claims of your own. ''That'' would be science (if I am not misquoted) and a quid pro quo: a ''give and take''. :Your contentions are too vague for merit. Please be more precise.[[User:Vinyasi|Vinyasi]] ([[User talk:Vinyasi|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vinyasi|contribs]]) 16:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC) ::You've made the point yourself "Six years of independent research". This is therefore Original Research, out of scope for Wikibooks and is actually eligible for speedy deletion. As for your contention that we are all too stupid to understand you, I suggest you are struggling with the ability to understand the policies here. Even if what you are writing is TRUE the fact that you yourself did the research and it isn't part of accept science = it is out of scope and will be deleted. [[User:MarcGarver|MarcGarver]] ([[User talk:MarcGarver|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/MarcGarver|contribs]]) 09:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC) *{{vd}} Wikibooks isn't a host for nonsensical rouged content. --[[User:SHB2000|SHB2000]] ([[User talk:SHB2000|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/SHB2000|contribs]]) 07:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC) :: Granted, I got a little carried away with myself enjoying the process of elaboration if that’s what you mean by “rouge”. Since you misspelled “nonsensical”, I can help you out by locating the crux of my discussion in case you overlooked it… ::The section: [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Free_Energy_does_not_Exist#Mathematical_Consequences Mathematical Consequences] and the subsection: [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Free_Energy_does_not_Exist#What's_Reversal_of_Current_Good_For? What’s reversal of current good for?][[User:Vinyasi|Vinyasi]] ([[User talk:Vinyasi|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vinyasi|contribs]]) 16:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC) :::Everyone makes typos; [[WB:AGF]]. That still doesn't change my argument nor does it change my point. --[[User:SHB2000|SHB2000]] ([[User talk:SHB2000|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/SHB2000|contribs]]) 11:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC) :::: How can I engage you in good faith if you don’t even bother to read the section that I pointed out to you was the whole reason for me posting this Wikibook irrespective of its embellishments? Why are you ignoring my suggestion to focus on the math? And why are you bringing up deletion, now, when you could’ve said some thing about any errors, beforehand? Don’t you have something to contribute instead of just hitting the red button? Normal behavior, which could solicit trust, would be to work with me - not against me.[[b:Wikibooks:Deletion_policy#Requests_for_deletion|Wikibooks: Deletion policy; Requests for deletion]]
''"You should be especially sensitive to discussions about brand-new works, particularly by new contributors to Wikibooks. Unless there are obvious problems that are unlikely to be rectified, your time would be better spent mentoring new contributors and trying to help clean up new works, even if the work is currently a blatant violation of current procedures. Remember you were once a new contributor too."'' By initiating deletion before offering any constructive criticism on the book’s talk page you destroyed good faith. What am I supposed to possess faith in? Your ability to perform damage without cooperation? What arguments? You don’t back up what you claim with examples from wherever you are pulling your arguments from. You’re not focusing; you’re just making unqualified statements directed at nothing in particular except the book and it’s entirety but not against any citations within its content. So let’s talk about the title since that seems to be the only thing you’re arguing against? You can’t be arguing against its content since you haven’t brought up anything in particular within the content to focus on. So, let’s discuss the title. What’s wrong with the title? Do you think that the title is not backed up by the content? I don’t understand why you think electrical reactance is pseudoscience. Just because it’s not physics? This is not a book about physics; it’s about ''the simulation'' of electrical engineering. ::::I added this book to a shelf: [[b:Category:Shelf:Strategy_guides|Category:Shelf:Strategy_guides]] since it already gives strategy advice for working with video game-like simulations of electric circuits and how to produce gainful results. Since you have already stated how this book is inappropriate to position it here, within Wikibooks, professing to be a book about ''physical'' circuits when it is actually basing its conclusions and advice upon ''simulations'' of virtual-reality game-like circuits, then what do you think of my resubmitting it over at [https://strategywiki.org/wiki/Main_Page StrategyWiki] and removing it from here? Or, merely adding this new shelf: [[b:Category:Shelf:Strategy_guides|Category:Shelf:Strategy_guides]]? And/or removing the other shelf of: [[b:Category:Shelf:Electric_circuits_series|Category:Shelf:Electric_circuits_series]]?[[User:Vinyasi|Vinyasi]] ([[User talk:Vinyasi|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vinyasi|contribs]]) 16:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC) ::::I placed a warning under [[b:Free_Energy_does_not_Exist#Synopsis|Synopsis]] ...
'''WARNING — These criteria are intended to garner success ''under simulation'' and usually within the context of the Berkeley SPICE family of simulators[http://bwrcs.eecs.berkeley.edu/Classes/IcBook/SPICE/ The SPICE Page] (but not all the time; other simulators[http://falstad.com/circuit/ Paul Falstad's electronic simulator] 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“[https://think.kera.org/2011/12/07/alternative-theories-of-everything/ Physics on the Fringe]: Smoke Rings, Circlons, and Alternative Theories of Everything”, by [[w:Margaret_Wertheim|Margaret Wertheim]] (Walker & Company, 2011). 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.'''''
::::...as well as modifications to the text within that section to reflect this book's new status ''as a simulation of virtual reality.''[[User:Vinyasi|Vinyasi]] ([[User talk:Vinyasi|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vinyasi|contribs]]) 18:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC) ::::Do simulations clarify ''rounged'' content? "Rouged", as in: "don't get people's hopes up to unrealistic expectations when it comes to them considering building any of these simulations which I rely upon as my citations for virtual strategies?" Isn't my lack of clarification the cause of what these various complaints, here, are all about?[[User:Vinyasi|Vinyasi]] ([[User talk:Vinyasi|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vinyasi|contribs]]) 18:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC) ::::I think my addition of a stern WARNING within the Synopsis section satisfies any need for a [[b:Wikibooks:Neutral_point_of_view|neutral point of view]] since I know of no one, other than myself, who has ever bothered to simulate "reversal of current among severely starved analog (not digital) circuits" who is able to contribute a point of view. Hence, any complaints made as to this book's content is not going to be helpful unless someone contributes the results of their experimentation along similar lines. But I'm still capable of making mistakes of presentation especially since I am one-of-a-kind making it that more difficult for me to engage my audience without "leaving them behind in the dust" of what-the-heck-is-he-talking-about. Hence, there is a very real need for ''collaboration.'' Anyone disagree?[[User:Vinyasi|Vinyasi]] ([[User talk:Vinyasi|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vinyasi|contribs]]) 23:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC) ::::Added another warning, this time in the form of a preamble at the very beginning.[[User:Vinyasi|Vinyasi]] ([[User talk:Vinyasi|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vinyasi|contribs]]) 05:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC) ::::Maybe I should have named this wikibook, "Free Energy does not Exist. Yet, Politicized Science does exist!"?[[User:Vinyasi|Vinyasi]] ([[User talk:Vinyasi|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vinyasi|contribs]]) 01:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC) :::::Nominators for deletion are invited to join the conversation: [[Wikibooks:Reading room/Assistance#How do I improve my wikibook, or is it impossible to improve it?]] ::::::''"Deletion is not inevitable. I don't see a problem with the book but maybe the person who tagged it for deletion can share their thoughts."''--[[User:Xania|Xania]] [[File:Flag_of_Estonia.svg|15x15px]] [[File:Flag_of_Ukraine.svg|15x15px]] [[User talk:Xania|talk]] 04:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC) -- [[User:Vinyasi|Vinyasi]] ([[User talk:Vinyasi|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vinyasi|contribs]]) 18:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)