Mho's Law is not a law per se, but is a natural derivation of Ohm's Law if – per chance, for about a moment – we forsake our allegiance and blind obedience of faith towards the Conservation of Energy pseudo-law and everything else of similar design intent (acting as baggage) that could bring us down into a very narrow view of reality.

This is due to the fact that the Conservation of Energy wannabe-a-law is not a mathematical relationship. Strictly speaking, it is a colloquialism in which we paraphrase, very loosely, the expression in which “energy entering into a circuit has to equal the energy which exits out of a circuit.” But nowhere, within the field of electrodynamic theory, will we find a mathematical equation that specifically states this relationship. Instead, we'll find that Ohm's Law specifically equates the power which exits a circuit must equal the voltage squared applied to the circuit divided by the resistance within the circuit. This is where the Conservation of Energy comes from. But it only pertains to the consumption, namely the conversion of electrical energy within our appliances, into formats of energy other than electrical energy, such as: heat or light or mechanical motion of an electric motor. It has nothing to do with the production of energy. It only pertains to its consumption or conversion which amounts to the same thing.

It may be said of Ohm's Law, and of the Conservation of Energy pseudo-law, that this relationship of energy, which enters a circuit and energy which exits a circuit, is a symmetrical relationship due to the equivalence of energy's entrance and exit must exactly equal each other, including any minor losses due to leakage and waste.

Some producers of energy comply with this Conservation of Energy perspective in as much as they are non-reactive generators of energy, such as: batteries. But not all producers of energy are governed exclusively by Ohm's Law, because Ohm's Law only pertains to real power. It does not govern the behavior of reactive power. This is where the derivative of Ohm's Law, suggested to us by Lord Kelvin more than a century ago, comes into play.

But wouldn't you know it, the international body of people who are in charge of the units of measurement have swept aside Lord Kelvin's suggestion of our use of the word Mho, which is: Ohm spelled backwards, as the symbol of unit measurement for conductivity - also known as admittance, in favor of the use of the word: Siemens to replace Mho. And to further their endeavor to make free energy and overunity go away and disappear, they have associated the temperature of absolute zero as a unit of measurement to be named after Lord Kelvin, himself, as if to suggest (by way of implication) that the absolute freezing temperature of zero degrees Kelvin is the only way to create superconductivity and, thus, create overunity and free energy when (in fact) this is not true!

It is true, in a limited sense (in the sense that we could reduce the temperature of a piece of wire, or a coil of wire, to reduce its resistance to the flow of current by a quantity which approaches zero Ohms of resistance. But why do things the hard way when we can do things the easy way and listen to Lord Kelvin's suggestion and take him seriously!?

Before I go any further, I should sweep aside another convention (of collective naiveté) which is another fiction of our own creation intended for a good reason: to make the life and work of the electrical engineer a little easier by mathematically substituting the capital letter “I” in place of voltage divided by resistance and multiply that back into the remaining voltage that will result in the wattage of power that exits a circuit. But this is a short hand – a mathematical contrivance – that is not a reality. In reality, all we have (under Ohm's Law) is a change in voltage squared within time brought about by its division by the resistance within a circuit.

This contrivance of our creation of the fiction known as: “current,” represented by the capital letter of “I”, replaces voltage divided by resistance showing that some of the voltage in the power of a circuit represents a change in voltage due to its resistance within the circuit. The other voltage that we have left alone represents the static voltage which drives this changing voltage brought about by resistance. This is the reason why we have two voltages in Ohm's Law squared against each other before being divided by resistance.

But this is never the way it is taught to us common folk who don't know any better. Instead, we're taught the derivative of Ohms Law known as: power (in watts) equals voltage times current. This is partly true, but is partly a fiction and an oversimplification of the situation.

If we had known the full situation, we might have stumbled upon Mho's Law on our own. But everything that has been done to dissuade us from that possibility has been incorporated into our common sense style of thinking to discourage us from stumbling onto the mathematical justification for free energy tucked away and hidden in plain sight within Ohm's Law.

This, of course, violates the Conservation of Energy, because the Conservation of Energy does not allow for any derivatives that could undermine its monopolistic authority or counter it's argument. Yet, Mho's Law complements Ohm's Law because they are multiplicative inverses of each other in one sense, and are additive inverses in another sense.

Jim Murray (in his book, entitled: “The Meaning of Unity in Energy Conversion Systems,” by James F. Murray, III and Aaron Murakami → https://is.gd/zujaqu = https://www.amazon.com/dp/1650183658/) encourages us to perform a segregated analysis of all of the components of an overunity circuit, or of a conventional circuit (which is not expected to be overunity), to discover whether or not they are overunity, or underunity, and where (located within each electronic component) is each of these coefficients of performance located? Because some components of a circuit can sometimes produce reactive power without a whole lot of assistance from any external prime mover. And it would be good to find out which components are performing this feat of Herculean strength.

In our pursuit of this endeavor, segregated analyses can also shock us with the appearance that some electronic components may consume power at a rate which is faster than it is being produced elsewhere within a circuit, or outside of a circuit from its power supply feeding that circuit. Surprises are in store for us...!

It turns out that capacitance can become saturated with dielectric charge (measured in volts) to such an extent this capacitor will no longer allow itself to absorb any more electric charge (in the form of voltage). If this state of affairs can be continuously maintained over the course of the alternating cycles of voltage within an oscillating circuit, then a funny thing happens is the removal for the need for any external prime mover serving as the exclusive source of power for that circuit. Instead, coils – all coils including coils intended to serve as electrical loads, such as: the coils of an electric motor – become generators of reactive power despite the fact that none of these coils need to rotate (ie, move) within a magnetic field to satisfy Michael Faraday's Law of Induction resulting in the (fictional!) flow of current. {Keep in mind that current, the flow of current, is a fiction. The reality is the change in the square of voltage, over time and due to resistance, without any current effecting this change. Hence, photons are another fiction not worthy of our serious consideration. Unfortunately, this view is so commonplace that it is impossible to avoid it occurring as a pandemic condition of our sciences.}

This is due to the fact that whenever a capacitor maintains saturation, it can no longer absorb voltage and, thus, must reflect this voltage back to its source (what ever that source may be). And this reflection of voltage is immediately simultaneous to its reception requiring no speed of light to transfer this voltage (return it) back to its source since this reflection of voltage is devoid of any current, whatsoever.

Only the current portion of electricity defines the electromagnetic wave of light which is regulated by a definitive speed. Voltage does not travel. It appears, simultaneously, on both sides of a capacitor without any time lag.

This reversal of voltage effectively cancels the application of voltage which was initially applied to a saturated capacitor resulting in zero watts (and zero current) reflected from this capacitor. This reflection of voltage constitutes a standing wave – in as much as, the phase of applied voltage is one-half cycle of 180 degrees of separation from the phase of the other voltage...the voltage which changes over time due to resistance. Since this wattage cannot leave, ie. exit, the circuit, it bounces around inside of it and also accumulates at an escalating rate of hyperbolic increase towards the ultimate goal of annihilation of the circuit if it is not curbed, in some manner or another, from reaching infinite oblivion.

Thus, is Mho's Law stated as: resistance divided by the negation of the square of voltage. And, although this defines conductivity, this conductivity has a direct impact on the buildup of reactive power within a circuit.

Reactive power, although lossless, is not useless. Don't let formally trained (ie, indoctrinated) electrical engineers fool you into believing in their own despondent point of view.

It is easy to envision how to convert reactive power into real power and, thus, make use of it by taking advantage of several methods for its conversion, namely: to pass it through a resistor to heat up water and run a steam engine off of this free production of heat energy, or a coil could be wound with two windings in which each winding is counter-wound with respect to the other winding so that the phase of current of one winding may engage the phase of voltage of the other winding, and vice versa, to get useful watts out of this wattless condition. This is accomplished through the union of magnetic fields mutually shared between these two coils.

By the way, the reversal of the phase of voltage of a saturated capacitor is not intuitively straightforward. It results from the simultaneous deflection of two capacitances erupting out of a saturated capacitor at 90 degrees of opposing directions of deflection.

So, if one deflection rotates to the left, then its complimentary deflection simultaneously rotates to the right.

Each of these two deflections are mathematically represented by the imaginary value of the square root of negative one.

{Notice, how this imaginary value is represented by the lower case letter of “i.” It's as if the capital letter of “I,” which represents the fictionalized existence of current, has replaced the more realistic representation of reactive power which is represented by the lower case, letter “i.” Here is another instance of how Mho's Law has been swept under the proverbial rug of our collective ignorance.}

Their squaring when combined (since they occur, simultaneously) results in negative one placed alongside (multiplied against) the square of voltage in the denominator of Mho's Law underneath (dividing into) resistance located in the numerator of Mho's Law.

In other words, whenever a saturated capacitor reflects the square of voltage, it does two things at the same time: it reflects one imaginary value for voltage, but it also allows the other value of imaginary voltage to pass through itself to get to the other side.

This negation of the square of voltage is vital for identifying the condition for which free energy occurs, namely: the eradication for any exclusive dependency upon external prime movers to power our circuits.

As an aside, this ideology has another consequence...

Besides the eradication of a circuit's exclusive dependency upon any external prime mover to power a circuit, Mho's Law encourages (by way of its stipulation) that having a high resistance actually encourages the production of free energy whenever voltage gets inverted by one-half cycle of its phase relation with current. This is due to the variable of resistance is located in the numerator of Mho's Law. Furthermore, the location of the square of voltage in the denominator of Mho's Law encourages us to use very little voltage to act as the circuit's traditional prime mover held outside of our circuit if we are to achieve maximum conductivity at room temperature.

{Although I'd like to avoid the use of the word: “current” in this discussion, I can't help to entirely avoid it since all of our measuring devices and electronic simulators make frequent use of the term of: “current” as if it were a solid fact of electrical engineering. So, be it...}

It is worthwhile to mention that there are innumerable methods for saturating a capacitor to yield the reversal of voltage. But they all share one thing in common, that they occur within the context of an elevated inductance.

Let me explain...

This negation of voltage is a translation of a common feature of coils is their back EMF. It turns out, that this reversal of voltage cannot occur all by itself within the context of a saturated capacitor. Instead, this saturated capacitor must be supported by a very large inductance yielding a very large back EMF. It is this enlarged back EMF that will encourage a saturated capacitor to yield a reversal of voltage. And the enlargement of back EMF can be produced in a number of ways...

We could use a very large coil, such as a coil of thousands of Henrys of induction, or...

We could use a permanent magnet of very strong magnetism, or...

We could enlarge the mass of ferromagnetic material associated with an inductor.

This latter condition was used by Tesla, and cited by a Mr. Dort (son of his father who worked with the Germans who were implementing Tesla's Special Generator to recharge their batteries in some of their Electro-U-Boats of WWII – according to William Lyne). Lyne quotes Tesla as claiming that, “for every two hundred pounds of iron added to his Special Generator, its output was increased by one horsepower.”

We could use powerful permanent magnets available to us, today, but not available over 100 years ago (in 1893) when Tesla displayed his Special Generator for the first time to a small audience (documented by Thomas Commerford Martin).

Or, we could use a very large coil of iron wire stipulated in Nathan Stubblefield's Electric Battery patent, or the large copper coil used in Joseph Newman's device.

But Tesla had to use what was available to himself at that time. And he chose to enlarge the ferromagnetic mass which was magnetically coupled to the core of his Special Generator to make up for its lack of induction at no additional cost of resistance.

How can this be?

Magnetic remanence and the coercivity of permanent magnets helps to explain how Lyne's quotation of Tesla is a valid, scientific fact.

In other words,...

Paul Babcock displayed a huge Perpetual Motion Holder (operating under the principles of magnetic remanence) at the Science, Energy and Technology Conference in Hayden, Idaho, back in 2013. Its core was so large, that it became very difficult to pull apart this core into its two parts of a steel bar resting at the feet of a horseshoe-shaped core without resorting to the use of a sheering force sliding the steel bar sideways to affect a separation. Even then, the use of sheering force (at right angles to the plane of the horseshoe) was also difficult to separate the core material into its two parts.

Yet, he powered his demonstration circuit with a momentary spark arising from nothing other than a mere 9V battery!

It was the largess of his massive core which made all the difference. And he knew this, also. He did not make his demonstration model so large by happy, coincidental accident. He knew what he was doing!