The generation of reactive power versus the consumption of real power is a myth. If truth be told, the reality of the situation is that generation versus consumption are fictions born of a consumer based society in which we are forced to work for the privilege of staying alive rather than live in the world of the visionary inventors who have come before us, such as: the Ammann brothers, who disconnected their home from the utility grid and drove their electric car without any batteries powering its electric motor.

The only reality, according to these segregated analyses, is the polarity of volts, amps, and watts or volts/amperes which guides how we are to connect coils, etc., so that a circuit can function properly.

It is a trivial matter whether or not an electronic component generates or consumes power unless we're concerning ourselves with its consumption of heat - if it is a generator of electricity, or its generation of heat - if it is a consumer of electricity. This obsession with thermodynamics is just that: an obsession with the movement of calories from, or towards, the environment surrounding a electronic device and has nothing to do with the strict mathematics which models the behavior of electrical theory operating in the real world.

As far as electronic simulators are concerned, their viewpoint pays strict attention to the details of mathematical modeling and are oblivious to whatever interaction a circuit has with its environment as if the environment doesn't exist.

When analyzing a circuit's behavior to determine whether or not it is behaving as an overall generator of reactive power or behaving as an overall consumer of power, the movement of calories is a side-effect and is of no serious consequence to any endeavor to determine whether or not an electronic device has an overunity coefficience of performance.

There are a lot of trivial matters when concerning ourselves with complex phenomenona. And this endeavor of mine, to promote a greater awareness of so-called: "free energy," is no exception to this rule of thumb.

Hence, we have our priorities backwards putting caloric movement as an "a priori" focus of our attention span which is already limited enough as it is in its lack of tolerance for dwelling on the topic of so-called: "free energy" to waste this limited attention span on this trivial concern of caloric movement as if this is what defines energy when, in fact, it is merely a side-effect and not a causative factor of energy's production or consumption at all.

Polarity of sign value is the only correct procedure for the segregated analysis of a circuit's production and/or consumption of energy and caloric analysis plays no significant role, whatsoever, in making this determination.