Two Types of Voltage and Two Types of Current

I only know what I can conclude from my experience. And my experience is limited to simulations of overunity circuitry.
What I conclude is this...
Thanks go to Franco Bruno Corteletti for pointing out how important this knowledge is by designating an entire space on Quora for this discussion and inviting me to participate. It took me this long to begin to grope for an understanding, but only after I tried groping on my own which gives me a flair of individuality rather than blindly quoting others...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIRzYfbl5lU&t=320sWhat I get out of what Eric is saying is that there is applied voltage, then there is inductive reactance which gives us back EMF, then there is magnetic movement such as: the ionic movement inside of the electrolyte of batteries, or the movement within weather patterns and storm fronts, or the ionization inside of a spark gap which is preparing to fire, but hasn't begun to form an arc. All of these magnetized movements are examples of the magneto-motive force and satisfies Michael Faraday’s Law of Induction which requires an external prime mover to manifest current within a conductor (coil). And, lastly, there is capacitive reactance.
He calls the electrostatic potential what I call applied voltage. Eric calls the electromotive force what I call inductive reactance. And Eric calls conduction current what I call magnetic movement. And lastly, he calls displacement current what I call capacitive reactance. Unlike conduction current, displacement current requires no externalized prime mover to manifest current within a conductor (coil) if the polarity of this displacement is inverted (ie, negated) from the electrostatic potential (electrostatic potential measured as so many volts of difference applied across the two terminals of a conductor, or a coil).
These, then, are the four  magnitudes  of electricity — derived from the **Metrical Dimensional Relations of the Aether**  and may be the same(?) as the four quadrants (pg. 52)  — according to how Eric codifies them and how I would try to translate them back into the electrical engineering world of vocabulary which I have filtered to focus on just what pertains to how electronic simulators are designed to operate within the confines of their software.
Applied voltage is the first "V" of Ohm's Law. Back EMF is a magnetic phenomenon related to coils, but is not the result of magnetic movement resulting from an externalized prime mover. It is simply magnetic (inductive) reactance to applied voltage. So, this is why I choose to qualify this with inductive reactance. This is the current which coils are notorious for exhibiting. But it is this current which is faked by a slight-of-hand trickery in which voltage is divided by resistance over time to fake the appearance of current without actually being current. This is why Eric puts this in the same category as (two types of voltage) wherein he puts the electrostatic potential and the electromotive force (neither of them are current). And this is why I would agree with him by my calling this fake current, which should be renamed: voltage divided by resistance, which gets multiplied against applied voltage (called: the electrostatic potential) to get power in Ohm's Law, ie. voltage squared divided by resistance equals power.
But if we substitute capacitive reactance in place of inductive reactance, and keep applied voltage (the electrostatic potential), then we get what I like to call: Mho's Law in which resistance is divided by voltage squared and then the whole thing is negated to give us explosive overunity, in the form of the non-thermodynamic, non-conservative, parametric generation (ie, synthesis) of electrical power (as defined by the passive sign convention), inside of so-called free energy circuitry which could be more accurately called: freely available reactive power. This synthesis is born of the simultaneous union of two square roots of negative one possessing inverse vortexes: inductive reactance rotating in one direction versus capacitive reactance rotating in the opposite direction. This replaces the electromotive force with a negated displacement current (whose polarity is inverted relative to applied voltage).
But electrical power can just as easily diminish itself, very gradually (thermodynamically; non-parametrically), by isolating inductive reactance with itself, or by isolating capacitive reactance with itself. This gives us a separation, rather than a union, between these two forces and the electrostatic potential retains the same orientation of polarity as does the electromotive force (due to this separation of the electromotive force from displacement current) resulting in no net gain of power, but rather a gradual loss of power due to this lack of simultaneous integration of oppositional vortexes between displacement current and the electromotive force.
Or, electrical power can just as easily diminish itself, very rapidly (non-thermodynamically; parametrically), by integrating inductive reactance with capacitive reactance but of similar vortexial orientation. This gives us a union between these two forces, but the electrostatic potential retains the same orientation of polarity as does the displacement current resulting in a sudden and distinct reduction of power.
Where does this power go? Nowhere...
It simply disappears.
Energy is merely information, anyway...a union
So, an overunity circuit integrates the electromotive force with displacement current. In other words, current (the electromotive force born of magnetic movement and Michael Faraday's Law of Induction) is integrated with current born of dielectric behavior. This replaces thermodynamic entropy with something else of a very explosive nature
and anomalously mysterious by anyone’s standards.
The waveforms of entropic inductive reactance are the sine waves we have become accustomed to. Conversely, the waveforms of the union of inductive reactance with capacitive reactance are triangular waves, or spikes in their most severe manifestation.
Correct me if I'm wrong; but, this is what I glean from all of this...