I Study Free Energy
Free Energy in a Nutshell
Free Energy is a peculiar thing: it does not exist in and of itself as a distinct entity. It is more a process, or the end result of a process, then a singular entity.
The Atlanteans called it: the Night Side of Nature;[1] something which cannot be measured, metered or acknowledged by way of the five senses, but may only be known by way of inference. We call this thing: reactance and is modeled by mathematics...
Capacitive Reactance = 1 ÷ (2π × Frequency × Negative Resistance × Capacitance)
Inductive Reactance = 2π × Frequency × Positive Resistance × Inductance
Inductance is defined by the magnetic strength of a coil of wire, while...
Capacitance is defined by the ability for a capacitor to store voltage.
We're all familiar with Positive Resistance. It makes it difficult for us to walk forwards whenever a strong gust of wind is blowing in our face. BTW, Positive Resistance is an adjectival quality based purely on its relation to voltage. It is a colloquialism given to describe its character. This is similar to...
Negative Resistance, yet is a bit more illusive. This style of resistance displays itself whenever the resistance of air breaks down making it easier for a bolt of lightning to strike the Earth and fry objects with an amplification of current.
These two resistances are distinctly opposite in character. Ohm's Law defines positive resistance as...
Current will be determined by how much Resistance undermines Voltage. Yet, Mho's Law (also known as Conductivity measured in Siemens) defines Negative Resistance as...
Current will be determined by how much Voltage undermines Resistance.
These are reciprocal relations just as the two formulae for reactance are likewise. In other words, in terms of simple algebra, take either one and flip its numerator with its denominator. Hence...
Ohm's Law → Amps = Volts ÷ Resistance
Mho's Law → Amps = Resistance ÷ Volts
And...
Capacitive Reactance = 1 ÷ (2π × Frequency × Negative Resistance × Capacitance)
Inductive Reactance = (2π × Frequency × Positive Resistance × Inductance) ÷ 1
Finally, before returning to this discussion, notice how these two reciprocal relationships are suggesting either growth or decay of electrical energy. In other words, Mho's Law suggests growth since resistance actually amplifies current. A similar phenomenon takes place with Capacitive Reactance in which an increase of Frequency, or Resistance, will have the same effect.
Meanwhile, decay is exemplified by Ohm's Law which we take for granted as being normal. Inductive Reactance is similar in that we call this condition by the common expression of: “back EMF” which undermines the current we feed a coil inside of a motor. We take this normal condition (of decay) to be Entropic while its opposite condition of growth is Superconductive. Now, returning to the discussion underway...
Reactance was a term coined by Oliver Heaviside and made quite popular by Charles Proteus Steinmetz. Reactance formulae are peculiar in that they are formulae describing power modulation without actually involving themselves in power at all. For, there are no variables related to power contained within reactance formulae. Merely: frequency, resistance and either capacitance or inductance. No mention is made of watts, nor amperage, nor voltage. None. Nada. It ain't happening.
So, where does Free Energy come from?
It comes from the fact that the Formative Forces of Electricity are exclusively composed of the two complimentary types of reactances of Capacitive and Inductive Reactance plus Time. {Forget about electrons, protons and neutrons since these do not concern us, here, in any discussion of “free energy”.} Fragment electricity into its constituent ingredients, or nearly so, and we get to bypass the Law of the Conservation of Energy since this law is predicated upon time remaining constant. If time should shift, then this law no longer applies. This is the Noether Exclusion Principle. See, Wikipedia's article on Conservation of Energy and focus on its subtext of “Noether's Theorem”.
Yet, it's far easier to shift electrical time than Einstein's thought illustration may suggest. He proposed a fanciful condition wherein one sibling from among a pair of twins is sent up into space in a rocket ship and speeds around in orbit of some celestial object, or else takes some circuitous route to some galaxy, at the speed of light, and returns only to find his twin sibling either very old or already deceased while he, himself, hasn't noticeably aged at all.
This is the hard way to illustrate the situation.
Instead, let us merely phase shift the angle of relation between current and voltage by 90°. We call this condition a Power Factor of Zero to suggest its utter uselessness in running our appliances. And this condition comes in two flavors of either current leading voltage by 90° or voltage leading current by the same amount. This shift of phase relation is a shift of time, namely: one wave (either current or voltage) is ahead of the other wave by a quarter cycle of Alternating Current (A/C) since a full cycle is 360° (¼ × 360° = 90°).
But if we should transcend this barrier reef of neglectful oversight and take this process of separation doubly further, we may arrive at a Power Factor of Negative One in which two parent conditions of opposite Zero Power Factor (leading versus lagging voltage) have seemingly bred themselves a daughter condition of Negative Power Factor in which either the direction of voltage has become inverted, or else the current has inverted (but not both!), giving us a 180° phase shift between the two amounting to an entire half cycle separation within the context of each and every A/C cycle.
In the first three instances, we have a condition of reactance. But in the first pair of cases of two complimentary 90° of separation, electrical engineers struggle to redeem the situation by “correcting” it to be more closer to 0° of separation. We call this last condition a Positive Power Factor since it is intended to imply a favorable condition for our appliances to consume their energy.
I don't know if it is possible, or efficient, to play with electrical energy when it is exhibiting 90° of separation between current and voltage. Yet, I do know that it is easy to invert voltage polarity by a full half cycle for every A/C cycle and then effortlessly amplify its frequency in an echo chamber involving a step-up, or step-down, transformer.
This duplicity of transformational perspective is due to its constant internal feedback reverberating within itself obliterating any sort of temporal reference as to which is the primary (source) side of this transformation and which is the secondary side. This additional feature of a transformer escalates the overall power to match the increasing frequency.
This latter condition of the escalation of frequency is merely potential energy while the former consideration is kinetic escalation. Yet, it is this kinetic escalation which we seek in order to define “getting more from less” without having to pay for it resulting in the colloquialism known as: free energy.
Download the compressed ZIP file...
...for more information.
Reference
[1] “A Dweller on Two Planets”, or “A Dividing of the Way”, by Phylos the Tibetan, amanuensis: Frederick S. Oliver, 1905, Los Angeles, California. Its sequel: “An Earth Dweller Returns”, was published by “The Lemurian Fellowship Foundation” of Ramona, California.