[Vo]:Conservation of energy
The first law is specifically framed in terms of 'closed systems', yet what constitutes full thermodynamic enclosure is always open to question. Fundamentally, the system has to be open to a fundamental force constant, and time. That could be the EM force constant, alpha, or the gravitational constant G etc., these reducing to effective time rates of exchange of momenta or ±dp/dt, in turn opening the possibility of divergent inertial reference frames and hence a breakdown of conservation of energy between velocity frames. OU systems more generally are 'inadvertently / inexplicably open thermodynamic systems', where one might superficially expect them to be closed and isolated, such that ie. calorimetry would be defeated. Historically, Bessler's wheel was a legit claim, repeatedly demonstrated and accredited to the highest standards; i suspect Rossi's eCat is also legit, probably Ylidiz too, but as ever the challenge is figuring out HOW and why the effect is being generated, taming what most dismiss as an invisible pink elephant.. The whole field's still marred in conflicted thinking, on both sides.. 'perpetual motion' simply Newton's first law, pending some external force acting to change it.. OU - together with under-unity (AKA non-dissipative loss mechanisms) - are a spectrum-condition of novel I/O force / space / time asymmetries, as i say, pivoting on fundamental force constants and time.. That is, to play the energy game you first have to play the momentum game, challenging N2 (F=mA and its inversions) and N3 (instantaneous equality of momenta and counter-momenta). OU / UU means a divergent inertial frame; that is, one proceeding without inertial interaction with its environment, and this applies equally to classical EM theory as mechanics. In other words caveat emptor - there's always a corresponding entropy change, somewhere.. what matters is that the worst effects of any resulting fallout are anticipated and mitigated. No free-energy panacea, no actions without consequences. The vacuum is obviously not 'nothing', and engineering it is not something you wanna be doing inadvertently (see how big-rip scenarios are contingent on localised variations in the strength of the Higgs interaction triggering runaway equilibration of false-vacuum potentials and collapse into a lower or true-vacuum state, for instance). Bessler's five-week demonstration of his largest, most-powerful wheel at castle Weissenstein through winter 1717 is coincident with the Christmas storms of 1717 that devastated the NW European coastline weeks later; resting momentum states are not disturbed lightly or trivially..
[Vo]:Conservation of energy
This will be a short and easy one, essentially there are two ways to look at the law of conservation of energy that seem identical but have important differences. Let's assume for the moment that energy cannot be (in a net sense) created or destroyed. So then energy can either be said to be converted, or created and destroyed in equal amounts. This might seem like the same thing but it seems that it is more true to see it as being equal creation and destruction. And by viewing it this way we can observe something about a great many devices that claim Free Energy and also some that claim Antigravity as well. And what is that? Well a lot of designs differ from more regular non-overunity designs by having sections where there is a greater level of energy being both created and destroyed. Let's propose we have two capacitors in series passing an AC current, then we charge the floating middle section, as long as we don't overcharge the capacitors this will lead to zero net change electrically to the energy passing through, but if we look at each capacitor in each moment we see that one capacitor will be opposing the current and one will be helping it. That means that one capacitor will be discharging while the other is charging, and the current passing through, the individual electrons have energy pulled from them and later given back. The same situation exists with devices that have either a noninductive coil which passes a current that is placed in an inductive field, again the current passing through it is assisted and then opposed, otherwises this is done with two coils in series connected to achieve the same zero net inductance. This also occurs with motor/generator designs, and magnets variably assisting with rotation and then opposing it. All of this activity is very relevant to what I would term aether, and what Bearden would term scalar phenomena. Imbalancing creation and destruction of energy might or might not be possible, and really neither can be proven ultimately. But it seems far more accurate to view it as generally perfectly balanced creation and destruction than conversion, treating energy as conversion seems like a very much zoomed out overview and not true to the details, and as such it is easy to overlook things that net to zero in the big picture. William Alek posted a document I have only partially skimmed but it covers elements of this: https://intalek.com/Events/TomBeardenScalarWaveTheory2022_SEM23.pdf This, along with the radiant release of energy (Tesla's phenomena) is the basis of IMO essentially all Free Energy/Antigravity/Cold Fusion and other instances where experiments produce effects that breach the regular laws of physics. Excuse the cross-posting.
