Can it be so simple that the inertia of the electron is due to Lenz's law? http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/Jonsson/I=EM.pdf
But even so, this is strictly conservative, no? Emil Lenz put a definite direction on induced currents when the magnetic field is changing. In other terms: "The Induced current is such as to OPPOSE the CHANGE in applied field." But in a time-delineated sense, there is some potential leeway, when it gets down to picoseconds. Lenz's Law is all about conservation of energy... maybe. It guarantees that induced currents get their energy from the *motion* of creating the change... but what if the "effect creating the change" borrows some of its kinetic energy from Casimir, et al. (ZPE, or Horace's Gravimetric Filed -gravitational ZPE)? The free-energy "regaugers" and magnet-heads have been hacking around the edges of this for some time, and if they cannot push any device into OU it may mean that they have missed one big (or actually quite tiny) detail. Frequency. What would be the minimum frequency for OU from a "truncated Lens Law" - that is, if we assume the Casimir is optimum at 2 nm and the effective speed of an EMF pulse is 2/3 c ? BTW we would also have to posit that the electron can give up angular momentum in a proper sized cavity (or magnetic domain) and get then that back from Casimir. Well it is faster than any solid state device is likely to produce for some time to come. The frequency is well into the EUV, but with line widths in semiconductors already only an order of magnitude "fatter" now, it won't be long 'till we find out - about 6 years before 2 nm is in mass production ? depending on how one interprets Moore's laws. But that geometry can be done now with electron beam lithography... Depending on deep one's pockets are... Jones
