An electron can absorb a photon or it can emit a photon and there by its energy state is changed.
on an interaction, before its actual arrival, at the position of that interaction.

Well, electron can emit photons e.g. when it loses kinetic energy (Bremsstrahlung), that's not what I mean. By common understanding all electrons are "fixed" particles created in Big Bang. And to me this is problematic overall as some examples indicate that unbonded electrons are too ubiquitous to not to consider appearance of electrons "out of nothing". And I do not mean transient, quantum-theoretic, electron-positron pairs, I'm talking about real electrons. In my reasoning I'm assuming that unbonded electrons appear and disappear constantly, and this is in tune with "conservation of energy", statistically speaking. But the catch is: the electron can collapse under controlled conditions, and that's the source of free energy.


Tesla Coil discharges is an important demonstration to the model/theory I'm proposing. Discharges constitute movement of energy - but where does it move to? ANYWHERE, it does not require an opposite potential, do not underestimate that fact. It means 0 potential is everywhere, which may be frequency-dependent. If one views electron as a spherical and collapsable EM wave, its frequency is in the order of 10^20 Hz, it may be extremely permeable, and returns to aether without any effects. By the way, this frequency range corresponds to Xrays and ionizing radiation: Xray beam dynamics is worth studying, to see if there are any unexpected "losses" associated with it exist.

I like it.


"If we beamed electrons from a satellite which is within the vacuum of deep space,
could we reach a point at which the balance between the positive charge potential present
within the satellite exceeds the energy available to us (on board the satellite) required to
expel / beam more electrons from the satellite ? "

1. I would say that as electrons exit the system the energy needed in order to beam more
electrons from the satellite increases (per each electron expelled).

2. OK, we could perhaps resupply the satellite with energy via solar cells, but this does not supply us with additional electrons to expel.

3. If our wires become in effect, electrically insulating, by virtue of a lack of electrons which
can be mobilized as electric current then I say the beaming of electrons out of the system
ends.

Do I consider that it might be possible for electrons to pop into existence from an ether or
an aether or from the quantum fields or some other ?  I don't know, but I assume that if the right conditions exist, the answer would be yes.  The electrons that are here, came from some kind of some where and some kind of some thing, else they always existed.

Thanks for your comment, Willy, you've got my reasoning about electrons right.


Here's an interesting video about electron beam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuL8a3QZSnk


Like in Tesla coils it does not require a circuit to beam energy. Touching it with fingers without problems. Where does energy go?

It is a definite that a greater amount of energy can be obtained, by the common electrolysis of water

Where does that energy come from ?

I can't say for sure, but since electrolysis involves electric current in a highly-turbulent medium (water), the energy may come from collapsing electrons as well, the way I'm trying to explain.

There is no over unity in the conventional electrolysis.

Hydrogen from the electrolysis is allowed to rise in the atmosphere instead of
burning it.

Are you talking about a model? I do not understand how raising hydrogen increases energy of the outcome: free-raising hydrogen actually loses potential energy, because pushing it back down will require energy. On another note, I did read/hear somewhere that some inventors get a lot more hydrogen than anticipated, hence collapsing electrons must be involved in the process. I can visualize a turbulence causing local electric current vortices and collisions of electron fields.

When a weight object is lifted by the hydrogen's rise in atmosphere, the kinetic
energy potential present in that lifted object at height, can be very very much so greater
than any energy expended in that hydrogen production itself.

Some experimenters use buoyancy of water to extract energy via raising air, and the claims of OU were made. So, your model may be correct, but probably not too practical - you'll also need to raise 1 atom of oxygen per 2 atoms of hydrogen, and thats not easy to do as oxygen is comparably heavy. The gravity force is a tricky one - consider an elastic object falling under gravity.  It will fall on the ground, make several bounces, and come to standstill. Where does its energy go? On a planet without atmosphere one can say it partially converted into compression of the object, but another part of energy gained from falling from a high altitude seems to be lost? Then space satellites use gravity maneuvers, they basically get free energy in a bigger scheme of things.

Next moves in the game book.

If it cannot be plausibly denied, don't acknowledge it. Cast some degree of doubt instead
and then down play any significance it has. Next, dismiss it and divert attention to something
similar.  Finally create a conflict.

That's the usual tactic when big money are involved. "Conservation of energy" paradigm capitalizes trillions of dollars.