Overunity is possible and here is proof

[Willy]

Firstly...

                                  Empirical evidence ?
                          Energy what a great concept ! 

By scientific standards, energy's definitions are double speak,
gobbly goop and self referencing nonsense.

What effects energy will have when it is expressed or transferred
between two objects has been studied, measured and recorded,
with extreme accuracy and precision, countless times and in
innumerable ways.  A great deal is known about energy in this
respect. 

What we know about energy, for the most part are the changes
that occur when it is exchanged or transferred between two bodies
or systems.

It might be said that energy has been best defined by describing the
effects it has.

ENERGY Webster's New World Dictionary 1956

energy
the capacity for doing work and overcoming resistance

work
transference of force from one body, or system to another, measured
by the product of the force and the amount of displacement in the
line of force.

These Webster's definitions of energy and work are defined by each other (self referencing).
Except that the word force is used in place of the word energy in the definition of work. 
Note that a force is simply energy described in terms of it's magnitude and
direction.

The American College Dictionary 1947 / 1948

energy
the property of a system which diminishes, when the system does
work on any other system, by an amount equal to the work so done

work
the transference of energy from one body or system to another.

The American College definition of energy says that energy is a
property of a system.  This is an interesting beginning for the
definition, in light of  the fact that any physical system is composed
entirely of energy, 100% so.

The following paragraph is an excerpt from the Wikipedia.
AN article titled "Matter").
"Albert Einstein showed that ultimately all matter is capable of
being converted to energy (known as mass-energy equivalence) by the famous formula E = mc2,"

Matter is composed entirely of energy and I think that probably
energy, is also (smile). 

Although perhaps energy is composed of some sort of information
that organizes it ? Who knows ?

And even if this were so the dictionary definition
stands unaffected.  But to continue.......

ENERGY... American College Dictionary 1947 / 1948
                  "the property of a system"
There fore energy is a property of energy or energy is the property of
it's self.

                      "which diminishes"
So it's a property that diminishes.  We can safely assume that this diminishing is not caused by the destruction of energy (else all hell
should break loose).  If must therefore be that this diminishing is
either transformation or transfer. I'm guessing that transference is
the cause of the diminishing and will interpret it as such. 

                        which transfers

                      "when this system"
                       when this energy

                           "does work"
                       transfers energy

                   "on any other system"
                    to any other energy

   "by an amount equal to the work so done"
by an amount equal to the energy transferred

             And now the complete interpretation.
                                  ENERGY
energy is the property of it's self that transfers
when this energy transfers energy to any other
energy by an amount equal to the energy
transferred.

The only questions I'm left with at this point are "Doesn't it
require an expenditure of energy in order for energy to transfer
it's self ?" Is transference the expenditure of energy or is energy transference ?
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Definitions of energy by the use of terminology such as
"fundamental interactions", make the rabbit hole deeper, but it still
dead ends.  An interaction is an energy exchange, even if it is
"fundamental" and even if it does violate conservation.  Who's
playing word games here ?

So... when some one wants to challenge an idea I have, with what
they think of as the law of conservation of energy.  I generally don't
want to engage them. Though I might be interested in what they think
energy is.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

I like Wikipedia just fine, I donate as well. Below are some
excerpts from Wikipedia articles relevant to the definition of
the word energy.

"Energy is a property of objects, transferable among them
via fundamental interactions, which can be converted in form
but not created or destroyed. 

The joule is the SI unit of energy, based on the amount transferred
to an object by the mechanical work of moving it 1 meter against
a force of 1 newton.[1]"

Property: "A physical property is any property that is measurable,
whose value describes a state of a physical system."

System : "a physical system is the portion of the physical universe
chosen for analysis.  Everything outside the system is known as the environment, which in analysis is ignored except for its effects. on
the system...

The cut between system and the world is a free choice, generally
made to simplify the analysis as much as possible.

OBJECT: In physics, a physical body or physical object (sometimes
simply called a body or object) is a collection of matter with some
common attributes, most important, the spatial location. Examples
of models of physical bodies include, but are not limited to a particle,
several interacting smaller bodies (particles or other), and continuous
media."

MATTER: "Matter is a poorly defined term in science (see
definitions below). The term has often been used in reference to a substance (often a particle) that has rest mass. "

The following paragraph is also an excerpt from the Wikipedia.
AN article titled "Matter").
"Albert Einstein showed that ultimately all matter is capable of
being converted to energy (known as mass-energy equivalence) by the famous formula E = mc2,"

FUNDAMENTAL INTERACTIONS :  "Also called fundamental
forces or interactive forces, are modeled in fundamental physics as
patterns of relations in physical systems, evolving over time, that
are not (beneficially) reducible to relations among more basic
entities (at prevalent energy scales).  Four fundamental interactions
are conventionally recognized on empirical evidence: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear."

CONVERTED : "Energy transformation or energy conversion is the
process of changing one form of energy to another. "

TRANSFERABLE: "In the physical sciences, an energy transfer or
'energy exchange' from one system to another is said to occur when an
amount of energy crosses the boundary between them, thus increasing
the energy content of one system while decreasing the energy content
of the other system by the same amount."


                   Omissions from Wikipedia

The words "destroyed" and  "created"...
Are not topics for articles in Wikipedia.  However these
words are frequently used in many of Wikipedia's science
articles.  Some small exemplary accounting of their usage is
given below.
The online Oxford dictionary was lacking these definitions
(in the context of physics) as well.

The word created

It is used 6 times in the article "Matter", 2 times in the article
"Mass Energy equivalence", 6 times in the article "Energy",
2 times in the article "Energy transformation" and 1 time in
the article titled "Mass".

The word destroyed

It is used 3 times in the article "Matter", 6 times in the article
"Mass Energy equivalence", 7 times in the article "Energy",
1 time in the article "Energy transformation" and 3 times in
the article titled "Mass".

Secondly...

Fundamentally, energy is a concept and an abstraction.  As such it cannot be measured.  It can only be derived or inferred and most certainly it cannot be conserved. 

Force and displacement can be measured.  I find in magnet interactions (in which work input is equal to work output) no indications as to why it should be considered as absolute that magnets can do no net work, but rather quite the contrary.

Neither do I see any reason why two magnets causing net work would be a violation of the "law" of conservation of "energy".  I think rather instead, conservation is mostly misunderstood.  Almost universally and certainly automatically, specific projections and assumptions are made which are not actually inherent within Newton's laws of motion nor that bastard child, which the law of conservation of energy is.

There is a thing which we call a vacuum.  There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. Within a vacuum chamber the odds are very high, that there are at least some few atoms of gas remaining.  Within a vacuum chamber we find also, that there are radio waves, magnetic fields, gravity, other things, and possibly dark matter or even zero point energy as well.  There is no place known to mankind in which in can be demonstrated that there is nothing.  How then is it, that we should conceive of "nothing" as real, or consider that "nothing" could ever have ANY significance to or impact upon anything that is real ?   

The idea of nothingness is rather like a notion from a child's fairy tale, except perhaps that the tale of nothingness is seldom looked at objectively and has no moral. 

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed ?  The idea that energy or that energy as matter can either spring from "nothing" or become "nothing" is from any truly scientific perspective silly.  It barely merits consideration......   because there is no such thing as nothing !  How then is it that this seemingly key scientific concept (conservation) hangs from such a shabby frame work ? 
                          Conservation's contribution to Newton's observations is as "nothing".


The only functions the  "laws" of conservation have are as:

             1. Newton's observations.
             2. distraction from the one of the few facts known, which is that all answers lead to yet         
                 more questions, or else ..... they lead to dogma.

                             smile .......

Thirdly...

Empirical evidence of overunity.

   https://overunity.com/19272/more-clairifaction-of-floors-twist-drive/msg582547/#msg582547

[Nwakuche]

Energy is usually defined as the capacity to do work. And work is said to be done when a force moves a body with mass through through a certain distance. Whatever that is applying the force has to be in motion inorder to do the necessary work as F = MA. The equation E = Mc2 implies that stationary matter like a rest electron and protons are made up of internal components that are in motion.

[Nwakuche]

What type of internal motion of the constituents of a particle could give the appearance of no external motion? Obviously circular motion or spiral motion. Spiral motion is the most likely candidate as smaller aggregates of matter makes up internal components of larger aggregates of matter.

[Nwakuche]

On the issue of wave and particle duality. In our everyday experience, all medium for propagation of waves like water and air are quantized at the smallest scale i.e the size of h20 or air particles.

Given the interconvertability of photon(massless particle) and rest electron (massed particle), it is obvious that the two properties that define the mass of every object is the type of internal motion and which also determines its gravitational influence of the mass.

The effects of gravity acts instantaneously or nonlocally throughout it's area of influence so any device built to emulate the type of motion that mass is composed of will be a nonlocal energy tapping device.

[Willy]

   Nwakuche

I don't know why you are moderated, but You can start a topic on this section of the
forum if you wish.