A general perspective for scientific explanation of almost all overunity devices

[DrKCostas]

My research proves that almost all overunity devices draw their extra energy from the potential energy of the local gravitational field. And to describe them in full scientific detail,  it is required to revise the Maxwells equations of Electromagnetism to no-linear equations, and Einstein's theory of gravitation. So for the academic world to account for them it is required 1-3 nobels...
Here is a the link for a paper produced by me, when the Bristish Aerospace invited me during 1998 (Greenglow project) to lecture at the Lancaster University in UK, for thsi and relevant topics:
http://www.ckscientific.com/PapersinPhysics/Lancast8_suspended.doc
also
http://users.softlab.ece.ntua.gr/~kyritsis/PapersinPhysics/Lancast8_suspended.htm
It is classical physics, not super-difficult to read.
If we did not challenge the laws of physics of Aristotle we would still be holding bows with arrows and using slaves.
The way to extract energy from the field (electromagnetic and gravitational) and furthermore from the kinetic energy of the perpetual motion of electrons, protons, and neutrons in an atom, is exactly some of the overunity devices that are known.
So I will state, what many would be afraid that the case was with some overunity devices: IT IS SOFT ATOMIC POWER. A way to extract energy, among other sources, from atoms , without splitting them, without fusion, sometimes without even chaning their chemical bonds.

[DrKCostas]

Here is a list of past Physics assumptions that I believe that 21th century and the new millenium physics has already started and will eventually turn all of them false
1) Inertial mass of bodies ( of constant ammount of molecular matter) at low speed (non-relativistic) cannot be decreased.
2) All matter starts with protons, neutrons, electrons. In other words, there are not smaller permanent particles (Quantum particles are excluded as they are not permanent)
3) Nothing goes faster than photons
4) All macroscopic electromagnetic interactions are described with the linear equations of Maxwell.
5) All forces acting on laboratory macroscopic objects at low speed (non-relativistic) are of the next 5 types a) Inertial, b) by contact with other material bodies made from protons, neutrons, electrons, c) Newtonian gravitation forces d) Maxwell's electromagnetic forces e) no other type of forces.

[DrKCostas]

The Greenglow project of the British Aetospace in 1998 , was a copy of similar small project of NASA and had the next objectives (seemingly outrageous for  standard Academic Science)
1) Invent new propulsion for flying
2) Produce while flying the fuells, or not using fuels at all.
3) Ability to travel faster than light
At the 1st conference, it was announced that a series of similar conferences would follow within Greenglow. But it seems that it was the first and last conference. Either they found what they were looking for, or they were entirely discouraged. The site remain in the web for a couple of years with my name among 2-3 other lectures and then it was
eliminated.

[DrKCostas]

Here is the link of another case of ""overunity" or "free energy" process developped in Rowan University
The link of the youtube video about blacklight power is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v­=DfjOIoPwolg
It was discovered and elaborated inside Rowan University. Still, the standard academic science does not have the slightest idea where the additional energy, in the energy balance of this process , comes from.
Since it is validated by Universities , there is not the danger of accusations of being a fraud etc. And since it is highly unlikely that it is already a military classified technology, there does not seem to be a fatal obstruction in developing it. The only real difficulty is the conceptual inadequacy of the present physics.
In my perception, the missing concept to understand where this renewable energy comes from is by shifting from the old concept of "electromagnetic field" of an atom , "gravitational field" of an atom and "quantum vacuum" in an atom, as empty space for interactions propagation, to a more realistic concept of a finer layer of physical and real gaseous matter around the known particles, made from permanent particles again (as permanent as protons, neutrons, electrons) but vastly smaller (e.g. 10^(-40) as order of smaller size). All energy of almost all the "free energy devices" or "overunity devices" seems that it comes from the internal energy of this finer gaseous material layer (centuries ago called by Newton, Maxwell and many other, aether). Which is equivalent to saying that it is from the potential energy of the new unified electro-gravitational (and not only) field. And it is renewable because both it is a vast reservoir and it is replenished by the transfer of energy through friction of protons electrons and neutrons in this finer gaseous material layer of the molecular heat energy. This is the required conceptual leap for standard academic science to unblock the development of cheaper and zero CO2 emissions energy.

[DrKCostas]

I watched recently some videos in the famous site www.ted.com that show how present time innovative, talented and famous people think about the future changes in the energy model. I recommend some of them 
1) Bill Gates approach:
http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html
I think quite conventional and sadly resorts to nuclear power again

2) Al Gore's (Nobel prize winner)
http://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_warns_on_latest_climate_trends.html
Powerful way to urge.
3) Thermal solar device of small size. 
http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gross_on_new_energy.html
Brilliant! I wish such computer optimisation could be done to some other amateur "free energy" devices as well.
4) Interesting perspectives of how to win the oil-end game:
http://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_on_winning_the_oil_endgame.html
5) Simplistic conventional forecast of the energy uses till 2050:
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_sears_planning_for_the_end_of_oil.html
6) Sad debate where nuclear power wins over renewable energies:
http://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy.html

And what I noticed is that nowhere is mentioned the plenty many "free energy" innovations found in the web.
So I wrote a letter to Bill Gates pointing out to him, the present situation of "free energy” or “overunity” devices. I suggested to him to do something e.g. fund an institution where Universities, innovators, and investors could cooperate.
I also wrote a similar letter to Chris Anderson that runs the www.ted.com  , as the perspective of energy innovations of “free energy” devices is an idea worth spreading. It contains seeds for valuable development in  theoretical science, engineering, and business, fo good resolutions of the global climate crisis, and CO2 emissions.
I did not expect any response of course.