FWIW momentum is conserved (time-invariant), whereas conservation of energy is a consequence of CoM..
The real meat and potatoes here is that any 'energy' derivation always has an equivalent metric comprised of the same components as momentum, just evolving differently (ie. mV compared to ½mV²) - but if the system is closed (time-invariant) then only momentum is necessarily conserved; the energy may dissipate, but net system momentum is constant wrt time. Thus the objective or 'absolute' reference frame is that of the zero-momentum frame; it is against this that we plot both energy and momenta, and relative to which only energy may dissipate. It's as well to get these fundamentals straight if we're serious about ever thwarting 'em eh.. ..what i'm getting at is that, by definition, any system with time-dependent momentum exchanges is potentially amenable to thermodynamic opening.. ..and all fundamental force fields are indeed time-constant rates of exchange of +/- h-bar; thus with a little guile, time-asymmetric input vs output phases of a closed-loop trajectory thru an ostensibly static field (ie. gravity or an H field with zero curl & div) may yield non-zero net momenta, and thus, potentially, effective auto-acceleration of the zero momentum frame.. With the FoR itself accelerating a little each cycle, the accumulating net velocity component adds to that of the 'energy' value in the stationary (ie. lab) FoR of each cycle's I/O displacements, while each cycle begins in this pseudo-static rest frame thus always performing the same work each cycle, gaining the same net momentum for the same input energy.. net input energy thus sums as the per-cycle input times the number of elapsed cycles, while net output energy is transposed up by eg. the square of the velocity component of the FoR divergence. And yes, this is Bessler's principle, generalised in 1717 - ie. he accurately predicted it must apply to all OU systems per se. In his case however, he was fixing the unit energy cost of momentum from gravity and time, invariant of some range of system RPM: • lifting 1 kg by 1 m always costs 9.81 J, but the amount of momentum it gains in dropping is a function of the initial speed, and thus the drop-time * gravity's constant acceleration • hence designing a constantly-overbalancing mechanism is trivial; the problem is that as RPM's rise, the weights spend less time gravitating each cycle, so per-cycle momentum yields are naturally inverse to RPM, all else being equal - at double the speed you spend half as much time being accelerated each cycle by gravity's constant uniform acceleration.. • the per-cycle momentum yield thus follows the inverse-square of rising angular velocity, thus locking the input-energy cost of angular momentum to its ½Iw² KE value, ie. enforcing I/O or PE:KE symmetry Mechanical over-unity thus entails some mechanism that does the same work each cycle to buy the same rise in net momentum for the same input energy, irrespective of some range of velocity; if you can gain the same amount of momentum from gravity and time by lifting and dropping the same amount of weight 3 times in a row in spite of the net system acceleration, you now have more KE than PE spent. There's various techniques that can be employed to manipulate effective G-times invariant of speed - for instance, the 'ice-skater effect', wherein changing mass radius changes moment of inertia causing reactionless accelerations to compensate speed and thus conserve spontaneous net angular momentum, at the expense of modifying upswing vs downswing periods and thus net angular momentum per cycle (ie. per swinging / kiiking). All that is required to break CoE is that whatever causes these I/O time-asymmetries relative to whatever the fundamental force field, it must be effectively reactionless / under conditions of inertial isolation (easier to do in a rotating plane than a linear one eh).. ..this, because when you get right down to it, CoE in every circumstance we can think of is being enforced by this constant background of I/O momentum * time symmetry, via Newton's 3rd law and/or Lenz's law; the only reason we observe I/O energy unity is because both the input and output workloads are usually in the same inertial FoR with constant net momentum. Thus, the only way OUT of that FoR is by escape via direct purchases momentum from a fundamental force constant * time, WITHOUT interaction with any external inertias or charges. Divergence of the zero-momentum frame is Bessler's principle, in a nutshell - if you can pay half a Joule to accelerate 1 kg by 1 m/s 10x on the trot, you end up with 1 kg @ 10 m/s hence 50 J, for a mere 5 J of net input work. Yet it's also a universal axiom that must apply to all OU systems per se.. so for instance if Rossi's tech is indeed OU, then there's a divergent input FoR in effect - just because of this fundamental relationship between the shared components of momentum and energy. You can pretty much bank that right now as an outstanding prediction inevitably bound to be confirmed at some point (if it IS genuine over-unity, of course).. But precisely because this point is so fundamental, it may also speak somewhat to the UAP phenomena - limited here to considerations in 3+1 space (maybe they consider both 'energy' and 'momentum' as quaint notions) - if they're even undergoing momentum changes at all, then they must be exchanging it directly with fundamental force constants (such as alpha the FSC or gravity etc.) and time - directly sourcing and sinking it to the vacuum.. bashically, vectoring raw h-bar on tap.. which is itself a fundamentally-OU process, of a fundamentally open thermodynamic system. TL;DR - What's worse: crashing a car into an immovable static obstacle at some given speed, or else crashing into an identical oncoming car while both are at half that speed? Hood-mounted radar would thus see identical closing speeds either way, ie. both cars at 10 mph = closing speed of 20 mph, so which'll do more damage; that, or else 20 mph into a concrete wall? The answer to that is the key to understanding the relationship between CoM and CoE.. and if one can further take the point re. CoM reducing to time-symmetry of I/O interactions with fundamental force constants (ie. those reducing to time-constant momentum / h-bar exchanges), then likewise, the implicit prospects and options for circumventing and exploiting their respective terms of conservation are self-evident..
