>>>>You don't need energy simply to maintain a force.
>>>>predicts that there is no way you can get energy for free (get energy where there was no energy before).
>
>Hilmar, in one breath you are saying that "You don't need energy simply to maintain a force" which is over unity...

I didn't say it is over unity. You did.

And I do wish

> then in the next breath you saying it is not possible, please get your facts straight.

Nor did I say that it is NOT possible to maintain a constant force. What I said that wasn't possible is to get energy for free. ENERGY, not force.

>Over the years I have witnessed many over unity processes, especially in the area of harmonics. Probably the best example I can give is running a low speed diesel main engine for prolonged periods (more than 1 minute) within one of it's critical speeds, the resulting harmonic amplification can result in the total failure of the engine i.e. the shearing of a 36" Diameter 100 Ton steel Crankshaft Journal.

Sounds like resonance to me.

Anyway, why not better stick with the previous example of a pillar supporting a weight. I don't see any reason to call this a "over unity" process, unless somebody manages to get energy (e.g., electricity) continuously out of it. Even if - AFAIK - this hasn't been done in practice yet, how would you go about in theory to achieve this?