Is burning dead trees for energy and spreading the ashes back on the soil over-unity energy? Getting back more trees than were used...over time?

Two places where I had fire pits the past have exploded with raspberry bushes.

You could say it's overunity, but sun provides a.lot of power in.

Ashes to Ashes
Dust to Dust
If God dont take us
The Devil must..

No, though it's still a potentially workable system.

1. Most of the energy for growth, as mentioned above, comes from the sun.

*This alone means that your plant/tree cycle isn't over-unity.

2. There is an energy loss at each step. It takes more energy to grow a tree (mainly from the sun) and components from the Earth that are transformed, than you can ever recoup by burning.

*So, again, the cost is always higher than the value of the expenditure.

BUT:

The sun is burning anyway, so capturing that energy in a stable form to use later makes sense. All of our fossil fuel energy and anything burned (wood, and dried plants, mainly, but also whale blubber and so forth) are concentrated sun energy, as some point.

So, no reason not to use it.

Trees are also a net neutral, over time, for the carbon cycle. IN the short term, burning a tree adds to environmental carbon in the air, but trees also use that carbon to grow, so will, over time, grab as much or slightly more carbon from the air as they expel into the air when burned.

The big issue is energy density and collecting that energy, since trees tend to be spread out, not in one pit that we can stick a straw into to get at.

Still, for many applications, it's a good idea and one we KNOW works.