What is over unity?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

So, mass is conserved but chemical bonding changes (re-arrangement of the molecular structures). In other words you treat the resistor as some kind of fuel. Take coil, for instance. When a limp of coil burns mass is conserved but various changes occur with the bonding. That's pretty trivial. This isn't overunity.

Let alone, no such re-arrangement takes place whatsoever. That's unfounded to no end.

This is a bit difficult to follow.  Do you mean a 'lump of coal' or do you mean a lint of cotton from a bobbin coil?  But either way.  Yes.  I don't have to speculate on this.  I know.  There is absolutely NO change to the atomic structure of that lump of coal or that lint of cotton in the event that they burn.  Their atoms remain intact.  Even when we are exposed to a nuclear explosion atoms remain in tact.  Unless only that the applied force is that strong that it can bring about fusion within the atoms themselves.  That would need to be particularly hot and that level of heat is only assumed to be naturally available in our suns. 

The atoms themselves do NOT change.  In an electromagnetic interaction there is NO predicted change to any of the atoms.  In a chemical interaction there can be a redistribution of charge - related to the valence electrons in the outer energy levels of those atoms.  But that's it.  The atom and it's nucleus will remain pretty much in tact in the face of, and notwithstanding some considerable disruption to their bound state and to their locality.  That's mainstream science.  I'm proposing nothing new here.

[Omnibus]

Rosemary, you are totally confused. Learn what fusion and what fission is first before getting into discussion about that. Even before learning about fusion and fission, learn what atomic structure is as opposed to molecular structure. Read even the earlier chapters of a physics book to find out what work is and how it is related to force and so on and so forth. I'm afraid that participant who told you to first acquaint yourself with some basic stuff was right. I didn't know at the time the situation was that bad so I didn't side with him. There's no need to fill a forum like this with your confusion, self-righteous at that. Sorry for the strong words but there's a point when you have to hear them.

It's absolutely hilarious that one should preach about dark matter and claim big discoveries when he or she is obviously unfamiliar with the basic principles of physics and chemistry. One who cares about these disciplines and their advances cannot be polite about pointing this out.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary, you are totally confused. Learn what fusion and what fission is first before getting into discussion about that. Even before learning about fusion and fission, learn what atomic structure is as opposed to molecular structure. Read even the earlier chapters of a physics book to find out out what work is and how it is related to force and so on and so forth. I'm afraid that participant who told you to first acquaint yourself with some basic stuff was right. I didn't know at the time the situation was that bad so I didn't side with him. There's no need to fill a forum like this with your confusion, self-righteous at that. Sorry for the strong words but there's a point when you have to hear them.

LOL Omnibus.  You again ignore what I've written and then post a lot of irrelevancis that claim AGAIN that I know not whereof I speak.  I submit - with respect - that it is you who need to learn from your books.  When you can show me a lump of coal that has any variation to the atoms after burning - then indeed I will be happy to go and revisit what little I know about physics.  There may be the evaporation of some of the gases trapped in that coal.  But what you are left with after combustion is EXACTLY the same number of atoms and molecules in that coal that were there to begin with.  Some of the carbon may have escaped into the air and it may have bonded with oxygen.  The variation to their localities are, potentially infinite.  But there is NO change to their atomic structures.  The only variation apart from locality is in the bound condition of the amalgam. Fire somehow 'unbinds' that bonded atomic condition.  The thing that was previously an identifiable amalgam.



EDITED

[Omnibus]

LOL Omnibus.  You again ignore what I've written and then post a lot of irrelevancis that claim AGAIN that I know not whereof I speak.  I submit - with respect - that it is you who need to learn from your books.  When you can show me a lump of coal that has any variation to the atoms after burning - then indeed I will be happy to go and revisit what little I know about physics.  There may be the evaporation of some of the gases in trapped in that coal.  But what you are left with after combustion is EXACTLY the same number of atoms and molecules in that coal that were there to begin with.  Some of the carbon may have escaped into the air and it may have bonded with oxygen.  The variation to their localities are, potentially infinite.  But there is NO change to their atomic structures.

Who says otherwise? Of course the atoms remain the same when a lump of coal burns. The overall mass too. What's the point?

The resistor remains the same in every way as well, not only its atoms. All the experience we have with resistors proves that. There's absolutely nothing to that and no overunity can be expected from that fact.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

So, you think the resistor is losing mass when current passes through it, is that it?

Here's the relevance Omnibus.  You asked me a question.  I've now answered that question.