What is over unity?

[Omnibus]

See, here we go again:

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.

Learn first what amalgam is before talking about it. There's no amalgam forming due to burning of coil. What is this banter about?

[Omnibus]

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

What kind of answer can that be based on terminology and concepts you're obviously unfamiliar with? None, of course. Like I said, before juggling with big words and claiming discoveries you have to become familiar with the basics of science which you demonstratively are not.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

See, here we go again:

Learn first what amalgam is before talking about it. There's no amalgam forming due to burning of coil. What is this banter about?

LOL - you're absolutely right.  I have actually defined 'amalgam' in my thesis - not here.  Let me address that.  An amalgam is here used in the sense that anything with a three dimensional structure is considered to be an amalgam.  It applies to solids and liquids and - in special cases - molecules. 

Now return the favour.  What is this burning of coil?  Do you mean coal?  If so.  Then again.  The coal is the amalgam prior to burning.  Thereafter it is disassociated carbon atoms loosely assembled in an identifiable 'ash'.  It has LOST it's bound condition. 

And why do you call this 'banter'?  It's way too important.  LOL.

[Omnibus]

The pursuit of overunity is not about destroying science and its achievement but is to further science. There are well-established and well-understood concepts such as the nature of electric current, what chemical bonding is and how it differs from what atoms are, what fusion versus fission is, what is work, what is force and how they are related, what amalgam is and so forth and so on. In the pursuit of overunity we should build on these basic concepts and not get into frivolous banter just because some of the participants haven't taken the time and effort to understand them.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

What kind of answer can that be based on terminology and concepts you're obviously unfamiliar with? None, of course. Like I said, before juggling with big words and claiming discoveries you have to become familiar with the basics of science which you demonstratively are not.

You will need to be precise here lest our readers assume you're ducking behind a slew of unsubstantiated allegations. 

What terminology and concepts are you referring to?
What 'big words' am I using?
What discoveries am I claiming?
What aspects of basic science do I not understand?
Where am I demonstrably unfamiliar with these basic concepts?