What is over unity?

[Omnibus]

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.

Coal isn't amalgam period. On the other hand current is directed flow of electrons. Period. Misunderstanding of terminology and frivolous attributing irrelevant meaning to it is not a discovery.

I don't know what the exact situation is but now I don't really believe you did the experiments yourself. Someone must have helped you in that too because the experimental results are the only part that deserves attention in your work. I don't see at that level of understanding of the basics how you could have possibly done proper experiments.

[Low-Q]

@Rosemary
Do you supply energy to the resistor just to change its molecular structure? Will this change in structure propel anything with more energy than you put in?

More questions:
If you heat a resistor with electricity (In this case), the material will expand. Maybe you can use both the heat and expansion to do work?

Vidar

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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.

And here.
Where am I destroying science and its achievements?
Where have I discussed fusion versus fission
Where does my knowledge of the forces vary from mainstream.
Where does my knowledge of work vary from mainsteam
Where exactly do you regard my efforts here as 'frivolous'.

And my last question.  Where have you been officially appointed as the arbiter of Over Unity and how it should be advanced or even expressed?  What Omnibus are your credentials.  Tell us.

[Omnibus]

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?

You don't know what work and its relation with force is. You don't know what chemical bonding is and how it relates to conservation of mass and the structure of the atom. You don't know the difference between fusion and fission. You don't know wht amalgam is. You don;t know what the nature of electric current is. Is that enough?

You're using big words such as dark matter before caring to acquaint yourself with the basics of physics and chemistry as i noted above.

You're claiming overunity which you have no background to sustain.

Your posts, especially the most recent once are a demonstration of glaring gaps in your understanding of basic chemistry and physics as I repeatedly pointed out.

You should know your deficiencies and should not bother experts with your irrelevant banter because it harms everybody who cares about overunity to be taken seriously. Colleagues associate thouse who study overunity with people like you and try to avoid them like the plague. Honestly, I don't blame them. One only has that much time on Earth to waste it with straightening out confused people who don't even want to listen.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Coal isn't amalgam period. On the other hand current is directed flow of electrons. Period. Misunderstanding of terminology and frivolous attributing irrelevant meaning to it is not a discovery.

I don't know what the exact situation is but now I don't really believe you did the experiments yourself. Someone must have helped you in that too because the experimental results are the only part that deserves attention in your work. I don't see at that level of understanding of the basics how you could have possibly done proper experiments.

You haven't answered my questions.  And you continue to use spurious excuses to dismiss my work.  But I've learned to expect that from you Omnibus.  You do not know how to argue your statements - only how to state your opinions.  They're boring, with respect.  When you can actually refer to what it is you've determined with reasonable example and with reasonable argument then I'll be inclined to believe that you're as well qualified as you pretend.  Until then I see these opinions as interesting but - nonetheless - irrelevant.