What is over unity?

[Omnibus]

@Omnibus: Should we ask for your answers to Rosemarys questions a 100 times too?

Why can't you simply answer them, instead of trying to lead us into subjects that has nothing to do with the subject that we are trying to discuss?

I'll bet you will answer this post too with something (nonsense) you can use against me, because all you do is to say things out of the context to mislead people into deep water so you can reestablish your position above them.

Please answer the questions, and keep your nonsense somewhere we cannot see it.

Vidar

Hey, buddy, get off my back. You're one of those I was referring to as the aggressively disruptive incompetent elements in this forum who are destroying the smooth proceeding of the discussions with their incompetence. There's one or two more like you. Like I said, this should be nipped in the bud.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@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?

Hi Vidar.  The proposal is that the 'thing' that gets transferred in the the 'transfer of energy' is binding fields that hold atoms together.  In other words there's a whole world of magnetic particles that stay outside the atom but that move the atom.  And I propose that these fields can move through space - and then into other areas where they bind other atoms.  In the process of moving they change from fast small cold invisible particles to big, slow hot visible particles. We see this as 'sparks' or flame or when resistors get hot.  The atoms stay exactly as they are.  But the fields that hold them 'bound' can move from one place to another.  But in moving 'away' from one amalgam they change the bound state of that amalgam.  It becomes compromised - brittle - evident fatigue.  If these fields are, indeed, responsible for the movement of atoms and their changing states then it would speak to a precise conservation of energy which is definitely required by science.

Picture something like this.  Think of a coal fire under a ceramic pot that holds iron filings.  What's proposed is that what is 'burning' are these fields that are 'sparked' alight by interrupting their orbits.  They're essentially little magnets and they spill out into our measurable dimensions (means we can see them) from their earlier immeasurable dimensions (means we could not see them.  Out of range of light itself.  Just dark matter).  Now they're fire.  Then they tumble together - just like magnets would do.  Then they look for somewhere new to go.  They don't find any 'loose atoms' in the pot.  So they move through the pot until they find the filings.  Now they've got something to bind.  Somewhere to house them.  A new abode.  Then they systematically move through those filings and bind each iron atom - one to another.  Then when no more of these fields are available - then they become small and fast and cold and then just continue to orbit - while they hold the atoms in their fixed position.  They're also in liquids but they can't hold that liquid stable.  They're also in gasses but only when the gas is a molecule.

These are the same fields that I see transferred in electric currrent.  The point is this.  The fields are in the battery supply source but they're also in the resistor.  The voltage imbalance from the source is transferred to the resistor.  And the voltage imbalance is just a measure of these magnetic fields.  When the resistor has it's own fields imbalanced - then it too becomes an energy supply source.  But in becoming 'imbalanced' then some of those fields in the resistor unravel - exactly as they do in a 'fire' and that's when we see the resistor get hot.

Over unity is just a measure of this potential energy.  But when it's in that 'preferred oscillation mode' then that energy imbalance is speeded up - depending on the frequency of the oscillation and the result is a gain in the amount of energy dissipated to the amount of energy delivered.  I hope that's clear.  It's a very 'broad brushstoke' explanation.  I can try and improve on it if it's still confusing.  Ask away. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Omnibus]

Omnibus - I get it that you are very much a proponent of clean green and that you subscribe to the validity of Over Unity - here defined as the more energy dissipated at a work station than measured to be delivered.  That's a really good thing.  And there would be absolute consensus on this on these forums.  But you are sadly deluded if you think that this can be obtained within the framework of known classical paradigms.  Just mutually exclusive concepts.  Sad but true.  If you could prove this to be false then I'd be very interested.

What I was pointing to and what I began to think you were realising is that the ONLY thing that changes in the transfer of energy is the 'bound state' of the atoms.  NOT the atoms themselves - except obviously in the condition of extreme heat where spontaneous fusion or fission can occur.

But it seems, sadly, that you're not prepard to entertain new concepts.  It's indeed sad.  You here reflect the attitudes of Professors that I know so well - and it's the result of entrenched belief rather than healthy exploration of scientific principle.  What is entirely predictable is the need to dismiss new thinking out of hand and to do so with the assumption of authority.  You do NOT have that authority.  It has not been given to you by anyone on or off the forums.  And it is your 'type' that does more harm to these needed paradigm shifts than any active resistance to Over Unity results.  There is the understandable need to diminish what knowledge I do have.  I'm well used to this.  But I find it as offensive as the Medieval assumption of witchcraft and their unhappy solution to the problem. 

I really need to spend my time better and trust that our many readers here may be less dismissive than yourself.  I've said it before.  Give us a full account of your credentials - give us your name - and then, indeed, your opinion may carry more significance.  But in the final analysis - precisely because you evade the argument and precisely because you rely on broad sweeping judgements - I'm unfortunately ONLY familiar with your opinion.  And that opinion is boring because it's so, so predictable.  And it's that much more offensive because it carries the protection of your anonymity.  You remain nameless - not even the courage to put your real name to that opinon.

EDITED

I'm indeed not prepared to entertain irrelevant banter at odds with well understood basics presented as new concepts. No one in his or her right mind would be prepared to entertain such a thing. This is what's harmful to do (to entertain irrelevant banter presented as new concepts) in this overunity revolution we're waging. Such compilation of inadequacy will turn off every professional who has spent years in systematic study of the subject and I will fight it till my last breath. Academia must accept the relevant new ideas in overunity because nothing can compete with the infrastructure and power Academia has to further these ideas. Turning off academics with demonstrable incompetence puts everybody connected with OU in a situation to expect that anyone talking about overunity is a nut case. Because of that they dismiss even the valid arguments out of hand before even hearing them. That has to change and here in this forum is one place this to be told clear and simple.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I'm indeed not prepared to entertain irrelevant banter at odds with well understood basics presented as new concepts. No one in his or her right mind would be prepared to entertain such a thing. This is what's harmful to do (to entertain irrelevant banter presented as new concepts) in this overunity revolution we're waging. Such compilation of inadequacy will turn off every professional who has spent years in systematic study of the subject and I will fight it till my last breath. Academia must accept the relevant new ideas in overunity because nothing can compete with the infrastructure and power Academia has to further these ideas. Turning off academics with demonstrable incompetence puts everybody connected with OU in a situation to expect that anyone talking about overunity is a nut case. Because of that they dismiss even the valid arguments out of hand before even hearing them. That has to change and here in this forum is one place this to be told clear and simple.

I would be surprised if you ever read my model and I'd be alarmed if you ever approved it.  I prefer it that we never see eye to eye. 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hey, buddy, get off my back. You're one of those I was referring to as the aggressively disruptive incompetent elements in this forum who are destroying the smooth proceeding of the discussions with their incompetence. There's one or two more like you. Like I said, this should be nipped in the bud.

What smooth proceeding?  Your tirade and your slew of unsubstantiated opinion hardly constitutes 'smooth proceedings'.  And this is NOT a discussion.  It's simply a record of your opinion about things.