[mdlug-discuss] The Hell you say?

[allen majorovic]

Garry Stahl wrote:
> Wolfger wrote:
>   
>> There's no such thing as better than 100% efficiency.
>> Hell... I've never even heard of 100% efficiency.
>> You can't cheat physics. It's simply not possible to get more energy
>> out than you put in.
>> And the phrase "Even the makers of the device are at a loss to explain
>> exactly how it works" is a GIGANTIC red flag.
>>     
>
> Yet it has been tested and does work.  Ergo, the process is working
> differently that is understood.
>
> I will point out the bumblebee problem.  While it has been solved, for
> many years it was assumed that bumblebees could not fly.  Bumblebees
> being devoid of the knowledge of physics, kept flying.  Eventual it was
> discovered that the bumblebees were not breaking the laws of physics
> after all.  The problem was we didn't understand the laws.
>
> The are getting more energy out that in, electrical energy in.  Ergo the
> energy is coming from somewhere else.  A catalyst is mentioned in
> there.  Another reaction is happening aided by the catalyst and  the
> electrical input.
>   
The difference between over-unity devices and bumblebees is that it 
isn't hard to find examples of flying bumblebees which casts some doubt 
on the accuracy of aerodynamic theory used to prove that bumblebees 
can't fly. There's no such problem with the laws of thermodynamics since 
no one's displayed a working over-unity device.

If the guy claims he has a working gadget and wants to commit science 
he's got to figure out how to have a disinterested party replicate his 
results. Preferably multiple, disinterested parties since ignoring the 
laws of thermodynamics definitely comes under the heading of 
"extraordinary claims" which require extraordinary proof.

The possibilities are A) the guy's stumbled upon a completely unknown 
branch of chemistry which seems to ignore the laws of thermodynamics, B) 
he's mistaken, C) he's a fraud. Are there any other possibilities?

Since he's got a unit that he says works, I think "B" isn't likely which 
leaves "A" or "C".

Allen