On 9/16/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Garry Stahl</b> <<a href="mailto:tesral@comcast.net">tesral@comcast.net</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
OK, check this one out. I might be replacing my water heater at the<br>least. Converting the house to hot water heat might not be cost<br>effective, but wow. A twelve inch tube that can replace your house's<br>boiler, and to be on the market in 18 months? Efficiency is the key
<br>here. You get out 150 -200% more than you put in. </blockquote><div><br>There's no such thing as better than 100% efficiency.<br>Hell... I've never even heard of 100% efficiency.<br>You can't cheat physics. It's simply not possible to get more energy out than you put in.
<br>And the phrase "Even the makers of the device are at a loss to explain exactly how it works" is a GIGANTIC red flag.<br> </div><br></div>-- <br>Wolfger<br><a href="http://wolfger.wordpress.com/">http://wolfger.wordpress.com/
</a><br>AOL IM: wolf4coyot<br>Yahoo!Messenger: wolfgersilberbaer<br>Ekiga: wolfger