Jim Higgins wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 09:21:32 -0700, John Smith I
wrote:

Jim Higgins wrote:

...
This invention will never withstand strict scientific review because
it will be trivial to demonstrate that it doesn't produce more power
than is input in the form of RF. No net excess power produced means
no new power source.
...
At no time did I ever think it was over unity. The law of conservation
of energy is just another law awaiting to be "broken", i.e. a new "law"
found which acts to the contrary ... after experiencing the insanity of
quantum physics, it leaves ones belief system shattered!


If quantum physics leaves your belief system shattered, then I'd have
to say you don't understand quantum physics on even a superficial
level... or else you're exaggerating your reaction to it. The math
is a real bitch, but the generalized concepts are easily grasped by
those who understand classical physics. But that aside, the real
point is that quantum physics doesn't leave classical physics as a
broken law to be tossed aside. NASA will continue to use classical
physics to plot trajectories to the Moon or to Mars.


perhaps we should talk a while on the interesting effects that will be
realized if the law of conservation of energy is "broken".

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -