> What do you people think about lifting 3 pounds with a horsepower, or > 1 KW? of energy?
I suppose instead of just "lifting" you mean to "hover in place" without the benefit of a wing (forward motion into an airfoil); and instead of KW, which is NOT a unit of energy, you mean kwh, which is a unit of energy. Is that correct? If so, the result above is better than an average helicopter, which generally requires as a rule-of-thumb about one kwh per pound of payload to hover (for the turboprop - diesels can do 2 pounds per kwh), light airplanes can lift 100 pounds per kwh but NOT hover, which is much more energy-intensive ... which means that this new technology, if independently verified, is pretty good on first appraisal, but only if it scales-up, and that is far from guaranteed ... but lets compare that to a hummingbird. 1 kilowatt-hour (kwh) = 3.6 x 106 J = 3.6 million Joules. The energy content of water-free fat is approximately 35 J/gram if converted at 100% efficiency. The hummingbird "burns " about .15 grams of fat-equivalent per hour in hovering, so IF the efficiency of conversion of heat into mechanical energy were 100% that would be 5.25 J/hr . For comparison, then, if the hummingbird were brought up to the same scale as your hypothetical lifter (one kwh) then it would be lifting (hovering) a payload of 1,543 pounds instead of 3 pounds. As you can see it is about 500-1000 times more efficient than the best humans can do... .....but the hummingbird "experts" want you to believe that despite this, its metabolism is not overunity ... perhaps they are correct. OTOH, they have never really looked closely enough to see if anything else could be going on, and that is primarily because prior to the advent of this whole LENR/hydrino phenomenon (past 15 years), there was not a single "arguable" route for accomplishing biological overunity. Consequently many of them went back and "doctored" the data so that it would not appear that anything was amiss. Sci-Am even published some of it. Personally, I would like to see the results of a sensitive UV sensor placed near the pectoral muscles of a high metabolizer.... but, let's try to use a butterfly instead of a hummingbird... just in case the animal cannot recover from the trauma (one can assume that insects are more "expendable" for science, no?) You decide - biological OU, or is something else more mundane going on. Actually, I suspect that it is something more mundane, and that here the 2nd law is not being violated, but I'm not sure what could be going-on... but no truth-seeker should rule out the possibility, however small, of a hydrogen isomer being involved to tap into Dirac's sea somehow, for instance... Jones
