You miss the point of my question which is in the word "monstrosity".
Even they admit they don't need a factory-sized monstrosity to demonstrate the effect. On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> So why would anyone invest millions to build such a monstrosity even if >> it worked? (We'll ignore the fact that it violates violate known >> interpretations of physical theory out of respect for the Enlightenment >> principle of evidence over theory.) >> > > You would invest millions for the reason you just stated: because it > violates known interpretations of the conservation of energy. You can't > ignore that. That alone makes the machine worth a hundred billion dollars. > Or a hundred trillion, perhaps. However inefficient it may be, surely there > must be some physical principle that makes it work which could be > elucidated from the machine, and then built into a more practical machine. > In other words, it resembles a Newcomen steam engine. > > I doubt that it actually works. > > - Jed > >
