http://www.pureenergysystems.com/index.html
This is both impressive and depressing. Impressive because it is professional looking web page chock full of up-to-the-minute information. Depressing because I doubt any of these claims has merit. I have not investigated them, so I may be wrong, but Kooistra and others who have looked closely say the replicated devices have a conventional explanation, and the unreplicated devices are secret. In the discussion of the Howard Johnson motor the blueprints are "not adequate to build working unit," and Tom Bearden says the critical details are secret.
I expect skeptics feel the same way about LENR-CANR as I do about these pages. That is depressing.
Page like this seem to have a high gullability factor. They accept everything at face value.
Jeff Kooistra wrote:
"I don't deny O-U motors are possible--this just isn't one of them."
I *do* deny o-u motors are possible! Obviously they are impossible, since they violate the conservation of energy. That does not mean we can be absolutely, positively sure they do not exist. But if it turns out they do exist, it is fair to say they violate the textbook laws of physics as those laws are understood by 99.99999% of scientists and engineers. CF also appears to violate some textbook laws of nuclear physics, although there is less agreement among experts about which laws it violates, and to what extent it violates them. The point is, only a fool would believe in CF if it had not been proven experimentally. O-U motors should be ruled impossible until it is proven by experiment that they exist. It has to be a widely replicated, well documented, convincing experiment.
Reactionless drives (and anti-gravity machines, which are more or less the same thing) are also impossible, because they violate Newton's third law. That does not mean we can be certain there can be no such thing, but it is a pretty good indication they do not exist, and it means we will have to rewrite 400 years of physics textbooks if they are discovered. I do not think they could be finessed into our understanding with a few minor tweaks to the textbooks. There are no minor loopholes that would allow them. CF, on the other hand, may require only a few marginal adjustments. Gene Mallove thought CF proves that the textbooks are radically wrong. I know little about physics but many prominent physicists disagreed with him, and it seems unlikely to me.
- Jed
