> I was just trying to explain how the initial claim itself was at least plausible. If the author had wanted to be plausible, he would not have mentioned the r

> I was just trying to explain how the initial claim itself was at least plausible. If the author had wanted to be plausible, he would not have mentioned the required input power. That's a dead giveaway and show-stopper, because anything remotely real would not have that requirement. If the units can deliver five times their input heat energy, then 1/5 of the output energy can be used to sustain the reaction. That's not difficult to grasp.