You're forgetting that 60-75% of the energy in hydrocarbon fuel is wasted in the form of heat when you burn it in a combustion engine. Conversion losses for electricity are a tiny fraction of this.
Partially true. Essentially all of the formulas assume you *could* discharge to an absolute zero heat sink and calculate efficiency that way. Needless to say that is ludicrous as if you had one of those you could deplete the surface temperature of the earth for essentially fuel free unlimited energy. It's far more realistic to assume the low temperature heat resovoir to be the ambient air temperature and then the efficiency with respect to the maximum achievable efficiency isn't nearly that bad.
You shouldn't do that. The US power strip is likely only rated for 120v. If you use it with an adapter in a country with 240v service you may find that some of the clearances are not enough and you get arcing, thus a fire hazard. I've actually had this happen to me.
The voltage required to start an arc is around a million volts per meter. The 110V difference requires under four thousandths of an inch additional clearance given no insulation at all. If that's the issue I'm going to argue the device was so cheaply made it was already a fire hazard.
A more likely scenario is cheap components (like capacitors for example) and overall bad design.
I submit to you an electron around a hydrogen atom. It's been in perpetual motion for billions of years already,...
It's not really in motion, though, because the probability of finding it at a particular point in space (i.e. relative to the nucleus) isn't changing: the electron density cloud isn't moving.
Now, if we could ever split the wave function from it's complex conjugate, so to speak, then we might actually get a source of infinite energy. But that gets to the whole question of the ontological reality of the wave function.
Well mr smarty pants has that atom ever been precisely at absolute zero? As you well know it hasn't as the CMB is still warm so it has in fact been moving.
Laws of thermodynamics say otherwise
Some "laws" of physics are mathematical in nature; that is, they are logically true, like the laws of arithmetic.
Some "laws" of physics are experimentally verified; that is, you can run experiments and observe the results directly, like inverse square laws at macroscopic scales.
The "laws of thermodynamics" aren't either of those; they are instead a statement about the non-existence of certain physical effects. As such, they are the weakest of the three kinds of laws. It would probably be better to call them "the conjectures of thermodynamics". In principle, there might by physical effects that allow you to circumvent those "laws".
Bollocks. The laws of thermodynamics can be shown to be statistically true and hold for all real world cases using nothing but the standard model and statistics. Further it has been rigorously tested for over a hundred years and not only has successfully predicted results but not once has been shown to be incorrect on macroscopic scales nor exploitable for free energy in any way on microscopic scales. In fact it can and has been shown that any attempt to circumvent the statical process requires more energy than you save.
Not only is energy not conserved, but it keeps increasing as our universe full of dark energy keeps expanding.
This energy could be mined:
Again incorrect. When you total all energy in the universe, including that from gravitational fields it is likely zero. It has always been zero, and will continue to be zero. Even if you were to somehow harvest dark energy (which btw only is a meaningful amount when you talk about millions of light years) you would essentially be bringing two masses together and is exploiting gravitational potential energy.
Hotels are tired of getting ripped off. I checked into a hotel and they had towels from my house. -- Mark Guido