Firstly I will use logic to dispel conventional logic because conventional logic is the reason in chief why the unconventional such as the Blaze Advanced Technology™ reactor(s) have eluded the conventional.

##### The Laws of thermodynamics in brief (I only need 3 to prove my point) :
1. The increase in internal energy of a closed system is equal to total of the energy added to the system. In particular, if the energy entering the system is supplied as heat and energy leaves the system as work, the heat is accounted as positive and the work is accounted as negative.
2. The second law is applicable to a wide variety of processes, reversible and irreversible. All natural processes are irreversible. Reversible processes are a useful and convenient theoretical fiction, but do not occur in nature. A prime example of irreversibility is in the transfer of heat by conduction or radiation. It was known long before the discovery of the notion of entropy that when two bodies initially of different temperatures come into thermal connection, then heat always flows from the hotter body to the colder one.
3. The third law of thermodynamics is sometimes stated as follows:
The entropy of a perfect crystal of any pure substance approaches zero as the temperature approaches absolute zero. At zero temperature the system must be in a state with the minimum thermal energy.

This statement holds true if the perfect crystal has only one state with minimum energy.

##### The Law of the Conservation of Energy

In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant, it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another. For instance, chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite. In technical terms, conservation of energy can be rigorously proven by the Noether theorem to be a direct consequence of time translation symmetry.

A consequence of the law of conservation of energy is that a perpetual motion machine of the first kind cannot exist. That is to say, no system without an external energy supply can deliver an unlimited amount of energy to its surroundings. In 2017 new states of matter that violate time translation symmetry and thus the conservation of energy, Time crystals, were discovered.

##### Fact of Law

It is a fact of law that statute laws are binding while case law is a matter of discretion where such discretion has been conferred by a statute proviso. Suffice it would be competent to then state that statute law takes precedence over case law while case law is "flexible", statute law does not have such leeway.

That said and taking into account that the so called "laws" of physics as quoted supra are fed to the world as "laws". It is "common cause" as anyone in the "nut house" world of free energy would attest, anytime anyone claims they have a free energy device immediately the CIA trolls go on a forum rampage posting comments like "impossible, what about the laws of physics?" Thus judging by these reactions it is safe to say that the so called laws of physics are statute and not case or discretionary law right? This is where their problem begins, stay with me I will elaborate and indulge yet further

##### Contention 1

Firstly in law of statute, laws cannot be inconsistent, if they are then the rules dictate that you either repeal the inconsistent law or amend it to consistency otherwise the whole proviso becomes unconstitutional and consequently null and void. Now looking at the so called law of the conservation of energy and then the so called law of thermodynamics it is clear from these so called "laws" that one law is trying to justify the inconsistency of another law. The law of the conservation of energy in brief states that equal energy in equals energy out or less and further states that energy is neither created nor lost. It further states that energy can be transferred from form to form e.g from electrical to light, electrical to heat etc. However as you can see the law of thermodynamics is trying to explain why heat cannot be converted back to any other form of energy directly and without water (emphasis added), but this is a clear contradiction of the principle of law I reiterated supra. This is an inconsistent proviso and unless repealed and re-enacted as law dictates or amended to consistency then common law applied cannot be deemed applicable thus instead being null and void unless of course you are agreeing that these are not laws, then that becomes another argument altogether and exonerates us from the imaginary shackles

##### Contention 2

Is heat really energy or is it merely a catalytic condition? Fact, heat cannot produce any other form of energy whatsoever without water on this planet (emphasis added). Thus according to these geniuses, heat energy is only energy on planet earth is that a smart thing to say? Because for now we can only conclusively prove that in our solar system only Earth has water. The sun produces energy yes but the light is the energy not the heat because we can convert the light directly to electricity without a conduit (emphasis added). However without water heat is completely useless, the same methodology is applied to existing fission reactors and the fusion reactors they are hoping to build making 150,000,000℃ heat just to boil water at only 100℃, is this a really clever thing to do honestly? Like spending \$150,000,000.00 just to make \$100.00. Is this really genius? Whenever real energy is utilized heat is present thus is heat really energy or merely a bi-product of energy conversion or use and is this not the reason for this inconsistency? Food for thought

##### Contention 3

If I take a kettle rated at 1000W and I boil water in that kettle for 2 minutes then switch the kettle off before the water actually boils. I have used energy in the form of electricity and if I check my meter can actually compute exactly how much electrical energy I used in watts. Now back to the water. How do I recover even a fraction of the energy I used to boil the water even 1% of it? Further, how do I measure the energy that is now in the water and with what instrument? Please don't tell me the laws of physics because we have just proven that these are not laws because of such inconsistencies. Oh so the energy is lost? That would be a stupid thing to say like "a perpetual motion machine of the first kind cannot exist"

###### The defense rests it's case (no further questions your honor) → Blaze

Now that we have proven beyond reasonable doubt that these so called "laws" of physics are not laws but where merely observations by astute individuals of their time no doubt true they are but they are not laws by any means given the de facto definition of what laws are and thus are not binding, this is also further confirmed by the 2017 excerpt to the laws of the conservation of energy supra concerning Time Crystals.

The reason why heat has been confused as energy stems from the steam engine mentality of the time, an engineering marvel of the time no doubt. Coal was heating water which then powered the steam locomotive or thermal power plant thus assumption would logically be that heat was energy but it was merely a catalytic condition applied to water to get it to steam but technically speaking it is not the heat that does the work but the water albeit in a catalyzed steam state. But all this is happening over 100℃ which would be akin to saying heat is only energy when water is present and only above 100℃

##### Conclusion

Now given the forgoing factors cumulative we have just in layman explained to you how this technology is possible