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℃

The Benchmark of 100% Efficient Machines (debunking the con - "fusion" ITER folly)

The first evidence of inefficiency is "heat" thus it is a true folly of humanity to believe that heat is energy as clearly explained above. This is why a combustion engine is less than 10% efficient, likewise a rocket that uses more than 10 times its "payload" weight to achieve it's objective yet dispensing tremendous amounts of heat. Another perfect example is a nuclear so called reactor which they have to cool down (using energy, a CLEAR contradiction of its purpose which is to actually "create" energy) otherwise it will go into "meltdown" e.g Fukushima, Chernobyl, TMI etc. Even the jet engine is inefficient (ex-Nazi stolen technology "ME-262" derived by the way & remember, "...give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar" - Jesus Christ, it DOES NOT matter what the world feels about Hitler what is NOT YOURS is NOT YOURS, end of argument). Suffice, the jet engine is a joke that was built for military advantage NOT efficiency (by the way) so much so that if it takes off it CANNOT immediately land without exploding if it does not "dump" the majority of its onboard fuel (again another extreme heat generator)

The Folly of so called "Fusion Power"

The "con-fusion" about "fusion" is perfectly clear in case you are wondering why we have that image of our solar system above. Our solar system is the definition of a 100%+ efficient machine & why? This is because it runs 100% COLD! NOT 1000%+ HOT like idiotic nuclear reactors or ITER fusion "pipe-dreams" at over 1,000,000%+ inefficiency. You may be wondering why I aver thus. Well how are they expecting (in the case of fusion) or are they currently harnessing their electricity/power (in the case of the current fission reactors)? Which is the point after all, as they say right? Yes they are using this ARROGANCE to boil water which by the way boils AT ONLY 100℃ thus really, is this genius or TOTAL STUPIDITY? Even Einstein distanced himself from being associated with such idiots

Nuclear fission is one hell of a way to boil water → Einstein (with a touch of sarcasm)

Einstein HAS NEVER acknowledged that "heat is energy" only French so called "scientific" idiots have tried to bolster & enforce these claims for the obvious reasons that France has the largest cluster of these archaic filthy devices, naturally! Not to mention that the genesis of radiation itself is French. But you may be thinking, is the writer of this article crazy? Does he not know that it is common cause that the sun is 15million℃ at the core? Well I will then ask 2 questions. Firstly what is the main purpose of the sun in our solar system? Secondly what is the total "work" in so called "physics" terms does the sun actually do? Since the reader is in absentia regards the author, I will answer respectively "seriatim". In the instance the sun's purpose is to provide "light" in our solar system as well as the "gravitational dynamics" necessary for orbital consistency of the planets under its influence. These 2 factors influence ALL planets in our solar system in EXCEPTION of heat which puts us in the "habitable zone". The CONSISTENT laws of physics applied (emphasis added), this light can be converted to "electricity" but heat WITHOUT WATER (available ONLY on Earth by the way) CANNOT be converted to ANY OTHER form of energy whatsoever IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM (super emphasis added) & to make it worse Pluto will not get ANY heat whatsoever that could boil water thus HEAT is not a factor of purpose taking the aggregate parameters of scale of the "Solar System" machine into account. As for the second question it is answered partially in the instance. The sun's MAIN purpose is TO MAINTAIN orbital conformity of the planets in our solar system, with Earth happening to be in the "Habitable Zone". We DO NOT experience 15million℃ temperatures on Earth thus heat IS NOT the point of the sun but light reaches ALL the planets INCLUDING gravity thus these 2 are the MAIN PURPOSES of the sun. While the heat generated arguably may seem BIG in the context of a minuscule human being on a minuscule planet compared to the sun & the grand solar system scheme of things. The point in advanced physics terms is that, "...the total workload of the machine is the total VOLUME OF ITS MECHANICS INCLUDING ANY INTERNAL LOAD...", which in reality is the ENTIRE CIRCUMFERENCE ENCAPSULATING the last planet under the "solar influence", what we call the ENTIRE "Solar System Machine" which is 100% COLD at it's EXTREMITIES & IN ITS ENTIRETY! Meaning in essence that the machine is 100% efficient achieving it's 2 MAIN PURPOSES without creating ANY heat at its extremities. IN ESSENCE, EARTH IS ACTUALLY "INSIDE" THE MACHINE (& PART OF IT), EARTH IS NOT OUTSIDE THE MACHINE (Mega emphasis added to highlight the folly). Jesus, are these scientists so stupid or what?

Clarifying The Benchmark

That is the TRUE benchmark of EFFICIENCY thus I appeal to the human race here, why are idiotic scientists telling the world that fusion powers the sun? And that it is a solution to our problem (theirs rather) which in ESSENCE is to "excite" 2 moles of Hydrogen fused with Oxygen to expand volumetric pressure in an enclosure to drive a turbine which in essence is what they are doing in a so called nuclear fission power plant (do you see ANYONE poking so called "fuel rods" into the sun or feeding Tritium & Deuterium into the sun?) - yet again wisdom is vindicated by her own effects. In essence, it's just "molecular excitation", in layman creating steam by using "heat" (a catalytic condition) to excite water molecules that is all. Jesus, do we have to blow up the planet just to boil water at ONLY 100 ℃? Earth & so called life as you know it, is like the water molecules (in the examples above) merely "catalysed" by the "heat" conditions in the habitable zone that is all. That is NOT energy or power but A CONDITION, what you commonly call climate or atmosphere

You cannot use inefficiency (heat) to create efficiency → Blaze Advanced Technology™

That is why fusion will never work because it is already fundamentally flawed & requires a constant feed of Deuterium & Tritium to maintain its insane over 150 million℃ temperatures while the actual goal is to achieve only 100℃, that is really hilariously pathetic, a complete mockery of science, the very personification of inefficiently STUPID (emphasis added of course). What we acronym "Fueless Energy Dynamics" is the dynamics that create energy without depleting an external input like the sun that powers all the planets in our solar system without the need for fuel by "sustaining" itself indefinitely

Conclusion

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

Welcome to the future