quentron.com

[Bruce_TPU]

The problem is that many people here are late in arriving. Philip had posted many different updates on his web page describing the Quenco process and theory and at times probably gave more information into it's operation than he wanted.

If you are one of those late people then it simply sucks to be you and you should just get over it and do some research. There are many devices that exhibit similar properties to the operation of a Quenco chip if you look into it.

The tunnel diode has a similar effect but requires a bias current because the barrier is much thicker that the proposed Quenco chip.

Mosfet gate tunneling became a problem when the gate barriers were reduced under 90nm, another similar effect.

In fact, the current limit in CPU is about 65nm and requires reduced voltages so the electrons don't tunnel through.
So you can see that tunneling is a real effect that occurs at a voltage dependent on the barrier thickness.
Now if you can reduce the barrier to something very small like 3nm and you provide a voltage only by the difference in work function of two different metals, then with just a tiny bit of heat, an electron could tunnel the barrier and cause a current to flow.

This is only MY view of a working Quenco based on information from Philip and my own research.
Quenco works not to defy the laws of physics, but because of the laws of physics!

I for one am very convinced that Quenco is a real device that Philip will get into production in a fast time frame.

Just think if Edison was trying to make a light bulb, how some would be calling him a fraud and if it worked he should have it by now and just a flash from his device was not useful and on and on and on, just like they do now with other peoples ventures.

The facts are that most skeptics are just jealous people that have accomplished nothing in their own life and have little self esteem.

Hi Lumen,

A very well written post, indeed.  From what I understand of the Quenco, and posted a few pages back, you have indeed hit the proverbial nail on the head.  As I also mentioned, the thinner the material, the greater the probability for tunneling.  The idea is really quit ingenious.  Use that effect to your advantage, and create a material so thin as to make the tunneling a certainty.  I can see, as usually is the case, the practical application , can be more daunting than the working theory, even when that theory is true.  Then stack them and you are good to go.  I too think that this may turn out to be the real deal, indeed.  But not something that can be built in our home lab.... lol.

Cheers,

Bruce

[Qwert]

You are late to the party, Philip give us a Theory, drawings, explains, and also very important a simple test,  I do the simple test with the vacuum tube and by myself experiment I can tell you, THIS WORK ! 

THIS does not work, because THIS does not exist! You made test on vacuum tube, not on THIS. Since its operating principle seems very simple, a possible technology seems not so simple: it is a matter of producing (and handling) a plate, or rather a flake which thickness is measured in fractions of Ångström (single atoms).

[hollander]

@sarkeizen

I am with you!

Now if you can reduce the barrier to something very small like 3nm and you provide a voltage only by the difference in work function of two different metals, then with just a tiny bit of heat, an electron could tunnel the barrier and cause a current to flow.

There is a lot of scientific papers trying to scientifically prove that thermionic emission could in fact violate the 2nd law. Fine with that, since this is peer-review science. The point that Phil seems not to understand is that the current flow cannot be higher than the thermionic emission of the emitter. And this is very very low (less that 10^-7 A/cm^2). Tunnelling can't multiply anything, it can't create charge or energy from nothing.

[sarkeizen]

The problem is that many people here are late in arriving. Philip had posted many different updates on his web page

You could at least have the decency to read my post before misinterpreting it like Bruce.  This is not a problem for me I've read his web page for a little more than a year.  I've read just about every post he's made here and a fair number at moletrap.  I've read a number of the postings of his that have made it onto other forua on the internet.  My prior statements stand, primarily Philip has made arguments by authority which should really carry no weight with anyone.

If you are one of those late people then it simply sucks to be you and you should just get over it and do some research.

Perhaps before vieing for "most arrogant person on earth" (which put you up against some pretty stiff competition like Philip) you should think a bit more.

There are many devices that exhibit similar properties to the operation of a Quenco chip if you look into it.

The tunnel diode has a similar effect but requires a bias current because the barrier is much thicker that the proposed Quenco chip.

Mosfet gate tunneling became a problem when the gate barriers were reduced under 90nm, another similar effect.

In fact, the current limit in CPU is about 65nm and requires reduced voltages so the electrons don't tunnel through.
So you can see that tunneling is a real effect that occurs at a voltage dependent on the barrier thickness.

Wow, however particle tunneling isn't really the issue.  It's that this somehow lets you violate 2LOT (probably algorithmic information theory too) you are essentially arguing that carrots can produce carrot juice and carrot juice lets you run faster than the speed of light.  When questioned you assert how carrots are real things.

I for one am very convinced that Quenco is a real device that Philip will get into production in a fast time frame.

Still dodging the rather big Elephant? What happens when he fails in Feb.  Do you believe that the probability of him delivering in June is the same? or does it go down?  What about the probability of him delivering in December when June fails?  At what point do you adjust your characterization of his abilities?

Just think if Edison was trying to make a light bulb, how some would be calling him a fraud and if it worked he should have it by now and just a flash from his device was not useful and on and on and on, just like they do now with other peoples ventures.

Argument by false analogy.  Edison was not attempting to break the second law of thermodynamics.   While I don't know what schedules he announced or didn't announce if it made as poor judgements as Philip then he was just as bad a manager as Philip appears to be.

The facts are that most skeptics are just jealous people that have accomplished nothing in their own life and have little self esteem.

More interesting is how poor people are at math.  For example in order for this dissonance preserving statement to be true.  You would have to have a randomized representative sample of skeptics as well as their lifes work.  Considering it seems unlikely that you would possess any of that.  Perhaps you might constrain yourself to something you actually know.

[sarkeizen]

Sorry is not just you, everyone have a troll inside also me ! but must be jailed inside.

I am not trolling.  Stop namecalling and making ad hominem attacks.

You are late to the party, Philip give us a Theory, drawings, explains,

Perhaps your incredible arrogance could take a rest?  I have been reading his posts for quite some time.  Including his rotating thermionic generator and Fu's paper which predates Philip's earliest posting.  His drawings of Quenco are pretty much power point slides, nothing at all useful.  A theory isn't education in a useful sense of the term, I could make up a dozen theories.  Heck you could programmatically generate mathematical theorems. 

and also very important a simple test,  I do the simple test with the vacuum tube and by myself experiment I can tell you, THIS WORK !   This is real education, try by yourself not just to believe in words in the air from someone.

I hear some Mormons get a burning in their bosom and consider that a successful test.   Often it's repeatable too (or so they say).
As far as I can see the output is small enough and the isolation (in my environment) would be poor enough that it would be easy to end up reading something else.

All the life is a learning process, keep one eye open !

And you have apparently shut both your eyes to his repeated failures.  Believe whatever you want about Quenco.   There is no reason to believe that Philip is any good at delivering on his promises.

if this is not in February don't worry

If not in June 2013 do you worry then?  If not in December 2013 do you worry then?  How many failures would it take to convince you that Philip is the wrong man to be managing this endeavor?

the truth is that nothing is under our control.

Ever estimate how many times a day you are entirely wrong?  For example I type about 70 wpm.  In the course of a day I decide to type various words probably about a thousand (error adjusted). However in order to do that I have to *CONTROL* my fingers.  That's like five thousand times you are wrong....every day.

Certainly there are things we do not expect.   However there are whole branches of math that let you deal with uncertainty.   The point is that uncertainty can be bounded.   This is what good managers do with schedules.    If you couldn't do this medicine would not have progressed beyond the dark ages.