quentron.com

[mrsean2k]

Save your outrage for something you're entitled to feel outraged about.

So he decides to post after all. So what? That signifies nothing, and nobody's putting a gun to your head to force you to read it.

The explanation he's engaging in on his own website says up front that it will be posted piece by piece, with an eye to making it accessible to the layman. That may not suit you, but that's just tough, isn't it?

And even if it leads to nothing, there's utility in dissecting what the error is, and where the slip in reasoning occurs specifically, rather than just short-circuiting the discussion. Paradoxes of all kinds that lead to false conclusions are discussed in this way and lead to better understanding.

So keep at it Phil.

[sarkeizen]

Save your outrage for something you're entitled to feel outraged about.

Yawn.  Sorry you weren't elected to the high-and-mighty council (although you do appear to think yourself high and mighty) of who gets to decide what people are allowed to get outraged about.

So he decides to post after all. So what? That signifies nothing, and nobody's putting a gun to your head to force you to read it.

So many logical flaws so little time.  Of course it signifies something (at least that he wanted to post or do you deny that) try to be smarter ok?
Being forced or not forced to read it is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that this is supposed to be the "Theory of Quenco" not "The Theory of Electron Tunneling".  Dozens of words about tunneling which explain nothing.  Why bother calculating the number of electrons tunneled?  The value is utterly useless to actually explaining how the quenco does what it does.

The explanation he's engaging in on his own website says up front that it will be posted piece by piece, with an eye to making it accessible to the layman. That may not suit you, but that's just tough, isn't it?

It's not a question of who it's accessible to but rather that it's fluff. 

And even if it leads to nothing, there's utility in dissecting what the error is, and where the slip in reasoning occurs specifically

You really don't understand do you?  The ability to circumvent the 2LOT is assumed in the web page.  How can we discuss the error in reasoning EXCEPT to point out that he hasn't discussed the actual point in contention.  Which I did.

So keep at it Phil.

...or post something useful.

[mrsean2k]

Yawn and shrug. HTH.

Anyway Phil, I'd be interested to know what behaviour you predicted for the valve-in-an-oven experiment, and what steps you took specifically to eliminate alternative explanations. Also, has anyone else that might be considered independent and suitably qualified had a crack at it and what were the results?

[Madebymonkeys]

I had a friend look over the Quenco theory page and he had the following comments:


"Available energy in such a thermodynamic system is given by the Gibbs free
energy (dG):

dG=dH-TdS

He has failed to take into account the change in entropy (dS) as an
electron tunnels across a barrier (dH), this puts pay to any
such system for generating energy this way from a system initially in
thermal equilibrium with its environment, ALWAYS, even in a quantum system.
The Maxwell's demon conundrum has been well studied over the past 150 years
and periodically people come up with ways to do it (just like perpetual
motion machines) and a proper accounting of the entropy change is generally what
has been overlooked."

For the record, I believe him.

[lumen]

I had a friend look over the Quenco theory page and he had the following comments:


"Available energy in such a thermodynamic system is given by the Gibbs free
energy (dG):

dG=dH-TdS

He has failed to take into account the change in entropy (dS) as an
electron tunnels across a barrier (dH), this puts pay to any
such system for generating energy this way from a system initially in
thermal equilibrium with its environment, ALWAYS, even in a quantum system.
The Maxwell's demon conundrum has been well studied over the past 150 years
and periodically people come up with ways to do it (just like perpetual
motion machines) and a proper accounting of the entropy change is generally what
has been overlooked."

For the record, I believe him.

You are correct! Except for the work function of the metals used already cause the voltage imbalance.

At the same temperature one metal will lose more electrons and the only thing lost crossing the barrier is the heat or kinetic energy of the electron.

Think of a solar cell with the photon imparting energy to the electrons and pushing them through the barrier.

Now think of the new solar cells that work in the infrared region.

Now think of the even lower passive infrared detectors working at room temperature.

With two different work function metals, one will always be more emissive than the other at the same temperature so equally imparted kinetic energy will cause more electrons to tunnel a barrier from the more emissive surface until the voltage is raised to a potential where the electrons can tunnel back. This is the point of equilibrium, but at this point there is a potential difference between the two metals that will result in current flow depending on the number of accumulated electrons.

Of course I could be wrong, since this is only proven by existing Physics and not the new Physics of shitzforbrains.

This is not you Madebymonkeys, I believe you may actually be trying to find real value in this concept unlike some others.