quentron.com

[Madebymonkeys]

Right, I was just trying to step you through another approach (It's interesting that now that I'm only writing questions lumen et al are pretty silent).  So again, do you think this qualifies as a Maxwell's Demon machine - does it (as described by Philip) reduce entropy in an isothermal environment (Philip appears to say "yes" to this as far as I can tell)
"scientific proof of the negative" - is that even English?   *sigh*  Whatever that is, if that's all you see then you are simply an idiot.  How do people become EE's (which you claim you are IIRC) and not take some pretty elementary mathematics?  Information governs probability.This seems both to be the same announcement philip made over a year ago.  Not to mention it seems something of a lie or at least a violation of SNF lab policy.  The Stanford labs only allow proof-of-concept development: "Commercial activities (ie production of devices for sale) are strictly prohibited;"Those who were around at the time, can also recall that there were a number of replications of Fleischmann and Pons.  Replication would help discover simple measurement errors it wouldn't discover something biasing the measurements - e.g. something not being properly controlled for.  The OPERA faster-than-light neutrino anomaly illustrates this pretty well.  The experiment was replicated at least once.  Sure Philip claims that people have been replicating this "bake the tube" experiment, presumably with their own equipment.  However we probably aren't looking at a faulty piece of equipment just something that's not being properly controlled for. Ok a few sentences ago Philip seemed to imply that doing the experiment isn't meaningful unless done by an expert.  In which case why would he urge anyone to do it?  As for debating the science, I maintain that Philip has posted, either here or else where very little in the way of actual science nor has he done much more than an amateur job arguing it.  Even Lumen who repeatedly jerks Philip off on this forum (not much more vigorously than the other cheerleaders like Bruce do) recognized that Philip begs the question wrt how his device violates 2LOT.

Just as an aside.  People who say things like "fully supported my own results" tend to sound more like used car salesmen than people who actually do lab work.  At least the work I've seen.  The fact of the matter is test results are probabilistic, rarely is anything so perfectly controlled that you get exactly the same result.  What you shoot for is to have results fall within your error margin.  Even then that doesn't necessarily prove your hypothesis (or invalidate your null hypothesis).  It's simply statistical data that increases confidence.

Right, I was just trying to step you through another approach (It's interesting that now that I'm only writing questions lumen et al are pretty silent).  So again, do you think this qualifies as a Maxwell's Demon machine - does it (as described by Philip) reduce entropy in an isothermal environment (Philip appears to say "yes" to this as far as I can tell)

No, I don't think it does...

[sarkeizen]

No, I don't think it does...

Even if it works as described by Philip?

[lumen]

February seems to becoming an interesting month as quite a few things are showing their heads then. Here's another contender in the "environment heat to electricity" department:

http://www.nrglab.asia/auctions.html

Happy new year, and may it be the year free energy becomes widely spread.

Interesting device, but it almost seems that it could be using a radioactive isotope. I can't find additional info on it's operation.

[sarkeizen]

Interesting device, but it almost seems that it could be using a radioactive isotope. I can't find additional info on it's operation.

I think it's more interesting that your first assumption is that it exists and works as described almost seems like you think writing things on web pages makes things happen.

[lumen]

I think it's more interesting that your first assumption is that it exists and works as described almost seems like you think writing things on web pages makes things happen.

I'm sorry, was I talking to you?
If I was, I would say that your remark is again about the person and not any concept or idea.
Additionally, my remark was about another device shown in the link and not the quenco.
So I really don't understand what you are talking about...... do you?