quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

The theory is already here:

I skimmed D'Abramo's work from the link in the Quenco page.  The only thing I'd say is that he's starting much "lower down the stack" than I am which means he's making many more assumptions.  For example he wants to challenge the second law but also invokes other physical laws to do so.  While I'm not claiming that any one of these is necessarily flawed.  It does make one wonder that outside of D'Abramo's well-known desire to challenge the second-law why couldn't you explain the same paradox by challenging one of the other laws.

But that of course doesn't mean he's wrong and I'm right.

There do seem to be some interesting references in the paper and I'll try to get through some later.  Also, it's worth noting that Arxiv papers aren't necessarily peer-reviewed (although this particular one seems to have been published in Physical Review A which is pretty prestigious.  That said, I haven't seen any response letters to it - which is an important part of the peer review process)

[fritz]

According Information Theory, it should be possible to harvest almost infinite amounts of energy from  the overunity board caused by trolling, stupidity and ignorance.
Science is a tool - not an end in itself.

[Madebymonkeys]

According Information Theory, it should be possible to harvest almost infinite amounts of energy from  the overunity board caused by trolling, stupidity and ignorance.
Science is a tool - not an end in itself.

The definition of a troll seems to be blurry - your post, to me, sounds 'trollish'!
Sarkaizen (if that's who you are referring to - sorry sarkaizen if I am wrong) is posting some interesting stuff - do the same

I am learning all the way so far - it's good to get opinion which isn't biased by belief.
As bill hicks said "beliefs are neat, just don't go shouting them out like they are truth"!

[lumen]

Sarkaizen is contributing to the discussion about whether quenco is possible or not.
What's your feelings about information theory and how it applies (or doesn't) to quenco? How about entropy - does quenco reduce it?
Apparently entropy is reducing as the universe expands (?) - I don't think this needs to be considered mind you!

Yes sarkaizen tries to contribute, but the first line of ANY of his replies is always condescending to try to claim some type of high ground (at least in his mind).
Which is why I don't reply.

[sarkeizen]

but the first line of ANY of his replies is always condescending to try to claim some type of high ground (at least in his mind).

Let's see if this is true...

I skimmed D'Abramo's work from the link in the Quenco page.  The only thing I'd say is that he's starting much "lower down the stack" than I am which means he's making many more assumptions.

How is that being condescending?  Is that not true?  Did you read D'Abramo's paper?

I think I mentioned earlier about how "proof" is a poor term and I think lumen has illustrated this problem well with his confusion over the use of "theory".

Again how is this condescending?  Didn't you capitalize "THEORY" to imply that information theory was something less than "absolute proof"?

Fair enough.  So my next step was to give Philip the benefit of the doubt. 

This is condescending?  How?

I realize that there was much Bruce_TPU, lumen and Philip noise there for a bit but have you decided if what Philip describes is a maxwell's demon device?

This again seems pretty much fact.

Which is why I don't reply.

Are you sure you're not making up another rule like "Nobody can talk about people" (which you're breaking right now) to rationalize not participating?
Not to mention...aren't you kind of lying?  Didn't you  reply to me just a few posts ago?