quentron.com

[Elisha]

@sarkeizen
already gave you the opportunity to return to the purpose of this thread, since you insist on talk that has nothing to do with Quentron, please retire of this thread.

@harti
Please kick to sarkeizen and erase all the post of him make a lot Because of noise and nothing for the Contribute in development of Quenco.  Thanks.

@forcefield
The sebithenco device and the vacuum tube are different devices, the sebithenco device produce 1 watt and the vacuum tube produce micro watts.

[TinselKoala]

Elisha, what you are demanding is called "censorship" and "prior restraint". In many parts of the world we acknowledge that freedom of speech is a fundamental human right, and also that people cannot be legitimately punished for what they might do or say in the future. Perhaps things are different where you come from.
If you do not agree with sarkeizen, then refute his points with calm logical arguments. When you cannot.... then feel free to call for his censorship. It won't be the right thing to do, but it is your right to ask for it.... no matter how bad it makes you look.

[Elisha]

Elisha, what you are demanding is called "censorship" and "prior restraint". In many parts of the world we acknowledge that freedom of speech is a fundamental human right

@Tinselkoala
is very different freedom from debauchery.
There is a small strip of separation between them, freedom is the conscious expression, taking into account that there are another human beings who are going to affected by your expression, and debauchery is your expression regardless of others, debauchery is selfish.

[sarkeizen]

So let's see if I can sum up some of the things I've been saying...

i) Either Quenco is a maxwell's demon device - that is it allows you to decrease entropy from an isothermal environment (by sorting)- or it is not.
ii) It is also either a deterministic device - i.e. you can depend on it for some level of output given some level of input - or it is not.
iii) A MD device can represent information through the state of the particles.  i.e. particles fed in will either be sorted or not sorted

If these things are true then...

iv) The contact (including electrostatics Philip!) between the elements and the device will create entropy sufficient to negate any decrease in entropy (Brillouin) unless the process is thermodynamically reversable.
v) If the sorting mechanism is thermodynamically reversable (that is it's net change in entropy is zero) it requires observation, recording and action. (Bennett)
iv) If there exists some exception to this rule.  It creates a machine which can make decisions without storing information but still can represent information. (by assumption i-iii)
v) Storage retrevial or erasure is an O(1) operation AND creates entropy sufficient to compensate for the negentropy introduced by sorting (Bennett). So whatever this machine is doing it MUST be doing so  better than O(1) in order to be more efficient than storage retrevial. (implied from  Bennett)
vi) If the information isn't being stored it is being derrived.  The maximal efficiency of a quantum device at derrivation of an unknown value (that is not stored) is limited to O(sqrt(n)) (BBBV).
vii) For all non-trivial states Quenco can not reduce entropy. sqrt(n) > 1 for all non-trivial values of n. (self-evident)

Some objections to the idea that algorithms restrict our ability to design a device.  However this idea is remarkably consistent even in places where there exists no proof of the algorithm.  i.e. there are attempts to solve NP-complete problems in P time with physical devices (i.e. soap bubbles) however they can not do so deterministically.

@Philip - Apparently you're not so busy that you don't read each and every post I make.  (Easily inferred by how many times the Quenco page shifts and changes to match something I've said - most recently would be the addition of "Feynman").  Why not just show me where my above reasoning is gone amiss.  My theory is that you simply do not know the material well enough to speak about it but please feel free to prove me wrong.  I'm sure your team of expert scientists can give you some hints.

@Bruce_TPU - I fervently apologize for breaking your "Not allowed to say things more than once rule" in this post.  I also prostrate myself for violating your "talking instead of shutting up being patient" rule.

@lumen - I also deeply and humbly apologize for breaking your rule about "talking about people" through my comment to Elisha below, my comment to Philip above (and perhaps my comment to Bruce above and perhaps my comment to you right now).

@Elisha - While I respect your right to believe that your moral code is superior to everyone else's.  Your moralizing in this thread is not only inappropriate for a discussion on Quenco but also internally inconsistent.  While I cant command the moderators as you do. I *can* crush your moral argument into dust.  So I kindly and respectfully request you to return to talking about math or physics.

[lumen]

All that, and yet the drinking bird still continues to drink from the isothermal environment!

Go figure.