quentron.com

[lancaIV]

Madebymonkeys: Page4 Q: Reply #56 A: Reply #57

Sincerely
                 CdL

[lumen]

One of which appears to have quit years ago!
I wonder if PJH knows he's repeating their work?

The initial work on the Power Chip is close to Peltier devices in that they use a hot and cool side. This is very useful and one would wonder why they would not continue to produce these.
Then later, they appear to have started work on tunneling devices even though they said earlier that tunneling devices could not work, and now we hear nothing about the one using thermionics that already functioned, or the tunneling device they started working on.

One could view this in different ways.

[Madebymonkeys]

Madebymonkeys: Page4 Q: Reply #56 A: Reply #57

Sincerely
                 CdL

My apologies, missed that - looks like I am a bit behind (a bit like PJH ).
I must admit, it does quack like the same duck though!
Borealis do hold some patents on this so if it worked (and was cost effective) its hard to believe its not in use somewhere or other - I could be wrong but it sounds as if there was just no need for it at the price point they were offering at?

Maybe it's about time for an update from PJH (although he owes us nothing etc etc) - a defensive one at least!

[sarkeizen]

Oh, so you finally did read something on thermionic generators.

Ages ago and apparently you think people looking into thermionic generators is something new.  Otherwise it wouldn't be "odd'.  You really do put enormous effort into misunderstanding what I've been posting.  I suppose the upside to that is that you'll never have to stop stroking (your ego).

What a start, now you should progress to "work function" and then to electron tunneling.

Actually, as stated in my first few posts here.  If you think that electron tunneling and thermionic emission inherently violate 2LOT then you understand less about Philip's device than I do.  The problem with Philip's device, as has been explained over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over to you.  Isn't those things, it's that he states that he can violate 2LOT with them.  However he begs the question as to how.  Which you admitted.  QED.

Of course you still haven't presented a counter argument to the one I gave concerning information theory and algorithmic complexity...which is, somehow over a 30 year old engineering veteran's head.
Likewise you still haven't provided a counter argument for why it's possible to make a deterministic and correct statement about the failure of a device without knowing it's internal mechanism.

Should I assume you've conceded those points?

[sarkeizen]

My apologies, missed that - looks like I am a bit behind (a bit like PJH ).
I must admit, it does quack like the same duck though!
Borealis do hold some patents on this so if it worked (and was cost effective) its hard to believe its not in use somewhere or other - I could be wrong but it sounds as if there was just no need for it at the price point they were offering at?

Maybe it's about time for an update from PJH (although he owes us nothing etc etc) - a defensive one at least!

My guess is that it simply did not produce at the efficiency level they claimed.   At least two reasons for this: i) The drop between nominal efficiency and theoretical efficiency was larger than expected.  ii) they simply were overly optimistic in their estimations.

There are lots of cost situations for power.  There should be no problem scaling (except wrt space) so the thing you would expect to be the bottleneck would be efficiency.

All technical, scientific, and commercial statements regarding technologies and their impacts are based on the educated judgment of the Company's technical and scientific staff. No assurance can be made that the assumptions upon which management based its forward-looking statements will prove to be correct, or that the Company's business and operations will not be affected in any substantial manner by other factors not currently foreseeable by management or beyond the Company's control.

ROFL.  In other words, more than just a grain of salt should be taken with what was on their site.