quentron.com

[lumen]

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).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?

What are you talking about again?
As stated "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"

The valve in FACT does violate 2LOT!

Why don't you get this! scratch scratch, Oh yes, because you ADMIT you do not UNDERSTAND how it works!

Well for the OLD  information theory and algorithmic complexity...which is, somehow over a 30 year old engineering veteran's head?
I used to be confined also by the same box confining others also, I have in 30 years found that the more people claim they know, the less you need to listen.

Words of wisdom are often thought, but seldom spoken.

Ok then, Please come back when you get it.

[sarkeizen]

The valve in FACT does violate 2LOT!

Which valve?  Elisha's?  You mean something done in a toaster oven is irrefutable?  If it's not then it's hard to call it as a 2LOT violation "in fact".  What you mean is you think this is evidence to suggest a 2LOT violation and people like me (and TK and Milehigh) respectfully (and disrespectfully) state that the evidence is poor at best.

Why don't you get this! scratch scratch, Oh yes, because you ADMIT you do not UNDERSTAND how it works!

Why would that have anything to do with buying what Elisha and you are selling?  Please explain.  As I've already provided a proof (in the strong mathematical sense not the pathetically weak lumen sense of the term) of how you don't need to a things mechanism to prove it doesn't work.

Well for the OLD  information theory and algorithmic complexity...which is, somehow over a 30 year old engineering veteran's head?
I used to be confined also by the same box confining others also

Again, you still haven't presented a counter argument to the one I gave concerning information theory and algorithmic complexity. 
Nor have you still 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.

You even tried and failed miserably at attempting to disprove the Church-Turing thesis.  If you want, give it another go.  Please make information theory history here and now in the OU forums....or you could....you know....admit that you don't need to know how your program's mechanism to know that it can't work.

, I have in 30 years found that the more people claim they know, the less you need to listen.

So nobody needs to listen to someone like lumen.  Who has time and time and time and time made unsubstantiated assertions.  Every post you make some immensely egotistical statement.  Some adage, some poorly defined generalization.  So by your logic nobody should listen to you.  Seems like the only sane thing you've said.

By comparison, and I don't really mean to blow my own horn here but all I've done is assert a few things based on the research of people who have studied physics and information theory much longer than I have.  I even made a summary post referencing the works (by author name mostly).  If you have a logical argument please present it.  If you don't and just want to vent your spleen at me for whatever inadequacy you're working through.  Feel free but it doesn't take a genius to point out that's practically all you do here.

Words of wisdom are often thought, but seldom spoken.

See, that's a good example of someone (lumen) who claims they know so very much.  Look at the generality of that statement.  It covers an excessively (and ill defined) large group of concepts.   It also is very probably unsubstantiated.  Since it requires knowledge that is, in all likelihood beyond the abilities of the person who formulated it.   Sayings like that are nice, but it's more for a cocktail party not serious thinking.

[lumen]

Which valve?  Elisha's?  You mean something done in a toaster oven is irrefutable?  If it's not then it's hard to call it as a 2LOT violation "in fact".  What you mean is you think this is evidence to suggest a 2LOT violation and people like me (and TK and Milehigh) respectfully (and disrespectfully) state that the evidence is poor at best.
Why would that have anything to do with buying what Elisha and you are selling?  Please explain.  As I've already provided a proof (in the strong mathematical sense not the pathetically weak lumen sense of the term) of how you don't need to a things mechanism to prove it doesn't work.Again, you still haven't presented a counter argument to the one I gave concerning information theory and algorithmic complexity. 
Nor have you still 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.

You even tried and failed miserably at attempting to disprove the Church-Turing thesis.  If you want, give it another go.  Please make information theory history here and now in the OU forums....or you could....you know....admit that you don't need to know how your program's mechanism to know that it can't work. :)So nobody needs to listen to someone like lumen.  Who has time and time and time and time made unsubstantiated assertions.  Every post you make some immensely egotistical statement.  Some adage, some poorly defined generalization.  So by your logic nobody should listen to you.  Seems like the only sane thing you've said.

By comparison, and I don't really mean to blow my own horn here but all I've done is assert a few things based on the research of people who have studied physics and information theory much longer than I have.  I even made a summary post referencing the works (by author name mostly).  If you have a logical argument please present it.  If you don't and just want to vent your spleen at me for whatever inadequacy you're working through.  Feel free but it doesn't take a genius to point out that's practically all you do here.See, that's a good example of someone (lumen) who claims they know so very much.  Look at the generality of that statement.  It covers an excessively (and ill defined) large group of concepts.   It also is very probably unsubstantiated.  Since it requires knowledge that is, in all likelihood beyond the abilities of the person who formulated it.   Sayings like that are nice, but it's more for a cocktail party not serious thinking.

Let me sum this up in a way you might understand.
1: It's really not my job to try and get you up to speed on how things work.
2: Your matimatical proof does not work in view of previously observed results in the contrary.
3: I do agree that if you do not understand how something is operating you should not pretend to know why it can't.(just makes you look stupid)
4: Put down the duck calculator, there are ones with other functions!

[Elisha]

Hi all.


Yes, we do the experiment 3 times.


The first time with just the valve, the reading was increasing from 0.1uA  to 0.3uA then We unplug the oven because the room was full of smog because of the melting of plastic parts of the oven.


The second time with the valve and a halogen bulb as witness, and the oven was cover with additional fiber glass to get more heat inside the oven.  The reading in the halogen bulb was from 0 to 0.1uA and -0.1uA.   But the valve give a measure of the 0.1uA increasing with the temperature up to 3.1uA, then the valve melt and implode and the measure was again 0.1uA.  We also exchange the polarite of the leads in the tester and the measure of current change from (+) to (-).


The third time the test was with another valve, (a used valve), the reading was from 0 to 0.1uA to -0.1uA to 0.2uA but was not increasing with temperature.  We conclude that this valve was in bad condition.


We dont make any more test, because we need another valve and the proof was allready obtained, the next step was a professional equipment test, and we dont have access to this type of  equipment, also each time we make the test, the smog, the gas of the plastic melting and carbon fiber toasting make us sick for several days (nose and throat).

[MileHigh]

I can try inventing a isothermal oven setup in my head.  No Googling....

Some sort of a device that's like a wind tunnel of sorts in a large oval loop like an outdoor track.  The air moves quite slowly through this wind tunnel.   Let's suppose the cross sectional area is two feet by two feet.  It might be 30 feet in overall length.  80% of this long wind tunnel contains heating and cooling elements and gentle air agitators.  The goal is to produce a light uniform breeze of heated air that is as close as practically possible to being 100% uniform in temperature.  The "payload area" of the wind tunnel would be a short section where the air moves by slowly and at a constant temperature.

Then you put your device under test in the wind tunnel and then you just sit back at wait somewhere between 24 and 36 hours.  You have to wait for the temperature of the device under test to become equal to the ambient heated air.  Some of you may think that waiting up to 36 hours makes no sense but you are incorrect.  In theory, it takes "forever" for the temperature to equalize.  For things like glass that is melted into the mirror shape for a large astronomical telescope, it takes literally years for the glass to cool down.

That's the type of test setup that would meet my criteria for a thermally uniform test.  Again, this is just my thought experiment, I am just sayin'.  I am leaving out lots of details including the one about the properties of the walls of the wind tunnel and how you heat/cool/agitate the air and lots of other stuff.  I just gave you the paper napkin version of my thought experiment.

It's a Long Way to Tipperary.

MileHigh