quentron.com

[Philip Hardcastle]

Hi All,

With Sarkey moderated or removed I am happy to post here again.

I consider (ed - not sure if he still with us) Charles M Brown a friend and he was a nice guy, I rang him once for a long chat in Hawaii. His diode is not the same as Quenco. To date the only device I believe (other than mine) to have publicly violated the 2nd was the device of Prof XY Fu, notably it had an asymmetry. Whilst a diode is certainly asymmetrical it has not been shown (to my knowledge) to be capable of persistent current flow isothermally. There is one other candidate for persistent current flow that was demonstrated by MIT and that was a um sized loop in a magnetic field, this field thus curling electrons and favouring flow in the direction where the curvature of the ring matched the bent electron paths. There view was that it was not a violation of the 2nd as they reckoned it could not be tapped, I thought that was not the case and expressed such to them but as usual people do not want to be associated with talk of a 2nd law violation.

I am sure there are a few dozen actual violations that physicists simply do not want to claim for fear of ruining their career, I have seen 2 such candidates in the last year but the authors (respected research physicists) are not willing to discuss. There has been one relating to a  laser diode that absorbed heat and so output more optical power than it consumed in electrical power and did so to such an extent that it appeared reasonable to imagine it could be looped. There was another involving graphene though that one went quiet very quickly so perhaps they jumped the gun. The overall issue is more that the skeptics like Sarkey are so arrogantly sure that an experiment showing a violation is the result of incompetence, I have clearly stated that many have now replicated in a sophisticated way the $10 experiment and all but one obtained identical results, the one who did not obtained the voltage but not the current and on my site I explain the issue of a high work function cathode (poisoned) of old valves.

In response to the constant barrage of criticism from Sarkey of my failure to deliver on time, I simply say I was optimistic and believed people when they told me delivery dates, if it is a crime to believe what professional scientists tell you then I am a repeat offender.

So work is proceeding and I could give a date now but that would seem, given the hostile reaction to me getting such wrong, not a good idea. To those that choose to call me a fool I can only say it is silly to call me such when so many are working with me and so many have now replicated my work, how many times do you want to keep saying it is an error or we do not know what we are doing. Let the proof be the finished device and please desist in the name calling, and if I am also guilty of losing my cool in reaction to taunts I apologize.

I will post again soon.

At Doublehelix, no it is not vibration, nor PV, nor DT, nor Radioactivity, nor RF, it plots exactly as predicted and every thing that could be done to test for external effects has been carried out and repeatedly so. All ways of proving the current is generated internally were carried out and have 100% correlation with the theory and the observed effect.

[MileHigh]

Philip:

What's not believable in my opinion is that "professional scientists" would give you delivery dates that they fail to meet over and over and over.  Are we supposed to believe that you are caught in some sort of revolving door where other people are always failing and you are "just there?"  I don't believe it myself.

When I read between the lines you are telling us that you will not deliver anything by the end of February like you promised you would.  Of course we nerver get details about what concrete tasks are not being delivered and by what organizations or individuals.  It's all "hush hush."

What is the real truth about you, the real deal?  I suspect that we will never know.

MileHigh

[Regster]

You know it's ironic that quenco, as proposed, utilises an unforseen technological leap with respect to Kelvin et al (ie they were entirely unaware that at some point in the future a scale beyond their imagination could trivially, by nature, sort on a particle by particle basis) and Sarky cites a "proof" which doesn't utilise an unforseen technological leap (ie a program can trivially check whether or not it is being fed itself).  He's just a Wikipedia regurgitator.  A "company liner" as I like to call them.  Great at looking at/memorising stuff whilst simultaneously self-congratulating mind you.  Really excellent at that particularly uninteresting party trick.

Anyway, great to hear an update at least on your rightful obliviousness to the odd muppet.

[markdansie]

Dear MileHigh


"What is the real truth about you, the real deal?  I suspect that we will never know."


I think we all know, however I have decided to leave Philip alone, anyone who believes any of this deserves what they get.


Kind Regards

[sarkeizen]

You know it's ironic that quenco, as proposed, utilises an unforseen technological leap with respect to Kelvin et al (ie they were entirely unaware that at some point in the future a scale beyond their imagination could trivially, by nature, sort on a particle by particle basis) and Sarky cites a "proof" which doesn't utilise an unforseen technological leap (ie a program can trivially check whether or not it is being fed itself).

The idea that you know what you're talking about gets just more and more remote here.  I'm not really talking about a program getting fed itself.  Nor have you explained why that would be relevant.  Turing's proof has nothing to do with the counter-argument I gave for Philip's idea. 

He's just a Wikipedia regurgitator.

Not really, while the Halting Problem is described on Wikipedia my code doesn't come from there.

Great at looking at/memorising stuff

You realize that's almost a direct proxy for saying I'm intelligent right?