quentron.com

[conradelektro]

Hi All,

As I understand batch 1 will be finished in a few days, and then we commence producing the commercial batch (the ones we lend out to licencees) with an ETA about mid March.

Phil.

@Philip Hardcastle:

What I do not like is that you make statements before having any measurement results. As I understand, "the first batch" is not finished yet.

So, how do you know any properties of this thing? How can you claim anything before ever having laid your hands on a single device?

The only valid statement you are able to make is the following: I hope that the device will do such and such.

You never had a single device and you spoke of wonderful results and a wonderful power output. This is the problem. For that reason it is not a good idea to believe anything you say or write.

Greetings, Conrad

[Philip Hardcastle]

@Conrad,


You believe what you want to believe, what we do are experiments and theoretical physics. We are 100% confident in our results to date, not all of which are public. You are right about one thing, we have not yet claimed to have a commercial device that we can hand out, but we are confident we will in March.


We have seen the quenco effect and we have done all the research we need to estimate the power conversion rates. Your stupid point is that if science does not have one in the hand then it cannot be, you should consider the multi billion dollar projects designed to detect exotic particles, or the billions spent by astronomers and cosmologists to prove things.


The transistor was predicted, as was the FET, as was the esaki diode, and if you had any knowledge and common sense you would have followed the logic from the sebby experiments. I get really irritated by people that do not enter the scientific debate but rather attack the person. Do you really think we would spend years and about a million dollars of effort to chase an untested idea?


I post here as I choose to do so for the information of the scientific community that resides here. If you had looked at my site you would know I have changed it many times but included lots of theory discussion, invited debates and so on, your problem is that you apparently need to see all advances in science before you can believe in the honesty of the scientists telling you about the research.


How many times do we hear about future breakthrough that are still in development?


Quenco is proved as far as power density because it was preceded by Esaki and by Sebithenco, the maths has been done, the maths has been double checked, the Quenco films are known thicknesses and the tunnel current at 300K is a known quantity, and there is no room for argument on that point. The asymmetry of the Quenco has been assessed at 10 time less than it might be so as to be conservative, consequently much though you might want to say we are guilty of wishful thinking when we say 1,000A or 10,000A per cm2, we are not.


So let's, on your say so, call all researchers liars and fools as they pursue outcomes before having them in hand.


Such arguments as yours are so counter productive to the advance of science, you would rather all researchers keep secret their beliefs and theories? then how would they get funding, how would they get replication, and how would they get scientific debate.


I am and have been surrounded by experts who have tested and checked my work, they are confident in the outcome, who are you advisors?


Phil

[conradelektro]

@Philip Hardcastle:

You say: "I am and have been surrounded by experts who have tested and checked my work, they are confident in the outcome, who are you advisors?"

I do not need advisors to understand the difference between "fact" and "hope". Well, I allow you to use the terms "expectation" or "confidence in an outcome" instead of the more understandable term "hope".

I have nothing against "hope", but I advise everybody (without having advisors) to be very clear when stating "hopes". "Hopes" are not "established facts".

But you, Mr. Hardcastle, with all your advisors, do not make clear what is fact and what is hope. You always speak in a muddle and with double meaning.

You are allowed to do what ever you want, but you have to bear the consequences of double talk.

Greetings, Conrad

[Elisha]

Friend Philip,

Dont waste time with the negistor people, they are very negative people, they have other intentions, not the search for solutions to the welfare of mankind.

They are looking for is only their own benefit. They have other agendas.

Philip, look at what recently happened to Tesla Model S and the NY Times Magazine, the magazine did an article false, negative to discredit Tesla, sure someone was behind this article, a company or economic sector who feels threatened by the success of the model S.

Do not waste your time with these people, do not answer, ignore them is the best.

[MileHigh]

No Elisha, you are the person that we should not be listening to.

Conradelectro made some perfectly valid points and they have not been successfully rebutted by Philip.  This is not comparable to developing a new semiconductor technology to make higher-density memory chips, it's about allegedly overturning one of the laws of thermodynamics.

Your allegations that Conradelectro has other intentions or a sinister agenda are garbage, they are not true.  Conrad is justifiably concerned that this may never work just like I share the same concerns.  For example, if you quote the alleged current output of the device without quoting the corresponding voltage you are quoting meaningless junk data.

The only agenda that myself and Conrad have is to discover the truth.  You, on the other hand, seem to want to suppress any possibility of the truth being debated.  You want to bias the discussion towards making others believe that the outcome of this affair will be successful without allowing a reasoned debate.  Shame on you.  You think you are a "good guy" but in fact your behaviour is the behaviour of a bad guy.

Philip, look at what recently happened to Tesla Model S and the NY Times Magazine, the magazine did an article false, negative to discredit Tesla, sure someone was behind this article, a company or economic sector who feels threatened by the success of the model S.

Really?  Take a look here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/automobiles/after-a-charging-system-test-a-debate-erupts-online.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://green.autoblog.com/2013/02/19/new-york-times-admits-tesla-model-s-writer-didnt-use-go/

Do you know what you are supposed to see when you look at those two links?  You are supposed to see that there is a healthy debate with BOTH sides of the issue being covered.

The NY Times did NOT intentionally publish a false article and they did NOT intentionally want to discredit Tesla Motors.

So where does that leave you Elisha?

Do not waste your time with these people, do not answer, ignore them is the best.

Your comment above is junk.  It's time for you to START THINKING, and put your brain in gear.

MileHigh