quentron.com

[MarkE]

Sorry MarkE but your comments that you believe academics would run to ring the bell of discovery are wrong, I know for I have had the conversations many times, you are merely speculating. The history of science is that people are attacked for holding a contrary view, in fact almost all discoveries are ignored for some time until some critical mass is achieved. That is the way it is and your comment about it ringing wrong is part of the problem, you assume I am wrong because others are not on the front page of the news.

You are not going to do yourself any good by either misquoting those you converse with, or by asserting what you think is in their minds.  My experience has been that those who have come upon significant discoveries and who have verified those discoveries have been very anxious to report them.  What I use to assess the correctness of an idea is the direct evidence that supports or refutes the idea.  So far you seem to express the idea that different work functions can be manipulated to create an energy source.  That idea runs afoul of established evidence concerning the behavior of work functions.  I will read the document you linked and see what it has to say.

You should try for yourself to get a science journal to return your call if you send them a note saying you have just found a way of converting ambient heat to power with 100% efficiency, or that you have breached the Kelvin interpretation, if they reply they will tell you you must have made a mistake.

What do you mean when you say: "converting ambient heat to power with 100% efficiency"? 

Do you think you can convert an isothermal reservoir into two reservoirs:  one at a higher temperature and one at a colder temperature than the original without an external energy source?  Such a feat would be quite remarkable and demand very strong evidence.  Certainly, the extraordinary nature of the claim strongly suggests that error is probable.

You and others on these sites also tell me I must have made a mistake.

Again, I have as of this time said no such thing, and I will thank you to not misquote me.  I do ask that you provide evidence commensurate to your extraordinary claim.

The next bit where you give me a lecture is downright rude, the fact is I know this science clearly better than you do,

Mr. Hardcastle you have so far both misquoted me and told me what is in my mind, and unilaterally declared some personal superiority.  Kindly restrict yourself to technical discussion.

I never said anywhere that work function is an energy source, I fully understand all the science. I will not take you to task with what you said or gesture to educate you for I have better things than to engage in a Profitis / Sarkeizen style exchange, and I am sure you do to.

[MileHigh]

Philip:

Somebody around here that is long gone ran that experiment in a toaster oven!  A bloody toaster oven and you endorsed their results!  That's not an isothermal environment at all.  In fact it was more of a nightmare for the experimenter because the toaster oven itself started smoking and started to melt down.

The fact that you would endorse that farcical "experiment" does not give me the warm and fuzzies.  I also seem to recall that from about two years ago the claim was something like 100 or perhaps 1000 amperes per square centimeter but you never stated the voltage output.  So for me the alleged current density claim and the ignoring of translating that into a power output claim is not confidence inspiring.  We are assuming that you have a very good heat reservoir, like a high rate of water passing across your device (like a water cooling system for a high-end PC).  But that was never discussed by you either as far as I can recall.

Another issue that never really got seriously discussed is that if you actually had working semiconductor devices, then there is only so much thermal power that can flow into the device based on the thermal resistance of the ambient medium that the chip finds itself in.  We can assume an infinite heat reservoir.  So assuming 100% efficiency, them the rate of thermal power that lands on the device and gets converted into electricity is a major concern.  This would choke the available power output from your alleged device also.  You can imagine "cold spots," thermal energy sinks, due to the existence of your device.  Effectively it could become a thermal-electrical perpetual motion machine:  "thermal sink -> electrical -> resistive heater -> thermal sink."  Some people posted taking it very seriously saying that a cell phone could power itself by putting one of your chips on top of the main processor chip.

I realize that I am mostly discussing the "mechanics" here and they are secondary to proving the device works as claimed.  However, there were many wild claims made about your device assuming that it actually worked that totally ignored these "thermal mechanics" issues. I note that you never seemed to be interested in addressing these issues yourself.

Free energy cars powered by ambient heat that leave a wake of extremely cold air as they drive down the highway?  I don't think so.  (Note the car would also leave a wake of heated air that would be in balance with the extremely cold air.)

Meanwhile we wait for the timing of the "next" goal post.

MileHigh

[MarkE]

Here is the one pager I posted somewhere else.

Mr. Hardcastle please tell me that you have much more than that one page pdf file.  That document asserts a claim that the experiment: "violates Kelvin's interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics".  It fails to even quote the statement it purports to refute, much less attempt to justify how it would manage to do that.  The Kelvin statement of the second law refers to a single thermal reservoir.  In the experiment as it is sparsely outlined, there are two heat reservoirs in the system and whatever heat source that drives the oven. 

[Philip Hardcastle]

Mr. Hardcastle ...... In the experiment as it is sparsely outlined, there are two heat reservoirs in the system....

You have to be joking?


The fact that the measuring moving coil meter is at room temperature is completely immaterial. The DUT is immersed in a single heat reservoir, it has no temperature gradient across it. Both of the wires connecting the DUT to the outside world are of identical metal, the meter terminals are at the same temperature. What power drives the oven in also immaterial.


I am not going to waste any more time chatting with you.

[MarkE]

You have to be joking?


The fact that the measuring moving coil meter is at room temperature is completely immaterial. The DUT is immersed in a single heat reservoir, it has no temperature gradient across it. Both of the wires connecting the DUT to the outside world are of identical metal, the meter terminals are at the same temperature. What power drives the oven in also immaterial.


I am not going to waste any more time chatting with you.

Mr. Hardcastle, in order to violate Lord Kelvin's expression of the Second Law of Energy, you need to do work by removing heat from a single reservoir.  More specifically, you must perform work with every calorie that you remove from that single reservoir.

The Kelvin statement of the Second Law of Energy is:

"There is no process whose only effect is to accept heat from a single reservoir and transform it entirely into work."

Your apparatus has much more than just a single heat reservoir.  It has at least two reservoirs and an input power source.