Sebby (self biasing thermal energy converter)

[Philip Hardcastle]

This page is set up for posts about the coming replications of the Sebby device.


It is not a page for debates, I will not post replies to such posts, I will provide help and assistance to those doing replication experiments based on the sebby.

www.quentron.com

So far there have been over 100 successful experiments carried out but only a few have been in any way public, however over the next month(s) I believe there will be a number of people prepared to have their names included, one of the first will be Prof Steven E Jones, hopefully followed by a very senior physicist from an English university, and maybe one from an Australian and a Canadian University.


The simple reality is that as each one is prepared to come forward, so the avalanche will begin.


The production of 100 10W sebby will put into the hands of many a high powered device that can easily show that 2lot is no longer a barrier, and that logically quenco will power our phones, cars, homes and industry.


The quenco technology I am working on is protected IP, however the Sebby is open to all to use, build, or sell, it is public domain technology and so free of royalties. Think about that, you can be an active part in this technological advance, you can produce your own Sebby for solar farms etc. Sebby devices can generate power by using gas as a fuel and extracting up to 90% of the energy contained therein, ie 3x better economy that an ic engine.

To all the skeptics out there, put your money where your mouths are, order a 10W Sebby, or do the $10 experiment, it is a lot more rewarding than just shooting off your mouth year after year with your negativity borne of the status quo, of course people should be wary of claims of free energy, but skeptics claims of knowledge based upon other past failures is to deny the one thing we all know happens, "Breakthrough discoveries".

[MarkE]

It would probably be helpful if you would publish for each the $10. device experiments and the 10W device experiments that you have done:

1. The exact experiment set-up for the experiments you have conducted.
2. The methods that you used to verify that your instrument readings were sufficiently accurate for the purposes of each experiment.
3. The error bars that you established for your measurements.
4. The exact experiment set-up for the null experiments that you defined.
5. The measurement results from your null experiments.
6. The measurement results from your live device experiments.
7. The methods you used to interpret your measurements.
8. The conclusions that you reached.

I think it would also be helpful if you would clarify your statements that together I find unclear:

" I warrant that the device will therefore convert 100% of thermal energy inflow into electrical energy output.

Note: Thermal losses due to unintended thermal flux through insulators or conductors to ambient are not considered part of the thermal energy to electrical energy efficiency conversion calculation."

Together they seem to mean:  "I warrant that the device will therefore convert 100% of thermal energy inflow (that is not thermal loss) into electrical energy output."  If the thermal loss is most of the thermal energy inflow then that wouldn't be very special.  Please clarify what you mean.

If you don't already include them under item 1) above, it would also be helpful if you would put some numbers to the:

A. Input thermal power.
B. Input temperature.

that you have used to obtain 10W output electrical power. 

[Philip Hardcastle]

@MarkE


I would be very happy to post on quentron.com experimental notes, but not here.


I am extremely busy this week so it may not be until next weekend or so, but I will attend to your suggestions.


My motivations in not providing lots of experimental details was to encourage others to do it their way and to hope that people like yourself would do it to prove me wrong, and in so trying to prove me wrong you would create all sorts of attempts to support your opposed views. However to date few people of note have wished to engage me so it seems now like a poor strategy, accordingly your suggestion to provide minute detail has merit.


For now I will simply say that we (numerous scientists) are all confident we are not measuring phantoms, or plucking tiny signals out of noise.


Phil H

[MarkE]

Philip thank you.  That will greatly help to better understand what you claim and what you have done.  If you could answer one question now I would appreciate that.  Have you ever produced 10W give or take 50% from your 10W devices?  I am curious to know if these are things that you've already tested.

[Pirate88179]

$5,000 for an unproven, untested device that predicts to have 10% energy losses?
Are you kidding me?  In reality, the losses will probably be higher.  What exactly are you selling here then?  I hope that folks are smart enough to see through this "deal".