My entrance into the $1M Randi challenge

[PaulLowrance]

Dear utilitarian,

The closest aspect to a closed system in the diode array would be each diode. Perhaps that is what you were getting at, but then again there's no such thing as a perfect closed system.

PL

[utilitarian]

Dear utilitarian,

The closest aspect to a closed system in the diode array would be each diode. Perhaps that is what you were getting at, but then again there's no such thing as a perfect closed system.

PL

I guess what you are left with then is showing how there is no transfer of heat from the hotter reservoir to the cooler reservoir.  I don't expect you to do this on this board, but that's what strikes me as a challenge for you going forward, if you want to show violation of the 2nd law.

And I do wish you the best in this, and I will not be unhappy to be proved wrong, but I think there is a tremendous amount of work left.  With the volume of effort that went into establishing the 2nd law, you have no easy task.  If you can even get JREF or any scientist to take you seriously, you will need to prove up every element of what you are claiming in painstaking detail.

So you know, JREF no longer takes all comers.  The reserve a right to focus on the more notorious/publicized claims.  You do have the advantage of having a working model, but that is just the start of it.

[PaulLowrance]

Thanks utilitarian. I would agree that downfall of my present diode array is that it requires more than a few minutes of up close real life analysis to see that it could very well be violating the laws of thermodynamics. I understand that people just don't drop/throw-away everything they firmly believe in. The claims of my diode array are difficult to accept. Although, if Randi is sincere, and *wants* to reward a legitimate scientist who has broken the laws of thermodynamics, who legitimately has a perpetual motion machine, then IMO he would take the time to have some scientists analyze my device. They will discover, as I have, that the DC power produced across the load is not coming from any temperature gradient that can be removed. Well, at least by insulation. Of course they could drop liquid nitrogen, but that's only removing the thermal energy, while not dealing with the *natural* occurring temperature gradients that always exists in matter at room temperatures. If for example the DC voltage was due to a temperature gradient from say the Earth to one of the walls in the room, then the DC voltage polarity would reverse if the diode array was rotated. Or it would reverse in 12 hours when the Earth was colder than the wall. That has never happened. Also, the diode array is surround by two metal shields. Metal is high thermal conductor, to keep the temperatures even around the entire diode array. Also, the diode array is inside an oil bath, something that EE's highly recommend.

I'm hoping that Randi would gather some scientists, that he trusts, to bring their instruments and analyze the diode array, and also to see that the mathematics, based on conventional physics, shows the diode must rectify ambient thermal noise. If Randi refuses my diode array, then IMO his intent is just to debunk, not to discover the truth. I don't think Randi will accept my diode array perpetual motion machine in his challenge. IMO that is wrong. Just look at his web page on perpetual motion machines. According to conventional physics, my claim is a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind, period. Randi should then either refine his application to exclude 2nd kind perpetual motion machines, or he should accept my diode array. I would have no choice other than to ask Randi to do one or the other. If he refuses then it's my right to take this news to the media.

PL

[PaulLowrance]

A few minutes ago I just sent the following email to the Randi organization. I have been using my Google email account to send such emails to challenge@randi.org

Dear Randi organization,

Three days ago I sent my email regarding my Perpetual Motion machine being entered into your challenge. Could you please reply to my email. Conventional physics *clearly* defines my diode array claim as a Perpetual motion machine. Here's my email -->

[snipped my original email that was posted three days ago at this forum]

Will this be the first legitimate Perpetual Motion machine that Randi denies in his challenge? That's not right. If he knows my diode array has a high chance of succeeding, and he does not want to lose his one million dollars, then that's very shady. 

The other day I came across this thread at the Randi forum -->
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1935624&postcount=16

As you can see, the web page title for the above thread at the Randi forum is "Diode Array challenge to the Second Law of Thermodynamics."  Charles M. Brown started a few threads about diode arrays at the Randi forum. Obviously Charles did not enter a diode array into the challenge, and he was made fun it. It appears Randi's followers believe the diode array should be entered into the challenge, thus making fun of Charles M. Brown in the above link. Well, I am not Charles M. Brown, but I have a diode array, and here I am Randall James Hamilton Zwinge. Are you going to deny a Perpetual Motion Machine claim?

PL

[PaulLowrance]

If anyone wants to be included in my email exchanges with Randi's organization, CC'd, then please contact me -->

http://greenselfreliantenergy.com/contact/

Please let me know if you want to CC'd or BCC'd.

PL