Curled Ballisitic Thermionics

[BEP]

@Phil

On your 'interleaved electrode' idea I suspect you must prevent radiation of heat in one direction. Otherwise, radiation from/to both sides of an electrode element will result in the sum of zero torque.

Regards,

BEP

[Philip Hardcastle]

@BEP,

The diagram is perhaps not too clear, the active electrodes of the interleave have a purple surface so that there are 5 sets of 2 facing.

Do not confuse heat with electrons. The exchange of photons is not an issue, in fact it is part and parcel of the design for the electrodes to be in near equilibrium both in temperature and charge.

The diagram showing curled paths is only depicting electrons.

It is the very nature of the large electrode area that makes this appealing. The torque to the drive shaft saps heat from that electrode but, for instance, if operating at 900K the radiative transfer is 37017J/m2 and at 890K it is 35399J/m2 a difference of about 1.5KJ per m2. So if there are 5 sets of 1m2 plates the energy transfer for a 10Kelvin droop is 15KJ.

In other words the device can be operated with little differential expansion so electrode gaps can be kept tiny. Of course if both inner and outer electrodes were coupled to shafts then each would droop and it would be sensible to supply heat to both at the same time.

Phil

Phil

Phil

[BEP]

In my experience, with a similar device, radiation of heat and charge are much the same. Yes, photons play more a role with charge.
Radiated heat or moving charge act the same in the mag field.

I saw no purple area, but zoomed in. I see what you describe.

So this is not so much a heat engine. If it was, emissivity of the surfaces, conductivity of the electrodes, etc. would be a concern.

[Philip Hardcastle]

@BEP,

It is a heat to torque convertor, so it is a heat engine.

However as you rightly point out it is not worried about electrode electrical conductivity.

As Professor Fu and a few others (no pun intended) have said, it is a novel idea. It is a thermionic heat engine with no circuit. Normal thermionic heat engines are plagued with problems and even given they need exhaust they also have lead losses, unwabted radiative transfer, conductive losses, small electrode areas. To date the best use has been in putting a radioative core in one so the 10% efficiency is offset by a 100 year life (good for deep space probes).

You are right to question the term heat engine though. Clearly it is a very general term.

A heat engine with no exhaust is more properly a convertor and hence the claim of the violation of the Kelvin interpretation of the 2nd Law of TD.

As you would realise, the amount of pressure against the 2nd increases and yet a number of physicists I have shown this and professor Fu´s device refuse to consider it because they are so scared of individual thinking. I know of physicists that say I am right but refuse to say so publicly.

Perhaps it is through sites like this that a challenge goes out.

If we tell a physicist, professor or lecturer of these devices, even though yet to be built, they will refute them with dogma and the words "the second law is absolute". We must say respectfully the Second law has no proof and it only remains whilst there is no exception. So we ask the Professors etc to simply point out the reasons the device will fail and demand that if they cannot, they are prepared to admit they cannot.

This and a few other devices, including Professor Fu´s FX1 and later valves should be headline topics.

The World is in need of a new path to clean energy, zp is proving elusive, so if thermionics shows a proof of the 2nd being wrong then science should open up the doors to new ideas.

People on this site should insist that all ideas be ready to defend themselves but also demand that the sceptics also prove them wrong by rigorous analysis of claims. After all the sceptics need a miracle as much as the rest of us.

So ends my protest rant.

Anyhow BEP, thanks for your thoughtful comments.

Phil

[Philip Hardcastle]

In the last posts I mentioned other professors with a claim that the 2nd law is shaky.

One is a brilliant Italian Physicist, Professor Germano D’Abramo, who has international fame for solving some seriously tricky mathematical problems. Here is a link to his paper about a room temperaure Ag-O-Cs heat convertor with a capacitor.


http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0902/0902.3590v1.pdf

Phil