Prof Fu's violates 2nd Law - photos & video proof

[Philip Hardcastle]

Fu at conference.

[tinu]

Bad news are often good, wouldn't like my understanding to be based on false assumptions.
But, I'm not sure I understand you fully. Are you arguing that introducing the field temporarily increases the thermionic emission? If that's not the case then I'd like you to be more specific. The magnet's supposed function is just to passively redirect the electrons that are already flying. I would also like to see far more extensive and long term study to be done, though. I can give you that much.
This paper actually argues against that. (and no magnets used in this case)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0902/0902.3590v1.pdf
Initially the plates have equal temperature and charge. Thermionic current then creates a charge difference, which can be shorted out to produce measurable current. Once shorted it returns to initial state, and the process can be repeated. At which point does it reach equilibrium and no longer function?

In both cases I think the premise is that the emission (and therefore charge buildup) continuously happens even in the most neutral state of the system, which would also mean that any state "above" the neutral could be reverted by shorting/grounding.

Whether or not that has been conclusively demonstrated to be true is another issue. I think it's still worth investigating.

Hi retroworm,

Sorry for my late reply. Since the ‘magnetic noise’ increased dramatically here by a certain and absolutely improbable chain of simultaneous “coincidences” (like the return of a certain smot “guru”, the launch of a new OU magnetic motor, the rejuvenation of old ideas that sell good to lesser brained etc etc) I simply made my mind: it’s nothing here but manipulation and to me it’s a huge waste of time. I won’t come often but just to see if any messages from acquaintances and friends.

I’d say you already have the answers by now. But if not, the key element for a quick understanding is Faraday induction; imagine a coil made not of the common copper but of pure plasma and you shall get my point. Alternative, although it is well known that static magnetic fields do not impart energy on moving charges and variable magnetic fields do, imagine that one may take an old TV with cathodic tube and check that when bringing a magnet toward it when TV is on will require (slightly but yet undoubtedly) more energy than when bringing the same magnet when the TV is off; that’s due to the counter-reaction felt by the magnet to the Faraday currents induced within the volume of the electron gas inside the TV tube when on.

So far, I hope it is clear that any variable outside magnetic field imparts energy to the electron gas inside the tube of Prof FU. At a first look, one may be tempted to consider that such energy is turned into heat (thus leading to a raise of the temperature of the electron gas) but that is not necessarily true in all cases. Pretty much like a magnet that can be used to build an electromagnetic brake (indeed work is turned into heat) but it also can be used to build a generator (less heat or even close to zero).

If you have followed me, it shall be clear that every time the magnetic field is varied (increased or decreased it doesn’t matter, of course) a certain amount of energy goes inside of the tube, namely into the electron gas that exists around the two electrodes. (So being, this bracket is just to emphasize that my explanation has absolutely nothing to do with any alteration of the work-function due to an outside magnetic field). Prof Fu should have been concerned about such effect of introducing energy into the tube as it is basics and he should have experimentally and theoretically investigated it and at least attempted to dismiss it but he haven’t did it at all. Moreover, his device is indeed genuine and it is hard to think of it and relying on common sense hence the confusion upon many readers. But I think I have it’s classical equivalence that hopefully will clear the picture for anyone interested: build a coil made of copper wire as usual but instead of just winding the turns, wind one turn and add a diode (in series), wind another turn and add another diode also in series and so on. When done, add a capacitor in series too and also a multi megaohm resistor, also in series. Take the so-built device and subject it to variable magnetic fields; I haven’t done the experiment myself but I bet it will behave surprisingly similar with prof Fu’s one, except it will reproduce only one half of his graphs. (For reproducing the two halves, two such devices shall be connected in parallel, paying attention to the polarity of the diodes).

My final thoughts as per the above?
The tube is just an electrical DC generator powered by the outside variable magnetic fields (ultimately by the hand of the experimenter) and having a peculiar characteristic due to the huge internal resistance as well as some internal capacitances involved and of course due to it’s so feeble output power. Let the outside magnetic field be constant and the power will fade to zero. No violation of the second law, no cooling, no nothing of this kind but just a misinterpretation of the experimental facts.

Waiting for the good news, 

Best regards,
Tinu

[Philip Hardcastle]

@Tinu,

Can you look at my Curled Ballsitic Thermionic device on this forum and post here your analysis of that since you are so wise and all knowing.

The argument you put forward is sheer rubbish and yet it is so confident and arrogant.

Your theory, untested and unproved, serves to blow out of the water the work of a Professor who has spent a lifetime on such. He is as we speak building newer and better versions of his valve.

Your argument of storing energy in a plasma torus is silly for the electrons would be circulating like an unconstrained gas in a vessel having friction and turbulence. Therefore it would, unlike proper superconducting flows, within milliseconds expend the paltry enrgy input of a 35 Gauss field.

Now I admit you could be right, not about your pet put down theory, but that Fu's experiment needs more investigation and refinement but it also deserves more than a quick put down by you.

He has graphed the magnetic field to output relationship which is totally consistent with the theory of operation. If the magnetic field is too weak then insufficient curl occurs to get electrons from A to B and if the mag field is too strong then the curl is to much and again the electrons cannot jump the insulated gap.

I have seen the video and considered the possible ideas such as you have raised, but I am convinced the truth is heavily in favour of a device operating in keeping with the theory.

Instead of just attacking the experiment why not first attack the theory, if you can show me a coherent argument as to why it should not work then your pet theory would deserve a second look.

I am a touch annoyed that you treat him so. In the past I found you to be fairer than that.

If you do not believe in the possibility of overunity or 2ndlot violation then a debate is pointless. If however you are waiting for the good news I ask that you spend as much time trying to see a candidates merits as you do seeking to shoot it down by untested assumptions of your own.

BTW I await with genuine interest your view on Curled Ballistics.

Regards Phil

Phil

[ramset]

Mr Hardcastle

Thank you !!

A mans life work should not be shrugged off so lightly

Chet

[hoptoad]

This is my view.
Philip H

A view expressed very eloquently and thoughtfully.
I agree with the general sentiments of your post.

Cheers