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

[Philip Hardcastle]

@ramset
@hoptoad

Gentlemen, your dignity and humanity inspires.

I believe the world benefits so much from good people who stand up to be counted.

That is not to say that I do not appreciate Tinu for being here, and for his waiting for good news.

I enjoy the people of this forum that come with persuasive arguments, provided that they leave ego, prejudice and arrogance at the door.

On behalf of Dr Fu I thank you.

Phil

[tinu]

Hello again,

Maybe I was not very clear but please treat my explanation as being written for general audience, not for those understanding the physics behind it. Nonetheless, it seems that physics was not at all properly understood, yet called childish:
It’s not just the imparted energy of the external variable magnetic field upon the electron gas, which is minute indeed and quickly transient, but also the change in the potential energy state of the whole setup. By potential energy one has to mainly consider the electrostatic potential that give raise between the two electrodes due to the presence of the magnetic field itself rather than the energy density of the said magnetic field.

Let’s consider a single electrode first (electrode A), to be in isolation and in the absence of any magnetic fields. It is known that the thermionic electrode will establish a dynamic equilibrium with the surrounding electron gas when the electric potential of the said electron gas equals the work function of the electrode metal. If we arbitrarily chose to set this state as having zero potential energy, we have EpotA=0. For a second electrode B we wish to place nearby so we can move toward the experimental device/tube of Prof Fu, we shall similarly have EpotB=0. Thus, no energy will flow between A and B.
However, there is a dramatic change when applying an external magnetic field. The potential energy states of the two electrodes are no longer equal due to the structural/geometrical ingenuity of the setup. One electrode can be arbitrarily considered of still having zero potential energy (let’s say EpotA=0) but not the second, thus energy will flow from one electrode to the other. How much energy? Well, math is not easy (although doable) but why is the actual experiment (and paper) lacking to provide such a simple answer?!!! It’s simply not in the scientific method to claim that infinite energy will flow without proving it experimentally; obviously, to point the finger against well established laws is completely wrong and it doesn’t give much credit to the author.

Collateral arguments of spending I don’t know how many years on a subject does gain my respect only if backed up by something else; otherwise look not further from this forum into bedini’s “lifetime experience”; what a scientific&practic nullity but smoke-blowing expert! So, I’d say that mentioning many years were spent on the device is exactly an argument against the validity of the paper and of the theory of Prof Fu. Why is that? Exactly because if such a long time interval was spent wisely, many graphs experimentally proving the ‘infinite flow of energy’ between the two electrodes (as well as the self-cooling) would have been available. But not a single evidence of this kind was ever provided despite the fact it’s the simplest thing that can be done. Let the setup run for days, weeks or months in the same Faraday cage and if possible in a lab environment (controlled ambient temperature) and draw current-time, voltage-time and/or temperature-time graphs. Why hasn’t that been done in >5 years or so?!!! It’s because the multimeter draws too much power from the grid, isn’t it?! Lol. See the point of my criticism? Such an error is unpardonable for any respected professor and more for one claiming the violation of the second law of thermodynamics. That’s the bottom line in scientific approach.

Cheers,
Tinu

[retroworm]

Ahh, Phil. Don't be so "in your face" about this. Tinu is just calling for more rigorous examination and better presentation, and I can agree with that. I don't necessarily agree with the refuttal as it is merely alternative explanation for observation, and not strike against the premise, but I must agree that it has to be taken into consideration in the experiment. Theoretically it should be doable without magnetic fields in different configurations.

[tinu]

Ahh, Phil. Don't be so "in your face" about this. Tinu is just calling for more rigorous examination and better presentation, and I can agree with that. I don't necessarily agree with the refuttal as it is merely alternative explanation for observation, and not strike against the premise, but I must agree that it has to be taken into consideration in the experiment. Theoretically it should be doable without magnetic fields in different configurations.

True indeed. I gave a simple possible explanation but in accordance with the well verified laws of nature. And by the Occam’s razor, there is absolutely no reason to call for violation of any well known laws until a definite need for that call is undoubtedly shown to exist, which is far from being the case here.

Other than that, I fully agree that I tend to mercifully and brutally refute any un-backed and most probable totally erroneous but otherwise “glorious, marvelous, human-saviour etc. etc” claims. 

Thanks for the dialogue,
Tinu

[Philip Hardcastle]

@tinu,

hi,

Let me say this. Professor Fu has agreed to go to any university to have his device tested in much the way you say. I have asked government to consider providing some funding and I have offered to pay travel costs not only for Fu but also for a judging panel.

My suggestion is for 2 universities to attend, bring there own certified instruments. To put the whole apparatus in the middle of open ground with a Faraday cage. To have a Judge and a government official there (minister for science).

Then Fu is to be taken away with another official so that it cannot be thought of as being a remote controlled con.

Press to attend after the witnessing profs and Judge have satisified themselves of the results as being unambiguous (even if it means posting a guard for 24 hours.

I have budgeted 10K of my own money gor the simple reason that the World needs to know if the 2nd is absolute or not.

I can explain why Fu does not meet your standards but then we could say the same for hundreds of other researchers. Fu is eager to do this and when you think about it, it is a dangerous thing in China for a poor professor to bring disgrace. People commiting frauds or cons in China can expect anything from life imprisonment upwards.

I am not going to enter into politics but the Chinese are very strict on such issues.

Fu has done on a wage less than a burger flipper his work. He teaches physics but the university does not sponsor his thermionic work. Why not, because the 2nd law is taboo in China too.

Tinu I am very wary of bad science but if we take Mylow (and I will not comment about my beliefs) then it is obvious that debate can be long and varied even without rolls royce experiments.

Fu is a stubborn man and no doubt his own worst enemy, when I pointed out the inherent reason for his poor output he became offended. I cannot guess how he has been bruised over his experiment but feel that he thinks that no matter what he does he will be attacked.

At present he is shunning me because I asked if the Chinese government could help. He said they refuse to even try to understand him, and that he has done it all himself without their help, and he will continue without their help.

I really want 2 universities to come forward to do this. Perhaps it is something you could advise on.

I will pay the air fares for the profs to come to a common ground test site.

There is nothing in this for me other than to prove that golobal climate solutions do not necessarily belong to nuclear or so called clean coal.

I figure if the energy of these forum could be harnessed it alone could help lol

Regards
¨
Phil