Hi Folks,
A proof by design that the Second Law should be scrapped.
A symmetrical system of electodes at the same temperature and same work function that create torque.
So simple and undeniable.
Will shortly post comments from professors.
The legendary Professor XY Fu says it is correct and will work.
The RTG is not dead but the CBTM does not require special ´nano tips. AG-O-Cs will do or LaB6 for higher temp operation.
Look forward to making a big splash with this.
The World is about to change its view.
Philip H
Enjoy
Curled Ballistic Thermionic Generator
Philip Julian Hardcastle
5th February 2009
Provisional Patent Application
Title of Invention: Curled Ballistic Thermionic Generator
Description: Two electrodes face each other. They may be flat or concentric to each other, as would be the case of a ring within a ring where the first electrode is the outer surface of the smaller diameter ring and the second electrode would be the inner diameter of the larger diameter ring.
The electrode surfaces are treated to provide a suitable thermionic work function for the desired operating temperature. It is envisaged that thermionic work function would be 1.5ev or less such that an operating temperature of less than 1000C would be realised for the device to be described. Whilst both plates may be heated it is envisaged that in operation only one electrode will be heated by an external source and that the other electrode will be heated by a combination of radiative transfer and of energy transfer by electron collisions.
Whilst the phenomena to be described would be applicable to parallel flat plates it is described for the concentric ring model as this configuration lends itself to drive a shaft which in turn is envisaged to provide motive power or to be coupled to a dynamo. Either the inner or outer electrode may be attached to a drive shaft, or both.
The said concentric facing ring electrodes are intersected axially by a magnetic field. When the rings are heated thermionic emission occur as a continuous exchange between the rings. As there is no electrical return path, the rings will find a steady rate of exchange of electrons wherein thermionically emitted electrons from the first ring will collide and be absorbed by the second ring, and visa versa. In the absence of a magnetic field the average collision would be perpendicular to the surface and so there would be no induced torque on the rings, either inner or outer.
As said there is magnetic field applied to the device and axially aligned to the said ring electrodes, thus the thermionic electrons crossing the magnetic field will undergo deflection, or bending, due to their velocity component at right angles to the magnetic field. Consequently their average impact to the electrode will have an angle biased away from vertical and in favour of one direction. These impacts are at subatomic levels and are elastic, thus they cause a mechanical force upon the bulk electrode and so, if there is an average bias of direction, there must be an average direction of induced torque. For a given magnetic field the inner ring would experience a clockwise torque whilst the outer ring would experience a counter clockwise torque. If the magnetic field direction were reversed then so too would the direction of the induced torque however in all cases the inner ring and outer ring electrodes would have opposite directions for induced torque.
The drawing figure 1 is a representation of the configuration and shows by dotted arrows the two way exchange of thermionic electrons between the ring electrodes. The solid arrows show the direction of the induced torque. The magnetic field is not shown but can be imagined to be perpendicular to this page.
In figure 2, a side elevation cut away view, it is shown that the inner ring has been coupled to a dynamo whilst the outer ring has been locked to prevent rotation. The supply of heat to the rings is not shown. No heat exhaust is required for the device.
For the device to convert heat into a directly useable mechanical form it is operated in ultra high vacuum, this ensures that the thermionic electrons emitted by one electrode can cross to the other electrodes without collision with unwanted gas molecules.
An idea to put multiple sets of electrodes.
As there is not electrical circuit then as many sets of electrodes as is practicable can be built.
Here is a cross section side view of a device with 5 elecrode pairs.
I would imagine perhaps 50 might be reasonable.
So saying then if each set is a square meter of area then a multielectrode device could be 50 square meters of electrodes.
In such a case the output power would be increased 50x, perhaps as a replacement to an automobile engine.
Final torque estimates are in progress.
They may be only a few hundred Joules per layer in early prototypes but if electrode exchange currents can rise to a thousand amps then far higher values can be envisaged.
Presently an attempt is being made to locate all the necessary expertise to construct a watch sized unit operating at room temperature that can claim the energy prize.
Anyone having knowledge of coating electrodes with Ag-O-Cs should post here.
Best
Phil H
Looks very nice. I haven't fully read the other thread of yours, but this one seems much much easier to pull off in practice.
But I don't think it's a direct 2nd law violation, at least in terms of entropy. It might go slightly against the theoretical efficiencies for heat-to-work, but at best I'd consider it an extremely efficient heat engine. I would expect it to cool down whenever an electron is cast and re-absorbed partly as kinetic energy of the system, needing constant heating of the electrodes.
Regardless, it's very interesting concept and I hope you succeed building a working prototype. Looking forward to it.
Hmm, looks like I was wrong. It does go against entropy. Apparently Ag-O-Cs casts electrons even in room temperature, which means such a device could potentially draw power from the ambient. Of course the effect is the same in higher temperatures too; the ambient level is just higher. Somehow that didn't occur to me previously.
I did some searching and found this paper
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0311104
It's the same core principle, but instead of motion, they use the electrons to build a charge difference.
The paper mentions that casting electrons does indeed cool the surface, which allows more heat from surroundings to be drawn in. So it is technically a heat engine, however unconventional one :).
I still have bit mixed feelings about the RTG device (after skimming the thread), but this one I think will actally work. Hopefully it will produce enough power to be practical. Thanks for sharing this, it has really captured my interest.
Hi Phil;
Please help me to understand your device?
As I see it you have two discs facing each other with (or without) interleaved electrodes which are located within an area that can be subjected to a magnetic field. The said electrodes are coated with Ag-O-C. One of the discs is driven by a prime mover such as a motor and the opposing one is coupled to a load. The whole device is within a high vacuum. At this point I am unclear as to it"s operation. Does one of the discs require (HEATING) from some source, and if so does this not consume energy? Do the electrons that are cast from the primary disc to the secondary disc cause a rotation in the opposite direction and if so does this load the primary mover to draw more power or does it continue to drive at the same input power requirements? Is the final product of your device INCREASED rotation power on the output disc( in the opposite direction to the Primary).
To my understanding your device requires : Input rotational power (motor)
Input heat (electrical or otherwise)
High Vacuum (preset or vacuum pump on during operation)
The result of this is increased rotational shaft power output in the opposite direction that greatly exceeds the sum of all the inputs.
Please excuse my ignorance if this summation is totally wrong and I would appreciate a simplified correction of my understanding of your device.
Thanks
Vince
Hi Vince,
You have the idea wrong.
Ignore the design and look at the simple diagram with the end view of 2 ring electrodes.
Assume from that drawing that both electodes are free to rotate on a common axis (but separate bearings).
Heat is supplied to both (or to one and radiative transfer will heat the other) so that we start with 2 non turning electrodes, on independent bearing but on the same axis, and with no magnetic field.
We get thermionic electrons from both and the electrons from A collide with B and the ones form B collide with A. Over a period the number of electrons from A to B must be balanced by the ones from B to A or otherwise there would be a charge inbalance. As the electrodes have the same work function a charge inbalance would be eleiminated as it would simply impede emissions from the electrode with a positive charge and encourage electrons from the electrode with the negative charge.
So electrons will exchange and as there is no magnetic field then the average angle will be perpendicular so there is no torque induced in either electrode.
However......introduce an axial magnetic field and as per the big ring diagram electrons are curled such that the average collision is now biased in a direction thus inducing a torque. The inner torque will be the opposite of the outer electrode torque.
Now in the multielectrode diagram I have simply said let the inner electrode be fixed so that it becomes an input port for heat. The outer electrode is connected the drive shaft.
The vacuum is as you put it preset. The device is vacuum sealed with getters.
The actual drive shaft may just drive a dynamo and so be in the vacuum enclosure or it may be magnetically coupled across a glass barrier to an external drive shaft, either way the vacuum does not require any pumping.
Yes heat is supplied but if the operation is done at room temp then the heat flow is from room temp to the depressed temperature of the electrodes where some rotation has been enduced thus conserving the First Law of TD.
At room temp the torque is miniscule but if the input heat is 1000K then the amps per cm2 becomes large and with a realistic surface area of 10,000´s cm2 the cumulative drive becomes useful.
the point is that there is no exhaust and so the conversion of heat to torque must be 100% thus a violation of the Kelvin statement.
Of course with a 100% efficient conversion process a heat pump can be married to it to effectively extract a significant amount of heat from air.
Does that make sense or have I made it more confused?
Regards
Phil
To Retroworm,
Glad to see you are interested.
I have written to the professor who wrote the paper your referred to and he said it is very interesting and will get back to me with a full reply as soon as he can.
Professor XY Fu said the design is correct.
I wrote to Stephen Hawking hoping to get his approval and awiat his response.
So retroworm you are in good company.
Thanks for your encouraging words.
Regards Phil
At Retroworm,
Sorry I thought the reference you gave was to the latest paper from Germano D’Abramo.
It was in fact from Professor XY Fu of Shanghai university. He has written a later paper where he introduces anothe method. His first valve FX1 showed good results but at 1E-13 amps it seems the conservative side of science ignored him. He is now onto a 3rd valve.
He has been working on the issue for 48 years.
The italian professor has used the idea of combining Ag-O-Cs electrodes with a capacitor such that he can store the charge from 1E-13 amp flows to make a value harder to ignore, perhaps it can then be put into a ballsitic galvanometer. This would seem to be harder for skeptics to deny.
Professor Daniel Sheehan has offered to referee my work if I put it into a paper.
I think the dreamers might actually be making some advance on the ultra conservatives of science.
There are now literally dozens of proposals from respected Professors and probably 100´s from amateurs like me.
Regards
Phil H
Thanks Phil;
I appreciate the simplified explanation. I was under the impression there was a prime mover but I think I can understand the basic Idea now.
In all practicality, however I see one major hurdle in your design. If the unit operates at room temperature or at normally elevated temps there should be no issue but if as you mention the temperatures are extremely high the bearings for both or one of the discs becomes an issue. Conventional bearings do not operate well in high heat and will fail at higher temperatures. If the discs conduct any heat through the shafts to the bearings you will definitely have problems. Placing the bearing location at points that will not be affected by the heat and restricted by the vacuum chamber could be a real challenge.
Good luck
Vince
At Vince,
As you say Vince the design of such devices are always full of challenges, some as big as the physics. The thermal conduction of course needs to be controlled. Also high reflectivity mirrors are used so that radiative heat is contained.
Having said that there are ceramic bearings suitable for temps even higher than 1000K.
As it happens bearings suitable for high vacuum are usually non lubricated and thus ceramic with its low friction is ideal (just like jewel bearing really).
Regards Phil
@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
@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
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.
@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
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
As much a bomb as proving the 2nd as the one-size-fits-all that it is - is :)
The real problem will be the attention gained by the other 'Laws' rooted in the 2nd.
BTW: My favorite is the 0th. The people creating that should get a real job.
Yes - I can't call your work a 'heat engine'. 'Convertor' is much better. Possible application = magnetic refrigeration?
Not only does it remove heat from the box.... it circulates the air too ;D
@BEP and All
The Laws of TD are called Laws, obviously, but what does LAW mean.
I looked up a dictionary
"A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met:"
Now this definition already means Thermodynamics is in trouble unless the word EVENTUALLY is used. Always there are microscopic violations, heat can flow from cold to hot in the micro world or for microscale time without any special device.
The people that got paid for the Zeroth or the 3rd were just mathematicians with a spare 5 minutes having already penned the Associative and Communicative Laws of maths.
The First Law is under attack every day at this website and the Second is not winning any friends.
If mankind did nothing else in science it should be to rename Thermodynamics as the First, Second ....... Assumtions.
Drumroll........................... and when you assume you make an ass out of u and me.
Regards Phil
Assumptions
The real meaning of 'Laws' is not that they can't be broken or even avoided, but you get yourself in a heck of a lot of trouble if you do. (just don't get caught!)
@Phil
Have you seen the work of Gerhard Kainz?
@BEP
The name does not ring a bell. I am guessing he is an obscure philiosopher that said
If there is a law, and it is broken but there is nobody to witness it being broken, then was it really broken or was it really a law?
Am I close?
phil
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on February 28, 2009, 07:56:17 PM
@BEP
The name does not ring a bell. I am guessing he is an obscure philiosopher that said
If there is a law, and it is broken but there is nobody to witness it being broken, then was it really broken or was it really a law?
Am I close?
phil
Avoiding a double upload...
Please check-out the attached file at http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6850.0;topicseen
Great Work Philip
@Elisha,
There is more to come, the time of conservative science is rapidly ending.
With this proof so far it has been like a hot potato that the establishment does not know what to do with.
I will shortly be posting evidence that the most respected experts in the field have lost the debate.
Then we can shame them into honesty by an email campaign demanding for the sake of humanity that they admit the truth, even if it means they have to tell the World that they have been wrong.
Many times in history there has come a time when the science establishment has been turned upside down.
Thanks for your support Elisha.
Phil H
@Phil
You have already stated so but.....
Do you see this function ( or the Gerhard Kainz info I mentioned ) working in other than a vacuum?
The reason I ask is the proof fits, in my mind. Unfortunately, here and almost anywhere else, proof is in the pudding.
I did just receive my vacuum pump but there is much more needed before I can experiment using vacuum. I'm far better equipped than the average experimenter but I keep hitting limits.
Are there any options to vacuum?
@BEP
Strange question but it is also a very interesting one.
Firstly re vacuum, they are very hard to get. Good vacuum usually requires getters to mop up gas.
The best vacuum commonly used was the CRT as an electron beam had to travel a large distance.
I do not presume to lecture here and excuse me if you already know all this.
Given Avagadro´s number being so big we see that even if a vacuum level is 1E-12 we still have billions of molecules in the average vacuum enclosure. Hence small gaps for thermionics reduce vacuum needs. If we take a figure of 100 billion molecules per liter when we have a hard vacuum then we see that if we take a cubic mm of that volume we can get down to 100,000 molecules count, meaning that it is still hard to imagine an electron stream passing through without collisions.
If we reduce a cubic mm to a cubic um then we get down to real empty space, so a few um (perhaps up to 20um) spacing looks good but it is so very hard to maintain what with vibration, thermal expansion etc.
Now back to your question, well it iss the case that quantum tunneling occurs also at such short distances so if you devise a thermionic convertor with no moving parts then perhaps a vacuum could be avoided. There is evidence of some very strange behaviour at fm distances and as such a cubic fm even at standard air pressure would have no molecules, I think that is right
femto is 1E-15 so a cubic fm is 1E-45 of a cubic meter which is about 40 moles, yep a cubic fm is usually empty. So if you had a device with such scale or even pico meter then vacuum would not be needed.
I am aware of some researchers talking about convertors at that scale (nano in fact).
Having said a lot about nothing HaHa.
Perhaps we need to look at it differently. What if molecules were our friends? perhaps thermionics could act upon molecules to create a wind much like the old air ionizers of old that used needles, they created a cool wind.
It is 1:34a.m here so I shall post this and in the morning will probably say it was a load of rubbish, but perhaps someone might see something in it.
Regards
Phil
@Phil
Being consistently neglected by the main stream is frustrating for sure, but I greatly urge you to keep level head with this. It's already a common trend that inventors come front with lots of noise and boasting, then slowly fade away for whatever reason (most probably due the fact that these devices generally just won't work).
That is not to say that you shouldn't pursue acceptance in the future, but I would suggest you to come up with as solid proof of concept as you possibly can. Experiments by Fu and D’Abramo seem good enough to me, but if you regard the laws as unshakeable scripture, you will be prone to explain it away by other means like measurement error or radiation effect etc. It leads to a point where one uses the second law to prove the second law and will never investigate properly.
I probably have fairly high confirmation bias in my thinking, but even I want to see a functional device before I can fully belive it . You already said a small device is on its way, which is an excellent first step. Presenting it is the hard part, because people will try to explain it away. Probably the most convincing experiment would be to produce visible rotary motion and measurable drop in temperature inside a sealed calorimeter; isolated from all heat and radiation sources.
Getting it published in a journal will be difficult since controversy is ensured. Non peer reviewed publications might be a safer bet for initial publicity after you have a solid proof of concept. Not saying you should avoid scientific method, but it's better if people see this before it gets shot down unjustly. Maybe it's even worth it to rather convince an engineer or small manufacture shop before doing any real science, and let the scientists follow when they just absolutely can't deny it.
@retroworm,
I hear you but I am hear to test physics or to get others to notice the challenge to physics so that we all can advance. It would be good to get top level support so that important work can be done quickly.
I have a track record of creating technology and building it.
I am not looking for fame or for donations. I do however seek debate from the experts around the World so that I can prove that we do have a way of saving the World.
The thing is if you take a simple invention done by sony, it takes man years to get it to market.
I know first hand about getting inventions to market as I have done it before.
So I could do all this silently, as I did before, but I feel that if professors and experts were forced to admit that my theory is correct (meaning that they have to concede at least the possibility that the 2nd is flawed) then the roadblock in physics would be removed.
Then the govts around the world would have the courage to fund research into, not just my ideas, but all deserving ideas.
If I am right but only produce a little torque who will say it is a revolution?
Professor Fu has been ignored and no doubt others.
Maybe with the help of 10 physicists and manufacturing facilities I can make a device to power a car, maybe it takes 2 more steps than what I have disclosed.
Is it proper for ideas to be unsupported when they are there to help.
I have my feet on the ground. If no one wants to think, I will still do what I need to do, but if you want a solution to Global warming, I suspect it should be soon.
All the so called physics experts in the World should hang their heads in shame if they cannot find fault with curled ballistic thermionics but refuse to say so.
If it is right it means that we should stop govts and experts from saying "the only solution is ...Nuclear.......clean coal........carbon taxes........carbon licences.......
All cards need to be on the table and experts who are parrots simply regurgitating science chants.....though shalt not challenge thy professors....... though shalt hold unproved laws that we were taught as being absolute........all that challenge conventional thinking shall be cast out.
There are countless cases of science attacking science thinkers only to find out years later that they attacked the bringer of new truth.
This site is an opportunity for experts to come here and debate, if they have the courage.
I will shortly reveal debates with World experts that the press should reprint (but probably wont)
So retroworm, forgive me for getting frustrated but as they say evil (apathy, vanity and arrogance of the science establishment) flourishes if good persons do nothing.
Professor Shakouri........shame on you
Professor Nemanich.......ditto
more to come
I do hear you and thank you for your well intentioned and wise advice.
Regards
Phil
I hear you but I am here to test physics or to get others to notice the challenge to physics so that we all can advance. It would be good to get top level support so that important work can be done quickly.
Another professor has given the theory the thumbs up.
Wow I might actually get broad support yet.
I think i posted that I wrote to Professor Stephen Hawking.
Well no reply as yet.
Overly optimistically check the post each morning for a letter from Santa, sorry Stephen H.
Phil
Dear Overunity Friends
I have posted the following to about 1000 scientists around the world today.
Dear Professors and People who care about the Earth,
Attached is a document setting out the basics for Curled Ballistic thermionics.
"overunity pls email me at pjhardcastle@gmail.com for a copy"
Anyone wishing to develop, manufacture and sell devices based upon
this theory are free to do so providing that they do not seek to
patent anything in their own name, or in any third parties name, that
comes from the information so disclosed.
In the spirit of open sourcing it is my wish that the technology be
tested and advanced as soon as possible for the benefit of mankind.
4 prominent professors now say that the theory is correct despite the
implication re the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. However should any
person make any investment in money, time or effort, they do so at
their own risk.
Obvious issues arise technically and I am only too happy to assist and
to keep everyone advised as progress is made regarding materials and
techniques.
Any good ideas are welcomed and will be shared.
I also ask that you convey this knowledge to interested parties if
only for debate.
If perchance a Nobel prize is ever offered for this theory, it is mine!
Best Wishes to all,
Phil H
Heh, you've been busy. It's pretty well written otherwise, but I don't think calling dibs on nobel prize was necessary ;). Hope at least a fraction of them will respond positively.
About those who have seen your device and said it won't work, has anyone ever said anything specific about why it shouldn't (meaning other than 2nd law violation)? This is probably the first time I cannot find any directly crippling flaw in a device posted here, so I'm reasonably excited about it. My only fear is that the effect is too weak to be useful.
Hi Retroworm,
No one has ever said something that is a valid criticism.
The majority say "2nd law" but decline to say any more.
Interestingly a debate with Professor Raul B... of Virginia U has ended with silence from him when I claimed that he admitted the 2nd was violated. It seems that mnay professors of physics are prepared to debate so long as you don't actually win the debate.
I had a long debate with one professor and upon various statements made by him regurgitating the cliches "you can't win" etc I said that is not debating whereupon he said it doesn't matter what any equation or logic says the 2nd law is absolute. He said it is the bedrock of science.
Now in fact there are about 200 known physicists (a fair few who are otherwise respected professors) who believe the 2nd is flawed. However only a tiny percentage will stand publicly for their beliefs. Others reamin silent for fear of being ridiculed by those that chant Lord Kelvin.
I was amused to find out the Lord Kelvin, who I accuse of shutting down science, issued a statement to the press saying"No heavier than air machine will ever fly".
The issue of output is a complex one. I ahve discussed the issue with a few professors who say the device must work but have concerns re output torque.
As I said to one prof the possible electrode area using interleaving (multi electrodes) could be easily 100m2 for a hat box sized device.
The thermionic exchange current could be 1000A
So if the average enrgy was 0.2ev and Amps = 1000 x 100 x 10,000 = 1,000,000,000
The gross kinetic energy would be 200,000,000J however if the momentum tranfer is just 1:10,000 then the power for rotation would become 20KJ (20KW), and if the transfer momentum were 1:100,000 it would be 2KJ and so on.
Best estimates range from enough output for a lightbulb to enough power for a truck.
This is academic in the first instance, if a unit turns the 2nd is violated. If it si violated then suddenly everyone in science wants to improve it and perhaps before we know it we are getting 200KW from a hat box sized unit... speculation at this point in time.
As you said, it makes sense to so many, it must violate the 2nd and so it must change the direction of science.
The shame is that only a few like you retroworm seem to understand how monumental this is and how it deserves debate at all levels.
To date if a physicist want me to anser a question I do so to their satisfaction.
If there was any doubt in my mind as to the physics I would advise asap and withdrew with apologies.
I sent the document to a physicst at Sydney university who responded with "you're a crackpot". I responded by saying "dear Mohommad why do you call me a crackpot?"
There has been no reply. How easy is it for people to just accept the status quo learnt form the professor who repeats what Lord Kelvin said over a century ago (and really about steam engines).
Professor XY Fu has to my mind provided enough data to suggest he might actually have a device that violates the 2nd, he has given details about the device and yet no well kown western physicist has repeated it.
That must be a sad case for science.
We seem to be in a world where science is more arrogant than when the threatened people for heresy to suggest the earth revolves around the sun.
Anyhow, Retroworm, as always thanks for your enlightened words of support.
PS I am sure this reply has been badly written and has many typos. Just a bit rushed at the mo.
Philip H
I was thinking about this further and came up with alternative configuration.
I'm not completely sure what your reasoning is to use interleaving electrodes so forgive me if this goes beside the point, but presumably you could just as easily make it so that all the surfaces are pointing in one direction. You would still have equally large surface area since you wouldn't have the gaps that your own design has. That would also mean that all the electrode sheets are rotating in the same direction.
Also, presumably, the electrons cause equally large but opposite toque to the case magnets, which means that they could be used as the counter rotating portion. I'm not entirely sure if this ultimately has any utility or if it's the same if it is fixed to the case.
Since there are no parts sweeping past each other at high speeds, I would think this design would be more tolerant to vibration and mechanical stress. It would also allow you to contain the vacuum inside the electrode casing and not the whole engine.
Hi Retroworm,
A very interesting diagram....
But, if I may say, we need to consider the issue of recoil.
When there is no magnetic field then there is no torque from electron ion recoil as all directions are possible. Here is the critical thing, even when a magnetic field is applied the emission angles are still evenly distributed in the distance of scale of say 1E-8 (being 100 times ion size).
I can see why you would think of recoil but if you imagine that the magnetic field of the device was applied in a zone midpoint between the plates but not including the plates then you can see that the curling is not going to effect the emitting plate.
As to plates going from inner to outer (I assume you mean all low work function plates to the outer surfaces of each tube) then the outer would need to return to the inner. This is an interesting concept and I am not going to dismiss the idea too easily. However when the plates coated with low work function face each other then no return circuit is needed.
Now as we would hope to get currents of up to 1000A cm2 then a meter squared plate with your design would need to flow 10,000,000 Amps, not impossible but it would to my mind be massive amounts of copper.
But.... your idea is intriguing and as this is open sourced it is not for me to veto it, in fact I would like others to consider your idea or for you to advance it further in open debate.
Perhaps the best thing that can happen is for everyone to take some part in this.
No doubt you or someone elese will find a better combo.
The really important thing is that the underlying device / theory should set science free of a silly priest like law that tries ot outlaw thinking.
I sent the docs to Sydney University and got a reply from a guy called Mohammad Rafat. He said, and I quote it in its entirety "you´re a crackpot". Wow such is the quality of new postdocs.
So I wrote back and asked for him to tell me where the flaw was and he said he was too busy to talk unless I showed him my cv, printed papers etc and he called me more names and that his time was too important to debate with me.
Funny he has spent probably the best part of an hour reading my stuff and he is so wise but when asked to point out a defect he resorts to abuse.
I have received letters and emails from quite a few people now and to date there is either abuse that I should question the 2nd law or congratulations on what I have produced and said.
So many people now that a defect, if it existed, would have been told.
I must say I am getting very tired of being called names by cowards who when you reply, nicely, give every excuse under the sun why they will not tell what they see is wrong, too busy to waste my time on you, they say, or, only a fool would doubt the 2nd law.
The postdic said on a third reply that he would listen to me after I proved the 2nd law was wrong..
I replied to this stupid comment by saying the 2nd Law has not been proved in the affirmative so why should I need to prove (by prove he said my cartoons were not good enough to consider) it wrong in his terms.
I also said 4 professors understood the diagrams and words so why was it so hard for him, no reply now form him.
This arrogant stupidity must stop.
I offer a prize of $1,000 for one of these arrogants to come here to this site and post a proper argument against the theory of curled thermionics. I will get 2 professors to judge it or a panel from this forum and if it stands scrutiny I will pay up, apologize to everyone and never be heard of again.
Retroworm, re your ideas, I will think on them a bit before posting any more comments.
It deserves careful thought.
I think it may lead yet to even better configurations.
However I am pretty sure in my mind that recoil is wrong.
I attach a crude diagram showing a bunch of energies emitted at plus and minus angles from norm.
I have left the electron trails going beyond the impact points to aid in visualisation of the curl.
Note it is a micro section of a spherical gap (though the 1 second of arc is a bit silly, it probalby should say 1 minute). Anyhow it shows that at x=0 the angle is the same mag or no mag and at short range it is almost identical etc. As I said above the complete elimination of this factor would be simply to contain the mag field to midpoint (for the purpose of the argument).
Respect
Phil H
retroworm,
Having slept on your idea I must advise that it has a flaw.
Unlike the non circuit design (the original Curled ballistic) your design requires a potential to return the large needed currents. The net emf does not exist as it is a thermionic gap versus a thermoelectric junction. This problem is the classic thermionic generator obstacle that is otherwise normally solved by a temperature difference.
I feel fairly sure that any variant is going to need a non circuit form.
That is not to say that the design is fixed for the very fact that you are thinking must lead to some refinements being created. However it does not look like it is a one way stack with return as you have drawn.
The amazing (read very lucky) thing about CBT (Curled Ballistic Thermionics) is that it does not need a return circuit, that it is electrically symmetrical, and yet is capable of producing output torque.
It is a simple device.
If there were to be improvements they might come in the from of momentum transfer enhancement, surface topology or the use of subtrate materials with super high thermal conductivity such as cvd diamond. But........ it is open sourced so I am no longer the president on this matter.
Phil H
Yeh, I suppose you are right. Another thing I later spotted, if the returning current goes towards the center within the magnetic field, it will cause opposing torque and slow it down.
But I feel you were arguing slightly beside the point about the magnet recoil.
When freely flying electron enters a magnetic field, it will accelerate tangentially (as you well know :)). But doesn't this effect also affect the magnet that is producing the field? Reaction to every action, right?
Hi Retroworm, Wow
Your question of reaction of the magnet to the electron curling is unexpected and a bit mind bending.
If it were so, for the sake of the argument, then that would mean the magnet could be the rotor. Now the electrons going inner to outer would be one set to consider reaction to and the outer to inner, the other. Argument would seem to be that both are bending say clockwise and so are additive.
Now if torque were tranfered to the magnet and the magnet allowed to rotate coupled to a shaft doing work, that would require the electrons to lose kinetic energy (velocity).
The reaction is of course is to each individual electron in its own say 10um radius curl and to be perfectly honest I am not sure in my mind if tiny circles of reaction convert to macro torque in the magnetic field ring. I think that the answer must be no otherwise would not any piece of metal rotate when a magnetic was introduced for that magnetic field would act upon free electrons in the metal?
Retroworm, your question is just too hard for me to give a yes or no to at 8:30 in the morning, my off hand view is that the answer is no but...... maybe it is yes and you have found an improvement or something. I reckon to be sure it is a question that should be thrown open to others.
Phil H
I'll save you all some brain teasing....
The answer is no. You will never have reactive torque on the magnet.
The easiest way for me to understand the concept is to think of the magnet as an optical lens. the lens just directs and focuses the light. The lens does not generate light.
A magnet can only focus or shape the magnetic flux. It does not generate it. You can move one magnet with another but it is the fields that are meeting, not the magnets.
The moving electrons change direction because the magnetic flux will not, among other reasons :)
Hmm, that is weird...and interesting. I thought it would be similar to railguns and the like, which is similar in principle, but quite definitely do produce recoil. On second thought, that is probably due to the magnetic field induced to the projectile by the current going through it.
...I hope my ignorance about the subject isn't shining too brightly here :).
But but but but...suppose we can redirect stream of electrons (or even protons) without reaction and collide them to a plate, and suppose that the system is linear and not circular like this motor, wouldn't it produce net momentum? Anti Newton 3rd as well?
Something is a miss here...
One clarification to phil
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on March 13, 2009, 05:48:51 PM
...Now the electrons going inner to outer would be one set to consider reaction to and the outer to inner, the other. Argument would seem to be that both are bending say clockwise and so are additive.
Now if torque were tranfered to the magnet and the magnet allowed to rotate coupled to a shaft doing work, that would require the electrons to lose kinetic energy (velocity).
It's not about which way they are curling, it's more in which direction they are moving around the center of the rotor. That means in the interleaved case it would not be apparent since the movements would cancel each other out. But if what BEP is saying is true, this won't be a factor either way.
The electron do lose energy as radiation as they curl. Particle collider detectors have large magnets that force particles to spiraling path and record the emitted radiation.
Hi Retrowrom,
This is a side issue but it is interesting.
I am on the road in 5 minutes so this has to be quick - ie it might be wrong or poorly thought through.
Following on from my prior post. Let us assume that for a single elctron curling there is a reactive torque, but it must be limited to the area of the magnet creating that flux, ie a tiny tiny magnet of just 10um diameter. Now if such a micro magnet were looked at in terms of an elctron being curled in its field then I would not be surprised if there were some opposite torque.
But....... if all the micro curl torques are put into one macro magnet it would seem to me that perhaps we should calculate reaction torque as the curl radius / circumference ie say 50cm radius then we have torque x (5um/5ocmm = 5/ 500,000 =1:100.000 or
Magnet macro torque = (curl torque) /100,000
Now that figure is interesting, if true, and if you take a massive number of amps as previously proposed it may amount to a measureable amount. However this is not well thought through but it does seem to make some sense at 9a.m in the morning as I am packing to go.
I really think this needs open discussion, I have made curled ballistics available to all so I need to get others like you, retro, to own it.
I note no one has claimed my offered $1,000 prize.
Phil H
@All
My odd view on magnetic flux and fields is based upon years of trying to produce a true rotating flux around the axis of that field. I've never succeeded and I doubt anyone will.
No matter how fast you spin a magnet about its axis the flux does not turn.
You will see force/counter force between magnets but it is like this:
1. when repelling, it is like air filled inner tubes acting upon each other (the inner tubes represent the reshaped flux produced by the magnet, NOT the magnet.
2. when attracting, it is like bubbles joining in water. Allow the water to settle and all bubbles will join to make one big one. Just like a pile of magnets aligning and attaching to form a glob of magnets.
I say magnets do not produce the flux no more than a lens produces light for one main reason.
Extend the field lines of any magnetic object beyond the usual display. They always join with the nearest magnetic field lines of the nearest magnetic object (provide it is close enough) and continue until the lines run magnetic North and South.
@retroworm
A slight bit of energy is radiated when a moving electron is diverted by a magnetic field? This is news to me. I must do some reading on this. If this is true then the rule of a magnetic field never imparting or detracting energy in a moving electron is wrong and other things are possible.
@Phil
I assume your reference to $1000 is a reward for proving your idea wrong. If correct I will not waste my time trying to win it because I don't think your main idea is wrong.
Hi BEP, Retro and All,
Yes the prize is to prove me an idiot.
If you prove me right there is about $5million dollars in prizes around you could claim.
So saying there is a financial bias to proving me right there is 99.99% of physicist that are ready to hang me for even saying what I have said.
I saw Steorn forum last night and I am being called nasty names by some coward called Joshs.
I must say it makes for interesting reading and apart from this nasty Joshs guy the remainder seem like decent thoughtful physics thinkers. Or perhaps I am just saying that becasue they are saying my theory is right.
But this Joshs guy is so dumb he calls me names then tries to prove me wrong but his argument starts out by admitting me right. He says the tangential torque will be balanced out by eddy currents. Now eddy currents do not happen until there is rotation so he argues that it wont turn because the turning force will be exactly cancelled by an eddy current reaction to motion. Chicken or egg someone?
Why people believe that there is a conspiracy of nature to find a byproduct force that magically cancels a different force I cannot begin to understand. It seems that these parrots feel superior because they are betting safe 99.999% of the time.
What takes guts is the people on this forum and others who stick out their chin to cop criticism for thinking, calling people names should not be part of educated debate, or in fact any conversation.
Phil H
PS just arrived back from Brisbane
Clarification to last
should read
Eddy currents, if they were to happen, would only come into play when the electrode is in motion,
or something like that.
Chicken or egg.... acceleration or velocity. Are so many folks still part of the 'Flat Earth Society'?
I seriously doubt eddy currents will be the problem most envision. Why? Because you need to cross the precious 'field lines' to make Eddie wake up. In a steady state Lorentz will be the master of this device, not Eddie. Even if it is a problem what will this produce? Heat.
As far as going for the 5 mil. I don't have 'Dr.' prepending my name. The last time I recruited a 'Dr.' to assist he declined because he wanted to keep the title.
.
Hi BEP,
That is the issue, I have professors who do not want yet to be publicly named. There is no free and open debate when experts have to fear persecution.
Curled Ballistics is not spoilt by eddy or any of his pals. The fact is theoretically every thermionic emission point could be made as an island of just a few atoms, so that there is no dimension for an eddy to swing.
Unfortunately there have been ideas that were silly and some that were so complex others could not see that they were pseudo science. The beauty of CBT is that it is so simple, there is nothing hiding waiting to bite.
The view of the conservatives is to say it has not been done (ignoring people like Professor Fu) and thus never will be. When someone puts forward a theory the people that see the sense in it are fearful of losing their tenure at a University, so they say nothing, then the second wave of educated but not professional physicists put forward their bit only to have someone who is just learning parrot fashion the prejudices of science, come forward and spit poison and ridicule on the thinkers.
Eventually almost all are too fearful of saying something wrong that they just become watchers, and the idea dies, often swamped by the third wave of zealots with no real physics knowledge who don´t care about criticism because they think everyone else is an alien or something.
So then the prejudical nasty ones say see, told you so and retreat to their towers of arrogance awaiting the next Don Quixote to come forward trying to do good and having the honesty and integrity, but naivety, to try. Down come the parrots and in rages of anger try to peck hi eyes out.
I admit from the outset I could be wrong. I cannot see where. So many people I have asked but none see why. So many Professors I have corresponded with but none see a mistake. So I feel that it is worth posting, then I get people attacking me - but not telling me there is a defect.
So I give it to the World for all enthusiasts to develop. However I cannot make the World believe in it.
I wrote to Stephen Hawking but no reply as yet. Perhaps because even Hawking knows that if he were to say yes to a 2nd Law violating device he would be attacked. Amazing for a Law that has never been proved.
For interest the Laws of thermodynamics have been changed from time to time, for instance when nuclear reactions were harnessed and of course with e=mc2 for the first says energy can neither be created or destroyed.
Philosophically the laws of thermodynamics are agreed to be violated by the big bang, and if there was ever a macro event that would be one. Then there is the argument about entropy but if the universe were to collapse back init to a singularity we can only assume that must be entropy in reverse.
But hey.... without question the laws of thermodynamics work perfectly for steam engines.......oh that is right, that that was what they were written about!
Anyhow folks, I have given the rights for people like you (the thinkers and doers, and even the dreamers) to use my idea.
It has been very nice talking to you guys, thanks to many for encouragement, and may you all live long and prosper.
If anyone wishes to continue this work and needs an ear you can contact me pjhardcastle@gmail.com
and if anyone claims my prize I will return to eat humble pie and to pay the piper.
Philip Hardcastle
I have found the miss in my previous assertion about Newton3rd, and it closely relates to this device as well. It might even be a hindering flaw in the design (though not likely a crippling one), but I'll have to look more into specifics before stating anything more.
Previously I thought the electrons recoil the magnet so I overlooked why they curl in the first place. They don't just emit photons when they curl, they curl BECAUSE they emit photons. That was bit of a revelation to me. It's called cyclotron radiation and is well understood phenomenon. It's a simple recoil effect when photon is cast from electron, giving it a slight nudge.
So my presumption of a linear system was in fact right. Provided that you let the photons escape freely, there will be net momentum. It doesn't violate conservation of momentum though. In case of the circular system though, it might slightly hinder the angular moment. I have to get my facts straight before claiming too much, but even in the worst scenario I believe there is still net torque. It's more of a topological problem...I'll have to draw some diagrams.
None of that (nor the eddy current thing) says anything against your premise though. What we are doing here is essentially just attempts to exploit a phenomenon. Disproving one possible method doesn't disprove the effect itself.
stuff to read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron_radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham-Lorentz_force (radiation reaction force)
Just thought I would say hello, is there anyone wanting to claim the prize?
Phil
@All
Would making the prize $10,000 get more interest?
Phil
Hi to Hans
Thanks Phil, I shall study the thread.
Hans
Just a quick note about what I was previously saying.
It seems fairly hard to find aswers to very specific things, but from what I have studied so far, the radiation pressure should almost fully cancel out any toque produced by the machine. Intuitively, if the radiation is strong enough to divert the bulk mass of electrons so that they produce a significant force on impact, that radiation would also cause equal but opposite force as it hits the surface. There is narrow portion where returning (those heading towards center) electrons accelerate the emitting plate with radiation and receiving plate with impact without cancellation, but outwards going electrons would never produce net torque.
Probably more confusing than clarifying, but that's all I have now :P.
But considering that, there might be another much simpler configuration to demonstrate the concept. Pile rectangular planar plates with small gap, one edge much longer than the other, and run a magnetic field through it (perpendicular to the longer side). It is like a solid state version of the motor. It won't produce torque, but it should give out measurable amount of coherent (possibly exploitable) radiation from both ends. I've no idea what wavelength the radiation would be though.
Hi Retroworm,
So where do I send the cheque to?
To be honest I do not understand what you are saying.
Taking one electron emission at a time we have an electron with an average angle perpendicular to the surface emitted then as it starts its inter gap journey it is deflected by a magnetic field and then having travelled say 5um it crashes into (or is captured) the other surface but at a low angle (like a meteorite across the sky) and when impacting does 2 things, first it transfer some momentum, and secondly it imparts so energy by causing a vibration in the lattice (ie the metal gats a bit hotter).
So we know that the emitted electron cooled the electrode it left and heated the electrode it crashed into and that the difference in energies must be a translation into rotation for concentric electodes that are free to turn.
do you agree with that?
P
Hehe, I'm not after your money. Everything I say is assuming the core idea is correct.
I didn't think it was clear explanation either, guess it needs a picture. I agree what you're saying but it's only part of what's happening. Black arrows in the illustration represent photons that are cast from the electrons as they curl. Photons don't have mass, but they do impart momentum when they are emitted (also the reason why the electrons curl at all) and when they hit a surface. The latter frame indicates that the torque of outgoing electrons is fully cancelled and won't have net effect. I haven't taken into account any possible reflections/refractions so this might not be fully accurate.
But this further makes me think that whatever net torque it does produce is going to be fairly weak. I'm beginning to think that solid state devices might be easier way to do it, at least for a demonstration. The second pic is just half assed illustration of what I mentioned in previous post. It's and electrode sandwich in a magnetic field that lets the radiation resulting from curling freely escape.
Hi Retroworm,
I must congratulate you on a highly creative idea.
However the effect of such is not quite as your diagram shows and the photon energy transferring into momentum is so incredibly small that it cannot be an issue. From my understanding a photon if fully absorbed transfers momentum at a pressure of the energy divided by c.
So the energy of a photon of say .01ev becomes a force of 3.33E-11 x Ec
As the radiation is also in many directions then the potential number of photons in a given and relevant direction is not 100%.
Also from your diagram it is apparent that the net force is almost zero just be cancellation.
however as said, you are by far the best candidate just because you found something to argue.
Phil
Sorry, bad units used but the idea is the same.
Need to properly convert the energy transfer to effective force.
will post a corrected calculation.
I come up with a force of 5.37E-32N per photon collision.
So assuming net force is 10% then that amounts to a net force of 5.4E-33N
So it is incredibly small.
For an amps worth of emission we would get 4E-14N whereas the momentum tranfer for the electrons will be of the order of 1E-5N or a billion times as much.
however I reserve at almost midnight the right to be a decimal place out.
So unless someone says otherwise the cheque is not signed
Phil
pls also note that an emitted photon of 0.01ev is too big however the formula is so complicated at this time of night that I just gave a big number as a gimme. I think from a quick calc that the photons emitted would be about 0.00001ev for a velocity of 100,000m/s at a 5um radius in a mag field of 0.01T. Perhaps you might have the number already retroworm.
again I reserve the right to be mistaken by a factor of 10 at midnight.
Phil
Hi again,
found something on wiki that supports my rough calcs.
A square mile sail receiving energetic sunlight only has a force of 2 Newtons. Dividing down a square mile to a cm2 is 1/2.56E10 or 3.9E-11
So that says that an amps worth of .00001ev photons is about 1/5000th of sunlight photons so we divide 3.9E-11 by 5000
is..............7.8E-15N
give or take a decimal place
The 5,000 should be about 13,600 so the force of photons is more like 2.86E-15
If this idea is true.
Then this is the project with more impact in the live in all the world.
Absolutely, bypassing the Carnot cycle in this way makes 'Solar Power' three times more efficient and using heat pump with a COP of 3 to 4 (that means using say one unit of power {kilowatt} and getting up to four units of heat out, using a working fluid to cool {air, water},these are already used to heat the interior and cool the exterior in the winter and the reverse in a hot summer) it should be possible to generate electricity out of thin air. The downside of this device is that it is very difficult and expensive to prototype. So Philip Hardcastle has designed a simpler solid state device which he is currently trying to prototype,see
http://fizzx.com/viewtopic.php?t=413
The sad thing is that a stupid post about some guy called Abeling gets weeks of attention but is based on nonsense,
Whereas this topic (right or wrong) has professors scratching their heads but is lost at the bottom of the pile.
I think that I should be a BS merchant like Mylow, OmniBus, Sterling or Dansie.
This place is doomed to failure because it is not promoting good ideas over bad.
I think there should be some rating system. Thumbs up and you rise to the top and thumbs down and you sink and eventually slip off the bottom.
My opinion!
Hi Friends.
There is a possibility that this device can participate in:
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/05/12/secretary-chu-calling-all-cold-fusion-inventorsand-other-revolutionaries/
is a call to ground breaking energy generation, 20 million per project.
Phillip, this topic in overunity don't have the attention that require because very few understand the basic physic concepts.
If someone in plain english explain the concepts will have more attention.