Professor Xing Yong Fu of Shanghai University presented a paper some years ago suggesting that the use of magnets could bias thermionic emissions in one direction and thus cause a current flow.
To prove this he made a Valve (FX1-1) with 2 identical side by side electrodes coated with Ag-O-Cs which emits a significant amount of electrons thermionically at room temperature (about 15uA per cm2). When a magnetic field was introduced he argued electrons could curl from A to B but not from B to A. The paper was essentially ignored though it appears nobody found a cogent argument against the theory. So simple was the idea that when it was brought to my intention I thought it must be a joke otherwise it would be World news.
I have come to communicate with Professor Fu and he provided me with a DVD with a 280Meg video of his experiment, and some photos of key points.
I have looked at that video many many times and I know it says the 2nd Law is smashed. I know Dr Fu is 100% genuine. He deserves the recognition having put in decades of work towards free energy.
How do we make the World look at and admit he has produced free energy (even though it is miniscule)
Philip Hardcastle
Philip Hardcastle
Smashing in this case is a good thing
Can you share the info/video's?
Chet
Here is a photo of his Valve FX1-1
Here are some pictures
1 with no magnetic field 0.4E-13V
2 with magnet pointing South + 8.0E-13V
3 with magnet pointing North. - 8.7E-13
4 Professor Fu
Note on the video this is clear to see but on photos the meter is hard to read.
On Video the magnet is reversed many times.
If anyone can tell me how to reduce 280Meg video to size permitted to this site it would be good.
Correction to last post
No mag 0.0
Mag South = + 8.7E-14v
Mag North = - 7.4E-14v
Hoping some one can help you with the video. This should be interesting.
Hey Phil,
I read Fu's paper while I was researching your thermionic motor (still working on it btw). It's interesting for sure, gives me the mental image of maxwell's demon telling electrons to jump a fence :P.
I doubt you can ever fit 250mb video to 250kb (attachment limit), but you can use video stream sites (youtube, vimeo, metacafe, liveleak, megavideo etc.) or file hosts like megaupload and rapidshare. Most sites should downsize it automatically, but you can also easily do that with windows movie maker, which should be fairly self explanatory.
If it's in dvd format (that plays on dvd players), it's gonna be bit trickier. You can put the VOB file on the disk to megaupload and it will play on some media players (like VLC), but stream sites and most editing software won't accept them.
Hi all,
The whole issue was discussed much earlier into this forum but at that time I didn’t bother to reply in the hope that another member will show up with the right explanation. I'm not sure if that happened or not, so here it is:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=28623
quote user xyfu (presumably professor Fu):
“When I am going to do the experiment, I can borrow some magnets from one of my friends. After the experiment, I return the magnets to him and the magnets can be not changed at all. So, the magnets are free.â€
Magnets are free, indeed. However, bringing them near the tube is not free. It takes work to do that. Lol! Neither removing them is free.
Someone said nobody has ever found a flaw?! Think again...
Need a second thought?
Well, why is professor Fu scratching his ear going around his head?! One Ag-O-Cs electrode “A†placed inside of a metallic sphere “B†will also give a thermionic current (and voltage, thus power) for a while... But not for long: equilibrium is to be reach. The two experiments are not identical, of course, but the point is in the tubes of prof. Fu the equilibrium will be definitely achieved too. It may take a very long time as the macroscopic imparted energy when establishing the magnetic field might be huge as compared to the output power (0.8VxE-13A)...
So, is it available a single current-time graph in long run? Nope...
Instead, let’s quickly jump to the conclusion: “In the above experiment, the heat extracted by the electronic tubes from the air converts completely into electric energy without producing any other effects. The experiment shows clearly that the second law of thermodynamics is not universally valid and there are ways by witch energy can convert from waste one to useful one again!†Yeah, right…
So, the paper/subject is not new at all to some members.
I attach the link for easy reference http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0311/0311104.pdf
But paper is flawed.
Sorry for the bad news.
Cheers,
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.
Quote from: tinu on April 01, 2009, 09:34:16 AM
One Ag-O-Cs electrode “A†placed inside of a metallic sphere “B†will also give a thermionic current (and voltage, thus power) for a while... But not for long: equilibrium is to be reach.
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,
I read at least some of the exchanges with Fu from this forum and may I say if there ever was a case of attacking the person not the idea it came forward then, not saying who but someone (and it might not have been here) started out saying Fu was a biologist or something. Then the word fraud or con was used.
I wondered about Fu and for a while it looked like perhaps he did not fit the bill. However by believing him to be genuine meant I persevered and found that he was in fact a very respected Professor of Physics at the Joint university of Virginia and Shanghai university (Shanghai Jiao Tong University).
Moreover he is 74 years old and has been doing the research for over 50 years.
He presented his paper in the USA after an invitation, extract from letter
"Dear Dr. Fu,
On behalf of the entire organizing committee for PQE 2007, I would like to invite
you both to present the results of your research at the 37th annual Winter Colloquium
on the Physics of Quantum Electronics. In particular, your research on “Realization
of Maxwell’s Hypothesis†would be very interesting to our audience.
A measure of the success of this conference is the attendence by many internationally
recoginzed scientists such as yourselves. We sincerely hope you will be able
to attend and strengthen the conference in so doing.
The 37th Winter Colloquium on the Physics of Quantum Electronics will be held
January 2â€"6, 2007 at Snowbird, Utah. There will be a reception on Tuesday, January
2 in honor of the 2007 recipients of the Willis E. Lamb medal. The conference sessions
will be Wednesday, January 3 through Saturday, January 6."
So then I felt, like tinu said, that perhaps his experiment was unreliable.
However I sent Fu my curled ballisitic thermionics idea (as well as 50 other professors) and he replied with a detailed response full of diagrams etc (in short saying my idea was correct). This led to a few pleasant exchanges and then I received in the post a DVD.
Now if you start with a fair mind on this subject, you wathc the video, you read the papers and you do not allow the 2ndlot to be considered absolute, then you get very interested.
You ask yourself about if there is a mechanism to get an erroneous result etc.
Then you get to a point and say, there is so much here that looks good, why has not the west replicated the experiment.
You find no answer except you hear comments about Fu being a fraud or Fu being a second rate chinese scientist. It is horrible to think that people would attack rather than debate.
When he came on someone threw at him an argument about magnets and Fu answered poorly, not wrongly, but poorly. The guy does not know how the people in this rough and tumble forum work. He is a gentle elderley, respected Professor of Physics who is much loved by all his students (I even got letters and appraisals from his student and peers).
I say that despite my best efforts I cannot find a good argument to deny his experiment is some sort of proof. If a better proof is needed by using better meters etc then we should ask universities in the USA to help.
If he is right and it shows that 2ndlot is not absolute then this forum and many others becomes the shrine for possibility instead of a shooting gallery for resolute sceptics.
Yes scepticism is ok provided it is not a barrier to thought.
This is my view.
Philip H
Fu at conference.
Quote from: retroworm on April 01, 2009, 02:45:41 PM
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 “guruâ€, 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
@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
Mr Hardcastle
Thank you !!
A mans life work should not be shrugged off so lightly
Chet
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on April 02, 2009, 12:12:37 AM
This is my view.
Philip H
A view expressed very eloquently and thoughtfully.
I agree with the general sentiments of your post.
Cheers
@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
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 experienceâ€; 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
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.
Quote from: retroworm on April 03, 2009, 06:12:35 AM
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
@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
Hi guys,
You posted me as I was doing my response so I did not see what you said and was not ignoring you.
I 100% agree with the "in a perfect world" ideal.
However even the best get it wrong, consider Thalidomide and others (cold fusion).
If I could post the video I could write about 10,000 words.
There are things that correlate with the theory far more than the obvious negatives of doing it on his dining room table etc.
As you know I have my own ideas but his is ready to go and I think it would be good for all if the argument was settled one way or the other.
I see you gave a refernce to Professor Germano D'Abramo, well he and I have been having a good natter for the past week. He believes Curled thermionic is correct.
however rather than seeking to be the first I just want whoever is already there to get the opporunity.
Fu is not a well man and I think his instant preparedness to go wherever I ask him to prove his device speaks volume for his conviction and passion.
I doubt he will ever see before he dies a 100KW thermionic free energy source the size of a car battery. however if the 2nd lot is proved violated we will.
Regards
Phil
PS, I do not mind a bit of rough and tumble and I can take a joke guys.
Hi Phil,
Ok. I think I understand the difficulties of pursuing certain ideas in a given political& social framework, as I came from a former communist country. Point taken. Applauds for the attitude of Prof Fu.
I shall wait for new facts given your envisaged approach, in the light of the above-expressed methodological concerns. Please spend the available resources wisely if you decide to investigate. I would have no problems in receiving&analyzing data that was not taken in the presence of witnesses as I’m totally confident Prof Fu would never go to use such con methods neither to falsify his experimental data. I just suspect an over-optimistic approach and a great desire to leave a scientific discovery behind his life-time work.
I however remain concerned of other factors and consequently I respectfully call for a solid methodological approach because at the levels of power of pico of femto Watt it is very easy to be misled. For instance, in the light of my possible explanation, a slowly varying external field (i.e. the bare fluctuations of the Earth magnetic field or minute fluctuations of the magnetic field that are commonly neglected due to their magnitude, fluctuations given by movement of magnetic masses/traffic, by change in temperature of the metallic structure of the buildings etc etc) may be more than enough to fully power the device. A Faraday cage will not help in respect to impeding such slowly changing magnetic fields, hence more experimental precautions are necessary. Ensuring the presence of witnesses may be beneficial for credibility but this would be one of my last concerns.
I look forward to hearing news on the developments, especially those confirming that in the long run and in the absence of magnetic field fluctuations the output power is not drifting towards or fading out to zero.
Best regards,
Tinu
After I most politely told Fu my ideas to get more output he now refuses to talk to me.
So we will not see Fu in USA or Australia.
However I still say that Fu was the first.
Phil H