Quote from: Bruce_TPU on December 13, 2012, 01:27:51 PM
Hi Lumen,

A very well written post, indeed.  From what I understand of the Quenco, and posted a few pages back, you have indeed hit the proverbial nail on the head.  As I also mentioned, the thinner the material, the greater the probability for tunneling.  The idea is really quit ingenious.  Use that effect to your advantage, and create a material so thin as to make the tunneling a certainty.  I can see, as usually is the case, the practical application , can be more daunting than the working theory, even when that theory is true.  Then stack them and you are good to go.  I too think that this may turn out to be the real deal, indeed.  But not something that can be built in our home lab.... lol.

Perhaps you can respond to Lumen without giving him a headfirst colonoscopy?  If you really think whether some particles under some conditions can tunnel is the big question here then you understand Philips work less than I do.

Quote from: hollander on December 13, 2012, 02:07:21 PM
@sarkeizen

I am with you!


There is a lot of scientific papers trying to scientifically prove that thermionic emission could in fact violate the 2nd law. Fine with that, since this is peer-review science. The point that Phil seems not to understand is that the current flow cannot be higher than the thermionic emission of the emitter. And this is very very low (less that 10^-7 A/cm^2). Tunnelling can't multiply anything, it can't create charge or energy from nothing.

Hey Hollander.

Interesting.
Can you give me the journal names, issue, volume, author and article name for some of this research?

One of my interests of 2LOT violations is that it probably has an effect on information theory.   One thing that makes me skeptical of someone citing a quantum effect which violate 2LOT is that I suspect this also implies that a quantum machine can violate BBBV.

Quote from: hollander on December 13, 2012, 02:07:21 PM
@sarkeizen

I am with you!


There is a lot of scientific papers trying to scientifically prove that thermionic emission could in fact violate the 2nd law. Fine with that, since this is peer-review science. The point that Phil seems not to understand is that the current flow cannot be higher than the thermionic emission of the emitter. And this is very very low (less that 10^-7 A/cm^2). Tunnelling can't multiply anything, it can't create charge or energy from nothing.

As I have always maintained, I don't fully understand the low-down technical details of Quenco but the statement above re the emitter current sounds pretty fundamental.
Do you have a link to the info?

100nAmp on a single cm^2 simply isn't useful

Ok, feel free to ridicule the simple (and presumptuous and likely wrong!) math below...

10,000,000nm in a cm.
2nm Quenco height plus some additional for the metals, say an optimistic 10nm total thickness?
In a cm^3 that's 10,000,000nm / 10nm or 1,000,000 layers.
100nAmp x 1,000,000 = 100mAmp

Now, I don't know what the voltage is going to be or whether there will actually be a million layers (that seems very extremely unlikely) but at a volt that's only 100mW.

I realise that this is 'trollish' behaviour but I am going to ask a sensible question to all here (sorry for hijacking your post, Hollander):

***
*** Is the statement about the emitter current being a max of 100nA true?
***

In the interests of pre-empting the usual responders:

1. This is a sensible question and is potentially a show-stopper.
2. An answer of 'yes' is acceptable along with a link to a paper and real proof or....see below...
3. An answer of 'no' needs to be backed up by scientific evidence of the 'actual real and proven' variety showing that its higher.
4. I am not selfish and I have a brain.
5. Humanity is great etc and our race won't advance without people questioning things.
6. Responding to this post with irrelevant stuff is fine.
7. I don't mind being called a troll - I am only trying to find out about Quenco and the man behind it so I can either add or remove from my 'watch' list. There is some much cr*p around that I need to do my own filtering - there just isn't enough time in the day to keep an eye on everything.
8. I am still divided between 'this is all bu£&@)it' and 'maybe there is something' - the question above (if answered with a proven 'no') will swing me back to the latter.
9. Contrary to popular belief, me, as a troll (or whatever playground name you wish to call me), have achieved quite a lot and built more things than I can count. Please stop with the 'you don't believe Phillip so you must be evil and stupid' speak - its really backfiring on you up to now.
10. Etc.

Ok, ready for the sh//st/rm.

Thanks

MBM

So in the end it turns out to be a pissing contest between naturally abundant BARIUM & the not so abundant YTTRIUM. 


Ok, yttrium wins because it is less toxic,  but why is it ok to push barium into our bodies as enema and flat out deny it for QUENCO?

Quote from: Madebymonkeys on December 13, 2012, 06:01:52 PM
***
*** Is the statement about the emitter current being a max of 100nA true?
***

Yes, it may be even less than that, depending on environment temperature & work function of the emitter.
See, for instance,

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Thermionic+Emission

This is well known among physicists, to the point that it is difficult to provide a specific reference like it would be to provide a reference on the fact that water boils at 100°C.

@sarkeizen:

"Interesting.
Can you give me the journal names, issue, volume, author and article name for some of this research?"

I am collecting all the references, please be patient.

H0llander