Quote from: lumen on December 15, 2012, 10:51:45 AM
If you do some research on the net you will be surprised.

I don't understand this as an argument.  Philip, as far as I can see begs pretty much the entire question surrounding his device.  So your idea is to search the internet for similar devices.  Presumably ones that do explain their theory.  However such devices can't actually be breaking 2LOT in a very well-defined way - i.e. published in peer reviewed journals.  Which means they themselves might or might not work.

So what you're saying is that given something poorly defined in some respect (Quenco) which might or might not work and something else (X) which you think is somewhat better defined but also might or might not work.  We can then infer something about Quenco from X?

That really is hard to follow, assuming Quenco works there are four separate potential cases for each technology you examine (Not working & Similar, Working, & Not-similar, Not working and Not-Similar and Working and Similar) only one of which would be helpful.   Applying even priors I'm not so sure having a 25% of getting useful information is really that likely a good way to get a good result.

Speaking of begging the question...

Quote from: Phil
the impossibility of the Sebithenco or the Quenco as a Maxwellian Demon I think it is worth noting that the most persistent argument is that a demon would need to expend energy in sorting hot from cold, fast from slow. It is clearly not the case in either the Sebithenco or Quenco, the sorting is of energy by electrostatics where the sorted particles act only against static charge. So for those that wish to deal with this other than by evidence (replicated working Sebithenco's)

Oh it's "clearly not the case" good I was worried there.  I don't really understand why Phil thinks he gets to be exempt from the rules of information theory or physics.  To wit, if "electrostatics" really meant anything wrt to building a Maxwell's Demon then you could describe a simple case without all the fiddling around with 1880's technology.  In other words you could build an "electrostatic Demon" at least hypothetically. Phil should have *started* with this in he useless "theory" section.   Showing how things work at the atomic level, how his "electrostatic trapdoor" (or whatever) is exempt.   Otherwise the right assumption is that it has the same drawbacks of Feynman's machine or Smoluchowski's.

Quote from: Phil
Even arguments involving information theory propose that there is an energy cost in observation that is greater than the benefit of the particle energy partition.

This is a particularly interesting misunderstanding of Szilard's thought experiment.  Actually it's the erasing of memory which creates the "missing" entropy.  Phil could assert that his demon has no memory, in which case it can not encode information in any state.  Which means it can not operate as a demon. No information means, no decision.

As an aside, there's a good reason for the humongous amount of fluff in Phil's theory page.  Most of the papers on potential 2LOT violations and their rectification are done as thought experiments because you can work on an extremely simplified form and in an environment with an unparalleled amount of control.  In real life you have nowhere near that level of control.  Which means you have a much higher probability of error.   If Phil were to try to create a hypothetical model on the level of Feynman's ratchet he would end up having to add "magic fairy dust" that is there would have to be some mechanism where the outputs are known and the operation can not be explained.

This is why he has to keep harping on some experiment he did.   It's the fairy dust.   If there was a way to explain it's operation on a fundamental level it would be far easier to explain than regurgitating all the stuff he did on his theory page.

The logic behind his challenge to replicate his experiment, to coin a phrase "sucks donkey balls".  It's a classic example of how various kinds of stupid gets into the collective consciousness.  Thousands of people could do it at various levels of competency.  Even if most got Phils answer...what would that say?  Nothing.  Running a thousand experiments under different conditions doesn't give you a highly accurate answer.   However this is one of those counter-intuitive things about science.  So instead of people shrugging their shoulders people think there's something to this.  Perhaps one person out of a thousand might do the experiment right in which case they get a negative result.  What do people do then? They assume that the negative case is the outlier.

Quote
I think Philip has a difficult road ahead so giving him more time is no problem for me. (I have nothing invested anyway)

That's not answering the question I keep asking.  What does waiting do to your confidence in Philip.   If the answer is "nothing" perhaps you need to think about that.   So again if in 2020 Philip is still saying February 2021...are you seriously telling me you would take him precisely as seriously as you would today?  After eight separate cases of "in February"?

Quote
However I do like to hear his progress updates once in a while so pissing him off so he does not post here is just stupid!

Phil is trying to produce a product...it is entirely in his self-interest to post here or on his website.  Not to mention why is your outcome the only one possible?  Perhaps if there is some actual group of people funding his efforts maybe they'll replace him and Quenco will become a reality much more quickly or updates will be realistic instead of inept.

Quote from: sarkeizen on December 15, 2012, 10:30:12 PM

That's not answering the question I keep asking.  What does waiting do to your confidence in Philip.   If the answer is "nothing" perhaps you need to think about that.   So again if in 2020 Philip is still saying February 2021...are you seriously telling me you would take him precisely as seriously as you would today?  After eight separate cases of "in February"?Phil is trying to produce a product...it is entirely in his self-interest to post here or on his website.  Not to mention why is your outcome the only one possible?  Perhaps if there is some actual group of people funding his efforts maybe they'll replace him and Quenco will become a reality much more quickly or updates will be realistic instead of inept.

So you say you have giving up on Hot Fusion? What!, After only 50 years of trial.
That is totally absurd!, it is proven to work, we just need another 10 years or about that to get it to work and then only another 10 years to figure out how to contain it and then some good place to place the radioactive by-products afterwards.
Ok, you can keep beliving in that and I will wait a few more months to see if Philip and his team provide some results on something that possibly defies only a single statement by Lord Kelvin (who has been wrong before) that some work can be done from the flow of heat but not from an isothermal environment. So claimed in the 1800's before the advent of todays nano technology.

I do understand what you are saying, I have given up on Hot Fusion in that it's just an obsolete technology that is more than likely never to become fruitful in the next 50 years even with 100's of millions more soaked into it.

Everyone has a limit from their understanding of how something could or should work, which provides a cutoff of when they believe something should be operating.

Given what I believe to understand of how the Quenco should operate and being an engineer for 30 years, I would expect the Quenco development from theory to product to easily exceed a year.

If you do not have any concept of how Quenco could operate or what may be required to construct the device and the issues that crop up, then I agree that one of little knowledge would dispair easily and give up after a few statements of one showing their optimisim, that did not work out well.

I would actually perfer Philip informing us of his progress and also of the cause of failures if known. This is not a demand of Philip since I have no right to demand anything of him.

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=2009060435A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20090514&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

output > input : does he have a functional model ?

Sincerely
                 CdL

Quote from: lancaIV on December 16, 2012, 02:26:32 PM
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=2009060435A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20090514&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

output > input : does he have a functional model ?

Sincerely
                 CdL

Unlikely, given the posts so far. Although it is 100% proven?

I think a temp gradient IS required - cant see any other way it can work.
If a temp gradient is indeed required (which I believe) then there isn't anything new here.

Just speculation based on what I have heard from others (not on the forum).

Hope some of you will find these urls interesting.

Maxwell's demon goes quantum, can do work, write and erase data.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/maxwells-demon-goes-quantum-can-do-work-write-and-erase-data/

Maxwell's Pressure Demon and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

http://www.execonn.com/maxwell/maxwells_demon.html