Quote from: forcefield on January 08, 2013, 01:28:58 AM
From http://quentron.com/index.html
The diagram of the Sebithenco Device shows heater elements which will produce a temperature differential through the device.  This is not "a single reservoir of heat."

I would like to see a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but I don't see how this experiment can demonstrate that.

cooling inside the sebithenco device is a consequence, not a cause.


The heaters elements are explained in the page.


The second law of thermodynamics states the causes, conditions necessary to produce work is a differential of heat.


If the sebithenco is not getting cool, where does it come the energy to produce electricity?

Isn't the discussion here about a nuclear process? Like decaying? So, does 2LOT apply to those processes?
I'm not an expert not just in this field, but even in any field of physics, so please disregard this question if inappropriate.

Quote from: Elisha on January 08, 2013, 07:31:41 AM
The heaters elements are explained in the page.

I'm sorry, I completely missed the explanation of the heater elements:

Quote from: http://quentron.com/index.html
... these are very low wattage heaters that have three functions, firstly they are PTCs and act as high accuracy thermometers, secondly they can induce a DeltaT in either direction thus eliminating any claim of the device operating off a Delta T in a given direction, thirdly they can be used as a calorimeter capable of measuring temperature depression when the external load is connected and is extracting energy from the device.

So if I understand it correctly, they are not needed at all for the device to produce power.  Is that correct?

But, it sounds like the heaters are used to "induce a DeltaT in either direction."  That makes me suspicious.

Additionally, I don't have any experience with vacuum ovens.  Apparently, they heat the subject via radiant heat.  This isn't the picture I have when I think of a "single reservoir of heat."

My original understanding of this experiment was that the Sebithenco Device was a vacuum tube without heater elements and that it was immersed in a bath of temperature controlled hot air.  (I distinctly remember being cautioned against overheating the device as it might implode.)  That was more convincing, but perhaps that was the experiment that produced micro-watts, in which case I'm back to not being quite so convinced.

Quote from: forcefield on January 08, 2013, 10:39:55 AMMy original understanding of this experiment was that the Sebithenco Device was a vacuum tube without heater elements and that it was immersed in a bath of temperature controlled hot air.

...and the page seems pretty unclear.  It says "the above device" and there's an image of what looks like a diagram of a vacuum tube.  Given what the Philibuster has said about the tube experiments it seems unlikely to deliver a whole watt.  If he means the device below, then as you've noted there are other ingredients in the mix now.  Therefore there are more sources of error.

Quote from: Bruce_TPU on January 07, 2013, 05:43:06 PM
You are indeed one of THE crudest, rudest,

You need to get out more..or get HBO.

Quote from: Bruce_TPU on January 07, 2013, 05:43:06 PM
arrogant, hard headed

To me, arrogant means speaking beyond one's knowledge and hard-headed means refusing correction.   It would be nice if, instead of just pronouncing from your throne.  You actually pointed out where I do these things.   I doubt I do the former and the later....I just don't accept correction unless there's a cogent argument attached.   I appreciate that you must be used to people taking you at your word and perhaps bowing down to you or something.  However, in this particular place your word isn't worth anything without an argument (which includes evidence).   Nobody's is.

Quote from: Qwert on January 08, 2013, 10:33:57 AM
Isn't the discussion here about a nuclear process? Like decaying?

It is my understanding that there is no nuclear process involved in this device.  Perhaps you might be under that impression because of the term "thermionic emission?"

Thermionic emission occurs when an ion or electron leaves the surface of a metal due to thermal energy.  Generally, that wouldn't change the metal other than to leave it with an equal and opposite electric charge - which would then typically be replaced by the resulting current flow in the circuit that the metal is connected to.

Beta decay is a nuclear process where electrons can also be emitted.  But in the case of beta decay, the emitting element actually changes into another element.  For example, carbon-14 will "randomly" decay to form nitrogen-14 and emit an electron in the process.

Thermionic emission can be stimulated by increasing temperature while normal physical changes don't affect nuclear decay.