quentron.com

[Bruce_TPU]

.  Because you're never as funny as you think you are.

No, you are right, sometimes FUNNIER then we think we are.

Lighten up sarkey!  Congratulations, you have reached the status of "Junior Member".  The first time I have ever seen that happen with 58 posts that combined, say absolutely nothing.  ahahaha

Now THAT is FUNNY!  (if it were not so sad!)   

[sarkeizen]

No, you are right, sometimes FUNNIER then we think we are.

A lot of drunks think that too.

Lighten up sarkey!

From someone who doesn't allow his name to be used my posts...that's more than a little ironic.

The first time I have ever seen that happen with 58 posts that combined, say absolutely nothing.

Yawn, if you ask a specific question I'm sure I can help you understand what I'm talking about.   As it stands, it seems like it's going over your head.

[Philip Hardcastle]

Hi All,


Whilst waiting for nano fabrication to be completed at Stanford in February, for the month of January only I am posting a $50K challenge to universities (it was before $25K). It goes without saying that I would not do this if I was not 100% sure of my experimental results.


I wonder if the loud mouthed rude sceptics would care to donate to charity when they are proved to be........ just loud mouthed rude sceptics.


www.quentron.com/news.html


Cynics and sceptics may say that I am just trying to sell a block of land :-)

[sarkeizen]

I wonder if the loud mouthed rude sceptics would care to donate to charity when they are proved to be........ just loud mouthed rude sceptics.

This might be tempting if it were not for the other bets you weaseled out of.  If you had not pointed me to that moletrap place.  I'd never have known about them.   Bets, as far as I can tell you would have lost many times over if you had not weaseled out.   How about you pay out those people first?  You know, out of a sense of fair play.

Of course the problem with the whole experiment is wrongheaded and if you ever read this loudmouthed skeptic's posts you'd see why.

i) Asking lots of independent people to "prove it to themselves" is stupid, and promotes stupidity and only monumentally ignorant people would suggest it.  The reason should be glaringly obvious to even someone who hasn't taken much beyond highschool mathematics.  The assertion by skeptics is that the experiment is being done poorly (perhaps some are saying you are lying).  Meaning that the experiment is hard to do well.  Since the ability at performing an experiment amongst the general populace has a high degree of variability.  Lots of people doing the experiment only creates data that is poor in quality.

ii) The victory condition for skeptics is poorly defined.  What is proof in this context?  What if I was to show that power varied in a non-isothermal environment with respect to temperature differential?  What if the effect doesn't scale with temperature and devices as you claim.  i.e. I use 100 tubes in series and 1/100 the temperature and don't get a result?  Both of these would imply that 2LOT hasn't been broken but you could easily pretend that it doesn't "prove" anything.

Yeah, it's easy to win a bet when you stack the deck.  Oh but never mind all that...I'm sure Bruce_TPU has some fanboi encouragement for you Phil.

[MileHigh]

Phil, let's have another look at your proposition:

when they are proved to be........ just loud mouthed rude skeptics.

The 'proof date' is February 2013.  You have about 60 days, good luck.

SUCCESSFUL REPLICATIONS OF THE SEBITHENCO VALVE EXPERIMENT
There have been a number of recent offers to carry out the Sebithenco experiment (the valve challenge). As of January 1 2013 my original experiments (or parts thereof) have been repeated 4 times by others, 3 of whom are respected scientists. With expressed intent of 3 other people suitably qualified that number may soon increase to 7. Whilst one experiment that was done was not considered reliable (in scientific terms) the others were

I am assuming that you read my comments about that ridiculous toaster-oven experiment and have changed your tune from endorsing it to now stating that it was not considered reliable in scientific terms.  That is not confidence inspiring at all.  If you were real you would have rejected Elisha's experiment right away without a second thought.  Why did you have to wait for me to state the obvious?

Why don't the other three replicators step forward and share their results?  You are stating that you are waiting for their permission.  I really don't see the need for all of the cloak and dagger secrecy for this very basic experiment.  Again, this is not confidence inspiring.

Let's talk about vacuum tubes.  Basically the first vacuum tube was a diode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diode#Vacuum_tube_diodes

In 1873, Frederick Guthrie discovered the basic principle of operation of thermionic diodes.[3] Guthrie discovered that a positively charged electroscope could be discharged by bringing a grounded piece of white-hot metal close to it (but not actually touching it). The same did not apply to a negatively charged electroscope, indicating that the current flow was only possible in one direction.

Thomas Edison independently rediscovered the principle on February 13, 1880. At the time, Edison was investigating why the filaments of his carbon-filament light bulbs nearly always burned out at the positive-connected end. He had a special bulb made with a metal plate sealed into the glass envelope. Using this device, he confirmed that an invisible current flowed from the glowing filament through the vacuum to the metal plate, but only when the plate was connected to the positive supply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleming_valve

The Fleming valve, also called the Fleming oscillation valve, was a thermionic valve diode (called a "vacuum tube" in the USA) invented by John Ambrose Fleming and used in the earliest days of radio communication. As the first vacuum tube, the IEEE has described it as "one of the most important developments in the history of electronics",[1] and it is on the List of IEEE Milestones for electrical engineering.

The Fleming valve was the first practical application of the "Edison effect" (thermionic emission) discovered in 1883 by Thomas Edison shortly after his invention of the incandescent light bulb, that is, the emission of electrons by a lamp's heated filament to a nearby metal plate. Edison was granted a patent for this device as part of an electrical indicator in 1884, but did not hit upon any practical use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermionic_emission

Thermionic emission is the heat-induced flow of charge carriers from a surface or over a potential-energy barrier. This occurs because the thermal energy given to the carrier overcomes the binding potential, also known as work function of the metal. The charge carriers can be electrons or ions, and in older literature are sometimes referred to as "thermions".

The classical example of thermionic emission is the emission of electrons from a hot cathode, into a vacuum (also known as the Edison effect) in a vacuum tube.

I will comment more in the next posting.

MileHigh