quentron.com

[lumen]

Which is my point.  It's irrelevant to what's being discussed here for the most part.Hey you used the word "think" as a verb in a positive context.  That's a good start.  Now it's time for you to try it at home.  For example try thinking why the person writing might have been simply overstating and/or speaking figuratively for the sake of a narrative.  Now again, thinking...try thinking how if they were serious about the 99.99% figure how they are probably not in a position to make such a statement.   Now the bonus prize...try thinking how this statement of yours is irrelevant to what's being discussed here.

Or you could just not think and keep on going...stroke...stroke...stroke... (like in a rowboat)

I see no point in listening to a blind leader! Come back when you have a clue.

[lumen]

Arguments aside, does anyone have an opinion on the guys above - they seemed to give up many years ago on this exact idea - could be a strong hint!
They also hold lots of patents re the 'idea' as well as many aspects of the manufacturing of the materials etc.

I will drop them an email today.

Yes, it does seem odd that now two people are claiming the same thing is possible?

[sarkeizen]

Arguments aside, does anyone have an opinion on the guys above - they seemed to give up many years ago on this exact idea - could be a strong hint!

I just skimmed it but they're claiming 50% of the Carnot limit.  That's not violating 2LOT.  So at least they're not wearing as big a set of clown shoes as Philip.  They claim to having working devices but it's not clear at what efficiency.  The idea of generating power from thermionics isn't exactly new.  50% is way beyond the average thermocouple and better than most power plants.  It's improbable that they have a device operating at that level of efficiency that is both scalable and cost-effective.  So the only question is which one of those three are the missing?

I see no point in listening to a blind leader! Come back when you have a clue.

*yawn*  Is that all you have?
You can't respond to the argument from complexity theory and information theory that I posted a while back.  It's outside your abilities.
You can't argue against that the mathematical proof that you don't need some arbitrary detail on mechanism to demonstrate that something can't work.
Isn't it interesting how little you're contributing?  The only thing you do is pop in for some cheerleading and some critique about me.   In fact where was the last substantive post of yours where you weren't breaking your own rule about talking about people.

Yes, it does seem odd that now two people are claiming the same thing is possible?

ROFL.  Well they are not claiming the same thing.  Philip, is claiming a 2LOT violating thermionic generator, the Power Chippers are claiming that they have a thermionic generator of unheard-of efficiency.  Now perhaps in your rush to consider everything confirming evidence these might look the same but they are about as similar as a car and a car that travels faster-than-light.

Funny how much you bragged about having a greater clue than myself but you apparently haven't read any of the history on thermionic generation.

[lumen]

I just skimmed it but they're claiming 50% of the Carnot limit.  That's not violating 2LOT.  So at least they're not wearing as big a set of clown shoes as Philip.  They claim to having working devices but it's not clear at what efficiency.  The idea of generating power from thermionics isn't exactly new.  50% is way beyond the average thermocouple and better than most power plants.  It's improbable that they have a device operating at that level of efficiency that is both scalable and cost-effective.  So the only question is which one of those three are the missing?
*yawn*  Is that all you have?
You can't respond to the argument from complexity theory and information theory that I posted a while back.  It's outside your abilities.
You can't argue against that the mathematical proof that you don't need some arbitrary detail on mechanism to demonstrate that something can't work.
Isn't it interesting how little you're contributing?  The only thing you do is pop in for some cheerleading and some critique about me.   In fact where was the last substantive post of yours where you weren't breaking your own rule about talking about people.
ROFL.  Well they are not claiming the same thing.  Philip, is claiming a 2LOT violating thermionic generator, the Power Chippers are claiming that they have a thermionic generator of unheard-of efficiency.  Now perhaps in your rush to consider everything confirming evidence these might look the same but they are about as similar as a car and a car that travels faster-than-light.

Funny how much you bragged about having a greater clue than myself but you apparently haven't read any of the history on thermionic generation.

Oh, so you finally did read something on thermionic generators.
What a start, now you should progress to "work function" and then to electron tunneling.

Then maybe you won't need to admit that you just don't understand the theory behind Philip's device.

Super, keep up the good work and maybe dust off that old calculator you never use (you know the one that does square roots, not the duck one).

[Madebymonkeys]

Yes, it does seem odd that now two people are claiming the same thing is possible?

One of which appears to have quit years ago!
I wonder if PJH knows he's repeating their work?