quentron.com

[MarkE]

I have all the proof I need backed up by others doing the same experiment, all you are showing in your statement is that you are prejudiced by the view that the 2nd is absolute.


MarkE, with due respect because I can see you are a professional in science, get a pentode, wire it as shown in my $10 experiment, heat it in a fancy oven and measure it with all the care you can, then tell me what you know.

Mr. Hardcastle I have not made any statements about the 2nd ( I presume you mean the Second Law of Energy ).  I have simply stated the fact that two materials separated by a vacuum can have different work functions with the result that there is a static electrical field, and yet the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium.  IE, if one were to connect an external passive circuit, the existence of that field would not cause any work to be done on the external circuit.  Matters are quite the opposite:  because of the existence of non-zero work functions, external work must be expended in order to pass current through those materials and the intervening vacuum.

I am not familiar with your $10. experiment.  I would have to know more about the intent and construction in order to comment on it.

What are you trying to determine with the experiment?
How is the experiment designed to test what it is that you are trying to determine?
What are the error tolerances for the measurements?
What null experiments are included to determine that the experiment as designed can determine what it is that you want to determine?
What experiment results have been measured to date?

[Philip Hardcastle]

@MarkE, I thought you already knew of the experiment.


In any case you will not do the experiment, and you will never agree with me that the addition of the mesh is significant, and no matter what evidence I provide to you verbally you will never concede I am right.


However I do provide a modified diagram for significant power generation at room temp rather than the sebby 550C.


My last comments on the subject are that the experiment is already posted here under some heading (sebithenco I believe), that you are welcome to contact me on my email (pjhardcastle@gmail.com) if you actually want to do the experiment, and that in any case your support in any way is academic for others of significant scientific credentials are interested.


The problem with the experiment is that though the results are conclusive, the ones from uni physics that have done it are reticent to go public because of the prejudice that pervades science, one physicist did tell his colleagues of the production of power from an isothermal oven using the $10 experiment Vacuum tube (Philips E180F Pemtode equivalent) and was essentially attacked, so he has been silenced. This is something that almost always happens when a discovery contradicts the status quo.

[MarkE]

@MarkE, I thought you already knew of the experiment.


In any case you will not do the experiment, and you will never agree with me that the addition of the mesh is significant, and no matter what evidence I provide to you verbally you will never concede I am right.


However I do provide a modified diagram for significant power generation at room temp rather than the sebby 550C.


My last comments on the subject are that the experiment is already posted here under some heading (sebithenco I believe), that you are welcome to contact me on my email (pjhardcastle@gmail.com) if you actually want to do the experiment, and that in any case your support in any way is academic for others of significant scientific credentials are interested.


The problem with the experiment is that though the results are conclusive, the ones from uni physics that have done it are reticent to go public because of the prejudice that pervades science, one physicist did tell his colleagues of the production of power from an isothermal oven using the $10 experiment Vacuum tube (Philips E180F Pemtode equivalent) and was essentially attacked, so he has been silenced. This is something that almost always happens when a discovery contradicts the status quo.

Mr. Hardcastle, if you have an experiment that shows something remarkable I find it rather incredible that you say that it has been successfully replicated by academics and they are anything but anxious to be the first to report such a discovery.  Something rings very wrong.

In terms of work function creating an energy source, that is a misunderstanding on your part.  Work function describes field required to move an electron from within a solid to surrounding vacuum.  One can visualize that as an energy hill to overcome.  Different materials have different work functions and so it is true that when placed in local proximity to one another a static electric field gradient exists.  But that gradient exists in complete thermodynamic equilibrium.  One might imagine this as a sort of roller coaster, any traverse around a closed path will not yield a net gain or loss in total gradient.

If you are confident that you have a discovery then I encourage you to properly document:  Your hypothesis, your experiment design, your null result checks, and your measurements into a paper for peer review.

[Philip Hardcastle]

Mr. Hardcastle, if you have an experiment that shows something remarkable I find it rather incredible that you say that it has been successfully replicated by academics and they are anything but anxious to be the first to report such a discovery.  Something rings very wrong.

In terms of work function creating an energy source, that is a misunderstanding on your part.  Work function describes field required to move an electron from within a solid to surrounding vacuum.  One can visualize that as an energy hill to overcome.  Different materials have different work functions and so it is true that when placed in local proximity to one another a static electric field gradient exists.  But that gradient exists in complete thermodynamic equilibrium.  One might imagine this as a sort of roller coaster, any traverse around a closed path will not yield a net gain or loss in total gradient.

If you are confident that you have a discovery then I encourage you to properly document:  Your hypothesis, your experiment design, your null result checks, and your measurements into a paper for peer review.

Sorry MarkE but your comments that you believe academics would run to ring the bell of discovery are wrong, I know for I have had the conversations many times, you are merely speculating. The history of science is that people are attacked for holding a contrary view, in fact almost all discoveries are ignored for some time until some critical mass is achieved. That is the way it is and your comment about it ringing wrong is part of the problem, you assume I am wrong because others are not on the front page of the news. You should try for yourself to get a science journal to return your call if you send them a note saying you have just found a way of converting ambient heat to power with 100% efficiency, or that you have breached the Kelvin interpretation, if they reply they will tell you you must have made a mistake.


You and others on these sites also tell me I must have made a mistake.


The next bit where you give me a lecture is downright rude, the fact is I know this science clearly better than you do, I never said anywhere that work function is an energy source, I fully understand all the science. I will not take you to task with what you said or gesture to educate you for I have better things than to engage in a Profitis / Sarkeizen style exchange, and I am sure you do to.

[Philip Hardcastle]

Here is the one pager I posted somewhere else.