Hardcastle/Solomon Thermionic Generator

[nothere2win]

PESWIKI:
  NEC Specialist Assessment: Flawed in One Critical Matter

On September 18, 2008 8:58 PM Mountain, New Energy Congress member, Mark Snowswell, Ph.D. and specialist in this class of systems, wrote:

    "I have looked at this closely now and I am prepared to make an initial comment.

    "I believe this concept is flawed in one critical manner. That is the assumption that electrons released and captured at a given radius will flow freely down a potential gradient to a smaller radius. The increase in potential created by the current flow to a smaller radius will balance out any increase in thermionic emission at the larger radius.

    "I have no doubt that there will be a radial difference in work function for thermionic emission in a rotating frame of reference. However all attempts to utilize this difference will be exactly countered by the radial topology. When assessing proposals with radial topologies the use of 2D cross sections can be misleading as they hide the 3D volumetric variation with the square of the radius. In this respect sections normal to the axis of rotation can be more revealing.

    "There may be merit in investigating this class of device â€" but not within the limits the author as proscribed. The proposed device is bounded by the classical framework that the author’s arguments lie within â€" that is a closed energy system. If however it were to be combined with the novel electric and magnetic configurations that others (such as the Roschin & Godin) claim anomalous effects from then it may have merit."

- - - -

On September 19, 2008 5:30 PM Mountain, Mark Snowswell added:

    "I would like to add some notes:

    "I wrote an opinion based on the material available. It was not a commentary on the author or anything other than a simple opinion on a specific device proposal.

    "As I said in the last paragraph â€" the (new) class of device has merit (it should be investigated) â€" However I would advise adding provision for controlling magnetic and electrostatic environments within the device in a manner that Roschin and Godin and others have done in devices they report have anomalous effects.

    "As always, I fully support all efforts to discover and invent novel ways to create energy and replacement technologies for the primitive ones we now employ.

    "Finally â€" My personal advice to anyone proposing novel energy mechanisms would be to do one of two things: Base their proposals wholly on extrapolation from experimental prototypes (and avoid any theoretical discussion): or, Develop an theoretical framework that predicts the origin of energy and how it is to be harnessed. If you can do both â€" all the better.

    "The first method is what most experimenters in this field employ â€" observe an anomaly (outside currently understood explanations) and then design new devices to exploit the anomaly. The second method is far more difficult although I can think of one compelling example in Blacklight Power... Randal Mills (Blacklight Power) has a credible theory that supports his experimental observations that energy can be released by dropping electrons to a lower energy state than was previously (classically) thought possible."

- - - -

On September 19, 2008 5:55 PM Mountain, Mark Snowswell added:

    "I don’t believe [Philip's] proposed device would work as he has designed it ... but I am intrigued by the use of Thermionics, something I had not seen before in this context.

    "I would advice that he add a radial magnetic field + HV bias and then apply sharp, short duty cycle, pulses on top of that. I would expect anomalous results based similarities with other devices... the addition of thermionics to free energy research is novel and worthy of experimental investigation.

HARDCASTLE´s RESPONSE TO A PERCEIVED ATTACK

Below are the response, in italics, to the attack on me following my instructions to withdraw my work from Peswiki. Despite me prohibiting Sterling Allan and Peswiki from using my materail they have reposted it.

My wish to leave peswiki was because I felt it was not taling real ideas serioulsy but instead supporting claims from some that are unfounded and to my mind in danger of leading unsuspecting persons to believe there are devices currently available that make electricity from nothing.

My view is that proper science must be the basis for theories and my confidence in the peswiki top 100 is very poor.

AS said I tried to leave but instead they display my copyright without my permission and then go on a public attack of me.

Please take note below is the words of their expert, a biochemist who now does computer graphics, they say is the best they have, my response is in italics, excuse some of my words but they have made me very angry by these unconscionable tactics.

It is my intention to take legal action and to sue for malicious damage, illegal use of my copyright etc

Philip


I believe this concept is flawed in one critical manner. His beliefs are not science.

That is the assumption that electrons released and captured at a given radius will flow freely down a potential gradient to a smaller radius.

Electrons are not released or captured at a given radius, the theory quite clearly says, refer to the vacuum return version, that electrons do work to escape, as far as the device is concerned the escaped electrons can drift off to infinity. The work done is converted to an emf in the rotor. There is no determined potential gradient for “the electrons��? to flow down. In any case if we were to measure the potentials at the outer it would be negative, and at the inner it would be positive, so if we choose to recycle the electrons emitted they would need to go from negative to positive, well no problem doing that, and as to how fast well that is irrelevant, and if irrelevant then it can be at a pico-electronvolt or a femto-electronvolt or any amount of energy, just so long as it drifts to the inner. And if at a nano, micro or even milli-electron volt of energy that is a fraction of the work done which will be hundreds of milli-electron volts.


The increase in potential created by the current flow to a smaller radius will balance out any increase in thermionic emission at the larger radius.

How can a femtovolt or a nanovolt balance out the increase in thermionic emission, in fact what the heck is he talking about? Even if this was other than rubbish how can he assume equivalence if the work done in a recycled electron is totally at the discretion of the design.


I have no doubt that there will be a radial difference in work function for thermionic emission in a rotating frame of reference. OK

However all attempts to utilize this difference will be exactly countered by the radial topology.

Assumption and gobbledy goop


When assessing proposals with radial topologies the use of 2D cross sections can be misleading as they hide the 3D volumetric variation with the square of the radius. In this respect sections normal to the axis of rotation can be more revealing.

What the heck? Someone tell me what all this is!


There may be merit in investigating this class of device â€" but not within the limits the author as proscribed.

Unsupported attack of a non scientific kind


The proposed device is bounded by the classical framework that the author’s arguments lie within â€" that is a closed energy system.

Is that him repeating his thesis where he says the second law is absolute, wonder why such a person would be asked to review a technology that goes against his own stated belief.


If however it were to be combined with the novel electric and magnetic configurations that others (such as the Roschin & Godin) claim anomalous effects from then it may have merit.

Well now he can predict the future, imagine the unknown and fart whilst chewing gum!

Mark Snoswell.


Mark if you want to be a big shot and critique me do it properly, make it coherent and stick to facts. You have my email and I will be only too happy to publish our discussion and I will get a qualified opinion from an actual professors of physics with expertise in the field. PS do you want to send me a copy of the instruction you got to do what you did?

[Philip Hardcastle]

After Peswiki and associates promised me funding they got me to do pages and a radio interview.
Then they lost interest and said they did not have any money.

So I thought, they are getting donation, going to conferences etc.... so they are getting something.

So I thought if I looked at the other items on their site and they seemed like cons or bull then perhaps all they want is suckers like me to keep the donations coming.

So I withdrew my work, then the fireworks began including them getting some fool to have a go at my physics.

I challenged the fool to a debate but he slinked away.

Anyhow that is the final word on peswiki from me.

You will see I have posted a new article on overunity about Curled BallisticThermionics. The RTG is not dead but the CBTG is such a simple device that can be so easily constructed, and so obviously shows a violation of the Second Law (Kelvin statement), that I wanted to release it to you asap.

Phil H

[sushimoto]

Hi Phil,

At least, we are just happy, that you are fine and healthy

best,
sushi

[Philip Hardcastle]

Hi Sushi,

Nice of you to say so.

Live long and prosper.

Phil H

[Philip Hardcastle]

Hi,

Just thought I would put this back to the top as it stands as being without identified flaw.

It will become apparent shortly that this and Curled ballistics is leading to something really big that I will disclose when I have a working device that can power a lightbulb from ambient air.

Phil