Prof Fu's violates 2nd Law - photos & video proof

[lostcauses10x]

Hoping some one can help you with the video. This should be interesting.

[retroworm]

Hey Phil,

I read Fu's paper while I was researching your thermionic motor (still working on it btw). It's interesting for sure, gives me the mental image of maxwell's demon telling electrons to jump a fence .

I doubt you can ever fit 250mb video to 250kb (attachment limit), but you can use video stream sites (youtube, vimeo, metacafe, liveleak, megavideo etc.) or file hosts like megaupload and rapidshare. Most sites should downsize it automatically, but you can also easily do that with windows movie maker, which should be fairly self explanatory.

If it's in dvd format (that plays on dvd players), it's gonna be bit trickier. You can put the VOB file on the disk to megaupload and it will play on some media players (like VLC), but stream sites and most editing software won't accept them.

[tinu]

Hi all,

The whole issue was discussed much earlier into this forum but at that time I didn’t bother to reply in the hope that another member will show up with the right explanation. I'm not sure if that happened or not, so here it is:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=28623
quote user xyfu (presumably professor Fu):
“When I am going to do the experiment, I can borrow some magnets from one of my friends. After the experiment, I return the magnets to him and the magnets can be not changed at all. So, the magnets are free.”

Magnets are free, indeed. However, bringing them near the tube is not free. It takes work to do that. Lol! Neither removing them is free.
Someone said nobody has ever found a flaw?! Think again...

Need a second thought?
Well, why is professor Fu scratching his ear going around his head?! One Ag-O-Cs electrode “A” placed inside of a metallic sphere “B” will also give a thermionic current (and voltage, thus power) for a while... But not for long: equilibrium is to be reach. The two experiments are not identical, of course, but the point is in the tubes of prof. Fu the equilibrium will be definitely achieved too. It may take a very long time as the macroscopic imparted energy when establishing the magnetic field might be huge as compared to the output power (0.8VxE-13A)...
So, is it available a single current-time graph in long run? Nope...
Instead, let’s quickly jump to the conclusion: “In the above experiment, the heat extracted by the electronic tubes from the air converts completely into electric energy without producing any other effects. The experiment shows clearly that the second law of thermodynamics is not universally valid and there are ways by witch energy can convert from waste one to useful one again!” Yeah, right…

So, the paper/subject is not new at all to some members.
I attach the link for easy reference http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0311/0311104.pdf
But paper is flawed.
Sorry for the bad news.

Cheers,
Tinu

[retroworm]

Bad news are often good, wouldn't like my understanding to be based on false assumptions.
But, I'm not sure I understand you fully. Are you arguing that introducing the field temporarily increases the thermionic emission? If that's not the case then I'd like you to be more specific. The magnet's supposed function is just to passively redirect the electrons that are already flying. I would also like to see far more extensive and long term study to be done, though. I can give you that much.

One Ag-O-Cs electrode “A” placed inside of a metallic sphere “B” will also give a thermionic current (and voltage, thus power) for a while... But not for long: equilibrium is to be reach.

This paper actually argues against that. (and no magnets used in this case)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0902/0902.3590v1.pdf
Initially the plates have equal temperature and charge. Thermionic current then creates a charge difference, which can be shorted out to produce measurable current. Once shorted it returns to initial state, and the process can be repeated. At which point does it reach equilibrium and no longer function?

In both cases I think the premise is that the emission (and therefore charge buildup) continuously happens even in the most neutral state of the system, which would also mean that any state "above" the neutral could be reverted by shorting/grounding.

Whether or not that has been conclusively demonstrated to be true is another issue. I think it's still worth investigating.

[Philip Hardcastle]

Hi,

I read at least some of the exchanges with Fu from this forum and may I say if there ever was a case of attacking the person not the idea it came forward then, not saying who but someone (and it might not have been here) started out saying Fu was a biologist or something. Then the word fraud or con was used.

I wondered about Fu and for a while it looked like perhaps he did not fit the bill. However by believing him to be genuine meant I persevered and found that he was in fact a very respected Professor of Physics at the Joint university of Virginia and Shanghai university (Shanghai Jiao Tong University).

Moreover he is 74 years old and has been doing the research for over 50 years.

He presented his paper in the USA after an invitation, extract from letter

"Dear Dr. Fu,
On behalf of the entire organizing committee for PQE 2007, I would like to invite
you both to present the results of your research at the 37th annual Winter Colloquium
on the Physics of Quantum Electronics. In particular, your research on “Realization
of Maxwell’s Hypothesis” would be very interesting to our audience.
A measure of the success of this conference is the attendence by many internationally
recoginzed scientists such as yourselves. We sincerely hope you will be able
to attend and strengthen the conference in so doing.

The 37th Winter Colloquium on the Physics of Quantum Electronics will be held
January 2â€"6, 2007 at Snowbird, Utah. There will be a reception on Tuesday, January
2 in honor of the 2007 recipients of the Willis E. Lamb medal. The conference sessions
will be Wednesday, January 3 through Saturday, January 6."

So then I felt, like tinu said, that perhaps his experiment was unreliable.

However I sent Fu my curled ballisitic thermionics idea (as well as 50 other professors) and he replied with a detailed response full of diagrams etc (in short saying my idea was correct). This led to a few pleasant exchanges and then I received in the post a DVD.

Now if you start with a fair mind on this subject, you wathc the video, you read the papers and you do not allow the 2ndlot to be considered absolute, then you get very interested.

You ask yourself about if there is a mechanism to get an erroneous result etc.

Then you get to a point and say, there is so much here that looks good, why has not the west replicated the experiment.

You find no answer except you hear comments about Fu being a fraud or Fu being a second rate chinese scientist. It is horrible to think that people would attack rather than debate.

When he came on someone threw at him an argument about magnets and Fu answered poorly, not wrongly, but poorly. The guy does not know how the people in this rough and tumble forum work. He is a gentle elderley, respected Professor of Physics who is much loved by all his students (I even got letters and appraisals from his student and peers).

I say that despite my best efforts I cannot find a good argument to deny his experiment is some sort of proof. If a better proof is needed by using better meters etc then we should ask universities in the USA to help.

If he is right and it shows that 2ndlot is not absolute then this forum and many others becomes the shrine for possibility instead of a shooting gallery for resolute sceptics.

Yes scepticism is ok provided it is not a barrier to thought.

This is my view.

Philip H