Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 495077
  • *Total Topics: 14568
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 5
  • *Guests: 195
  • *Total: 200

Facebook

Author Topic: Curled Ballisitic Thermionics  (Read 35947 times)

Offline retroworm

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: Curled Ballisitic Thermionics
« Reply #30 on: March 09, 2009, 11:58:09 PM »
Heh, you've been busy. It's pretty well written otherwise, but I don't think calling dibs on nobel prize was necessary ;). Hope at least a fraction of them will respond positively.

About those who have seen your device and said it won't work, has anyone ever said anything specific about why it shouldn't (meaning other than 2nd law violation)? This is probably the first time I cannot find any directly crippling flaw in a device posted here, so I'm reasonably excited about it. My only fear is that the effect is too weak to be useful.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Curled Ballisitic Thermionics
« Reply #30 on: March 09, 2009, 11:58:09 PM »

Offline Philip Hardcastle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Curled Ballisitic Thermionics
« Reply #31 on: March 10, 2009, 01:25:19 AM »
Hi Retroworm,

No one has ever said something that is a valid criticism.

The majority say "2nd law" but decline to say any more.

Interestingly a debate with Professor Raul B... of Virginia U has ended with silence from him when I claimed that he admitted the 2nd was violated. It seems that mnay professors of physics are prepared to debate so long as you don't actually win the debate.

I had a long debate with one professor and upon various statements made by him regurgitating the cliches "you can't win" etc I said that is not debating whereupon he said it doesn't matter what any equation or logic says the 2nd law is absolute. He said it is the bedrock of science.

Now in fact there are about 200 known physicists (a fair few who are otherwise respected professors) who believe the 2nd is flawed. However only a tiny percentage will stand publicly for their beliefs. Others reamin silent for fear of being ridiculed by those that chant Lord Kelvin.

I was amused to find out the Lord Kelvin, who I accuse of shutting down science, issued a statement to the press saying"No heavier than air machine will ever fly".

The issue of output is a complex one. I ahve discussed the issue with a few professors who say the device must work but have concerns re output torque.

As I said to one prof the possible electrode area using interleaving (multi electrodes) could be easily 100m2 for a hat box sized device.

The thermionic exchange current could be 1000A

So if the average enrgy was 0.2ev and Amps = 1000 x 100 x 10,000 = 1,000,000,000

The gross kinetic energy would be 200,000,000J however if the momentum tranfer is just 1:10,000 then the power for rotation would become 20KJ (20KW), and if the transfer momentum were 1:100,000 it would be 2KJ and so on.

Best estimates range from enough output for a lightbulb to enough power for a truck.

This is academic in the first instance, if a unit turns the 2nd is violated. If it si violated then suddenly everyone in science wants to improve it and perhaps before we know it we are getting 200KW from a hat box sized unit... speculation at this point in time.

As you said, it makes sense to so many, it must violate the 2nd and so it must change the direction of science.

The shame is that only a few like you retroworm seem to understand how monumental this is and how it deserves debate at all levels.

To date if a physicist want me to anser a question I do so to their satisfaction.

If there was any doubt in my mind as to the physics I would advise asap and withdrew with apologies.

I sent the document to a physicst at Sydney university who responded with "you're a crackpot". I responded by saying "dear Mohommad why do you call me a crackpot?"

There has been no reply. How easy is it for people to just accept the status quo learnt form the professor who repeats what Lord Kelvin said over a century ago (and really about steam engines).

Professor XY Fu has to my mind provided enough data to suggest he might actually have a device that violates the 2nd, he has given details about the device and yet no well kown western physicist has repeated it.

That must be a sad case for science.

We seem to be in a world where science is more arrogant than when the threatened people for heresy to suggest the earth revolves around the sun.

Anyhow, Retroworm, as always thanks for your enlightened words of support.

PS I am sure this reply has been badly written and has many typos. Just a bit rushed at the mo.

Philip H


Offline retroworm

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: Curled Ballisitic Thermionics
« Reply #32 on: March 12, 2009, 01:56:05 PM »
I was thinking about this further and came up with alternative configuration.

I'm not completely sure what your reasoning is to use interleaving electrodes so forgive me if this goes beside the point, but presumably you could just as easily make it so that all the surfaces are pointing in one direction. You would still have equally large surface area since you wouldn't have the gaps that your own design has. That would also mean that all the electrode sheets are rotating in the same direction.

Also, presumably, the electrons cause equally large but opposite toque to the case magnets, which means that they could be used as the counter rotating portion. I'm not entirely sure if this ultimately has any utility or if it's the same if it is fixed to the case.

Since there are no parts sweeping past each other at high speeds, I would think this design would be more tolerant to vibration and mechanical stress. It would also allow you to contain the vacuum inside the electrode casing and not the whole engine.

Offline Philip Hardcastle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Curled Ballisitic Thermionics
« Reply #33 on: March 12, 2009, 02:44:59 PM »
Hi Retroworm,

A very interesting diagram....

But, if I may say, we need to consider the issue of recoil.

When there is no magnetic field then there is no torque from electron ion recoil as all directions are possible. Here is the critical thing, even when a magnetic field is applied the emission angles are still evenly distributed in the distance of scale of say 1E-8 (being 100 times ion size).

I can see why you would think of recoil but if you imagine that the magnetic field of the device was applied in a zone midpoint between the plates but not including the plates then you can see that the curling is not going to effect the emitting plate.

As to plates going from inner to outer (I assume you mean all low work function plates to the outer surfaces of each tube) then the outer would need to return to the inner. This is an interesting concept and I am not going to dismiss the idea too easily. However when the plates coated with low work function face each other then no return circuit is needed.

Now as we would hope to get currents of up to 1000A cm2 then a meter squared plate with your design would need to flow 10,000,000 Amps, not impossible but it would to my mind be massive amounts of copper.

But.... your idea is intriguing and as this is open sourced it is not for me to veto it, in fact I would like others to consider your idea or for you to advance it further in open debate.

Perhaps the best thing that can happen is for everyone to take some part in this.

No doubt you or someone elese will find a better combo.

The really important thing is that the underlying device / theory should set science free of a silly priest like law that tries ot outlaw thinking.

I sent the docs to Sydney University and got a reply from a guy called Mohammad Rafat. He said, and I quote it in its entirety "you´re a crackpot". Wow such is the quality of new postdocs.

So I wrote back and asked for him to tell me where the flaw was and he said he was too busy to talk unless I showed him my cv, printed papers etc  and he called me more names and that his time was too important to debate with me.

Funny he has spent probably the best part of an hour reading my stuff and he is so wise but when asked to point out a defect he resorts to abuse.

I have received letters and emails from quite a few people now and to date there is either abuse that I should question the 2nd law or congratulations on what I have produced and said.

So many people now that a defect, if it existed, would have been told.

I must say I am getting very tired of being called names by cowards who when you reply, nicely, give every excuse under the sun why they will not tell what they see is wrong, too busy to waste my time on you, they say, or, only a fool would doubt the 2nd law.

The postdic said on a third reply that he would listen to me after I proved the 2nd law was wrong..


I replied to this stupid comment by saying the 2nd Law has not been proved in the affirmative so why should I need to prove (by prove he said my cartoons were not good enough to consider) it wrong in his terms.

I also said 4 professors understood the diagrams and words so why was it so hard for him, no reply now form him.

This arrogant stupidity must stop.

I offer a prize of $1,000 for one of these arrogants to come here to this site and post a proper argument against the theory of curled thermionics. I will get 2 professors to judge it or a panel from this forum and if it stands scrutiny I will pay up, apologize to everyone and never be heard of again.

Retroworm, re your ideas, I will think on them a bit before posting any more comments.

It deserves careful thought.

I think it may lead yet to even better configurations.

However I am pretty sure in my mind that recoil is wrong.

I attach a crude diagram showing a bunch of energies emitted at plus and minus angles from norm.

I have left the electron trails going beyond the impact points to aid in visualisation of the curl.

Note it is a micro section of a spherical gap (though the 1 second of arc is a bit silly, it probalby should say 1 minute). Anyhow it shows that at x=0 the angle is the same mag or no mag and at short range it is almost identical etc. As I said above the complete elimination of this factor would be simply to contain the mag field to midpoint (for the purpose of the argument).

Respect

Phil H

Offline Philip Hardcastle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Curled Ballisitic Thermionics
« Reply #34 on: March 12, 2009, 08:14:24 PM »
retroworm,

Having slept on your idea I must advise that it has a flaw.

Unlike the non circuit design (the original Curled ballistic) your design requires a potential to return the large needed currents. The net emf does not exist as it is a thermionic gap versus a thermoelectric junction. This problem is the classic thermionic generator obstacle that is otherwise normally solved by a temperature difference.

I feel fairly sure that any variant is going to need a non circuit form.

That is not to say that the design is fixed for the very fact that you are thinking must lead to some refinements being created. However it does not look like it is a one way stack with return as you have drawn.

The amazing (read very lucky) thing about CBT (Curled Ballistic Thermionics) is that it does not need a return circuit, that it is electrically symmetrical, and yet is capable of producing output torque.

It is a simple device.

If there were to be improvements they might come in the from of momentum transfer enhancement, surface topology or the use of subtrate materials with super high thermal conductivity such as cvd diamond. But........ it is open sourced so I am no longer the president on this matter.

Phil H

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Curled Ballisitic Thermionics
« Reply #34 on: March 12, 2009, 08:14:24 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline retroworm

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: Curled Ballisitic Thermionics
« Reply #35 on: March 13, 2009, 07:07:40 PM »
Yeh, I suppose you are right. Another thing I later spotted, if the returning current goes towards the center within the magnetic field, it will cause opposing torque and slow it down.

But I feel you were arguing slightly beside the point about the magnet recoil.
When freely flying electron enters a magnetic field, it will accelerate tangentially (as you well know :)). But doesn't this effect also affect the magnet that is producing the field? Reaction to every action, right?

Offline Philip Hardcastle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Curled Ballisitic Thermionics
« Reply #36 on: March 13, 2009, 10:48:51 PM »
Hi Retroworm, Wow

Your question of reaction of the magnet to the electron curling is unexpected and a bit mind bending.

If it were so, for the sake of the argument, then that would mean the magnet could be the rotor. Now the electrons going inner to outer would be one set to consider reaction to and the outer to inner, the other. Argument would seem to be that both are bending say clockwise and so are additive.

Now if torque were tranfered to the magnet and the magnet allowed to rotate coupled to a shaft doing work, that would require the electrons to lose kinetic energy (velocity).

The reaction is of course is to each individual electron in its own say 10um radius curl and to be perfectly honest I am not sure in my mind if tiny circles of reaction convert to macro torque in the magnetic field ring. I think that the answer must be no otherwise would not any piece of metal rotate when a magnetic was introduced for that magnetic field would act upon free electrons in the metal?

Retroworm, your question is just too hard for me to give a yes or no to at 8:30 in the morning, my off hand view is that the answer is no but...... maybe it is yes and you have found an improvement or something. I reckon to be sure it is a question that should be thrown open to others.

Phil H

 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Curled Ballisitic Thermionics
« Reply #36 on: March 13, 2009, 10:48:51 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline BEP

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1322
Re: Curled Ballisitic Thermionics
« Reply #37 on: March 13, 2009, 11:06:39 PM »
I'll save you all some brain teasing....

The answer is no. You will never have reactive torque on the magnet.
The easiest way for me to understand the concept is to think of the magnet as an optical lens. the lens just directs and focuses the light. The lens does not generate light.

A magnet can only focus or shape the magnetic flux. It does not generate it. You can move one magnet with another but it is the fields that are meeting, not the magnets.

The moving electrons change direction because the magnetic flux will not, among other reasons  :)

Offline retroworm

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: Curled Ballisitic Thermionics
« Reply #38 on: March 14, 2009, 07:03:25 PM »
Hmm, that is weird...and interesting. I thought it would be similar to railguns and the like, which is similar in principle, but quite definitely do produce recoil. On second thought, that is probably due to the magnetic field induced to the projectile by the current going through it.
...I hope my ignorance about the subject isn't shining too brightly here :).

But but but but...suppose we can redirect stream of electrons (or even protons) without reaction and collide them to a plate, and suppose that the system is linear and not circular like this motor, wouldn't it produce net momentum? Anti Newton 3rd as well?
Something is a miss here...

One clarification to phil
...Now the electrons going inner to outer would be one set to consider reaction to and the outer to inner, the other. Argument would seem to be that both are bending say clockwise and so are additive.

Now if torque were tranfered to the magnet and the magnet allowed to rotate coupled to a shaft doing work, that would require the electrons to lose kinetic energy (velocity). 

It's not about which way they are curling, it's more in which direction they are moving around the center of the rotor. That means in the interleaved case it would not be apparent since the movements would cancel each other out. But if what BEP is saying is true, this won't be a factor either way.

The electron do lose energy as radiation as they curl. Particle collider detectors have large magnets that force particles to spiraling path and record the emitted radiation.

Offline Philip Hardcastle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Curled Ballisitic Thermionics
« Reply #39 on: March 14, 2009, 11:23:41 PM »
Hi Retrowrom,

This is a side issue but it is interesting.

I am on the road in 5 minutes so this has to be quick - ie it might be wrong or poorly thought through.

Following on from my prior post. Let us assume that for a single elctron curling there is a reactive torque, but it must be limited to the area of the magnet creating that flux, ie a tiny tiny magnet of just 10um diameter. Now if such a micro magnet were looked at in terms of an elctron being curled in its field then I would not be surprised if there were some opposite torque.

But....... if all the micro curl torques are put into one macro magnet it would seem to me that perhaps we should calculate reaction torque as the curl radius / circumference ie say 50cm radius then we have torque x (5um/5ocmm = 5/ 500,000 =1:100.000 or

Magnet macro torque = (curl torque) /100,000

Now that figure is interesting, if true, and if you take a massive number of amps as previously proposed it may amount to a measureable amount. However this is not well thought through but it does seem to make some sense at 9a.m in the morning as I am packing to go.

I really think this needs open discussion, I have made curled ballistics available to all so I need to get others like you, retro, to own it.

I note no one has claimed my offered $1,000 prize.

Phil H

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Curled Ballisitic Thermionics
« Reply #39 on: March 14, 2009, 11:23:41 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline BEP

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1322
Re: Curled Ballisitic Thermionics
« Reply #40 on: March 14, 2009, 11:59:37 PM »
@All

My odd view on magnetic flux and fields is based upon years of trying to produce a true rotating flux around the axis of that field. I've never succeeded and I doubt anyone will.

No matter how fast you spin a magnet about its axis the flux does not turn.

You will see force/counter force between magnets but it is like this:

1. when repelling, it is like air filled inner tubes acting upon each other (the inner tubes represent the reshaped flux produced by the magnet, NOT the magnet.
2. when attracting, it is like bubbles joining in water. Allow the water to settle and all bubbles will join to make one big one. Just like a pile of magnets aligning and attaching to form a glob of magnets.

I say magnets do not produce the flux no more than a lens produces light for one main reason.
Extend the field lines of any magnetic object beyond the usual display. They always join with the nearest magnetic field lines of the nearest magnetic object (provide it is close enough) and continue until the lines run magnetic North and South.

@retroworm

A slight bit of energy is radiated when a moving electron is diverted by a magnetic field? This is news to me. I must do some reading on this. If this is true then the rule of a magnetic field never imparting or detracting energy in a moving electron is wrong and other things are possible.

@Phil

I assume your reference to $1000 is a reward for proving your idea wrong. If correct I will not waste my time trying to win it because I don't think your main idea is wrong.

Offline Philip Hardcastle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Curled Ballisitic Thermionics
« Reply #41 on: March 15, 2009, 08:00:38 AM »
Hi BEP, Retro and All,

Yes the prize is to prove me an idiot.

If you prove me right there is about $5million dollars in prizes around you could claim.

So saying there is a financial bias to proving me right there is 99.99% of physicist that are ready to hang me for even saying what I have said.

I saw Steorn forum last night and I am being called nasty names by some coward called Joshs.

I must say it makes for interesting reading and apart from this nasty Joshs guy the remainder seem like decent thoughtful physics thinkers. Or perhaps I am just saying that becasue they are saying my theory is right.

But this Joshs guy is so dumb he calls me names then tries to prove me wrong but his argument starts out by admitting me right. He says the tangential torque will be balanced out by eddy currents. Now eddy currents do not happen until there is rotation so he argues that it wont turn because the turning force will be exactly cancelled by an eddy current reaction to motion. Chicken or egg someone?

Why people believe that there is a conspiracy of nature to find a byproduct force that magically cancels a different force I cannot begin to understand. It seems that these parrots feel superior because they are betting safe 99.999% of the time.

What takes guts is the people on this forum and others who stick out their chin to cop criticism for thinking, calling people names should not be part of educated debate, or in fact any conversation.

Phil H

PS just arrived back from Brisbane

Offline Philip Hardcastle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Curled Ballisitic Thermionics
« Reply #42 on: March 15, 2009, 08:03:38 AM »
Clarification to last

should read

Eddy currents, if they were to happen, would only come into play when the electrode is in motion,

or something like that.

Offline BEP

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1322
Re: Curled Ballisitic Thermionics
« Reply #43 on: March 15, 2009, 04:00:43 PM »
Chicken or egg.... acceleration or velocity. Are so many folks still part of the 'Flat Earth Society'?

I seriously doubt eddy currents will be the problem most envision. Why? Because you need to cross the precious 'field lines' to make Eddie wake up. In a steady state Lorentz will be the master of this device, not Eddie. Even if it is a problem what will this produce? Heat.

As far as going for the 5 mil. I don't have 'Dr.' prepending my name. The last time I recruited a 'Dr.' to assist he declined because he wanted to keep the title.
.

Offline Philip Hardcastle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Curled Ballisitic Thermionics
« Reply #44 on: March 16, 2009, 03:15:39 AM »
Hi BEP,

That is the issue, I have professors who do not want yet to be publicly named. There is no free and open debate when experts have to fear persecution.

Curled Ballistics is not spoilt by eddy or any of his pals. The fact is theoretically every thermionic emission point could be made as an island of just a few atoms, so that there is no dimension for an eddy to swing.

Unfortunately there have been ideas that were silly and some that were so complex others could not see that they were pseudo science. The beauty of CBT is that it is so simple, there is nothing hiding waiting to bite.

The view of the conservatives is to say it has not been done (ignoring people like Professor Fu) and thus never will be. When someone puts forward a theory the people that see the sense in it are fearful of losing their tenure at a University, so they say nothing, then the second wave of educated but not professional physicists put forward their bit only to have someone who is just learning parrot fashion the prejudices of science, come forward and spit poison and ridicule on the thinkers.

Eventually almost all are too fearful of saying something wrong that they just become watchers, and the idea dies, often swamped by the third wave of zealots with no real physics knowledge who don´t care about criticism because they think everyone else is an alien or something.

So then the prejudical nasty ones say see, told you so and retreat to their towers of arrogance awaiting the next Don Quixote to come forward trying to do good and having the honesty and integrity, but naivety, to try. Down come the parrots and in rages of anger try to peck hi eyes out.

I admit from the outset I could be wrong. I cannot see where. So many people I have asked but none see why. So many Professors I have corresponded with but none see a mistake. So I feel that it is worth posting, then I get people attacking me - but not telling me there is a defect.

So I give it to the World for all enthusiasts to develop. However I cannot make the World believe in it.

I wrote to Stephen Hawking but no reply as yet. Perhaps because even Hawking knows that if he were to say yes to a 2nd Law violating device he would be attacked. Amazing for a Law that has never been proved.

For interest the Laws of thermodynamics have been changed from time to time, for instance when nuclear reactions were harnessed and of course with e=mc2 for the first says energy can neither be created or destroyed.

Philosophically the laws of thermodynamics are agreed to be violated by the big bang, and if there was ever a macro event that would be one. Then there is the argument about entropy but if the universe were to collapse back init to a singularity we can only assume that must be entropy in reverse.

But hey.... without question the laws of thermodynamics work perfectly for steam engines.......oh that is right, that that was what they were written about!

Anyhow folks, I have given the rights for people like you (the thinkers and doers, and even the dreamers) to use my idea.

It has been very nice talking to you guys, thanks to many for encouragement, and may you all live long and prosper.

If anyone wishes to continue this work and needs an ear you can contact me pjhardcastle@gmail.com

and if anyone claims my prize I will return to eat humble pie and to pay the piper.

Philip Hardcastle

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Curled Ballisitic Thermionics
« Reply #44 on: March 16, 2009, 03:15:39 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at:


OneLink