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

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

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?

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 

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

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

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.
.