Phil
 
Your test seems so simple .. I have access to persons here that help me all the time with measurements and testing  to acceptable industry standards.
 
Besides the high temp oven [have a few],is there any other piece of equipment
required ?[besides volt... temp meters]
Could you give a quick list of equipment?
 
I would be happy to run this test absolutely no charge,it could be run to
the level of a testing lab .
 
The fellows that will be checking my protocol and results are the types that can interpret the data and get it into university quickly.
 
?
thx
Chetkremens@gmail.com

Hi Philip,

I think your doing an awesome job.

No matter what you do in life there is always going to be resistance. Just keep pushing through.

Validation will validate.

Thanks for the support and good words.

 
Thanks for the quick responses.

 
@ramset, I thank you most sincerely for your generous offer, and I have no doubt you can do the experiment to a high standard, but I have a reservation in that who will believe you any more than people will me? Will your data and vid be backed up by a recognised university?

 
Perhaps the answer is that you have offered to do it without the challenge money so another university can still take that to then validate your validation of my original work, and that of my independent.

 
The best outcome would be to have by early November 2 independent posted replications and then a news report so that at the launch we will be swamped with Big companies ready to get things going.

 
As to equipment I would like to keep it really simple but if you want to make it sophisticated then you should consult your protocol people.

 
A good basic experiment would be

 
At least 2 of the pentode devices, more would be better.

 
A sensitive un-powered moving coil meter (10uA preferred), I see little need to do pA or nA measurements when the device is only warm as the convincing proof is when you have 3uA, however if you choose to you can see the steady rise of output that accelerates rapidly near 500C, as predicted by calculation.

 
Back to back thermocouples to prove near zero temperature gradient across the devices when in the oven.

 
Video, of course.

 
Lab grade Oven (digitally controlled) capable of less than a degree of temp swing.

 
A large thermal load to mount the device in (say a 10lb block of metal with a cavity to put the device in) this gives a stable temp and guarantees no thermal gradients even if the oven has small fluctuations.

 
Lab Hot termination block for wires from the device.

 
Lab Cold termination block for wires to the meters.

 
High temp wire of your choice but all the wires must be made from the same piece so that there is no possibility of claims it is acting as a thermocouple.

 
You can do the null tests with
A wire link of any metal to replace the device under test.
A similar device but with the vacuum broken thus proving the effect is thermionic.
Of course any other tests you care to do.

 
You can also do identical devices in parallel to show the increase in current output by an integer multiple, this also proves that it is not RF but to satisfy the skeptics who claim all things as likely except a 2LV you will need to have care to show there is no RF, I used appropriate screening of wires from the oven to the meters, I suggest you do that and also have the ability to add RF capacitors (non polarized) to show no change to current. An oscilloscope also that can be connected to show no RF and that the output does not change when caps in and out. I say that is sufficient but I am happy if other checks are added, this should be simple so that it is also easy to understand.

 
There will be people that say this is too basic, let them tell us what reasonable extra things should be done, things like saying the device should have oxide coating removed from the cathode are asking a lot for doing such is almost impossible.

 
What the skeptics are never prepared to do is to consider that the results are not achievable by any other means, so it can be argued that doing the same test with deliberate temperature gradients across the device (in at least 3 directions) and seeing that the output does not change is a valid experimental test. Also it is necessary to hold the device for some time to show there is no fluctuation which the hardest skeptic will say is needed to prove it is not chemical, this idea of chemical is silly as it is a device that shows output to be directly tied to thermionic and it is a device that is probably 30+ years old, nonetheless the more we can tick off the objections of Uber skeptics the better.

 
Some have suggested it is because of radioactive cathode materials, this is not a possible mechanism and though a calculation of the device material quantity would prove that even if it were radioactive that could only give a pA if however you had the ability to give a device to a lab to actually check the cathode's material it would not hurt. You can appreciate there is a point where it all becomes too complex and some skeptics will still say it is not possible. Which is why I never pushed the valve experiment in preference to presenting the Quenco, but I want people to attend and so the Valve test should at least make some people pay attention.


In a sensible world the valve test should be front page by itself, funny how cold fusion had labs all round the World doing expensive experiments but this test needs to be pushed.


Thanks again to you ramset for your offer.


Phil 

 

 

Is this guy a physicist? It seems not.

Qwert,  Why would you say that?  It seems your posts have taken an unusual turn lately.  Maybe it's that Quantum weirdness Philip mentioned - LOL.   I can show you a post where Philip states he is a physicist or you could just search his posts on overunity.com.   Why would he say that if he is not a physicist?   Just a Google search will show that he is a physicist unless you consider a person who was a senior geophysicist for one of the world's largest companies to not be a physicist (I think he is also an electrical engineer).   Sounds to me like he has even more qualifications for a project like this than a regular physicist.   I would urge you to read this entire page including comments:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3125

If for any reason that page disappears I will post a copy on a web site I have unless Philip has any objection to it. 

head shake smiley goes here   ....   

      I don't know what you consider to be a physicist but the the statement "I am a physicist" as I read in one of his posts seems easy enough to understand.   Also the statement in that article that "I was a senior geophysicist" and this was for a company with a value of over 400 Billion dollars would seem to clearly indicate someone with a degree in physics and probably more.   I'm not going to pursue this sort of distracting nonsense any more.  Something has clearly changed here.  I'll just say for everyone else reading this that things like this always seem to happen as something big gets close.   Draw your own conclusions as to why ....

e2matrix, I am not sure if you have the scientific background to read between the lines on the technical aspects of the things you see around here.  Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you said that you have been following this kind of stuff for 20 years.  Your type is the type that wants to believe first and ask questions later.

I wouldn't word it quite that way.  I am the type that believes someone is innocent until proven guilty.  The type that assumes someone is honest until proven dishonest.  And the type that assumes someone has some real valid device until proven it is not.  To assume otherwise is to risk crushing the life out of someone who already has a big uphill battle in proving a new concept or disproving a long accepted law or theory.  If it is not a valid concept it will fail on it's own without a bunch of people here making it more difficult for someone on this already nearly impossible path.   

I have read the recent posts by Philip and followed some of the links and I have to agree with Qwert.  I noticed that his references to the electrical characteristics of the device indicate that he is an amateur.  That doesn't jive if you are supposed to be the one developing this technology.  A geophysicist may only have the most rudimentary understanding of electronics from one or two first year courses.

The other issue that struck me was one of the proposals for rolling out a first product - free energy batteries for hearing aids.  Here is where a lot of people don't have the "vision thing."  Can you imagine a domestic scene at home where the husband is reading the daily paper and says, "Look honey, there is an article about a company that is selling batteries for hearing aids that never need replacing?"  Do you think that's real?  Just another innovative product like a 5G cell phone?

If this was real then it would be the biggest news story of the 21st century and every news site would have it plastered on the front page.  The world would change overnight, it would be the most shocking thing the world has ever seen.  And you guys had a discussion about the first killer application, hearing aid batteries, in all seriousness.  More importantly, Philip talked about it in all seriousness.

Milehigh,  Your reputation as a non-believer and basher of almost everything precedes you.  You were almost banned at the   liberal OverunityResearch.com forum because people were tired of all the negativity.   I don't know if you are just a born skeptic of everything or whether you are paid to do this or if you have just chosen 'save us all from our foolishness' - LOL.   But I'll just leave it at we will likely never agree.   I could readily argue your statements above but I'll not waste my time on it because I've seen the arguments go on endlessly with you in other threads and other forums. 
 I completely understand his reasoning for getting something small started as a validation of his device but as I said I won't argue that or anything else.   I will add I don't really know what degrees Philip has but just based on his post above it would seem he has an extensive knowledge of physics and of testing procedures needed to validate this.  I've had college physics and electronics and a Ham radio license but I am far from being an electrical engineer or physicist.   However it was stated in that article I pointed to that Philip was also an electrical engineer.   So disbelieve what ever you want - it's your right   

e2matrix, there is no need to play the MIB card all the time.  Words posted on a forum cannot stop someone from advancing their project.

I am just telling you the truth as I see it and I have 30+ years worth of experience in electronics to draw on to help me form my impressions and opinions.  As a general comment, you would be wise to factor in the advice and suggestions from people that have more experience in something that you don't have experience in.

You are free to disbelieve myself and Qwert.  If this story ends up not panning out, perhaps you could acknowledge that myself and Qwert were on the right track.

Finally, no takers to explain why the $10 TV tube experiment overturns the 2nd LoT?  I personally don't see that happening at all.

Elisha:

I have have said something about the test with the pentode.  There is a claim that it violates the 2nd LoT.  So I am asking for the explanation from anyone as to precisely how and why it violates the law.  From my perspective the law is not being violated.  It's very dangerous to not question things that you are told.  So, can anyone respond to my questions?  Remember, it's not me that is making the claim.

No one in the thread has challenged the notion that the pentode tube test violated the 2nd LoT except me.  That implies that most or all of you accept what you are being told, but can anyone explain why?

I do indeed have some things to say about science and I ask you to respect the ideas of freedom of speech and plurality of opinion.  Those ideas are more important than your desire to silence myself and Qwert.

MileHigh