Author Topic: quentron.com (Read 1268401 times)

Bruce_TPU · « **Reply #525 on:** December 13, 2012, 07:27:51 PM »

Quote from: lumen on December 13, 2012, 05:40:12 PM

The problem is that many people here are late in arriving. Philip had posted many different updates on his web page describing the Quenco process and theory and at times probably gave more information into it's operation than he wanted.

If you are one of those late people then it simply sucks to be you and you should just get over it and do some research. There are many devices that exhibit similar properties to the operation of a Quenco chip if you look into it.

The tunnel diode has a similar effect but requires a bias current because the barrier is much thicker that the proposed Quenco chip.

Mosfet gate tunneling became a problem when the gate barriers were reduced under 90nm, another similar effect.

In fact, the current limit in CPU is about 65nm and requires reduced voltages so the electrons don't tunnel through.
So you can see that tunneling is a real effect that occurs at a voltage dependent on the barrier thickness.
Now if you can reduce the barrier to something very small like 3nm and you provide a voltage only by the difference in work function of two different metals, then with just a tiny bit of heat, an electron could tunnel the barrier and cause a current to flow.

This is only MY view of a working Quenco based on information from Philip and my own research.
Quenco works not to defy the laws of physics, but because of the laws of physics!

I for one am very convinced that Quenco is a real device that Philip will get into production in a fast time frame.

Just think if Edison was trying to make a light bulb, how some would be calling him a fraud and if it worked he should have it by now and just a flash from his device was not useful and on and on and on, just like they do now with other peoples ventures.

The facts are that most skeptics are just jealous people that have accomplished nothing in their own life and have little self esteem.

Hi Lumen,

A very well written post, indeed. From what I understand of the Quenco, and posted a few pages back, you have indeed hit the proverbial nail on the head. As I also mentioned, the thinner the material, the greater the probability for tunneling. The idea is really quit ingenious. Use that effect to your advantage, and create a material so thin as to make the tunneling a certainty. I can see, as usually is the case, the practical application , can be more daunting than the working theory, even when that theory is true. Then stack them and you are good to go. I too think that this may turn out to be the real deal, indeed. But not something that can be built in our home lab.... lol.

Cheers,

Bruce

Qwert · « **Reply #526 on:** December 13, 2012, 07:54:58 PM »

Quote from: Elisha on December 13, 2012, 06:33:48 PM

You are late to the party, Philip give us a Theory, drawings, explains, and also very important a simple test, I do the simple test with the vacuum tube and by myself experiment I can tell you, THIS WORK !

THIS does not work, because THIS does not exist! You made test on vacuum tube, not on THIS. Since its operating principle seems very simple, a possible technology seems not so simple: it is a matter of producing (and handling) a plate, or rather a flake which thickness is measured in fractions of Ångström (single atoms).

hollander · « **Reply #527 on:** December 13, 2012, 08:07:21 PM »

@sarkeizen

I am with you!

Quote from: lumen on December 13, 2012, 05:40:12 PM

Now if you can reduce the barrier to something very small like 3nm and you provide a voltage only by the difference in work function of two different metals, then with just a tiny bit of heat, an electron could tunnel the barrier and cause a current to flow.

There is a lot of scientific papers trying to scientifically prove that thermionic emission could in fact violate the 2nd law. Fine with that, since this is peer-review science. The point that Phil seems not to understand is that the current flow cannot be higher than the thermionic emission of the emitter. And this is very very low (less that 10^-7 A/cm^2). Tunnelling can't multiply anything, it can't create charge or energy from nothing.

sarkeizen · « **Reply #528 on:** December 13, 2012, 10:13:11 PM »

Quote from: lumen on December 13, 2012, 05:40:12 PM

The problem is that many people here are late in arriving. Philip had posted many different updates on his web page

You could at least have the decency to read my post before misinterpreting it like Bruce. This is not a problem for me I've read his web page for a little more than a year. I've read just about every post he's made here and a fair number at moletrap. I've read a number of the postings of his that have made it onto other forua on the internet. My prior statements stand, primarily Philip has made arguments by authority which should really carry no weight with anyone.

Quote

If you are one of those late people then it simply sucks to be you and you should just get over it and do some research.

Perhaps before vieing for "most arrogant person on earth" (which put you up against some pretty stiff competition like Philip) you should think a bit more.

Quote

There are many devices that exhibit similar properties to the operation of a Quenco chip if you look into it.

The tunnel diode has a similar effect but requires a bias current because the barrier is much thicker that the proposed Quenco chip.

Mosfet gate tunneling became a problem when the gate barriers were reduced under 90nm, another similar effect.

In fact, the current limit in CPU is about 65nm and requires reduced voltages so the electrons don't tunnel through.
So you can see that tunneling is a real effect that occurs at a voltage dependent on the barrier thickness.

Wow, however particle tunneling isn't really the issue. It's that this somehow lets you violate 2LOT (probably algorithmic information theory too) you are essentially arguing that carrots can produce carrot juice and carrot juice lets you run faster than the speed of light. When questioned you assert how carrots are real things.

Quote

I for one am very convinced that Quenco is a real device that Philip will get into production in a fast time frame.

Still dodging the rather big Elephant? What happens when he fails in Feb. Do you believe that the probability of him delivering in June is the same? or does it go down? What about the probability of him delivering in December when June fails? At what point do you adjust your characterization of his abilities?

Quote

Just think if Edison was trying to make a light bulb, how some would be calling him a fraud and if it worked he should have it by now and just a flash from his device was not useful and on and on and on, just like they do now with other peoples ventures.

Argument by false analogy. Edison was not attempting to break the second law of thermodynamics. While I don't know what schedules he announced or didn't announce if it made as poor judgements as Philip then he was just as bad a manager as Philip appears to be.

Quote

The facts are that most skeptics are just jealous people that have accomplished nothing in their own life and have little self esteem.

More interesting is how poor people are at math. For example in order for this dissonance preserving statement to be true. You would have to have a randomized representative sample of skeptics as well as their lifes work. Considering it seems unlikely that you would possess any of that. Perhaps you might constrain yourself to something you actually know.

sarkeizen · « **Reply #529 on:** December 13, 2012, 10:38:25 PM »

Quote from: Elisha on December 13, 2012, 06:33:48 PM

Sorry is not just you, everyone have a troll inside also me ! but must be jailed inside.

I am not trolling. Stop namecalling and making ad hominem attacks.

Quote

You are late to the party, Philip give us a Theory, drawings, explains,

Perhaps your incredible arrogance could take a rest? I have been reading his posts for quite some time. Including his rotating thermionic generator and Fu's paper which predates Philip's earliest posting. His drawings of Quenco are pretty much power point slides, nothing at all useful. A theory isn't education in a useful sense of the term, I could make up a dozen theories. Heck you could programmatically generate mathematical theorems.

Quote

and also very important a simple test, I do the simple test with the vacuum tube and by myself experiment I can tell you, THIS WORK ! This is real education, try by yourself not just to believe in words in the air from someone.

I hear some Mormons get a burning in their bosom and consider that a successful test. Often it's repeatable too (or so they say).
As far as I can see the output is small enough and the isolation (in my environment) would be poor enough that it would be easy to end up reading something else.

Quote

All the life is a learning process, keep one eye open !

And you have apparently shut both your eyes to his repeated failures. Believe whatever you want about Quenco. There is no reason to believe that Philip is any good at delivering on his promises.

Quote

if this is not in February don't worry

If not in June 2013 do you worry then? If not in December 2013 do you worry then? How many failures would it take to convince you that Philip is the wrong man to be managing this endeavor?

Quote

the truth is that nothing is under our control.

Ever estimate how many times a day you are entirely wrong? For example I type about 70 wpm. In the course of a day I decide to type various words probably about a thousand (error adjusted). However in order to do that I have to *CONTROL* my fingers. That's like five thousand times you are wrong....every day.

Certainly there are things we do not expect. However there are whole branches of math that let you deal with uncertainty. The point is that uncertainty can be bounded. This is what good managers do with schedules. If you couldn't do this medicine would not have progressed beyond the dark ages.

sarkeizen · « **Reply #530 on:** December 13, 2012, 10:41:13 PM »

Quote from: Bruce_TPU on December 13, 2012, 07:27:51 PM

Hi Lumen,

A very well written post, indeed. From what I understand of the Quenco, and posted a few pages back, you have indeed hit the proverbial nail on the head. As I also mentioned, the thinner the material, the greater the probability for tunneling. The idea is really quit ingenious. Use that effect to your advantage, and create a material so thin as to make the tunneling a certainty. I can see, as usually is the case, the practical application , can be more daunting than the working theory, even when that theory is true. Then stack them and you are good to go. I too think that this may turn out to be the real deal, indeed. But not something that can be built in our home lab.... lol.

Perhaps you can respond to Lumen without giving him a headfirst colonoscopy? If you really think whether some particles under some conditions can tunnel is the big question here then you understand Philips work less than I do.

sarkeizen · « **Reply #531 on:** December 13, 2012, 10:50:59 PM »

Quote from: hollander on December 13, 2012, 08:07:21 PM

@sarkeizen

I am with you!

There is a lot of scientific papers trying to scientifically prove that thermionic emission could in fact violate the 2nd law. Fine with that, since this is peer-review science. The point that Phil seems not to understand is that the current flow cannot be higher than the thermionic emission of the emitter. And this is very very low (less that 10^-7 A/cm^2). Tunnelling can't multiply anything, it can't create charge or energy from nothing.

Hey Hollander.

Interesting.
Can you give me the journal names, issue, volume, author and article name for some of this research?

One of my interests of 2LOT violations is that it probably has an effect on information theory. One thing that makes me skeptical of someone citing a quantum effect which violate 2LOT is that I suspect this also implies that a quantum machine can violate BBBV.

Madebymonkeys · « **Reply #532 on:** December 14, 2012, 12:01:52 AM »

Quote from: hollander on December 13, 2012, 08:07:21 PM

@sarkeizen

I am with you!

There is a lot of scientific papers trying to scientifically prove that thermionic emission could in fact violate the 2nd law. Fine with that, since this is peer-review science. The point that Phil seems not to understand is that the current flow cannot be higher than the thermionic emission of the emitter. And this is very very low (less that 10^-7 A/cm^2). Tunnelling can't multiply anything, it can't create charge or energy from nothing.

As I have always maintained, I don't fully understand the low-down technical details of Quenco but the statement above re the emitter current sounds pretty fundamental.
Do you have a link to the info?

100nAmp on a single cm^2 simply isn't useful

Ok, feel free to ridicule the simple (and presumptuous and likely wrong!) math below...

10,000,000nm in a cm.
2nm Quenco height plus some additional for the metals, say an optimistic 10nm total thickness?
In a cm^3 that's 10,000,000nm / 10nm or 1,000,000 layers.
100nAmp x 1,000,000 = 100mAmp

Now, I don't know what the voltage is going to be or whether there will actually be a million layers (that seems very extremely unlikely) but at a volt that's only 100mW.

I realise that this is 'trollish' behaviour but I am going to ask a sensible question to all here (sorry for hijacking your post, Hollander):

***
*** Is the statement about the emitter current being a max of 100nA true?
***

In the interests of pre-empting the usual responders:

1. This is a sensible question and is potentially a show-stopper.
2. An answer of 'yes' is acceptable along with a link to a paper and real proof or....see below...
3. An answer of 'no' needs to be backed up by scientific evidence of the 'actual real and proven' variety showing that its higher.
4. I am not selfish and I have a brain.
5. Humanity is great etc and our race won't advance without people questioning things.
6. Responding to this post with irrelevant stuff is fine.
7. I don't mind being called a troll - I am only trying to find out about Quenco and the man behind it so I can either add or remove from my 'watch' list. There is some much cr*p around that I need to do my own filtering - there just isn't enough time in the day to keep an eye on everything.
8. I am still divided between 'this is all bu£&@)it' and 'maybe there is something' - the question above (if answered with a proven 'no') will swing me back to the latter.
9. Contrary to popular belief, me, as a troll (or whatever playground name you wish to call me), have achieved quite a lot and built more things than I can count. Please stop with the 'you don't believe Phillip so you must be evil and stupid' speak - its really backfiring on you up to now.
10. Etc.

Ok, ready for the sh//st/rm.

Thanks

MBM

wideyed_tutank · « **Reply #533 on:** December 14, 2012, 06:07:17 AM »

So in the end it turns out to be a pissing contest between naturally abundant BARIUM & the not so abundant YTTRIUM.

Ok, yttrium wins because it is less toxic, but why is it ok to push barium into our bodies as enema and flat out deny it for QUENCO?

hollander · « **Reply #534 on:** December 14, 2012, 11:14:36 AM »

Quote from: Madebymonkeys on December 14, 2012, 12:01:52 AM

***
*** Is the statement about the emitter current being a max of 100nA true?
***

Yes, it may be even less than that, depending on environment temperature & work function of the emitter.
See, for instance,

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Thermionic+Emission

This is well known among physicists, to the point that it is difficult to provide a specific reference like it would be to provide a reference on the fact that water boils at 100°C.

@sarkeizen:

"Interesting.
Can you give me the journal names, issue, volume, author and article name for some of this research?"

I am collecting all the references, please be patient.

H0llander

sarkeizen · « **Reply #535 on:** December 14, 2012, 03:15:16 PM »

Quote from: wideyed_tutank on December 14, 2012, 06:07:17 AM

Ok, yttrium wins because it is less toxic, but why is it ok to push barium into our bodies as enema and flat out deny it for QUENCO?

Welcome to about the level of research done in free energy fourms. Barium is toxic however what you use in a LGI series is Barium Sulfate which is insoluble in water and so considerably more safe. IIRC you refine Barite to make both metallic barium and barium sulfate.

Philip Hardcastle · « **Reply #536 on:** December 14, 2012, 05:25:01 PM »

Hi All,

I see silly things being said by fools that parade and pretend to be knowledgeable, note when one says 100nA/cm2 max the other does not disagree, this is a classic example of bad intent, a genuine sceptic would question the postings of other sceptics when they make such a claim, but a troll will deliberately allow other trolls to say stupid things providing they are of a negative bias.

Anyway rather than letting these idiots stifle science with their BS I thought I could use some of my spare time to start a theory page.

http://quentron.com/theory.html

Please be patient, it is a work in progress and it will take some time to finish, however by the time Quenco is publicly demonstrated early next year you can have the benefit of understanding in basic terms how it works. If I make a silly error let me know, I do not proof read and self editing is notorious for not seeing typo's.

sarkeizen · « **Reply #537 on:** December 14, 2012, 05:41:46 PM »

Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on December 14, 2012, 05:25:01 PM

note when one says 100nA/cm2 max the other does not disagree, this is a classic example of bad intent, a genuine sceptic would question the postings of other sceptics when they make such a claim, but a troll will deliberately allow other trolls to say stupid things providing they are of a negative bias.

Wow, Phil two posts past the "last post of the year" you must really be riled up but how can that be when you have real operating quencos? You could doubt that I have a left hand, you could say that having a left hand would violate the law of hands but you know what. Actually having a left hand tends to makes me laugh at such statements rather than get riled (of course you'll probably now claim that you weren't but hey). So it makes me wonder if what you have is significantly more tenuous than my left hand.

At least this time you didn't say "this will really, really be my last post of the year". You could use some of that wisdom in your Quenco project.

Anyway, what are you talking about? I see Hollander talking about violating 2LOT and a maximum 100nA/cm2. MBM asks for a reference on the 100nA/cm2 limit and I ask for papers about violating 2LOT with thermionic emissions.

Exactly HOW are we NOT being skeptical about Hollander's claims? Maybe you'll save face by REALLY making this your last post this year.

Qwert · « **Reply #538 on:** December 14, 2012, 06:01:37 PM »

Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on December 14, 2012, 05:25:01 PM

If I make a silly error let me know, I do not proof read and self editing is notorious for not seeing typo's.

You make ONLY silly errors.

sarkeizen · « **Reply #539 on:** December 14, 2012, 06:53:00 PM »

Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on December 14, 2012, 05:25:01 PM

http://quentron.com/theory.html

Can anyone explain to me why any of this is actually useful to the discussion.

Yeah, tunneling. The point is what is the THEORY that lets you violate 2LOT. What's happening at the atomic level that lets this happen? Instead all we see is "some magic fairy dust makes this happen" and then "it's been proved".

The actual important parts of the theory are NOWHERE. Now the people here who suck at physics will probably respond with "You can't expect him to give you everything!" but those of us who don't would realize that he hasn't given up anything that isn't widely known. The point of contention, to anyone with a brain would be the THINGS WHICH PHIL ASSERTS BUT THE REST OF SCIENCE DOESN'T ACKNOWLEDGE. Talking about anything else is just jibber jabber.

This is exactly what I mean when I say that Phil has given us nothing other than an argument from authority.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: quentron.com (Read 1268401 times)

Bruce_TPU

Re: quentron.com

Qwert

Re: quentron.com

hollander

Re: quentron.com

sarkeizen

Re: quentron.com

sarkeizen

Re: quentron.com

sarkeizen

Re: quentron.com

sarkeizen

Re: quentron.com

Madebymonkeys

Re: quentron.com

wideyed_tutank

Re: quentron.com

hollander

Re: quentron.com

sarkeizen

Re: quentron.com

Philip Hardcastle

Re: quentron.com

sarkeizen

Re: quentron.com

Qwert

Re: quentron.com

sarkeizen

Re: quentron.com