Author Topic: quentron.com (Read 1267840 times)

lumen · « **Reply #660 on:** December 30, 2012, 04:02:39 AM »

Quote from: Madebymonkeys on December 29, 2012, 09:49:38 PM

Thanks for that, useful.
With the thermal modelling did you discover a point which determines the max power available given an infinitely large heatsink?
Also, is there any dissipation in the barrier and what's the temp difference on either side of the barrier - assuming the quoted figures for the 1cm^3?

Many thanks
Mbm

The goal when I started was to see if it was possible to extract a good amount of power and not go below the freezing point so the heat sink would not ice up.
Extracting about 500W over the cm2 would lower the contact point to about 40F even if the rest of the heat sink was near ambient temp of 70F so at 60F ambient, you could reach freezing at the contact point.

The solution was to slice the cm2 chip into 20 parts, each one .5mm x 1cm, and place them over a large area. This provided a large periphery area that allowed the heat to flow into the chips easier.

With the sliced chip 5000W could be drawn with about the same 30F drop.

So there are methods to increase the thermal input even with the limited conduction of copper heat sinks.

forcefield · « **Reply #661 on:** December 30, 2012, 07:02:08 AM »

Quote from: sarkeizen on December 30, 2012, 02:02:17 AM

Suppose you can prove that no algorithm can exist to accomplish something. Do you believe that means that no device can be built to accomplish the same goal?

It might be possible to build a device that can't be modeled with an algorithm. But, I think it might also be verging on Creation itself. (In the beginning, it seems that there must have either been something, or there must have been nothing. If there was something, where did it come from? If there was nothing, then how did something come from that?) Is there an algorithm that models Creation?

I don't believe that Quenco can work. But, if it does, I think the ramifications are deeper than we can begin to imagine.

Madebymonkeys · « **Reply #662 on:** December 30, 2012, 11:17:17 AM »

Quote from: sarkeizen on December 30, 2012, 02:02:17 AM

So here's a question for you MBM. Let me know what you think...

Suppose you can prove that no algorithm can exist to accomplish something. Do you believe that means that no device can be built to accomplish the same goal?

If you could be sure of there being no algo possible then it would stand to reason that the device would not be possible.

I ain't sure if there is an algo for Quenco as a 'system' but there are algo's for bits of it.

From my point of view it all appears unlikely to become reality although parts appear to be proven......kind of like time travel and other weird stuff are proven on paper but there is no way to practically implement it.

Still interesting to talk about but ultimately very unlikely to appear in store soon!

sarkeizen · « **Reply #663 on:** December 31, 2012, 02:44:22 AM »

Quote from: forcefield

It might be possible to build a device that can't be modeled with an algorithm. But, I think it might also be verging on Creation itself.

Firstly I'll just clarify something. What I'm talking about is a device that does something for which it can be proved that no algorithm exists. For example you can prove that there is no deterministic general algorithm to determine if a computer program will end.

If you think you could build such a device then you should ask yourself: "What would such a device be constructed with?" if it is made from parts whose action is well understood (that is the input states and corresponding output states are known) within the context of the device. Then you could write an algorithm which would emulate how these components operate in the device. (e.g. If your device used two gears fixed to two different axels, you could replace the gears with a human following an algorithm. The human would observe one axle turning and turn the other axle in the same proportion that the gears would have). So the only kinds of components you can't emulate are ones where the action is not well understood within the context of the device. In other words given an expected input, you don't necessarily know the outputs. Such a machine could not produce a deterministic result.

Quote from: MadeByMonkeys

If you could be sure of there being no algo possible then it would stand to reason that the device would not be possible.

I ain't sure if there is an algo for Quenco as a 'system' but there are algo's for bits of it.

So the next question to ask yourself is: "Is Quenco a Maxwell's Demon machine?" - that is "Does it reduce entropy in an isothermal environment?"

Quote from: MadeByMonkeys

kind of like time travel and other weird stuff are proven on paper but there is no way to practically implement it.

Like a Tippler Cylinder? IMHO things like that are more like saying "If you could break physical law in one respect, you can break it in another".

Madebymonkeys · « **Reply #664 on:** December 31, 2012, 09:42:25 AM »

Quote from: sarkeizen on December 31, 2012, 02:44:22 AM

Firstly I'll just clarify something. What I'm talking about is a device that does something for which it can be proved that no algorithm exists. For example you can prove that there is no deterministic general algorithm to determine if a computer program will end.

If you think you could build such a device then you should ask yourself: "What would such a device be constructed with?" if it is made from parts whose action is well understood (that is the input states and corresponding output states are known) within the context of the device. Then you could write an algorithm which would emulate how these components operate in the device. (e.g. If your device used two gears fixed to two different axels, you could replace the gears with a human following an algorithm. The human would observe one axle turning and turn the other axle in the same proportion that the gears would have). So the only kinds of components you can't emulate are ones where the action is not well understood within the context of the device. In other words given an expected input, you don't necessarily know the outputs. Such a machine could not produce a deterministic result.So the next question to ask yourself is: "Is Quenco a Maxwell's Demon machine?" - that is "Does it reduce entropy in an isothermal environment?"Like a Tippler Cylinder? IMHO things like that are more like saying "If you could break physical law in one respect, you can break it in another".

As I have said, I don't believe it will be the power source of the future but I don't understand the QM's of it - my thoughts about its success are based on stuff I have heard on this forum and others. I do know a little about its practicalities as a system and getting any power out of it - that seems like a challenge.

I just don't get the power density and how it's possible other than on paper.

Better ask an expert (I have and it's not going to work - I should ask them to summarise in a few paragraphs because!)

Philip Hardcastle · « **Reply #665 on:** December 31, 2012, 10:11:48 AM »

Only a few hours of 2012 left here in Australia.

So let me be the first on this forum to wish you all a Happy New Year.

Having a few beers here so forgive me if this is all a bit messed up.

@MBM, Unless you think I am a liar let me tell you that your expert friend is no expert and that we have now a lot of replications of the proof of concept experiment which unequivocally violates the Kelvin interpretation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Seems that the only debate going on here is to label my delivery date slippage as some form of scientific proof in the negative. Why you bother telling people that Quenco cannot work when you admit you are no expert mystifies me.

Attacks on me personally are so boring that they really do not matter any more (they did a year ago), all that does is the reality that we have working sebithenco devices in many independent hands (so I know I did not fool myself), and that we will have commercial Quenco tiles for distribution in February, touch wood.

One simple quick technical observation, it is kW/cm2 not cm3. The thinness of stacked Quenco means the thermal flux is high, if it were cm thick it would not support more than a few hundred Watts per cm2. The um scale thinness of a 400 layers Quenco means that there will not be any significant Delta T across the device thickness.

I understand that there may be a few reports issued by independents in January of the violation experiment, naturally that is not under my control though I can report that I have been sent confirmation of the actual experiments run by professionals, this now, including a South American friend who was ignored, is the 5th replication of the original sebithenco experiment and all have fully supported my own results.

This news should set the World abuzz but I am almost sure it will just raise the ire of the sceptics who are more interested in attacking me than doing the experiment or debating the science. Of course for me it matters not one iota for the date in history that changes the World view on energy is when we despatch from Stanford to our licensees the actual Quenco cm2 tiles.

As soon as there is a release of the independent Physicists report I will post it on

www.quentron.com

Back to why I logged on

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL

Phil H

ramset · « **Reply #666 on:** December 31, 2012, 10:43:02 AM »

Phillip
What an amazing time to be alive on planet earth,A true Benchmark moment.
I am glad your perspective has shifted to "enjoy"!
Have a wonderful new year.

Chet

Madebymonkeys · « **Reply #667 on:** December 31, 2012, 10:46:53 AM »

Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on December 31, 2012, 10:11:48 AM

Only a few hours of 2012 left here in Australia.

So let me be the first on this forum to wish you all a Happy New Year.

Having a few beers here so forgive me if this is all a bit messed up.

@MBM, Unless you think I am a liar let me tell you that your expert friend is no expert and that we have now a lot of replications of the proof of concept experiment which unequivocally violates the Kelvin interpretation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Seems that the only debate going on here is to label my delivery date slippage as some form of scientific proof in the negative. Why you bother telling people that Quenco cannot work when you admit you are no expert mystifies me.

Attacks on me personally are so boring that they really do not matter any more (they did a year ago), all that does is the reality that we have working sebithenco devices in many independent hands (so I know I did not fool myself), and that we will have commercial Quenco tiles for distribution in February, touch wood.

One simple quick technical observation, it is kW/cm2 not cm3. The thinness of stacked Quenco means the thermal flux is high, if it were cm thick it would not support more than a few hundred Watts per cm2. The um scale thinness of a 400 layers Quenco means that there will not be any significant Delta T across the device thickness.

I understand that there may be a few reports issued by independents in January of the violation experiment, naturally that is not under my control though I can report that I have been sent confirmation of the actual experiments run by professionals, this now, including a South American friend who was ignored, is the 5th replication of the original sebithenco experiment and all have fully supported my own results.

This news should set the World abuzz but I am almost sure it will just raise the ire of the sceptics who are more interested in attacking me than doing the experiment or debating the science. Of course for me it matters not one iota for the date in history that changes the World view on energy is when we despatch from Stanford to our licensees the actual Quenco cm2 tiles.

As soon as there is a release of the independent Physicists report I will post it on

www.quentron.com

Back to why I logged on

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL

Phil H

Thanks for the update.
My words are all my opinion - it's what forums are all about.
I'm looking forward (really) to being made to look a fool in February (2013) - it doesn't bother me one iota either!

Would it be possible to post some pics of the chips so far, speaks a thousand words so they say?

Happy new year....shortly!

MileHigh · « **Reply #668 on:** December 31, 2012, 10:53:11 AM »

Philip:

Quote

I understand that there may be a few reports issued by independents in January of the violation experiment, naturally that is not under my control though I can report that I have been sent confirmation of the actual experiments run by professionals, this now, including a South American friend who was ignored, is the 5th replication of the original sebithenco experiment and all have fully supported my own results.

I am assuming that you are referring to the OU poster Elisha when you make reference to the "South American friend."

Just the fact that you take Elisha's "experiment" seriously hurts your credibility immensely.

Elisha took a toaster-oven and used it to bake a TV tube to several hundred degrees Celsius. If you tried to tell any scientist that that was an isothermal environment they would laugh in your face.

So, that leaves you with just one option as far as I am concerned. You have to produce a working commercial device that outputs tens of watts (remember you said that you were going to power an iPad with it?) in February.

If you don't produce a working device in February then your saga will continue on for who knows how long.

MileHigh

broli · « **Reply #669 on:** December 31, 2012, 10:57:32 AM »

February seems to becoming an interesting month as quite a few things are showing their heads then. Here's another contender in the "environment heat to electricity" department:

Quote

A Singapore company developed a poly-crystal technology that harnesses environmental heat to provide continuous power in the range of 3 cents per kilowatt-hour.

In 2005, the scientists of NRGLab discovered the technology for generating energy from environmental heat. From that moment, NRGLab scientists realized every person on Earth would have the right to at least 1 kw of electricity per hour, 24/7. Low-cost electricity is now affordable for everyone, using the energy generated by NRGLab technology. We are now capable of producing environmentally friendly generators (SH boxes), which are easily scalable from 1 watt to 200kw per unit.

http://www.nrglab.asia/auctions.html

Happy new year, and may it be the year free energy becomes widely spread.

trim12 · « **Reply #670 on:** December 31, 2012, 02:23:36 PM »

When Phil says experts have tested his Sebithenco device he means experts and not in a toaster either.

@Phil have a great time.

To the Forum have a happy healthy and exciting year.

e2matrix · « **Reply #671 on:** December 31, 2012, 05:39:20 PM »

Thanks again for the update Phil. Have a Happy and Success filled New Year!

sarkeizen · « **Reply #672 on:** December 31, 2012, 07:41:55 PM »

Quote from: Madebymonkeys on December 31, 2012, 09:42:25 AM

As I have said, I don't believe it will be the power source of the future but I don't understand the QM's of it - my thoughts about its success are based on stuff I have heard on this forum and others. I do know a little about its practicalities as a system and getting any power out of it - that seems like a challenge.

Right, I was just trying to step you through another approach (It's interesting that now that I'm only writing questions lumen et al are pretty silent). So again, do you think this qualifies as a Maxwell's Demon machine - does it (as described by Philip) reduce entropy in an isothermal environment (Philip appears to say "yes" to this as far as I can tell)

Quote from: Philip Hardcastle

Seems that the only debate going on here is to label my delivery date slippage as some form of scientific proof in the negative.

"scientific proof of the negative" - is that even English? *sigh* Whatever that is, if that's all you see then you are simply an idiot. How do people become EE's (which you claim you are IIRC) and not take some pretty elementary mathematics? Information governs probability.

Quote from: Philip Hardcastle

all that does is the reality that we have working sebithenco devices in many independent hands (so I know I did not fool myself), and that we will have commercial Quenco tiles for distribution in February

This seems both to be the same announcement philip made over a year ago. Not to mention it seems something of a lie or at least a violation of SNF lab policy. The Stanford labs only allow proof-of-concept development: "Commercial activities (ie production of devices for sale) are strictly prohibited;"

Quote from: Philip Hardcastle

I can report that I have been sent confirmation of the actual experiments run by professionals, this now, including a South American friend who was ignored,

Those who were around at the time, can also recall that there were a number of replications of Fleischmann and Pons. Replication would help discover simple measurement errors it wouldn't discover something biasing the measurements - e.g. something not being properly controlled for. The OPERA faster-than-light neutrino anomaly illustrates this pretty well. The experiment was replicated at least once. Sure Philip claims that people have been replicating this "bake the tube" experiment, presumably with their own equipment. However we probably aren't looking at a faulty piece of equipment just something that's not being properly controlled for.

Quote

sceptics who are more interested in attacking me than doing the experiment or debating the science

Ok a few sentences ago Philip seemed to imply that doing the experiment isn't meaningful unless done by an expert. In which case why would he urge anyone to do it? As for debating the science, I maintain that Philip has posted, either here or else where very little in the way of actual science nor has he done much more than an amateur job arguing it. Even Lumen who repeatedly jerks Philip off on this forum (not much more vigorously than the other cheerleaders like Bruce do) recognized that Philip begs the question wrt how his device violates 2LOT.

Just as an aside. People who say things like "fully supported my own results" tend to sound more like used car salesmen than people who actually do lab work. At least the work I've seen. The fact of the matter is test results are probabilistic, rarely is anything so perfectly controlled that you get exactly the same result. What you shoot for is to have results fall within your error margin. Even then that doesn't necessarily prove your hypothesis (or invalidate your null hypothesis). It's simply statistical data that increases confidence.

Bruce_TPU · « **Reply #673 on:** December 31, 2012, 08:06:51 PM »

Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on December 31, 2012, 10:11:48 AM

Only a few hours of 2012 left here in Australia.

So let me be the first on this forum to wish you all a Happy New Year.

Having a few beers here so forgive me if this is all a bit messed up.

@MBM, Unless you think I am a liar let me tell you that your expert friend is no expert and that we have now a lot of replications of the proof of concept experiment which unequivocally violates the Kelvin interpretation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Seems that the only debate going on here is to label my delivery date slippage as some form of scientific proof in the negative. Why you bother telling people that Quenco cannot work when you admit you are no expert mystifies me.

Attacks on me personally are so boring that they really do not matter any more (they did a year ago), all that does is the reality that we have working sebithenco devices in many independent hands (so I know I did not fool myself), and that we will have commercial Quenco tiles for distribution in February, touch wood.

One simple quick technical observation, it is kW/cm2 not cm3. The thinness of stacked Quenco means the thermal flux is high, if it were cm thick it would not support more than a few hundred Watts per cm2. The um scale thinness of a 400 layers Quenco means that there will not be any significant Delta T across the device thickness.

I understand that there may be a few reports issued by independents in January of the violation experiment, naturally that is not under my control though I can report that I have been sent confirmation of the actual experiments run by professionals, this now, including a South American friend who was ignored, is the 5th replication of the original sebithenco experiment and all have fully supported my own results.

This news should set the World abuzz but I am almost sure it will just raise the ire of the sceptics who are more interested in attacking me than doing the experiment or debating the science. Of course for me it matters not one iota for the date in history that changes the World view on energy is when we despatch from Stanford to our licensees the actual Quenco cm2 tiles.

As soon as there is a release of the independent Physicists report I will post it on

www.quentron.com

Back to why I logged on

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL

Phil H

Hi Phil,

Thank you for dropping in with the kind wishes. I for one am excited to see the coming success of your production. Have a safe and blessed New Year!

And remember, you can please only some of the people, some of the time, and you will never be able to please all of the people, all of the time, no matter what is said, and in the future, shown. Keep pressing on, following your dream. That is the most admirable thing to me.

Cheers,

Bruce

sarkeizen · « **Reply #674 on:** December 31, 2012, 08:53:02 PM »

Quote from: Bruce_TPU on December 31, 2012, 08:06:51 PM

I for one am excited to see the coming success of your production.

...didn't you say you didn't have any beliefs about Quenco? Man, I need to get in with your deity. Mine has this whole intolerance of lying and stretching the truth. Yours, seems way more chill about the whole deal.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: quentron.com (Read 1267840 times)

lumen

Re: quentron.com

forcefield

Re: quentron.com

Madebymonkeys

Re: quentron.com

sarkeizen

Re: quentron.com

Madebymonkeys

Re: quentron.com

Philip Hardcastle

Re: quentron.com

ramset

Re: quentron.com

Madebymonkeys

Re: quentron.com

MileHigh

Re: quentron.com

broli

Re: quentron.com

trim12

Re: quentron.com

e2matrix

Re: quentron.com

sarkeizen

Re: quentron.com

Bruce_TPU

Re: quentron.com

sarkeizen

Re: quentron.com